All evil begins with a lie. To identify the lie is to unmask the evil.
One of the most efficient lies, a hand grenade meant to derail the debate, is that pro-lifers only care about the baby while it’s in the womb. Once it’s born, so the talking point goes, we have no use for mother and child. The punch line is that our love is cheap. So long as we don’t need to put out any money, we love babies.
It’s a lie straight from the pit of hell.
The truth is that liberal lies are easy to unmask. Simply turn the table. Think of the opposite of what they are saying. They constantly accuse us of that for which they are guilty. Take the current allegation into consideration.
Pro-lifers informally and institutionally provide cribs, clothes, toys, diapers, food, job training, tutoring, mentoring for single mothers. Add to that child care, baby-sitting, and life-skills training. For those not able to keep their child, we provide adoption services. Catholic hospitals provide free pre-natal and pediatric care to get mothers launched in the right direction. We dig deep into our pockets to help these women and children.
Pro-choicers, on the other hand, prefer to use taxpayer dollars to kill babies rather than put themselves out there for women and children. In a nation equally divided over abortion, that means pro-lifers pick up half the tab of every abortion receiving government subsidy through medicaid or Planned Parenthood. Pro-choicers then assume the other half of the $450 bill through taxes.
So who puts their time and money where their mouths are? Pro-lifers.
Who are the ones who would rather see a child die than dig deep in order to help the mother who all too often is having the abortion because she doesn’t feel that there are viable options?
Pro-choicers.
In the years that I have attended the March and stood at the Supreme Court Steps, I’ve heard literally hundreds of post-abortive women give their testimony.
NOT ONE ever said that an abortion clinic employee ever asked if she was doing this because she felt there were no other options.
NOT ONE reported a clinic employee offering assistance.
NOT ONE reported the presence of a case worker or social worker trying to ensure that the woman knew all of the many services of government and private charity.
NOT ONE reported a clinic worker trying to ascertain if this was truly a CHOICE or the woman being threatened or coerced into an abortion.
NOT ONE!!!
What I did hear repeatedly was threats from family and boyfriends, of parents dragging the girl to the abortuary, of loneliness, fear, isolation, shame, guilt, and ignorance of the reality of a baby well along in its development.
No word on pro-choicers actually educating women about their choices, empowering women to choose life by offering access to the means necessary to sustain that life nutritionally, medically and socially.
It’s simply cheaper to kill a baby than to commit to mother and child post-partum-the very non-commitment of which they accuse us. That’s because the “choice” agenda is evil, and because such evil is non-love and anti-love at once.
Love gives life, nourishes hope, and is fed by faith. It is the fire that burns within.
Juxtapose that with the same word every woman at the Supreme Court has used to describe the abortuaries: COLD.
Cold is the absence of love. It is dead. It is also how some of the Christian mystics have described visions of hell. No fire. Just icy black cold. The total absence of love: God’s or anyone else’s.
So there is the truth behind the lie, the coldness of evil, the absence of charity on the part of pro-choicers.
We need to pray for them in earnest, for their conversion. Only the Fire of Love, that gift of the Holy Spirit, can melt an icy black heart. We pro-lifers will witness that to the extent we look upon our brothers and sisters in the pro-choice movement with love and not with malice or contempt. It’s hard at times, but it’s our imperative.
Excellent post. You are absolutely right about the need for us to love our pro-choice antagonists, and not allow ourselves to express or even to feel malice or contempt. Maybe we should start “adopting” pro-choice ideologues and abortion clinic workers, the same way we “adopt” babies in the womb — offer prayers, fasting and works of charity for one particular pro-choice person we know or have encountered, in an effort to help the Holy Spirit enter into and change, with the fire of Divine Love, hearts cold with assent (culpable or not) to the lie about abortion and the evil it supports.
I have been making this Novena to the Holy Spirit for the intention of converting the heart of one specific abortion clinic worker. A drop in the bucket, from the natural point of view. But from the supernatural, who knows what even one such conversion could accomplish? St. Paul – a wondrous example of the power of a single converted soul in bringing knowledge of Christ’s redemptive act to the hurting world.
well obviously the FIRST place to start in my mind is the Catholic proabort politicians.
These people are traitors to their faith, their country and to God. They probably KNOW the great lie in abortion, but have stifled their consciences.
The Pelosi’s, Kennedy’s, Fr. Jenkins, -all who have sold their soul for power and prestige, at the expense of millions of souls.
These are the very people who SHOULD be a voice for the unborn but have stepped away.
It even goes all the way back to Dr. John Rock whose soul we should also pray for.😦
Gerard,
Your writing is outstanding and your arguments are well-founded, articulate and powerful. Bravo, and thank you for publishing this. Keep up the very good work.
Bless you.
The facts presented her are mostly, if not entirely true. But it is time to stop talking about people in blocs. Pro-life people come in many shades. So do pro-choice people, and so do pro-abortion people. Then, there are those who are none of the above, and they come in many shades also.
Example: I once saw a pick-up truck posted with many bumper stickers, of which three stuck in my mind: “I’m not an alcoholic, I’m a drunk. Alcoholics go to meetings.” Then, “Your little princess is my little whore.” Finally, “VOTE REPUBLICAN.” I shared this with a friend, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, who has worked on a few Republican campaigns. He said he has sharply different views on God than the mostly Christian people he has worked with on these campaigns, but none of them remotely resemble this combination of sentiments. However, I know that one portion of the current Republican base are well represented by those stickers. I think the truck may have had a pro-life sticker or two as well.
So, my point is, among those who will join the chorus of opposition to Roe v. Wade, SOME are indeed indifferent to the child after birth. SOME are indeed among those who want mothers to go to work by the time the child is two, and generally want to cut public assistance programs, etc. For example, I bet the Lt. Gov. of SC is nominally “pro-life,” although other pro-lifers, prominent among them Gerard Nadal, are properly outraged by his statements comparing hungry children to stray animals.
The there are the politicians who build their careers denouncing any kinds of public assistance, who cheerfully encourage abortion. Among those favorable to Roe, are people who believe kids are a drag and we would be better off without them. Also, there are those who love children. And I know that there are many pro-life people who earnestly work to provide for children for years after they are born — I’ve met a number of them personally.
But let’s not make this a battle of stereotypes.
Stereotypes? This isn’t a battle! Please document all the pro-choicers and pro-abortionists out who are offering the services pro-lifers do for women who are in difficult circumstances, before and after. You and other pro-choicers haven’t done anything to give women a real choice. Heck, pro-choicers dislike giving women the option of viewing a sonogram and listening to the heart beat.
If you are offended at the heartless (stereotypical) manner in which pro-choicers are portrayed for their failure to provide resources for women then, by all means, direct us to organizations that prove us wrong.
One person with some odd bumper stickers v. 300,000 prayerful, youthful people in DC? Not a very solid argument. Surely you can do better than that!
SJ,
“But let’s not make this a battle of stereotypes.”
It isn’t. This is a battle over the truth concerning the collective work of the pro-life movement in the face of the collective lies about us by the pro-choice community.
I agree that our behavior is not stereotypical. For the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers it is prototypical and predominant.
Gerard, a wonderfully written post, as usual.
BMG, your comment was excellent! Your challenge cannot be accepted, because such an organization does not exist.
Gerard, when you categorically denounce as “a lie” the allegation that “pro-lifers only care about the baby while it is in the womb,” you are dealing in blocs of people. You are characterizing the statement as typical of “liberals” and a talking point of anyone and everyone who is pro-choice. You are also denying that it could possibly be true of ANYONE who claims to be “pro-life.”
You do a grave dis-service to the many pro-life liberals, who your movement loves to show off on other occasions, who are not party to the statement you call a lie. Some of them form a sufficiently well-placed bloc in congress right now to insure that any health care reform bill will exclude payment for abortion with any government-supplied money.
You categorically assert that “pro-lifers” provide cribs, toys, food, diapers, job assistance… when the truth is, some do, some don’t. Those who do are a credit to humanity, much less to the pro-life movement. Those who don’t are the ones who open the door to the half-truth that “pro-lifers” have “no use for the mother and child” once the baby is born. Again, the real truth is, some pro-lifers don’t, some do.
Further, some pro-choice people make the allegation you object to, and some don’t. Talking about “the collective work” of any movement, as if all the people in it are robots cut from the same template marching in lockstep, smacks of the same distortion any over-collectivized form of thought inevitably leads to. You are a very diverse movement, and that diversity has its strengths and weaknesses. Why don’t you accept that, and plead your cause in full recognition of the fact?
You are characterizing the statement as typical of “liberals” and a talking point of anyone and everyone who is pro-choice.
It IS typical of liberals and of those who call themselves pro-choice, Siarlys. Face it, or provide evidence to the contrary.
You categorically assert that “pro-lifers” provide cribs, toys, food, diapers, job assistance… when the truth is, some do, some don’t. Those who do are a credit to humanity, much less to the pro-life movement. Those who don’t are the ones who open the door to the half-truth that “pro-lifers” have “no use for the mother and child” once the baby is born. Again, the real truth is, some pro-lifers don’t, some do.
Siarlys, by saying pro-lifers provide these things, it is obvious that he is speaking in general. He did not state “every single pro-lifer on the planet does these things”. (although vast majority of pro-lifers DO do these things and more!).
Instead of getting so offended by these claims, why not try to prove Gerard wrong by showing some counter evidence?
Find an abortion supporting organization that provides privately funded assistance to the poor and needy…
Find an abortion supporting organization that uses money from their own pockets, and takes time from their own day, to help others in need …
Find an abortion supporting organization that does not fight CPC’s tooth and nail and make all kinds of false claims about them in an attempt to get them to shut down and to be unable to help women….
Find pro-life organizations which will not provide whatever they have available and can offer to help poor and needy women….
These should be easily found if Gerard’s claims are nonsense.
Bethany, you are no doubt familiar with the bloc of Democrats in congress routinely described in news coverage as “pro-life” who have a sufficient bloc of votes to kill any health care reform bill which does not carefully prevent any federal funding from subsidizing any health insurance coverage which includes paying for abortion. I haven’t tracked the voting records of each of these congress reps, but in general, I believe many of them are likely to vote for labor protection laws, increased minimum wage, environmental protection, among other things. Senator Casey from Pennsylvania certainly is. I expect they have a wide range of opinions on gun control. For all I know, Gerard may be favorable to gun control, which I suppose would make him a liberal, although historically its been more of a conservative issue. If you check out the Sojourners web site, you will find many people who are “liberal” or even “radical” on issues of war and peace, social justice, safety nets, environmental protection, but are militantly pro-life. If you are not aware of such people, you are sadly limited in the understanding of the potential of the movement you subscribe to.
By the way, I’m pro-choice, and I’ve been saying atypical things quite often, so, face it.
I’m not looking for abortion providing organizations which provide assistance to the poor and needy. But if we were to assemble lists of donors to Planned Parenthood, we would undoubtedly find millions who also donate to emergency relief for Haiti — no matter what Margaret Sanger might have said about it. I’m talking about characterizing people, who are unique, multi-plex individuals. Remember how it got George W. Bush bent out of shape to learn that an openly gay economic and social conservative who supported his foreign policy was prime minister of Holland?
Likewise, I’m not looking for anti-abortion organizations that NEVER provide cribs. I’m talking about the vast diversity of opinion among the people who spout pro-life views. Guilt by association is a poor basis to judge any political cause, partly because we all have some creeps pretty close to our elbows. Every cause attracts people for what others attracted to the same cause would call the wrong reasons.
Now if Gerard had quoted specific organizations or individuals making blanket statements that the pro-life movement only cares about the child until they are born, admitted that there are such people among pro-life voters, then detailed some of the work specified pro-life organizations do to help with the baby, I would have had little to argue with. It would all be true, and well balanced.
I do recall a pointed cartoon showing a man kneeling in front of a very pregnant woman saying “Miracle of life,” then another panel where the same man said to a young child holding the hand of the same woman “Snivelling little welfare cheat.” Was that man Gerard Nadal. No way. He probably wasn’t the handsome young man beside you in your gravatar either. But there are more than a handful of such people across America, and they are part of whatever percentage call themselves “pro-life” in the latest Gallup poll. I do wonder, if every woman who would have chosen abortion this year were to carry their pregnancy to term, then drop the baby off at the nearest Birthright office, does the entire pro-life movement have enought adoptive parents to offer a permanent home to every one of those babies? It would be an overwhelming testimony if you do. It would raise some serious doubts if you don’t.
