Skip to comments.Women 'Must Be Prepared to Kill' Unborn Children to Protect Autonomy: Times Writer
Posted on 07/06/2010 3:55:35 PM PDT by wagglebee
LONDON, U.K., July 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After contemplating the immense mysteries of human life and sacrificial love in comparison to a woman's "right to fertility control," a writer for the Times of London concludes that attempts by pro-aborts to dismiss the life of an unborn child are a "convenient lie" hiding the fact that, "Yes, abortion is killing.
But, she concludes, it's the lesser evil."
Columnist Antonia Senior in a June 30 column (available by subscription only) says that, despite the fact that the abortion debate hinges upon whether the unborn child is a unique life or not, women who wish to assert the cause of their freedom from male domination "must be prepared to kill for it."
Senior begins by linking the cause of abortion to that of religious martyrs.
Cradle Tower at the Tower of London is an interactive display that asks visitors to vote on whether they would die for a cause, she says. "Standing where religious martyrs were held and tortured in Britains turbulent reformation, I could think of one cause I would stake my life on: a womans right to be educated, to have a life beyond the home and to be allowed by law and custom to order her own life as she chooses.
"And that includes complete control over her own fertility."
However, she admits that her "absolutist position has been under siege" since she gave birth to her own child.
She notes how "having a baby paints the world an entirely different hue" by revealing the underlying selfishness in what at first appears to be courageous self-affirmation.
Senior gives the example of Leo Tolstoys adulterous heroine Anna Karenina in the book by the same title, writing: If you read the book as a teenager, you back her choices with all the passion of youth. Love over convention, go Anna! Then you have children and realise that Anna abandons her son to shack up with a pretty soldier, and then her daughter when she jumps under a train. She becomes a selfish witch.
Senior then launches into discussing abortion, which she says "hinges on the notion of life," no matter what other arguments or tactics are employed. "Either a foetus is a life from conception, or it is not, she notes.
Senior then admits that: "What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person forged in my womb, not by my mothering.
"Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life.
"That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life. In a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus and thus killable."
This fact, she says, leaves feminism with a "problem," to which she attributes the "groundswell" of young pro-life feminists.
But, she insists, "you cannot separate womens rights from their right to fertility control."
"The single biggest factor in womens liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology."
She concludes therefore that, "As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil in this case in choosing "the expectation of a life unburdened by misogyny," which she suggests can only be achieved through abortion.
Hence, she says, "The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."
This is the most incredibly twisted stuff I've ever read.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
It’s from the pits of hell.
Pretty sick logic, it leads directly to the ovens.
Killing for the right to kill? That certainly takes no moral courage, rather, total depravity.
Another example of twisted, perverted thinking that originates in the bowels of the devil himself.
I have never understood the logic of this argument. If what they say is true, why should the rules change at birth. They should continue to apply until at least the beginning of first grade. If before that first day of school, a woman’s need for autonomy or self esteem, etc., etc. becomes threatened, then the little tyke should be done in, terminated, wished into the cornfield, ground up into fertilizer. What’s the difference?
She gets close to a pro-Life realisation of what an unborn baby is, and then tortures herself into a killing rationalisation.
There is hope for this woman, just as there was for the leader of Planned Parenthood. Keep praying for her, FReepers!
This person is a raving lunatic — and very possibly a danger to her own child.
Just my opinion of course.
I never understood it either. Being a mother has always been part of my identity, even before I’d met their father.
As a matter of fact, the love and sense of responsibility I’ve always felt toward my unconceived children helped guide all of the major decisions I made as a teen and a young woman... whether or not to try drugs, who to choose as my lifemate, how far to continue my education, etc. I felt that I had to make the better choice for *their* well-being and that short-term satisfaction and instant gratification wasn’t fair to them.
I think that it was good for a young person to not be so self-absorbed.
Satan comes out from hiding...
All demagogues sneak an unsupported conclusion at the end: having plowed through the rest of the text, the reader gets a feeling that this is merely a conclusion of a well-exposited argument. This a trick of many scoundrels (Pat Buchanan is particularly fond of it).
The supposed implication "If you are willing to die... you must be prepared to kill" has the same structure as "if you are sleepy, you must also eat;" or, "if you are willing to go to college, you must be willing to take guitar lessons, too."
Is any explication necessary to show that this is nonsense? The shear stupidity of the author is breathtaking.
She is basing her whole argument on the commonplace liberal idea that the end justifies the means.
And in this case, the “means” is killing of unborn children.
Even Uncle Joe only killed "as long as it was necessary."
She's right, though, you know. She's just killing the wrong people. The babies have nothing to do with it; she should be honest and go after the men.
Trouble with that is, we would fight back.
God, these people are shameless.
Proof that the pro-death cultists are primarily motivated by envy of God. “Autonomy”, “Freedom”, “In control”, etc are the key words.
“I own myself so I can do whatever I want; I serve no one, I am God to myself” etc.
Of course, this also includes being “God” over others so it’s okay to kill them, too. Playing God always leads to kiling other people.
I can't help but think that her position is so nonsensical that she will have to change it before long. If she has finally figured out that abortion is killing, she may well be on the path toward being pro-life.
