With regard to the recent 'legalization' of the RU486 abortion drug in Italy, the "Italian Minister for Youth" has gone on record with some ridiculous comments. She says that that "If a woman can't be convinced to avoid an abortion, we should accept a less invasive and painful method" for her to use to murder her child, but adds that she personally "would never have an abortion".
This is like saying...
"If we can't deter a baby-killer from murdering a child, let's at least support the executioner's choice of a less painful (for him) weapon"
I guess we wouldn't want someone who kills another human being to have to suffer at all during the commission of the crime. No, wouldn't want that. We must "accept" their decision to murder a child using the method they find to be less painful for themselves.
How is it that a government official could show so little concern for the victims as opposed to the perpetrators in the crime of abortion? Does she perhaps think her feelings are justified because she personally "would never have an abortion" and because she "can't stop" those who want abortions? Would she also lend her "acceptance" to the following?
"I personally would never kill my children, but if you want to kill yours I accept that"
"I personally would never engage in child abuse, but if you want to abuse your children, I accept that"
"I personally would never engage in racial discrimination, but if you want to engage in racial discrimination, I accept that."
"I personally would not steal, but if you want to commit robbery, I accept that."
"I personally would not rape, but if you want to commit rape, I accept that."
..."After all, I am unable to convince you not to kill, abuse, discriminate, steal, or rape so I therefore accept your decision to do these things. And please do be sure to use the method that will be least painful. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself as you are killing, abusing, discriminating, stealing, or raping."
Does this not, at least in some small way, resemble Pontius Pilate who acted as if his complicity in murder was negated simply because he "washed his hands"? And even he didn't have the nerve to ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. John or St. Peter to "accept" his decision to order the killing of Our Lord because he "couldn't stop" the public from calling for Christ's slaying.
So, how exactly does this government official expect others to "accept" abortion by this method because it is supposedly "less invasive and painful" for the mother as she kills her child. (Speaking of this drug being "less invasive and painful", try telling that to the dozens of women who've died from taking it!) It defies common sense. If one rejects a particular crime, one must necessarily reject all methods designed specifically to commit that crime.
Finally, where in her comments do we find this "minister for youth" showing concern for the young victims? Would she not be angry to observe courtroom proceedings in which a murderer is given more concern & compassion than his slain victims? So how is it that she shows no apparent concern for the most helpless of all murdered youths - those killed by their mother as "painlessly" for her as possible - since she is supposed to be the "minister for youth"? Perhaps she could find some concern for the victims if (1) she was one of them, or (2) it was her own child that was in danger of being killed. In these cases, I suspect she wouldn't blithely ask us to "accept" a "less invasive and painful method" for the executioner who stood ready to kill her or her children.
[7/31]
Posts
