One of the safest places to be these days is in the womb of a queen-to-be. That would be extremely awkward for most of us, to say the least. But for one (or is it two little fellers?), it's a true reality show. I've even heard the name “Diana” (for the girl, I trust) tossed around, but for humour purposes, I'll refer to the unborn Windsor baby as “Fred.”
Fred, for those of you who have been glued to the wrong screen these past few weeks, is the outcome and the offspring of the highly popular William and Kate Windsor. Well, maybe not quite “out” yet, but it seems like everyone is in an expectant mood these days: Kate, with the baby, and the rest of us, with the news of the baby. I am sincerely happy for them, and I trust that the pregnancy will go well, and that they will deliver a healthy baby.
The early stages of said pregnancy have been wrought with an over-anxious public eye, a hoax gone bad (namely, the suicide death of the “hoaxee”), and some serious, glaring inconsistencies from those who embrace the pro-death (aka, pro-choice) philosophy.
It is that inconsistency that I wish to address here.
On the one hand, there is no thought that the living baby within Kate's womb is anything less than a human—even at only a few weeks into the pregnancy. To even suggest otherwise would be outrageous. Try writing a so-called pro-choice article in the London Daily Mail—opining whether to abort or to carry full term--and see what happens. As stated before, it already has a name; it already has a future—and all of England is doing cartwheels.
Okay, maybe I exaggerate a little on that last point, but there seems to be a grand enthusiasm for the safe arrival of this child. And so it should be. But, on the other hand—and here's where the double standard kicks in--say William and Kate were Bob and Sally. And it's not England, it's Washington state. Then the whole conception-pregnancy-delivery now takes on a brand-new angle.
Unlike William and Kate, Bob and Sally don't want the baby. Do you understand that their version of Baby Fred could be killed (let's call it what it is) up to mere weeks before his birth? Do you have any idea how unsafe it is to be an unborn baby in North America, especially since Roe vs. Wade? Methinks the general public has been duped into thinking that abortion is a clean procedure, that a woman has the only say, and that an unborn child is not a human.
Again, back to England: Why is the baby that Kate Windsor carrying is considered a child, a living human being, even at eight weeks, whereas another child under similar circumstances, at the same time, would be considered a thing, a nuisance, a blob, and dismissed as an inconvenience—to be killed by an abortionist.
I have always wondered how doctors could do that to another human being, then head home for supper to play with their own kids. The same could be said about the guards at the Nazi concentration camps—one of many similarities, not lost on any thinking person.
If we had any idea what was happening behind closed doors in these “abortuaries,” we would be horrified. We shouldn't gloss over what happens to innocent, fully human babies.
I'm not even big on royalty, so this article is not because I have a deep regard for the royal family. In fact, I have issues with kings and queens living the lap of luxury. The gist of this article is that whether we are left or right, black or white, English-speaking or Spanish-speaking, we are all the same underneath. From the mystical union of a man and a woman, a human life is conceived and life begins. So how can any rational person--who has ever examined the whole conception, cell division, and prenatal development--ever wipe out a defenseless life by a variety of means, is beyond me.
What is beyond me today, however, is the blatant double standard that the media, in particular, have embraced. The same ones that go gaga over Baby Fred are the same ones who have no problem lauding the abortion industry.
Maybe if all women were queens-to-be, life indeed would be different.
No comments:
Post a Comment