What a wonderful world these people are creating. Everyone must sacrifice life and happiness so that YOU can be in control and do what YOU want.
No wonder they hate the gospel of Jesus so much. He was all about laying everything down for others.
Perhaps that’s the center of the reason for all the hatred.
I must post here this wonderful excerpt from “The ScrewTape Letters” by CS Lewis. Remember this is a fantasy letter between two demons trying to destroy a Christian.
“We produce this sense of ownership not only by pride but by confusion. We teach them not to notice the different senses of the possessive pronounthe finely graded differences that run from “my boots” through “my dog”, “my servant”, “my wife”, “my father”, “my master” and “my country”, to “my God”. “
“They can be taught to reduce all these senses to that of “my boots”, the “my” of ownership. Even in the nursery a child can be taught to mean by “my Teddy-bear” not the old imagined recipient of affection to whom it stands in a special relation (for that is what the Enemy will teach them to mean if we are not careful) but “the bear I can pull to pieces if I like”. And at the other end of the scale, we have taught men to say “My God” in a sense not really very different from “My boots”, meaning “The God on whom I have a claim for my distinguished services and whom I exploit from the pulpitthe God I have done a corner in”.
“And all the time the joke is that the word “Mine” in its fully possessive sense CANNOT be uttered by a human being about ANYTHING. In he long run either Our Father or the Enemy will say “Mine” of each thing that exists, and specially of each man. They will find out in the end, never fear, to whom their time, their souls, and their bodies REALLY belongcertainly not to them, whatever happens. At present the Enemy (God) says “Mine” of everything on the pedantic, legalistic ground that He made it: Our Father (below) hopes in the end to say “Mine” of all things on the more realistic and dynamic ground of conquest,
Your affectionate uncle,
Antonia Senior sees a “necessity” of killing innocent babies, but no mention of Sharia Law. She’s as gutless as she is heartless.
By the way, the key word is really murder, rather than kill. She’s a sick woman.
Stuff like this makes me wonder if the coming Muslim domination of the UK is punishment for abandoning Christian morals. The Druids used to sacrifice their youths to appease their gods as the Romans took over the British isles. Didn’t work for the Druids then and it won’t work now.
>> This is the most incredibly twisted stuff I’ve ever read.
Different shade of the same shallow minded inferiority we see in other pro-killers.
>> Antonia Senior says, “If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.”
This is an example of “honor killing” — in honor of self.
You’re too kind. I went to read some of your prior postings, and I see that your views, politically and Catholicly, are interchangeable with my own. You genius!
They are beginning to lose their fear of ridicule. They are confident now that they can come right out and say it, and it won’t make a difference.
People used to sacrifice their children to Molech. Now they sacrifice them to convenience.
In the “olden” days, girls were expected to want to grow up to be wives and mothers. The stories and role models gave girls good examples of wives and mothers - books like “Little Women”, for example. Even though “Jo” was a bit of a radical for those days, she found her fulfillment not as a single woman writer, but as a wife and mother.
Now feminism has turned women (or is doing a darn good job with many of them) into sluts and killers. Oh, and sexual perverts.
"ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live..." [1928 BCP]
I need to read Screwtape again. Your quote made my hair stand on end.
I read it every few years. I wish I had more books by Lewis. He is one of my favorite writers.
You’re correct. It just astounds me how this kind of evil keeps raising its head.
This line makes no sense if you know that foetus is latin for infant/young offspring?
One of the most eye-opening books I've ever read!
Wow. You sound like my wife. (Except she wasn't so perfect: she chose me.) But she taught me about being pro-life and when the truly difficult decision came many years later, one that I pray no parent ever experiences after... well, that life that could have hung in the balance is now almost 21 and well on her way to being a degreed engineer.
Can't win them all. *\;-)
(I love that kid!)
What a wonderful passage! Is it still in the Book of Common Prayer?
Feminists who consider the unborn non-human have stopped their rational analysis at a point where they can “morally” defend abortion in terms of female liberation. Those who know that the unborn are unique human lives yet insist upon the right to choose abortion have merely stopped the thinking process a little further along the road to Hell.
I wonder what pro-aborts are going to crawl out of the woodwork and defend this?
I have a copy of John Cleese reading it on CD. He does one heck of a job. I play it on a regular basis - every time there is some nugget of truth God brings to mind for me to apply.
Moloch must be so proud.......
It's from the 1928 BCP (and I presume also in the American Missal), which is still in use in many American Anglican churches including mine. (Don't know about the '79.)
Committed to memory a long time ago for its poetry AND directness. "That he may turn from his wickedness and live" is not an infrequent prayer here.
"Wombs" aren't resentful: self-pitying, self-serving hearts and minds are resentful.
To a "resentful" Nazi, a Jew isn't a person but a wad of disposable tissue. To a "resentful" lecher, a pretty woman isn't a person but a piece of meat. And in the heart and mind of a self-pitying, self-serving, resentful female, a baby isn't a person, and neither is anybody else.
Isn’t it absolutely amazing that the issue of BIRTHCONTROL never comes up for these people?
It’s like women go to sleep, and suddenly bang! wake up pregnant!!!!!
The time for a woman to choose is BEFORE she pulls down her panties!
Satan has toiled tirelessly in this field
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.