Note: I recently came across this article that I started writing after the March for Women’s Lives in 2004, due to a lot of technical computer problems it was only recently discovered. I have decided to post it anyway, because truth has no time limit.
On April 25, 2004 there was a march in Washington D.C “March for Women’s Lives” that drew hundreds of thousands of women in advocating the right for women to be violent. Abortion advocates might scoff at such a simplistic assessment but that exactly what it was-spin and propaganda doesn’t change the essential truth. Abortion is violence. Not only on the fetus being assassinated but also on the woman herself. Abortion is painful and still leads to women’s deaths, it is just nice and legal now.
The next day an article appeared in AOL News. It reported girls are becoming
more violent than ever before. The article tells the story of Nicole Townes, a 12-year-old African-American girl, who was beaten and put into a coma by girls at a birthday party. Her crime? Being kissed on the cheek by the boyfriend of the birthday girl. When the mother saw Nicole being kissed she is reported as telling her daughter “to handle her business.” Nicole survived the attack but it is going to be a long road to recovery. When we make everyone the enemy no one is safe. Nicole didn’t kiss the boy, he kissed her, but she was made the enemy not the boy. The mother would never tell her daughter to beat up her boyfriend, after all boys have more upper body strength and her daughter would’ve probably been the one to end up in a coma. Nicole was an easier target.
What do these two seemingly unrelated events have in common you ask? A woman thinking that it is okay to be violent. Think about it, when we allow women to act violently to solve problems such an unwanted pregnancy why should we prevent them from using violence to solve other more trivial problems? We tell them the fetus inside them is the enemy and deserves to be killed. How much of a bigger leap is it then to kill anyone, unborn or born, who is seen as the enemy? Nicole was the enemy and deserved to die for “disrespecting” her. Even though Nicole was completely innocent as long as she was perceived as the enemy she could be killed without remorse. This is what the abortion mentality has given us-violent girls.
The article pondered the increase in violence in girls while simultaneously reporting on the abortions rights march. Why are girls becoming increasingly more violent? Hmmmm, I don’t know, could it be that we have thousands of women marching in Washington saying violence is the solution to life’s problems I wonder? Could it be how we glamorize bullies? Could it be the way we tell them, as long as they are smaller you have every right to hurt them? Nah couldn’t be any of those things.
The article stated: Nationally, violence among teenage boys – as measured by arrest statistics and surveys – outstrips violence among teenage girls 4 to 1, according to the Justice Department. But a generation ago, it was 10 to 1. Schools report a similar pattern in the number of girls suspended or expelled for fighting. (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040426170809990012)
Roe v Wade has been with us for a little over a single generation. A generation is approximately 20-25 years. Roe has been around for 31. Yet within that generation violence among girls has risen 60%. This is unacceptable. The culture of violence is permeating within our young women and turning them into warriors. Women are increasingly becoming more violent in the media as well from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena, Tomb Raider and the current movie Mean Girls where a group of girls set out to make one girl’s life miserable depicts the growing violence among teenage girls. We no longer hold life to be sacred; it is kill or be killed. We are raising a generation of women rebelling against their womanhood and trying to “masculinize” them in the process. Critics will, of course, say there is no direct correlation between abortion and the increasing violence of women; that one simply has nothing to do with the other. That is denial of the obvious though. Abortion was supposed to end violence (don’t ask me the logic behind this though I haven’t a clue) against women and children. According to the pro-choice theory, a woman would choose to have a child and therefore wouldn’t abuse it. That hasn’t been the case, however, in fact child abuse has risen over 500% since Roe v. Wade was passed. So we only increased the violence against our children and a generation later we are paying for it through another generation of violent children.
Abortion rights advocates like to say, abortion makes it possible for a mother to be more loving to her children she bears since she can pick which ones she will keep. That it affects how she treats her children. They are right-it does affect how she treats them-she treats them worse. Women who have abortion are more likely to abuse their born children. How you treat your child when it is unborn affects how you will treat when they are born, and if you violently kill your unborn child why shouldn’t you violently kill your born one when it makes you angry? Or when taking care of it suddenly becomes inconvenient? The increasing violence among girls shouldn’t be surprising, alarming most definitely, but not surprising. We have inundated them with violent messages, we have made hedonism an art form and we have made morals a non-obligatory part of our society, is it no wonder a teenage girl can have a baby at her prom, throw it in the dumpster and return to her prom as nothing has happened? We sit in judgment of her but we are the ones who created her. The abortion mentality made that act acceptable. We have Planned Parenthood fighting against partial birth abortions, don’t we? All she did was have an after birth abortion. What’s the difference? Partial birth, after birth, they both are killing a newborn baby why is it only okay for a medical doctor to do it and not for the girl to do it herself? She was simply being self-reliant and think of the medical bills she saved the state from paying! Abortion rights advocates should be applauding her ingenuity! Instead they miss the message completely, “If she had let us kill her baby she wouldn’t have to done it on her own, and besides we won’t get those fetal parts to send to medical researchers.”
Violence has become a way of life for women in “civilized” countries. This is not strictly an American phenomenon. According to an English website: “Not only does 60% of abuse and neglect stem from mothers but the figure seems almost the ‘standard’ in many developed countries, e.g. UK, US, Canada and Australia.” (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/verismo/childmurder.html) So much for the notion that women are all sweetness and light. The idea that women can perpetuate violence towards their children and not have that spill over into other areas of their lives is a totally ludicrous assumption. Such ideas are never proposed when it is a man committing the violence, we wouldn’t say that a rapist acts ethical in every other aspect of his life and that his thirst for raping women has no effect on his character. If he is a rapist-that is his character, no matter what else he may do. So why don’t we hold women who abort to the same criteria as those who commit other atrocities?
As long as abortion is continued to be seen as a valid solution to one of life’s “problems” [Though having a child is hard, I would never see it as a “problem” but as a wonderful unexpected blessing.] there will continue to be violent girls. So the next time your child gets beat up, your liquor store gets robbed or there’s a drive by in your neighborhood, you might want to take a second look at the perpetrator because it just might be a girl.
Blacknright's Weblog 