John Jalsevac

‘Uterine contents shower’: Awesome pro-life ad exposes absurd pro-abortion language

John Jalsevac

It’s no secret that abortion supporters use language in curious ways. A “baby” becomes a “fetus” or a “blob of tissue” or the “products of pregnancy” and then back to a “baby” in the blink of an eye.

One of the best examples of this is found in the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting. On pages 42 and 43 we find information about prenatal diagnosis and we are told that in case of fetal abnormalities there are two options: to continue the pregnancy or to terminate the pregnancy.

Oddly, however, in the paragraph about continuing the pregnancy, we are told all about a “baby.” But then in the next paragraph, which is all about “terminating” the pregnancy, there is no mention of a baby at all; the baby has been completely replaced with the “products of pregnancy.” It’s so obvious and transparent a ruse that you can only laugh at the kind of self-delusion that seems to honestly believe it can change reality simply by changing the word used to describe it.

It’s the sort of thing that somehow abortion supporters do while keeping a straight face. But really, they can only get away with it when the linguistic gymnastics are kept to a very narrow set of circumstances. Extend their absurd abuse of language into the ordinary, the day-to-day, and it becomes so ridiculous that no one can fail to see through it.

One pro-life ad has done an excellent job of pointing out this absurdity in a very short space of time. Check it out:

LAST CALL! Can you donate $5?

Today is the last day of our fall fundraising campaign. Can you help us reach our goal?

Share this article


Deranged soft porn Cosmo mag. attacks Jessa Duggar over Holocaust/abortion

Ryan Bomberger Ryan Bomberger Follow Ryan
By Ryan Bomberger
Jessa Duggar with her husband, Ben Seewald. Jessa Duggar Instagram

Cosmopolitan magazine, the monthly magazine for liberal women who don’t mind pages filled with superficial airbrushed sleaze, is out of its depth. Cosmo’s senior political writer, Jill Filipovic, reveals why the magazine needs to stick to raunchy sex advice and not attempt commentary on history.

This past weekend, TLC’s Duggar family visited the Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC. Anyone who has ever been there knows how the experience pierces the soul. Jessa Duggar expressed some powerful sentiments on Instagram:

“I walked through the Holocaust Museum again today… very sobering. Millions of innocents denied the most basic and fundamental of all rights–their right to life. One human destroying the life of another deemed “less than human.” Racism, stemming from the evolutionary idea that man came from something less than human; that some people groups are “more evolved” and others “less evolved.” A denying that our Creator–GOD–made us human from the beginning, all of ONE BLOOD and ONE RACE, descendants of Adam. The belief that some human beings are “not fit to live.” So they’re murdered. Slaughtered. Kids with Down syndrome or other disabilities. The sickly. The elderly. The sanctity of human life varies not in sickness or health, poverty or wealth, elderly or pre-born, little or lots of melanin [making you darker or lighter skinned], or any other factor… May we never sit idly by and allow such an atrocity to happen again. Not this generation. We must be a voice for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Because EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS. #ProLife”

Cosmo went into full anti-woman mode. Filipovic attacked Jessa Duggar for daring to put history into perspective: “Jessa had just walked out of the Holocaust museum, and instead of absorbing the scale of that atrocity, decided to make a point about abortion rights. That’s not just tone-deaf; it’s deranged.”

Cosmo’s political writer apparently has no appreciation for the role of a museum of that nature. The point of learning of human failings of the past is so we don’t repeat them. Jessa’s remarks on Instagram conveyed a profound understanding of the past and applied it to the present. Over 56 million human lives have been butchered by an abortion industry birthed in the same racist and elitist pseudoscience of eugenics that created the racial hygiene theory that led to the slaughter of millions in the Holocaust.

I know eugenics is big vocabulary for a wannabe porn magazine that masquerades as the voice of American women. Cosmo clearly doesn’t speak for most women. Filipovic laments further about Jessa’s keen revelation: “Regardless of how one feels about the morality of abortion though, comparing it to one of the greatest horrors in modern history is insensitive and clueless, to say the least.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

No, Cosmo. It is you that is clueless. Abortion and the Holocaust are so inextricably tied together, no amount of airbrushing could paint a different picture. The American Eugenics movement was the single-most potent influencer of Hitler’s ethnic and racial cleansing “solutions”. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member of the American Eugenics Society. Guttmacher Institute’s founder, Alan F. Guttmacher (also President of Planned Parenthood) was the Vice President of the American Eugenics Society.  Most leadership involved in Planned Parenthood throughout the early to late 20th century, were involved in the American Eugenics Movement.

Prior to the holocaust, Sanger, like her fellow eugenicists, was a staunch proponent of forced sterilizations (only changing her tune to “voluntary” sterilization after the Holocaust revealed what happens when her rhetoric becomes reality). According to her 1932 article, “Plan For Peace”, she demanded that America “…apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted…”

This led to our country’s forcible sterilization of over 60,000 people. Nazi Germany modeled its actions after what was already happening here in the United States.

Sanger helped to create the World Population Conference, a global gathering of leading eugenicists, to promote birth control and other forms of population control. One of the leading eugenicists, funded by the same Rockefeller Foundation that funded Sanger’s work, was Eugen Fischer. He was the Director of the Keiser Wilhem Institute for Anthropology, Medical Genetics, and Eugenics in Berlin, Germany. Sanger included Eugen Fischer as a contributing leader in her World Population Conference as evidenced here in the program for the event (h/t It was Fischer’s “racial hygiene theory” that Hitler adopted leading to the mass extermination of over 11 million precious lives.

Frederick Osborn (1889-1981), President of The American Eugenics Society, infamously declared in response to Roe v. Wade: “Birth Control and abortion are turning out to be the great eugenic advances of our time.”

Cosmo would like to think the present just magically appears, like flawless skin on their photoshopped models. But it takes real writers/journalists to explore beyond superficial euphemisms and uninformed advocacy.

Edwin Black, a New York Times bestselling investigative author and human rights journalist (who can certainly never be accused of being rightwing or conservative) wrote the authoritative book on how American Eugenics inspired Nazi Germany—War On The Weak. 

The late Jack Fischel, the first Jewish professor hired at Millersville University, specialized in Holocaust studies and gave a definitive endorsement of Black’s book:

It is apparent from Black’s research that American eugenicists contributed to Nazi racial hygiene policy. The Nazi experiments with X-rays to sterilize their victims, euthanasia and even the gas chamber were all at one time or another proposed by American eugenicists as a means of eliminating the unfit from American life. To the extent that Black’s research documents this connection between early 20th-century eugenics policy and its extreme escalation by the Nazis in the death camps, the book is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the evolution of the Holocaust.

Jessa Duggar isn’t blinded to history by the broken lens of liberal feminism. The only thing deranged about tying abortion to the holocaust is deniers like Cosmo and its writers who think abortion is simply a fashionable “choice”.

Featured Image
I'm not afraid of being on the “wrong side of history” on gay “marriage”; I've been there before. I spent the first part of my life being told that the global triumph of Communism was “inevitable.”

I make no apologies for being on ‘the wrong side of history’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Among the stratagems employed by the cultural Left to discourage, dispirit, and dissuade the plurality of culturally sane Americans from opposing same-sex “marriage” is the all-encompassing insistence that the fight has already been lost. The phrase of choice is that proponents of traditional marriage are on “the wrong side of history.”

With at least 5,000 years of Western civilization normalizing monogamous heterosexual marriage, and the American experiment with redefining marriage a mere 10 years old, it certainly seems like I'm on the right side of history – the long one...the one authenticated by every society that produced human flourishing. 

But frankly, I'm not afraid of being on the “wrong side of history”; I've been there before.

I spent the first part of my life being told that the global triumph of Communism was “inevitable.”

According to Marxist apologists, the irreversible tide of Marxism was an historic and “scientific” reality. Karl Marx had devised a theory known as “Dialectical Materialism,” which claimed that all societies in history followed a predictable pattern resulting from the conflict between exploited workers (the proletariat) and their exploiters (the bourgeoisie). This interaction transformed primitive societies into feudal ones, then into capitalist nations, and ultimately, into communist utopias. The theory “proved” that mankind would evolve into the New Soviet Man.

This is the genesis of the political term “progressive” – progressives embraced policies that would “progress” society toward this evolutionary inevitability. Those who opposed socialism were branded “reactionaries” bitterly clinging to the past, who rejected modernity and wanted to “turn back the clock.” (Sound familiar?)

This historical arrogance was expressed in the 1961 Draft Platform of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which said, “[T]he epoch-making turn of mankind from capitalism to socialism, initiated by the October Revolution, is a natural result of the development of society...and it will be taken sooner or later by all peoples.”

So fervently did all Western intellectuals believe this idea that, when he exposed a Communist spy ring in 1948, Whittaker Chambers told Congress, “I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.”

Who could argue? Within one generation, Communism went from a beachhead in one nation to a worldwide empire of 17 established socialist nations encompassing more than one-third of the world's population. Marxists ruled national capitals from North Korea to Nicaragua and Vietnam to Zimbabwe, with Communist armies fighting from Chile to Guatemala.

In the 1980s, Marxist insurgencies seemed destined to sweep norte through Central America to the very borders of the United States. This view seeped into popular culture through such dystopian productions as Red Dawn, Invasion USA, and Amerika, which aired just two years before the Berlin Wall was torn down.

Until the very end, Communism's victory, its crushing and obliteration of all opposition, seemed certain.

The threat posed by Communism dwarfed anything presented by abortion, redefining marriage, and any other social issue combined. Marxism did not squeeze public prayer out of schools; it formally taught atheism and socialist ideology to children, dynamited churches, and murdered anyone who publicly proclaimed the existence of a God higher than the State. It did not seek to redefine marriage but to abolish the family, with all women held in common and all children raised by the State. Its promotion of abortion led to the greatest death toll of unborn children in world history. It did not seize tax files or intercept the e-mails of its political opponents; its all-seeing totalitarian apparatus herded them into forced labor camps where death was preferable to unthinkable torture. One of its former fellow-travellers, George Orwell, described a Communist future as “a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

Those condemned to live under its reign of terror prevailed only because of their determination never to give up, their firm resolution to hold the line against the Bolsheviks wherever possible, and their tenacity in keeping their faith and the truth alive amongst themselves, especially through the samizdat press.

At the core of Communism's failure was the fact that it was built on a lie that fewer and fewer people were willing to humor, even under threat of execution. The toppling and killing of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu began during one of his interminable speeches, when one woman in the crowd yelled out, “Liar!” Soon, the crowd picked up the chant and chased him from power, ultimately sending him to his eternal reward.

Still, the tactic of presenting your extremist version of reality as inevitable – and ruthlessly crushing all opposition – won much of the world for much of the Twentieth Century. No sooner were these assertions disproved than were the exact same terms and arguments transferred from the economic realm into the cultural front. Communists learned that human beings won't give up their creature comforts for a workers' paradise – but they will cling to their sexual indulgences unto the death. They saw they could use this weakness to undermine the family, the Church, and any other intermediary institution that could stop the onslaught of the mammoth State.

Thus, their mantra that cultural devolution is “inevitable.” Their message to Christians is a mockery of a hymn: “The Strife is O'er, the Battle Lost.”

They are right, in a sense; history is rushing to its predetermined conclusion. That is the eternal reign of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, thronged by His saints and angels who shall sing His endless praises forever. First, the world must pass through the dark night brought on by the Fall, the intense warfare between love and hate, and every act of cruelty, cupidity, and inhumanity preceding the Parousia.

The “progressives” are right that they are part of a grand historical drama but 180-degrees wrong about its ultimate outcome. They are progressing toward futility, destruction, and perdition.

But before Christ the King reigns, darkness must reach its apogee.

It may be that in the Left's cultural conquest of marriage, we are closer to 1917 than 1989, that a cocksure, opaque, malicious spirit is inexorably advancing rather than retreating. Those who defend the superiority of the natural family face social, economic, and (increasingly) legal censure. We have only the truth of science, human development, and children's social well-being on our side. And we must never tire of repeating it, whatever the outcome. But it is not hard to imagine that the worst is yet before us.

Where we stand in the mystery of iniquity and redemption is known only to their Master. But we may take to heart the words of the famed dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who lived to see the fall of the Gulag Archipelago that once imprisoned him: “One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world.” And the words of another, greater Authority: “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Join us in the trenches. Make a donation to today (click here)

Share this article

Featured Image
The prime inequality in its goodness confronts us at every moment of our lives. God is God: He made us, we did not make ourselves.

‘Equality’: the most potent of the infernal lies

Anthony Esolen Anthony Esolen Follow Anthony
By Anthony Esolen

I've been writing here about how to build up in young people a vital and dynamic Christian imagination. But since Christ, the consummation of all that is human, reveals man to himself, to have a Christian imagination is to have a fully human imagination. It is to see the truth about man, both in his fallen state and in his God-ordained orientation towards heaven.

It follows then that we must reject, categorically, all lies about man. And the governance of the world about us is a most efficient machine for the production and proliferation of lies. We cannot preach truth in the language of lies, no more than the martyrs of old could find a “Christian” way to offer incense to the emperor. Jesus bore with the weakness of man. But he did not ever compromise with a lie. He did not cut a bargain with Satan.

If we are to speak to our children in the language of truth, we have to be, as Jesus says, as wise as serpents. That is, we have to identify the lies, and we have to be courageous in revealing them for what they are.

Yet the devil comes to us in the guise of an angel of light. Few people at any one time are so far gone down into the spirals of evil that they embrace what is hideous for its own sake. So we must ask: in a world organized or disorganized by the lie, what are the slogans that everyone has come to accept without thinking about them? They are the most likely carriers of the lie. And if we ignore them, our children may well be inspired by Milton or Shakespeare, so long as they are reading them, but will revert to the slogan as soon as they close the books. 

Perhaps the most potent of the lies is “equality.”

Envy insists upon equality. Love admires excellence, and is grateful for it in others. So it is, as the acute philosopher Plinio Correia says, that we begin by speaking of equality and end in the hatred of God.

The Christian imagination recognizes more than equality: it recognizes and honors excellence, wherever it may be found. This is true both in the Church's history and in the arts she has inspired. The saints are our aristocrats, and the knights who lead us to battle. Joan of Arc, the peasant girl, shines with a crown of glory, she who gave her life to restore a rightful crown to the timid French dauphin. John Vianney searches our hearts with the wisdom of holy simplicity, and before his steady gaze the theologians and philosophers stammer and fall silent. The noble-born Thomas Aquinas becomes a mendicant friar, and in the humility of his ceaseless submission to and search for what is true, he becomes the patron of Catholic scholars and a prince of clarity.

All men are equal in their having been made by God for bliss. They have an equal right to what is good and true and beautiful. Each of them, made in the image of God, is a more glorious creature than all the rest of the physical universe. For any one of them, as for a universe, the Son of God came down to shed His blood. 

Follow Anthony Esolen on Facebook

The terrible irony is that the Liars of Equality deny what I have just said, or, if they still call themselves Christian, they confound these truths with falsehoods. For human beings are manifestly not equal in intelligence, skill, perseverance, virtue, health, beauty, wisdom, and the accidental blessings and trials of life. These inequalities are also to be cherished and honored. They too have been willed by God.     

Even if Adam and Eve had not fallen, the human world would have been abundantly blessed with inequalities, with the wise and the simple, the skilled hand and the blunt, the soul in which the love of God burns with a steady glow, and the soul so inflamed with that love that it seems to consume all the world about it. “Various voices make the sweeter song,” says Dante.

The inequalities are more than differences. They imply order and hierarchy. It is no shame to serve. Man is made to serve. The only shame is to serve an unworthy master.

God has made us to thrive by and within structures of order; that is one of the lessons of Saint Paul's teaching, that we are incorporated as members of the Body of Christ. A body is not an amalgam of atoms. It is not a collective of self-willed individuals. It possesses order and hierarchy. The hand is a hand, not a foot or a head, but it is for the foot and the head, as the food and the head are for it. Each member is most itself when it most subserves the health of the body; and the body is healthy when, so to speak, each member is so honored that the body seems to live as much for each as for all together. 

If it's too neuralgic to speak about the goodness of inequalities among persons, we should begin by affirming inequality and hierarchy within the person. Our opponents are consistent in this regard: their insistence upon a radical social equality is matched by a radical leveling of the faculties of man. Reason is dethroned, and her rightful servant, the calculative faculty, is set up in her place, as if the only truth we can discover is what can be measured or reduced to mathematics. Love of beauty is displaced, and her rightful servants, the pragmatic skills, are set up in her place, as if the only things worth making are those that serve utilitarian ends. The virtues are dethroned, so that the vices can run free. In the end, unreason and a positive desire for ugliness come to rule the day.

What would we think of someone blessed with strong passions, who does not order them but lets them go wild, so that in the end he is a raddled old man dabbling in porn to keep himself awake in the afternoon? Or someone blessed with a thirst for righteousness, who does not order that thirst according to what is good and true, but instead begins to thirst for ambition instead, so that his path to a “rightful” place of honor is littered with the wreckage caused by his injustice? What should we think of the plain and ordinary man, who in a sane age would work hard at an ordinary job, be the head of a good family, and pass on to his children and grandchildren the wisdom of his church and his culture's traditions, sunk instead into the vulgar and the trivial?

We see in such cases that there should be order among the faculties; they are not equal; and people who observe the order in their souls are not the mere equals of people who do not. Why should this trouble us? Isn't the superiority of someone else a gift to the rest of us? What envy is it, what hatred of the excellent, that would cause me to desire that everyone else be only as wise, as virtuous, and as holy as I am? 

After all, the prime inequality in its goodness confronts us at every moment of our lives. God is God: He made us, we did not make ourselves. Envy insists upon equality. Love admires excellence, and is grateful for it in others. So it is, as the acute philosopher Plinio Correia says, that we begin by speaking of equality and end in the hatred of God. The cure can only begin by exposing and rejecting the lie.

Follow Anthony Esolen on Facebook

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook