A punk rock, anti-establishment and anti-patriarchy abortion activist who describes herself online as “witchy af” has been made an OBE.
Marigold St Clements (she/her) of Holywood, County Down, was awarded the honour for services to bland mainstream establishment patriarchy in Northern Ireland in the King’s New Year’s honours list.
Operating in the shadows of the oppressive patriarchal regime designed to kill her, Ms St Clements’s unwavering activism has seen her get up as early as 11 am thrice yearly to march alongside her comrades in Writer’s Square, Belfast, with only her mum’s sourdough sandwiches and some cold-pressed carrot and mint juice to sustain her.
She will now bow down before her king as a reward.
Marigold was named abortion activist of the Year in 2020 for her passion for waving poorly-made, typo-ridden placards and screaming about ‘repo justice’ and her bravery in continuing to scream in the face of her oppressors by blocking everyone who disagrees with her on Twitter.
She has been an active member of ’Communists for Choice’ and ‘Abort All Equally NI’, a group that campaigns for removing all abortion time limits, so that all unwanted humans can be aborted equally after 24 weeks, not just the disabled ones.
Ms St Clements is shortly taking up a role as a partner in her daddy’s estate agent business.
Ms St Clements said: “It’s amazing, like, to be recognised for so going against the flow and so sticking a middle finger up to the establishment and the patriarchy this way.
“There were times when I thought we’d never see justice for pregnant persons who have unwanted humans gestating inside them, but, just like an abortion provider with a fetus’s arm, we managed to pull it off.
“But we still need to be vigilant. Look at what happened in America with Roe. It’s basically the Handmaid’s Tale there now with a pregnant person dying every 3 seconds from lack of abortion care. But I’ll continue to scream and shout and repeatedly make erroneous and unscientific claims online like “miscarriages will be illegal” and “an embryo isn’t human” to keep the status quo.”
Co-convenor of Abort All Equally NI and vegan leather evangelist Tarquin Jessop Farquar said: “Marigold is a perfect example of what women and girls – and men who say that they’re women – can achieve with nothing but a fierce passion for justice and the full support of all the big corporations, mainstream media, most of the men in Westminster, and, of course, her king.
“We are all in awe of how average and mainstream she and the wider repo justice community have become.”
It’s been a while since I’ve written a response blog (or any kind of blog, for that matter!). The main reason is that it’s rare that anything of substance is published or said in the media which is worth responding to in-depth. I’ve found that fallacious and vapid pro-abortion arguments – i.e. almost all – are best addressed using quick tweets. It’s much less time-consuming and often gains more traction. Once in a while, however, something grabs my attention that I think deserves a fuller response.
On October 4th, Goretti Horgan, a longtime abortion activist, appeared on Radio Ulster’s Talkback show to discuss the full commissioning of Northern Ireland’s abortion services. What followed was, perhaps, the most ill-informed and logically fallacious set of arguments I’ve ever heard from a leading abortion advocate – and that’s saying something.
To try and keep this as efficient and readable as possible, I’ll quote Goretti using bold italics and comment underneath. I recommend that everyone listens to the original broadcast, to ensure that I haven’t taken her out of context or missed something of substance (for brevity, I haven’t quoted every single word, but I have tried to quote her more salient points as fully as possible with a view to accuracy and fairness).
She starts by explaining why, in her view, abortion services took so long to be fully commissioned in Northern Ireland despite it being legal for three years. She then says:
“We still have people having to travel to England to access this basic healthcare, which is legal here, and yet isn’t available.”
It’s true that abortion is now legal in Northern Ireland and that some women still travel to England to avail of it, but notice what this assumes about the unborn. It assumes, without qualification, that the unborn are not human and instead argues that because some human beings go to extreme lengths to end the life of other human beings, the government should make it easier to do so. But why? I see no good reason why the government should be faulted for making it difficult to end the life of your own offspring. Yes, abortion is now legal, but legal doesn’t mean moral.
“Almost three out of four people who responded to the Northern Ireland Life and Times survey (NILT), almost two out of three think that it is a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. So Mr Wells has a right to his opinion, but he cannot say that most people agree with it.“
This is completely false. The 2016 NILT survey showed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland do not agree with abortion based on choice alone. See the graph below.
Furthermore, the UK government’s 2019 consultation on abortion services showed that 79% of all 21,000 submissions received “Expressed a view registering their general opposition to any abortion provision in Northern Ireland beyond that which is currently permitted.”
Most interesting, however, is this candid admission (13:10 mark) by Naomi Connor of the abortion advocacy group Alliance for Choice, who, when discussing the prospect of an ROI-style referendum on abortion, said: “It’s obviously different in the South (of Ireland). A referendum wouldn’t work in the North, and nor do we want one because we think we’d lose it (laughs).” I’ve always said that if you sit quietly and let abortion advocates talk amongst themselves, the truth always gets revealed. Privately they know full well that they don’t have the majority support, but publically they say the opposite. Some people call this “telling fibs”.
“It’s also worth saying that there are women who are dead now, who have left children behind them, no mother to bring up those children because of the lack of abortion laws we had here.”
This is a hugely significant claim, so, and I don’t mean to sound cold here, who are these women? Where can we access the data on this? I ask because the one thing abortion activists do well – really, really well – is that they never waste a tragedy. They love a martyr. If there was even the slightest chance that a woman died in Northern Ireland as a direct result of our abortion laws, she would, like Savita Halappanavar and Sarah Ewart, be a household name. There would be vigils and murals all over Belfast’s Cathedral Quarter and plays performed at the Mac in her memory. It seems odd that this has only been revealed now and in such a fleeting manner. Secondly, and crucially, these anecdotal stories are moot because abortion on the grounds of saving the mother’s life has always been legal in Northern Ireland.
“Personhood begins at birth, human rights begin at birth, and until a fetus is able to survive outside of the woman’s body, then really, the idea that … to say that people kill babies when they have an abortion is an absolute lie…”
Here, Goretti appeals to personhood theory to justify her view on abortion – that is, the idea that being a human isn’t sufficient to grant full human rights – you must also be a person. But, yet again, she merely asserts this without offering any supporting argumentation. Human rights are recognised in that which is human; they are not handed out like some sort of government benefit once a human life reaches a particular milestone. It’s also worth noting that personhood theory is only ever invoked when one group of humans wants to kill and/or oppress another group of humans. Goretti’s view – “It’s human, but it’s not a person” – has been argued countless times throughout history to a calamitous effect – Rwanda, Cambodia, Chechnya, Auswitcz, and many others spring to mind. It’s highly unlikely that she’s got it right this time.
Secondly, she appeals to the fetus’ total dependency on her mother as justification for ending its life, but again she offers no arguments in defence of this view, or, indeed, why a mother isn’t morally obliged to keep her offspring alive. Or why we can’t kill other humans who are also wholly dependent on others. Or why is survivability a value-giving property? Or why ending human life based on it not being able to do something isn’t ableist?
Thirdly, in regards to the phrase ‘killing babies,’ there are many high-profile abortion practitioners, feminists and pro-choice philosophers who are quite happy to concede that abortion kills; some even admit there’s a baby involved. Here are a few of them:
Given the wealth of scientific evidence pro-lifers have at their disposal, and the candid admissions of many abortion advocates, there is no reason why we should take Goretti’s word over those even higher up the abortion activism hierarchy than she is.
“More than half of all the people who have abortions are already mothers, already have children, and so we know what we’re doing and we know that what we are doing is not giving life, which is very different to killing. And really that language has to go.“
It’s funny how pro-lifers are the ones charged with being anti-science yet abortion advocates regularly make statements like this that could’ve easily come from the mouth of a 17th Century nostrum dealer. Basic science, not to mention basic logic, tells us that a woman is pregnant because the act of giving life has already taken place. If there is no life then the woman is not pregnant and no abortion is necessary. Again, Abortion is, by definition, an act of killing. Consider this quote from renowned abortion provider Dr Warren Hern (emphasis mine): “I inserted my forceps into the uterus and applied them to the head of the fetus, which was still alive since fetal injection is not done at that stage of pregnancy. I closed the forceps, crushing the skull of the fetus, and withdrew the forceps. The fetus, now dead, slid out more or less intact.” Does that sound like merely ‘not giving life’ or does it sound more like ‘taking life’? If no killing was involved, how did the previously-alive subject of this abortion come to be dead? What happened to it?
Astonishingly, for an academic, Goretti also fails to understand the difference between actively doing something (an abortion) and not doing something (not giving life). Withdrawing sustenance, if that’s what she means by not giving life, is not the same thing as actively ending a life, which every successful abortion does. So how does she get around this? In an Orwellian power move, she demands the language change to accommodate her view. Sorry, no. The English language exists outside your abortion paradigm, Goretti.
“We have to face up to the reality that we have parents in this region who are being forced to end pregnancies that they might want to continue because they literally can’t afford another child because there’s a two-child limit to the benefits and tax credits that are given to families across the UK and I haven’t seen Mr Wells’ party standing up to the Conservatives and saying “this is a scandal”.
Here she engages in subject-changing legerdemain to conflate issues and derail the conversation with the simple goal of making her opponent look like a bad person. She’s basically saying, “If you don’t agree with my specific political beliefs and support the same government programmes I support, then you’re a hypocrite for saying abortion is wrong.” But wait a minute; if abortion is the intentional and unjust taking of innocent human life, then other government policies, while important, are not the issue. Her argument here is like someone making a defence of slavery by saying, “Until you support government schemes that help plantation owners cover the cost of losing their workforce, you’re a hypocrite for speaking out against slavery”. Well, OK, maybe the government should do more to help people in general, but that’s irrelevant if slavery is a moral wrong. Charging someone with hypocrisy, or pointing out that they’re only concerned about one particular issue, is not adequate justification for ending a human life.
“Rights are a continuum, rights develop. Of course, as a fetus develops, as it becomes more viable, it definitely does start to have rights … I don’t know anyone who doesn’t agree with that (the presenter then asks, “Is it a person?”) … no, no, no, it’s not a person, either before the law or in morality generally until it’s born.“
This best sums up the difference between the pro-life view and the pro-choice view. Either you believe that every human being has an equal right to life, or you don’t. The pro-life view is that human beings are intrinsically valuable because they are human beings. The pro-choice view, as Goretti demonstrates, is that human value sits on a sliding scale of development where humans gradually gain value based on arbitrary milestones, such as viability (I’ve never known a viable newborn, by the way – leave a newborn be for long enough and he’ll soon die). So, if human rights are a continuum awarded by those in power based on an arbitrary characteristic, then every social justice cause that Goretti holds dear is fixed in thin air because if human rights can be given for arbitrary reasons, they can be taken away for arbitrary reasons. She wants to fight for and defend the poor and marginalised – that’s great – but on her understanding of human rights, her sword is a length of hose she bought in Home Bargains and her shield is an old cereal box wrapped in toilet paper.
“There is no other situation where a person literally lives in another person’s body, so you can’t have that. You can’t have another person living in another person’s body. So you can’t have personhood until it’s out of the other person’s body. It is really as simple as that.“
Let’s break this mess down into a syllogism to help unpack it:
There is no other situation where a person lives in another person’s body.
You can’t have another person living in another person’s body.
Therefore, the person inside the other person is not a person, and we can kill them.
While premise (1) is true, premise (2) is by no means obvious because it a) neglects the moral obligation parents have to keep their children alive (let alone not kill them) and b) fails to understand that just because something is a unique situation, it doesn’t follow that we can kill the subject of that situation to solve a problem. For example, conjoined twins – where the weaker twin literally uses the organs of the stronger twin to survive – is also a unique situation, but it would be unthinkable for the twins’ parents to hire a doctor to kill the weaker twin on the basis that “There is no other situation where a person shares another person’s organs…”. Therefore, the only reason why you would believe premise (2) is if you already believe premise (3) to be true. In other words, Goretti hasn’t logically arrived at premise (3) through sound reasoning; she already assumes premise (3) to be true and this is her way of laying out her argument so that she doesn’t have to properly defend it. It’s question-begging and circular reasoning.
“The problem is, even if you accept that an 8 and a half month… even a fetus that is a couple of days away from being born, is equal to the person who is pregnant, then it comes to the which one do you save in that kind of a situation?“
Why would Goretti assume that an abortion at this late stage (which could take days to complete) would be needed to save the life of the mother when a C Section could be done in a fraction of the time? If this is a life and death situation and time is of the essence, and assuming this is a wanted pregnancy, why opt for the lengthier and significantly riskier procedure that ends with the death of a full-term child? This is an odd argument. But again, it’s moot, because abortion has always been legal where the mother’s life is genuinely at risk. Furthermore, it’s a false dichotomy because abortion to save the life of a mother is not about one life being less equal than the other; it’s about trying to save both with the understanding that the weaker of the two patients might die as result. The intent here is not to kill, but to save. That is vastly different from what Goretti wants and campaigns for, which is abortion for any reason through all nine months. She appeals to the hard-but-understandable cases to justify her true belief that abortion should be on demand. It’s a motte and bailey fallacy.
“Nobody wants an abortion at any stage, but they certainly don’t want an abortion at a later stage in pregnancy and the only reason people have those later abortions, that anti-abortionists only want to talk about, they’re a tiny, tiny, tiny proportion (presenter: “very small”) they are always for very severe medical reasons because the mother’s life is in danger or because of some very, very severe fetal abnormality…”
Once again for those at the back: abortion to save the life of the mother has always been legal! It’s true that most abortions are indeed performed at under 10 weeks (89% according to Government stats for 2021), and some pro-life activists indeed tend to focus more on later-term abortions, but pro-lifers don’t believe abortion is wrong because of the gestation period; they believe abortion is wrong because it unjustly ends an innocent human life. In other words, the age of the victim is irrelevant. The bigger picture, however, is that 98% of all UK abortions in 2021 were performed for reasons other than those reasons that abortion advocates only ever talk about – rape, incest, a risk to the mother’s life, etc. Additionally, in the US, there’s a good case to be made that most abortions carried out after 21 weeks are not medically necessary, either for the mother or the child.
(Presenter: “Do you see any room for compromise?”) “Not useless you’re going to say that the woman’s life is only equal to that of the fetus that she’s carrying. I don’t believe that. I think the woman’s life is of more importance… that she has given over her body to grow this baby… and really she shouldn’t have to risk her life in order to do so.”
Ah, so it is a baby, then! Glad we agree on something. Sadly, this is where the agreement ends as the undefended assertions continue. Who said giving over your body to grow a baby is an adequate justification for killing the baby? This is an odd and impoverished view of the mother-child relationship. This also seems to be a tacit admission that not all human life is equal. Why are the mother and baby (her words) not equal? Because the mother uses her body to grow the baby? I wonder if this also extends to finances and emotions. Can a mother end her baby’s life because she gives over literallyeverything to her once she’s born? If not, what difference do the first nine months make?
To recap, it’s clear that Goretti’s arguments don’t withstand any kind of scrutiny; they’re shallow, ill-thought-out, disingenuous and fallacious – and they wrongly ground rights in arbitrary characteristics and a sliding scale of human development instead of where they should be grounded – one’s human nature (the clue is in the name – human rights). And, despite her confidence and self-assured delivery, her arguments aren’t even in line with what other abortion advocates are saying. Such arguments may well be persuasive to an 18-year-old in their first year of uni who has just discovered feminism for the first time, but anyone who cares about the pursuit of truth – both for and against abortion – should see right through them.
Infantem Abiit, Latin for ‘Baby Begone,’ is to be launched at the end of the year by Alliance for Choice to complement their Abortion Doula service.
Although infanticide is currently illegal in Northern Ireland, Alliance for Choice claimed that the use of a woman’s body by her offspring doesn’t magically stop after birth, so the right to bodily autonomy still applies.
Therefore the group of misanthropic communists have launched a free ‘Infanticide Doula Service’ – Infantem Abiit – to provide advice and support on everything from how best to despatch unwanted infants to how to cut and finish your own block fringe.
Antionette LeVay from Infantem Abiit said: “For too long the government has refused to acknowledge our sovereign right over the life and death of our offspring. All women – including those women who are also men – need to know where and how to kill their children, but their human right (to end another human life) is being denied by the dinosaurs in government.”
The service will have two trained Infanticide Doulas in NI with over twenty years of infant killing experience between them – Beverley Allitt and Kristen Gilbert – with Kermit Gosnell set to provide technical and medical advice from his prison cell.
However, a spokesperson for the government responded that information on how to kill your weans is readily available on Google. “Infanticide-minded women can go to websites like Murderpedia, for example, to get tips and tricks on how best to end the life of a child they consider unwanted or too disabled.”
The spokesperson also said that the commissioning of infanticide services requires even more progressive political agendas, which we currently don’t have enough of, but if enlightened politicians bring their abortion arguments to their logical conclusion and enshrine them in law, we could have a society in the near future where infanticide is free, safe, legal and local.
The inexplicably popular North Down MP, Stephen Farry, who recently made headlines over concerns about the colour of a football kit, has welcomed a new law that will allow countless children to be ripped to pieces and thrown in a bin, some simply because they’re disabled.
“With all the horrible and backward things going on in our society at present, like a football team using the wrong colour for their kits, this new law is a real breath of fresh, progressive air” said Farry.
While the Alliance Party is very much in favour of child dismemberment for any reason and at any time during pregnancy, their PR strategy is usually to obfuscate the issue with a clever mix of anti-science and sloppy philosophy, then accusing anyone who questions them on it of not having a uterus.
“I know our party has been unclear on this issue in the past — I mean, just try and get a coherent answer out of Naomi Long without her resorting to lazy rhetoric and vapid sloganeering – but I hope my public show of approval for this new child dismemberment law is clear proof that the Alliance Party really is the party of progress and choice.”
Questions have been raised about the Alliance Party’s official position on child dismemberment, with some arguing that they are now a fully pro-dismemberment party instead of one that takes a conscience-based approach. “That’s not true” said Farry. “We’re still committed to diversity of thought within the party – hence our token pro-lifer, Chris Lyttle.”
Chris Lyttle was unavailable for comment, having been sent away on a re-education course for voting in favour of making child dismemberment illegal in cases of Down syndrome.
After the recent liberalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Humanists immediately unveiled plans to make a few quid by offering abortion ceremonies.
While the humanist movement has, for some time, been offering a range of ceremonial services for secularists who want all the trappings of religion but none of the God stuff, abortion ceremonies are believed to be a world’s first.
“We wanted to celebrate this historic day of joy and bloodshed by offering people something unique and memorable for their abortions,” said Quentin Snarf, a humanist celebrant and founder of the pro-choice activist group, Upper-Middle Class Alliance Against Poor People Breeding.
“We humanists love our ceremonies and already offer lots of them – from wedding ceremonies to cat-naming ceremonies – so why not abortion? It is our most important sacrament, after all.”
With the first abortions in Northern Ireland set to take place during March 2020, Snarf is expecting demand to be high.
“We’ve already had hundreds of enquires, many from people who aren’t even pregnant yet!” said Snarf.
“We know from independently verified data that Northern Ireland’s wicked and antiquated pro-life laws have saved over 100,000 lives, but while we can’t kill those people now, we can kill a future 100,000 – and what a better way to celebrate that than with an abortion ceremony!”
At present, details are sketchy as to what an abortion ceremony will involve, but a spokesperson for Northern Ireland Humanists has confirmed that participants will be offered the chance to “pull off the first limb” or “crush the skull themselves” as part of the ritual.
A guest blog by Rally for Choice speaker, Evil-Lyn
Mmmmmmwwwwhhhyy hello there, comrades – hahahaha! I am Evil-Lyn, sorceress and harnesser of dark powers. Most of you will remember me as the evil witch from the hit 80s cartoon, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe – but I am also a compassionate and reason-filled proponent of abortion and bodily autonomy rights.
So – when the organisers of Belfast’s Rally for Choice reached out to me during their AGM seance and asked me to be one of their guest speakers, how could I refuse? Hahahaha! (I couldn’t).
Now that the dust has settled after a crazy weekend of marching and protesting around Belfast with 17 million (according to our academic) fellow pro-choice persons, I want to take the time to enlighten all you bigots and misogynists on why the choice to end a human life is necessary for progress.
Here are four reasons – hahahahaha!
1. Population control
As my enlightened pro-choice comrades often point out – usually over a glass of Ca’ di Rajo Lemoss Frizzante and a bowl of roasted chickpeas back at mine after watching a profound piece of abortion theatre at the MAC – the world is overcrowded. There’s at least 6 billion of us and counting. It is not possible for so many people to enjoy the splendours of our wonderful planet all at the same time without destroying it.
Something has to give.
Unfortunately, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. And by eggs, I mean fetuses. Abusing chickens of their eggs is disgusting and immoral.
This Facebook post from an academic at a leading NI University sums up our predicament perfectly:
2. Clearing out the riff-raff
If you’ve ever had the misfortune of being in a “benefits lounge,” you’ll notice that poor people are rather unsightly. Not only that, they have a tendency to “muck about,” which means they can never get work or contribute to a meaningful society.
As our comrade Bernie Sanders explained recently, the answer to people living in poverty – especially in those savage third world countries – is to stop them from breeding. In other words, poor people are better off dead. And in pieces. And in a bin.
(As an added bonus, since the poor commit all the crimes, this approach is also useful for countries that don’t have the death penalty. Except it’s better, because the criminal can be taken out before a crime has even been committed – like in Minority Report – saving the Justice Department millions in taxpayers’ money).
“Pro-choice, not Pro-letariat!” I screamed.
3. Improving the gene pool
If our amazing foremothers Marie Stopes and Margret Sanger, founders of the two biggest abortion enterprises in the universe, taught us anything it was that abortion “Is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives”.
