ABORTION AND THE GAY AGENDA: SECULARISM’S BIG GUNS

For approximately one thousand years after the fall of Rome, European civilization comprised a religion (Roman Catholicism), a morality (based on the revealed word of God and the natural law implanted in man by his Creator), and a political hegemony (in which the Church was both a secular ruler and a moral and spiritual influence on other rulers.) This “Catholic Civilization” was not seriously threatened by numerous dissenters who, from time to time,sought to weaken the Church and obtain a greater freedom either for themselves or for one of the new Nation-States.

The Protestant Revolution (to give it its accurate name) seriously weakened the authority and the influence of the Church. In the political sphere, it strengthened existing political powers and gave rise to new ones, many of which broke their ties with the Church in order to preserve their independence. The rulers of these kingdoms often solidified their political power by appropriating Church property and doling it out to their supporters. They also appropriated religious authority (Cuius regio, eius religio). In the moral sphere, even though the Protestant powers retained and continued to enforce the Judeo-Christian ethical system, the weakening of the Church and the Catholic Faith, and the strengthening of the secular state, laid the groundwork for the secularization of morality.

This new “Christian Civilization” migrated with Europeans when they sailed to the distant shores of North, Central, and South America, and, later, to Australia and New Zealand.

The decline of its political authority reduced the role of the Church to that of moral arbiter, and even that only in parts of Europe. The rise of the Nation-States, controlled by self-confident men with a secular perspective working for secular purposes, saw the re-birth (the renascence) of the belief that “MAN” was the center of the Universe; that, as Protagoras said two thousand years earlier, Man was the measure of all things, and that he was therefore answerable only to himself. Reveling in their greater freedom, some began to challenge the moral/ethical basis of Christian Civilization.

Thus began (c. 1750) the so-called Enlightenment. (“So-called” because as someone once pointed out, history is written by the winners.) Men no longer felt a need for spiritual guidance or for spiritual sustenance. Philosophers, writers, kings and their advisers, and educators discarded considerations of religion, eternity, and God, and substituted considerations of power, wealth, and trade. “Science” provided materialistic and naturalistic explanations for many phenomena; and it promised that it would soon provide similar explanations for everything. (This was a matter of faith, not of science. It still is.) Rousseau was only one of many whose writings gave rise to a belief that man was perfectible and that his institutions were corrupt. The seeds of a “Secular Civilization.” were planted.

As Secular Civilization waxed, Christian Civilization waned. The traditional morality of society was replaced with one based on humanism, either atheistic or agnostic. Right and Wrong no longer arose out of the nature of man; they were no longer set for all eternity by the revealed Word of God. Whether something was Right or Wrong now depended on whether it contributed to the accumulation of wealth and power, on the one hand, and to the “freedom” of man on the other. Men became “free” by ridding themselves of the constraints imposed by an unseen God, constraints written down in a book thousands of years old, and enforced by Church officials.
But constraints were still necessary. The rulers of society supplied them. For the word of God Man substituted his own word; and the givers of this word became the new gods.

Some precepts were carry-overs from Judeo-Christian morality: thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal. But other precepts were discarded or revised. Exceptions were made. The standard was, What is expedient for the ruling class? This was often disguised as, What is good for the nation?

(((Interjection No. 1: The change can be summarized by an example from modern America. It used to be against the law to murder unborn children, but permissible to smoke. Now, smoking is a crime in many places, and is always a social sin, while murdering unborn children is a constitutional right, protected by the government.)))

For some time, this new lawgiver was a king. After the “Glorious” and the American Revolutions, the lawgiver was a legislature composed of the commercial and landed elite of the nation. Democratic theorists convinced many that everyone had a right to partake, if not in the actual framing of laws, at least in choosing those who did frame them. (The French Revolution failed to attain its democratic ends, but the widening of the franchise by peaceful means was successful in England and the United States.) In some countries, in some circumstances, the courts became the ultimate lawgiver.

