lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Feminism the Greatest Evil: The Repudiation of Life

2009-06-10
By

In the minds of many, evil is epitomized by Nazi Germany. An embittered Austrian corporal, a racist ideology, and an amoral eugenics movement all came together at the same point in human history, eventually spelling the deaths of six million Jews and others.

Others view Communism as the far greater evil, a godless philosophy that eventually doomed many more millions of souls in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and elsewhere.

Yet these staggering numbers pale in comparison to the toll of unborn children whose lives are claimed each year by abortion. Each year 42 million of these procedures are performed around the world. As the Alan Guttmacher Institute boasts on its website, “About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion.”

So while Communism consumed 100 million persons over the course of a century, abortion has snuffed out the lives of 420 million innocents in the last 10 years alone.

And as you read this essay, the United Nations is pushing to make abortion even more accessible. Under the cover of its Initiative on Maternal Mortality and Human Rights, abortion advocates are now claiming that if you want to reduce maternal mortality, you must offer every pregnant woman the right to abort.

That’s like saying if you want to stop car accidents, we’ll first need to get rid of cars.

Abortion represents more than a moral holocaust. Just last month a woman from Eskilstuna, Sweden who already had two girls learned that her infant in utero was female. She demanded – and received — a state-financed abortion on the grounds that this time she wanted to have a boy.

When similar decisions are made by millions of women, a nation’s sex balance begins to careen out of control. In China, only 832 girls are born for every 1,000 boys, according to UNICEF. A similar problem in China. This has the makings of a demographic disaster.

All this is driven by the relentless march of radical feminism, which views abortion as a central sacrament to its destructive ideology. A woman cannot consider herself a member of the National Organization for Women or any other feminist organization without proclaiming a belief in what is euphemistically called “a woman’s right to choose.” A general right to abortion does not suffice; a feminist must believe in an absolute, state-enforced right to abortion, regardless of the child’s gestational age, age of the mother, or the wishes of the father.

Just as slavery induced moral turpitude in the hearts of slave owners, abortion oppresses the soul of its advocates. If you believe in abortion, the full fabric of human life begins to lose its inherent worth. Children are eventually seen as disposable.

A disturbing example of this moral perversity is the growth of so-called “Safe Haven” laws. These laws were put into place after mothers began to leave their newborns in hospitals or stash them in dumpsters. But rather than punishing the nefarious deed, legislators began to pass laws that say it’s prefectly fine to abandon your infant, just as long as you do so at an approved location. And to relieve you of any lingering guilt, we’ll let you do it anonymously!

By legitimizing the heinous act, Safe Haven laws have only made the problem worse.

Following passage of the 2001 Safe Haven law in in Illinois, 54 mothers have illegally abandoned their babies in non-approved locations. Twenty-seven of those babies died.

In Nebraska, the original law didn’t impose any age limit. This past October a woman drove 12 hours from Detroit to dump off her 13-year-old son at an Omaha hospital. And a 14-year-old Iowa girl was abandoned by her grandparents reportedly to “teach her a lesson.”

And just last month a bill was introduced in the Texas legislature that would lessen the criminal penalty if a mother killed her newborn due to postpartum hormonal shifts. If passed, the measure would re-classify such deeds from a capital murder to a jail felony. Rep. Jessica Farr, sponsor of the proposal, boasted, “I think that we got this far is pretty significant.”

Abortion on demand. Then Safe Haven laws. And now a proposal that trivializes infanticide. It adds up to the victimization of children and a reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life.

What comes next? Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal?

364 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • Billy

    Mike L………..ARE YOU WILLFULLY STUPID??? You are not much of a Canadian if can’t realize that the EXACT same is going on here and has been just as long as in the U.S. and/or Britain, France, Germany, Australia….Get your head outa yr Azz Man.
    Check out the No Nonsense Man…GOOGLE IT.
    Carey, your ever-resourceful and wise writing is helping to EDUCATE the Western MALE!…and the occasional female.
    GOD BLESS!

  • Joe

    How about “a man’s right to sex?” Its at least as important to men as “the right to choose” is to a woman. Additionally, the State should pay for it and/or provide it at federally funded sex clinics nation-wide. One key difference: abortion kills while sexually satisfied men are less likely to commit a whole host of crimes, especially if a clean record was mandatory for his monthly encounter.

  • amfortas

    Since Roe vs Wade, 50 million American babies have died for 'Women's Rights'. That is more than all the dead soldiers of all the myriad wars across the world in the same time period.

    Of course, the soldiers who did all that killing had other soldiers shooting at them. The babies weren't shooting at their mothers. They were innocents. Collateral damage in Feminisms War on Life.

  • Kevin Merck

    Knowing the difference between right and wrong is what makes us human.

    It’s what makes it possible for us to co-exist.

    The intent of Roe v. Wade was to allow an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

    It didn’t work.

    The issue of abortion is much bigger than a “woman’s right to choose”.

    I believe our survival depends on knowing the difference between right and wrong.

    Abortion is wrong.

  • Disgusted

    California Senator Barbara Boxer, in her support for late-term abortions, basically said that the mother/abortionist could kill a baby born during the abortion procedure. Q: “You agree, once a child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home…” With this sort of female leadership at our national level, is it any wonder young women throw newborns in trashbins or left on doorsteps? Women: the compassionate, nurturing, inclusive gender!

  • http://cornkids.blogspot.com Marley Greiner

    To Gary- I'm thinking one or two state laws may say only a mother, but that's not the norm.

    In some states the "drop off" is limited to "parent or guardian" but since no questions can be asked there's no way to prove it. And how can it be proven anyway? Other states permit designated dumpers which means anybody can do it. Last year in Ohio we had a case where an aunt attempted to dump a baby at a Cleveland-area hospital after her niece gave birth at home during the Super Bowl. . She said that she believed her niece and her boyfriend were too young to have a baby so she took matters into her own hands. The baby was returned to the parents in a couple days.

    I've read some cases where it is obviously a grandparent who is doing the dumping. In one Florida case a man who appeared to be the grandfather drove his presumed crying.daughter to a fire station and left the baby.

    Of course, the laws open up a whole fraud scenario where not one parent can hide the baby from another, but outsiders can do so as well. Custodial issues are huge So far, it's been very difficult to file suit against state laws because the plaintiff has to proe standing. Some babies have been returned to parents or to kin, but since they got what they wanted they are going to look at the big picture and try to overturn the law that screwed them.

  • http://cornkids.blogspot.com Marley Greiner

    Part 2:

    Real substantiated facts are difficult to access since SH laws make everything a big secret. Everything from place and date of surrender" to adjudication is secret. Anecdotal evidence from news articles and the few "official reports" that are released suggest that many of the parents are ignorant of options for keeping their babies or legitimate surrender and adoption practice. In some states parents do not speak English and are probably illegals afraid to seek help. There is a growing body of evidence that the majority of "safe havened" babies actually born to identified mothers and some fathers in hospitals and in danger of nothing other than to be kept by their parents. (Michigan and Kentucky, especially have documented this.) Hospital staffs have encouraged parents to SH their babies because it's "easier" than making an ethical adoption plan. In New York State pregnant women who want a “confidential surrender” (all adoption surrenders are confidential, btw) can be put up in hotels or apartments until delivery, and can give birth “anonymously” in hospitals. Sometimes the SH organization will even pay for school tuition and help “clients” get a job. A privatively funded, male operated volunteer organization, not the state, runs this program.

    Those of us who have opposed “save haven laws” which includes literally every adoption reform organization in the US have been painted as baby killers and worse. The fathers of SH babies are referred to as “drive by dads” and “sperm donors.” ICWA, being about Indians, is never mentioned by baby dump pimps. The laws contradict other laws and child welfare best practice standards. When informed of these contradictions, the pimps and their legislative allies like to say, "well sort it out later" and "if it saves just one it's worth it." The laws are abused regularly. They allow one parent to hide a baby from their other (and don’t think men don’t use it), and they cover crimes such as sexual abuse and rape because after all “a baby is saved.” The laws exploit vulnerable parents.

