A Royal Abortion

The Unspared Heir

Flakstad, Norway
THE SWIFTIAN POST

Courtesy of mydaily.co.uk

Lately, much news has been circulating regarding the new Royal Baby and his (her?) blushing parents. Indeed, as the laws were changed in 2013, the sex of the child doesn't matter: boy or girl, Will and Kate have provided the essential "spare heir".

Or they would have if Kate hadn't made a shocking announcement yesterday afternoon. Kate says she will not be having the Royal baby. Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, next Queen of England, will instead be having a "royal abortion", as some have termed it.

Sources say that the Duchess has a consultation next week with a clinic in New York. Kate says that "the abortion legacy in America is one of its largest accomplishments; Planned Parenthood enjoys a name of near-greater import than its host country. Time to add a pound of royalty to the pile!"

When questioned as to why, after so much excitement in the media -- and indeed in the hearts of people worldwide -- the Prince and the Duchess have decided to eradicate the newest princeling, Kate replied, "Well, it was mostly my decision. Sometimes I have to hold baby George when his nanny is preparing lunch. It just takes so much energy out of you. Every time I see him, I know that I'll never shake that responsibility, and it's exhausting."

When pressed, the Duchess said pointedly that "It's a women's issue, really. I feel it's my responsibility to show people that the right to abortion rests for no one, regardless of lineage. Even a royal baby can be aborted."

Courtesy of huffingtonpost.com

Prince William, though remaining vaguely supportive of Kate's decision, has expressed some concerns. "There is the problem of the 'spare heir', it's true. G** forbid that something happen to little George, it's possible that the royal line will be broken because of this miss-, well, soon-to-be missing link." The Prince seemed somewhat nervous and confused.

Kate's response to Will's apparent indecision was firm confirmation that this was her choice: "If I don't want to birth another heir at this point, then I don't have to. ... How does it go? 'My body, my choice'? Will will just have to wait." However, the Duchess did suggest that another royal birth is highly unlikely anytime in the near future.

The Duchess then volunteered the following information: "After the, you know, procedure, we're going to have an abortion shower, where we plan to ... well, there's a secret ... but we plan to show everyone just how beautiful abortion is! I guess you could say there's going to be a reveal."

After the brief press meeting at their summer cottage in Norway, Kate hurried off to a "Loopy Luau" party on the couples' private cruiser, leaving a dazed Will dreamy-eyed on the patio. The extended royal family is concerned over what seems to have been an extended breach of character over the last few weeks.

Some of Kate's college friends have remarked on social media that "this is the Kate we remember", but insist on the maturity and propriety of her decision to abort the royal child. One twitter user, 86girlpower86, declared that "no one has the right to chain you down, not even Prince charming or his little princeling."

While news media adjust to the transition from "Royal Baby" to "unplanned pregnancy", some fear what may come of these events in the weeks to come, which will certainly be a fragile period in Britain's political history. Stay tuned for more news of the "royal abortion reveal."



DISCLAIMER: This article is completely and utterly fabricated. The persons and places mentioned are real, but the corresponding events, actions, and utterances have been generated specifically for satirical purposes, and are not intended as a factual record. 

Thoughts Concerning Homosexuality

Boys (game boy) -- Kuzma Ptrov-Vodkin, 1911

Note: I have deleted the second and third parts of this post, as, while relevant to American society in general, they were not appropriate within the context of this blog, whose primary mission is to highlight the artistic forces at work in the Transfiguration of culture.

I am not appalled or disgusted by homosexuality with any particularly strong sentiment. There are many other faults that I find more disturbing, and these include sexual faults, sins, such as rape, molestation, sexual obsession.

Homosexuality, in fact, has a very logical place in our current society. It is the most intuitive sin for our times. It fits in the setting like an atheist mega-church.

Among all the other enticing and frustrating vices, to me it most closely resembles gluttony. We see that this Quail Pot Pie (for instance, you know) happens to have the most pleasurable appearance and rich fragrance we could ever imagine, and so we take two scrumptious bites ... and cannot resist devouring its entirety, after which we feel overfull, immobile, and regretful.

In my own experiences with homosexual attraction, I have found that quite the same case unfolds after a particularly indulgent mental fantasy. A close friendship may provide the perfect circumstance for imperfection, and when friendly affection becomes erotic attraction, one has not quite reached the boundary.

Yes, I believe that eros can exist between two males without sin. Eros can occur when a sort of mild mating of minds occurs, when two young men -- or perhaps women -- recognize in each other, as Anne (with an "e") would say, "kindred spirits". They come so close as to observe in each other that beauty that God hid deep in the heart, only waiting to flower before loving eyes.

Boys playing soldiers -- Francisco Goya, 1779

Yet this eros can lead too far if left unpruned ... just as it can in any relationship between man and woman. In either situation, eros may lead to a lust to have for one's own gratification. Conversely, it may lead, in either situation, to a greater love, a profounder care.

But whereas the fulfillment of love between males lies in the exchange of that saccharine fume for brotherly gaiety and the camaradarie of arms, a unique love unto itself, the fulfillment of love between man and woman bursts into a more complex passion of familial trinitarianism.

