Luminaries of Australia’s abortocracy

The Australian Greens party seems to me like the closest thing that Australia has to the party of Satan. If the Devil wanted to enter Parliament, he would seek and gain Greens pre-selection. Eventually he would challenge for the leadership, and he would win. Everything that they stand for, Satan stands for: atheism, abortion, euthanasia, preference utilitarianism, socialism, adultery, ‘gay marriage’, sodomy and, if former Greens candidate Professor Peter Singer is to be believed, bestiality.

So it comes as no surprise to hear (from The Age, via Mr. Schütz’s Sentire cum Ecclesia) that Victorian Greens M.P. Colleen Hartland is not only pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia, but has in fact had an abortion herself, or rather, contracted a doctor to perform one on her own unborn baby. This woman was once a Catholic, but :

"I'm completely detached from the church now," she says. "There's no place for someone with my opinions in the church [sic]."

Quite right, Ms. Hartland. The Catholic Church is the Kingdom of Truth, and you, Madam, are, materially, a servant of the father of lies. Her excuse is that “[t]he timing was just completely wrong”. But the timing of the conception and the abortion were both of her own choosing, so I’m not sure what this really means.

Still, what she had to say was not quite as egregious as what Federal Labor M.P. Catherine King, purportedly a Catholic, said during the RU-486 debate:

I find the notion that those supporting it have less faith or belief than those opposing it deeply offensive. It is from my Catholic upbringing I get my deep sense of social justice. I would not have become a member of Parliament without it. I am Catholic.
(http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1571829.htm)

No, Madam, you are not. How repulsive.

Finally, a few words on the notion of being ‘pro-choice’. Choice is, of course, just a faculty, and therefore oriented towards its operation. Laws are enacted in order to restrict or permit the objects to which the faculty may be applied without penalty. The possible objects of the faculty are, in this case, abortion or non-abortion. ‘Pro-choice’ seems, then, to mean that either object is a legitimate object for the operation of the faculty. Therefore pro-choice means pro-abortion and pro-non-abortion. But non-abortion is not at issue here; both ‘sides’ agree that non-abortion is a legitimate object for the faculty of choice. So why are the pro-choicers so allergic to being called pro-abortion when, on this issue, that is precisely what they are?

Reginaldvs Cantvar