when truth is the enemy and accuser
There can be no justice without truth because in the absence of truth, there can be no verdict which separates the guilty from the innocent and justice from injustice. When tolerance supersedes truth, tolerance eventually mutates into intolerance and truth is abandoned altogether; consequently, “tolerance” (term used loosely in context) dictates that we are bound to accept simultaneous contraries and contradictions. This would ultimately force the hands of society to be reduced to the moral equivalence of hypocrites and liars. In other words, As the Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain wrote, “The man who says ‘What is truth?’ as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race.”
As for the wreckage caused by a relatively unknown amount of oppressive, abusive and cowardly males, we are now dealing with the angry, mutated version of the original feminist movement, now referred to as Radical Feminism (not to be confused with the garden type of new age cafeteria feminists). Many of these women who find refuge in the movement are not equipped with the coping skills and support system with which to help them heal from their emotional scars, and consequently resort to anger and revenge to help them cope with the hurt, because hurt – at its core, is a reminder of our human vulnerability and helplessness. Without the proper coping skills, even if one were to eradicate the person who hurt them, it would only amount to a temporary relief, because they never resolved the cause of their emotional damage nor let go of the anger. Consequently, instead of identifying themselves as a victim of trauma and try to heal themselves from the inside – out, they externally employ the very means of their abusers with the hope of bringing about some sense of safety and security in their lives.
In the world of the radical feminist, a fear of being controlled by men and a patriarchal society dictate that we no longer be recognized as different sexes, but more as androgynous genders. When in reality, radical feminists grasp for a sense of security to become the best they can be through a rejection of the feminine and embracing characteristics of the masculine. This strategy rests on the premise that for women to reach their full dignity and freedom, they must become as much like men as possible. Ironically and irrationally, Radical feminists adopt the very same characteristics they publicly denounce, which is the true measure and embodiment of humanity being man.
Abortion ranks as their number one non-negotiable demand, of which they have successfully disguised among the rhetoric of choice. In this case, “the” choice must always return the the woman, who alone can only judge her specific situation. When does life begin? Do they feel pain? None of these questions in truth really matter, other than in the forum of public opinion. According to the true radical feminist, the defense of abortion is an inalienable right, and is seen as nothing more than a defense of privacy and the individual conscience. Justified killings (although never to the point of murder) is always warranted with or without the pro-abortion rhetoric, here is some of the latter.
Margaret Sanger (Founder Planned Parenthood) – …“ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.” “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Cynthia Daniels (Political Scientist – Rutgers University) – Urged women to acknowledge the life of the fetus. This does not weaken the case for abortion but strengthens it. In Daniels’ reasoning, if the fetus is living and uninvited, off of the woman’s private resources and must, therefore, be viewed as an aggressor. Since every person is entitled to self-defense, the woman has a right to kill the fetus to defend her own life.
Naomi Wolf (author, 3rd wave feminist) “So what will it be: Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere “uterine material”? How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. Free women must be strong women, too; and strong women, presumably, do not seek to cloak their most important decisions in euphemism.”
Of course, this type of brutal honesty is not for the faint of heart or the common consumers of abortion nor compatible with the normal decency of human beings . I believe the typical woman who undergoes abortion, hopes upon hope on the truth of the abortion rhetoric in order to reduce the stresses associated with undergoing an abortion. I also find it difficult to imagine that the radicals have a lick of concern or compassion over another human being’s safety or mental health if it has the potential of having a negative impact on the over-all world wide approval rating of abortion. The way I see it, in order to protect the idol of abortion (at the expense of the consumers) and subsequently their own lives – they deny, spin, invent, manipulate and attack with a vengeance anything or anyone whom they deem a threat to their means of survival. As with the wicked servant in today’s gospel, in our selfish blindness, how often do we plead for mercy and forgiveness while denying that very same mercy and forgiveness to others – and in this case I think the refusal to forgive others maybe at the core of radical feminism.
Sources:
.jpg)
You know, I think a lot of women – even nominally Catholic women – who abort or support abortion cling desperately to the heretical concept of reincarnation to salve their consciences. I’ve read some interviews with post-abortive women who say things to the effect of “He just came at the wrong time, and I had to send him back” or “Maybe another mother would be better for him”, and I’ve talked with Boomer-age Catholic ladies who freely admit belief in reincarnation. They fully acknowledge the humanity of the fetus – that’s hardly even part of the debate anymore – but now a much more scary line of argument is being proferred, as you outline above.
This, of course, in contrast to Pope John Paul II’s teaching that “every person is a unique, unrepeatable manifestation of the human mystery”.
Comment by Kathleen Lundquist — February 26, 2008 @ 2:56 PM
The picture is horrifying! It makes my head spin and I feel a sense of dizziness. My mind has a hard time seeing real women doing this most foul and disgusting display of anger–I am having a hard time assimilating this picture into my schemata it’s unreal, outrageous–insane–the thought processes of today’s radical feminists.
I can only image God looking down from Heaven–what an abomination! It’s sickening!
Comment by tara — February 26, 2008 @ 5:47 PM
Tara, not only are they real women, but, if they are anything like the women of similar opinions I have known, they would say that you are not a real woman – just an oppressed dupe of the patriarchy.
They look at pro-life women as self-hating doormats who attack the choices of other women because they don’t have the guts to attack men instead. They would claim that the post’s portrait of them is classic projection – that pro-life women are cowards who identify with their oppressors, then label their enemies with their own weaknesses.
BTW, I’m on your side of the abortion argument, but just be aware that long-distance psychoanalysis of whole groups of people, as practiced in the post, has been used by the other side to dismiss pro-life arguments made by women as ‘self-hate ‘ for years. Saying that pro-abortion women are motivated by a hatred of ‘femininity’ looks awfully similar – to the point where an uncommitted woman might throw up her hands, and say, “Pot, kettle – who needs either of them ? “
Comment by Donna — February 26, 2008 @ 9:09 PM
Donna,
(Remember we are talking about radical feminists here) Thanks for your comments, and I agree there are most assuredly those who fall outside of the fray, but I stand by my generalization of radical feminism as described by the recently deceased “recovering feminist” Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. You are correct, radical feminists are real women, but the problem is they see their femininity as some sort of a disability, as they require special concessions such as legalized abortion to compete on the same level of a man.
Of course, they are not going to have flattering things to say in regards to the pro-life women and it’s not surprising that people who are so emotionally broken from disfunctional families/relationships would have such derogatory and unfounded opinions towards those who are capable of maintaining healthy and normal relationships. Be it guilt coupled with anger, what else would one expect from these unfortunate ones but to personally attack those who aare perceived as the enemy. As by your description of radical feminist’s train of thought, I think you make it quite clear that these women are maladjusted individuals who need help and compassion and plenty of reparative therapy. We always need to remember God loves them just as he loves us and many of them are helpless victims and we try to do our best to be patient and respond to the insults with compassionate correction. But we must never fail to base our actions on truth, not on what on what others may or may not think of us.
Donna, I have to agree with tara, it’s a real tragedy of what we’ve become as a nation and it is an abomination of what is happening to children all over the world.
but just be aware that long-distance psychoanalysis of whole groups of people, as practiced in the post, has been used by the other side to dismiss pro-life arguments made by women as ’self-hate ‘ for years. -Help me here, how is the relevant to what Tara said?
Comment by shelray — February 26, 2008 @ 10:21 PM
All the more reason to proclaim and teach MULIERIS DIGNITATEM.
Comment by Elizabeth — February 27, 2008 @ 11:18 AM
Thanks Shelray. My feelings were not an attempt to psychoanalize anyone. Just a repulsion to the evil of killing innocent children. Their public display of bloody murder–of their own children–Horrifying!
And because I find murder horrifying that would make me a “self-hating dormat” who is not capable of attacking men? Well, why don’t they choose to attack the men–who they hate–instead of their own innocent children who have zero ability to fight back.
Comment by tara — February 27, 2008 @ 5:48 PM
tara,
I think Donna was referring to my post when she mentioned psychoanalyzing. I understood what you were saying and you were perfectly in line with your comments. Rhetoric such as “self-hating doormat” is nothing more than a lame tactic used to put someone on the defensive. Just think of it as a trump card one can play anytime they get frustrated or can no longer defend their position.
Comment by shelray — February 27, 2008 @ 7:34 PM