Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Woman Attempts to Abort Famous Person's Grandchild, Then Goes Public

Pro-life LifeSiteNews.com has a headline invoking "Star Wars" and Mark Hamill because, like so many millions of other people, he apparently encouraged a woman knocked up by his son to kill off his grandchild before that child could be born.
The lie behind the abortion movement's slogan, "a woman’s right to choose," is known to the women who have experienced heavy pressure - and often outright coercion - to abort their babies.
Yeah, it's funny how so many people who say "It should be her choice" whenever anyone says elective abortion is a bad thing 1) want strangers to be forced pay to have her child killed, and 2) speak out against women who CHOOSE to deliver their children, especially if they already have more than a couple.
Indeed, as countless testimonies from post-abortive women attest, the pressure exerted on women to kill their children - by husbands or boyfriends, and even their own families - is often so extreme as to make the word "choice" a mockery.
Most of the boyfriends would drop the pressure entirely if they could unilaterally choose a "financial abortion" the way women can unilaterally choose an actual abortion. Now this is where someone will say, "If he doesn't want to pay, he should keep it in his pants!" but many of the same people will be enraged if someone else says that if she doesn't want to be pregnant she should keep her legs together. He's expected to "live up to his responsibilities" when his choice in the matter literally ends as soon as his cells leave his body but her choices continue for 9+ months. So much for equality.

This experience of pressure when she was at her most vulnerable played itself out recently in the life of Maegan Chen, a Los Angeles model who was seeing Nathan Hamill, son of Mark Hamill, best known for his portrayal of Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars movies.
I wonder how many guys she's dated who aren't wealthy or don't have rich parents? Not that the answer has anything to do with anything.



Maegan told LifeSite that her relationship with Nathan began in January and by March she found out she was pregnant.
Let's say they started seeing each other January 1. You do the math there on how soon they were having intercourse... assuming she got pregnant via intercourse and not deliberately inserting ejaculate into herself. All morality aside, this is a woman who makes a living with her body. Isn't such casual fornication kind of risky?
“I told him that I was pregnant as soon as I knew. He immediately told me he wanted me to get an abortion,” Maegan relates.
Well, at least both were quick to say what was up to each other.
Maegan said Nathan insisted that she abort even though she resisted, in part due to the trauma she had experienced from a previous abortion — something that had left her “suicidal and depressed for a long time afterwards.”
So, she'd already had at least one abortion before, and had a bad reaction to it. Hmm. I wonder what contraception was being used this time? Probably the same as Mel Gibson's latest girlfriend.
Maegan eventually said she would get the abortion, but grace intervened.
So she agreed to have another abortion.

Due to a communication mix-up, a scheduled surgical abortion didn’t go forward. She opted for a medical abortion instead. She says she even went ahead with it, taking pills that resulted in bleeding, and she thought her child had been aborted.
Wow. So she had intentions, twice over, to have this abortion.
Nevertheless, a later ultrasound showed the child to be alive, despite the abortion attempt.
I'm sincerely glad about that.
Meagan once again found herself under pressure to attempt another abortion, but she had resolved to let the child live.
A cynic might wonder if she would have had that resolve if she thought she was pregnant by some guy working as a retail clerk in a discount store whose parents were not well-off or famous.
Maegan says Nathan would not accept adoption as an option when she suggested it, calling the proposal “selfish.”
Slaughtering innocent human beings for convenience is apparently not selfish, while allowing a couple who wants a child to have one is. Great logic.
Once back in LA, she received email messages (seen by LifeSiteNews) from Marilou, who offered to pay for the abortion and sympathized with her. However, in a response to Meagan’s resistance, Marilou wrote, "So to have a relationship with him (or not): you go with him in the am [to the abortion appointment] ... That is the only option now.” About Meagan and Nathan’s future, she says, “With baby, you won't see him; without baby, you will.”
Dude has his Mommy handling his business.

That last line is one of the tactics Tom Leykis advises, telling a woman claiming to be pregnant with your child that you won't see her and won't see the child ever; you will only do what the courts legally require as far as financial support.
Maegan relates that after her first abortion attempt was thought to be successful, Nathan wanted to break up, even though before it he told her he wanted to continue their relationship.
Yeah, he was probably lying. Like how some women lie and say they're using contraception or can't get pregnant.
In fact, she said, upon discovery of her pregnancy, she herself suggested that they break up, but “he still wanted us to be together because we had a good thing going ... and that he really wanted me to get an abortion.” However, Maegan says, “Not even a week after doing the medical abortion as he had asked me to do, he told me that he didn't think we were making each other happy and that we should break up.”
Well, yeah, he was probably just saying he wanted to be together so she would be more likely to do what he wanted, which was to have their kid slaughtered,  and when he thought it had been done, he'd dump her. It's another tactic Leykis advises.
Vicki Thorn, founder of Project Rachel, a Catholic ministry that brings offers healing and reconciliation to men and women suffering grief and remorse from the trauma of a past abortion, told LifeSiteNews that Maegan’s experience is not at all unique. Women often decide on an abortion for the sake of their relationship with a boyfriend, she said, though statistics show only 30 percent of relationships that lead to abortion survive.
Gotta love statistics. First of all, how did they get that information? How many relationships "survive" in general? The divorce rate for first marriages with no kids from others brought along is 40%.

Most sexual relationships don't last.

OK, let's say a guy has sex with four women in his entire life. The fourth one is his wife, with whom he stays married until death. Basing the statistic on him, "only 25% of sexual relationships survive." How many of those relationships that "lead to abortion" would have lasted anyway?
Maegan is seeking legal support for her child from Nathan.
That's called money.

Now some cynical person might throw around the phrases "gold digger" and "attention whore", but whatever is really going on here, I'm glad the child hasn't been killed. None of the (born) people involved in this story come across as behaving in a moral and admirable way.

The fact that a woman is legally entitled to have your child slaughtered is a compelling reason to avoid intercourse with women entirely or get a vasectomy. Better not to have children at all than have some woman unilaterally decide to have them slaughtered.

I'm so glad I will never ever have to deal with the possibility of personally impregnating someone ever again. As far as I know, I'm not a father to any slaughtered children (although I could be wrong about that), nor do I have any living children I don't know about (I'm certain about that).

In general, it is important to keep in mind that activist group rhetoric is designed to get the faithful fired up, donating, and calling attention to the group's existence. Even if you agree with the the goals or positions of the organization, you can understand that to be the case. There's always some urgent matter, or always someone to be upset with or something to be upset about. In this case, a movie star who is currently undergoing a return to prominence is the vehicle for the publicity.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous12:53 AM

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/26/missing.baby.hoax/

    ReplyDelete

I have to approve your comment before it appears. I won't reject your comment for disagreement - I actually welcome disagreement. But I will not allow libelous comments (which is my main reason for requiring approval) and please try to avoid profanities. Thanks!