The Proletariat Congress

When faced with life or death, most people unless they know that death is inevitable will choose life because they know that they have families that love them and wish them good health. To lose a family member hurts and those who are faced with this know it and display the will to live and to once again laugh and share in the merriment of life with their friends and family.

One British woman, Lorraine Allard, decided that she would rather not. Instead, she refused to accept medical treatment for a disease that decades of research and sacrifice have long since learned how to fight and nearly cure. The woman foolishly chose to not accept chemotherapy, and carried to term an unborn foetus at the cost of her life.

Either way, there was still going to be a ‘death’.

If she had accepted the treatment the doctors felt she needed, the cancer wouldn’t have advanced into the stage where it would be incurable. But, she didn’t listen to the doctors when told that she would have to abort the barely development foetus in order to be able to receive the life saving treatment that would have made the difference for the children she already had and depended on her.

Accept a medical abortion in order to allow her to fight back at the bowel cancer that had spread to her liver or bring another child into an over populated world? These were the choices.

She didn’t accept the treatment and carried the foetus as long as she could before an early labour was induced, allowing her to deliver the foetus naturally at 26 weeks, giving the child a mere 50% chance at survival.

Some forums on the internet have people praising her for a ’sacrifice’ and speak a though she were brave for her choice. As though she was truly a model human. The media (such as FOX, Daily Mail) have used positive words to describe her actions. They have chosen words that convey a noble action when the action was anything but brave.

It was foolish. Simply put, it was foolish. She left behind a husband who now has to bring up four children alone. At the time when her doctors suggested that she abort the foetus for medical reasons, she had three daughters, two of whom are old enough to remember this, to know that their mother would rather die than fight back against cancer and live to see them grow up.

Her son, the one born at the cost of her life could very well have issues over this if he cannot accept or handle the fact that he “killed mom”.

The daughters who remember could very well grow up to resent their brother, who they will associate with the death of their mother.

People are free to make their own choices, and if those choices are foolish, the rest of us are free to mock those people for such choices.  This woman made such a choice and people shouldn’t be praising her for dying and leaving the man who loves her without the mother of his children to face the world.

The Pope seems to think that Catholic politicians exist solely to enforce Catholic doctrine, and that because these politicians were elected that the people must too be Catholic and agree with every asinine and antiquated misogynist policy to be rehashed in the Vatican by a council of old men who have never been laid by anyone but an underage boy.

This kind of approach reinforces the fact that pro-lifers (anti-abortionists) are not really pro-life. They are pro-control. They don’t believe that women can make an educated choice and therefore need a man to make her medical choices regarding her body, even if they’ve met her; after all, women are really all the same hysterical light-headed waifs who need a man’s support to give her modern relevance.

Pro-choice is not about the “killing of unborn babies”; it’s about women being able to make choices regarding their own sexual reproduction and having control over their bodies. Pro-choice is about enabling women to have their lives in their control and not endangered simply because a group of dried up old fossils fail to see reason.

Pro-lifers don’t truly care about life as we expect they should. They only care if the life is unborn. They want to be able to control others and force their will on those who don’t share their faith and beliefs. This is also the same group that while condemning the choice of pro-choice women to seek abortion, will seek it for themselves, as they tend to believe that because they are God-fearing that their abortions are moral, while those of the others are immoral.

“In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the ‘antis’ by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular ’sidewalk counselor’ went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter’s situation had caused her to change her mind. ‘I don’t expect you to understand my daughter’s situation!’ she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to ‘murder their babies.’” (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)

“When a patient comes in with my ‘favorite’ sentiment: ‘The only moral abortion is my abortion,’ I try to expand her understanding that a few more of us have had and deserve a ‘moral’ abortion. When a woman expands her need for care beyond herself, you no longer have an ‘anti’.” (Clinic Administrator, Louisiana)

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

There is no one specific group of women who actively seek abortion more than any other. The spectrum is not restricted to those who are merely sexually active.

• 2/3 of women having abortions intend to have children in the future

• Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women

• one in five women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians

• single women who live with their partner or have no religious affiliation are about four times as likely as other women their age to have an abortion

Being religious and being non-religious didn’t make a difference, since both groups are likely to see abortion. However, those who had used some form of contraceptive were more likely to see an abortion.

Overall, 58% of the women having abortions experienced a contraceptive failure; 31% had used a method in the past but were not using one during the month in which they conceived, and 11% had never used any method.

Abortion Common Among All Women

Since it is common among women from all walks of life, why endanger their lives? They’re people too and they have their own reasons for seeking an abortion and it’s not always as the “pro-life” lobby wants us to believe. There are millions of reasons as to why, ranging from financial to not wanting more children than they already have or simply because they fear being discriminated against by their employer because they may be pregnant or become pregnant (Pregnancy Discrimination).

In a world where there is already a growing trend of overpopulation, child poverty, and unwanted children, it is unfathomable that people would want to force a woman to add another child into a world that already has millions of unwanted children; children starving because their parents cannot afford to feed the ones they have; children who are simply abandoned because they are the wrong gender.

Some politicians are able to see the problem and are trying to rectify it by giving women some form of freedom, even if it’s just for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, which translates into the first trimester, in which the foetus is in its zygote and embryonic stages. This is also the time frame in which a woman is the most likely to miscarry for any number of reasons.

Weeks 1-9 are the “embryonic” stage and 10-12 are the very beginning of the foetal stage. (Prenatal Development)

And what does the Bible have to say about unborn children?

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. — Exodus 21:22-23

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. — Numbers 3:15-16

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. — Numbers 31:15-17

From Exodus we learn that a foetus is not considered human life.

From Numbers we learn that there is babies under 1 month of age are not considered persons and that God sometimes approves of killing foetuses. Even Leviticus places no value on the life of a baby 1 month or younger.

Abortion is not a 20^th century concept, not by a long shot. It dates back to about 500BCE, more than have a millennium before the emergence of the Catholic Church. (History of Abortion)

Now we know why the Vatican adopted its own doctrine; it suits its purpose because the Bible doesn’t agree with it on the matter of abortion. It makes it easier to ex-communicate those who support abortion. Whether they are politicians or the nurses and doctors who provide the service.

No communion for pro-abortion politicians, Pope Says