Wednesday, November 22, 2006

See this on Drudge?

Article with photos of animals in the womb. What is so sickening about this is the fact that while we are marveling over these precious little mammals, babies are being aborted that have been determined to be "products of conception", "masses of cells", "potential humans" and blithely disposed of in incinerators and garbage disposals.

It is a very simple and modern concept. Babies are expensive, messy, career-ending, education-wasting, impositions.

Instead we have doggy daycare, pet costumes, pet therapy, pet insurance- oh I'm sorry I meant to say "animal companion". And does it make anyone else crazy that the baby supplies- diapers, wipes, baby food share the pet aisle in the supermarket???? The Huggies baby wipes are directly adjacent to the dog chow.


As we approach Advent and Christmas and images of the Nativity are dancing in our heads (I hope) let's remember that it was the animals in the stable that worshipped (in their own dumb way) Our Lord. It is not for humans to worship or revere or adore animals. Animals are here to serve us in the divinely ordered state of existence. They are our food, our clothing, our entertainment, our livelihood and may even be our pets. But let's be clear that they are NOT our children, our progeny, our family, or our reason for living.


Steve said...

This animal special is apparently part of a series on the National Geographic channel. We were watching on on Thursday night called "In the Womb" which was all about human prenatal development. While the narrator constantly referred to to unborn child as a "fetus" (which was defined in the show as Latin for "offspring) the imagery was inherently pro-life, with an emphasis on the highly developed aspects of the baby as early as eight weeks of gestation.

My one complaint about the show would be that it primarily followed one unidentified and rather attractive woman through her pregnancy. She never wore a shirt that covered her pregnant stomach (there was an odd belly-cam shot they kept going back to) and she was frequently shown sleeping in her underwear or in a revealing swimsuit.

These things alone probably wouldn't have been a deal-breaker, but the clincher was that several times throughout the two-hour show, they would cut to a lighted silhouette of presumably this same woman in a transition through various stages of her pregnancy, from waist to shoulder. Of course, she was completely naked, and for some reason her breasts were visible in the shot despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the development of her stomach, which the segment seemed designed to showcase.

I had a couple of seminarian friends over for thanksgiving and they were the ones who turned the show on. All three of us were less than thrilled at the surprise. As healthy red-blooded males trying to live our vocations, not one of us needed such a graphic reminder of the allure of the female form, pregnant or otherwise.

So, it's a great look at life in the womb, with some notable revelations.

Steve said...

Perhaps the word "revelations" in my last sentence was a freudian slip. It was supposed to read "reservations."

By the way, here's the link to the series.

Carolina Cannonball said...

You know, it never even dawned on me that the two shared the same aisle. Now that you pointed it out it is going to bug me. LOL

Leticia said...

I once vacationed with my three girls in a town without children. Woodstock is a picture perfect Vermont town, that could have come from a Norman Rockwell painting, except I noticed as we first drove through,there were no children to be seen.
The many art galleries had signs saying "no children" and "dogs welcome". When we attended Mass, we were promptly escorted to the church basement thought the church was empty, to watch the Mass on closed circuit TV.The only families were tourists like us who had come to visit a local farm museum.
When we went to the convenience store, there were no diapers or baby items in the store, and an entire aisle of dog food.
I never did take the walk downtown that I had planned, I had seen enough! It was a frightening, but I fear, not an unusual experience.

M. Alexander said...

It reminds me of the movie in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang where children are forbidden and hide in caves under the german city. The Baroness (who wears lingerie and is despised by the Baron) hates and fears children.

I think there was a political message there.