The “unwanted” and the untruthfulness propaganda
Answering pro-abortion arguments of Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo
By Julio Severo
Everything begins in the mass propaganda, and the big media, which has a virtual monopoly of that propaganda, can provoke immense alterations in the mindset of the population. The Nazi propaganda czar used to say that a lie repeated a thousand times eventually becomes truth. Such repetition in the big media may turn in the popular mind hate into love and vice-versa, and death into life, and vice-versa.
However, the debate now no longer is about the life of the “unwanted” Jews in the media of Nazi Germany. The debate now deals with the “unwanted” unborn babies in the modern media of Brazil.
In his article “Abortando o problema” (Aborting the problem), Hélio Schwartsman, columnist and editorialist of Folha de S. Paulo, advocated abortion with the following argument:
“Let us suppose for a brief instant that laws and institutions worked properly in Brazil and that all of the women that induce or try to induce in themselves an abortion outside of the hypotheses allowed in law (life risk for the mother or pregnancy resulting from rape) were identified, prosecuted and jailed. In this case, we would need to build 5,5 new feminine prisons (facilities of 500 vacancies) a day just to shelter about 1 million former would-be mothers that interrupt their pregnancies illegally every year”.
I don’t know from which top hat Schwartsman got that rabbit of 1 million to base his calculations, since it is an old habit of the pro-abortion propaganda in Brazil to swell numbers. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a Jewish doctor that became the director of the largest abortion clinic in the Western world and oversaw 60,000 abortion procedures, has admitted concerning the propaganda before the legalization of abortion in the US:
“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”. — Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193.*
When the goal is to exterminate the “problem”, for the Nazi the ends justified the means —- and the propaganda and the inflated statistics. Today, when the goal is to abort the “problem”, equally the ends justify the means — and the propaganda and the inflated statistics.
But even if the number of 1 million employed by Schwartsman were correct, what to do? The “cultural” indoctrination controlled by Nazi in Germany reached such point that a major part of the population agreed in exterminating Jews — and probably a significant number of Germans participated actively in such extermination. What to do? Does the high number of participants in a crime justify its acceptance and legalization?
The good thing, in the case of Dr. Nathanson, is that he eventually abandoned his multimillionaire dirty business of doing abortions and manipulating statistics.
The wonders of the legal abortion?
The argument of Schwartsman continues, “Equally bulky resources would have to be assigned to the construction of orphanages, to shelter the thousands of children that would go unassisted during the prison term of their mothers”.
So with the legalization of abortion, would there be fewer expenses for the government? Welcome to “Alice in the Wonderland of Abortion”! And what about the bulkiest resources, Mr. Schwartsman, that would have to be assigned to cope with the enormous system that would have to be created in order to assist hundreds of thousands of women that, seduced by the announcements of the state abortion industry, would make two, three or four abortions? Who will pay that huge bill, Mr. Schwartsman? And who will pay the bill of the abortion traumas and sequels in the women and their families?
Try, Mr. Schwartsman, with your wife to homeschool your small children, and the Brazilian government will condemn you to prison or in the minimum to the loss of your custody over your children, little caring if your small children will lose their father and mother. In Brazil, homeschooling is a crime. While you propose that women that murder are to be spared, families that don’t murder nor rape are not being spared by the Brazilian State that wants control on everything and on everybody.
The government is also actively working to criminalize corporal discipline of children by loving parents. How much money, Mr. Should Schwartsman, will be spent for the construction of orphanages for children whose parents will be arrested by the “crime” of homeschooling or corporal discipline?
If even innocent parents are being condemned, why cannot criminals be condemned?
If a mother kills a six-year-old child, or kills another adult, should the State spare her just because she has other children to raise?
In the case where a mother willfully murdered her unborn baby, what chances will that woman’s other children have to have a psychologically healthy and non-traumatic upbringing?
Where does abortion put a woman?
Intentional abortion also puts a woman in a category different from a loving mother’s role. While, in order to achieve conquests, the pro-abortion feminist movement portrays all of the women as eternal oppressed and victims, the murder of unborn babies puts indeed a woman in the category of oppressor.
With intentional abortion, woman joins to man in the capacity and inhumanity of attacking, violating rights and murdering an innocent life.
