When you enshrine a massive lie at the the heart of a civilization, the complexifications required to maintain the lie become staggering. We saw this, of course, as our civilization strove for four score and seven years to maintain the legal fiction that slavery was something besides a crime against humanity. Then, a century later, we decided that we needed some new outrageous crime to try to maintain by lies and raw force and settled on abortion thanks to Roe v. Wade. Now, with the Gosnell verdict we are essentially seeing the punishment of what always happens at an abortuary being meted out against one guy because was not merely a butcher (as all abortionists are) but an unaesthetic butcher. His chamber of horrors made visible what we have refused to see–what our media strove to keep invisible with might and main. His principal crime, in constrast to the numerous other butchers around the world who do exactly the same thing in every single abortuary on planet earth, was that he was so calloused to the slaughter that he no longer attempted to spray perfume on the whole thing or cover it up with the aesthetics of medical professionalism, or use the sanitized ritual language of the the high priests of “choice”. He took off the smock, wiped his gory hands on his wife beater undershirt and frankly set about being the swine he was.
Result: a media culture that has done all in its power to look the other way and pretend this charnelhouse never existed has been forced to look–and is now trying to lie to itself that, by reluctantly bringing this monster to book, it is “doing justice” and not manifestly and with massive hestitation changing tack and saying “See! We care!”
No. You don’t. You were dragged into covering this by New Media and you know you it, you filthy liars.
Meanwhile, as the lie continues to struggle to maintain its grip, we look elsewhere and see all kinds of denial. Get Religion, for instance, covers the tortured confusion surrounding how to charge the dude in Cleveland who abducted the women and forced them to abort. Is it homicide or not? Ruth Bader Ginsberg, staunch supporter of child murder, has to give a talk in which she expresses her reservations about Roe v. Wade. Why? Well, she hurries to establish her pro-child murder cred with her Lefty audience of course. But at the same time she knows that Roe created the prolife movement because it established, by the exercise of raw judicial power, a massively unjust cancer at the heart of our democracy that will never really heal. Ginsburg, being a fool, thinks the cancer is the prolife movement to whom Roe “gave a target’. In reality, of course, the cancer is the attempt to say “Murder is just fine when you really want to murder a baby”.
An unborn baby is a child under the law if the child is likely to be born alive, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
An unjust law is no law at all. The tortured response to our abortion jurisprudence here in the West is living proof.