(((Interjection No. 2: What is right, what is wrong, sometimes changes overnight. On January 21, 1973, abortion was considered by many a form of murder. The laws of many states prohibited it outright; those that allowed it in some circumstances restricted it. Abortion was a crime, and the abortionist was prosecuted. On January 22, 1973, abortion became a constitutional right. Abortuaries advertised in the newspapers and competed with each other. They applied for and were granted public funds, some of which they put in their pockets, some of which they spent to kill babies more efficiently. Why did this occur? Why did everyone, even those who opposed the abortion decision, meekly accept it as if the Court’s members lived on Mount Sinai? It was accepted because Americans had been conditioned to believe the Supreme Court’s word WAS law, and that the LAW was sacred.)))

The commandments of the new morality in democratic countries emanate from the framers of public opinion: from the educators, the politicians, and the judges, aided, abetted, and supported by those who controlled the media. These commandments are always subject to change, because circumstances are always changing. “Public opinion” became synonymous with what the public would accept, and the public would accept what it had been conditioned to accept.

For a quarter of a millennium, Secularism has been engaged in a struggle with Christianity for power, a struggle for the loyalty, for the very soul, of the human race.

In Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings,” the battles between the forces of Good and of Evil intensify throughout the story, until the climactic Final Battle outside the gates of Mordor. In like manner, the battles between the Christian and the Secular Civilizations have intensified over the years. These battles have involved a myriad of issues (divorce, the teaching of evolution, Sunday “Blue Laws”). There is no doubt that the Secularists have had the better of the struggle for some time. The phrase “Slippery Slope” is used by the Christian side to summarize the process by which the acceptance of one belief leads to the acceptance of others. And because people will act as they believe, policies are adopted to embody, to legalize, and to legitimize the new beliefs. What Christians view as defeats, as movement down the “slippery slope,” Secularists view as steps up the ladder of Progress (always capitalized).

(((Interjection No. 3: Example: the right to privacy was first used to strike down laws prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices by married people. Then it was used to strike down laws prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices by anyone, married or unmarried. Then it was used to justify the deliberate murder of unborn children. The result: about forty million babies killed between January 1973 and late 2005.)))

(((Interjection No. 4: Secularism began by challenging the influence of religion in governmental affairs. The First Amendment prohibits governmental interference with the practice of religion, and prohibits the establishment of a state-supported church. Within a decade, there was a “wall of separation between Church and State.” Secularism next challenged Church control of education; it won that battle, and now we have education controlled by the State. Secularism now objects to any display of religion in public places: no moments of silence at football games; no crèches on lawns owned by any agency of government; no posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings; no Christmas songs of a religious nature. Retailers are pressured into removing “Merry Christmas” and substituting “Happy Holidays.”)))

After World War II, the Secularists felt secure enough in their positions of power and influence to attack the basis of Christian Civilization, in a kind of All or Nothing confrontation. That Final Battle is being fought now. Most engagements are on the spiritual and philosophical level--- the level of ideas, propaganda, and law. (The Law creates its own reality; it is a perfect example of Idealism in action. Recall how abortion went from a crime to a right.) But there have been some physical skirmishes and physical casualties, too. (An abortionist is killed when his clinic is bombed. A mother of four who dares to tell a gay man that his actions are sinful and that she will pray for him is murdered and buried in the floor of his apartment.) Perhaps the secularists judged that Christian Civilization was ready to collapse and needed only the coup de grace; or perhaps they just became impatient to establish a society founded only on the word and wishes of Man; whatever the reasons, they decided to attack the family.

These days, when the word “family” has been perverted, we need to define the term. By “family,” I mean a father and a mother, living together, committed to each other and their children; in many cases the family circle includes an older blood relative. “Family” includes a man and woman united in marriage who have no children. “Family” does not include two homosexual men or two lesbians living together; nor does it include a man and woman living together, with or without children.

The secularists know the importance of the family to Christian Civilization. . They know that if they can destroy the family, the last barrier to their domination will disappear. Like sharks in the water, they can smell the blood flowing from the wounds already inflicted.

