In Defense of the March for Life

This is directed at men.

There is nothing more painful for the over-privileged male denizen of modern America than an absorbed reading of The Lord of the Rings, of Les Miserables, or even of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. These, by the golden light of fiction, depict acts of greatness foreign to us, inspiring us to take heroic action that, in all likelihood, we’ll never take.

It’s the same with accounts of men like Gandhi or Lincoln, Roosevelt or Douglass, Nelson Mandela or St. Thomas More. These men indict us. They are evidence that we can be great, in a world in which we’d struggle to name a single Great Man. They speak of our immense power to change the world, of our ability to crush injustice, to die for love, and to believe in something so awesome that our own existence pales in comparison — all in an age in which our primary experience of greatness involves the thought, “If I were there, I could do it.”

Always more awesome than you.

If I were a young man in the 50′s I could have linked arms with Dr. King and marched. If I were a Southern kid 70 years ago, I could have tracked the bear and killed it, dipped my hands in its blood and marked myself a man. If there were a World War, a struggle against slavery, an opportunity to prove unto myself, God, and the universe that I have lit within me a fire of courage, I’d do it. But these are bored and boring times, and my call to greatness culminates in the call to get a college degree and a subsequent salary, so I’ll slink back to a mediocre existence and hope to obtain courage and fulfillment by watching more TV shows about men courageous and fulfilled.

Obviously, this isn’t true. The opportunity for greatness does not evade us. It has never been more present. Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more, and in a country that slaughters its own children, the opportunity for men to stand up, refuse their own apathy and to take upon themselves the title of abolitionist is offered like a sword hilt.

You think Gandhi had a reason to revolt? All the oppression of colonialism pales before the oppression of abortion as a candle before the fires of hell. Lincoln was called to greatness over the enslavement of his brothers and sisters. We are called to greatness over the murder of our own. It would be impossible to name a time more in need of heroes than one in which every day 3000 innocent human lives are intentionally objectified, discriminated against, and destroyed.

We can know this logically. We can understand the abolishment of legalized murder as the defining battle of this age, and even muster up the effort to share a few graphics on our Facebook pages proclaiming the fact. But it was not enough for Mandela to know that his people were being presented with the cold of cruelty, nor was it enough for Lincoln to acknowledge his discontent with the institution. What lifted Mandela up and enshrined him in the hearts of mankind as Great was the fact that he did what is within the power of every human being to do: He acted.

The reason every other street in the United States is named after Martin Luther King Jr. is not because he expressed of discontent over the spectre of racism. He fought racism tooth and nail. Greatness, that epic call from which none can claim exemption, is achieved through action.

So we should March. The March for Life cannot be a mere representation of the pro-life movement, a wave to the world to let them know of our existence. (The mainstream media has mandated that it will always be a weak wave — they’ll take pictures of the three counter-protestors and ignore the 300,000 faces of those bold enough to oppose legalized murder.) No, we should march on Washington as Martin Luther King Jr. did, with courage and conviction, with the joy and peace that is the fruit of rebelling against an evil age, with the beauty and youth that comes from affirming with our entire being the goodness of life and it’s triumph over death. We should march because greatness demands action, and we were made for greatness.

  • Tom
    • Obliged_Cornball

      Hahahaha

    • http://www.facebook.com/marcjohnpaul Marc Barnes

      Hahaha, excellent!

      • http://twitter.com/MatthewJLB Matthew Balan

        That’s such a great meme! #geek

      • Tom

        Marc himself responded to my meme post with another meme post. I can die happy now. XD

      • Tom

        Marc replied to my meme post with a meme post of his own? I can die happy now XD

    • David Bates
  • Karen

    Marc Barnes, you would have been standing with Orval Faubus and Goege Wallace and as far away from Dr. king as you could put yourself. Every wor you have evr written marks you as a reactionary and a supporter of immovable hierarchies. You believe women are cowardly, dimwitted, weaklings who can’t be trusted to breathe without the direction and control of an assigned Penis; who cannot be allowed any voices in our own destinies becuase, well , we are dumb girls whose job is to look decorative and be quiet. Please, just shut about any issue related to women. You only make a fool of yourself.

    • EpicusMontaigne

      With this post, you have shown an irrevocable and inexcusable ignorance, and you would do a favor to everyone who has ever loved you by remaining quiet and letting us all think you are a fool, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

      Furthermore, your spelling is atrocious.

    • Elizabeth

      A pathetic, illogical, misspelled ad hominem attack. (Everyone knows the Catholics were way ahead of the curve on segregation. I saw it on Mad Men.) BUT I have to admit you set yourself up, Marc. You didn’t have to address this to men only. Didn’t offend me, but you know women read those books and have just the same yearning to do great deeds, right?

      • Karen

        Apologies for the typos. Patheos needs an edit button. As for the rest of it, I have seen nothing that Barnes has written that indicates that he is anything but a reactionary. His views on the proper role of women are backward and repressive. I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt on race when he clearly is so thoroughly wrong on gender.

        • Elizabeth

          Apology accepted. It was less than noble and heroic of me to needle you for misspellings.

          I assume that you and I differ on some of the criteria for judging someone as a reactionary chauvinist. For what it’s worth, I consider myself a feminist as well as an orthodox Catholic. And I really love this blog. Give him a chance!

          • Karen

            Can you show me something he’s written that a feminist could recommend?

            Also, my spelling was dreadful. I keep hoping enough people will complain enough til Patheos will put in an edit button.

          • Helpful

            Why does a feminist have to recommend it? Why can’t it just be right?Think for yourself and actually evaluate what you read, instead of only saying it is either for or against the group you call yourself a part of.

          • Bossilla

            Which generation of feminism do you base your world views on, Karen? There has been more than one “feminist” throughout history and with slightly different views on the role of women. If you research the history of feminism as I did for my university thesis, you will find that not all feminists agreed on what was most empowering about being a woman- other than things like empowering the weak and seeking equality.

          • Elizabeth

            I think that Marc’s posts about pornography/objectification of women would jibe well with almost all strains of feminism. “The Best Porn in the World” is a favorite of mine. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/10/the-best-porn-in-the-world.html

          • ladycygnus

            There does appear to be edit buttons – although I just tried to use one and it did weird things. They only appear on your posts though…and you might need to be logged in for it to work.

          • Barfly_Kokhba

            It’s true, despite all the emails I’ve sent lobbying for a feature that will allow me to edit other people’s posts.

      • ladycygnus

        I dunno – As a woman who desires to do noble and brave things, it didn’t seem wrong at all to direct this at men. We need far more posts directed at men today then women. Not only is it in our very nature to help the weak, but we are told constantly how we must stand up against those forces seeking to drive us down.

        Men, however, are told the opposite. “This isn’t your battle”, “You don’t have a womb so shut-up”, “You know men, they’ll be boys forever”. Men are constantly told that they are worthless and useless, and that all they can do is play video games and use women. Sites that inspire men to be men inspire me, as a woman, to be a better woman for those men.

        • EpicusMontaigne

          This post is awesome. It deserves more than simply a like.

        • Elizabeth

          Well said, ladycygnus.

        • Claude

          What’s so manly about bullying women about what they can do with their own bodies? Marc’s sensationalist rhetoric is part of the problem:

          Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more, and in a country that slaughters its own children, the opportunity for men to stand up, refuse their own apathy and to take upon themselves the title of abolitionist is offered like a sword hilt.

          You forgot to add Deus Lo Volt, Marc!

          Women are just going to love this martial imagery deployed against their right to privacy. Why do you think Obama won the election? Women voted for the president 55-44%! (And despite the USCCB’s best efforts Catholics broke for Obama 52-45%.) But it’s so much more glorious to crusade than working to reduce the abortion rate by other means.

          • Joseph

            That comment is so disingenuous. Pro-lifers are all over the country provide pregnancy support and counseling to those with crisis pregnancies, not to mention the unseen family and friends that assist their sisters financially and emotionally. Those so adamant for a woman’s right to choose abortion constantly fight us on these points, especially in regards to crisis pregnancy centers. I can’t stand when someone pretends to be “Safe and Rare”, but in practice is completely hypocritical.