This is true. When I visited Iceland a few moon cycles ago, my intention was to overthrow their government and seize control of their aluminium smelting plants. But then I discovered they had done great work in eradicating Down’s syndrome – a problem that has cursed my home planet of Eternia since the beginning of time – by eradicating those with Down’s syndrome! Genius – hahahaha!
So it follows, then, that since Iceland is often portrayed as a beacon of secular hope and progress, it would be prudent to follow their lead by allowing Northern Ireland to abort all its defectives, too. Those with Down’s syndrome, those with an FFA, those with a cleft palate, those with colic – the whole lot of them. Having a choice helps us achieve that.
I genuinely don’t look out of place here.
4. People should be able to do whatever the f**k they want, you c**nts!
While the first three reasons are closely linked, this one often gets overlooked, but it’s a vital component – if not the most important component – of everything that the pro-choice movement stands for, especially when it comes to sex. And that is the right to do whatever the f**k we want, whenever we want.
Five millennia ago I argued during my presidential campaign that laws should be based on a) how badly people want to do something and b) possession of a uterus or uteruses. Unfortunately, at the time, my home planet of Eternia was under the patriarchy of Skeletor, who took exception to my liberal fancies and banished me to a netherworld for ten thousand years.
Skeletor and I have since reconciled. It was great to see him at the Rally and looking the part, alongside his long-term political ally, Eamonn McCann.
But I was right. Nihilism is the only viable option for governance. It’s true that some people argue that laws should be based on reason and merit, but do you notice how everyone who says that doesn’t have a uterus? Exactly – hahahaha! Shut up, you man*!
Hopefully, these reasons – and all of the lovely photographs you see of how wonderful and stable and measured we pro-choicers are – will have dragged you out of your religious stupor and into the 21st Century. But if not, well, DON’T LIKE ABORTION, DON’T HAVE ONE! – HAHAHAHA!
*By ‘man’ I am referring to those without wombs. I am aware that not everyone without a womb identifies as a man, making them a woman*. I mean no offence by this. I support you all.
* By ‘woman’ I am referring to those with wombs. I am aware that not everyone with a womb identifies as a woman and are actually men with wombs. To clarify, men who are women who are men who are women who are men with wombs and also women without wombs – I mean no offence. I support you all.
Beast Man cheered up considerably after his Boojum.
Amnesty International is seeking to recruit a new Campaigns Assistant to help quicken the right to kill tiny humans in Northern Ireland.
Since the job requires a passion for human destruction and a profound ignorance of science, the pool of suitable candidates is likely to be very small. But fear not! The Belfast Bigot is on hand to offer these capable recommendations:
The bookies’ favourite. In every hive that she’s been in charge of, Xenomorph Queen has successfully raised hundreds of fearless Drones and Warriors, making her ideally suited to Amnesty’s activist ethic. She’s also a mother, giving her extra moral authority when deciding who can and can’t live, and she understands the value of choice having once devoured thirty of her own offspring after they failed to develop correctly in the egg.
“MY BODY, MY CHOICCCCCCCCCCCCZZZZ!”
Baraka from Mortal Kombat
As a member of a nomadic mutant community, Baraka knows all too well what it’s like being part of an oppressed people. While he doesn’t have a womb, his marginalised status allows him to empathise with marginalised womb owners who want to kill their own offspring. Most importantly, as a loyal warrior with blades protruding from his arms, he will fight to the death for those whom he calls “master,” making him an exceptional abortion advocate.
“Mmmmmaaaaaadon’t like abortion, don’t have one!”
Gozer the Gozarian
Being an approachable person who can speak the language of those on the ground is a core requirement for any Amnesty employee. In that regard, Gozer, pictured below, would blend right in at the local Choice rally or vegan cat cafe. Plus, her ability to summon large armies of demons to destroy dissenters should not be overlooked. Downside: being a god Gozer would bring an unwanted religious element to Amnesty’s secular culture.
“Are you pro-chooooooooice?…. then die!!!!!”
Many of you may remember Beverly as the NHS nurse found guilty of killing several babies in her care in the early 1990s, but the term “killing” is harsh. Beverly’s problem was that the healthcare she provided took place on the wrong side of the birth canal. Other than that, she exhibited all of the compassion and empathy expected of any heroic healthcare rights campaigner. The obvious issue is her current incarceration, but Amnesty has a great track record of working with the falsely imprisoned, so maybe they can come to an arrangement.
A massive cast iron hammer and sickle
Not necessarily because of the communist connection – though that would of course rouse and delight many abortion advocates – but as a symbol of the tools needed for an abortion procedure; a hammer to crush skulls and a blade for lopping off limbs. It also works as a beautiful and profound woke metaphor for a woman’s struggle for reproductive freedom (because the patriarchy made these tools heavy and hard to carry). Downside: no real word processing skills.
Other worthwhile mentions: Dawn Purvis, Pennywise the clown, and the demonic form of Marie Stopes.
Fallacious arguments are a bit like Where’s Wally?. Once you learn how to spot Wally, you can easily spot him on every page. Similarly, once you learn how to identify logical fallacies – no matter how eloquently put – they leap off the page and beat you over the head with a hurley bat.
I mention this because, after reading this article by Fionola Meredith, I got beaten so badly by a whole gang of fallacies that I had to be rushed to intellectual A&E.
According to Fionola, some men aren’t qualified to speak on abortion because “murdering the little babies” is the sole reserve of those with a womb. But since pro-life men use exactly the same arguments as pro-life women, it is incumbent upon Fionola to answer these arguments without resorting to fallaciously attacking someone’s gender or making unqualified assumptions about their character. Does she do that? Nope. In fact, the entire article is who’s who (what’s what?) of logical errors, from name-calling and emotional appeals to wild and unqualified assumptions. There’s even some amateur psychology in there too for good measure.
Some of these angry, heartless men call themselves Christians. That’s a sick joke. If you’re such a champion of the unborn foetus that you can’t spare an ounce of compassion for a raped child, then what does your faith count for?
Let’s assume that these men are angry and heartless. In fact, while we’re in prejudice mode, let’s make them tax dodgers and drug dealers too. They’re horrible, compassionless, hypocritical, drug-dealing, tax-dodging, pro-life Christian scummers. And they stole the lead off yer Da’s shed. So now what follows? Nothing. Abortion is still the intentional taking of innocent human life.
What we see here – and in the following four (!) paragraphs – is a commitment to the ad-hominem fallacy – that is, attacking people (who she’s never met) as opposed to their ideas in lieu of making a persuasive case of her own. It’s just name-calling. And name-calling is not an argument.
Notice also that she attacks a strawman – the intentional misrepresentation of an opponent that is easier to defeat than their actual view. I’ve yet to meet any pro-lifer who wouldn’t have compassion for a raped child. Such a charge is as ridiculous as it is unfounded. But it also cuts both ways. If you’re such a champion of raped children that you can’t spare an ounce of compassion for the child heading for the abortion chopping block, then what does your egalitarian secularism count for? See how that works?
A much better approach – and one desperately needed in our wee divided country – is to advance actual arguments that must be defended. Arguments that stand or fall on their merits, not the gender (or colour, or race, or religion, .etc) of those espousing them.
It’s true that we frequently hear female voices who are implacably opposed to abortion in all circumstances, although I’ve never yet heard one of them give a satisfactory answer as to why any girl or woman should be forced to give birth to a child she does not want.
The answer is simple and wholly satisfactory to any right-thinking person: the value of human life is not determined by wantedness. A woman should not be able to poison alive / methodically dismember her unborn child because she does not want her, any more than she should be able to poison alive / methodically dismember her two-year-old for the same reason.
Again, the gender of the person making this point is completely irrelevant – it is either true or false on its own merit – but since you mention it, there are countless female pro-life leaders articulating this basic philosophical truth in the world today. In fact, the whole pro-life movement is headed up and staffed almost exclusively by women. There’s at least a dozen of them in NI alone. Why not meet with them if you’re still unclear?
I think they are motivated by something far more base, ugly and deplorable. I believe they are driven by contempt for women, a desire to control them and to have dominion over their bodies.
Listen to the vitriol in the words they use. What you’re hearing, echoing down the millennia from the dawn of time, is misogyny: an ancient fear, suspicion and resentment of women and their extraordinary power to give birth.
There’s no doubt that Fionola is a talented writer and articulate speaker (as much as I disagree with some of her views, I enjoy listening to her on the radio and reading her articles), but she’s no psychiatrist. All of this is mere conjecture that lies outside the bounds of her knowledge and expertise. How does she know what drives someone? Is she qualified to make statements about someone’s personal psychology? I doubt it. Is she privy to their medical records? I hope not. This is yet more name-calling, just made a little more sophisticated by wrapping it up in pseudo-psychology and poetic language.
And who are these suspicious and contemptuous men anyway? Big Ivor Bogroll she heard on the Nolan Show? Well, she might have a point with Big Ivor – I once saw him eat a plastic fork in a KFC outside Lurgan – but she hasn’t mentioned any names, or provided any evidence of these alleged transgressions, just assumptions and generalisations and someone she heard on the Nolan Show. This is not journalism – or even a thoughtful opinion piece – it’s naked activism.
Men can never know what it is like to experience a crisis pregnancy. They will never grapple with the horror and fear. They will never have to take out a bank loan to fund their personal travel expenses to England, or to make the lonely, disorienting journey there and back.
Consider this: Fionola will never know what it’s like to fight in a war. She will never grapple with horror and fear. She will never have to survive on benefits or struggle with PTSD. Therefore, Fionola doesn’t get to decide whether the army can torture war prisoners or not.
That’s a pretty bizarre argument, don’t you think? So, why would discussing other moral issues like abortion be any different? It’s true that gender perspectives on abortion can help us understand the personal experience, but they are no substitute for rational inquiry.
The abortion question does not hinge on gender or personal experiences (indeed, many women will never know what those things are like, either), but whether or not the unborn child has value and is worthy of protection. Would she make the same appeal to emotion if the debate were about killing toddlers instead of fetuses?
But ultimately it won’t be the man’s decision, nor should it be. Their views count for less, and rightly have no legal weight, because it is the woman who carries the child. She deals with the immediate physical reality of the pregnancy, as well as the lifelong impact of giving birth to another human being.
OK – if men can’t make decisions on abortion, then the 1967 Abortion Act is bad law. After all, it was introduced by David Steel, a man, and backed by a government comprising entirely of men. The same goes for Roe V. Wade in America which was passed by nine male judges. Of course, Fionola likely believes that the views of those men – and today’s male abortion lawmakers like Simon Harris and Leo Varadkar – do not count for less and have plenty of legal weight because she agrees with them.
So what this all amounts to, then – even with a shoe-horned attempt at balance by referencing the “kindly pro-life men” she knows – is the silencing of those she disagrees with based purely on their gender. Think about that for a second. Isn’t that the very base, ugly and deplorable trait that she claims to detest in others?
An increasingly popular canard of the abortion-choice narrative is that you can be in favour of abortion and be a consistent Christian. Now, to anyone with an ounce of wit this is obviously just a recruitment tactic, aimed at increasing abortion support beyond angry-faced feminists and unscrupulous men. However, if you’ve ever seen an abortion-choice march or engaged with abortion-choicers online you will know that these people, by and large, despise Christianity.
But is it true? Can you be pro-abortion and pro-Christ. While I agree that it is possible to hold an incorrect view on a social issue and still be a faithful Christian (your views don’t change overnight upon becoming a Christian), the practice of abortion seems obviously – and necessarily – antitethical to Christ’s teachings. I mean, could Mary have aborted Jesus if the option was open to her and she was so inclined? Was Jesus actually Jesus while in utero, or was Mary’s pregnancy some sort divine aggregate of cells?
Which brings us to this video of three self-identified Christians extolling the virtues of “choice”. By “choice,” of course, they don’t mean picking a flavour of ice cream; they mean the choice to intentionally take a human life. They mean “abortion”.
Now, I don’t know if those in this video are genuine Christians or not. Don’t get me wrong, they exhibit all the hallmarks of spiritual-but-functionally-atheist nominal churchgoers. They never actually mention Christ in defence of their views, and instead give primacy to their feelings and opinions. Not a good start. What I do know, however, is that once you get past the emotional appeals and question-begging, there isn’t a single compelling argument for abortion to be found anywhere in this video. Not one. Let’s take a closer look.
“I’m actually getting emotional” (00:00)
Nobody does emotion better than the abortion lobby. If they aren’t appealing to difficult and rare cases (“What about a diabetic one-legged mother-of-ten with crippling sciatica and hypersexual bipolar disorder, who works down a mineshaft on a zero-hour contract?!?! How could you deny her an abortion?!?! HOW???”) – they get upset. And true to form, this video plays that card straightaway; the music is touching, the lighting is soft, eyes are teary. Only a vile monster would disagree with them.
“I think God put us on this earth. He gave us choices, He gave us freedom” (00:20)
White belt abortion-choicers, for the most part, believe that an unborn child is not fully human. But instead of trying to argue their case with science and reason, they merely assume it to be true. This is a logical fallacy called “question-begging,” and it can be found running free and wild throughout this video.
Case in point: the statement above assumes that because choice and freedom are, in principle, good things, it follows that the freedom to choose an abortion is also a good thing. But nowhere does the interviewee even attempt to justify this claim. It’s all assumed within her rhetoric. Is racism a good choice? What about the freedom to rape or commit tax fraud? Oh, I see. She only means the choices she agrees with. Ah.
Well, excuse me while I choose which puppy to test my new taser on.
“Love your neighbour as you love yourself. I couldn’t look my neighbour in the eye if I denied them healthcare.” (00:46)
Who said anything about denying people healthcare? No-one. This is a strawman statement – an intentional misrepresentation of the pro-life view that is easier to defeat than an actual pro-life argument, such as:
It is wrong to take an innocent human life (sound philosophy)
Abortion takes an innocent human life (accurate science)
Therefore, abortion is wrong (logical conclusion)
Or maybe he’s confused and doesn’t know that the slow and methodical dismemberment of a live human being isn’t healthcare. If only he had Googled some abortion-victim photos before being interviewed, then he would see how recipients of abortion don’t look particularly healthy or cared for.
From a Christian perspective, though, the pertinent question to ask here is: “who qualifies as my neighbour?” Is it the Christian view which tells us that every human being is created equal in the image of God and therefore worthy of the title ‘neighbour’? Or is it the time-period-dependant secular humanist view which holds that human beings are valuable only in virtue of their location, their size and their level of physical and mental development?
Careful which horse you back there, fella. History has not been kind to those secular rulers and governments that took seriously the idea that human beings are nothing but the product of blind natural forces.
“My decision to not have an abortion due to my faith, shouldn’t dictate other people’s choices.” (01:10)
But wait! Why not have an abortion? Is abortion wrong? Is it because you think abortion kills an innocent human being? Is that not a good reason to dictate other people’s choices? Isn’t that how civilisation works?
Society dictates what people can and can’t choose all the time. It’s not a matter of if choices will be dictated, but which choices will be dictated. If pro-lifers impose their views on women and doctors, then abortion-choicers impose their views on the unborn. And only one of those views ends with a dismembered or burned human corpse in a petri dish.
“Being told by people who have encouraged me to become Christian that my opinion is wrong, or that the bible says something that contradicts my opinion is quite hard for me to hear.” (01:15)
Yet more question-begging. This is just a personal perspective that tells us absolutely nothing about why other Christians are wrong and she is right. No attempt has been made to defend her views, or to justify the act of abortion; she just assumes she’s right.
It’s almost as if all the interviewees suffer from some sort of narcissistic disorder that restricts their ability to even fathom how other people could disagree with them, to the point where they don’t even feel the need to defend their position.
For the record, the bible does contradict her. Scripture is clear that all humans have intrinsic value because they are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28; James 3:9). In other words, humans are valuable in virtue of the thing they are, not because of what they can do – and especially not because of someone’s opinion.
Therefore, since human beings are made in God’s image, unjustly killing them is wrong (Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16-19; Matthew 5:21). What makes the pro-lifer’s job easy here is that science confirms beyond all doubt that the unborn are whole and distinct human beings, so it follows that any scripture that forbids the unjust killing of human beings must also apply to unborn human beings. That she finds this hard to hear doesn’t change it.
“I just don’t want to make those choices for other women. I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice” (01:38)
This isn’t about pro-choice versus anti-choice. Pro-lifers are staunchly pro-choice when it comes to many things: the right to vote, to choose your own partner, to choose your own religion, to choose your education, to choose a career, to choose to shave your head and paint yourself blue. They just believe that some choices are wrong, like killing tiny human beings. Therefore, the important distinction here is that you are pro-abortion.
Pro-abortion feminist and activist, Camille Paglia, calls the term “pro-choice” a “cowardly euphemism”. She believes that those who are pro-abortion must face what they are opposing – the right to life for every member of the human family. If you’re going to be in favour of something so obviously – and necessarily – destructive and discriminatory as abortion, at least have the courage of your convictions to tell it like it is.
Why every Christian should be pro-life
If the secular humanist ethic that dominates today’s culture is true, then human beings only have value in virtue of the things they can do or because of the landmarks they have reached, like the ability to breathe independently, express self-awareness, or pass seven inches down a birth canal. It follows, then, that on this view human equality isn’t actually a thing. It just depends on how those in power dish it out.
Christianity, however, tells a better story. It’s much more persuasive and reasonable to ground human rights in the idea that although humans may vary greatly in their mental and physical abilities and characteristics, they are all still perfectly equal because they share a common humanity, made in the image of a personal and just triune God.
Last month, the leader of the Alliance Party, Naomi Long, got into a spiky back and forth with Precious Life after she – along with over 169 other MPs – signed a letter calling for their morality to be imposed on unborn children radical changes to Northern Ireland’s abortion laws. Precious Life (correctly) claimed that the letter is basically a euphemism for abortion on demand, and that (also correctly) a vote for Alliance is a vote for abortion. In response, Naomi Long called it ALL LIES before making the claim that decriminalising abortion does not force abortion on anyone. Because we all know that not forcing a certain thing on people makes the thing itself morally permissible. That’s how the logic of morality works in 2018, bigots.
Other local politicians signed the letter too, of course, but the interesting thing about Naomi is that she is a Christian. That and I genuinely like her. She’s a talented, articulate, and hardworking politician, who has displayed considerable bravery in the face of violent paramilitary thugs, and who has, in the past, spoken out against the exodus of persecuted Christians from the Middle East. It’s just a shame that she doesn’t see the violent expulsion of a human being seeking asylum in her mother’s womb in the same way.
You might be wondering, then, how a Christian could love all her neighbours bar the ones that happen to be in a certain location or at a certain stage of development or are the product of certain circumstances. Keep wondering, because Naomi’s specific beliefs on the act of abortion are pretty hard to come by. While she stated in this 2012 article that she’s personally opposed to abortion on demand, she has yet to explain, to my knowledge, why she personally opposes abortion on demand. Is it because she thinks abortion a sin? Does she think abortion takes a human life? Does she think there’s an intrinsic difference between the corpse of a child that was aborted on demand and the corpse of a child that was aborted because she was the product of rape? It’s all rather vague, which should be a concern for any thoughtful pro-life voter because it’s literally a matter of life and death.
So, how best do pro-lifers go about unpacking and engaging with the absurd contradiction of someone who claims to be personally opposed to abortion (either entirely or to a certain degree) yet is in favour of it as a matter of public policy? How do you respond to such a person? What would you say to Naomi Long if she turned up at your door canvassing and the discussion turned to abortion? What would you say to her on Talkback or the Nolan Show when she’s on arguing for choice but doesn’t explain what the precise nature of that choice is? The answer lies in these basic questions, in the following order:
1. “Naomi, why are you personally opposed to abortion on demand?”
The answer to this should be easy. She will likely say that she’s personally opposed to abortion on demand because abortion kills an innocent human being. If Naomi does not think the unborn are human then she would have no logical reason for any personal opposition to abortion at any stage, for any reason. Having an abortion on demand would be no more immoral than picking your nose on demand or having a mole removed on demand. It would require neither personal opposition nor any further thought on the matter.
2. “Naomi, does your belief that abortion on demand kills an innocent human being have any objective basis?”
This is also easy to answer because, if she’s a thinking Christian, two things will happen. First, she will tell you that the scientific consensus amongst embryologists is that the unborn is a distinct, living, and whole human being from the point of conception. Second, she will appeal to her Christian convictions and tell you that all human beings are knit together in their mother’s womb equally in the image of God, and that, as a follower of Christ with a public platform and a gift for feisty activism, she is compelled to speak out against the destruction of the powerless by the powerful, including those at risk of being dismembered with a Sopher clamp by the strong arm of a wealthy abortion doctor.
3. “Naomi, are you personally opposed to child rape?”
This should be brief. She will say “Yes” – then give you the death stare for asking such a stupid question. But it’s not a stupid question. It’s a trap.
4. The next question is obvious: “Would you be willing to impose this belief on others by banning child rape?”
In the blink of an eye, she will answer “yes”. At this point, though, you might want to remind her that preventing people from raping children is a question of objective morality rather than an issue of choice or individual conscience, as the Alliance Party puts it. It is more a case of asking whether a government should prevent terrible things from happening to a voiceless group of vulnerable human beings than the question of choosing between brown sauce or red sauce for your fry.
5. If at this point she doesn’t yet understand how absurd her position is, ask, “Why do you believe that rape is more serious than murder?”
If she still doesn’t get it at this point or refuses to answer, you can simply explain to her that she thinks it should be illegal to rape children but permissible to murder them – even though she “personally opposes” both child rape and child murder. You can now close the discussion by contrasting her muddled and inconsistent position with your clear and inclusive pro-life position that the law should ban both the rape and murder of children because both are forms of child abuse.