((( Interjection No. 5: A court has recently ruled that parents have no say in what their children are taught in public schools. Marriages are easily dissolved, even when there are children. Thirteen- or fourteen-year-old girls can obtain abortions without parental consent or even knowledge. Condoms are handed out in high school.Fifth-graders are taught how to put them on bananas.)))

Why do the Secularists seek the destruction of the family? Because it is the basis of civilization. It is a natural unit: a man and a woman, bringing forth children, caring for the next generation, ensuring the continuation of the species and the preservation and progress of culture.

The family regulates the sexual drive and the relations between the sexes. It provides a bulwark against license and self-indulgence and their effects.

This is why conservatives and traditionalists love and support the family as an institution; and this is why the secularists hate and seek to destroy the family.

If secularists succeed, they can build a new civilization on a different basis. (And what other basis could there be but the State? But that is whole separate story.)

How do you destroy the family? You attack its basic function (its control of the sexual drive), and you do this by attacking its members at their weakest point. And what is the weakest point of most people, most of the time? It is the libido.

Here’s what you do. You convince people that Christian Civilization has kept them enslaved to rules and regulations for centuries. You convince them that religion and morality are shackles; that they will be happier, freer, and that they will “Find Themselves,” if they liberate their libidos and indulge themselves. You convince them at the same time that the family is the Great Inhibitor, the Great Tyrant standing between them and their “personal fulfillment.” You attack the family by demanding that the sexual drive be liberated, that it be freed from restrictions. You develop or apply technologies that result in human life, as Huxley predicted would happen. You even attack the very meaning of the word “family” by applying it to the perverted relationships of sodomites and lesbians.

Your weapons include pornography and artificial birth control. You make it as easy as possible to break the bonds of marriage. You adopt welfare policies that encourage men to walk away from the responsibility of raising their children; you extol single parent “families,” (the single parent being almost always the mother). You teach the children as early as possible that sex is a form of recreation, and that they have right to indulge themselves, regardless of what their parents say. You publish books, exhibit movies, and broadcast television shows full of promiscuity and infidelity; you never, ever, show any negative effects of these behaviors. You start with popularizers like Kinsey, a pervert, and call him a scientist; and like Hefner, a pornographer, and make him a cultural hero. You are confident that the “Great Thinkers,” the “Best Minds,” of our times are ready to support you with deep philosophical rationalizations—the Professor Singers, who extol infanticide as well as abortion; and Supreme Court Justices, who make the murder of children and the commission of sodomy legal rights.

You strike your blows in the name of “Freedom.” But what you offer is “License.” You promise that everybody will be free to indulge in any and every sexual desire, free to fulfill any and every sexual fantasy. You convince them that there will be no untoward consequences, and that nobody will be judged. Who, after all, is fit to judge anyone else?

The Slope is indeed Slippery. When you have started downhill by preventing the conception of a child, what comes next? The disposal of children already conceived, legally and with mass-market economies. What comes naturally after sexual license between the sexes, where anything goes as long as “nobody gets hurt”? Sexual license with members of the same sex. Gays and Lesbians are now given their “rights;” they and their perversions are not only protected by hate-crime legislation, but esteemed and honored. As we slide further downhill, we meet affiliated perverts: Bisexuals, Transsexuals, and Transgenders.

In short, you adopt and extol Abortion and Homosexuality.

ABORTION
In this country alone, about forty million babies have been murdered since January 1973, and the toll goes on. Abortion supporters claim that half of all abortions are performed on thirteen-year-old girls impregnated by drunken stepfathers; the other half, they claim, are performed to save the lives of the mothers. But we all know these two categories entail a minuscule proportion of abortions. The great majority are provided to women who simply don’t want any more kids; or to women who don’t want kids at all because motherhood would interfere with their careers on the pro tennis circuit, in the office, or in Hollywood

It is almost beyond comprehension: we not only allow, we positively celebrate, we protect as a basic human right, the freedom to murder innocent human beings. The bra-burning feminists are fond of repeating one of the more ignorant mantras of the abortion industry and its supporters: “If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Whom are they trying to kid? Abortion IS a sacrament. Look around. A supreme Court nominee who even hints that he or she might possibly, perhaps, in some circumstances, theoretically question the right of abortion has no chance of being confirmed—none whatsoever. The attempt to impose even the slightest restriction on the unlimited right to murder babies is met with hysteria; such restrictions are presented as the first step in a return to a theocracy in which the Church will control women’s wombs; any restrictions would constitute a tyranny that would make Nazi Germany seemed gentle. A pro-life Democratic governor of a large, populous state is denied the right to speak at a recent Democratic National Convention. A President with the morals of a rutting pig is forgiven the most egregious conduct because he is “right” on abortion, even to the extent of honoring in the White House women who have paid abortionists to perform “partial birth abortions” on their offspring.