            In regards to Marc’s so called “sensationalist rhetoric,” you need to look up the word “context.” Let me put it this way, I like me some Death Metal. A few months back there was this semi-controversy within some of the Catholic blogs about a member of the local scene, who supported gay marriage, wearing a shirt probably saying something like “Kill all Christians” yada yada. Do you think for a moment this guy would actually attack me, or even support someone who did so on the basis of my faith? Not for a second. It’s about context. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t see anything near that amount of rhetoric in anything Marc writes. Has abortion not claimed over 50 million lives since Roe v. Wade? I don’t know about you, but if we can call Newton a massacre or a slaughter, the 3,000+ killed each day at least grants Marc rhetorical benefit of the doubt. Marc’s aiming this at men because we are EXTREMELY complacent and effeminate today, and it takes that sort of language (check out the Art of Manliness blog) to even get the gears turning in our brains. Marc is highly interested in art and beauty, and he is trying to create art when he writes, even if it is for a blog. And in the context of the March for Life specifically… It’s not like it is ambiguous about what men should be doing, like “We have to do something… like eye for an eye right?” NO, he is specifically gearing it towards peaceful and loving protest, with MLK jr as his favorite example. Context please.

          • Joseph

            The shirt was for the band Demonicon… and the guy was clearly dressed in the typical metal fashion…

          • Claude

            You lost me at the presumption that I “pretend” to be Safe & Rare and at “Death Metal.” Sorry.

          • Joseph

            I apologize if I didn’t make it clear that I wasn’t referring to you specifically. I hear this comment a lot, and you threw that argument out there when you said “But it’s so much more glorious to crusade than working to reduce the abortion rate by other means.” I took that to mean you want abortion to be rare (I just assume safe), and were accusing Marc, and the pro-life movement in general, of not working towards reduced abortions by any other means than trying to change laws. To be fair, I was referring to the general Planned Parenthood crowd, and I acknowledge you do not necessarily subscribe to all of their rallying cries haha. I was trying to prove a point of context with Death metal… I didn’t know that I had to choose only “legitimate” music styles in order to prove a point about context.

          • Claude

            I do want abortion to be Safe & Rare, and no, I wasn’t suggesting the anti-abortion movement doesn’t do anything to reduce the abortion rate by other means; obviously it does. But come on, this was a call to arms. The culture wars are dismal and corrosive; enough.

            I was just being facetious about Death Metal. : )

          • Joseph

            But like I said, it was a very specific call to arms for guys to get off their butts and go to the March for Life. There will be plenty of young women there to be sure, but guys seem particularly unmotivated, and Marc, being a guy, has special in roads to the catholic male population… and given his writing style in general, I think we can both agree it is harmless rhetoric, to a lesser extant than even this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qozj4sAVM3g (;

            As far as the culture wars go, many would agree with you… Marc has posted about its problems before, a couple months back I think.

          • ladycygnus

            Thanks Claude for informing me that I should feel bullied by Marc. Now that you’ve informed this ignorant woman I can do whatever I want with my own body I’ll do what society tells me and go sleep with some guy without any commitment. And when said fella gets me pregnant and abandons me I shall be free to “choose” to get rid of the “blob of tissue” and find another guy. Odd, this being continually used and abandoned seems to benefit the men more than myself…but what do I know…little ignorant woman like myself.

          • Claude

            Unless you are the voice of Woman I didn’t suggest you should feel bullied by Marc. You obviously think Marc is the greatest so why would you think I’m referring to you or women who share your views? Neither did I suggest you’re ignorant. The fact is, many women feel bullied by hysteria over reproductive rights and said so publicly during the election season.

            And what’s with all this wild talk? There is zero cause and effect between women feeling bullied over this issue and “society” plunging you into a life of dissolution. None.

          • Joseph

            She’s trying to point out that Marc is not writing to be chauvinistic, or to deny women rights. You should be able to see that opposing abortion, from our pov, is not motivated by hatred toward women, but over justice for the children. His writings on other topics like contraception have equal, if not more, implications on men, and are talked about with firm conviction in their ability to free us to a truer and better love. I do not think he has ever advocated outlawing contraception today. He is not bullying women, and just as many “orthodox” Catholic women hold the same view of sexuality that he does.

          • Claude

            Your points are well taken and thank you for making them. However, Karen had a point as well about Marc’s embrace of the traditional patriarchy and its posture toward women (from the little I’ve read of him apart from his flights of thrilling to the aesthetic). Of course there are many Catholic women who do likewise. But most women do not wish the state to interfere with their bodies.

            I appreciate that you want justice for babies in utero. However, pregnancy is a serious health condition. Until relatively recently in history women died at childbirth at appalling rates. So the humans who cannot experience pregnancy have the authority to tell the humans who do that once pregnant a woman must carry to term? I think not.

          • Joseph

            Well I suppose the Catholic Church is always going to be a (not the only one haha) traditional Patriarchy… But I still don’t see how that translates into a demand for silence. It does mean that as pro-life men we have a special duty to first not be the problem (which essentially means living their entire lives in as pro-life a way as possible… not having sex out of marriage, accepting their daughters and sisters when they themselves are in a tight situation, helping understand the pain of women in general). It also means we have a duty to be as understanding as possible, in that we have to have a basic understanding that it is a hard situation.

            But from there, holding a position as a man doesn’t mean I cannot make sound judgment on whether a thing is right or wrong. I do not have to be in severe pain and anguish to have a position on euthanasia. I do not have to be an infertile couple to have a position on the morality of IVF methods that are a wanton waste of human life. I don’t have to be terminally ill to have a position on embryonic stem cell research. I am fairly young, and so I can’t say I’m some sort of hero for the unborn, but I have given a lot of myself personally to help out my pregnant sister when she needed it, and I have done my best to make sure those situations don’t happen with myself personally, and (while I haven’t always, being an idiot) promoting lifestyles that steer friends from paths that lead to crisis pregnancies. My mother is the one who has formed me in my pro-life convictions, and she has sacrificed a great deal herself in this area. While I don’t claim to be able to adequately share the troubles of pregnancy, I do think that I can make a legitimate moral judgment. Some women are infertile. They can’t experience a pregnancy either, but I suppose they have a right to speak as well. I don’t mean to be aggressive in this sense, it is just irritating to be constantly shut down for something I have no control over, when we are rational beings who are forced to make decisions by thinking about them, and not feeling about them, though empathy is still a must.

            You made the point about child-birth related deaths. These have gone way down due to improved medical technology. And no body proposes that women should die just to bring the pregnancy to term. But there is something very deficient in our value of human life. I do not think the women in the Nazi imposed ghettos and concentration camps would not have given everything to the children they virtually had no choice but to abort. I think in general, if we put the pregnancy in a survival situation, we hold it’s value much much higher than we do in America today. Besides for some medical cases, for which we are not advocating the woman must sacrifice herself, there aren’t life threatening situations, and yet we are so much the more willing to abort these children. I don’t see how a humane culture can survive when we are constantly sending the message that we aren’t worth being born. That is exactly what abortion says, and we have accepted it. I am not worth being born.

          • Claude

            That was a nice post and deserves the kind of considered response I’m too tired to make right now. But meanwhile I just wanted to acknowledge it and say that I certainly don’t think anybody should be silent about their moral convictions.

            You seem like a fine person. Good night!

          • Luka Alexandrovich Nevskyev

            Oh, I’m pretty sure that almost everyone supports the state interfering with a woman’s body when she drowns a two-year-old or shoots a police officer. It’s just when it’s used to kill a human being in the womb, then it’s okay to use your body for whatever purpose you want.

          • Claude

            It’s not as if I had been more explicit that you would have been any less demagogic. I’ll assume the trivialization of the dilemma of unwanted pregnancy that moves you to accuse women of being cold-blooded killers arises out of the Christian love you were so quick to lecture me about elsewhere. I am unimpressed.

            I’ve noticed the prevalence of the “it’s my way or it’s ‘anything goes’” mentality of several commenters here, who apparently inhabit a world both devoid of moral ambiguity and replete with slippery slopes. It can make discussion rather tedious.

          • jdens

            “who apparently inhabit a world both devoid of moral ambiguity and replete with slippery slopes”…nicely expressed!

          • Claude

            Thank you, jdens!

    • Denise

      someone didn’t get her coffee this morning.

    • Emily

      Karen, I can’t believe that you read Marc’s posts and come to that conclusion! Marc has always given, and will always give (due to his b-e-a-utiful Catholicism, (among other things (yep)) women their/our full dues in dignity and respect.

