Wednesday, June 21, 2006


I've seen that term used by people trying to justify paedophiles a couple of times now, and I'd like to talk about the term 'pro-choice' in relation to it before I tackle the term itself.

I would like to think that nobody here is anti choice as a matter of course. That you do not think people should have their choices removed from them just because you think differently. Of course, we do agree that people should have the choice to shoot their innocent next door neighbour taken from them, and that they shouldn't have the choice open to them to bugger a child, but in general we believe that the individual is sovereign over his own body and mind, and can act as he pleases.

We are all pro choice. Where you shop, what you watch, what you drive or if you drive, what you eat. It was a basic tenant of western liberal democracy (Especially British and American because of Napoleons dictatorial legacy on the continent, but less so here now aswell) that the individual chooses what he or she does, and the state only imposes its will when that will is shown to mirror the will of the people.. and that when it DOES exercise it's will it does so to prevent people doing what is bad as opposed to granting them rights that they already have, as set forth in the American constitution particularly succinctly but also the magna carta. Anyway, that's the politics of it all, the point is that the standpoint of us all here is pro-choice.

And yet, some of us will be against abortion. Since the 60's but not before, that makes us against "pro-choice", as far as most of the public are concerned. Were they to read my first two paragraphs they would probably also agree with those, and say "Yes, of course that makes sense... But being Pro-choice means 'supporting a woman's right to choose' doesn't it."

Pro-choice has been intentionally defined by abortion activists to disguise the actual act of abortion that they wish to promote. This is a blog entirely focused on stopping paedophiles from abusing our children, but if you will allow me a graphic and offensive paragraph to illustrate what I mean I think you will see that I am not playing games with words or making a minor point when I talk of 'childlove', but starting to insulate us against the judo throw of political correctness.

Abortion has many forms, but it often involves cutting up a baby in the womb. After a few months we can see the baby kicking wildly and mouthing.. Perhaps one day the technology will be developed to hear it scream, if we so wish. Another form of abortion is delivering a perfectly healthy baby so that only its head is left inside the womb, inserting a type of forceps in the back of its skull and, as its legs and arms franticly flail around, removing its brains.

Yet if you are against abortion nowadays, you first have to explain why you are not pro-choice. If you are for abortion you can justify your view in terms of pro-choice.

And so we come back to childlove.

It seems to be a term coined by paedophiles who wish to have sexual contact with children, by which we mean buggering or having sex or otherwise interfering sexually with a child under 16, in order to normalize the reprehensible, to disguise their abuse and at the same time to emotionally connect with the person hearing the phrase. If this term or other obfuscating terms out there hiding child abuse come to be used by non-paedophiles to describe paedophilia, they have won an important battle. And this is important because paedophilia will only remain illegal if the majority of the vocal public wish it to be so, and if they come to believe the sanitised version vocal and instinctive opposition to paedophiles will fall. Don't kid yourself to think that the majority of political parties wouldn't support it if they thought it would get them into power without serious repercussions. They would. In this country the labour government has recently reduced the age of consent from 18 to 16 for homosexual teenagers... And at what point is a teenager a child? I didn't know shit when I was 15 (nor 16 or 17), and would have been good prey for a paedophile. I was just lucky. Also, I didn't see any young men on the march through London supporting the age drop, only old ones.. And while they didn't go there openly demanding the right to bugger your school age nephew, but under the banners of "equality" and "fairness", all the same, 60 year old men now have the legal right to bugger school boys in 'Great' Britain.

These sexual perverts will now make the somewhat valid point that, really, what is the difference between being 15 and 16, really? Im sure we could if we looked hard enough, find a 15 year old who is more emotionally ready for sex than a 25 year old. And, yes, the 16 year old line is arbitrary. Its not good to have sex with a 16 year old immature schoolgirl. But a lot of good laws are arbitrary. The point is that these paedophiles want to have sex with young children. They don't actually care that some 15 year olds are more mature than some 16 year olds, they care that they were born with the desire for young boys and girls and they want to fulfill that desire at all costs, because they are active predatory sexual deviants and that is the most important thing in their lives. All this childlove stuff is entirely purpose built bullshit, they just know that they have to hide and lie to get a chance of ever being able to legally abuse your 12 year old child.

Right, so what are we to do about this stuff? Im writing this now when perhaps I should be working on my flowchart of the ticker, but when that gets sorted out that's one method of delivery to a wide audience. Send out warnings along the lines of "Warning; Paedophiles use the term pro-childlove, click here for details" sort of thing. But apart from all that, i've tried to show just how insidious the intentional misuse of words can be (which is what political correctness is), and what i want you to talk about in the comments is ways to tackle this method of covering up child abuse.
blog comments powered by Disqus