NRL News

“Decisively Courageous” Act Leaves Two Babies Dead

by | May 14, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. This appeared in the December 5, 1983, edition of National Right to Life News and seems particularly fitting to run as part of our “Roe at 40” series, given that the guilty verdicts in the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell were announced yesterday.

abortionondemandThe location is Barcelona, Spain in early November. Some 3,000 feminists are attending a convention sponsored by a variety of feminist and pro-abortion groups. It is the day after the assembly had voted to do something “decisively courageous” to protest Spain’s new abortion law which, while quite liberal, does not give women an unconditional right to “control their own bodies.” If we correctly read between the lines of a news story written by New York Times reporter Edward Schumacher, the real-life nightmare that is about to unfold is like a scene from a Linda Wertmuller film, or perhaps, more aptly, a film by the Nazi apologist, film maker Leni Riefenstahl.

Each of these champions of equality has been informed that she is about to see the results of the death blow they collectively have just delivered to male oppression and the patriarchal state. We can well imagine that as that unforgettable moment approaches, the women are near frenzy with anticipation.

Suddenly, “the hall rocked with cheers,” we read. There it was, at last: The mangled bodies of two unborn children, so recently snuffed out the bodies are probably still warm. Two courageous young women, we learn, had gone next door and, with the assistance of convention organizers and the abortionist, butchered their defenseless preborn children.

What a statement. What a blow for justice in an unjust world. You can just see the 3,000 women hugging one another, tears of joy streaming down their cheeks. No more passive complaining, no more prattle about abortion law “reform,” just the sensual thrill that accompanies indulging the ugliest instinct in the human species: the slaughter of helpless victims.

But merely killing these parasites would, of course, be too good for them. The ingenious organizers have many more indignities to heap on their tiny scapegoats. Like trophies, what remains of the little ones have been dumped into glass bottles and placed on a table to help satisfy the insatiable need to be a part of this historic moment. For the real connoisseurs of death, the organizers have thoughtfully placed the abortionist’s tools next to the bottles, the better to understand how the dismemberment took place.

However, it’s not quite the same thing as actually having partaken in the slaughter, and thus unsatisfactory. Not to worry. Having anticipated the need to vicariously slay the hated babies, the leaders have videotaped one of the abortions! Presumably, those with Visa or American Express cards can purchase multiple copies to share with kindred spirits back home.

Finally, the blood covenant is officially sealed. Nearly all 3,000 sign “confessions of responsibility” for what would clearly seem to be two illegal abortions. However, Fernando Ledesma, Spain’s Minister of Justice, evidently wishing to avoid confrontation, tells a news conference that nearly 3,000 confessions are meaningless. According to the New York Times, he said that only the technicians, the accomplices, and the two patients could be held responsible.

It is at moments such as these that pro-lifers and, for that matter, all of us who call ourselves civilized, realize how very vulnerable we are. We are reminded one again of how fragile is the membrane that protects civilization, of how easily it is ruptured when society gives its members license to unleash their worst instincts.

True, the atrocities of men and women who liquidate innocents in the furtherance of some ideology is hardly unique to the twentieth century, although the numbers are quantitatively different. But what is new—qualitatively new—in the case of abortion is not only that we have democratized the killing, such barbarisms are now loudly applauded and determinedly promoted by much of the “enlightened” opinion makers all over the world.

Someday, I shall investigate the point at length, but for the moment let me just note that the more I investigate the subject, the more I am convinced that when the abortion mentality’s DNA was spliced into feminism’s genetic code, a new disease was unleashed that is almost more dangerous than all the murderous ideologies that have plagued this most bloody century combined. This virus is spreading worldwide with lightning speed, and it is no longer confined to one class of patients—the unborn child. Handicapped newborns are also under attack.

Two elements of pro-abortion feminism make it unbelievably dangerous. First, it cloaks its zeal for killing in the garb of the most powerful idea in the modern Western world: equality. One’s commitment to equality for women is indexed by one’s acceptance of the right of women to rid themselves of “unwanted” pregnancies. (Disagreement is out of the question.)


Second is an absolutely incredible blindness to the fact that their rabid support of abortion runs directly counter to the very moral and intellectual underpinnings of the feminist case for women’s equality: that nobody “owns” anyone else; that rights are not the exclusive property of any one class (or sex); that injustice corrupts the perpetrator at the same time it brutalizes the victim.

It is virtually impossible to exaggerate these feminists’ tunnel vision. I cite the concluding paragraph from an article in the Nov. 24 issue of the Washington Post Magazine as proof. The speaker is NOW President, Eleanor Smeal, the same Eleanor Smeal whose latest characterization of pro-lifers is “fascists.”

The context is a puff piece written by a lightweight reporter whose goal is to convince the reader that beneath all of Smeal’s inexhaustible hate and mindless vitriol, there beats a loving reformer’s heart, a lineal descendent of the abolitionists. [Smeal is speaking of what subjugating people does to the subjugator.]

“… [I] think you affect your own moral well-being in the process. It’s like, if I step over a body that is lying in the street, I have not helped that person who needed my help, but I have just as surely lost a part of my humanity. Eventually, you become numb to human suffering. Those of us in the abused classes do the most pushing, but there are no winners in this kind of thing. It should not be a divisive thing; no one should feel threatened. The appeal is to all people. We should all rise.”

There is virtually no chance to dissuade anyone this intellectually straightjacketed. At best all we can hope for is an occasional defector.

However, this kind of rebellion against orthodoxy requires the kind of genuine courage we can scarcely expect from the likes of the Barcelona lynch mob.

If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at Please send your comments to

Categories: Roe v. Wade