This week the mouthpiece of the modern feminist movement, Ms. Magazine, demonstrated for the world why the heartbeat of modern feminists is as corrupt, jaded and evil as that of Charles Carl Roberts – the person who wished to sexually assault and kill 10 Amish schoolgirls in Pennsylvania.
And before you begin to hyperventilate, turn purple-faced and spray spittle across the room, let me assure you it’s a more than fair comparison.
This coming Tuesday, Ms. Magazine will release its new issue with the cover story, “We Had Abortions (and we’re glad we did).” The purpose of the piece, according to the editors, is to refocus the spotlight of the abortion issue “back on the lives of women.” I don’t wish to speak on their behalf, but I believe they merely mean all grown women.
The story is intended to gloss over the millions of women who have had negative reactions to the abortion experience in their own life and instead highlights a petition in which 1,000-plus very misguided women signed a statement affirming their belief that their lives were infinitely improved because they snuffed the life out of the most vulnerable person they personally had ever known – their unborn daughter (or son, or both).
The belief embodied in the magazine’s efforts shows to everyone the madness involved in our ever increasingly “morally relevant” culture. It also demonstrates how our society is neither moral nor relevant most of the time. Could there be a worse week to make such an announcement?
To add insult to injury the Ms. Magazine website boasts more than 5,000 signatures to the petition. So there you have it – 6,000 women saying abortion is great vs. millions who dare to disagree. And as a demonstration of total fairness, the organization Silent No More, which includes the magnificent work of Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.), was shunned completely by the editors of Ms. when it asked if it could contribute data on women who reject abortion after experiencing one.
So, back to my premise: the modern feminists – as bad as Amish school shooters.
But the more interesting question is “Where’s the outrage?” And a worthy question it is.
This past Monday a relatively calm man struggled with demons that weighed in on his soul – in other words, “No one could tell him how to deal with his problems, because they hadn’t been in his shoes.” He had certainly done things in his past that he was not proud of. He felt there was literally nowhere to turn. And for all of his wife’s prayer groups, he still did not see how he was going to be able to go on with life if he didn’t make a choice that relieved him of his mental torture. After all, it was his life, and no one should be allowed to dictate to him how he should deal with his painful choices – even if he made them years ago.
Yet if you took that entire last paragraph and put it into the mouths of those who have stood face to face with you and argued about the need for the availability of abortion, have they not employed the exact same reasoning?
What modern feminists will never admit is everything ugly about what they claim their “choices” entitle them to. But with Charles Carl Roberts, the ugly evidence could not be hidden. If Planned Parenthood put a disclaimer in all of their African-American neighborhood targeted locations that read something along the lines of, “upon completion of your abortion today, you will have exercised the same willful and deranged murder as the man who shot the schoolgirls in Amish country,” I wonder how much more business they would continue to be able to do.
By all accounts, the coroner and those who were sent to clean up the damage in Pennsylvania saw some of the most horrific sights imaginable to the human mind. And yet these are the same sights that every nurse practitioner sees every day in a “women’s health clinic.”
The big difference, of course, is that the majority of Americans will not stand for this once they have mental awareness of the substance of the act involved. After all, what is more humane – a bullet through the back of the skull, or having the skull crushed then vacuumed, or being sent through a series of chopping mechanisms, or washed in potent acids?
I wonder which of these methods Cindy Sheehan would have used against President Bush if she had been able to travel through time and kill him as an infant, as she explained she would have been all to eager to do this past weekend at a book signing in Huntington, Long Island.
It is no mistake that the left sees the utility in child murder, which is why they are so conflicted when they see a story like the Amish shooting. In their heart of hearts they already understand that killing an innocent young girl in an old-fashioned schoolhouse is little different than killing and even more innocent girl in a place that was designed by God to be a womb of safety, comfort, nourishment and life.
The modern liberal feminists of our day completely embrace the concept of child murder; they have 6,000 signatures to prove it. And of those, they’ve taken the lives of 5,995 more innocent children than did the Amish school shooter just this week.
Really something to brag about isn’t it?