Skip to comments.PhD candidate aims to ‘normalize the experiences of abortion providers’
Posted on 07/30/2014 6:23:45 AM PDT by wagglebee
Abortion logic always creeps me out. An abortion ideologue ultimately believes it’s OK for women to have their pre-born children killed. They ultimately believe it’s OK for a strong dominant human being to kill a weak vulnerable one. Take what PhD candidate Jessica Shaw from the University of Calgary recently wrote about abortionists being targeted for “harassment and violence”:
However, women have had and will continue to have abortions regardless of their morality, regardless of their legality, regardless of what the foetus may or may not be, and regardless of whether they are offered in safe medical settings, or in clandestine conditions. The need for abortion is present for people in every social class, every region, and every belief system.
Shaw’s piece appeared last week in ActiveHistory.ca. She’s doing her doctoral research on what she calls “understanding and normalizing the experiences of abortion providers in Canada.”
Let’s begin by flipping the tables and imagine if someone said this about stealing, lying, racism, or rape:
However, men have and will continue to rape regardless of its morality, regardless of its legality, regardless of what sexual exploitation may or may not be, and regardless of whether it is done in a home, or in clandestine conditions. Rape is present for people in every social class, every region, and every belief system.
Changing the noun reveals how ludicrous Shaw’s statement actually is. Just because something is happening all the time doesn’t mean there’s a need for it or that it should become socially accepted.
Does Shaw actually think there’s a “need” for abortion in every belief system? Maybe if you adhere to some diabolic belief system you have a “need” for abortion, but for the major religions of the world, including Christianity, abortion is condemned in the strongest possible language.
In Canada, abortion providers are often stigmatized as single-issue activists whose entire identities are described with the derogatory title ‘abortionist.’ By some, they are imagined to be anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-family, and because of this, they are targets for harassment and violence. In reality, abortion providers are mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, daughters, sons, partners, lovers, and friends.
Um, hello, abortion providers are called ‘abortionists’ because that’s what they do, they perform abortions. Similarly, someone is called an anesthesiologist because they administer anesthetics for surgical procedures. There’s nothing derogatory here. Or maybe Shaw has subconsciously let slip her realization there’s something dirty about abortion that makes the words ‘abortionist’ appear to her as something negative.
And no, abortionists are not “imagined” to be “anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-family,” they are in fact such. They’re “anti-women” inasmuch as abortion consists in the most abominable assault on a woman’s motherhood and natural design to be a nurturer of new life. Abortionists are “anti-child” inasmuch as they brutally end the lives of countless pre-born children through abortion. They’re also “anti-family” in as much as they destroy family members through the same procedure.
And yes, it’s sad and a bit scary that abortionists are “mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, daughters, sons, partners, lovers, and friends” who make their livelihood on destroying someone’s son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, potential partner, potential lover, and potential friend. Killing vulnerable humans for a living must surely color every other relationship an abortionist has with other people. Can a serial killer ever really be a good mother or father?
I agree with Shaw that abortion “evokes strong political and emotional reactions.” And it should. Any time someone’s life is on the line, it should evoke such reactions. Otherwise, we’ve become calloused and desensitized to the needs of other people. After all, what we’re really dealing with here is a human life worthy of respect, protection, and rights just as much as anyone else’s life. Unfortunately, this is something the PhD candidate has conveniently managed to overlook in her piece.
Exactly! They are MURDERERS and any attempt to justify what they do is an affront to God and man.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
People never have to be brainwashed to accept something virtuous.
1.34 BILLION little innocent defenseless children killed by their mothers just since 1980.
That is more people killed than all wars and health epidemics combined throughout the history of the world, since 1980.
The most dangerous place in the world today for a child is in their own mother’s womb.
I’d say it’s, already, pretty normalized, wouldn’t you?!
PhD = Post Hole Digger
God will take care of normalizing their experience. Unfortunately I don’t think in the way this liberal idiot is thinking.....
I prefer to call them baby butchers.
The little islamist is the abortionist in Chief.
Islam does not condemn abortion—fetuses are blood clots until they are born. Don’t believe me, just ask any satan worshipper in your vicinity.
EXCELLENT post. Thank you.
Most are missing the undercurrent here. Getting a PhD will be an easier road if one takes the popular PC opinion and slant. Any pro life position would have to prove all points to ten decimal places and that still wouldn’t be enough. Remember that her target audience is mostly liberal academics. She doesn’t have to wow honest intellectuals like people used to in the past.
GRIEF — not normal. Can’t be done for someone who has killed their baby. They have to go through this process.
I have come to think that these 1.34 billion dead babies are the reason why
the Earth only has 7 billion people, when 40 years age, Earth had 8 billion.
Revelation 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, who were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year: for to kill the third part of men.
Could this, four angels, possibly be Stalin, Sanger, Mussolini and Hitler?
Excerpt from the free ebook “Killer Angel”:
“Most Americans were cheerfully assured that control of man and nature would soon lie entirely within their grasp and would bestow upon them the unfathomable millennial power to alter the destinies of societies, nations, and epochs. They were a people of manifold purpose. They were a people of manifest destiny. - What they did not know was that dark and malignant seeds were already germinating just beneath the surface of the new centurys soil.
Josef Stalin was a twenty-one-year-old seminary student in Tiflis, a pious and serene community at the crossroads of Georgia and Ukraine. Benito Mussolini was a seventeen-year-old student teacher in the quiet suburbs of Milan. Adolf
Hitler was an eleven-year-old aspiring art student in the quaint upper Austrian village of Brannan. And Margaret Sanger was a twenty-year-old out-of-sorts nursing school dropout in White Plains, New York. Who could have ever guessed on that ebulliently auspicious New Years Day that those four youngsters would, over the span of the next century, spill more innocent blood than all the murderers, warlords, and tyrants of past history combined? Who could have ever guessed that those four youngsters would together ensure that the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the twentieth century would be smothered under the weight of holocaust, genocide, and carnage?”
I think Mussolini was basically a buffoon.
There are a couple of other names that can't be forgotten:
Mao: 50 to 80 million deaths.
Rachel Carson, whose junk science book "Silent Spring" resulted in the DDT ban and major spike in malaria deaths (even National Geographic has since admitted that basically everything she wrote about DDT was a lie): 70 million+ and rising every year.
It also needs to be realized that nearly all of these deaths can be traced to two 19th century Englishmen:
Thomas Malthus: the founder of the modern population control movement.
Charles Darwin: who made science a "god" and whose cousin (Francis Galton), children and colleagues/in-laws (the Huxleys) took his theory of evolution to the next logical conclusion: eugenics. The Darwinists will gladly debate evolution all-day-long to avoid acknowledging that eugenics is the real Darwin legacy.
In islam, anything goes. The so-called prophet designed it that way.
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.