7xstall
Well-Known Member
Real Inconvenient Truths.... About Abortion
Selwyn Duke
JBS
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Overcome with grief and remorse, a British woman kills herself after having an abortion.
Follow this link to the original source: " Artist hanged herself after aborting her twins"
Out of Britain comes a very sad, sad story. Emma Beck, an artist tormented by having aborted her twins, was found hanging at her home a day before her 31st birthday. Expressing her grief and regret in a suicide note, she wrote: "I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum."
While suicide isnt a common consequence of abortion, the emotional torment that can precipitate it certainly is. Attesting to this is Theresa Karminski Burke, a psychotherapist who has counseled hundreds of "Post-abortion Trauma" victims. In her book Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion, she quotes many of these poor souls. One of them, Ellen, expressed well her sisterhood of pains unremitting torment, saying, "I wish I had never done it. I will never forgive myself. Sometimes I could kill myself for that."
But what is this "it"? Is it just, as the pro-abortion side would say, the extraction of a "lump of cells" or an "unviable tissue mass"? Are they correct when asserting that such a womans feelings are the problem, not what caused them?
Another woman quoted by Burke would answer with a plaintive no. Her name is Katrina, and, like so many, she was told that what grew within her wasnt a baby, just a tissue mass. Heres what she said about her painful clash with reality after aborting her 16-week-old child:
I went over to the sink to see what they [the doctors] were looking at. There were all the reassembled parts of my baby; arms, legs, torso and what must have been the head. They were tiny and perfect. In that instant I felt an incredible horror. This was my baby! Torn apart, in bloody pieces. My doctor, the abortionist, the staff all liars! I hated them. I left the office in a state of numb repulsion. I began to despise myself even more than them.
Despite such powerful testimonials, many on the pro-abortion side will still aver that we dont really know when the unborn become human. So lets examine the matter.
In what month would you say this transition occurs? If youre not sure, Ill make it easy: Pick any month you choose. I will then ask, what week of that month? What day of that week? What hour of that day? What minute of that hour? What second of that minute? Then, what nanosecond of that second?
This illuminates the matter. The attainment of personhood cannot be a month but a moment, yet it doesnt make sense to say that one moment what exists is not human but the next it is so.
That is, unless that moment is conception. For, prior to then, "it" doesnt exist.
Conception is obviously a seminal point, for it isnt development, but that which initiates it. Its much as with fire. Would we say that a fire is only a fire when its of use to us, such as when we need heat? No, once you have the necessary ingredients combustible materials, oxygen, a spark and ignition a fire is born. It may develop, grow and spread, but a fire is a fire no matter how small. And it will then continue until it runs its course and exhausts itself or until it is snuffed out.
Its this reality that haunts these hapless women; it is their tell-tale heart. They learn in a most merciless way what so many deny, and denial it is. Thus, we hide the Truth with euphemisms, those verbal Trojan Horses we trot out when we dont want others or ourselves to know what were actually doing.
In this case, killing.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman said in his book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society:
The burden of killing is so great that most men try not to admit that they have killed . . . Even the language of men at war is full of denial of the enormity of what they have done. Most soldiers do not kill, instead the enemy was knocked over, wasted, greased, taken out, and mopped up . . . .
I also think of, "collateral damage," "neutralizing the enemy," "terminating a pregnancy," "dilation and extraction," "a matter of choice," "unviable tissue mass" . . . .
As for abortion-speak, it serves a cause whose need to whitewash the killing is even greater. While a war can be just, abortion involves not a self-defense rationale but a self-indulgence one. Its hard to justify the killing of innocent people, no matter how small, so we make them even smaller, reducing them to something less than people. They are "lumps of cells."
Speaking of language and dehumanization, philosophy professor Mike Pakaluk draws an interesting parallel. He begins by asking if the following is a good representation of the "pro-choice" position:
If each person will only agree to mind his own business, and leave his neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us... I am now speaking of rights under the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights... It is for women to decide ... the moral and religious right of the abortion question for themselves within their own limits.... I repeat that the principle is the right of each woman to decide this abortion question for herself, to have an abortion or not, as she chooses, and it does not become a pro-lifer, or anybody else, to tell her she has no conscience, that she is living in a state of iniquity... We have enough objects of charity at home, and it is our duty to take care of our own poor, and our own suffering, before we go abroad to intermeddle with other peoples business.
Interestingly, these words arent Pakaluks. Rather, he took one of Stephen Douglas defenses of slavery, and substituted "abortion for slavery; woman for state; and a pro-lifer for Mr. Lincoln."
He then asks the pro-abortion side:
"Doesnt the similarity between your defense of abortion, and Douglas defense of slavery, bother you in any way? Does it raise in your mind any suspicions at all that you might just be on the wrong side?"
Tis a point to ponder.
from: Real Inconvenient Truths.... About Abortion | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom
.
