To mask the murder, deny that it's murder

 

France's media regulation authority has just come up with a masterpiece of doublespeak.

In February 2024, presenter Aymeric Pourbaix, during the Catholic programme “En quête d’esprit,” broadcast every Sunday on the conservative channel CNews, showed an infographic on the causes of death, ranking abortion as the leading cause, with 73 million deaths each year worldwide. That translates to 52% of annual deaths, far ahead of cancer (10 million) and smoking (6.2 million).

The journalist’s comments sparked a wave of indignation in the mainstream press, on the grounds that abortion cannot be considered a “cause of death” because the foetus should not be considered a living being.

. . .

After several months of proceedings, the French media regulatory authority Arcom has fined CNews €100,000 for this episode. According to Arcom, the broadcaster failed in its “obligation of honesty and rigour in the presentation and processing of information.”

In the weekly magazine Valeurs Actuelles, Jean-Marie Le Méné, head of the Fondation Jérôme Lejeune, denounced the totalitarian nature of this decision, which proves the denial of reality that surrounds the practice of abortion in France:

Arcom writes: “Abortion cannot be presented as a cause of death.” Equating an aborted child with a dead person would make abortion a homicidal act. So that abortion can be carried out with a clear conscience, it is forbidden to say that abortion takes away life. Otherwise the keystone of the system collapses. But who believes this fiction?

He adds: “Abortion, the leading cause of death in the world, is unfortunately a fact, not an opinion.”

There's more at the link.

When I read that, I couldn't believe my eyes for a moment.  If abortion is not the killing of a human life, what is it?  No logical, rational person can deny that if the foetus/embryo/call-it-what-you-will is left alone to develop normally, a human being will arrive on the scene approximately nine months after conception.  It's mentally, logically and rationally impossible to pinpoint a single moment when the contents of the womb cease being "not-a-human-life" and become "a-human-life".  That being the case, one has to accept that the contents of the womb are human, regardless of the state of gestation, and that killing them is therefore to kill a human being.  Anything else is simply dishonest.

For a bureaucrat to split hairs like that is mind-bogglingly stupid, as well as plain downright evil.  Think about it.  If the contents of the womb are not human because they're not viable on their own (yet), then a person with severe mental or physical disability is also not human because he or she is also not viable on his/her own.  Does that mean we can casually kill them out of hand?  Sadly, there are those who would argue for that . . .  I wonder if they'll argue for it quite so vehemently when they grow old, and are no longer able to fully care for themselves, and the society they have warped and twisted through their arguments turns on them?

May Almighty God have mercy on us.  We're going to need it.

Peter