Susie O’Brien might be good to look at.
But she’s bloody horrible to read. I emphasise the word bloody because it’s the most apt description possible.
Her latest piece was a defence of Victoria’s atrocious abortion laws. Four days before Mother’s Day, Susie was in the Herald Sun defending the following:
- Partial birth abortion
- Gender selection abortion
- The killing of children after they are born
- The lack of pain relief for babies who are ripped apart in the womb after they have developed nerve endings
- The criminalisation of medical practitioners who, unlike Susie, have a conscience and refuse to refer women to abortion providers
It’s a sickening list. And it shows, in Susie O’Brien’s case, that beauty is only skin deep.
This ‘feminist’ believes that the above atrocities are civilised. All civilised people beg to differ.
These actions are not civilised. They are barbaric. And the fact that they are lawful in Victoria shows that this state has no claim to the adjective ‘civilised’ in any way, shape or form.
In fact, it should shame every single Victorian every single day that they live in a state that has legalised such brutality.
It should shame the pro-life movement that they were not able to fill the parliamentary gallery when these laws were debated.
And it should shame the Catholic bishops of Victoria that the Premier currently running the joint and overseeing these laws claims that he is Catholic. Just like them.
But let’s get back to Susie. Her piece was full of illogical and deceitful claims. It was nothing more than propaganda. She is simply a mouthpiece for the barbarians who seek to make pro-life beliefs socially and politically abhorrent.
I’ll re-emphasise that last point: Susie O’Brien is a mouthpiece for evil of the most foul kind.
Unfortunately, she might not get that. So I’ll put it into terms that the modern-day-moron can understand: Susie O’Brien is about as divisive as you can get and she lacks compassion and tolerance.
So let’s take her words and tear them apart, as they deserve to be.
O’Brien’s piece starts out with the lie that abortion is good for women. It would be a laughable statement if the subject was not so serious. The truth is that abortion leads not just to the death of a child, but often to the death of the mother as well.
That is not good for women.
The very public and tragic case of Charlotte Dawson is proof of this.
As we all should know, Dawson herself linked the day of her abortion to her depression and unfortunate suicide.
O’Brien would do well to dwell on that. She might like to consider how many other Charlotte Dawsons there are, depressed or dead as a result of abortion. And O’Brien might like to consider how she is helping to hide this truth by refusing to acknowledge the link. She has written about Dawson at least three times and not once mentioned abortion.
Then O’Brien tried to play the guilt card. It doesn’t work on those who are logical.
Apparently, O’Brien thinks that moves to outlaw partial birth or gender-selection abortion are just an attempt to shame women.
No. They are an attempt to protect (some) life.
The reason women feel guilty about abortion is because they participate in murder. And they should feel guilty for doing so.
So let’s get the guilt-trip out of the way. Guilt is a good emotion. All of us have experienced it. It is the horrible feeling we have when we do something wrong. It helps us resolve never to carry out that evil action again. And with the acceptance of our wrong-doing comes new sensations: the realisations of forgiveness and then relief of the mind and soul.
That is why the Catholic sacrament of Penance is such a truly wonderful gift. Apart from restoring the relationship with God, it alleviates sufferings of guilt and helps us to focus on a good future rather than an evil past.
It is a better protection from depression than any medical intervention.
But O’Brien would rather women keep these feelings bottled up behind the lie that their guilt is someone else’s fault. She would rather the mental turmoil continue than be resolved in the only positive way possible: acceptance of wrong-doing.
The truth is that the guilt of abortion will gnaw away at the mind whether or not abortion is legal. And it makes no difference if people like me write about it. Those who assist in abortion feel guilty because they have assisted in evil. And they deserve to feel that way.
That’s not to say that I think that post-abortive women should be locked up. That won’t solve the problem of past wrongs. These women need help to deal with their pain and people like Susie O’Brien are doing their best to make sure they never get it.
Next, O’Brien claimed that proposed amendments to abortion laws will not improve abortion services. I’m happy to concede this point. It is impossible to improve this barbaric practice. She also stated that this debate was just designed to highlight the negative aspects of abortion.
This is about as close as Susie gets to the truth. Susie admits that abortion has a downside, although she probably does not even realise that she has done so.
Everything to do with abortion is negative. But gender-selection abortion is pure, unmitigated evil. There are no pink fluffy bunnies to be found, whatever way this concept is chopped up. And yet O’Brien is there defending the legality of it in a major newspaper.
In doing so, Susie has unashamedly highlighted a very negative aspect of her character.
O’Brien claims that gender-selection abortion is not a problem in Victoria. It hardly ever happens. The community is against it. And so are the doctors. According to Susie’s logic, that means no laws are required to prevent gender-selection abortion.
Unfortunately, Susie’s logic is stunningly stupid. And her facts are just wrong.
Gender-selection abortion is a problem in Victoria. We know this because a doctor has been forced to front up and explain to the Medical Board of Victoria why he should not lose his medical license. His crime: failing to refer a woman to a doctor who would happily carry out the gender-selection abortion that she had requested.
And this news report shows that some ‘feminist’ doctors aren’t against it at all. In fact, they claim that the doctor in question was in the wrong. Susie O’Brien should know about this. After all, she wrote the article.
And then there’s the problem of her logic.
Susie might not realise it, but murder hardly ever happens in Victoria either. Certainly a lot less than abortion. There were only 178 murders in 2011/12, according to the Victorian Police, whereas there was somewhere in the region of 23,000 abortions. And we know that at least one of these was a gender-selection abortion. We simply do not know how many more babies were knocked off because of the wrong bits and pieces. Doctors are encouraged not to tattle-tale.
That means, at most, there were only 177 more murders than gender-selection abortions. And it could have been a lot less. It’s a trifling difference.
Plus the community is overwhelmingly against murder as well. Furthermore, unlike gender-selection abortion, I can’t find any articles that show doctors support murder. So if Susie wants to claim to be logical, then she has to admit that her arguments against laws forbidding gender-selection abortion can also be used to call for the abolition of the law against murder too.
Susie also claims in her article that there is no requirement to worry about pain relief or the survival of children who outlive abortion. Why? Because she says it is shameless scaremongering and we that should trust the doctors involved.
It is scientific fact that babies can feel pain after 20 weeks. Considering their heart is beating away at approximately 22 days of gestation, it’s probable that it is a lot sooner. The only one who is shameless on this issue is Susie. She says these children don’t even deserve the dignity of pain relief as they are ripped apart.
And given the fact that the doctors who make a buck out of late term abortion have been found guilty of murder, guilty of spreading Hepatitis C because they can’t be bothered sterilising instruments and are called butchers by the women they operate on, they are the last people anyone should trust.
Just as these 2009 Victorian figures show (and they are the latest figures we have to work with).
There were 226 neo-natal deaths in Victoria in 2009. And 42 of them were the result of a live birth after a botched abortion for a ‘birth defect’.
That means that nearly 20 per cent of the babies who wound up as the figures behind this report into neo-natal death were aborted. For a life threatening illness. And they survived that. Plus the instruments. And then they were just left there to die in some empty room in a medical facility.
The abortion doctors couldn’t kill them properly the first time around, but they sure as hell did the job the second time. And these are the people that Susie wants us to ‘trust’. In fact, her words are that these people ‘perform abortion in a way that is safe and humane’.
Excuse me while I vomit.
As for the numerous legal safeguards that Ms O’Brien refers to, I am yet to see any evidence that they exist. The Victorian government collects enough data to report that 42 babies were killed after birth in 2009, including info on the date, place and time of death, the doctor involved, as well as casually mentioning that child survived a termination. But there has not been one prosecution. Susie’s ‘law’ is no safeguard at all.
The horror of this situation is sickening. Every single one of those 42 babies were alive after birth. And instead of caring for them, the abortionists spent their time lining up the next ‘patient’.
To make matters worse, there were nearly another 400 abortions performed after 20 weeks’ gestation. Mostly they were for healthy babies killed for psychological reasons. And all of the mothers involved would be entitled to paid parental leave under today’s arrangements.
Susie O’Brien, however, thinks that the laws are fine and dandy as they stand.
Like I said at the start, this means that Susie O’Brien is nothing more than a bloody horrible mouthpiece for evil.