CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Without Killing My Son, I Would Not Have Succeeded as an Actress

Oct 18, 2020

When career comes ahead of kids – big time:

A veteran superstar of stage and screen has revealed that if she did not take the steps of killing her adolescent son, she never would have risen through the ranks and become one of the world’s great movie actors. She said it was important as a woman to be a trailblazer and reach the top of her profession.

She said the choice to bump off her young son was not all that hard to make because of all the good that came out of it: “I knew that the movies we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy. And I thought: you know what? That’s really important.”

That was her mission in the world, she said, and she feels it was a great choice to have made: “If I had not had that murder, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Academy Awards, no Oscars, and no Emmys.” And so many people around the world have praised her for making these courageous statements.

****

Um, everything you have just read in those three paragraphs is completely false – I just made it all up. However, if you simply change a few words around, you will have something that is 100 per cent true, and was just said and shared throughout the world’s media the other day.

I refer to 72-year-old singer for Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Nicks. A few days ago she gave a lengthy interview, and her decision to abort her unborn daughter in order to make her rock career possible is discussed. This is what is said in the article:

Women’s rights have been on Nicks’ mind since the death of her “hero”, the US supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, last month. “Abortion rights, that was really my generation’s fight. If President Trump wins this election and puts the judge he wants in, she will absolutely outlaw it and push women back into back-alley abortions.”

Nicks terminated a pregnancy in 1979, when Fleetwood Mac were at their height and she was dating the Eagles singer Don Henley. What did it mean to be able to make that choice? “If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac. There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly. And there were a lot of drugs, I was doing a lot of drugs … I would have had to walk away.” She pauses. “And I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy. And I thought: you know what? That’s really important. There’s not another band in the world that has two lead women singers, two lead women writers. That was my world’s mission.” www.theguardian.com/music/2020/oct/14/stevie-nicks-on-art-ageing-and-attraction-botox-makes-it-look-like-youre-in-a-satanic-cult

Well there you have it. Let’s rise to the top of the rock empire on the backs of dead babies. A terrific trade-off she seems to think. But of course by her logic – that a child can impede a successful career and the climb to the top – then the idea of a movie star killing an adolescent son who is weighing her down and making it to the top makes perfect sense.

In both cases being a champ in your profession is far more important than mere human beings. Children become just worthless and expendable commodities which can be brushed off at will if they are impeding your desire to make it big in your profession.

It is possible, even today, that some mothers may still believe that what they are doing is nothing more than getting rid of a clump of cells – not unlike clipping your fingernails. But it seems Nicks knew better than that. A terrific piece by Kyle Smith is worth quoting from here:

Some women have no interest in becoming mothers, but that isn’t the case with Stevie Nicks: She did want to be a mother, very badly. Witness the gently horrifying soft-rock classic “Sara,” the only rock song I can think of in which the singer muses about having actually killed another human being. Neither Bob Marley nor Eric Clapton really shot the sheriff, but Nicks did kill Sara, and that’s what infuses the song with a delirium of regret. It was over a decade after the song appeared on the 1979 Fleetwood Mac album Tusk that the world learned, via Don Henley, that Nicks had conceived a child with him, named the child “Sara,” then had an abortion. In 2014, Nicks finally confirmed that Henley’s story, which he told in 1991, was “accurate.”

“Sara” isn’t just about abortion; in Nicks’s emotions, the destruction of her child got mixed up with thoughts about her close friend Sara Recor, who had begun an affair with Nicks’s sometime lover Mick Fleetwood and would go on to marry him, in 1988 (the pair later divorced). In effect, Nicks lost a friend, a lover, and a baby, all around the same time, and so “Sara” is a triple layer of loss and regret that floats from one form of pain to another. In its original form, the song ran 16 minutes and worked in references to the heartbreak of the other three band members as well. As it is, given the acknowledged basis in abortion, “Sara” contains some of the most vivid double entendres in rock history: “Wait a minute baby, stay with me awhile” sounds like someone having second thoughts on her way to the abortionist. As for, “There’s a heartbeat, and it never really died,” how Nicks ever manages to sing that line without crying, I do not know.

Smith contrasts Nicks with another very successful yet very different woman:

Now Stevie Nicks is 72 and will go to her grave having never had a child, because she was too busy. Here is where anyone who has read the news lately must wonder if Nicks’s role model should have been someone other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. How about someone who lived her life like Amy Coney Barrett? Barrett is the model of a busy professional woman. She is a leader in her church and a devoted wife. She has taught Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Federal Courts, and other classes, rising to the rank of full professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. She researched, wrote, and published many lengthy academic papers. She served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She served as the faculty adviser to the Notre Dame Law Review, was a member of the American Bar Association’s self-study committee, and did much more volunteer work. She even served on the university’s parking committee. Then she went on to be a judge for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals….

There can be no doubt that the life of a rock star is a challenging one — sometimes you have to get up before noon, even — but Nicks, and every other woman who wants a baby but considers herself “too busy” with career stuff to entertain the idea, should look to Barrett as an example of how life expands to make room for more possibilities than you can imagine. Choosing another direction, Nicks — and millions of women whose stories are similar to hers — has instead had to grow old knowing that she has missed out on “a lot that would be here now.” www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/rbg-acb-and-stevie-nicks/

Women can have it all – but not necessarily at the same time. Life is about priorities. Those who think a terrific career with all the applause the world can offer justifies killing their own children tell us all we need to know about their priorities.

We should keep her in our prayers. She needs them.

[1299 words]

17 Responses to Without Killing My Son, I Would Not Have Succeeded as an Actress

  • Abortion is very deeply sad – tragic for baby, but also for mother, for many of whom a degree of lifelong depression invariably ensues, with much pain to numb.

    Amy Coney Barrett is outstanding, exceptional and clearly brilliant, and I respect and honour her.

    For the bulk of us more ordinary women, however, maintaining Amy Barrett’s cracking pace would mean something would likely inevitably ‘give’ – be it time with children/each child, time with family, personal relationships, personal health, time alone with God.

    After the feminist ‘revolution’, many women felt pressure to be ‘superwomen’. This has been a very real pressure indeed and many women buckled under the stress of fulfilling both career and family commitments . . well. For myself, my own mother was embarrassed and ashamed when I prioritized motherhood over career – and that even after I approached burnout while needing to continue to fulfil full-time work commitments whilst caring for our young family and household following my husband’s serious accident.

    And so whilst I also admire Amy Coney Barrett as being a special and gracious person in every way, I can start to sense pressure mounting on Christian women who have celebrated and found great fulfilment in being ‘Mum’, to put pressure on themselves in the workplace, inevitably resulting, for most, in other areas of their lives and their responsibilities to young family etc, needing therefore to take a back seat, together with the very real risk of burnout in trying to wear several hats well.

    It is wonderful to have Amy Coney Barrett as a wonderful role model. However God has not endowed many with such a prodigous brain, which Amy Barrett has faithfully used for good to rise (almost now) to the highest court in the land – in which position, because of her strong faith, she will certainly be a powerful presence for good.

    However, for us ‘mere mortals’ who are not brilliant as Judge Barrett is, raising our children ‘in the way they should go’ (Proverbs 22:6) is also a very important calling – and an immense privilege and joy.

    I believe we need to be careful, in light of the powerful role model of Judge Barrett, not to devalue the vital role of faithful mothers ‘in the trenches’ who have passed up career to give the best they can to the raising of the precious children the Lord has entrusted them with, and to be there for them. For since women have ‘left home’ to work full time, who is raising the kids?

  • What a brilliant piece, Bill!!!
    So apt…so heartfelt…so emotional!!

  • I read somewhere that she aborted partly because Don Henley agreed to the abortion so quickly and she assumed that he didn’t value the relationship. That’s a human life being condemned like it’s just a piece of rubbish.

    Other women reading her statement might think it’s a good idea to abort. Very sad.

  • A heartbreaking story about Stevie Nicks who will never know the joy of being a mother. What is all the so-called success in the world worth without the simple but amazing blessings that God created us for – to know Him and live in families based on love and community? That’s the deception that satan feeds this foolish and wicked generation.

  • More evidence of “rockstars” sacrificing their children to Baal for fame. As old Solomon said himself, nothing new under the sun.

  • Suzana I could not have said that better myself, the same thoughts crossed my mind when Bill was talking about Amy. I really don’t know how she does it, unless of course she has are great husband or mother who supports her in raising her children. Also I can never understand why women have children and then go away months on end to war leaving them behind with their spouses or family in order to be are soldier. It is one thing to lose are father through war, but are mother that would be something else. Still I can’t judge, I have made my fair share of mistakes when it came to raising my children and quite often women who do have successful careers also manage to raise well adjusted children. I wished I had it to do all over again, knowing what the Lord has taught me now. Still I would love to see the Government pay out money to keep mother’s home with their children instead of paying it to child care centers, because I know there is so many mothers out there who would love to stay home and raise their own children rather than have someone else raise them. I remember the days when you were frowned on if you went to work instead of staying home with your children and raising them, now you are frowned upon if you don’t work and choose to stay home with your children. We need to find that balance I think. As for abortion it never ceases to amaze me when certain women call their unborn child are fetus when they intend aborting but if they intend keeping the child they then call their unborn child my baby. I have seen this time and time again. So very very sad, I pray abortion will be are thing of the past very very soon, and Amy can very well be the one our Lord uses.

