Last night the CBS Evening News did a story on an abortionist in Kansas who brags that he does about 3500 abortions every year and many of them late term abortions. I think the reporter tried to be unbiased in the report and simply report the facts. This doctor, though, is a mass murderer the likes of which would make John Wayne Gacy blush. Adolph Hitler would certainly feel at home with him.
During the report a woman who was clearly and visibly quite pregnant, maybe six months or more, came to this doctor for an abortion. The reason was that she had another baby that she had to put up for adoption and this caused her severe emotional trauma. So with her current baby allowing the abortionist to murder him/her was a better solution to her emotional anxiety. I hope the viewing audience understood the narcissism of this way of thinking. It makes one wonder why there are not clinics to bring your new borns that you don't want to be murdered to spare the anxiety of having someone else rear the baby. This report was beyond shocking.
The reporter asked a protester outside the clinic who carried a large, graphic photo of a late term aborted baby why he was there, after all abortion is legal, even late term abortions in Kansas. The protester said, you know as well that killing Jews and gypsies as well as other undesirables in Nazi Germany was legal too. Did that make it right? Should not more of Germany and the world spoken up about what was happening in Nazi Germany and did not? He also stated that slavery was legal in this country. Did that make it right? Should there not have been a Civil War to rid this country of its presence? Of course we all have seen pictures of the death of starved, naked Jews, thousands of them in concentration camps. We seen explicit photos of blacks who were lynched. These photos are displayed prominently in some places to show the horror of what happened so that it won't happen again. Yet when pro-life people display the graphic photos of aborted babies, pro choice people ridicule them, but they would never ridicule the other graphic photos I describe.
You know this protester was right. Nonviolent action is needed. Sometimes nations can declare war on those who promote the destruction of human life like our nation did in World War II and is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Church also allows for the Just War theory for nations. This does not apply to individuals, we can't declare war on anyone and then take the law into our own hands. But we can protest and we can fight for the changing of laws. We can do what Martin Luther King, Jr. did to help overcome the laws of segregation and the mentality of prejudice. He did so non-violently and he was never deterred when violence was directed his way or he was arrested and put into jail. He knew that his non-violent cause was just and would win in the long run and it did. So too in the non-violent fight for the right to life of the unborn!
Katie Courick in introducing the story acknowledged that abortion is a very polarizing issue in America and that everyone knows the violence associated with abortion clinics leading to deaths. Of course she meant those isolated incidences where individuals taking the law into their own hands have murdered abortionists. I think there has only be one abortionist murder recently, the one in Kansas. It was left to the viewers to realize that the real horror of violence is the death of scores of babies in these clinics day in and day out. The abortionist interviewed bragged that he performed more than 3500 abortions annually and many of them late term. If that is not violence that should galvanize a nation I don't know what is. God have mercy on us that the vast majority of Americans and the world look the other way. And the secular press has the audacity to criticize bishops who took inadequate steps in the sex abuse scandal in the Church? Give me a break! And yet they show no outrage or indignation at an abortionist who murders 3500 children every year? Talk about bankrupt morality! There were no hard questions hurled at the abortionist. Could you imagine the type of questions hurled at a bishop who did little to supervise a pedophile priest? The reporter would have tried his/her best to humiliate the bishop for his inaction and incompetency by the hard questions asked.
If you saw this report, what impression did you have? Would it make a pro-choice person think again or not? Was it pro-life or pro-abortion? Was it neither? Did it have a bias?