Comment Moderation: Is it Necessary?

Yes, for two reasons. I've had a number of outside websites post links that either go to porno sites (Chinese no less) or advertise products. Moderating comments eliminates that problem completely even if the spam guard doesn't.

The second reason for moderation is more important though. We live in a rude and crude culture filled with barbarians who use four letter words as staples and think insults are arguments. Here's an example. An anonymous woman has been commenting on my post about My Favorite Politician, Bob Marshall. I can't be sure that the comments all come from one person but I suspect they do. She began with a comment that I declined to post because it was an ad hominem attack on Bob laced with an obscenity. After that didn't appear, another more moderate comment was sent saying Bob considered handicapped babies God's "punishment" for pregnancy. I posted it, but demurred. So another comment came with the quote that she said was from Bob. But the quote seemed to me to be talking about the "punishment" that occurs as natural consequence of our actions. After all, if you drink a bottle of scotch should you be surprised by the hangover the next morning?

That brought back a one-line comment calling me an "f***ing idiot!"

Needless to say, I did not post it. So a day later a looooooong comment laced with obscenities appeared in my moderation box attacking Bob Marshal again, attacking me again and then going on to attack all Catholic priests as pedophiles, the Church as an evil misogynist organization that hates women, and ending with "Heil Mary." If a computer touchpad could foam at the mouth hers certainly did. I can't imagine she thought I'd post such a hateful screed and I didn't. However, I did stop and pray for her after I read it because all I could think was, "Wow! this is one angry, unhappy woman." When I described the comment to my husband he said, "I bet she had an abortion." I agree. It's hard to imagine that kind of fury from someone with no ax to grind.

But the good news is that a person who gets angry still has a living conscience. A person with a dead conscience just shrugs. Anger when the conscience is pricked  means the ability to feel guilt is still alive. And a person who has committed an evil act should feel guilty. (One of the most horrifying thing about the Nazi atrocities is that so many who committed them seemed to do so without a qualm of conscience. They were "just following orders.") Guilt is the first step to repentance and repentance brings forgiveness, reconciliation, healing, and joy.

So I try not to get upset by the anger of those who disagree with me about fundamental moral issues that involve sinful behavior like child-killing and lust. Their anger is the natural response of a guilty conscience, one that still has enough life to feel the sting of St. Michael's spear point. St. Paul invites us to pray for our enemies to heap burning coals of love on their heads. If they only realized that we are their true friends rather than the "f***ing" Christian idiots they label us.

Semantic Games and Abortion Guilt

Back in the 70s an article ran in the New England Journal of Medicine that talked about the "semantic gymnastics" necessary to the abortion debate. It stated that pro-abortionists use word games to dissociate themselves from the fact, a fact everyone really knows, that unborn children are living human infants from the very beginning. The semantic gymnastics continue today, but occasionally a bit of honesty breaks through the shroud of lies. Sometimes, however, the honesty paints an even more grotesque picture than the lies.

Such is the story of abortionist Lisa Harris who acknowledges that second trimester abortions do, indeed, involve violence. She describes aborting an 18 week old infant at the same time she was 18 weeks pregnant with her own child:

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick - a fluttery "thump, thump" in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a "thump, thump" in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes - without me - meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling - a brutally visceral response - heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

Harris' "sadness" has not led her to stop doing 2nd trimester abortions. In fact, she continues to justify them describing that she rationalizes her actions based on whether the child is in or out of the woman's body. This is similar to using the rationale of "wantedness" which judges the baby's value by the mother's feelings about the pregnancy. Both rationalizatons have nothing to do with the baby, but involve extraneous and irrelevant issues. Many people have been unwanted at one time or another and targeted because of where they live. Lisa Harris and others who follow her logic play a dangerous game, one that isn't new.

History is full of examples of "unwanted" peoples whose murders were rationalized by their killers: the Christians unwanted by the Armenian Turks were robbed and murdered while Christians in other nations were unmolested. The Jews unwanted in the Third Reich died in the death camps. They would have survived in America. The Tutsis were unwanted "cockroaches" to the Hutus, but those who escaped to other African nations survived.

But there is another death, worse than the death of the body: the death of the soul. The results of such evil rationalization is the hardening and brutalization of the killers. To go on living their lie they must dissociate from their own humanity and become more beasts than men (or women). Their wills are hardened. The likelihood of them turning back to God becomes remote.

Lisa Harris' rationalization is so complete that she claims acknowleging abortion as violent will be a virtue actually strengthening the "pro-choice" movement. "Honesty," she says, "[can] be the basis for a stronger movement - one that makes it easier for providers and the teams they work with to do all abortions, especially second trimester abortions." If this is so it will be because the killers have become so brutal and hard-hearted they can kill as easily as stepping on a spider. The cost of "easier" abortions is to destroy the capacity for compassion. Harris' strange sentiment is so dissociated from reality, it boggles the mind. It is like Dr. Mengele claiming his grotesque experiments would be easier if he acknowledged the Jews were equal in value to himself. But in fact, he dehumanized his subjects as did the entire Nazi machine. Jews were subhuman; so experimenting on them was no different than using laboratory mice or monkeys. There is no "golden rule" among those who murder the weak and vulnerable.

Frankly, I don't believe Lisa Harris' testimony. Her claims remind me of another pro-abortion woman who defends murdering children. Columnist Anna Quindlen chose to abort her own baby and went on later to write an article about baking "guilt cookies" whenever she had to go on a business trip and leave her living children. They were well cared for, but still she "felt guilty." But wasn't that her mind playing the same rationalization game. She wouldn't allow herself to feel guilty about murdering her poor baby, so she dissociated from it and let herself release "guilt" over something obviously innocuous and not worthy of guilt.

Lisa Harris is playing the same game. She admits abortion is violent and that she is "sadder" now when she kills. But she continues to justify it. Does her "sadness" make her actions less monstrous or more?