by Anne Lastman
As I read and look around our society, I notice that the abortion issue has taken a back seat of late. Yes, some organisations still attempt to speak about abortion, but the voices seem to have become quieter, and what has taken over is the transgender issue.
I believe that transgenderism is, like euthanasia, yet another offshoot of the abortion industry and that we will continue to see more attacks against life, each new one crueller than the last.
I say that it is all tied to the abortion issue, and it all began in 1930, when the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church first permitted the use of contraception in marriage. At first, it was tucked away in the bedrooms of married couples who wanted to space out the births of their children.
Then, slowly, it emerged into society and changed the understanding of family, especially for women, for whom the carrying of her child had been her charism and joy. This now changed first into rejection via contraception, and then abortion (when contraception failed).
Slowly, deliberately, the view crept in that abortion was a compassionate action and that the women requesting it must be in desperate states: rape cases, danger to mother, severe disability of the baby. These reasons made abortion “acceptable” to society.
This need for abortion on compassionate grounds was then pushed so that it became acceptable up to 10-12 weeks of development, as at this stage, “it” was still just a bunch of cells. Next came the stage where the woman has a “right” to her body and a right to be rid of the “parasite” that had taken residence there.
The time eventually came when it became opportune to push for late-term abortion, especially in cases where a husband or boyfriend had abandoned the woman, or if the baby was found to be “defective”. Next thing you know, we have abortion to full term and suggestions being bandied about of post-birth abortion.
As we can now see, an intentional timeline has been followed. Softly, softly, women – not men – were induced to lead the attack against their own children. In each case, it was an attack on the one whose presence within her body is her “yes” to redemption.
Someone once said: “if you accept abortion, you must also accept euthanasia.” And so, indeed, it has come to pass. Euthanasia runs parallel to abortion; from the youngest weak ones to the eldest, disabled, sick, unstable ones deemed unworthy to be supported.
Then comes the coercion and the demands that euthanasia and assisted suicide be made available to anyone who wants them. They have a right to their own body and to choose when they die and with “dignity”; like the abortion mantra (it’s my body, and I’ll do what I want). And, as with abortion, these anti-life decisions and acts were also introduced slowly, very slowly.
Euthanasia for compassionate reasons. Euthanasia for the terminally ill. Euthanasia for the very sick and those suffering unrelenting pain. Euthanasia for the disabled and those who are a burden on family and society. Euthanasia for depressed youth and even children (for example, removing life support from little ones by law). Euthanasia for the death society, for the disposable society where the inconvenient are permanently disposed of.
Perhaps we believed that with euthanasia, we had reached the end of new ways to dispose of human beings. Well, we hadn’t. We now face transgenderism, an issue so horrific that it beggars understanding.
It seems that Satan really and truly has set out to destroy humanity, the future and life, that mystery of God. It seems that because Jesus was born into the human order that that order must be destroyed in order to again attempt to oust God and demand his “glory”.
Looking into this new assault on “Adam”, we see that the sequence has gone from rejection (contraception), to killing of very tiny infants, to the destruction of those just a little older in gestational age, followed by later-term gestation, followed by full-term gestation, followed by post-birth killing of those born alive following abortion but left to die because the mother has demanded a dead baby. Now this new and grotesque method of assaulting the child and society has emerged: the insisting and passing into law the idea that gender is fluid and can be changed at any age and stage. Mutilation of the body of boys and girls on the whim of the child, with the assistance of the medical profession.
All along the sequence of events, it was innocence that was being destroyed. Innocence embodied in flesh. The destruction of children, who are the future. And now for those who have survived this sequential destruction, comes the new mode of death, the futile attempt to change the design as it was intended to be: “Male and female He created them”.
The new gods of our time have determined that the gender of each human being is fluid and changeable. And in a short time, that view has been pushed for, and its acceptance demanded, and it has taken root and indeed been established in our laws.
Sadly, again, as was the case with abortion and euthanasia, it has all been facilitated with the assistance of the medical profession and the law – and the forced acquiescence of parents under the threat of losing their child altogether. The physical changes are made to satisfy the emotional and psychological state, but still, the internal design will not respond to the changes.
The male and the female have different understandings, different thoughts and feelings. Irrespective of the “change” in genitalia, the internal cannot ever be changed even with new hormonal infusion. Can we stop this death and destruction of humanity? I am not sure. I suspect a huge miracle is needed to prevent the design of a new and more violent form of death of innocence and life and future.
What moved us to embark on this slow, sinister, methodical road to death? Were its roots in the idea of freeing women from past slavery? The slow road to freedom from family and the demands of men, characterised as a form of slavery; and, of course, the freedom from carrying children, now viewed not as a blessing, but as an inconvenience.
As part of the 1960s Revolution, woman threw off – and burned – her bra, an act that was symbolic of her rebellion against her design, against the purpose for which she was specifically created. She rejected her design for a “mess of pottage”.
Instead of womanhood, motherhood, the redemptive work of woman, she chose something well below her dignity. She “changed” her design, and again today, we see the new attempt to change the design of the human being.
It has been said that woman sinned first, thus rejecting her beautiful role of helping in the creation of life, carrying life, feeding life from her own body and protecting life. Yet this was the method designed for the redemption of all, because in her body, she would in time carry the Redeemer.
The thread that runs throughout the destruction of life is woman wanting a “fruit” not intended for her while the man remains silent. The fruit of the union of man and woman is rejected while the “death union” is embraced. It comes as no surprise that the change of design of the human in the transgender movement also issues in a sterile union: that is, no fruit at all.
Rejection, abortion, euthanasia, sterility of unnatural unions, and finally, sterility by the changing of gender. The envious one be gleeful at this fait accompli.
Anne Lastman is a clinical counsellor, and is the founder of Victims of Abortion Trauma Counselling and Info Services.
Originally published in News Weekly. Photo by Hugo Sagols.