What will happen to the Rapture abortions?

Most Christians hold that fetuses, in all their gooey prenatal glory, are sacred sacs of soul-infused sanctity. Quite how they are able to distinguish a fetus from the type of organic glob that most Americans would cheerfully spray with a blast of Raid is unclear. Perhaps they have some sort of affirmative action scheme in place, though no fetus has to my knowledge been accepted to any university yet, no matter how awful. Well, maybe Brown. But definitely nowhere else.

Yet how this inviolability can be squared against the highly anticipated mass carnage of the approaching Rapture is a troubling question for Christian theologians. Babies must first be born in order for their souls to be scooped up into the abrasive burlap sack that is Christian theology. 

So what happens to the ones still floundering in the womb when the Rapture starts?

The question is a pressing one, as we are clearly living in the End Times, and have been doing for a good two thousand years or so. An obvious solution is to allow Jesus to start the show when no saved souls are pregnant. Unfortunately this is difficult to coordinate, and is most easily accomplished if everyone simply stops having sex. Thankfully, obesity and botched plastic surgery are working hard on both ends of the female spectrum to make women much less attractive, and intercourse far less appealing.

Still, universal celibacy is not something we can rely on.  Another option is to exclude pregnant women from the Rapture entirely. After all, it’d be good if they learned to abstain from something, eh? Am I right? Yeah, nice. This could make getting pregnant somewhat like Russian roulette, which it already is for people with ugly spouses, like the Mormons, and those with just one ugly spouse, like the rest of us.

A third solution would be to rapture the unborn baby part and parcel with the mother, and simply wait out the rest of the pregnancy in Heaven. Unfortunately, the mother’s options will be limited should any complications occur, as, in accordance with policy, Heaven’s surgeons have rendered unto Caesar that which are Caesarians. Nor is it guaranteed that the child, once born in Heaven, will even accept Christianity, arguments for the existence of God being what they are.

A, uh, final solution, is simply to rapture the fetus in utero, as an independent entity to the mother. Though still too young to repent of their original crimesin on Earth, the airtight nature of Christian theology all but guarantees that they will be afforded the opportunity in Heaven. As the only alternative would be to send them to purgatory, where the age difference between the unborn fetuses and unbaptized babies could lead to bullying, apologists believe this is the best answer.

While ordinarily this could make for an awkward situation if the unrepentant mother isn't raptured along with the fetus, experts believe that anyone with in an interest in enforcing state abortion laws will vanish during the Rapture, all of which forces the question: will Christians be going to Heaven, or leaving it behind?

Life begins at conception (and ends when you die)

It may not have escaped our readers’ attention that Frodology is sometimes at odds with some of Christianity’s main tenets. Indeed, some have suggested that by failing to mimic it more completely Frodology would fail should it ever become just a satirical mockery of the real thing. Readers would tire of the inconsistent impersonation and yearn for some more accessible jokes. “Just make it funny, dammit!” they might say. Luckily Frodology is a real faith so we won’t face that problem. As it is we just have to skirt the criticism we receive for irrelevant digressions when we should really be introducing the topic at hand.

So it may come as a pleasant surprise to learn that Frodology is on board with Christianity when it comes to abortion. It really is summed up best by truncating what is an emotionally, morally, and legally complex issue into that tritely misleading simplification “pro-life.” Abortionists, on the other hand, are “pro-choice,” and kill babies on a whim, as the moment takes them. We use the term “babies” of course to refer to fetuses, shirking the use of that more accurate word for one more emotive, ambiguous and politically useful. Also, the motive in killing a baby is irrelevant, because it is the deed, not the thoughts behind it, that constitutes the crime. Despite what the law says, circumstances just don't matter.

To combat the turpitude of abortionists we have launched the “Abortion is for Quitters” campaign. With some selective research and a handful of advantageous findings, we have started the campaign as we believe that most women considering abortion simply need a boost in confidence. “With a ‘you can do it!’ attitude, the campaign aims to get women pumped up about their unwanted pregnancies,” said spokesman Jeff Phillips. “We do this by encouraging them to think of their unborn children as presents, and by assuring them that birth will be like unwrapping a fun toy. Everyone likes toys.” The Amish don’t like toys, but I don’t see how that’s relevant.


Fig. 1, The Amish: rarely relevant to anything

Of course when dialogue and peaceful programs aren’t successful, the campaign can always turn to violence. It is truly a cheering aspect of democracy that the majority can always be convinced of their errors by shouting louder and blowing things up. Critics have argued that avoiding legal process is a form of coercion. But we can change their minds. Oh yes.