  • In regards to abortion I am always drawn to what the great Ronald Reagan said:

    “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

    Superb article again Bill – everyday I look forward to reading them !

  • Thank you, Bill, for another timely article. I also want to thank the people for their comments that support the right to life for the unborn and that examine the dire emotional and psychological consequences of abortion on women who exercise their right to “choose.” I honestly can say I am not well acquainted with the music and/or the history of Fleetwood Mac, and I find Stevie Nicks’ arguments for abortion shallow, selfish, and abhorrent. I have gotten through 73 years of life without “needing” the “healing” (?) music of Fleetwood Mac, and anyone who is trusting the Lord does not need this worldly kind of “healing,” either.

    The main problem with abortion is that entirely too many women are using it for birth control or as way to get out of a situation that will result in demands on their lives. The world would be a far better place if abortion had been reserved for women who experience the tragedy of miscarriage, fetal death, or traumatic injuries during pregnancy. It may not be known commonly, but unexpelled tissues of pregnancy can turn into gangrene and septicemia (blood poisoning), and certain death for such women. Far too many people who oppose abortion need to realize that sometimes the procedure IS NEEDED to save the life of the mother. Furthermore, some Catholic hospitals throughout the world have refused this surgery for women in the midst of a miscarriage and have relegated these women to a horrible and needless death.

    Of course, the careless, promiscuous women who want abortion won their case for abortion on demand almost 50 years ago here in the U.S. The definition of abortion and its policies need to be refined and limited to the surgical intervention often needed for miscarriage and fetal death. Pro-life people may not realize the dangerous situation a very strict “pro-life” policy can pose for women stricken with miscarriage or a fetal death, but they need to learn about such emergencies and support the end of abortion on demand for birth control and non-medical reasons.

  • Thanks Sheila. But you are somewhat amiss to talk about the ‘need for abortion’ in the hard case of saving the life of the mother. I have written about this at length elsewhere. In one article I say this:

    However, in some cases, such as an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, or cancerous uterus, there is a real life-threatening risk, and something must be done. If not, most likely both mother and baby will die. In an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby is not developing in the womb but elsewhere (often in the fallopian tube), the baby is usually dead already or is pretty well guaranteed to die anyway.

    Thus some action is necessary, to save at least one party. But this then is not really an abortion. The clear intention is to save the mother, not kill the baby. So it is probably best not to even include this as a reason for an abortion, since the intent is not to kill a baby (which is exactly what an abortion is all about), but to save the life of at least the mother.

    See the full piece here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2013/06/04/abortion-for-the-health-and-life-of-the-mother/

  • Abortion will likely not be outlawed in the whole of the USA
    My understanding is that if the SCOTUS reverses Rowe v Wade, (now that it might be able to if ACB is appointed,) the abortion laws will revert to being administered by the individual States in the USA.
    Rowe v Wade made abortion law a Federal jurisdiction and essentially took it out of State’s hands. This law has been regarded as unconstitutional by many since the beginning, since the constitution limits the Federal powers to specified areas. Abortion laws were not specified and constitutionally should remain in the State’s powers.
    Dismantling Rowe v Wade will indeed strengthen the traditional/literal interpretation of the constitution, but not make abortions unlawful, unless a particular State make it so in that State.

  • Yes Bruce. If the Roe v Wade decision is challenged in the Supreme Court, and is overturned, it will likely just mean things revert back to the former status quo: the responsibility of the 50 states to decide how it deals with abortion.

  • Ronald Regan says it perfectly, just like the Population Reduction proponents who say everyone else, but not me! I read in a LifeSite article on Stevie Nicks that she has had 4 Abortions, so ‘Sara’ is not alone & should NOT be left alone! The work of Satan is to confuse & to make wrong right, so selfishness will effectivley defend anything for itself & so Nicks is applauded but for the wrong reasons. Abortion is Murder & you so well articulate that in your articles Bill; If only the MSM would give that Truth the exposure it needs!

  • True story!
    And to think Amy Barrett does all that raising 7 children…. and without drugs!

  • The U.S. supreme court does not and cannot make law! The fact that it is considered as such is a comment on America’s culpability.

  • Sadly, and it seems ‘just recently’, that many of my childhood & adulthood inspiring hero’s, have been a big disappointment to me, and for many others. People whom I believed that were incredibly blessed by God, but turned out to be just the opposite. Anti-God, Immoral, selfish, & ungrateful.

    I believe God is separating the wheat from the tares, in these last days of this age, for all to see.

Leave a Reply