The roots of domestic violence

Anne Lastman

Victoria’s Royal Commission into Domestic Violence is both important and timely, and this societal violence needs to be stopped. Far too many children are being hurt. Too many women. Too many men. There is too much violence.

Everywhere we turn, there is one more murder. One more stabbing. One more violent assault. The home, the suburbs, the streets, and schools are now a war zone. Why?

We live in a society that is so comfortable, we have it so easy. So why so much violence? And always I go back to loss of respect for life.

Yes, indeed, we have it easy. We have all the modern conveniences, but at the cost of respect for another, and above all, for life. Slowly respect for life has been eroded, and this loss of respect began with the loss of respect for the life of the tiniest infant.

Those who cannot defend themselves. Abortion has become “normal”. Abortion means killing another, a little one. And if we can kill a little one, then as Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, if a mother can kill her own child what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me. There is nothing between.

Over one generation, we have gone from abortion being legalised in the most extreme circumstances to abortion on demand to full term, and now with legalised infanticide of babies who survive abortion. In less than 30 years.

We are talking about mothers letting their viable babies be killed in this cruel way. We are talking about fathers taking their sons or daughters to be killed intentionally.

And then we ask a Royal Commission to investigate domestic/family violence. I wonder if the Commissioners would ever think that an abortion could be the start of violence between previously happy couples. I wonder if the Commissioners would consider that the violence experienced by a child in an abortion is similar to the violence committed during murder of an adult. Or do they think it’s different?

We now know that there are psychological sequelae to abortion. The woman experiences life-long after-effects, while the man is also affected, but differently, generally through complicity in the action, with an inevitable loss of respect for life, or if there was no consent, to a sense of impotence. For a man who is affected, there is often a sense of helplessness at being at being unable to protect his child.

This sense of helplessness turns to frustration and anger which then turns inwardly to self-punish by, you guessed it, fighting and aggression.

Prior to the birth of his baby, the father has absolutely no rights in respect of the child. He cannot do anything to protect the life of his child, and if the mother of that child does not want to give birth to her child, then no one can prevent the abortion from happening.

No one includes the state, because the state has purchased into the argument by legislating that the life of that new individual while in utero is a nonentity, and therefore is dependent upon the whom of the host body.

Legislation has not decreed that the relationship between woman and infant is symbiotic, but at the same time the infant is independent and as a human being is entitled to the utmost respect.

By failing to protect human life in utero, the law has in fact decreed that the life or death of that infant is dependent upon the vagaries of the stronger of the two parties.

The violence we are daily fed through the media is symptomatic of the “just below the surface” violence within the community. There is a tension which must be released, and will not be disappear without leaving in its wake a disaster.

We see tension beneath the surface of some men and women after abortion: a tension which explodes into violence, both self-harming and other-harming violence.

Since the onset of the sexual revolution, the woman has progressively taken control of her fertility and her body. And indeed, to be able to understand her body and to guard and protect it inviolate is a good thing.

However, this is not what has happened. The woman has demanded control over her body as far as her fertility is concerned, and has removed from her husband/partner any rights and responsibility towards an act which has resulted in a conception.

The consequences have been tragic. Today, a man can walk away from his responsibility towards a child he has engendered. Conversely, should he choose not to walk away from his responsibility, it can be forcibly wrenched from him, so that he cannot do anything to change the situation.

The removal of responsibility has not spelled out equal rights, as has been suggested, but indeed, unequal suffering. The woman suffers life-long anguish. Yes, it’s real. It happens even for those who believe that it hasn’t affected them.

The man suffers loss of something of his essence, of his fatherhood, of his fathering, of his manhood. He forgets how to be man.

For the woman, in her very being there is a rupture unlike any other. There is grief quite unlike any other. The kind of wrenching grief which is the result of guilt. The kind of grief which is the result of the intent behind the loss. The kind of grief which says powerlessness, hopelessness, utter despair.

That is the kind of grief which abortion leaves in its wake, and is the legacy for the woman and man (either short term or long term) who have acceded to the abortion experience.

For the state and nation which has decreed that the killing of its future citizens is lawful, there will be other losses that cannot ever be recouped.

For such a state, the beginning of its end is in sight. To be successful, a nation depends on its people whom it must defend and protect. A nation needs to be able to sustain itself and replace itself.

The birth of every child in every nation should be an occasion of celebration, and an acknowledgement that its future is secure. Abortion says otherwise: it says death. As Mother Teresa said, abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace.


Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.