Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » Fisk-o-rama 3 “Emotional terrorism hits home”

Fisk-o-rama 3 “Emotional terrorism hits home”


Thursday 13 March 2008, 1:49 pm Ant Rogenous
Categories: Life Tags: abortion, Christianity, FertilityControlClinic, passive-aggression, zealotry

Every time I’m riding a tram down Wellington Parade in East Melbourne, I have to stop myself from alighting at the Fertility Control Clinic and breaking the necks of the anti-abortion protesters who stand at the gate terrorising passers-by and patients with graphic posters of maimed foetuses.

I am neither pro nor anti-abortion, but I virulently oppose this kind of wanton emotional violence.

The subject of today’s Fisk-0 rama is this post from the bowels of Trotsk Corp a rather foetid little rant that shows just how little real commitment the minions of the left have for the notions of free speech and the right of anyone to peacefully demonstrate for their cause. It also demonstrates rather admirably how the left are trying to deny the reality that abortion is killing.

Contrary to what these zealots seem to believe, the decision to have an abortion is not undertaken lightly. The overwhelming number of people who use abortion clinics do so under the most extreme stress, and arrive there having made the most excruciating decision of their lives.

Well I don’t entirely disagree with this statement, however I do disagree with the clear implication here that the decision to have an abortion should not be challenged by the unpleasant truths of abortion how can anyone make an informed decision if the realities of what is contemplated are sugar coated by the euphemisms so popular with the pro choice advocates?

Do these (mostly Christian) crusaders honestly believe their god would condone their judgemental bullying, or even reward them for it in the hereafter? The god I learned about in 15-odd years of Catholic catechism would take a particularly dim view of such despicable passive-aggression.

The real question that should be asked is who else is going to stand up and argue the case for the unborn condemned to die for crime of being “wilfully inconvenient” or “being an impediment to my chosen life style” if it is not those of a more spiritual persuasion?

Anyway, my contempt for these people was thrown into sharp relief today when I received an email from my wife, E. She’d returned home from a walk with Baby Rogenous to find an anti-abortion leaflet in the letterbox, containing several bloody photographs of aborted foetuses.

E and I suffered the pain of a miscarriage two years ago. It hasn’t gone away; I suspect it never will. She was, understandably, distraught upon seeing the pictures.

Well abortion is an emotional issue and I am reminded of the distinction made about the casualties in war we rightfully make a distinction between deaths that are regrettable accidents and those that are deliberately caused. The emotional pain of a life lost can have the positive result in the respect and value that one sees in the lives that can be saved and it is this response that the leaflets seek to evoke.

Do the people who peddle this kind of indiscriminate emotional terrorism give a fuck? Does the elderly woman next door to us, who in her youth suffered years of failed attempts at pregnancy, have anything to gain by seeing these images?

Well it is probably women like this who most regret the flippant way the “pro choice ” camp sell the idea that abortion is just another form of contraception. If anything the women the author is refering to is likely to resent the killining of that which she was never able to have herself more than a woman who who does have children

What of the people who receive this leaflet who have had abortions, and who might be battling the demons of regret — as many do for the rest of their lives? Does it persuade them any more than the residual torment of their procedure already has that abortion is a course of action not to be taken lightly? That it’s morally wrong?

If such leaflets ensure that just one of their recipients do not become repeat offenders in terms of aborting a child then not is not just a matter of the morality of killing the unborn,it is about a life saved. In any case lots of surveys have found that even women who have been fervently Pro choice have life long regrets for the abortions  that they have. So perhaps we should see the gauntlet that these protesters create as a way of ensuring that those who runnit are truly sure about their decision .

Does enforced guilt serve any purpose other than to compound remorse or suffering?

For some one who claims to have had 15 years of instruction in the Catholic Faith you would expect a slightly better understanding of the nature of guilt. put plainly guilt can never be “enforced” it may be evoked or even inspired but no one will feel guilty without some sense of transgression against their own moral values. It is never about “compound(ing) remorse” or about increasing suffering notions of guilt are actually  always about our emotional response to moral conundrums. Despite what leftist”value free” ideology tells us it is in fact a very useful response to a morally ambiguous  world.

Has guilt ever helped anyone make a resolution for the right reasons?

This is of course a rather stupid  question . Of course feelings of  guilt may well inform lots of situations where we have to address even trivial things like  Perhaps the author’s real problem is that he feels with his head (and his leftist ideology) that he should support the “pro choice” position and with his heart he realises that by doing so he is supporting the killing of children.

I don’t think I’ve ever been more appalled than I am today. For the safety of the ever-present East Melbourne protesters, I think I’ll catch the train home tonight.



Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: