Monday, April 24, 2023


By Tim Rohr

In today's PDN article, AG to appeal order in abortion case, there is the following paragraph:

The law never was enforced because of the permanent injunction issued by the federal court, but Moylan has been trying to lift the injunction because of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe v. Wade, which had protected women’s reproductive rights for decades.

There is nothing about the paragraph that stands out. It's pretty much standard reporting. And that's the problem. 

Abortion is a dirty, ugly, bloody, baby-dismembering business. The pro-aborts know that. And once they could no longer hide behind the "clump of cells" facade, they retooled their language - with the term "reproductive rights" at the center of their new tower of babble. 

It's a lie, of course.

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica: 

"the essential features of human reproduction are (1) liberation of an ovum, or egg, at a specific time in the reproductive cycle, (2) internal fertilization of the ovum by spermatozoa, or sperm cells, (3) transport of the fertilized ovum to the uterus, or womb, (4) implantation of the blastocyst, the early embryo developed from the fertilized ovum, in the wall of the uterus, (5) formation of a placenta and maintenance of the unborn child during the entire period of gestation, (6) birth of the child and expulsion of the placenta, and (7) suckling and care of the child, with an eventual return of the maternal organs to virtually their original state."

Since abortion eliminates steps 5,6, and 7 (and in some cases 4), there is nothing "reproductive" about "women's reproductive rights" since the intent of abortion is the exact opposite: to NOT reproduce. 

Yet, the pro-aborts smilingly frame their bloody business as "reproductive rights," or worse, "reproductive care." 

And why do they get away with this?

Because we let them. 

Perhaps the thing most hated by the pro-aborts in that recent Texas District Court decision to suspend the availability of Mifepristone was not the decision to suspend the drug, but the judge's attack on one of the pro-abort's most treasured and undercover word: "fetus." 

Here's what the judge wrote:

Jurists often use the word “fetus” to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word “fetus” refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages. See ROBERT P. GEORGE & CHRISTOPHER TOLLEFSEN, EMBRYO 27-56 (2008) (explaining the gestational stages of an unborn human). Because other jurists use the terms “unborn human” or “unborn child” interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes, this Court uses “unborn human” or “unborn child” terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate. - All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 2:22-CV-223-Z, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2023)

In other words, the judge didn't let "them" (the pro-aborts) "get away with this." We can do the same. Every time we hear "them" use the term "fetus," say "you mean the unborn child?" Every time we hear the words "reproductive health (or) care," say "you mean abortion?" And so on.

And every time you see these words in the media, like today's PDN, write that media source a letter and object. It doesn't have to be a letter to the editor (since "they" probably wouldn't print it anyway), and it doesn't have to be a long one. Just a short note saying you object to their misuse of language, and politely recommend that in the interest of reporting integrity, they use the objectively correct language. For instance:

Dear Mr. Limtiaco. Today in your article "AG to appeal order in abortion case," you referred to abortion as "reproductive rights." I am writing to let you know that I object to your misuse of the term "reproductive." There is nothing "reproductive" about abortion. As you know, abortion is the very opposite of "reproductive." In the interest of reporting integrity, I respectfully request that in the future you refrain from calling abortion "reproductive rights" and properly and accurately use the term "abortion rights." Respectfully, __________

The battle for words and their objective meaning is really the "final battle." Language, and the reliance on objective meaning of words, upon which reason relies, is what sets humans apart from the rest of the animal world. The deconstruction of man and his final abolition is proportionate to his surrender of language and objective meaning of words. (Note: even the words "man" and "his" have an objective meaning that goes beyond reference to the masculine.)

This is not my own little dystopian fantasy. In 1943, C.S. Lewis gave a series of lectures that were eventually collected and published in a book titled "The Abolition of Man." Lewis foresaw that the undermining of the objective value of words would produce "men without chests." 

What an apt description for today's tamed media men - "men without chests" - men (groveling boys really) who are little more than well-dressed sideshows to their eye-candy news hostesses, who collectively feed us their castrated drivel. 

Here's a summary of the conclusion of Lewis' "Abolition of Man."

The final chapter describes the ultimate consequences of this debunking: a not-so distant future in which the values and morals of the majority are controlled by a small group who rule by a perfect understanding of psychology, and who in turn, being able to see through any system of morality that might induce them to act in a certain way, are ruled only by their own unreflected whims. In surrendering rational reflection on their own motivations, the controllers will no longer be recognizably human, the controlled will be robot-like, and the Abolition of Man will have been completed.

P.S. There's something else you can do. You can link, forward, share, whatever, these posts in JW that advance what you want to advance. JW exists to challenge everything from a dangerous status quo to unadulterated and obvious evil. As can be seen from the counters in the sidebar, JW has accumulated more than TEN MILLION pageviews by readers in almost every country in the world. It continues to grow at tens of thousands of views per month. Sharing this blog, encouraging others to read it, or simply reposting specific posts which align with your concerns, multiplies your power to reach others exponentially. 

Note: Bob Klitzkie reads this article and offers commentary on his show Tall Tales this past Monday. He starts at about 37:00.

No comments:

Post a Comment