Salon staff writer Mary Elizabeth Williams
Posted on 01/24/2013 3:15:06 PM PST by NYer
Salon staff writer Mary Elizabeth Williams
ROME, January 24, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An item came to my attention today in my daily inspection of the internet, asking a very pertinent question. And though I’m sure it was meant rhetorically, I thought I’d have a go at answering it. A short piece, clearly published in answer to the hundreds of thousands gathered this week on the Washington Mall demanding an end to the slaughter of children, asks, “So what if abortion ends life?”
Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote yesterday on the “progressive” online magazine Salon, “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.”
She called the “move” of the “anti-choice lobby” to call itself “pro-life” “diabolically clever,” adding, “Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life?”
Well, apparently Williams thinks herself equal to the task.
“The ‘life’ conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me,” she writes.
“I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.”
It immediately brings to mind a passage from On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche, that mad prophet of the atrocity-crammed 20th century. He proposed that Christianity and its moral law are born from hatred of the warrior’s strength and has succeeded only in weakening the strong and overturning the natural order of existence in which the strong must oppress the weak. Christianity is a “slave morality,” he said.
Miss Williams, perhaps unconscious of the philosophical roots of her position, says that the issue is more “complicated” than life and death. And what is the “complicated reality” behind abortion?
“All life is not equal.” There we have it. Some people once said it slightly differently: “some life is not worthy of life.” Specifically, the “life” that gets in my way.
“A fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides,” writes Williams. “She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
“That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers.”
Well, you said it, honey, not me.
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!
For some years now, the abortionist ideology has been sailing out further and further into the deepest moral waters it can find, in an apparently desperate attempt to continue convincing the world, if not of the rightness of its cause, at least of its unstoppability. But with rhetoric like this, it’s hard to see how much further they can go while still maintaining any semblance of rationality.
Once you have responded to “It’s a human being,” with a manufactured shrug like this, there seems nowhere else to go in the conversation. So what if abortion is genocide? So what if it serves the cause of sex trafficking? So what if it enables pedophiles and pimps? So what if it’s slaughtering entire generations of girls in India and China? So what if it’s being used by totalitarian governments to terrorise women and maintain control over their populations?
So what? I want it, and I have the power to get it; discussion over.
And this is right and good because the strong must always have power over the weak. From some dark place, the shade of Nietzsche howls his mad, tortured shriek of triumph.
We often identify feminism and its strumpet daughter the Sexual Revolution with Marxism, and a quick glance at Engels on the evils of the Monogamous Family will demonstrate that this is true. But on a deeper level, it is more simply about power, as most feminists will readily admit. Some people have called a gun the “great equaliser,” that gives ultimate power to people who would otherwise be too weak to impose their will over others. For women dedicated to the cause of power-over-others, abortion is that gun.
Miss Williams has helpfully illustrated exactly where the abortionist ideology goes. It is not, at its root, a manifestation of feminism, though feminism has adopted it as a core doctrine. It is not even a tool of political manipulation from the left, or a method of systematic genocide in the developing world to protect western economic interests.
At the very core of its black heart, it is the scream of the nihilist, who seeks power and ownership over anyone weaker, for no other reason than the pure exercise of the will: because we want it. Abortion for woman has become the final manifestation of the old “will to power”. And at its core is nothingness, a black hole endlessly gaping and swallowing everything in its orbit. It seeks, finally, no good that anyone, even the abortionist movement itself, can identify, let alone defend rationally.
Mass, legalised abortion, industrial scale abortion, is simply a final manifestation of the global, nihilistic and ultimately suicidal ideation that took hold of the entire western world at the start of World War I and has never let go. And the 55 million dead in the US alone would attest to this, if they could speak.
Not my favourite pope, by any means, but it does also bring to mind what many people like to refer to as the “prophecies” of Paul VI in his anti-contraception encyclical Humanae Vitae. Whatever else you may think about the effects or uses of contraception, it is hard to pass by the following without a pause of recognition.