Schwartsman continues, “It is worth to observe too that my calculation does not take in account a significant number of physicians, midwives or friends that in some way helped these women to get rid of unwanted fetuses and, according to the law, should also get jailed”.
What to do with the thousands of concentration camp guards, sadistic physicians and all the other Germans that collaborated to exterminate the “unwanted”? That would be a good question to the Folha de S. Paulo editorialist.
Public health issue?
Anyway, Schwartsman insists that “the abortion problem is not an issue to be solved in the courts”. What is it issue of, then?
Was it to exterminate Jews a public health issue? Probably, the Nazi-culture-loving German population would say “yes”, answering that it is much healthier not to have the undesirable Jews near. Today, those in the category of unwanted are the unborn, whose extermination is not treated as serious ethical and criminal problem, but simply as a “public health issue”.
Does contraception reduce abortions?
Schwartsman says, “The important, in practical terms, is to create conditions so that women don’t need to abort, and it is basically achieved through the offer of contraceptive methods free of charge or at least very cheap to the population (but the Catholic Church doesn’t agree) and sex education. Demographic studies are unanimous in pointing a very strong correlation between the level of the woman’s education and the decrease of fecundity and, consequently, of clandestine abortions”.
Does broad access to contraceptives reduce the number abortions? Schwartsman should explain that to the US and Europe, which are champions in contraception and legal abortion! Only the US has today more than 1 million legal abortions a year. Since the legalization of abortion in the USA in 1973, more than 50 million unborn babies were murdered. Contraception reduces the number of abortions, Mr. Schwartsman, only in magic shows with top hats and rabbits.
But I agree with him that there is a “very strong correlation between the level of the woman’s education and the decrease of fecundity”. In spite of that, there is no correlation between the level of the woman’s education and the decrease of legal abortions. None. It is enough to see American and European women: graduate and careerist moved by abundant contraception and abundant abortions.
Graduate, careerist and aborting
What is quite documented is that government and non-government groups in the US, with international institutions like the UN, have been for decades imposing the women’s systematic education, not because of a concern for their well-being, but exclusively to achieve their bigger objective of reducing the world population — including through legal abortion.
According to them, the woman that spends more time at the school and university will have as central concern of life her own professional ambitions, postponing marriage, if she marries. When she gets married — often near to the age of 30, when 90% ova are gone —, she has one or two children, and she is prone to abort as a way to protect her career. The modern professional woman is mass production model idealized by the population-control elite. She is the image and likeness of the planning by pro-abortion and anti-family social engineers.
The woman’s most prolonged education reduces her marriage and family chances, but it never reduces her sexual activity, which begins well early and without any commitment. Mr. Schwartsman then could present a more ethical and fair proposal: women that don’t want to have babies should avoid sexual relationships, which usually lead to pregnancy. If he doesn’t understand that so basic, so primordial principle, what may he understand on life, children and family?
That rational and practical proposal would solve vast social and individual problems, including abortion and children traumatized conceived in relationships of individuals whose only commitment is the hedonism.
Mr. Schwartsman gives his reason for not considering life as sacred: “It estimated that 2/3 to 3/4 of the fecundated ova never get attached in the uterus, resulting in miscarriages”. It is like saying that, just because thousands of men and women die from accidents everyday, you can equally forget that life is sacred and approve the murderous pretensions from the heartless heads of editorialists and legislators.
Uncertainties on the right to life: the soap opera gets reprised
The remaining text of Mr. Schwartsman is busy obfuscating issues regarding the beginning of human life, trying to oppose science with religion, and religion with religion, as if science, law, philosophy and religion could not be put at the service of the predominant ideological “ethics”. Science and religion were not problems for the secular State of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. In fact, for pure chance abortion was the ethics of the secular State in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union that, even alleging pro-family intentions, murdered babies and families. Both systems murdered inside and out of the uterus.
If Mr. Schwartsman had lived under such systems, his mother and the State would have had the final word on his unborn life, and outside of the uterus only the State would have been exclusively entitled to life and death decisions on him, leaving him little chance to survive to become a formulator of chic, false and twisted theories in Folha de S. Paulo, assuming the pose of a philosopher that knows how to think on ethical issues.
