Originally posted 2020-05-09 01:27:49.
We generally agree, as humans, that human life is sacrosanct. It is one of the greatest cultural condemnations we can deliver, that ‘human life has no value’. Yet abortion does precisely that: it places the value of human life at zero.
According to a report by Worldometer, a reference website, about 40-50 million abortions are performed worldwide each year, which works out to be about 125,000 abortions every single day. Abortion is the single biggest cause of human death. This figure comes from the WHO. Anyone who is not disgusted by that statistic should be ashamed.
Religion on Abortion
There are many theological arguments against abortion and these are conclusive, within their own terms. The Catholic Church’s position is clear:
‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. ‘
This is unequivocal and absolute: we are humans from the moment of conception and to us is due the protections afforded to all humans, even as unborn babies.
Other Christian churches take the view that abortion might be forgivable in cases were carrying to term might endanger the life of the mother; here, the decision is essentially whether the sacrifice of one life to save another is justified.
‘Aborting the pregnancy becomes categorically forbidden … as the embryo is now a fully sanctified human life. Islamically speaking, this would be murder – unless a physician determines that continuing the pregnancy would truly endanger the mother’s life.’
‘The Dharmashastras (law books) clearly affirm that killing a human embryo (bhruna-hatya) is a mortal sin equal to the killing of a Brahmana. It is fraught with grave consequences… (Abortion is) a direct attack on Prakriti (Nature) or Mother Goddess who is responsible for the unfolding of life and evolution of forms upon earth according to the karma of beings and the will of God.’
Without going into the subtle points of variation between these doctrines it is clear that all expressly condemn abortion in all cases except where the mother’s life is seriously endangered by carrying to term and for some, even this is not enough to justify it.
These concerns are based in the sanctity of human life, something that Enlightened, Post-Renaissance European culture also holds central, although for more secular reasons. These are to do with the idea that individual human beings have equal right to protection, especially of life, under law.
In the West over the last century we have seen a decline in religiosity, which has by no means been the case elsewhere. The West’s increasing secularism might seem to be inevitable but the lie is given to this by cultures like Poland, the Czech republic and others within Europe itself, which are both secular democracies and strongly religious.
Across the world, religiosity shows no sign of decreasing and, indeed, in many areas is becoming stronger. Where this is strongest, abortion is simply illegal and there is no will to change that. Where jurisdictions do permit it, this is heavily restricted, either by length of gestation, an arbitrary measure, or by the ‘mother’s health’ parameter, the saving of one life at the cost of another. This last, of course, has long been abused by medical practitioners exaggerating the risk to the mother in order to facilitate the abortion and we should be fools not to recognise that.
For those of faith, the situation is quite clear: abortion is either proscribed entirely, or permissible only under very specific circumstances, in those religions that have by far the most followers globally; we should remember that Hinduism directly informs other important religions like Sikhism and Buddhism, increasing the reach of its injunctions.
The secular West has allowed the debate to be hijacked.
The argument in the West is between the individual woman’s sovereignty over her own body and the individual baby’s right to protection and, specifically, her right not to have her life taken without due process. Both are recognised as core principles of Western democracy, but here they are in opposition.
It is fundamental to all Western jurisprudence that the law must protect the innocent and that those who cannot speak for themselves must be given voice. This is why, if you are arrested and unable to afford a lawyer to defend you, in almost all Western jurisdictions, one will be appointed, paid for by the State — so the State, in this case, is both your accuser and your defender.
Further, children who are unable to understand the process of law and so, cannot speak for themselves, have special protections under law, in compensation.
Why not unborn babies
So why, then, would an unborn baby, surely the most innocent and most voiceless of all, have no such protection? Why shouldn’t every application, by a woman, for abortion, be heard in court with a qualified professional speaking for the innocent, voiceless individual, the unborn baby who is de facto on trial for her life? Why should that life just be snuffed out, scraped out and thrown in the trash — or sold for body parts?
The answer is that unborn babies are simply not recognised as human at all. They are not human, not persons, not worthy of the consideration we give, without second thought, to everyone else. To call this double standard moral turpitude would be an understatement.
The very same people who cry crocodile tears over dead babies in the Mediterranean, dead Rohingya babies in Rakhine, dead Palestinian babies in Gaza, babies tragically killed in Ukraine, care not one iota about the literal reality of tens of millions of dead babies, killed by abortionists, every year.
In the USA alone, since that country betrayed the innocent in 1973 and exposed its own hypocrisy in pretending to be a guardian of morality and defender of the weak, the tiny bodies have piled up. Everywhere else that this abomination has been permitted, the bodies are treated similarly, not even being afforded a proper burial. It is legally sanctioned slaughter; and yet the ‘liberals’ who defend these killings have nothing to say.
Worse, they condemn these babies; their lives have no value, they can be terminated at a woman’s whim. Women who actively protest the killing of babies in a far-away foreign land about which they know nothing, actually defend the killing of babies right here, right now, in their own countries and seek to make it easier — indeed, many of them will have killed babies of their own. The hypocrisy is utterly nauseating.
If the deciding factor in whether an individual should be allowed to live or not is ‘viability’, then why don’t we just euthanise everyone with a terminal disease? What about the mentally ill who cannot look after themselves? Why not just line them up and shoot them? After all, they’re not viable, are they? This is all we need to say about this despicable, glib convenience.