The widespread use of artificial contraception, the Pill being the key that opened the Pandora’s Box of the Sexual revolution, would lead, he said, “to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” “The man,” the pope said, will lose respect for “the woman” and “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium”. He will come to “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion”.
Of course, what the pope neglected to mention was the next set of logical progressions. The contraceptive culture will finally lead women to regard men as sexual objects and, as childlessness comes to be seen more and more as a goal, as economic competitors. They will come to see children, childbearing and motherhood as a form of slavery and “oppression,” a kind of living death. And ultimately they will see abortion as their only recourse in accidental cases of pregnancy, the ultimate catastrophe. And they would come to defend the killing of their own children as a form of self-defence against an unjust aggressor.
For women, under the new cultural dispensation, remaining in the condition of carefree, unencumbered, sexually alluring ingénue is not the highest good, it is the only one. And women are clearly willing to kill to achieve and maintain it.
Contraception and the Sexual Revolution has, as John Paul II used to say, pitted men and women against each other, and both of them against their own children. It has made a mass warzone of our entire culture in which each individual is the enemy of every other in the struggle to be the last one standing on top of the rubbish heap of our mass produced goods.
And like all such political movements, it is an absolutist ideology, a form of totalitarianism, that will admit of no dissenters. There can’t be any opt-outs, as we have seen from the determination of the Obama administration to impose contraception and abortion funding on an unwilling public.
We must thank Mary Elizabeth Williamson for saying so clearly what the rest of the Revolution has so far rarely had the courage to say. For making it so clear that at its heart, what we are fighting against is not abortionists, politicians or feminism, but against dark, unsmiling faces looking up from below, against Powers and Principalities, the final darkness that was loosed on the world in the early 20th century, with nothing but black emptiness and despair, hatred, at its core.
Ping!
And to think her parents named her Mary Elizabeth. They must be distraught beyond belief.
This is going to get cited and quoted in my book. The final destination for those intoxicated by the will to power is slaughter and atrocity beyond imagination, and it is slaughter and atrocity for its own sake. A willful and wanton hatred of life itself. On any scale you care to imagine.
Monsters. All of them. Killers without conscience.
Abortion: “What difference does it make”?
Hey Mary, so what if guns end lives?
So what if a criminal ends your life?
So what if anyone ends anyone else’s life?
It’s the ultimate idiocy of liberal pretzel logic. For this group of people who think this life is all there is, and there’s nothing afterward, and who wnat us to spend huge amounts of time and resources keeping requiring us all to buy healthcare and paying for everyone else’s healthcare,
to then say “who cares if ‘x’ ends a life?” is the ultimate rejection of their own position. They do everything possible to stay alive. Yet incredibly glib that something they are for ends human lives by the millions.
See it doesn’t end THEIR lives. But we extend their logic to say “who cares if guns end lives?” Who cares if car accidents end lives? Who cares if transfats end lives? Who cares if cigarettes end lives?
They seemingly do. It’s this selective reasoning, this liberal pretzel logic that shows them to be the true hypocrites that they are.
Gee, what a gal.
I’m kind of glad in a small way many of these women don’t become mothers — imagine the dysfunctional childrearing that would ensue from such as outlook on life.
It’s what I have suspected all along. They know it’s a life. They know what it is. They just want to decide what’s “best” for that life — in the context of what’s best for theirs.
Had one friend one time who told me she was going to give the child back to God for “safe keeping.” I about threw up.
People can twist things many ways in their minds to achieve a desired end.
Mary E. Williams is a prime reason why abortion should be legal. Unfortunately her parents didn’t take advantage of said choice. So the world suffers from her sorry excuse for reasoning.
Mary’s parents shouldn’t be faulted for her birth they should be faulted for the following however:
not teaching her to live by the 10 commandments (including church every Sunday)
not teaching her that there are consequences to misbehavior that must be faced not eliminated
and faulted for most likely paying exorbitant tuition to a liberal college run by people with anti-christian, anti american agendas who filled her mind with liberal pablum that she fell for hook line and sinker.