      “please shut up about any issue related to women” What a lovely piece of misandry. And, this is probably why Marc wrote this post: the Pro-Life movement gets a lot of stick from pro-’choice’ activists, who say that if you don’t have a uterus, then you are denied an opinion. Men are constantly denied an opinion, denied the possibility of responsibility, and denied a role in this debate, and they therefore are in need of a little pep talk. So, thanks Marc, for providing that.

      • john

        For those very reasons, men’s opinions should be less clouded by the pressure, fear and temptations women are under when it comes to reproductive issues. Men need to realize that God has given them a responsibility every bit as challenging as women’s in this regard, and then they need to manfully step up to it. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have near the problem to begin with.

    • Darwin, Charles

      In the epic debate between the side which kills its young and the side which doesn’t I suspect that in the end the day will be won by the latter.

      • http://twitter.com/GregoryPCA1 GregoryPCA

        I believe you’re onto something here Charlie, how would you like a book deal? You’d need a flashy title.

    • John H. Graney

      No, he doesn’t believe any of that.

    • John H. Graney

      Also, if that’s what we think women should be like, then why on earth did we canonize St. Joan of Arc, or any number of other Catholic women, who were none of those things? Doesn’t everyone know that Joan of Arc is a Catholic saint?

  • http://twitter.com/pcathell Philip Cathell

    in b4 comments explode with hate. well done Marc. I am quite excited to be marching this year, was planning this since last year!!

  • said she

    Excellent and stirring – thank you! Also, check out this March For Life video – quoting Obama – 2 min well-spent! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opl0jnKbn5Y

    • Claude

      It’s a travesty to exploit the Newtown massacre for the anti-abortion cause.

      For shame.

      • Tom

        I’m sorry, but, at least, from our point of view, the Newtown massacre is nothing compared to the veritable genocide occurring in abortion facilities nationwide and around the world. Furthermore, Obama’s words are meant to show his hypocrisy: he cries for the children slaughtered at Newtown, but applauds and furthers the right for a woman to kill her child in the womb.

        • Claude

          Tom, I get what you think and that this video is crying hypocrisy nonetheless the video is grotesque. These families lost their beloved children who were born and thriving, for the love of God!

          I don’t know the president’s mind but I suspect he’s as uneasy about abortion as most Americans, yet most Americans wish to keep abortion legal. We would all like to reduce the abortion rate but demagoguing the issue has done nothing but make the two sides dig in.

          • Tom

            And many families lose their children because of abortion. I think the video wasn’t so much using the massacre itself, but the president’s reaction to it.
            And just because Americans want to keep abortion legal doesn’t make it any more right. What pro-life people would like is the elimination of abortion (with exceptions for the life of the mother), not lowering the abortion rate.

          • Claude

            Women choose abortion. Families do not choose to have their children machine gunned to death in kindergarten class. I am aghast at what you wrote: the Newtown massacre is nothing compared to the veritable genocide occurring in abortion facilities nationwide and around the world. It is obscene.

          • Joseph

            But just see it from our perspective. Newtown was such a tragedy, because we could see the innocence of the 20 children (and 6 adults?), who’s lives were taken for no other reason than for some sick psychological pleasure of the shooter. Obviously this is much worse than a woman who is in a painful situation. Much Much Much worse. But the sheer numbers that are killed as a result of abortion cannot be downplayed. 3,000+ in America every day. That is a ridiculous amount. There is certainly justification in saying. And in the context of the world, surely those Chinese women forced to undergo forced abortions for the sake of their one child policy would say they chose to not bear their children.

          • Claude

            I understand your perspective but stand by by what I said about the video. We will just have to disagree on this.

          • EddieS

            Wow… oh wow. So choosing to kill your own child makes it OK???

          • Claude

            I don’t see all abortion as “killing your own child.” Though I have reservations about it, to be sure, and always have.

          • said she

            Abortion IS killing your own child. That right there is a fact. The only mitigating factors are that, sadly, most women who abort feel trapped or are forced into doing it. But, from the moment a woman finds out she’s pregnant, she knows that she is a mother. Abortion is killing her child. Period.

          • Claude

            most women who abort feel trapped or are forced into doing it.

            How do you know this?

          • said she

            http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/how-abortion-hurts-women-the-hard-evidence quotes a study – about half-way down, under “Abortion’s Second Victim”

            Plus: personal experience.

          • Claude

            That article is well-argued; thank you for the link.

            A passage toward the end caught my eye:

            Only about a fifth of Americans believe that the status quo should be maintained, that abortion should be permitted at any time during the pregnancy, for any reason.

            I’m surprised that even a fifth support any abortion any time. I think the consensus would be a higher threshold for abortion after the first trimester.

          • Joseph

            He’s just trying to say abortion in America today isn’t as morally culpable… which we all can cede. I agree, things such as Newtown are on an unbelievably higher scale of human evil than an abortion is… though I still think that a comparison is justified given the sheer numbers and the complacency of Americans in this regard.

          • pagansister

            In my experience, 2 of the 3 women I knew who terminated their pregnancies were most certainly NOT trapped or forced. into it. The one that was, was married to a man who abused her and did force her into it. At that time none of us in the family knew he was an abuser. So to state that MOST women are forced is not accurate. She finally terminated the marriage and after 2 more unsuccessful marriages married a 4th time and had no children at all with him. 25 years later still married to him. Defining when a fertilized egg is a “child” is based on one’s beliefs. So to state that abortion is killing a child is also inaccurate IMO.

          • said she

            OK, how about this: while only 1 out of the 3 women that pagansister knows felt trapped or forced, studies show that a majority of women who abort do so under pressure and felt trapped or forced or otherwise harmed by this “choice”. Here’s one such study: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/how-abortion-hurts-women-the-hard-evidence – look about half-way down the page, under “Abortion’s Second Victim”

          • pagansister

            That study was done in 1992–21 years ago. 81% of those women said they felt victimized etc. and not offered alternatives. A more recent study would be in order. How about that? I’m going on my knowledge of those I know who had the procedure and their feelings. 1 felt pressured by an abusive husband. 2 made up their own minds. Studies however aren’t what a woman seeking to make up her mind are going to look for—they are going to ultimately have to make up their own minds and live with the results. It should NEVER be an easy decision—alternatives should be checked out and then the decision made to proceed or not.

          • said she

            Have women really changed all that much in those years? I have my own personal experiences and those of friends… and they add up to a simple conclusion: a woman “wants” an abortion about as much as a trapped animal “wants” to gnaw its leg off.

            But, OK – here ya go: this site has a report that you can’t so easily refute: lots and lots of anecdotal evidence (far outnumbering your 3 cases) – and lots of footnotes, so you can follow-up on all the details, including the date of the report: 2004 – do you like that better? http://www.theunchoice.com/intro.htm and especially: http://theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf

          • pagansister

            I agree that a woman doesn’t start her adult life saying” Gee! I want an abortion”. (or a female child old enough to get pregnant.). No one wants a surgical procedure. All I’ m saying is that IF a woman (or teen) ends up pregnant, termination should be an option that is safe and legal should the alternatives not be for her. Painful, yes most certainly some emotionally and some just physically. Did I ever have to make that decision? No. My 2 pregnancies were planned and wanted, and due to my husband volunteering to have a vasectomy, no more children. No more worries about an unplanned child. I may look at your latest studies. My point here is that ultimately the woman has to look at all alternatives if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. Some pregnancies occur due to rape or incest. Do you think that an abortion should be available in those instances or should the victim be encouraged to keep a rape or incest pregnancy to term? Does the age of the victim make a difference in those situations—-and 11 year old child perhaps should be forced to have a child? A restate my opinion that a female person should be allowed to have a safe, clean legal abortion if they choose to. What do you think—is a termination wrong all the time, in your opinion?

          • said she

            Back in the day, pregnancy out of wedlock meant the girl would “go away” for a time, and the child would be put up for adoption. That seems like a better solution than killing the child for the crime of the father (as in those “hard cases” – which account for, like, 1% of all abortions.). Today, unwed mothers are all around us, so the need to “go away” has vanished. I hope to see the day when unwanted pregnancies are considered an opportunity to make 2 good things come from an unwanted situtation: by giving an infertile couple the child they’ve been praying for – and a good home & family for the baby. (There are 36 such couples waiting for every baby adopted.) I want to live in a society where abortion is not only illegal, but unthinkable. I pray that I live to see that!

            pagansis, please read this, & ask yourself just how “good” abortion is:
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2013/01/how-the-nine-days-of-prayers-comforted-me-while-i-fought-demons.html

          • pagansister

            FYI, I have read those types of articles before so that referral is nothing new. Thus, a re-read wasn’t necessary. I pray to live long enough to see Roe V Wade stand & terminations continue to be legal for those seeking one. You do realize that women who choose to terminate will do so even it the procedure is not legal? Do I hope women would not have them? Of course. Will there be a time when some women will not seek one? No. I’m not advocating abortion, I’m advocating giving women a choice. That is all. The woman who chooses to have one is the one who has to deal with the aftermath—either they wish they hadn’t done so, or they are really glad they did. It seems you feel an 11 year old should actually give birth when in an incest situation—–really? Put an 11 year old thru that? Make a better solution by forcing a young child to give birth because her father raped her? To me that is unthinkable. I don’t care if what you claim is true—1% or whatever. Children having children is not a solution. At what age is a child old enough to give birth? 11, 12, 13?

          • said she

            pagansis: Here’s another one for you: http://old.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/rue.pdf

          • pagansister

            My My –you’re certainly thinking that all this will change my mind. All those articles are just common sense—of course the procedure impacts the boyfriends/husbands of those that contemplate an abortion. I certainly don’t deny that. Naturally it physically and mentally impacts the woman. As I keep getting told by many, humans have freewill—-and in this case too, that holds true. If that decision is made by a woman—as with any decision in life—one has to be prepared to accept the consequences—-good or bad. If you have raised a child, hopefully they are taught that there are always consequences for their actions…..and that includes this situation also. So, I still contend—women have a right to a clean, legal procedure should she choose to have one. As to women who get pregnant by rape? A viable alternative. And you already know my opinion of incest victims—- Sorry—your dealing with a woman who isn’t going to change her mind on women’s rights. And I will restate—-in a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies, and no woman would decide to terminate her pregnancy. This isn’t a perfect world.

          • Tom

            I’m curious as to why you find it obscene. I am not trying to make light of the Newtown massacre. It was a terrible act of evil. However, why is there no similar outrage over the unprovoked and intentional killing of children in the womb?

          • ladycygnus

            Any loss of a child is a tragedy, but are you sure abortion isn’t worse? Since they “choose” it they are somewhat culpable and feel guilt on top of the pain. Further, they suffer because they are told they shouldn’t be suffering. So any grief and pain is buried or ignored, and we all know what happens to a wound that is ignored. Further, they have no “good” memories to remember fondly once the pain subsides. They have no one comforting them or offering to help with healing afterwards except those crazy pro-lifers which the abortion workers told them to avoid.

            This isn’t to make light of what happened at Newton, but to acknowledge the very real pain that others have felt. It reminds me of 9/11, when everyone was concerned about NY, my mom who worked in DC mentioned how there was a lot of emotional trauma in DC that became a real issue because it wasn’t considered “as bad”. People didn’t have the same support offered to them and the trauma festered.

            Yes, an evil thing happened at Newton, but evil is harming children every day in this country and their mothers and fathers walk around like the walking wounded.

          • Claude

            Am I sure abortion isn’t worse than having your six or seven year old, or your fiancee or wife, murdered at school?

            Are you kidding me? Strangely your stand on abortion seems to have produced moral callousness.

            Of course there are women who experience terrible regret at having had an abortion, and others who are at ease with their decision. Who insists to women that they “shouldn’t be suffering” over having had an abortion? I have a feeling “you shouldn’t be made to feel guilty” has morphed into “you shouldn’t be suffering.”

          • pagansister

            Having known 3 women, 2 in my family, who elected to terminate (early), none of them have felt guilty. It was a necessary decision. I’m sure some women “regret” and feel pain—but some don’t. Some realize it was necessary.

          • pagansister

            Excellent response, Claude. It is to me unbelievable that the loss of those beautiful children in Newtown to some, is NOTHING—compared to women who ELECT to have an abortion. Seriously!?

          • Gwenny

            Since Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, I don’t think he generally minds when children who were born and thriving are put to death.

          • Claude

            I’m familiar with the backstory so please spare me the vicious libel.

          • EpicusMontaigne

            Actually, more Americans identify with the pro-life movement, and far more young people are more passionate about being pro-life than they are passionate about being pro-choice. Since Roe v. Wade the abortion machine has been losing ground. There was a really good time piece on it…

            http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130114,00.html

          • Claude

            This article is behind a subscription wall.

