No Choice From the Pro-Choicers

Every unborn baby killed by abortion has no choice in the matter. That is why the pro-death camp is so out of touch with reality when they talk about being pro-choice. They deny choice to the most important person in the equation. But their denial of choice does not end there.

They also want to take away the choices of those who happen to disagree with them. They want to censor them and their views, and prevent them from even being allowed to speak out on this most important issue. We find a clear example of this wilful coercion in today’s Herald Sun.

Pro-death columnist Susie O’Brien has a rambling and rather silly article today entitled: “Mr Doyle, it’s finally time for action on that other protest”. She notes how the Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle ordered the Occupy Melbourne protesters out recently, and she wants him to do the same about pro-life protestors who quietly picket abortion mills.

She resorts to name-calling, mud-slinging, ad hominem attacks and other abuse, thinking all that is somehow a substitute for reasoned argument. Thus the small and orderly group of pro-lifers are called “extremists,” a “mob,” and “unhinged and unsafe,” who come “regularly to abuse and intimidate passers-by”. Any more mud you can invent Susie? Any more names you can drag up?

Is that the best you can do by way of a rational and sustained argument? But name-calling is always so much easier than actually presenting a coherent case. Evidently Ms O’Brien is just not up to the task of reasoned commentary, so she just lets fly with one ugly name after another.

But the utter inability of this writer to think clearly, to think logically, and to think morally shows up at numerous places. Get a load of this line for example: “It’s a protest that involves around-the-clock, 40-day-long vigils. It’s a protest that has innocent women seeking medical assistance as its targets. It’s a protest that is designed to intimidate, shame and attack Melbourne women. It could also lead to more deaths.”

Did you get that? These protests could lead to more deaths! That is as helpful as saying that opposing arsonists could lead to more fires, or opposing rapists could lead to more rapes. Earth calling Ms O’Brien: these protestors are there to do the very thing you worry about; they are there to prevent more deaths.

How many unborn babies are killed in these clinics every day? The pro-life demonstrators are just that: pro-life. They are there to save innocent life. But the abortionists are there to kill. They are there to take away innocent life, just as Ms O’Brien wants. She and all pro-abortionists want innocent life taken away.

Does she actually know the basic laws of logic, or even common sense? She is fully in favour of killing yet whines about the possibilities of more lives being lost. Incredible! But her mental and moral confusion is of course par for the course. We have an entire generation which seems incapable of basic reasoning or moralising.

We do not seem to be teaching people how to think anymore or to make elementary moral discernment. So we expect her to simply parrot the empty rhetoric and amoral clichés of the pro-death camp. Thinking outside of the PC box is simply too much for these folks it seems.

But wait, there’s more. “The Lord Mayor should act immediately and save the clients and staff of this Melbourne clinic from this harassment. Failing to act means women’s health and safety is compromised. Abortion is legal in this country, and those who choose this option should not be stigmatised and abused.”

Wow, there is so much illogic and foolishness in this one paragraph that a college class on logical fallacies could keep busy with this for an entire semester. So where do I begin? “Harassment”? What harassment? Who is harassing who?

These peaceful pro-lifers stand around praying for the most part. This is harassment? I will tell you what real harassment is. It is when a pro-death columnist insists that the heavy hand of the law should be used to break up such peaceful protests. That is harassment.

And “women’s health and safety is compromised”? There are two big problems with this doozie. First, given that half of all abortion victims are female, what about their health and safety? Theirs is obviously being compromised big time. Indeed, the only outcome of an abortion is a dead baby.

And we already know that women who do have abortions are already greatly compromised when it comes to issues of health and safety. The many emotional, psychological and physical problems women experience after having an abortion has been thoroughly documented time and time again.

But people like Ms O’Brien are simply in denial about this. They in fact want to censor that information as well. They do not even want women going into an abortion mill to be informed about the many risks associated with abortion. So just who is compromising women’s health and safety here?

And just try turning her last comment around slightly. Just because something is legal does not make it moral, or right. Slavery was of course at one time fully legal. So let’s apply Ms O’Brien’s great wisdom to that issue: “Slavery is legal in this country, and those who choose this option should not be stigmatised and abused.”