But this mystery is lost upon us. We are, after all, the most singularly selfish nation on the face of the planet.

The Austin Institute recently released a video about the "Economics of Sex." In a few fundamental ways, it hits the nail on the head. In other ways, it is deeply flawed.

The head-hitting of Austin's hammer lies in its estimation that American men can bide their time when it comes to marriage. They are in no hurry, having the upper hand in such a sparse arena. They may experiment, demand probationary periods of sexual trial. In such an arena, why would a man find interest in a woman at all (besides the merely carnal sense-probing)?

The women who wish to marry but concede to modern values when it comes to courtship are precisely the sort of sell-outs that no one likes (I am not defending the men ... just making a rhetorical point). They are the sort that are just following lower instincts in an unconscious sort of way -- somehow secure a mate, give birth, raise the next generation.

On the other hand are the Miltonic Eve-like loners, who want to assert their man-womanness because it was the latest and greatest forbidden fruit of the last century (getting old, no?). Do they have respect for the flabby gamers who somehow wear masculine genitalia? About as much as they have for the homemaker who stays up later, gets up earlier, and works harder than they do.

Nevertheless, the pant suit is more impressive than the gamer's thumb. Why would a busy, clean-cut businesswoman look twice at the mediocre-but-approximately-marriageable oaf?

The point is that the sexes are no longer interested in each other. They have had quite a quarrel that has faded to an icy indifference over the course of two fateful centuries, and it is harder and harder to go back. No, it is impossible. And no one can see the way forward.

Why would Mr. Matt Walsh point out the self-victimization of the gay rights agenda? Because it fits right in with homosexuality itself. Homosexuality is a manifestation of the inward turning of the genders, the upraising of the "we" of males or the "we" of females that will one day be a silent chorus of solitary "Is".

Man looks inward and praises his strength, his flaxen hair, his handsome angularity, his quick and sharp wit that translates into powerful and protective romance. What luscious libido! What godliness! What need has he for the women who have brushed him off for love of the capacities only he will ever retain? They can keep their shoulder pads and pixie cuts. And the girly girls that are left ... well, we'll be best friends, because we've both been hurt and will always be hurt if the world remains unchanged.

The camaraderie of failing men has become a flamboyant and resentful self-love. Of course it has. What else could it have become? How else to protect a wounded dignity?

There are, of course, many more reasons for the phenomena of homosexuality, but I have proffered some cultural causes that I find relevant. I look forward to your comments.

The Declining Female Happiness

Satan tempting Eve, by John Martin

There is a social phenomenon sociologists and their kind call “the paradox of declining female happiness.” This phenomenon was first noted by two researchers at the Wharton School studying 35 years of data from the General Social Survey. What they found was that during the time that women had increased access to education, career opportunities, and the contraceptives that made careers possible, there was a steady decline in the level of happiness reported by women. Those researchers tried not to draw any conclusions, but I think it is reasonable to explore the correlations.

Before going any further, I think it appropriate to speak directly to you, female reader. There is no question that you can do many things that men do. You can be doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. There is, however, question that you can do all those things as men do them. I did not say “better than” or “worse than,” I said “as.” There is further question as to whether you should do those things, even though you can.

One of the possible reasons for the decline in female happiness seems to lie in what G.K. Chesterton describes as “modern torture.” No one denies that women have been wronged before, but as Chesterton says, “I doubt if they were ever tortured so much as they are tortured now by the absurd modern attempt to make them domestic empresses and competitive clerks at the same time.” A woman’s life was never easy, but at least she knew what she was to do with her life. She knew she was to be a wife, a mother, a cook, a teacher, a seamstress, a moral guide, a source of optimism for her pessimistic husband, a dose of realism for his irrational dreaming, and more. To paraphrase Chesterton, a woman was expected to be everything to a few people rather than one thing to many.

Even more, what others expected of her aligned with her natural tendencies. No little girl ever grew up dreaming of being a rich and powerful CEO; she grew up dreaming of her prince, with whom she would start a family. Now, however, little girls are told that they should not “settle” for marriage, a loving husband and father for their children, and a life of love and care for others; rather, they should become wealthy and successful. If she decides that a child might be nice along the way, she can simply go to the sperm store and inject it herself.

Our current situation is much like the story of the original sin. There is a great lie being spoken to insecure women and the timid and weak men stand aside, fearful that they might be hurt, or worse, offend someone. Instead of trying to be like God, in this case, woman is trying to be like man, because men have failed her and hurt her. We have lesbians because men failed to be loving and faithful men; we have gays because the men that were replaced by women decided to fill the void of femininity left by those women. What is to be done?

I greatly admire those women today who have the incredible strength to reject the lie that their work as wives and mothers is less than the work of female accountants, teachers, doctors, or lawyers. The work of the wife and mother is of infinitely more worth than any temporal work she may do. Her work as wife and mother is of divine and eternal importance. For that work to take place, she needs a man that stands for her, fights for her, and protects her from a diseased world. We not only need women to take the stand for themselves and reject the lie, but we need men who will take the stand for the women they love.