This seems like a fortuitous opportunity to introduce the corollary element of our life begins at conception position. This is that life also ends when we kill you. While this might seem like an obvious tautology, the careless reader should be made aware of the implicit threat contained therein. Frodologists are ardent in their beliefs and are ready to kill those who disagree with them, in order to protect the lives of unborn, unnamed, and unloved fetuses.

It’s ironic really. Before the advent of biology and microscopes, everyone thought that conception was a heavenly miracle, ordained by the ravenous desire of wanton patriarchs. A charming image maybe, but we have of course since learned of the role of sex cells and funny little things called zygotes. We were thus able to extend our righteous religious law as science made its own advances. In other words, without science, we never would have even known of abortion to be able to condemn it as a sin. Science and religion can be awkward bedfellows, but not this time!


Fig. 2, I think somebody likes you...

Sarah Palin - veep show

The United States is quickly becoming one of the most generous nations on Earth. Through giving so many of its people over to Frodology, mind, body and soul, it is truly working its way into Frodo’s good graces. We managed to recruit and save a staggering 1,500 people in Kalamazoo, Michigan in a single afternoon, putting us fifty-ninth on the government’s Index of Infectious Hysterias. It’s tough competition in the States, but it really is great to see everyone being so willing to just keep quiet and follow.

With so many new members coming from the States, it is unsurprising that we are receiving pleas from Frodologists for spiritual guidance in the upcoming elections. We are truly thrilled to see this, since choosing your President and political leaders should ultimately be a religious question. So today we’re going to examine the qualifications and attributes of one of the election’s hottest tickets: Sarah Palin.

One item with which Mrs. Palin has earned our trust is her stance on abortion. She is firm, unwavering, and will not countenance abortion under any circumstances. Wait, is not allowing abortion a double negative? Excuse me. Mrs. Palin will at all times allow babies to be born. Well that’s good of her. In a similar vein, we Frodologists feel that since conception is a miracle totally inexplicable by science, every fertilized egg is sanctioned by Frodo, regardless of incest, rape, bestiality, or woeful retardation. In this Mrs. Palin’s stance on abortion resembles Frodology’s own “Abortion is for Quitters” campaign.

Another facet of Mrs. Palin’s persona of which Frodology approves is her commitment to moose hunting. Of course if it wasn’t a part of her life as a public official, it wouldn’t be worthy of comment. But since the introduction under Mrs. Palin of a biannual moose bloodletting on the gubernatorial steps as sacrifice to the Aleutian sun gods, big game is fair game. We support moose hunting because guns are cool and you have to shoot something. Plus if you’re shooting moose, you’re not shooting people, and that keeps the crime rate down. And it’s a good thing she’s hunting moose, because the same does not apply to quails.

One controversial area on Mrs. Palin’s record is her position on federal funding. She received criticism for first supporting and then opposing the “Bridge to Nowhere” project. We Frodologists feel this is unfair, as during the period in which she supported the plan, it was actually called the “Bridge from Somewhere” project and was vastly more sensible when seen from that angle.

Perhaps the only black mark against Mrs. Palin’s name is her aversion to spending money on pork barrels. It is possibly the single thing that Jews, Muslims and Republicans all have in common. We think Mrs. Palin should be less embarrassed about federal spending, and encourage her to pass a bill making Alaska the first state to publicly sponsor Lord of the Rings reenactments. Since a similar bill is already in front of the Wyoming Senate, we urge Mrs. Palin to hurry in this matter.

We also thoroughly applaud Mrs. Palin’s total lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge of the outside world. Indeed, to better reflect our own worldview, it should not be difficult at all to convince her that the world is flat. We fully anticipate that, as an insincere fickle religious opportunist, she will also abandon Jesus to the trite lines of a megachurch hymnbook and embrace Frodo in all His glory.

Words also agree that Mrs. Palin is the right choice. See, ‘Palin’ is an anagram of ‘plain’, but ‘Palin’ isn’t ‘plain’. Thus Mrs. Palin isn’t plain and will be an exciting choice for the vice presidential role. ‘Alnip’ and ‘lipan’ are also anagrams of ‘Palin’, but we’re not sure what they are.

Finally, in the interest of balanced reporting, Obama is a black guy, and they’re people too.

So vote McCain/Palin: a hot piece of AZ and a hot piece of ass!