For many years, those women who have supported the murder of children in the womb have defiantly cried out “My body, my choice!” Concomitantly, males in support of this evil practice have echoed that sentiment with “Who am I am to tell a woman what to do with her body?” This rubbish has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by an ever-more credulous public eager for the pretense of morality without any of the accompanying effort or cost and all of the perceived perks and benefits.
Lately, this pernicious phrase has come to the fore in the service of a movement that actually has merit, namely that individuals in an ostensibly free society should not be forcibly injected with substances without their consent upon the whims of the decrepit ruler of a panicked and unhinged demos. Let me first state that which should be obvious to all imbued with even a bare modicum of wisdom: there is no quick and easy answer to the subject of vaccinations. Anyone who states that we all should allow ourselves to be injected with whatever a government ‘expert’ and his corporate henchmen stipulate, whenever they stipulate it, is a fool, as is anyone who states that there is no situation, ever, in which measures should be taken to protect a community from those who are verifiably transmitting deadly disease to others . To reason is to proceed carefully and with nuance, and to the mass of people today, these are anathema. The thinking behind entering this phrase into the political/moral arena is essentially: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” i.e. it is hypocritical for leftists to demand forcible vaccination of those people who choose not to be vaccinated, for such forcible vaccination violates their autonomy and privacy, which according to the left is supposedly sacrosanct, in fact, sacrosanct unto the death of innocents.
One of the problems with adopting this tactic is that it gives tacit assent and support to the lie that the salient issue in not allowing women to commit infanticide is that it is an attack upon the woman’s autonomy and privacy. Another problem is that by invoking this narrative, the core issue, the core truth, is missed yet again, which is precisely what the enemies of that which is true desire. It should also serve as a warning signal that even those who might say the right things and who might even be motivated by commendable beliefs, oftentimes lack the perspective and operative principles to understand what it is they are actually doing and why they are doing it, and hence they become unwitting allies of those who propagate beliefs which are rightly regarded as abhorrent. This surface-level approach in the United States and the West to all things of relevance runs deep indeed.
But what is the core reality that is being missed? It is, that just as the destruction and subsequent disposal of the unborn into the trash is rooted entirely in selfishness, so it is with forced vaccinations: they are both a consequence of individuals who have taken the message of self ‘love’ to its murderous and logical conclusion, i.e. that the self is all that matters, and anything or anyone that impedes the desires thereof must be destroyed or cast aside. Just as the barbaric cultures of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas of old murdered their children by the thousands to appease the ‘gods’ in order to ensure a good crop yield and for their lives to be easier or more comfortable, so do today’s barbarians execute their children by the millions in the pursuit of the same ends. As Solomon said three millennia ago: There is nothing new under the sun.
Consider: Forcible injections are not new to the left, for one of the many horrific realities about the monstrosity of the homicide of the unborn, is that for many years it was achieved via an injection of saline into the amniotic sac and/or directly into the baby: “Saline abortions use a saline solution to poison the baby, which burns him or her inside and out, even burning off the outer layer of their skin. The child suffers in these conditions for over an hour until their demise, and the mother must deliver her dead child the next day.” It is revealing that even the murderous advocates of this moral atrocity acknowledge that a death has occurred: “Fetal death within one hour of injection has been documented by hysterotomy. The hypertonic saline infusion causes water to diffuse into the amniotic sac from surrounding fetal and placental tissues. The damage resulting from this fetal dehydration is probably responsible for fetal death.” ‘Probably’ responsible. Who knows? Who cares? All that matters is that the threat to the self’s autonomy and independence has been dispensed with. As indicated above, because this barbaric practice often required a stay at the hospital so that the dead baby could be safely and sanitarily ‘delivered,’ it was supplanted by cheaper and more expeditious means of killing our offspring.
Many of the people who have advocated for these horrors (or via their votes have lent their support to it) are woefully uninformed about the realities of it, hence, it should surprise no one that they would tend to follow blithely and mindlessly along with the architects of atrocity down the path towards enforced vaccination. As to those who do know the grisly details, is it any less unsurprising that the members of a party where the primary shibboleth for entry and candidacy is advocacy of such murder, are the same people clamoring for forcible vaccination of those, who like the unborn baby, are guilty of no crime against them? Thus, it follows, that the advocates of the murder of the unborn are being consistent (not hypocritical) when out of their terror at the perceived imperilment of their own ease and comfort, they lend their support to policies that pursue forcible injections of hastily developed and poorly tried concoctions passed off as trustworthy vaccines along with terrible penalties for those that refuse, for these are the same people who out of the darkness of their understanding are enthusiastic supporters of the slaughter of innocents for the very same reasons. Forcible injection, ostracization, and making pariahs of those who exhibit probity and aren’t ruled by fear, is a small matter compared with the horrors they’ve willingly and knowingly supported or inflicted upon untold millions of children for decades. Only in the very penumbra of reality has the heinous practice of terminating a pregnancy through a variety of grisly and terrible means been about autonomy and privacy, and so, whenever someone proposes that a moral horror be ‘tolerated’ or made legal, all those of sober mind should work from the assumption that there is an abominable lie lurking within whatever is said in the defense or support of said horror. Therefore, the lesson to be learned is that while we must always eschew psittacism, we must be especially careful to avoid echoing any statement made by those who have demonstrated that they are the avowed enemies of the true and the good.
So while it is true that contra the claims made by the left regarding a woman’s right to instigate the murder of her own child, the statements made by those in regards to privacy, autonomy, and choice in respect to vaccination have actual cognitive and moral legitimacy, it is also true that because the phrase “My body, my choice” is so polluted and stigmatized with the stain of the blood of 100s of millions of victims, it cannot be wisely used for anything other than as an object of contempt, derision, and ultimately great sorrow because of the vast evils perpetrated under its banner.