HOMOSEXUALITY
Homosexuality is fixated on the physical. It is temporary, spontaneous, sterile, and unloving; the male variety is often violent. Think about what gay men do to each other. This act becomes a symbol of freedom; gays enthuse over it, even though it leads to incurable diseases. It is an act of perversion, not of love, and it epitomizes what the gay agenda is all about. Homosexuals delight in their perversions. It is their way of venting their hatred of Christian Civilization and of the family. Heterosexuals don’t give a damn what homosexuals do to each other. Heterosexuals give very much of a damn what homosexuals are doing to society, to morals, and to civilization.

Abortion and the gay agenda are the loci of the most bitter, most portentous battles in the war that is being waged between Civilizations. That supporters of those issues have won so many battles is emblematic of the collapse of moral values in America.
What abortion and the Gay agenda have in common is their hatred of the family. That is why a supporter of one is almost always a supporter of the other.

What greater attacks on the family can be imagined than abortion and homosexuality? Besides allowing the consequences of illicit sex to be erased, abortion kills the offspring of marriage; it prevents a family from coming into existence, or prevents the growth of an existing family. What better way to destroy the family than to destroy the product of the family?

Homosexuality attacks the idea of a life-long commitment of one man and one woman to each other, open to the transmission of life. The demand that “unions” of gays be accorded the status of “marriage” epitomizes the contempt that secularists, homosexuals, and atheists have for Christian Civilization. It is a parody, a conscious, deliberate mockery, of marriage. The Gay agenda is a direct attack on the family, on the young, on the future.

These are two “freedoms” long desired. Abortion, sodomy, and lesbianism: these the world has always had. But they were hidden, always done in secret, in the dark. Why? Because they are, on top of everything else, perversions of nature. Nature intended men and women to meet, to reproduce, and to raise the children in a family. Nature did not intend humans to kill their young. Nature did not intend men to sodomize each other, nor women to use toys on each other.

These issues are recognized by almost everyone to be the lynch pins of the battle between the Judeo-Christian morality and culture of Christian Civilization and the atheistic/secularist morality and culture of Secular Civilization.

(This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com in February 2006.)

Copyright 2006 by James F. Csank
aka Siger of Brabant
All Rights Reserved.

QUESTIONS FOR THE PRINCIPLED FIFTY-FIVE

Fifty-five members of Congress, tried-and-true Democrats, but (by their own admission) tried-and-found wanting Catholics, have issued a Statement of Principles rationalizing (to their own satisfaction, at least) their “hands off” policy on restrictions on the sacred “right” to kill the unborn. (I say “by their own admission” advisedly. Isn’t the following a statement that they are dissenters from Church teaching and that they don’t care? "We acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas.")
Boy oh Boy! This Statement is powerful stuff, man! Listen to the rhetoric:

Q U O T E

We work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose

We are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need.

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion—we do not celebrate its practice.
Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and childcare, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.

E N D Q U O T E

But here’s the left hand, taking back what was given with the right:

Q U O T E

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

E N D Q U O T E

Asking some questions will reveal the hypocrisy of the signers.

If these people really do “work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being;” if they really do “believe that government has moral purpose,” wouldn’t they be doing all in their power to promote and pass legislation outlawing abortion; wouldn’t they be educating their constituents about what really goes on in an abortion mill, of what happens during an abortion, and especially of how barbaric a partial-birth abortion is?

If they really “are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition…that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need…and help(s) the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us,” wouldn’t they define “common good” in such a way that it includes rather than excludes the unborn, and wouldn’t they recognize that no group is more in need of a collective safety net than the unborn whose very existence is at the whim of a woman and a murderer-for-hire?

If they really do “agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life,” why do they speak only of “the undesirability of abortion?” Why don’t they speak of its moral evil, of its being everywhere and always mortally sinful, not just for Catholics but for all? Why don’t they speak of the painful ways its victims are killed? If they really do agree with their Church, why don’t they condemn abortion, instead of patting each other on the back because they “do not celebrate its practice?”

So what if “each of (them) is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies…” So are abortionists and the Planned Parenthood people. What exactly are they doing to “creat (e) an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term?” It is truly heart-warming to be told that these Democrats believe in “promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.” That’s very impressive, but have they noticed that all of these policies concern living children, and that living children is exactly what the abortion crowd is preventing by killing the little ones before birth? Or do these Democrats think we are stupid?

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

Mark Adams, in an essay on www.michnews.com, has stated that this last quote from the Democrats’ Statement “implies that the defense of unborn human life is a religious issue and that supporting legislation against abortion would constitute a violation of the religious freedom of others.” I agree with Mr. Adams. That being the case, here are my last questions for the Democrats: If the abortion supporters can exercise their freedom of religion by killing the unborn, why cannot those who oppose abortion (does this include the “55”?) exercise their freedom of religion by restricting abortions, even outlawing them? If supporting legislation against abortion is a violation of the religious freedom of others, why is not the killing of the unborn a violation of the religious freedom of those who oppose abortion? Is it because no one is required to partake in abortions? What about medical students who are required to participate? How about the pharmacists at Walgreen’s who were suspended because they wouldn’t fill prescriptions for abortifacients? How about the Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts who were ordered by Governor Romney to dispense this medication as “emergency birth control?” Why are the baby killers allowed to be active in the practice of their freedoms, but those who would protect the babies are required to sit passively by and do nothing?
I think there are a number of answers to that question, but one of them clearly is, Moral Cowardice. These Democrats are afraid of antagonizing the abortion lobby and its supporters in the media. They are afraid of losing votes. They are afraid of losing their jobs.

"Siger of Brabant"

Copyright 2006 by James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay appeared on www.michnews.com in early March, 2006.

Ms. Connie Schultz is a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Like her employer, she is predictably liberal and rabidly pro-abortion. She is the wife of politician Sherrod Brown, and recent winner of a Pulitzer Prize (and Ten Thousand Dollars) “for distinguished commentary.” In the words of the Pulitzer people, this was awarded to her “for her pungent columns that provided a voice for the underdog and underprivileged.”

Underprivileged underdogs like Betsey Kaufman.

Who is Betsey Kaufman?

Betsey Kaufman is a warrior; indeed, a courageous warrior. At great personal risk, she has for almost three decades fought the good fight. Last year she decided to leave her perilous job as warrior. But she is too courageous to retire; she calls what she is doing, “rewiring.” Those who admire her courageous warriorism will miss her, but they can take heart that she is looking for some other battles to serve as outlets for her courage.

(All right, I admit it. That’s not me talking, that’s me paraphrasing Ms. Schultz.)

You ask again: Who is Betsey Kaufman? What was her job, and with whom did she fight?

Betsey Kaufman kills babies. Not directly, mind you. Only indirectly, from behind her desk or from a speaker’s podium, but she does so defiantly and proudly. Betsey Kaufman for eighteen years was CEO of Planned Parenthood of Cleveland, an abortion mill.

I would never have heard of the courageous Betsey, and would never have had the opportunity to share with you my admiration for her, except for a column by the sycophantic Ms Schultz. Think you that “sycophantic” is too strong? Read what Ms. Schultz writes:

* * QUOTE * *

On the issue of Kaufman's departure, I am both a grateful
beneficiary of her hard work and a selfish hanger-on, all but
clawing at the flowing garments that are her trademark. To be
blunt, I hate to see Kaufman leave.
She has spent nearly three decades courageously standing toe
to toe with those hell-bent on robbing women of the right to
control their own bodies, and she has done this at considerable
personal risk.

* * END QUOTE * *

(Notice that “grateful beneficiary of her hard work.”)

Ms. Schultz can write some pretty saccharine stuff. (A trademark of flowing garments?) What makes this example special is its subject matter: a woman who made a living, and a pretty good living no doubt, helping others kill their unborn children. Ms. Schultz writes this encomium the way she writes all her commentaries. There is not a hint of original thinking. She repeats uncritically whatever her heroine says about herself: all the self-serving, self-congratulatory self-justifications of an abortion provider and defender. Between Betsey and Connie, most of the clichés used by the abortion industry are repeated. Let’s mention some.

First, we have “the pregnant 11-year-old whose grandfather was pimping her for cash.” When you rationalize the right of anyone to get an abortion any time for any reason, stick with the worse case scenario. Make one up if you have to. Never, ever hint that the great majority of abortions are obtained because a child would interfere with the life style of the woman; or because an adulterous woman is not only unfaithful but also stupid; or because a teen couldn’t say No to her over-zealous boyfriend.

Next we have the portrayal of the abortionist as a veteran, courageous warrior, doing daily battle with those hell-bent on taking away a woman’s right to kill, euphemistically called (it is one of the clichés) “a woman’s right to control her own body.” “Standing toe to toe” with her enemies? “At considerable personal risk?” Please! The liberal media (including the major media, and its imitators like the PD) support Betsey and her “work” at every turn; the police are ready to throw into jail any protestor looking askance at the abortionists or their assistants; the law making Ms. Kaufman’s actions legal and a basic “right” is enshrined in the constitution and trumps every other right, including free speech and free assembly. You can count on both hands the number of abortionists and their aides who have been injured or killed by those opposing abortion in the past thirty-three years. The last one, remember, was over six years ago. Oh my, yes, what a courageous battler Betsey is!

Next cliché: we all want abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare” This is the abortion cliché par excellence. It long ago passed from the hypocritical into the ridiculous. Betsey no doubt chants this little mantra, with an earnest look on her face, every time she drives to the bank to deposit her blood money

Next cliché, please: “It's a total fallacy that abortion is used for birth control.”

Anyone who looks can find admissions by abortion supporters and suppliers that abortion is a back-up birth control method. Daniel McGuire, who used to (maybe he still does) teach at the liberal and nominally Catholic Marquette University, is a rabid abortion supporter. According to a newspaper report in the Plain Dealer in early 2002, McGuire was quoted as referring to abortion as: “a back-up when necessary.” A story in the LA Times in November 2005 about Arkansas abortionist William Harrison tells of a “patient” who was having her fourth abortion. “She keeps forgetting to take her birth control pills.” Says this “patient:” Abortion ‘is a bummer, but no big stress.’” (And there it is. Those four little words---abortion is a bummer---epitomizes what this essay is about. Abortion has gone from being murder to being a “bummer.”)

Back to our Ms. Schultz. Next is a non sequitur (and a cliché) put forth as profound thinking: “It is the most difficult decision a woman can make. That doesn't make it a wrong decision.” Neither does it make it a right one. Except for people like Ms. Kaufman, who make money off the suffering of unborn infants. Or are we to believe that a living, growing human being feels no pain when scalded to death by saline? Or when cut to pieces before being sucked into a vacuum?

"We fully expect a state law down the road requiring parental consent for birth control. That means a lot of kids will stop using it." So Schultz quotes Betsey, leaving the ambiguity unresolved. (Ms. Schultz probably did not even see it.) If Betsey really meant “birth control,” as opposed to abortion, and that’s what the “it” refers to, Betsey should be in favor of such a law. Unavailability of birth control will mean more pregnancies, won’t it; and that will mean more abortions, won’t it? More teenage girls will be exercising the right to control their own bodies. Who can be against that? Or the money that will bring in?