Women are evolved to fertilise ova inside them and to carry the fertilised ovum, now an unborn baby, to term. Indeed the entirety of human culture has been based on ensuring the survival of babies. Just like every other species, our purpose in life is procreation. The function of the female is to make and nurture babies; it’s that simple.
Women are killers
Women who kill their unborn babies, or who persuade others to kill them, are in denial of the very reason for their existence. And for what reason do they do this? Pure hedonism.
Women can’t just abandon their evolutionary function because they’d rather be having fun, with their legs in the air.
The mantra of amorality
Ah, you say, but a foetus is not a baby. This has been the mantra of many, even Professor Richard Dawkins, the beloved of the atheist left. A foetus is not a baby, they claim. It is but an amorphous collection of cells.
The question then becomes, ‘When does such a collection of cells become an individual?’ And this is the hook upon which the baby-killers attempt to hang their justification for slaughtering the innocent.
In fact, the unborn baby has ceased to be ‘an amorphous clump of cells’ by the end of the first week of pregnancy. While it might not look much like a human at this stage, the blastocyst, it is nevertheless obviously a living thing. Note that: she is alive.
The life that animates her is human. So we can say, even one week after conception, at which point the mother will likely not even be aware that she has fallen pregnant, that a new human life has already begun. Life begins at conception.
Stages of the baby’s development in her mother
Human babies go through three stages before they are born. The first, which lasts about ten days, is called the germinal stage. This occurs after the ovum has been fertilised and the new baby has been implanted in the lining of the womb. Many do not make it:
Researchers estimate that approximately 60 percent of all natural conceptions never become properly implanted in the uterus, which results in the new life ending before the mother is ever aware she is pregnant.
However, if implantation is successful, the baby has a high chance of developing to term.
The next phase is called the embryonic and from nine weeks the unborn baby is called a foetus.
By eighteen days, the baby’s heartbeat will begin. Around the same time the structures that will form the head, arms and legs become visible. By twenty-eight days, or four weeks, a recognisably human face appears.
Can unborn babies feel pain?
Dr Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She explained,
“The overall organization of the nervous system is established by four weeks… Like all embryonic organs, the structure of the early brain “anticipates” the function of the mature system…The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development…This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity…a fetus responds just as humans at later stages of development respond; by withdrawing from the painful stimulus.
Imposing pain on any pain-capable living creature is cruelty. And ignoring the pain experienced by another human individual for any reason is barbaric. We don’t need to know if a human fetus is self- reflective or even self- aware to afford it the same consideration we currently afford other pain – capable species. We simply have to decide whether we will choose to ignore the pain of the fetus or not. ”
We are not talking about ‘an amorphous clump of cells’ but about a human life; a living human being who feels pain. Why should that life not be given the same protection as we afford to others? Why should we allow it to be ended, without even judicial review, on the whim of a woman?
Rape: another red herring
The fact is, in the overwhelming majority of pregnancies, the mother chose to have sex. If she did not use appropriate contraception, then she accepted the moral responsibility placed on her: to carry the resulting baby to term to the best of her abilities.
The baby did nothing wrong: she is the victim here and for once, feminists must accept that women who choose to kill their unborn babies are the monsters. They are the killers of the innocent, the betrayers of those who have a right to depend on them. They are not ‘oppressed’ at all; they are more than oppressors, they are blatant murderers.
Men are culpable too
Men too, are culpable. Men have not risen up to fight this atrocity. They have not protested the millions upon millions of dead, more than even Hitler managed and which we fought wars, ostensibly to prevent ever happening again. No, whipped like curs and browbeaten by the gynocracy and its fifth-columnists, its shrieking harridans, they shrink from the field. They are afraid to challenge women even on such an egregious crime as over fifty million murdered babies every year.
Abortion is literally the murder of the innocent and it must be stopped. Decent women, if there are any left, and men must come together to end it, forever. That will mean that those who commit abortion must be tried as murderers, those who enable it those who demand it — yes, the mothers themselves — must also be. on the same charge: accessory to murder.
2 Replies to “Abortion: the egregious slaughter of the innocent”
This reminds me of the Catholic Hungarian philosopher Aurel Kolnai in his criticism of humanism when he argues that the religion of humanity doesn’t consider human life itself as sacred, but only the “here and now”, only those that are here right now and can enjoy this life really matters , the body is the limit and is all that counts, there is no divine spark or soul. When you look at life from that point of view everything that stands in the way of the immediate fruition of pleasure and the pursuit of happiness and that cannot look after itself without help is not only an obstacle but also a violation of the “sacredness” of your self-determination and individual liberty , and therefore every barbarity such as euthanasia and abortion can be justified as Kolnai predicted that it would be, not even the future matters to these people.
Michel houellebecq is another author that although proclaims himself as agnostic profoundly criticizes the modern world amoral turn. In his books ( particularly in his novels “the possibility of an island” and “the map and the territory”) “the absence of God” manifests itself in the analysis of a rapidly decaying western civilization whose only objective is the sacrifice of every societal bond for the sake of the satisfaction of the individual most basic and primitive instincts. Physical love ( which is all that holds significance for most of the characters in michel houellebecq dystopian world of materialist horror ) criteria (youth , beauty and strength ) are in fact the values of Nazism as houellebecq recognizes… As he said “We live in a society of nazis” and in such a place the unborn and the old have no use , neither do they deserve love or anything else. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future this also applies to the sick and the weak.
Thanks for this comment. I am a little familiar with Houllebecq but not really very much so. Kolnai, yes and I agree with him. The ultimate end of Humanism is inhumanity.
You must log in to post a comment.