8

Indoctrination Not Education

Indoctrination

 

Ericka Andersen at Victory Girls, gives us yet another example of the way in which education is often simple indoctrination these days:

 

The University of California-San Francisco is launching a new course on abortion, the first class of it’s kind.

The aim is to “contextualize abortion care within a public health framework from both clinical and social perspectives.”

What “Abortion: Quality Care and Public Health Implications” is really striving to do is normalize abortion as a typical healthcare procedure.

What they don’t acknowledge is that almost all abortions are elective — and only 3% are due to problems with the mother’s actual health. There are also a small percentage of abortions performed on rape or incest victims, but this is also about 3%. At least (and that’s being generous) 90% of abortions are elective — for reasons such as “not ready,” “too young,” “inconvenient,” “don’t want people to know I’m pregnant,” or “inadequate finances.”

Renowned abortion researcher Alan Guttmacher once said, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

By the way, Guttmacher served as president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, but that’s just a little detail.

Abortion is almost never healthcare. If anything, it’s the opposite. Doesn’t a doctor pledge to, “First, do no harm.” It’s beyond comprehension how any doctor can perform abortions and remember that’s an oath they took. Of course, it wasn’t hard to find one who has no trouble with it.

“I think that if we can inspire even a small portion of the people who take the course to take steps in their communities to increase access to safe abortion and decrease stigma about abortion, then we have been totally successful,” Dr. Jody Steinauer, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California – San Francisco said.

Steinauer noted that this “stigma” results in silence on the issue of and leads people “to believe that [abortion] is not common,” when it  is.

The course syllabus includes sections on “overcoming obstacles to abortion access” and “patient-centered care for first-trimester abortion.” Well, I’m glad to see they haven’t graduated to late-term abortion care but that can’t be too far down the road.

Here’s the thing, University of California, abortion will never be normalized. A 2012 Gallup poll showed that Americans lean pro-life by a nine point margin. You can’t deflect the reality of abortion, which is ending the life of a human being in growth. There’s literally no way around the science of when life begins. You can only justify in blind denial after that.

Go here to read the rest.  The left in this country thinks that indoctrination is their golden path to utopia by capturing the minds of the young.  The problem with relying on indoctrination is that pesky reality keeps rearing its ugly head, and that most participants in indoctrination ultimately realize that they have been had.  Indoctrination, to be effective long term, relys on the use of the power of the State to make sure that the indoctrinators have a monopoly on speech.  In the age of the internet that is becoming a very hard condition to reach, and I think it becomes a bit harder each day.

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

8 Comments

  1. “There’s literally no way around the science of when life begins ..”

    But what follows? In his 1995 essay, Rethinking Life and Death, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer famously demanded, “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” and he goes on to justify both abortion and infanticide.

    In 2012 a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, expressed similar views.

    In France, as long ago as 1975, the first article of the Veil Law ((Law No. 75-17 of January 1975, concerning the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy) declares, “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law.” If derogation from the right to life is permitted, there seems no logical reason why this should not apply after birth, as well as before it.

    For centuries before that, the common French euphemism for an abortionist was (and is) « faiseuse d’anges » [Angel Maker], scarcely the term anyone would have coined to describe the removal of a clump of cells.

    Is the beginning of life any longer relevant to the debate (if it ever was)?

  2. Rethinking Life and Death, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer famously demanded, “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” and he goes on to justify both abortion and infanticide.
    In 2012 a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, expressed similar views.
    .
    Peter Singer came from Australia. Germany refused to allow him to enter. Princeton gave Singer welcome. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva (a likely name from the goddess of wisdom) are not American citizens, either. None of these individuals have any idea about unalienable human rights, God given free will and endowed sovereign personhood.
    .
    “For centuries before that, the common French euphemism for an abortionist was (and is) « faiseuse d’anges » [Angel Maker], scarcely the term anyone would have coined to describe the removal of a clump of cells.”
    .
    Abortion is the removal of the rational, immortal human soul. Those who deny the soul have no legitimate excuse for being.

  3. Abortion, like murder, is a sin against the Author of Life wherein the abortionist/murderer on instructions from the would-be father/mother violently destroys a gestational person: usurping God’s will. All life is His creation.

  4. Just as abortion is being regularized within the culture, physician assisted suicide is the latest evolution of the right to control one’s body and one’s life.
    .
    Abortion and physician assisted suicide subsist under the same umbrella of individual liberty for which their proponents claim recognition and protection of the state. Those who promote life are maligned as opposing and placing obstacles in the path of individual liberty and self determination.
    .
    The mantra of “Compassion and Choices”, successor to the Hemlock Society, and a staunch proponent of physican assisted suicide is control and choice compassionately executed.
    .
    Should we be surprised that a right to life is no longer assured to those outside the womb?
    .
    See, https://www.facebook.com/CompassionandChoicesConnecticut
    .
    https://www.compassionandchoices.org/what-you-can-do/in-your-state/connecticut/

  5. In a characteristically penetrating observation, Slainté asks, “Should we be surprised that a right to life is no longer assured to those outside the womb?”

    Frankly, no. For too long we have been led up the blind alley of “natura pura” – the notion of a “natural order,” governed by “Natural Law,” consisting of truths accessible to unaided human reason, as something that can be kept separate from the supernatural truths revealed in the Gospel.

    Against this, we have Maurice Blondel’s insistence that that we must never forget “that one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order.” It was of Blondel that Cardinal de Lubac said, “he is the one who launched the decisive attack on the dualist theory that was destroying Christian thought.”
    Jacques Maritain, too, declared that “Man is not in a state of pure nature, he is fallen and redeemed. Consequently, ethics, in the widest sense of the word, that is, in so far as it bears on all practical matters of human action, politics and economics, practical psychology, collective psychology, sociology, as well as individual morality,—ethics in so far as it takes man in his concrete state, in his existential being, is not a purely philosophic discipline. Of itself it has to do with theology…”

    This is not new doctrine. One recalls Pascal who, drawing on the thought of St Augustine, reminded us long ago that “man without faith cannot know the true good, nor justice” and “without Scripture, which has only Jesus Christ for its object, we know nothing and see only obscurity and confusion in God’s nature and ours.”

  6. MPS writes: “…One recalls Pascal who, drawing on the thought of St Augustine, reminded us long ago that “man without faith cannot know the true good, nor justice”
    .
    One wonders how Pascal might have responded to modern day secular uber-liberals who disregard the integrity of life in favor of a flawed understanding of personal liberty and choice?
    .
    Is there an antidote, other than Faith, which might cause proponents of “choice” to recognize that it is neither good or just to choose to extinguish life in the womb (abortion) or outside the womb (physician assisted suicide)?

  7. Slainté asks, “Is there an antidote, other than Faith, which might cause proponents of “choice” to recognize that it is neither good or just to choose to extinguish life in the womb (abortion) or outside the womb (physician assisted suicide)?”
    Pascal, I believe, would not have been particularly sanguine. “On what shall man found the order of the world which he would govern? Shall it be on the caprice of each individual? What confusion! Shall it be on justice? Man is ignorant of it.” As to Natural Law, “Men admit that justice does not consist in these customs, but that it resides in natural laws, common to every country. They would certainly maintain it obstinately, if reckless chance which has distributed human laws had encountered even one which was universal; but the farce [la plaisanterie] is that the caprice of men has so many vagaries that there is no such law Theft, incest, infanticide, parricide, have all had a place among virtuous actions.”
    As for the civil law, he was a thorough Positivist: “He who obeys them [the laws] because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained [elle est toute ramassée en soi], it is law and nothing more.”

Comments are closed.