- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Feminists Abort Unborn Jesus

Sometimes, the true nature of the great battle before us becomes horribly clear: [1]

In Pope Francis’s home country of Argentina, pro-women rallies of any sort have become synonymous for attacks on churches and on the Catholic faith.

This week was no different, when, on March 8, as the world marked the United Nations-sponsored International Women’s Day, a woman dressed like the Virgin Mary pretended to have an abortion in front of a cathedral.

The events took place in Tucuman, a northern province in Argentina, where thousands rallied in favor of equal pay for women and against femicide. In Argentina during 2016, a woman was murdered by her male partner every 30 hours, so it’s not as if there weren’t reasons for the protest.

Yet as has happened in many other countries, a rally that was once about equality between women and men has also become for most of those participating a rally in favor of abortion, a practice that is forbidden in Argentina unless the life of the mother is threatened by pregnancy.

Hence, in what is being described as “an artistic representation” by some, a group of women pretended to do an abortion on a woman dressed like a very pregnant Virgin Mary in front of a Catholic cathedral in a clearly provocative gesture.

The gruesome images, which include what looks like blood and baby parts coming out from under the woman’s dress, were shared thousands of times on Facebook.

An organization called “Socorro Rosa Tucuman” organized the fake abortion. On their Facebook page, they wrote: “In Tucuman, the Virgin aborted in the cathedral the patriarchate, the mandatory heterosexuality and the mandates of this reprising society and demanded all misogynist of this medieval province to remove her image from every maternity ward, to stop forbidding abortions in her name, that he, throwing this abortion in the face of monsignor Zecca [the local Catholic archbishop], this rotten fetus, conceived only for the raping system that mandates us to forced maternity.”

That wasn’t the only thing feminists in Argentina did. More:

In the southern city of Bahia Blanca, the Catholic cathedral was painted with pro-abortion and anti-church remarks. In Buenos Aires, a group of women who had participated in the Women’s March, tried to bring down the protective fencing the police had set up in front of the cathedral, former home of Pope Francis.

Bare-chested protesters lit up a fire in front of the building, while chanting “The only church that illuminates is one that is burning,” “take your rosaries out of our ovaries,” and several other similar songs. A few dozen women were arrested by the police.

A young man who stood in front of the group, holding a Vatican flag, defending the church, was violently attacked.

Read the whole thing. [1] The article includes an image of the Virgin’s “abortion”. I won’t repost it here, but if you can stomach it, you should look at it, so you will understand the rage and the hatred that we face.

Recalling a recent Facebook debate about it, Eric Mader writes that secularists who blaspheme in this way are only hurting themselves [2]. Excerpt from Mader’s exchange with a correspondent:

Two points:

1) If there exists a God anything like God as understood in Western monotheism, then the virgin birth as a literal event is of course eminently possible, as are any other miracles, including the universe suddenly folding up into nothing or being rearranged on entirely new laws. As an orthodox Christian, I view miracles in this lens.

2) There are however many Christians who do not believe in the virgin birth as a literal event, who understand it as a myth, but show respect to the story itself as an ancient part of their tradition, that Christian tradition that grounds some of the most crucial elements in their present-day culture: its legal norms, its concepts of history, its notions of justice, its critique of vulgar wealth and power.

On at least this second basis you might at least recognize that in mocking Christianity you are a little like the man high up in a tree sawing away at the branch he’s sitting on.

In any case you should have enough of a sense of history to understand the following: All great civilizations have risen up on myths and died when these myths fell into disrepute. You as a person wouldn’t be what you are today, and your country, England, wouldn’t be what it is today if it weren’t for Christianity. Many of the things you take for granted–the Western concept of human rights for one–arose from and because of the Judeo-Christian inheritance.

Which is to say: Westerners who think there’s any virtue in mocking their own culture’s religion tradition are like spoiled teenagers who scoff at their parents, the people who fed and raised and taught them. How do such kids look to you? This is where you’re putting yourself with these kinds of statements.

If the Christianity these deranged, satanic women so despise were to disappear, the will-to-power world that will replace it will not suit them. To put it mildly.


113 Comments (Open | Close)

113 Comments To "Feminists Abort Unborn Jesus"

#1 Comment By Ann On March 21, 2017 @ 7:23 pm

“In Argentina during 2016, a woman was murdered by her male partner every 30 hours, so it’s not as if there weren’t reasons for the protest.”

“If the Christianity these deranged, satanic women so despise were to disappear, the will-to-power world that will replace it will not suit them. To put it mildly.”

#2 Comment By VikingLS On March 21, 2017 @ 7:58 pm

No Adamant, you can’t complain about me not respecting you. You didn’t earn my respect. By your standards I am not therefore obliged to treat you with respect.

You started this thread insulting other people. Calling Rod and Eric Mader Eric Cartman was not meant as a compliment.

People more patient than me tried to reason with you. You weren’t having it. I am not going to try where they failed.

#3 Comment By Adamant On March 21, 2017 @ 8:16 pm

‘You started this thread insulting other people. Calling Rod and Eric Mader Eric Cartman was not meant as a compliment.’

Your reading comprehension needs some work. There was no insult of either Eric or Rod. The critique of Mader’s ***arguement** I made was that the mockery in the story was described by Eric as wrong *as such,* that no criticism of the church was warranted, indeed that this criticism itself was dangerous in some way. I find that idea less than persuasive. People are entitled to respect, ideas and systems of belief, not so much.

If you have an argument to the contrary, have at it. All I see is variations of ‘it’s not worth my time to explain it.’

#4 Comment By VikingLS On March 21, 2017 @ 8:42 pm



Is itself an insult.

Can you even make a case for your opinions without resorting to sarcasm and complaining?

And yes, you are right, I do not think it is worth my time to debate you. Stop using cowardly things like sarcasm and condescension, demonstrate that you are open to persuasion yourself, and I’d be nappy to talk.

In the meantime you are in the hole you dug for yourself.

[NFR: OK, guys, please stop. — RD]

#5 Comment By VikingLS On March 21, 2017 @ 8:44 pm

happy not nappy

#6 Comment By VikingLS On March 21, 2017 @ 8:52 pm

“People are entitled to respect, ideas and systems of belief, not so much.”

BTW there’s no logical basis to this assertion.

#7 Comment By mrscracker On March 21, 2017 @ 9:46 pm

Yes, thank you. My son sent me a link to an article about convicts bought for labor in the British colonies.
I was reading about them recently and how they were cheaper to buy than African slaves. A child convict could be bought for a few pounds. Because convicts were of low value they were more expendable. And few were concerned about their treatment.
One or more of Stonewall Jacksons ancestors were convicts transported to the American colonies.

#8 Comment By mrscracker On March 21, 2017 @ 10:03 pm


Some transported convicts like Stonewall Jacksons ancestors had a happier outcome.
After the American Revolution the British still wanted to unload convicts here. I read we accepted one final boatload. After that the British had to ship them off to Australia or Tasmania.

#9 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On March 21, 2017 @ 11:39 pm


Your rosy picture of Christian morality extinguishing slavery from Europe only works if you redefine Europe to exclude, uh, Eastern Europe.

I don’t understand why you insist in calling it “rosy”. It’s the plain truth. If by Eastern Europe you mean Byzantium (the concept of Eastern Europe applied to the Middle Ages makes little sense), you know very well that the situation of the Church there, and its relationship with the state, even before the schism, was very different.

Slavery was “brought back” as early as the Crusades, not the colonial era. (Although the enslavement of Jews and Muslims in the Levant was much more benign and less abusive than the enslavement of Africans in the New World).

This is not exactly the case. Slavery actually never ceased in the Levant but wasn’t economically relevant since the late centuries of the Western Empire.
The reduced dependency of the Eastern Empire from slavery was one of the factors which allowed the Byzantine Empire prosperity and resilience during the High Middle ages.
However, the wars of Byzantium against Persians, Slavs and Muslims supplied a great number of slaves, which counterbalanced the loss of population and territory.
The relevance of slaves in the Byzantine economy therefore increased, although never to become predominant.
In the Muslim dominated areas, however, the situation was different. The conquered territories relied heavily upon slavery. The Crusaders in the Outremer basically supplanted the Arab Masters and didn’t make big changes to the local economy. The Italian Maritime Republics, Genoa, Venice etc., became active in the Levant slave trade.

Notwithstanding this, slavery never made its return to Western Europe. (this doesn’t mean that there were no slaves at all. But most of them were actually convicts subject to penal labor)

#10 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On March 21, 2017 @ 11:50 pm


Anna Julia Cooper’s Ph.D thesis at the Sorbonne traced the origins of American slavery to the sugar plantations of the Mediterranean in the era of the Crusades. The Portuguese expanded slave-produced sugar plantations into the Atlantic islands off the African coast, then to Brazil, the Dutch picked up on it in the Caribbean, then sold the British on the idea, and then a few slaves began to be sold in North America, and then there was tobacco, cotton…

Doctor Cooper’s thesis doesn’t convince me. When the Portuguese reached the Azores, the Latin kingdoms of the Levant were longtime dead, as was any participation of Europeans in the business of slavery worth mentioning.

The Europeans who initiated the Atlantic Route didn’t have to invent anything. They were very familiar with the continuing slave trade activity of the Arabs. Also because of the ongoing need to pay ransoms for people captured in Saracen raids.

#11 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On March 22, 2017 @ 12:17 am


“This is mostly correct, but the person you’re arguing against is criticizing the church from an absolute standard, not criticizing its record relative to the record of the monarchy, the bourgeoisie, other religions like Islam, etc.”

First of all, this doesn’t make much sense to me.
Also because the first objection from Adamant was that since Paul, we had 19 ineffective centuries in the attempt to abolish slavery. And I’ve shown that this is not the case. Of course I’m not saying that the track record of the Church is perfect and which is, as any human endeavor, free of evil. But having freed Europe from slavery is not a small accomplishment, especially if one thinks about how entrenched it was.

Second, what I’m trying to convey to you is the fact that the 19th Century abolitionist movement was a laggard with respect to the teaching of Christianity, both in principle and practice.

(PS I have the habit of using the word Christianity as Catholic – this is hard-wired in my brain and is impossible to me to do otherwise.)

#12 Comment By dominic1955 On March 22, 2017 @ 2:08 am

Jonathan Scinto,

Oh, there is certainly one down there alright…

#13 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 22, 2017 @ 3:01 pm

When the Portuguese reached the Azores, the Latin kingdoms of the Levant were longtime dead, as was any participation of Europeans in the business of slavery worth mentioning.

Giuseppe, the hunger for sugar did not die with the Latin kingdoms of the Levant. In fact, it was the fading of those kingdoms that inspired the Portuguese to look for new venues to profit from the sugar trade, and to search for new sea routes around Africa. They were intent on both a good deal of time before Columbus got permission to sail off west looking for India and trip over America.

Sure, the trans-continental African slave trade initiated by the Arabs was easy for European merchants to tap into. That was another piece of the puzzle.