Or did Betsey mean a law “requiring parental consent for abortion?” Maybe she did, because a few lines later Betsey says that laws requiring parental consent for minors getting abortions is a ruse of the anti-abortion fanatics. In this case, Betsey would have meant: “That means a lot of kids will stop using abortion.” We can see why Betsey would be upset at that. After all, no one likes a decrease in income. And, in this latter case, isn’t there an admission that these “kids” are using abortion as birth control?

Sloppy writing, Connie. Really sloppy.

Then comes the Schultz coup de grace. All of her articles have one: some little touch that is thrown in to make sure you catch the pathos, that you break down in tears. In this case it is the wistful martyr routine. Betsey sighs; she shakes her head. She modestly says, “I’ve done all I can do.” Connie reports that Betsey “look(s) away for a moment, then nod(s) her head as if listening to a voice only she could hear.” (Her guardian angel? More likely her personal demon, applauding her: “Well done, thou true and faithful servant.”).

Oh, the courage!

If her column on Betsey were a tongue-in-cheeker, it would be hilarious, and its author would be a satirist of note. But Schultz is deadly (pun intended) serious. Adulating a woman who kills babies for money makes the article, its subject, and its author pathetic.
But it is an accurate portrayal of the indifference so many Americans feel toward the subject: an indifference caused and continually fed by papers like the Plain Dealer, writers like Schultz, and baby killers like Betsey Kaufman.

Copyright 2006 by James F. Csank (fka Siger of Brabant)
All Rights Reserved

I know some of you are waiting with bated breath to learn whether there was any follow-up to my “Open Letter to the Gentleman in Britain” on this site. In that letter, I asked him to explain the connection that HE saw between natural abortions (commonly called miscarriages) and deliberate abortions. It was important because, given that connection, he came to certain conclusions about the “pro-life brigade,” the Roman Catholic Church, and me. My Open Letter was also an implicit invitation that, if I had misread him, he should clear up my misunderstanding.

The Gentleman from Britain answered at length. Here’s what he said about the natural/deliberate issue:

Q U O T E

I'll stick with an abortion being defined as any failure
to continue to full, live term, after fertilisation. In any animal,
including us. Thus, a miscarriage is an abortion - a natural one.
I do tend to regard anything like a late-term artificial
abortion (i.e.after about two months / ten weeks ) as a very third-rate and unsatisfactory solution to a problem that should have been sorted outlong before. Proper birth control and education is a much better route to go ---then every child is a wanted and loved child.

E N D Q U O T E

And that was all, The rest of his lengthy response was a diatribe, rather hate-filled at points, against Christianity in general and the Catholic Church (of course!) in particular. He repeated the stale old pro-abortion arguments about the dastardliness of male priests telling a pregnant woman what to do with her body, etc., etc., etc. (My apologies to The King of Siam.)

Then he gave me something I didn’t ask for and didn’t want: a chemical formula for inducing abortions. In concluding, he was kind enough to send me, in full, what he represented to be (1) an article in a British newspaper and (2) an article he had run across someplace or other. It was hard to tell where one ended and the other began; and to tell if any of the comments were his. It amounted to one long screed excoriating, in part, a Catholic hospital and a doctor who apparently performed a lot of hysterectomies.

If I’m a little vague on this part of his message, it’s because I skimmed through it, seeing at a glance that it was irrelevant to the questions I had asked him in my Open Letter. And besides, I’m not really interested in his, and other Britons’, prejudices.

But being a Christian (something he despises, but what the hell!) I wrote him what I thought was a final “Let’s agree to disagree. Have a nice life.” e-mail. I was surprised when he responded with—you guessed it---another diatribe against all religions (including Marxism). This contained such sentiments as:

1. No “god” can be detected - OR - God is not detectable
2. All religions are blackmail, and are based on fear and
superstition
3. Yada,yada, yada (apologies to Seinfeld).

(1 and 2 are quotes from the gentleman. 3 is my interpretation of them.)

He wrapped it all up with a paragraph detailing his feelings about the current Pope and his immediate predecessor.

So my hunger for knowledge is unabated. What ever will I do?

