Oprah Winfrey and “Shout your Abortion”

Oprah Winfrey is promoting “Shout your Abortion” movement through the July issue of “O” magazine which highlights – Amelia Bonow the founder of “Shout your Abortion – in the “Inspiration” section of the magazine… It seems that Winfrey may be a “nice,” albeit wicked, wicked woman! Wickedness (evil) – as Hannah Arendt argues in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil – holds the wicked, and wicked actions, do not necessarily appear at all to be monsters, but they are monsters nevertheless. People – consciously, or unconsciously – (absent duress) are limited in their choice by what they believe to be good and evil; denying that intrauterine humans are sacrosanct results in establishing an arbitrary (moveable) ground of when human life is given legal protection; arbitrary definitions are generally products of sentimentality and thus antithetical, and even inimical, to enduring society. And of course, these women are encouraged to celebrate their freedom and choice… That being said, we note that advocates of abortion emphasize ‘choice,’ but want to limit the discussion to choice, avoiding at all cost as to what it is that is chosen i.e., the murder of baby! If Oprah is such an advocate of abortion, she is but a pleasant demon, like many abortionists (note there are also abortionists that are unpleasant demons).

Murder is the wanton taking of the life of an innocent moral entity. Humans are the only beings – of which we humans are aware – which constitute a moral being. Now that begs the question: “What is a moral being?” Unfortunately, all descriptions of moral beings must be defined in potency, rather than actuality… We could assert that a moral being must be able to identify his/her interest and claim that interest, but then your teenager – playing football, baseball, hockey, soccer, name a sport or activity – and incurs an injury, which places them in a coma; so they become former moral beings? No, it is not their actual condition, were that so, no children surviving the womb would be entitled to protection under the law until they possessed the wherewithal to claim protection. Using arbitrary criteria to differentiate moral-beings from non-moral beings may give us a desired flexibility – that way we could empower the State to eliminate irritants, and undesirables – so we reiterate that our description is of potency. If we accept a moral being as an entity which in potency identifies or knows his/her interest and claims that interest, it implies a host of other conditions e.g., rationality, free-will etc. all of which are analytically redundant…

Having identified the conditions of murder, we can now ascertain whether the condition of being intrauterine can be considered a disqualifying condition i.e., does the intrauterine condition omit or admit the baby as a moral being? Of course, the answer is: admit! It can be argued, that the definition allows any sentient being admittance. No, it does not! It can be argued that “potency” is begging the question… No! If we omit potency, it would establish the ground for the wholesale slaughter of people temporarily incapacitated. And if we were to argue a moral being is: “An entity of life’s experiences and able to state their desire to be a continuing entity of life’s experiences” is more of the same. We leave it to advocates of abortion to try to provide a criterion, which cannot be turned upon them…

The United States of America has sanctioned roughly 1.5 million abortions each year since 1973; we have eclipsed the number of all military casualties in WWII, about doubling the, between 22 – 25 million, total combatants that died and closing in on the total fatalities, 60 – 70 million, of WWII. Yet we, as a national concern ourselves less with the slaughter of the innocent than we do with the trivia, of trivia. The people of the United States of our Founding era, and those up and into the at least the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision would think their progeny moral monsters, for our cultural acceptance/tolerance of abortion, alone. Question: is the systematic extermination of millions, at the hands of the Axis powers, a difference in kind, or difference in degree from the systematic extermination of the millions of babies, via abortion? Answer: An emotional difference only; those murdered by the Nazi’s had conscious relations and experiences intrauterine children lack…

            Moreover: We guess that the soldiers – who entered Auschwitz or Dachau – would have been no less appalled had they encountered piles of aborted babies rather than the corpses of humans of various ages… Even the most jaundiced soldier – in 1945 – had objective moral consciences i.e., consciences which intuited objective and universal right, and wrong. Yes, the average WWII hard-ass – standing in 1945 Germany and able to view you –  the average citizen abortion advocate in the United States of 2018 – would think that you akin to a NAZI, but a more hedonistic NAZI, thus, much in line with Adolph Hitler’s 3rd Reich, but lacking the discipline of the Germans of 1945. So the difference is definitively one of degree! In some ways – given the dominant moral temper in the West – We opine that the writers of The Walking Dead consciously – or unconsciously – are commenting on our individual and collective souls. Moreover, we think it likely that the “Greatest Generation” transported from 1945 to the present – without assimilating present day altered worldview – may think the Nazi’s triumphed; and perhaps (morally) they did…

In the United States what is generally opposed, is the unvarnished truth, this because most people, although not all, will alter their choices, to accord with they perceive to be true. Thus, in the United States the U.S. Government – with the assist of the Media/Entertainment Cultures & public institutions – decided to demonize smoking (note: This writer has never partaken of tobacco products; so we are not arguing for tobacco products…) – in the 1990’s – they convinced the general populace to fear 2nd hand smoke and to detest smoking… The public was manipulated, and much of what altered public opinion was questionable data (The Government argued correlation as if it were certainty i.e., some smokers have high incidents of cancer, thus the Government argued those which inhale smoke from  tobacco products are going to die a cancer death…) questionably “packaged” by Uncle Sam…

So what would happen if the truth were ubiquitously told about the act of abortion? What if billboards ubiquitously juxtaposed these 2 facts regarding abortion: that1.) it is – the terminating of an innocent human life a.k.a. murder – and 2.) it is your legal right!???? I suspect abortions would become nearly extinct! What laws a culture may pass – predicated upon its altered understanding – are what laws it passes, as an organic acknowledgment of its changed views. So I suspect the truth of abortion, would result in I altered laws; I much prefer truth over force… The truth has a way – once known – of indicating the conscience.”

The Government of the United States has no Constitutional authority to concern itself with the health-care of its citizenry, but it does have a Constitutional interest in the moral dispositions of its citizens, and hence should encourage in its Laws and in its Institutions – moral virtue! Such an endeavor would likely alter many of the conditions which lead to people having abortions and would go along way towards the realization of the 6 principles of the Preamble of the United States Constitution.