Thanks for those words or moral and mental wisdom Susie. It is so nice to know that we can own slaves (or kill babies) because it is legal, and those involved in this immoral trade (or genocide) should feel no stigma for doing so. Indeed, let’s take the last line of her amazing article and apply it in the same way as well:

“In the end, women and their families should be free to see their fertility doctors without being threatened and frightened.” OK, a century or so ago we would have had Ms O’Brien triumphantly telling us this, “In the end, men, women and their families should be free to see their slave traders without being threatened and frightened.”

Yep, quite right Susie. So glad you have taken away any pangs of conscience here. It’s a free country – people should be allowed to do whatever they want, including killing their own babies. Thanks for sorting us out on this. Now that we have the moral and intellectual go-ahead for all this, let’s just go and kill some more. After all, it is our choice.

And by the way, pick me up a few more slaves when you are out as well, will ya?

www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/mr-doyle-its-finally-time-for-action-on-that-other-protest/story-fn56aaiq-1226185131272

[1104words]

16 Replies to “No Choice From the Pro-Choicers”

  1. “In the end, women and their families should be free to see their fertility doctors without being threatened and frightened.”

    Wait a second, ‘fertility’ doctors? Shouldn’t that read ‘infertility’? Because abortion definitely does not boost fertility.

    Dominic Snowdon

  2. Hi Bill,

    I just posted the following comment on Susie O’Brien’s blog:

    I have prayed for the women and the lives of their babies at the East Melbourne Abortion Centre about 100 times now.

    Your description of those doing this work bears no resemblance to reality.

    Everything is done in an entirely peaceful manner. The only person who ever shouts is the security guard employed by the clinic. The only people who are hateful, judgemental and insulting are the pro-abortion passers by who use the same baseless insults that you employ in your article. We never answer back in kind. I have never seen any woman hindered from entering the premises, but this doesn’t stop the clinic staff regularly calling the police claiming that we do.

    The mothers are simply offered a pamphlet about the realities of abortion. Women are also offered any financial, babysitting or other help they may need to adopt their baby out .

    Many hundreds of women have gratefully accepted this offer of help over the years and are now so thankful that they saved their baby’s life.

    I encourage anyone who doubts what I say to come along any morning and say hello to us and see for themselves what the real situation is.

    Mansel Rogerson

  3. Excellent article Bill.
    Can you imagine the ‘outrage’ if we Christians organised ‘Occupy Abortion Clinics’? Forgive my abortionophobia.

    Curiously (or rather not) the evangelical left don’t seem that concerned with this form of death penalty.

    Doug Holland

  4. I blogged yesterday on what the relationship between capital punishment and abortion at http://hammeroffaith.blogspot.com. It is interesting to me that the former was banned in Australia at about the same time that abortion laws began to be relaxed (or strengthened, depending on your perspective).
    Steve Swartz

  5. I have only read Suzie O’Brien’s column a couple of times and quickly realised just how far to the left she really is. I haven’t bothered since – perhaps I am wrong, as I did not know that she had made these comments. I will now add her to my prayer list as she like the rest of us, needs to know fully the love and grace of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

    When I was expecting my youngest child, I was very ill, and the Doctors treating me, told me I should have an abortion – of course I refused as I could not kill an innocent child. I have never regretted my choice for life.

    Joan Davidson

  6. Fully agree with you, Bill. The problem with issues like this is that both parties are coming from different places. If the pro-choices can’t see past their assumption that abortion is only removing a foreign object from a woman’s body, not murder, then none of the following arguments and logic make sense.
    There’s a great saying about assumptions…
    Christie Ewens

  7. Great piece of writing Bill. Pity Susie can’t get a dose of your logic – it would take her to some good places. She’s in a bad place right now called denial, especially denial of the effects of her own abortion.Justifying this is all she can do to bolster her own disparagement.
    I, too have posted on her blog over this “stir the pot article”.
    Fray Gill

  8. Bill, in a word, ‘splendid’! Susie have you learnt, or do you have an unteachable spirit?
    Stan Fishley
    .

  9. I really enjoyed Doug’s comment. Might be something worth contemplating 🙂

    Some of Suzy’s arguments can be used against herself in her treatment of those with Christian worldviews. It’s not illegal to be Christian, so we should be allowed to practise our faith (which includes trying to end abortion) without her stigmatizing or abusing us!

    Mario Del Giudice

  10. I really liked your comparison with the arsonists. That one made me giggle. Common sense doesn’t seem too common at all, in the pro-death world. Awesome post Bill.

    Pro-choice = No-choice

    Katie Crossman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: