Crazed abortion supporters in Texas recently mailed bloodied tampons to the governor, to protest a law requiring abortion clinics to bury or cremate the remains of aborted children. The suggestion of a small glimmer of respect and decency sent the pro-choice crowd mad.

Even doctors and nurses who refuse to get involved in grisly abortions are abused, and women must not be made to see ultrasound images when they are pregnant. This is just in case it reminds them they are actually carrying growing children. Ultrasounds are tools of the patriarchy, or another war on women, perhaps?

What will not make it into the media is what generally passes as a pro-choice protest. At many pro-life rallies, doctors and nurses speak, plus scientists who provide details of their latest research into embryology. Surgeons describe how their job is to view the patient within the patient (yes, another life is involved and there are two patients).

What do you think happens next? Out of nowhere, a large group of marching women and men start hurling abuse at esteemed medical staff and experts. Signs are destroyed because we can’t have any 4D ultrasound images showing any babies.

Ex-abortionists are often ridiculed and despised by the pro-choicers, as are ex-clinic workers. Why is that? They know too much, perhaps?

In the realm of abortion fanaticism, any facts or testimonials are ridiculed and viewed with contempt. They will yell “anti-women” and suggest that reproductive rights are under threat. In case they did not know, reproduction has already occurred. There is no law to stop anyone reproducing. It is called a growing baby once you are pregnant. 

They focus on exceptional cases and emotional appeals. Pro-choicers will associate anti-abortion groups with being religious or backward. They can’t win an argument on science, logic or reason, so they resort to name-calling.  Any facts are just viewed as oppressive, patriarchal, religious nonsense or detrimental to their freedoms.

The “life of the mother” arguments by pro-choicers can mean anything. Wanting that job promotion, having another overseas trip, finishing your degree are all defined as the life of the mother. Even laws wanting dead babies to be treated with respect are somehow damaging to women, according to pro-choice.

Pregnancy they label a disease, or worse than cancer, and abortion is the cure for everything. But never show them what an abortion actually looks like. Do not show them what they support, or you have some sort of pathological problem. How dare you show us what we support!

The “right to privacy” language hides selfish, wilful decisions to abort, behind a veil of immunity from public censure. If the abortion was medical care, why the need for privacy? It is about escaping consequences of your choices by taking away the choices of the most innocent.

Modern medicine has almost entirely eradicated maternal deaths, but the pro-choicers do not want to hear it. Their objective goal is to remove a healthy, developing baby from a healthy mother’s womb because she does not want to be pregnant anymore. All the pro-choice candour has done is to clarify what abortion has always been about: convenience and lifestyle.

Some children are born under the right circumstances and timing, others are mistakes and are a hindrance. The only tangible considerations are pleasures, plans or convenience. Unless people think humans have no ability to consider the consequences of their actions and modifying their behaviours, the state should not infantilise these people.

Saving the life of the mother to justify abortion is probably the most pathetic argument and as meaningless as any. The fact is that less than one per cent of all abortions have anything to do with the life of the mother. Abortions are performed on healthy women who CHOSE to have consensual sex. The pro-choicers never wish to talk about the 99%.

Abortion has never saved a life. Abortion is, by definition, the destruction of human life. There is never a scenario, and never could be a scenario where a woman’s life will be saved by directly killing a child.

An abortion involves stabbing, poisoning, dismembering, ripping and decapitating. It may be necessary to deliver a baby early to save the mother. The act of killing is not necessary. If the baby has to come out, why would you need to kill it ahead of time? How does a mother benefit from having a dead child removed from her womb, as opposed to a living one?

There are rare cases where an unborn baby has to be delivered early. This is sad, but it is not an abortion. The intention was to save it. Women are forbidden from seeing the remains of their dead child after the abortion is completed. If it was the medicine, the surgeon would show images and explain in detail what was done.

Why is society grieving over some babies, while helping to kill others? If an unborn is killed in a car accident, society will grieve that death. If a pregnant mother is murdered, we grieve two deaths and a perpetrator will be charged with two murders. The truth is that society thinks, “this unborn being, growing in the womb, is a bother to me”. They say, “we can wipe them out if we want to, to make things easier for our lives.”

Abortion has never saved lives. It is designed to preserve lifestyles. The baby’s life is in conflict with a mother’s ‘lifestyle’. It is a case of a baby’s life weighed against convenience, comfort, preferences, financial security or whatever other reason.

The mind has very clever ways of making selfishness look like altruism. Even Hollywood and the media at large will promote concepts of no consequences, our pleasures come first, my desires are first. Hollywood is a cesspit of rabid selfish individualism, narcissism and rampant debauchery. It is always about sex and pursuit of pleasure without consequences. 

A dictionary of euphemisms is carried around by the pro-choicers to portray abortion as empowerment and to hide realities of what it is really about. Society should only be measured by convenience and pleasure. 

There was a regime which came to power in the 1930s that murdered inconvenient persons. Now, people who do not want to murder inconvenient persons, the left calls bigots or right-wing zealots.

Author Details