    As for Nebraska, please go to my website, Children of the Corn http://cornkids.blogspot.com for a huge amount of information on what went down there. I hope to have some belated pieces up in a few days. And yes, lots of fathers used the Nebraska law. Of course, not one newborn was surrendered, but lots of pre-teens and teens were. A couple kids attempted to safe haven themselves! For the most part, the kids suffered from severe behavioral and mental health problems including schizophrenia. Help was difficult to access or denied or cost prohibitive and parents were, in some cases, advised by social workers to SH their kids. Widower Gary Staton dropped off 9 of his 10 kids and has since voluntarily terminated his parental rights.

    My own organization, Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization was the first organization in the country to oppose SH legislation. We continue to oppose. I am currently working on a book, Floating Baby Moses: the Politics of Safe Havens. Since 2000 I have collected thousands of new articles, legislative. material, journal publications on “safe havens.” You should take a look at Erik L. Smith’s legal essays on SH at http://www.eriksmith.org which includes dad's rights.

    Feminism has nothing to do with “safe haven laws… Place the blame on the real culprits: the National Council for Adoption, strong-armed adoptionists, anti-aborts, and the “family values” crowd.

  • http://cornkids.blogspot.com Marley Greiner

    My reply is too long and I have to cut it up.

    "Safe Haven" laws are greatly misunderstood. They have nothing to do with feminism. They are anti-woman and anti-family and have been propagated by a small band adoption industrialists and their army of of busy-body do-gooders under the guise of "baby saving."

    The modern "safe haven" movement was created by the late Dr .Bill Pierce, the founding president of the conservative adoption industry lobby, the WDC-based National Council for Adoption. The laws were Pierce's direct reaction to the adoptee rights movement after the right of adopted adults to access their own original birth certificates was restored in Oregon by ballot initiative and in Alabama through legislation. (New Hampshire and Maine have since restored that right and other states are moving slowly in that direction). They were also a reaction to the growing fathers right movement and ICWA (the Indian Child Welfare Act) which under certain circumstances allows tribes first rights on qualifying Indian children to be placed for adoption. The purpose of SH laws was to shore up lagging profitable newborn product in the adoption industry. That is, create a new stream of product line for potential adopters who want newborns with no strings attached. Strings like pesky birthparents and original identity. Pierce, in fact, called SH laws, "non-bureaucratic relinquishment" for those people who found the child surrender process too cumbersome: things, like informed consent and paper signing. The funny thing is that ethical adoption agencies want nothing to do with baby dumping.

    Though "liberals" played the Good German and went along for the ride, state-authorized baby dumping has been universally promoted by conservative "family values" and anti-abortion organizations as a solution to abortion. The Minn SH program, for example grew out of Catholic anti-abortion ministry.

    There is absolutely no evidence that one baby has been "saved." Women who abandon or kill their newborns, with few exceptions are socially isolated, shamed and fearful; suffer from substance abuse and/or untreated mental illness. The rate of abandonment and neonaticide remain steady while”safe haven surrenders” due to the dog and pony publicity show grows. No Blame, No Shame, No Name. Nobody will lever have to know you had this baby. That’s the propaganda line that’s sold to the ignorant and afraid.

    What we do see are uninformed parents (men included) who are sold a line of propaganda that anonymous state-sponsored baby dumping is "the only choice" for women and men in an unwanted pregnancy, as if public and private assistance (financial, counseling, etc) and legitimate adoption doesn’t exist. In several states, including Cal and Ill, “safe haven education” is a mandated part of the curriculum. That is, kids are taught how to keep a pregnancy secret from their parents and then “legally” dump the resulting babies. Apparently, secret abortion is bad; secret pregnancy and baby dumping is good.

  • gary

    I bet a dad can't drop an infant off at a "Safe Haven" – Probably for moms only cuz the baby belongs to the mother!!!!!

  • Mike L

    Sure glad i live in canada







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search