This is a touchy issue for me. I am against abortion, but I can also see the side of the street where it saves money. I used to teach at an inner city school and I could see why abortion would be a good choice for these so called families. Why bring more babies into this world that you can’t afford to feed and take care of. Aren’t most of them going to grow up and be not only a financial burden on society? If you have ever seen Freak-enomics, they have a valid arguement about legal abortion keeping the crime rate below expectations.
How do we justify the cost of an abortion to the total cost of a lifetime of government handouts? Financially it makes sense, but morally it is a life and it is priceless.
rationalization is the second greatest human drive.
“This is a touchy issue for me. I am against abortion, but I can also see the side of the street where it saves money.”
How sure are you of that?
The moment haunts me now. Every day when I wake, every night before I sleep.
I can’t imagine how a woman who has aborted a child feels, it must be a thousand times worse.
The only way, it seems to me, is to harden yourself. Maybe even become an atheist to avoid answering to G-d for such an act. I know that I grieved the Holy Spirit, but my hope is in Christ and His forgiveness.
These poor women, who have no remorse have no hope.
See, this is the most morally despicable part of the liberal position. They know it too, because most of them try to completely gloss it over because they don't want to have to defend it.
They might be able to make some kind of moral argument that if the mother's life is threatened, her rights trump the child's. They can possibly try to extend that argument to just a hazard to the mother's health, since any hazard could conceivably be life-threatening. However, most of the abortions in the country don't fall into those categories, and everyone knows it. The vast majority are abortions of convenience; and so to support those they have to argue that all of the child's rights should be suspended in favor of the mother's hypothetical right not to be inconvenienced.
Not only do most liberals not want to discuss that argument, they really don't even believe the principle of it themselves, because they don't apply it consistently. A "pro-choice" liberal will defend the mother's right of convenience to get an abortion, but will never claim that same mother has a right of convenience which allows them to get drunk and smoke cigarettes while pregnant.
It's the pro-choice title that is "diabolically clever." I am pro choice. Pepperoni or mushroom. BK or McD or neither. Health insurance that doesn't violate your religious convictions (or pay your own way, or only catastophic coverage. ) Glock or Ruger. Coke or Pepsi, 12 or 44 ounce. I'm pro lots of choices, many of which the left would prefer to take away. I just think mom's freedom ends where the baby's nose begins.
“Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life?”
She said, “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.” Abortion takes a human life, and she doesn't care. She is on the side of " not-life."
“How do we justify the cost of an abortion to the total cost of a lifetime of government handouts?”
We’re against them both. I can justify letting babies live. We’ll let the left justify replacing fathers with a check and creating the sky-high crime expectations that are only slightly lowered by abortion.
Be certain to bracket pro-choice as pro-killing. Just to make it patently clear to the reader.
Hi. You might be interested in this thread. Any comments?
I used to teach at an inner city school and I could see why abortion would be a good choice for these so called families. Why bring more babies into this world that you can’t afford to feed and take care of. Aren’t most of them going to grow up and be not only a financial burden on society? If you have ever seen Freak-enomics, they have a valid arguement about legal abortion keeping the crime rate below expectations.
How do we justify the cost of an abortion to the total cost of a lifetime of government handouts? Financially it makes sense, but morally it is a life and it is priceless.
**
I can understand your feelings, as you have seen close up the deplorable lives of many of these people, but is KILLING more of them really the best solution we can come up with?
How about promoting marriage, family, capitalism, good jobs for all, savings, investment, fatherhood, responsibility? Why can’t we politic for a better LIFE for these people ....not just their DEATH as a solution?
Has more abortion EVER improved the lives of this demographic of society? We’re seeing as many abortion as ever ...yet no improvement in their lot.
Because it’s the wrong approach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.