Siger of Brabant aka James F. Csank
Copyright 2006 by James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

After my essay “Abortion and the Gay Agenda: Secularism’s Big Guns” appeared on Feb. 15, 2006 on www.michnews.com, michnewsa reader in England, who described himself (proudly, I guess) as a “godless, liberal secularist,” wrote a detailed and intelligent response. He invited me to respond with further arguments supporting my positions, but questioned whether my response would be rational. I declined his invitation, because it was obvious that he was an apple and I was an orange (or vice versa, it doesn’t matter). An apple can’t convince an orange to change, and an orange can’t convince an apple to change. I wrote the gentleman and made that point by saying: you and I exist on different planes and communication is impossible.
But I was intrigued by one of his arguments. I understand him to be saying that I and all other anti-abortionists could not intelligently and logically seek to prohibit or even restrict abortions (the kind where an abortionist scalds a baby to death with a saline solution, or cuts it to pieces and vacuums the pieces out of the womb, for instance) unless and until we were ready and able to do something about “natural abortions.”
Let’s be clear about our terms: Abortion is, according to a definition found at http://browse.drugs.com/cond-abortion.html:

Q U O T E

The expulsion or removal of an embryo or foetus from the mother prematurely, this can be done as an artificial procedure, but it often happens naturally when the mother's body expels the foetus because it has died, has genetic or developmental defects, or because of infection or illness in the mother. Natural abortions are typically called miscarriages. Medically-induced abortions, which can be completed with surgery or with hormone drugs, are performed because the foetus is unwanted, deformed, not likely to live, or endangers the mother's life or health.

E N D Q U O T E

I assume the gentleman from Britain is referring to “miscarriages” as defined above.But you read the relevant paragraphs from his critique and decide if that is so and if I understand his point correctly:

Q U O T E

And, of course, JFC appears to be defining abortion deliberate abortion, ONLY. He ignores the huge number of natural abortions, which have always outnumbered live births, where an egg is fertilized by a sperm, and then either fails to implant, or drops out of implantation, for (usually) entirely natural causes. But the so-called “pro-life” brigade, including the RC church all carefully ignore this important fact.
If human life truly begins at the moment of conception, then means must surely be found to prevent natural abortions. Well, a drug that does this is available – unfortunately it is called – Thalidomide.

E N D Q U O T E

I will accept his statement that Thalidomide “prevents natural abortions.” What I remember about the drug is that it deforms babies, horribly.

I think what he meant to say is that a drug that prevents natural abortions exists. It is not, to my knowledge, available in the States. And I think he meant, “Such a drug exists, unfortunately—it is called Thalidomide.”

Later, the gentleman quotes me: “In this country alone, about forty million babies have been murdered since January 1973,” and continues his criticism:

Q U O T E

OK, so how many live births? Add the two figures, and double the result, and you will still not have a number as big as that of the natural abortions, where an egg has been fertilised, but not implanted, or has “dropped out” – the latter usually within the first two weeks.
Unless and until this “problem” is dealt with, then I’m afraid JFC and his friends are whistling in the dark.

E N D Q U O T E

JFC is this writer, and RC is “Roman Catholic.”

Now, I’m just a dumb, RC, anti-abortionist, conservative who would dearly love to shove my moral and religious beliefs down the throats of every man, woman, and child in the United Kingdom as well as in the United States, and come to think of it, in Western Europe, Eurasia, and Greenland, but I have this weird ability to see distinctions where they exist. I am able to analyze different situations and different things and treat them differently. I see a difference between a fertilized egg failing to implant or “dropping out,” and an abortionist attacking a living, growing embryo or fetus and hacking it to pieces. Does anyone else see the difference in those two situations? Or is it just me and the “pro-life brigade?”

Since I was, as the gentleman from Britain acknowledges, talking about “deliberate abortion,” why does he bring up natural abortion?

What is the relevance of natural abortion to my argument?

Why does he think that bringing up natural abortion somehow refutes my points about deliberate abortion?

And why does he think that I amd my friends (including the RC church) cannot be opposed to and work to end deliberate abortions until such time as we have found a way to prevent all natural abortions as well?

The gentleman may have answers to these questions. I invite him to respond.

James F. Csank (fka Siger of Brabant)

Copyright 2006 by James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved