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.”