Birth Control and Abortion

I despise Birth-Control first because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly word. It is also an entirely meaningless word; and is used so as to curry favour even with those who would at first recoil from its real meaning. The proceeding these quack doctors recommend does not control any birth. It only makes sure that there shall never be any birth to control. It cannot, for instance, determine sex, or even make any selection in the style of the pseudo-science of Eugenics. Normal people can only act so as to produce birth; and these people can only act so as to prevent birth. But these people know perfectly well that they dare not write the plain word Birth-Prevention, in any one of the hundred places where they write the hypocritical word Birth-Control. They know as well as I do that the very word Birth-Prevention would strike a chill into the public, the instant it was blazoned on headlines, or proclaimed on platforms, or scattered in advertisements like any other quack medicine. They dare not call it by its name, because its name is very bad advertising. Therefore they use a conventional and unmeaning word, which may make the quack medicine sound more innocuous.

Second, I despise Birth-Control because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly thing. It is not even a step along the muddy road they call Eugenics; it is a flat refusal to take the first and most obvious step along the road of Eugenics. Once grant that their philosophy is right, and their course of action is obvious; and they dare not take it; they dare not even declare it. If there is no authority in things which Christendom has called moral, because their origins were mystical, then they are clearly free to ignore all difference between animals and men; and treat men as we treat animals. They need not palter with the stale and timid compromise and convention called Birth-Control. Nobody applies it to the cat. The obvious course for Eugenists is to act towards babies as they act towards kittens. Let all the babies be born and then let us drown those we do not like. I cannot see any objection to it; except the moral or mystical sort of objection that we advance against Birth-Prevention. And that would be real and even reasonable Eugenics; for we could then select the best, or at least the healthiest, and sacrifice what are called the unfit. By the weak compromise of Birth-Prevention, we are very probably sacrificing the fit and only producing the unfit. The births we prevent may be the births of the best and most beautiful children; those we allow, the weakest or worst. Indeed, it is probable; for the habit discourages the early parentage of young and vigorous people; and lets them put off the experience to later years, mostly from mercenary motives. Until I see a real pioneer and progressive leader coming out with a good, bold, scientific programme for drowning babies, I will not join the movement. – G K Chester, The Well and the Shallows

Always keep in mind that the people in favor of birth control – and, now, abortion – are in favor of evil, but are too cowardly to shout their evil. Except, until just recently. The “shout your abortion” people are getting to the point where they will boldly announce their support for infanticide. Remember that the most common charge leveled against witches in olden days was that they prevented the birth of children. Our modern witches are certainly in favor of that – and are only a step away from raising altars to Baal and burning children alive.

It is good, perhaps, that the liberals, starting with the disgusting “shout your abortion” movement, are taking the mask off. It is way past time that we understand that these people think of the human race as a pestilence. That they want fewer of us – or, more accurately, they want fewer of the sort of people they don’t like. You’ll never see them volunteer to off themselves to control population size. We now have a real chance to get people to understand what is really covered under the phrase “pro-choice”: an excellent bit of propaganda whereby a good-sounding phrase covers a monstrous action. But this is where it leads – this, indeed, is where the whole course of action since birth control first arose leads: to the destruction of human life. As Chesterton pointed out, what objection can you have against infanticide once you’ve asserted that there is no moral stricture against physically preventing people from getting pregnant? People laugh at the slippery slope. They laughed even a decade ago.

Anyone laughing, now? You see where this is going. You have no excuse to pretend you don’t know. It is either become Pro-Life, or participate in evil.

18 thoughts on “Birth Control and Abortion

  1. Cluster February 5, 2019 / 8:05 am

    … what objection can you have against infanticide once you’ve asserted that there is no moral stricture against physically preventing people from getting pregnant?

    After my 3rd child I had a vasectomy. Am I evil? Without birth control, I would easily have a few hundred children to support. Is that what you want?

    I can’t tell you how strongly I disagree with this.

    • M. Noonan February 5, 2019 / 12:30 pm

      Which is why I brought out the about-100 year old bit by Chesterton: crushing the skull of a baby 8 months and 29 days along didn’t just come out of nowhere: it came out of an idea. The idea was that we can entirely dictate such matters. That is where the world went wrong – it wasn’t just last week.

      I knew it would cause pushback and place me in a lonely spot – probably only a few very traditionalist Catholics would even think of backing me up. But, I’m right about this – the concept that we can be in total control is where we went wrong. It is encased in the idea that we have some sort of right to sexual pleasure without any possible consequence. That’s not how it works – it can’t be how it works. It, eventually, won’t be how it works.

      And you wouldn’t have had 100 kids. You might have had no more kids. You and your wife knew perfectly well which time of the month was the time for cold showers and maybe a fishing trip. We all know such things. We knew such things when we were illiterate peasants. But we’ve also been sold an idea – and I used to believe it, just as much as you – that it is reasonable to use artificial means to prevent what is naturally occurring. That no man or God can have any objection to such a thing.

      Well, turns out it was the old, silly, despised, orthodox Catholics who were right all along. Civilization is dying – we’re becoming barbarians. A quote I found from Polybius about the decline of Greek civilization:

      “In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us…. For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury.”

      Sound familiar? And they even did it without our modern methods of birth control and abortion. But once a people sets out to dictate such a crucially human thing as when a baby gets born, you’re down a very fatal path. I know I won’t convince anyone – and I might even make some mad at me. After all, I’m Mr Hypocrite on this…but, I’m also right. We’ve done wrong, and we’re going to pay the price for it.

      • Amazona February 5, 2019 / 12:46 pm

        I’m all for the ideal of sex as an integral and essential part of a spiritual and social and community life that includes marriage and children and families and all that. But as a realist, I don’t think that failing to have children poses as great a danger to our society as conceiving them and then killing them. And taking a long view, ending some gene pools before they expand is likely to make it a better society.

        I see the idea of encouraging child murderers to simply make sure there are no children to murder as a benefit to society, as well as one having an end result of making sex a decision—-to be part of society as a parent, or to opt out as a hedonist—and I think that would be a good thing. It would subject the immediate craving for gratification to a deeper analysis, at least for some.

      • Retired Spook February 5, 2019 / 2:11 pm

        I know I won’t convince anyone – and I might even make some mad at me.

        I doubt you’re going to make any Conservatives “mad” at you. Unlike Liberals, I think most Conservatives have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable. Unless, of course, the result of the disagreement is harm or loss of freedom to us, but that mostly extends to disagreements between Conservative and Liberals, not between Conservatives and Conservatives.

      • Amazona February 5, 2019 / 3:21 pm

        What he said…….

      • M. Noonan February 5, 2019 / 5:15 pm

        I’ve just been pondering about how far wrong we’ve gone. The world is dying – not in the liberal sense of bogus global warming, but in the sense that we, the people, are dying. China is hiding it as best they can, but they are in demographic crisis. So is Japan and most of Europe. The Muslim nations, too, have bought this much of modernity: they aren’t having children. But not only are we not having kids, but we’re also becoming painted savages. We don’t even bat an eye at people with blue hair and tattoos covering their bodies. “Baby daddy” is just another thing. The Church fusses about immigration when it is closing parishes for lack of believers.

        We marched a very long road away from where we should be – and we have to march back. We will march back: that I am sure of. But the march back will require us to leave aside a lot of things we think are ok.

      • Cluster February 5, 2019 / 4:07 pm

        What she said …

  2. casper3031 February 5, 2019 / 8:22 am

    For once I agree with cluster.

    • Retired Spook February 5, 2019 / 8:31 am

      Make it three

  3. Cluster February 5, 2019 / 9:35 am

    Well here’s something Casper will disagree on. The following is just a fantastic indictment on the Democrat Party:

    Here’s a few excellent excerpts:

    John Perazzo documents in his “Shame of Our Schools” how the Democrats have destroyed public education in the inner cities. It is about the exploitation of our children’s minds rather than the elevation of their thinking.

    So True.

    If the protection of innocent babies does not register within the Democratic Party’s moral compass, surely, Democrats don’t care about securing American borders

    If they won’t protect the children, why would they protect the adults? They wont, and haven’t.

    Democrat operatives are sculpting boys in such ways that these good manly attributes are scorned and eventually destroyed. They have already succeeded within the black population, where 72% of black children are fatherless as a result of Democrat legislation over the years.

    The feminization of any society is a necessary goal of totalitarians. Strong, armed, independent men are a direct threat to fascists.

    And I would like to say this to all conservatives – how about if we just keep Nancy Pelosi comfortable while we decide what to do with her? Surely we can still abort her, right?

    • Retired Spook February 5, 2019 / 10:04 am

      Surely we can still abort her, right?

      A reeeeeeeallly LATE TERM ABORTION.

    • Amazona February 5, 2019 / 11:40 am

      If you want to see a Lib’s head explode (and really, who doesn’t?) the next time there is a story about a three year old child being killed, say that it was really just a 12th trimester abortion.

      I’ve said something like that to an abortion advocate, and the result was pretty dramatic. But the thing is, that kind of comment points out the insanity of placing a value on human life depending on the number of days or weeks or months it has existed.

      As for Nan, she is at the age the Left wants to start culling, so she had better hope those walls around her house are effective. I heard a story on the radio the other day about a woman in Norway, I think it was, who had at one time signed a document authorizing euthanasia under some condition or another, but when it came to that point she had changed her mind. Tough. She was supposedly fighting the “doctors” and screaming that she wanted to live, as they strapped her down and killed her.

      I have a friend who is happily married to a man who was born with arms that are too short and end in small hands. He is a successful businessman, they have three wonderful children, and it is chilling to realize that if the Dems had been in power when he was born and implementing the kind of eugenics they are approaching at breakneck speed he would have been killed after he was born. As in Nazi Germany, he would have been labeled a “defective” and eliminated.

      • Cluster February 5, 2019 / 11:56 am

        If you don’t value the life of a new born, then no life has value. Period.

        Remember when Obama told that one gal at the townhall that her elderly Mom would be better off just taking a pill rather than having hip surgery? Can’t wait until federal bureaucrats decide what is best for me.

  4. Amazona February 5, 2019 / 11:32 am

    Prevention of conception is hardly evil. Disposing of the result of conception is.

    Personally, I would contribute to a non-profit dedicated to sterilizing any Liberal who wanted a vasectomy or her tubes tied or any other permanent form of preventing conception. While I understand the idea that sex is intended by God to only be part of a committed relationship and development of families, the fact is that for many people it is merely recreational, and we should accept that and address it for what it is.

    And when considering the hormonal imperative of the young and foolish, I am much happier with the idea that they will at least take precautions to prevent conception, and not try to sway them with moral platitudes and lectures about The Purpose Of Sex.

    I get it that Chesterson was quibbling about semantics. That’s OK—-I do it myself sometimes. So go along with him and change the terminology from Birth Control to Conception Prevention, if it makes you happier. He was, by the way, talking about the entire subject within the context of the medical practices of his time, not about the conception prevention available now.

    • Cluster February 5, 2019 / 4:19 pm

      These are the same people who govern Chicago, San Francisco, and Baltimore. And now they want to run healthcare.

      And I did read a report that Tulsi is being targeted by Democrats. I don’t think she is progressive enough for them so she must be destroyed. Aren’t they fun people?

      And when considering the hormonal imperative of the young and foolish, I am much happier with the idea that they will at least take precautions to prevent conception, and not try to sway them with moral platitudes and lectures about The Purpose Of Sex.

      Agreed. It’s unrealistic to expect abstinence in the promiscuous culture we live in, and much more effective to preach responsibility and protection. And one other thing needs to be mentioned – sex is one of the best gifts God ever gave us … just my opinion LOL

      • Retired Spook February 5, 2019 / 5:00 pm

        An opinion shared by many LOL!

Comments are closed.