Abortion: The Fount of Many Evils
Two recent articles have appeared which both speak to the social tragedy of abortion. Yet the really odd thing is neither article in fact talks about abortion. Instead, one talks about adoption, and the other talks about neonaticide. In each article the writer was either unaware of or unwilling to see the very clear abortion connection.
The first article appeared a few days ago with this headline: “Adoption numbers plummet”. The article begins this way: “Adoptions in Australia have fallen to their lowest level since official records began in the early 1970s. There were just 412 adoptions in 2009-10, down from 441 in the previous financial year, figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show. The number is a drastic fall since the early 1970s, when more than 8000 children adopted annually.”
Now it is incumbent upon intelligent people – and certainly responsible journalists – to be able to do a bit of lateral thinking, and to be able to connect the dots. I would think that the obvious is staring us in the face here. So the fact that the logical connection is not being made tells us about the strangling power of Political Correctness.
And what is that obvious link? I would have thought it pretty evident that if we are bumping off 100,000 unborn babies every year in Australia, this would put a bit of a damper on our ability to adopt. If the pool of available children is shrinking greatly, then yes, there will be fewer adoptions.
With so few children available in Australia, the few adoptions that do take place are largely from overseas sources. Most of these come from Asia. That the journalist who did this story could not or would not make the connection is quite telling.
So too in the next sad story. It is about the killing of newborn babies. It begins this way: “The day you are born is the day you are most likely to be the victim of homicide. This cheerless statistic holds true whether you live in Stockholm or South Yarra. The perpetrator will almost certainly be your mother.
“She will most likely be under 25, unmarried, still living at home or in poor circumstances, either still at school or unemployed, emotionally immature and astonishingly secretive. She has carried you to term without telling a soul of your existence. And somehow the parents with whom she resides never suspect she is with child.
“Now that you are born, it’s not depression or psychosis that moves her to murder you. Mental illness rarely plays a part in this sort of killing. Nor is she overwhelmed by the feeling that life is simply too harsh for such a defenceless little creature for whom she cares a great deal.
“There is rarely great violence in the manner that she kills you, her newborn child. She may simply abandon you to the elements. The only intense feeling she has is the desire to see you gone. She may even deny that you exist at all. This is the profile of neonaticide, the murder of a newborn in its first 24 hours of life, and a form of infanticide peculiar to industrialised countries.”
This article, which appeared in today’s Sunday Age, is a lengthy one. Yet never once is the word abortion used. Yet once again, surely there is a connection. The mother who is willing to kill her own child right up to the time of delivery is surely more likely to kill her child just after the time of delivery.
Once again, the stranglehold of PC is preventing this journalist from making an obvious association. But journalists make connections and associations all the time, even if often unwarranted. If an abortion mill worker is shot dead, immediately the mainstream media will make all sorts of assumptions and connections.
‘It must have been a religious person and a pro-lifer’ they will insist, even without waiting for all the evidence to come in. Never mind that it might just be some deranged loner who has no connections with the pro-life movement or biblical Christianity.
Yet here these same journalists refuse to even consider a possible connection. But in this case I am not so reticent. I certainly can connect some dots here. And contrary to what the pro-abortion lobby claims, there surely is a connection between the abortion-on-demand mentality, and child abuse.
But the other side seeks to completely turn this around. It is often stated by the pro-death lobby that we must have abortion, because an unwanted baby might be abused. ‘A wanted baby is a loved baby’ we are told by the pro-abortion crowd. However, a simple look at the facts dispels this myth.
In the same period that abortion has increased, so too has child abuse. Indeed, one can argue that the abortion culture leads to the child abuse culture. As Maggie Gallagher has expressed it, “The ethic of the child-batterer is the abortion ethic. Child abusers, like abortion activists, believe in adults’ right to be in control of their lives. Child abusers, like abortionists, believe that only children who gratify parental desires have a right to exist. It is hard to believe that the cultural message contained in abortion, the insistent eulogies to control, and the references to parenting as a right and a pleasure have not contributed to the explosion in child abuse and neglect.”
Research reveals that a “planned” child is as much at risk of abuse as an “unplanned” child. “There is no assurance that the child that was planned for will continue to be well treated by its parent or parents. Indeed, over 90 per cent of the children in the United States who are abused by their parents were originally wanted babies. At all events and notwithstanding the annual one and a half million abortions, there is no indication that family life in America is becoming happier. On the contrary, since abortion on demand was made legal in 1973, the number of abused children is estimated to have risen by over 300 per cent.”
The most obvious response to this myth however is the simple fact that killing an unborn child is the ultimate form of child abuse. Those willing to kill unborn babies would be more inclined to kill or abuse babies once born. And all of this is not helped by academics like Peter Singer who actually seek to defend infanticide.
This is another good reason why the alternative media exists – and this site. If the mainstream media was doing its job, and asking the hard questions here that it likes to ask elsewhere, there would be no need for me or others to have to point out the obvious.
But as George Orwell once stated, “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
25 Replies to “Abortion: The Fount of Many Evils”
Cherish Life is a wonderful organization which does so much work for the unborn! Give generously please…
And here is an article about the other side – Planned Parenthood – and how they are reporting on abortion numbers up, adoption numbers down: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-reports-abortions-up-adoptions-down-business-is-good?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7040535932-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines12_17_2010&utm_medium=email
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
There was an article in Saturday’s Sydney Daily Telegraph by Lisa Davies about Keli Lane who has been convicted of killing her newborn baby, Tegan. In this article, national director of Abortion Grief Australia Julie Cook said “perhaps Lane’s path was set while she was still a teenager.” Lane had two abortions in her teens. The rest of Julie Cook’s comments confirms what you, and many others, have always said about women who have an abortion.
See the full article at:
Broken lives and unspoken grief.
Paul de la Garde, Sydney
Thanks for that Paul.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
The pro-choice crowd scream at us that we have to adopt half-a-dozen kids before we can suggest women should put up babies for adoption.
I spoke to an adoption agency and was basically told to leave the babies for people who can’t make their own. Once adopting used to be a selfless thing now if you have your own kids adopting is selfish.
I’ve also heard that people aren’t adopting any more so we shouldn’t give our babies up for adoption. They will just stay in state care. What a way to twist a statistic. Adoption numbers have fallen because of a lack of babies, not a lack of potential parents.
As for infanticide, I believe it is the consistent belief of those who kill unborn babies. I pray it never becomes legal, I pray abortion will become illegal again, but if pro-aborts are honest infanticide is no more wrong than abortion. (It’s just a good thing most of them haven’t worked that out).
Bill, did you happen to read the “pro-choice” article in the Xmas edition of The Big Issue?
Scary reading indeed.
I know you to be a Godly man who is very careful with his choice of words. I think I know your heart on this, and I hope it’s just a case of you being a little casual with your language.
We must remember that adoption is for the child.
We do not “source” children for adoption, nor should we be endeavouring to increase our “ability to adopt” for our own satisfaction, or mourn a shrinking of the “available pool” of children to add to our families. Orphans are not a commodity. They are our Biblically mandated responsibility, not for our sakes, but for theirs.
Part of the fall in adoptions can be attributed to the great cultural shift you have written about so many times. Since most children released for adoption in Australia are not orphaned, or even abandoned, many who would have in past years been released for adoption, are now being raised by at least one of their biological parents.
The tragedy is that many more of the children conceived in challenging circumstances these days are either being aborted, or being raised by parent/s not prepared to give them the unconditional commitment it takes to raise a child.
It is wonderful that Aussie families look overseas to rescue orphaned children, and I hope that this would continue even if there was a dramatic change in the Australian adoption situation. It is also wonderful when a couple longing for children is blessed with an Aussie child to adopt, however that is not the reason we should encourage adoption over abortion.
Adoption is a brave and selfless choice of releasing parents for the sake of their child, but also comes at great cost. It is a far more ethical, fair, humane and beneficial choice than abortion for all concerned, and it is a tragedy that most parents headed to the abortion provider have not given adoption even a cursory thought, but perhaps an equal or greater tragedy that many of those parents would have been quite capable of raising their own child.
We should celebrate if the plummeting number of adoptions was due to more parents finding the gumption and support needed to raise their own biological children. The ultimate victory would be if every child was conceived by parents committed to welcoming the fruit of their sexual union, even if that meant that there were no children available to adopt.
Wow – Peter Singer is a prize loon! If the fetus, according to Singer, does not have rational thought and awareness, then it cant be human – problem solved to Singer – abortion on demand is legal, because the right of the woman takes precedent over the NON-PERSON. And this is some of the finest thinking of our academics? He also advocates sex with animals, as long as the horse, sheep, goats, dogs or dolphins don’t get hurt!?! God help this man! I agree with you to Bill, that we need a genuine alternative to the MSM. We often are told that all things PC are agreed on in this world e.g. evolution is true, abortion on demand is right and acceptted by the majority e.t.c. I have angered evolutionary atheists on Bolt’s blog, by stating that they as secular evolutionists are in the minority in the world; think about it, lets say 700 million people in the world believe in evolution (the West), the other 90% dont and I know that they are Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu’s and Christians and that some believe in strange myths, but the point is, especially in the secular West, when you think you are in the minority, often times you are not when you compare yourself to the world – it is comforting at times. The same I would suggest, that the majority of the world is not for abortions on demand – although sadly China has done it on a grand scale.
Neil Innes, NT
”there are an unconfirmed number of very small babies that are killed and disposed of without any detection, and the rationale for doing that is the child isn’t wanted”.
It seems strange that it is horrible to kill a neonate for this reason but a perfectly acceptable reason to kill and unborn baby.
Victoria is leading the push for baby sage haven laws and is also leading the world in extreme abortion laws. Does anyone else find this hypocritical?
An allied case of unwillingness or inability to “join the dots” of pernicious life policies is [former Victorian premier] Jeff Kennett’s “Beyond Blue” suicide prevention campaigns: These are led by the man whose personal belief is that life is not necessarily worth living, attested by his injurious public pro-euthanasia advocacy. But counter-productive “mixed messages” [and worse outcome!] are frequent fruits of the public executives we choose.
Excellent article and analysis, Bill. I completely agree on your points, especially on the argument that abortion prevents more children from being abused. I hope you and your family have a very, Merry Christmas.
Melissa Ohden, US
I see the connection with abortion (and the me-first narcissism that inspires abortion and child neglect) although the draconian anti-adoption bureaucrats in places like NSW must share some of the blame. Miranda Devine says:
“The barriers raised to young women who want to adopt out their unwanted babies explain why adoption in Australia has fallen to record lows. Last financial year there were just 412 adoptions and only a paltry 15 per cent were of children born in Australia. The insistence on open adoptions, even against the wishes of the mother, only compounds the suffering. How dare social workers try to bully young women at such a vulnerable time into foregoing their right to anonymity. How dare they force a mother to bond with her child before she gives it away. That is terrible cruelty.”
They will juggle a child back and forth to abusive parents and yet won’t allow good families the chance to adopt.
Michelle it would be wonderful if every child conceived was wanted by their parents. But it is a terrible lie that a baby is better off dead than put up for adoption, especially when so many are willing to adopt.
I do not want women to produce babies for others who want them but once a life begins that life should be cared for and not snuffed out. The least a woman can do in a situation where she has an unplanned pregnancy is look after the baby until birth when someone else can take over the care of the child.
Unfortunately, many women who would never consider a surgical abortion now use low-dose control pills that may cause them to abort new life. Many use them at the urging and preasure of their husbands.
Women who are using an oral contraceptive or some other means of abortifacient birth control are committing abortions on a frequent basis.
These abortions are silent and unseen, but they are no less abortions in the eyes of God then are the gruesome third trimester (partial birth) abortions.
Some researchers (using very conservative figures) have calculated that birth control pills directly cause between 1.53 and 4.15 million chemical abortions per year in the United States, up to two and a half times the total number of surgical abortions committed every year.
On that sad note I do wish you Bill and all the people here a Happy and Holy Christmas. And may the New Year bring God’s blessings on all of us.
Anne van Tilburg
“If the mainstream was doing its job, and asking the hard questions here that it likes to ask elsewhere, there would be no need for me or others to point out the obvious”
May I use this sentence to digress, and to indicate to readers that, not only is the MSM failing to ask the hard questions, but it is also guilty of censoring the comments of people who do. Recently, “The West Australian” newspaper afforded 3 or 4 leading proponents of SSM half page articles devoted to advancing their cause. An Association with which I am involved attempted to rebut their arguments – with a letter putting the opposite case – but to no avail. It was only by appealing to the editor-in-chief that we finally had our letter printed a few months later; but, as you’ve probably guessed, minus two crucial paragraphs.
These are the very people who have the audacity to defend the likes of Julian Assange by duplicitously stating that to charge him would be tantamount to the imposition of censorship.
Was it Orwell who wrote: “All people are created equal, but some are created more equal than others.”?
Congratulations on your continued work to expose the truth in the horrors of abortion.
Women who have abortions based on the advice of others are often not fully advised on the impact of abortion on their own health. They too can be the victims of their own decisions.
Effects can include grief and depression.
And today we have the additional effects of woman taking taking the pill and RU386. The number of tiny human lives lost as a consequence will never be a statistic in this debate but the estimate that it is substantial would not be unreasonable.
We complain to the lack of labour for our economic activities but we are the cause of those problems. If we saved the lives of those we loose through abortion we would have a significant base from which to select our workers of the future.
There is a reasoned relationship between morality and economic consequences of society being unwilling to live up to Christian morality.
I remember so many movies of yesteryear about ships or boats sinking and lives had to be saved as with the movie The Titanic. The cry was “women and children first”. I did read that the policy with the Titanic, in real life was in fact that. However in the abortion clinics it is a case of women and especially children LAST. Peter Singer was mentioned in letters above. Singer, one of the first to breathlessly rush to financially support the wikileaks non-hero Julian Assange, is best known for his belief in infanticide. Another non-hero Barack Obama believes (and has voted along these lines) that children, who somehow survive an abortion, should be left to die. I often wonder how their brains function.
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Talking to women, on a telephone counselling line, who are deciding whether to have an abortion, it is very common to hear them say, “It would be better to abort this baby than to bring it into this situation”, meaning a broken relationship, arguing and fighting, single parent household, etc.
Young women who take the life of their newly born child are extending this philosophy from early pregnancy to later in the child’s life. They seem to think they are doing the baby a favour.
I guess it is a very sad form of rationalism…one of the “isms” which plague our society today.
How can we replace rationalism with reality?
Good article Bill.
The quote from Maggie Gallagher is chilling, but so frighteningly on the money, that it probably needs to be repeated more often.
“Child abusers, like abortionists, believe that only children who gratify parental desires have a right to exist.”
I’m not entirely confident that you understand the point of my post.
What we want is less abortions. We will not get there by complaining that there are not enough children to adopt. Adoption in a wealthy country, along with abortion, is a sign that something is very wrong with our view of sexual responsibility and the children we create.
I understand Bill’s point that it is terrible that many children who could have been relased for adoption are being aborted. It is terrible because those children are dead, and their parents are wounded, when there were other options available to them. It is a terrible tragedy because most abortions are performed on children who should have never been conceived in the first place, or could have perhaps been raised by their own parents.
We should not mourn that there are not as many Aussie children available for families to adopt because families are missing out. Adoption is for children, not for adoptive parents. It is a special blessing when parents receive a child, but is is not without great cost. If the receiving parents are adopting to please themselves rather than to bless a child, they should reexamine their hearts.
I’m not sure what I have said in response to your post that you are trying to rebut. I agree with you, adoption is second best but it is far better than abortion. The way most pro-choice people talk there are only two choices; raise the child or kill the child, there is a third choice and it is a far better choice than abortion.
I wish there was no abortion under any circumstances but any move that results in less abortions is a step forward.
My article was not really a plea for more adoption. It was simply to suggest that the shortage of babies for adoption is due in part to our high abortion rates. The ideal is always for children to be reared and raised by their own mother and father. When this is not possible (eg., due to the death of the parents) then adoption exists to help the child find the closest thing to that ideal.
So hopefully we are all on the same page here.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Well there is fortunately some light at the end of the tunnel.
A group who is going to be promoting adoption! I’m not sure what scale this project is, but I’ve heard quite large…
The link provides proof of Christianity’s definite Pro-Life heritage. As shown in these excellent teachings from this excellent ministry the killing of babies has been around in the Western world a long time – Infanticide was legal in ancient Greece and Rome and routinely practiced throughout Asia Minor.
Paul’s New Testament writings about adoption make so much sense when understanding the culture in which he lived and the abominable practices of the pagans at that time. When you compare this to what is happening today you realize with a chill that not much has changed.
Linda Halliday, former Canberran now living in Minnesota, USA
NEW Victorian Abortion Laws are sick!! they now can kill the baby up to birth !! The Australian Sovereignty Party will abolish this law so help us God!!!
ASP is against these particular abortion laws, and would support genuine cases where it is needed (such as rape). We prefer that people explore all avenues before resorting straight to abortion. There are many that are willing to adopt, to care for, and to raise children. Having said that,? we cannot outlaw it all together.