Is Post Natal --


Abortion Funny? ----- Feedback Box:

Is ANYTHING funny any more,
in a land which censors God?

August, 1997
A web site actually purports to stick up for Melissa Drexler, the young woman who delivered a baby 6/24/96 in the bathroom during a prom and returned to the prom as if Nature's Call had been just a routine call.
The site, www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4432/page1.html, actually offers "Join us! E-mail to Free Melissa! and protect a woman's right to choose!"
Click on "What can I do?" and you will be advised, "make sure that you are living consistently! Use your reproductive freedom or lose it! Sex without consequences, easily available abortion and condoned infanticide are your rights as an American citizen!"
"page2.html" offers answers to "The Most Commonly Asked Questions about Post-Natal Abortion".
"What is Post-Natal Abortion?
"Post-Natal Abortion is a technique which has been used for thousands of years by women who desired to excercise [sic] their reproductive rights. In fact, studies have shown that it is the safest and also the most effective means of terminating a pregnancy that has ever been devised.
"But is it Safe?
"As was mentioned, post-natal abortion is believed to be the safest method of terminating a pregnancy currently available. While all abortion procedures involve some risk to the woman, there has never been a reported death due to post-natal abortion.
"How Effective is it?
"There is a certain amount of risk involved in most late-term abortion procedures. With methods such as a Saline abortion (where saline fluid is injected into the womb, burning the fetus and causing a spontaneous abortion), a live birth may occur. However, post-natal abortion is particularly suited to avoid this complication. Because the abortion actually occurs outside of the womb and at the discretion of the woman, she is in complete control over the "product of conception" and may perform the abortion technique at her convenience. And unlike other techniques, if there are complications, the woman may simply apply the procedure again to obtain the desired results.
"Is a medical license necessary to perform this procedure?
"No. No medical training is necessary. This method of abortion is so simple, safe and effective that anyone may perform it. Thus a woman may avoid the stigma of entering a clinic where "protesters" are attempting to hamper her in the exercise of her reproductive freedom.
"When may it be applied?
"Post-natal abortion should be used only in the time between when the fetus leaves the birth canal and when it reaches 'viability.'
"When does viability occur?
"This is an area of great debate. Until science resolves this, viability will continue to be a fuzzy area. For now, we offer a sinple test -- If the fetus is not able to survive on its own (including preparation and consumption of food, the ability to make a living, and cleaning up its own living space) it is not viable and therefore not a legally defined 'person.' In these cases, post-natal abortion is a perfectly moral choice.
"How does it work?
"The term 'post-natal abortion' actually covers many different procedures. One of the most common is the Manual Respitory Manipulation method. In this procedure the mother stops the flow of air to the lungs of the fetus by digitally manipulating the throat of the fetus. This usally [sic] produces a post-natal abortion within minutes. This is the method which Melissa Drexler used. Other procedures included in 'post-natal abortion' include:
"Fetal Aqua Submersion
"Fetal Cranial Interruption and
"Fetal Roadside Abandonment."
There are links to over a dozen news articles about Drexler, offered without comment. I downloaded one that looked the most straightforward, and concluded any proponent of Post Natal Abortion could easily pass on this article without the need of comment.
It was published in the Asbury Park Press 6/25/97, titled "Death at the prom" By James W. Prado Roberts, Staff Writer.
There was nothing judgmental in the article; quite the opposite. The writer was concerned that by reacting judgmentally, pregnant teens might become more afraid to TALK to people ready to help them. ("help them": "get them an abortion") The lesson for the writer, in Drexlers case, was that a pregnancy can sneak up on a procrastinator. ("procrastinator": "someone who puts off an abortion")
For those wondering if the web site could be a joke -- if anyone, or any group, could actually seriously sympathize with someone who commits infanticide, er, Post Natal Abortion, note that the eerily sympathetic tone of the following article comes from the quotes of its principal "news" source, a Planned Parenthood representative:
"IF THE GREAT volume of media attention that has focused on Melissa Drexler's high school prom birth has done anything, it's caused a handful of young women about halfway through their pregnancies to make some vital decisions.
"Several times in the past two weeks, women well into their pregnancy, but who were avoiding making any decisions about it, have walked into the doors of local Planned Parenthood offices, said PHYLLIS KINSLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL NEW JERSEY.
"'They may have suspected they were pregnant,' Kinsler said. 'They may have been waiting for a clearer sign, [that they were pregnant], and perhaps the person they have been reading about [Drexler] didn't get one, so they decided to come in.'"
As one teen commented, "'I sort of realized, my goodness, it's going to sneak up on me, too.'"
That was the lesson about procrastinating. The middle of the article had some nondescript general information, and the article closed with the lesson on talking and listening:
"For teens who are afraid of how their parents will react to their pregnancy, and for teens who feel they want to protect their parents by keeping the truth from them, 'sometimes the sense that the whole world is waiting to judge and blame you is not helpful,' Kinsler said.
"'We are talking about young women who know that at least some people in their lives are willing to judge anyone who is sexually active, anyone who is pregnant, and are willing to judge the decisions they make about that pregnancy. We want to be clear that we don't see it that way.'
"'We hope there are a lot of parents out there who are saying, "I think we talked, I think you understand, we just don't want to pass up another opportunity for you to talk to us," and also to say, "If you can't, I hope that you talk to someone else."'
"Noted Judy Miller, director of primary care and public health at the Central Jersey Visiting Nurse Association, 'I think young people become frightened, I think young people become panicked, and I think that we all need to be sure we know the resources available so that we keep the information out there. . . . I think that when something like this happens it gives all of us a renewed opportunity to really get the message out . . . in a way that is heard.'"
In my effort to better understand the web author I emailed this note:
Dear bobobserious,
(My apologies if I should have addressed you as "Honorable bobobserious", or "Most Rev. bobobserious", or "Dr. bobobserious", or even "Mr." or "mz." You might be an abortionist named Bob -- "Bob OB[GYN] Serious" -- or a stinky guy named Bob -- B.O. Bob Serious -- but I'm just not discerning enough to be sure.)
The challenge of discerning whether you really are "serious" has been instructive. Your web site is a powerful demonstration of how replacing morally charged words with medical sounding words, and constructing a line of reasoning without reference to the Bible, can turn a socially repulsive practice into a very reasonable concept against which it is very difficult to argue.
I can see how your page could have easily been written by a committed prolifer, or just as easily by a committed pro-abortionist.
Arguing FOR your page being a joke (that is, not really the work of an abortionist) is the political unreadiness of Americans at this point in time to tolerate infanticide being seriously proposed. This makes it seem unlikely that any true pro-abortionist would risk a public backlash against abortion as a whole by associating abortion with such a fringe idea.
Arguing AGAINST your page being a joke is the political readiness of Americans to tolerate serious support of people who commit infanticide. One article you posted, (Asbury Park Press 6/25/97, titled "Death at the prom" By James W. Prado Roberts, Staff Writer), seriously warned readers, and courts, not to judge Melissa Drexler because other pregnant teens will hear how judgmental we all are and will be afraid to talk to people who will help them. (Help them get abortions.) If abortionists can talk like that and still be favorite news sources for journalists, they should be able to get away with infanticide.
Arguing AGAINST your page being a joke is the shameless opposition of abortionists to partial birth abortion, a position which prolifers previously assumed would be a foolish political move because it highlights the satanic mindset of abortionists. If abortionists could stand so firm behind "partial birth abortion", it is perfectly to be expected that a few of them would be on the internet promoting infanticide.
Arguing FOR your page being a joke is, again, that it still seems a foolish political move to publicly admit, at this point, that infanticide is a goal.
Arguing AGAINST it being a joke, is the fact that pagan societies of the past, and a few of the present such as India and China, have honored infanticide, and that there is no logical division between partial birth abortion and infanticide, without which it is incomprehensible how anyone could passionately support partial birth abortion while feeling any opposition at all towards infanticide. Er, Post Natal Abortion. Sorry.
Arguing FOR your site being a joke is the ridicule you heap, in your "crazies" list, upon NAMBLA and the Atheists. And also your posting of comments under your "view guestbook", which include comments which treat your page as a joke.
Arguing AGAINST your site being a joke is the convenience it would serve the purpose of any true infanticide zealot, to be able to set forth logical ideas, which are persuasive where Scripture is censored, and be able to hide from criticism behind "just kidding", like my buddy Henry Felisone does.
I realize that a larger issue, than your motives for authoring the page, is the reaction you page will evoke in the minds of readers. I realize that the shock value of "cutting edge" ideas like these will shake those, not yet too hardened, to rise up in opposition to the entire abortion mindset; while encouraging those already over the edge to proceed the more confidently. I also realize that your logic is unassailable, as long as the Bible is shut out. I shudder at how much American logic has been rendered absurd by censoring the Bible. You are hardly the only one: major prolife groups censor Scriptural references, lest they "offend" their godless supporters and break spines on their "wide umbrella"....
This really isn't easy to figure out! Better minds than mine have struggled with it. The way a printout of this site got to me was from Linda Wolf in Oregon, who got it from Don Spitz in Virginia. Linda added a note saying "This is NO JOKE -- they now want the right to murder children AFTER birth." After I read it and found it clever, I talked to Linda again, who explained that whether something is funny is measured by its effect rather than by the intention of its author.
Knowing Linda would surely have hit Paul deParrie (Life Advocate editor in chief) with her concerns, as well, I called Paul. Paul doesn't feel anyone will be propelled in the direction of infanticide by this web page who isn't already there. Voting with Linda were Don Spitz, and another woman who doesn't like to have her name used, but I'll give you a hint: she is extremely pretty.
Meanwhile, to make her point, Linda even mailed a video of a Jerry Springer Show in which a "Creation Rights Party", which advocates Georgians seizing atomic weapons for use against the Federal government, faced off against a "Church of Euthenasia", which advocates suicide and cannibalism.
Linda noted that a joke is no longer a joke when people actually join these things (referring to the "church") and die.
Actually, I thought the show qualified as a joke too. I haven't listened to such shows since the Donahue era, so maybe this is just ordinary fare, but I hadn't seen, before, guests getting up and walking around holding up signs for the cameras, and dressed in Halloween costumes.
I thought I was watching a professional wrestling match. People were strutting around for the purpose, not of actually hurting anyone, but of entertaining the audience. The verbal punches were calculated, not to inflict injury on the "other side", but to be (1) heard, and (2) enjoyed.
Was that Jane Bray on the Creation Party side? She got out about three sentences. Two of which were covered up.
One black-clad lass, a Lillie Tomlin look-alike, (remember Tomlin's 70's character as a telephone operator on "Laugh In"?) opened the show by telling Springer they don't actually promote suicide and cannibalism! That's only how Springer wanted to portray them! Another "church" member concurred, when Springer replied that he was only quoting their literature, saying Springer was quoting it out of context!
A few minutes into the show, Springer asked all the guests to leave except for the aforementioned lass. Springer interviewed her, alone, for most of the rest of the show. Springer said it was because she sounded intelligent, but I think it was she looked sensuous. She wasn't any prettier than Jane, but what she had, she more freely shared with the world, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, Blackie explained that she didn't want, at the moment, to commit suicide, but that she did want that "right" preserved; and that she really was revulsed by the thought of eating human flesh, but the superior case that can be made for eating human bodies which are dead already, versus animal bodies which have to be killed before we can eat them, underlines the folly of eating animal flesh. Springer rejected the excuse that such extremes were needed to make her point. He said her vegetarian and anti-having-children arguments are sound, and she only discredits them by associating them with extreme positions like suicide, euthenasia, and cannibalism. She replied that without their extreme rhetoric, she would never have been invited on his show! He answered somehow, but I remember her answer better than I remember his.
Perhaps the Creation Rights folks (3 of them, with half a dozen of the others) were similarly motivated. I have no idea. They didn't get much air time. One woman got in a brief salvation message about Jesus dying for the half dozen. The problem, for America, with Blackie's reasoning is that, without Scripture, it cannot be refuted. It is too logical.
Without Scripture to tell us that human flesh is more sacred than animal flesh...
Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
...it indeed seems illogical to condemn cannibals, whose practice at least reduces the demand for killing living animals for food. (Assuming the cannibals do eat just humans who were dead anyway.) And without Scripture to tell us children are an unqualified blessing, we easily fall victim to "statistics" which tell us that in these crowded times, the rules are different.
I suppose my conclusion must be that Blackie and Bobob are very clever, and perhaps not to be condemned as the source of our problems. The source of our problems is ourselves: we tolerate the refusal of our conservative leaders, our prolife leaders, and even our church leaders, to apply Scripture to America's public issues, just as if Scripture were somehow relevant. As long as God is left out, America will go wacko, with or without the likes of Blackie or Bobob.
"But", you ask, "meanwhile, in this land where God is comfortably forgotten, can cleverness like Blackie's and Bobob's be considered harmless?"
No. Where God is censored, nothing can be considered harmless.
Amos 9
Amos 9:1-10 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered. 2 Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down: 3 And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them: 4 And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good. 5 And the Lord GOD of hosts [is] he that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn: and it shall rise up wholly like a flood; and shall be drowned, as [by] the flood of Egypt. 6 [It is] he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD [is] his name. 7 [Are] ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir? 8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD [are] upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD. 9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as [corn] is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. 10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us. (KJV)
(That this is a warning of love, not a promise of vengeance, is shown by the blessings for those who heed this warning, which follow.)

 

 

 

 Feedback Box

Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)