Selwyn Duke
JBS
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Overcome with grief and remorse, a British woman kills herself after having an abortion.
Follow this link to the original source: " Artist hanged herself after aborting her twins"
Out of Britain comes a very sad, sad story. Emma Beck, an artist tormented by having aborted her twins, was found hanging at her home a day before her 31st birthday. Expressing her grief and regret in a suicide note, she wrote: "I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum."
While suicide isnt a common consequence of abortion, the emotional torment that can precipitate it certainly is. Attesting to this is Theresa Karminski Burke, a psychotherapist who has counseled hundreds of "Post-abortion Trauma" victims. In her book Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion, she quotes many of these poor souls. One of them, Ellen, expressed well her sisterhood of pains unremitting torment, saying, "I wish I had never done it. I will never forgive myself. Sometimes I could kill myself for that."
But what is this "it"? Is it just, as the pro-abortion side would say, the extraction of a "lump of cells" or an "unviable tissue mass"? Are they correct when asserting that such a womans feelings are the problem, not what caused them?
Another woman quoted by Burke would answer with a plaintive no. Her name is Katrina, and, like so many, she was told that what grew within her wasnt a baby, just a tissue mass. Heres what she said about her painful clash with reality after aborting her 16-week-old child:
I went over to the sink to see what they [the doctors] were looking at. There were all the reassembled parts of my baby; arms, legs, torso and what must have been the head. They were tiny and perfect. In that instant I felt an incredible horror. This was my baby! Torn apart, in bloody pieces. My doctor, the abortionist, the staff all liars! I hated them. I left the office in a state of numb repulsion. I began to despise myself even more than them.
Despite such powerful testimonials, many on the pro-abortion side will still aver that we dont really know when the unborn become human. So lets examine the matter.
In what month would you say this transition occurs? If youre not sure, Ill make it easy: Pick any month you choose. I will then ask, what week of that month? What day of that week? What hour of that day? What minute of that hour? What second of that minute? Then, what nanosecond of that second?
This illuminates the matter. The attainment of personhood cannot be a month but a moment, yet it doesnt make sense to say that one moment what exists is not human but the next it is so.
That is, unless that moment is conception. For, prior to then, "it" doesnt exist.
Conception is obviously a seminal point, for it isnt development, but that which initiates it. Its much as with fire. Would we say that a fire is only a fire when its of use to us, such as when we need heat? No, once you have the necessary ingredients combustible materials, oxygen, a spark and ignition a fire is born. It may develop, grow and spread, but a fire is a fire no matter how small. And it will then continue until it runs its course and exhausts itself or until it is snuffed out.
Its this reality that haunts these hapless women; it is their tell-tale heart. They learn in a most merciless way what so many deny, and denial it is. Thus, we hide the Truth with euphemisms, those verbal Trojan Horses we trot out when we dont want others or ourselves to know what were actually doing.
In this case, killing.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman said in his book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society:
The burden of killing is so great that most men try not to admit that they have killed . . . Even the language of men at war is full of denial of the enormity of what they have done. Most soldiers do not kill, instead the enemy was knocked over, wasted, greased, taken out, and mopped up . . . .
I also think of, "collateral damage," "neutralizing the enemy," "terminating a pregnancy," "dilation and extraction," "a matter of choice," "unviable tissue mass" . . . .
As for abortion-speak, it serves a cause whose need to whitewash the killing is even greater. While a war can be just, abortion involves not a self-defense rationale but a self-indulgence one. Its hard to justify the killing of innocent people, no matter how small, so we make them even smaller, reducing them to something less than people. They are "lumps of cells."
Speaking of language and dehumanization, philosophy professor Mike Pakaluk draws an interesting parallel. He begins by asking if the following is a good representation of the "pro-choice" position:
If each person will only agree to mind his own business, and leave his neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us... I am now speaking of rights under the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights... It is for women to decide ... the moral and religious right of the abortion question for themselves within their own limits.... I repeat that the principle is the right of each woman to decide this abortion question for herself, to have an abortion or not, as she chooses, and it does not become a pro-lifer, or anybody else, to tell her she has no conscience, that she is living in a state of iniquity... We have enough objects of charity at home, and it is our duty to take care of our own poor, and our own suffering, before we go abroad to intermeddle with other peoples business.
Interestingly, these words arent Pakaluks. Rather, he took one of Stephen Douglas defenses of slavery, and substituted "abortion for slavery; woman for state; and a pro-lifer for Mr. Lincoln."
He then asks the pro-abortion side:
"Doesnt the similarity between your defense of abortion, and Douglas defense of slavery, bother you in any way? Does it raise in your mind any suspicions at all that you might just be on the wrong side?"
Tis a point to ponder.
from: Real Inconvenient Truths.... About Abortion | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom
.
.[/SIZE]