There will always be uncertainties about life, but nothing should hinder us from reaching a genuine ethics that sees “all of the human beings as creation of God”. There were for centuries uncertainties about the humanity of Jews. Some believed that they were half human beings. Others, not even that. The motivation behind each uncertainty or certainty was a lot of times hate. And it is not different in the abortion debate. When the talk is on “aborting the problem”, the undeniable motivation is hate, because hate leads to the destruction of innocent lives.
The ideological vision on the “unwanted”
Today, the Islamic world — which counts on at least 1 billion adherents — has in lesser or larger degree many uncertainties on the right to the existence of Jews and the most radicals among them have the opinion that Jews are simply disposable pigs and animals, and certainly with an official legalization of the extermination of Jews, many other haters would come out of the closet.
Is not hate that is motivating the president of Iran to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? Little he cares if Jews are human beings or not. In the same way, abortion advocates care little if the unborn are human beings or not. Hate, for them, is everything.
Nazis wanted to solve their “problem”. The president of Iran wants to solve his “problem”. Abortion advocates want to solve their “problem”. The propaganda is different, but the result is the same.
In Nazi Germany, government and big media walked hand in hand with the idea that the “unwanted” Jews were the problem. In modern Brazil, government and big media walk hand in hand with the idea that the “unwanted” unborn are the problem.
As a follower of Jesus Christ and his ethics, in Nazi Germany I would defend the “unwanted” Jews in the same way that I defend the “unwanted” unborn babies today. And even before the extreme hate and irrationality of a lot of nations against Israel, I dare to defend the right of the “unwanted” Israel to its existence, because of the promises of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
In spite of the uncertainties that Mr. Schwartsman tried to introduce in the abortion debate, the only certainty left in his text is that the “problem” should be aborted.
Mr. Schwartsman, the “problem” is not the Jew, nor the unborn. The problem is the lack of true ethics — the same ethics that led Christians to shelter and hide Jews from Nazis, the same ethics that today leads them to defend the right to life of the unborn babies against the propagandas defending the abortion Auschwitz.
Would the world be better with their legal destruction?
Schwartsman concludes by saying, “The world is not exactly a beautiful place. But we don’t need to worsen it still more by turning it in a huge prison”. Essentially, he meant, “The world would be less ugly if nobody were punished for killing unborn babies”.
In the countries where the State controls everything and everybody, nobody is sent to jail for killing unborn babies. Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, pioneering nations in modern pro-abortion legislation, didn’t need to build additional prisons to arrest women that killed their unborn babies. For Schwartsman, just that was already a big saving!
However, there was no saving to persecute the innocent. Both Soviet Union and Nazi Germany needed to build many more concentration camps, to arrest, torture and kill people disagreeing the system and its “ethics”. When criminals and their crimes receive legal protection, the innocent eventually lose theirs.
Risking being repetitive against the repetitive arguments by Schwartsman, the legalization of abortion will provoke the dark need to establish thousands of state clinics and abortion services throughout Brazil — at a high cost that, as usual, will be imposed on the Brazilian taxpayer’s shoulders. What a wretched destiny! To work to pay the blood bill of others!
In the countries where abortion is free, a citizen refusing to pay the abortion tax is arrested. A citizen daring to pray or to protest peacefully in front of a state baby slaughterhouse may be arrested as if he were a criminal — while physicians and women inside of the clinic kill under the protection of the law. And woe to those calling murderers of murderers, because police will come to beat — those antagonizing the “sacred” right of killing.
Today, as the Brazilian State increasingly controls the citizens’ life and it is walking to decriminalize abortion, the right to free speech of criticizing that murderous march has increasingly been cut, bringing the spectrum of one day where the upcoming pro-abortion State will feel need to build thousands and thousands of prisons to shelter the millions of Brazilian citizens disagreeing the imperious and sacrosanct state and media vision of abortion.
Mr. Schwartsman has his reasons to sanitize legal abortion: His name is connected to the Brazilian pro-abortion group Comissão de Cidadania e Reprodução (Citizenship and Reproduction Committee). Such credentials allow him to use his journalistic skills in an “impartial” and “objective way in the abortion debate.
In fact, the world is not a beautiful place, but it would be less ugly without Nazi and Soviet ideas of abortion.
For those that did not have their vision affected by the propaganda of untruthfulness, babies are one of the only beautiful things still left in this world. How can it become more beautiful with the legalization of their mass destruction?
Portuguese version of this article: Os “indesejáveis” e a propaganda da inverdade