Folks, breathe easy. This discussion seems to have reached that point where continued argument will bring less and less light, and more and more heat. I don’t want to be that stereotype The Annoying Peacemaker, but…
You’ve got points of agreement, and points of disagreement. As a pro-life advocate who was very moved by Gerard’s original post, and who in very good faith has worked for years trying to find pro-choice folks willing to collaborate with me on common ground issues, I tend to think his generalizations were defensible. But as someone who believes that rhetoric can often outstrip complete accuracy in debate, I appreciate Siarlys’ complaint. Look at her lead-off statement, “The facts presented her are mostly, if not entirely true. But it is time to stop talking about people in blocs.”
I think we CAN stop talking about people in blocs without compromising truth.
Both sides make their point, in other words. Let’s pick up the ball, blow the whistle, and keep playing!🙂
All,
I don’t shy from speaking of people in blocs, as there are definite defining characteristics among pro-choicers and pr-lifers.
Given the rather high level of function here, it’s understood that neither side is entirely monolithic, and no one here is suggesting otherwise. Even reference to a ‘side’ in the argument implies blocs, so unless someone proves themselves otherwise let’s presume upon one another’s decency.
By the way, I’m pro-choice, and I’ve been saying atypical things quite often, so, face it.
Siarlys, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of pro-lifers as a whole have spoken much more loudly than the actions of pro-abortionists as a whole. Yes, there are going to be exceptions to every rule, but that doesn’t mean the “rule” doesn’t exist.
Rae, we must talk some more. Thank you. You seem to be trying to reach across the divides the same as I am. Neither one of us should be expected to simply abandon our principles as the price of the conversation. By the way, Siarlys is a male name — look in a Welsh dictionary.
Bethany, pro-lifers “as a whole” have no actions at all. Individuals act. Movements as a whole compile statistics. It is true that if a movement leadership can rally lots of individuals behind itself, that leadership can act in ways that have a tremendous impact for millions. But that is the result of two individual actions:
a) The individuals who commit to that leadership, thereby empowering it, and,
b) The actions of individual leaders, who use the power their position of leadership gives them.
Read Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress sometime. Professor Bernardo de la Paz explains it very well, although I don’t go all the way with his philosophy of rational anarchism. He is correct that in the end, there is an individual person who acts, and is morally responsible for their own personal action.
Example: The pro-life movement didn’t kill Dr. Tiller. Scott Roeder did.
Example: I have never performed an abortion. Dr. Tiller has.
You believe it is morally reprehensible that women and doctors who consider abortion are not under threat of substantial prison sentences. I take full responsibility for being one of the citizens who opposes recriminalization of abortion. I am responsible for the fact that there are no criminal penalties for first or second trimester abortions. I am equally responsible for the fact that third trimester abortions are illegal, unless the mother’s life or health are in danger.
You believe it is morally reprehensible that women and doctors who consider abortion are not under threat of substantial prison sentences.
You are putting words in my mouth. What I believe is morally reprehensible is killing an innocent human being for simply existing.
I am equally responsible for the fact that third trimester abortions are illegal, unless the mother’s life or health are in danger.
You are wrong about that one, Siarlys.
“the following states have no post-viability restrictions whatsoever:
1. Alaska
2. Colorado
3. Hawaii
4. Mississippi
5. New Hampshire
6. New Jersey
7. New Mexico
8. Oregon
9. Vermont
10. West Virginia
The following states allow for “physical or mental health” exceptions:
1. Arizona
2. Arkansas
3. California
4. Connecticut
5. Delaware
6. Florida
7. Georgia
8. Illinois
9. Iowa
10. Kansas
11. Kentucky
12. Louisiana
13. Maine
14. Maryland
15. Massachusetts
16. Minnesota
17. Missouri
18. Nebraska
19. Nevada
20. North Carolina
21. North Dakota
22. Oklahoma
23. Rhode Island
24. South Carolina
25. South Dakota
26. Tennessee
27. Texas
28. Virginia
29. Washington
30. Wisconsin
31. Wyoming
The following states allow post-viability abortions only for physical health exceptions:
1. Alabama
2. Indiana
3. Ohio
4. Montana
5. Pennsylvania
6. Utah (enjoined and unenforceable)
The following states allow post-viability abortions only if the mother’s life is in danger:
1. Idaho (enjoined and unenforceable)
2. Michigan
3. New York”
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2008/10/third-trimester-abortions-and-law.html
He is correct that in the end, there is an individual person who acts, and is morally responsible for their own personal action.
None of what you have said has disproved anything I have said, or that Gerard has claimed.
The simple fact of the matter is that- well, let me put it this way: Most pro-life people – as individuals- are concerned with caring for the needy, with their own money, and by taking time out of their own days for them.
Most pro-“choice” people – as individuals, are completely the opposite, and would rather the government give the individualwoman a welfare check, or give them an abortion, rather than take the time from their own day, or the money from their own pockets, to actually help these women individually.
This does not mean there aren’t exceptions to the rule. But the rule still exists.
Bethany, I’m sorry I put words in your mouth. I withdraw them. I have said many times that if the pro-life movement took its focus off of overturning Roe v. Wade, and simply focused on persuading those who are not part of the pro-life movement that your position is correct and should be embraced by everyone, I would have rather little to argue about. I might, in certain circumstances, advise that an abortion is justified, where you would not, but I certainly wouldn’t insist that any woman should have one. If every woman chooses life, that is a legitimate choice for her to make. (Cr-Ref one of the latest Feb posts, on that very point).
The state laws you cite are a case in point. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, all those laws would remain on the books. I must admit I am a little dubious about the first list, but it will take me a day or so to research it. Sarah Palin left a law on the books that didn’t restrict third trimester abortions at all? I’ll check it out. I don’t know your information is inaccurate, but I’d be surprised.
All the other laws you cite are some variation on “unless the mother’s life or health is in danger.” I would agree that there is good cause to examine, and tighten up on, what is meant by the “life or health of the mother.” What exactly would be a significant danger to the mother’s mental health at that stage of pregnancy? It’s hard for me to visualize. There are, historically speaking, many ways that women died in childbirth, some of which were septic and are now easily preventible. It seems strange now, but150 years ago there were doctors who rejected the silly idea that they should wash their hands before delivering a baby, who denied that this would have any impact on infant or maternal mortality. Now we know better.
But, pending some research on that point also, it is my understanding that some conditions do exist which really put the mother’s life, or her long-term physical health, as serious risk. There are women who would prefer to risk their life for their baby. That is their right. There are women who would not — and nobody should make them.
There is a point in pregnancy where we can agree that what is in the womb is a baby, entitled to protection. Some of these state laws have left some huge loopholes to be exploited. In some cases, state officials may have a vague belief that Roe requires these loopholes, when in fact it does not. (That is sort of like school officials who have come to believe that if they cannot MANDATE prayer, then they must confiscate Bibles from students backpacks — which is absolutely contrary to existing precedent. Administrators get some strange notions in their heads.)
You have some very rigid stereotypical notions about what individuals who are pro-life do and what individuals who are pro-choice do. I know individuals of both types who do and do not fit your description. I don’t know any way to measure it, but I bet there are hundreds of pro-choice people in Haiti right now provideing food and water and medical services and establishing tent camps… and not saying anything about abortion.
Going back to your list of states, in Mississippi abortion is illegal after the 12th week. Of course that is not enforceable, legally, but the state tries anyway. The state tried to require that any abortion after the 12th week be performed in a hospital, (no hospital in Mississippi will perform one), but a federal court ruled that law unconstitutional.
In Alaska the definition of a legal abortion is terminating the pregnancy of a nonviable fetus. Any other abortion, except to protect the life and health of the mother, is a class C felony, with up to 5 years in prison.
The statement that Mississippi or Alaska have no ban on post-viability abortions isn’t even close to accurate. Please check your sources, and please check the data they are relying on.
The source I quoted was from NARAL- when I am talking to people who support abortion, I try to use pro-abortion sources as much as possible.