That is, the same talking points I've heard for over thirty years. Basically it boils down to this: any legislation that in any way hinders any abortion ever will result in the suffering and death of millions of women. That goes along with the oft repeated mantra that any non-Democratic policies will always result in the suffering and deaths of millions [insert pertinent demographic group here].
This particular bill comes from Missouri, and apparently - at least as reported by MSM and pro-abortion outlets and advocates - this could lead to problems for women with ectopic pregnancies. A complex topic to be sure. I remember ages ago on St. Blogs, this was always a hot button issue. How this condition does and doesn't fit into the abortion issue, and at what point should it be dealt with as its own medical issue and on and on.
Note there is no real nuance in the reporting or hysteria (which makes sense), and none for Deacon Greydanus or the well known cookbook author he references above. There is no trying to sift the wheat and the tares, or uphold the best of intentions while bringing up potential problems.
You see, an authentic Christian pro-life response would be 'I do not support any part of a bill that could jeopardize the life of a woman. It looks like this issue was brought up in a hearing and hopefully those trying to limit the modern scourge of abortion to sustain our sex culture in the AIDS pandemic will listen to the appropriate medical advice.' Or something like that. That would say he is about pro-life, opposing the scourge of our abortion culture, and is willing to work with those who share the same concerns when needed, while advancing the parts of the bill that could effectively slow or hinder our modern shame. A credible and respectable approach.
But it isn't the approach Deacon Greydanus took. He simply jumped on the pro-abortion bandwagon that X will cause women to die if X is in any way aimed at stopping abortion. No parsing, no trying to keep the good, or even help those trying to stop this generational disgrace.
Again, we're watching endless numbers of rats jump ship, while other rats join the feeding frenzy because it's giving them a chance to dine on their own pounds of flesh. If 65 million more babies must be murdered - Pope Francis's words - then so be it. It's the price worth paying to avoid being too close to those resisting the new world order.
Those who reject the idea that the last thousand years of Christianity were corrupted by the vile white race, or the whole of the history was corrupted by pre-modern Christians or horrible misogynists and homophobes, will fast be a hated minority within the halls of their own churches.
Mollie Katzen fancies you cannot 'diagnose' an ectopic pregnancy until the ninth month and you have to slaughter the child to 'diagnose' it? Do I have that right?
ReplyDeleteI think at this point abortion is no longer an issue. I saw Dawn Eden side with a woman who seems rather big on the pro-abortion activism scale to go after Rod Dreher. In this case, I think Deacon Greydanus saw a chance to pounce. I think the worse the Left becomes, the more frenzied the desire by those so aligned to justify their allegiance.
DeleteDo you have a link to the bill? Can you post the rest of the thread too? Interesting legislation - curious to see how it is framed. Problem pregnancies are a special interest of mine... would be interested in doing a deep dive into what this bill is really all about. -Eamonn
ReplyDeletehttps://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills221/hlrbillspdf/5798H.01I.pdf
DeleteThis is nonsensical. An ectopic pregnancy has absolutely nothing to do with partial birth abortion for the simple reason that the pregnancy is not in the uterus. The baby cannot be partially born through the birth canal; that is what makes it an ectopic pregnancy. In addition, ectopic pregnancies usually rupture during the first trimester.
ReplyDeleteI'm no expert, and I avoid delving into areas where I'm going to be overwhelmed. But I can see the old political trick, endorsed by the media whenever aimed at the GOP, and apparently also by Deacon Greydanus. As I said, he could have criticized it if he felt he had to and still stood by those trying desperately to curtail our abortion generation. But he didn't.
DeleteI wanted to compare SDG's statements on the BLM riots, since I imagined the tone would be different there. I thought that I would find him saying something like "the goals of BLM are honorable and necessary. Unfortunately some have taken actions in the name of the group which are immoral and unproductive, and these should be condemned. But we should not let this distract us from the overall goal of fighting structural racism." That is, I expected that when something bad happened in a leftist cause he would give the even-handed approach that you talk about here.
ReplyDeleteIt appears I was wrong, but only because I cannot find any place where SDG has ever even acknowledged the violence done by BLM followers. I can find plentiful articles of him talking about the movement and racism more generally. In some he does address criticisms, but only in a general "some people may say they are going to far but surely we all agree that there is structural racism and we should fight it" sort of way.
Maybe he did address the violence somewhere I couldn't find though.
I don't follow him enough to say for sure he never addressed it. I did see him throw his support behind the BLM movement, as did the bishops as a whole, as well as Pope Francis. Pope Francis did mentioned that some bad actors got in and could have tarnished a just cause - which he compared to the Good Samaritan, IIRC. Most I know who were Catholics either pulled the race card when the violence was brought up, or followed the newest, latest version of liberalism in which we learn violence can, in fact, be a just and good answer.
Delete