Times Thunderer 20/12...
(Happy Christmas Fr. C, here’s my thoughts)
I feel your newsletter Pro-Life entry starts well, but I am question the focus on: “shocking article about thousands upon thousands of legally frozen embryos/babies for the purpose of medical research. This can’t be right.” It follows the The Bishop’s of England communication which was worded badly I felt, & made a connection between “aborted foetuses” and vaccine development. Both valid points of view but I am not sure they win anyone over in the general or specific argument.
The point I would prefer to emphasise is Women’s Rights. This is to make common ground with others, such as those that fight the expansion of Trans access to female spaces. I would that there is a general undermining of Women’s Rights
I had a go at writing a comment on the article in The Times yesterday (behind paywall). I quickly commented:
At this time of year we should be celebrating Birth, not easier abortion. We can also do without glib SNP-speak such as “dragging” (as noted recenly by another commenter). The recent (trans) agenda seems to be anti-women & kids and I think one more give-away is that the author represents themselves as from an “Abortion Rights” organisation, not Women’s.
As (the Catholic ?)Waldemar Januszczak points out in his latest video (below), Art History Perspective on Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Marriage Painting: The National Gallery Handbook tries to maintain that the lady in the picture is not pregnant !! By, enabling/encouraging earlier, easier termination the campaign to diminish the importance of women & their natural functions tries to gain traction.
In conclusion the fight has moved on from pro vs anti abortion to more subtle battleground but easier for the good-guys to fight on — Women’s Rights.
