A woman reported in the New York Times Magazine how, when she became pregnant with triplets, decided to have two of the kids whacked. Sorry, "selectively reduced". Sounds a lot like "downsized", don't it? Interesting how jargon is used to obscure the hideous truth. At any rate, she explained the agonizing decision making process she went through to come to such a difficult conclusion: she didn't want to move to Staten Island from Manhattan, and she didn't want to shop at Costco. That is sound judgment.
"Mommy, what happened to my brothers?"
"Well, sweetie, Mommy didn't want to give up this stellar duplex for a home on Staten Island."
Pro-abortion (let's face it, what choice are they really talking about?) groups decry this woman's decision, and have attempted to distance themselves from it, because this doesn't depict what their group is all about. Of course it does. She should be their poster girl. She felt inconvenienced by the functioning of her own body, so she made a choice that fit in with her own personal lifestyle choices.
At a pro-abortion march, I took a photograph of a woman with a poster reading "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament". Who are we kidding? It already is to the pro-abortion crowd. For a feminist, the proof of rebellion used to be burning bras. Now, a real feminist is expected to rip her child from her uterus as a human sacrifice to Gaia. It is as if we are really returning to the days of Celtic paganism, right down to the child sacrifices meant to appease the dark and bloody fertility gods of their cult.
What better way to prove one's rejection of the "patriarchal culture" than to reject the whole notion of femininity, wrapped up as it is in concepts of motherhood, grace, beauty and gentleness? Abortion is an unmotherly, evil, ugly, and violent act. It is the feminist philosophy crystallized.
The boyfriend in the New York Times Magazine story (remember how silly people were to assume the father was a husband?) was upset, seeing three heartbeats, and was escorted out. When the doctor set about killing (selectively reducing) two of the three offending children, he used the sonogram to locate them. It is eerily reminiscent of a scene in the movie Patriot Games, when black ops guys are sent to wipe out a terrorist camp, and the whole thing is seen, real time from an overhead satellite. It is in silence, it is in infra red. As one terrorist is shot dead, one of the CIA guys watching says "that's a kill." I can only imagine the doctor applying the saline injection (used to stop the heart of the baby), and watching the death throes in silence on the sonogram screen, saying "that's a kill."
Stop and think about a few things before screaming about "unwanted babies" and "women's health".
First: the New York City Catholic Charities shut down its adoption waiting list, because the earliest a couple could expect a child was 10 years. Other cities around the nation face the same crisis. People are buying babies overseas. Every child is wanted by someone.
Second: less than 1% of all abortions performed are to save the life of the mother. Keeping it legal for that reason would then necessitate the legalization of murder, because more than 1% of all homicides in the US are justifiable.
43 million. More than 7 times the number of Jews that died in 6 years have died in the 31 years since Roe v. Wade. And how does that mother explain to her surviving son why he is alone? Why did she choose him? More aptly, how did she choose him? "One potato, two potato"? "Eeny meeny?" This kid is alive because of chance, not out of any love mother felt for him. He just dodged the bullet. At least he made it.