            The fact is that when the rubber met the road in 2012 women delivered the election to the pro-choice Barack Obama. The fact is that voters repudiated the religious right’s social agenda. The fact is that young people resent the demonization of their gay friends and threats to empower the state to micromanage their private lives. That is the reality.

            The Church has been so rocked by scandal that its assertion of moral authority is met with incredulity and ridicule by those outside the bubble of orthodoxy. As much as I disagree with Cardinal Dolan on a host of issues, I was pleasantly surprised by his address first things first to the USCCB. I’ll say.

          • pagansister

            Terminating a pregnancy is a choice—no one (in most cases) forces a woman to do so. Those “young people” who are pro-life have their right to follow their beliefs. No one will tell them they have to have one. They are too young to know how many abortions were terminated under horrific conditions before Roe V Wade.

          • said she

            Please check your facts about how many abortions there were before Roe v. Wade: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

          • pagansister

            Having clicked on your referral above I decided it was entirely tooooo long to wade through. I’m sure there is a number somewhere that states terminations were much lower previous to R V W. The number isn’t relevant as I still believe a woman has the right to carry to term or not. Perhaps laws stopped women previous to Roe V Wade or perhaps those that survived the underground butchers weren’t exactly bragging about it. I’m sure that since it has become legal, more women have been able to take advantage of the service.

          • said she

            I have no illusions about changing your mind about abortion, but I surely would hope to change your mind about spreading falsehoods.

            In a nutsell: Dr. Nathanson helped spread lies in order to get abortion leagalized. He later realized how evil that was and recanted, That link details his own words. Fact: those who were pushing for legal abortions lied, and you are repeating their lies.

            “The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
            enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many…

            Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally.

            … the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since [Roe v. Wade] legalisation.”

            http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

            Pagansister: please stop spreading lies. Such lies are a disservice to the women you claim to care about.

            The reason I posted heart-wrenching posts about post-abortive emotional pain is because those stories are part of the truth: abortion harms women.

          • pagansister

            I’m now spreading lies? Interesting. Do you acknowledge that a woman has her own will and that it is HER responsibility to find out details of things she chooses to do? Of course there are more terminations after Roe V Wade. It is legal and one of many alternatives. That I think would go without saying. I would suggest (in order to not spread lies) that those women did so because they felt it necessary—-and not for “fun” . Again, some regretted it and some didn’t. Those that regretted it I would assume are those that you say are harmed. Yes, they made a wrong choice—and they have to live with that. For those that didn’t regret it? They were NOT harmed. So in the blanket statement that abortion harms women seems to me you are including all women. I disagree with that. Not every woman who has terminated a pregnancy is harmed. As to Dr. Nathanson? He has to live with what he did. He is an adult. Personally I’m glad a woman can obtain one if she feels it is necessary. (no surprise to you I know). Otherwise, the (low) number of illegal ones would still be done. Those 200-250 that you used for comparison, shouldn’t have died. If done in clean, legal circumstances—perhaps they wouldn’t have. Do you wonder what happens to children born to women who don’t want them? Won’t go into that here—another topic altogether.

          • pagansister

            One other thing, said she. You have posted tons of info on how bad abortions are, how they Harm women. However you haven’t responded to my question concerning children having children—low number that you think it is—should those little girls, 11-13 or so—be forced to give birth it impregnated by a family member or are raped by someone? I need to hear your opinion on that since to you all abortions are harmful to the female. Is it more harmful to have a female child be forced to give birth in a body not ready to do so? Yes, they may be having their periods, but are they emotionally and physically ready to carry 9 months and give birth? You have managed to totally avoid responding to that. And while I”m at it—should a woman not be allowed to terminate due to rape?

          • said she

            Young girls who get pregnant are as able to bear children as older ones. The hormones that allow conception and implantation also work on to allow for delivery. (I would attribute that to God, but you can call it Nature, if you prefer.) You do know that such things have been going on since the dawn of man, right? In fact, it’s easier now, as are all pregnancies and deliveries, thanks to modern medicine.

            Fact: The moment she finds out she’s pregnant – no matter her age – a woman is forever changed, regardless of the outcome of her pregnancy. Ask those who’ve lost babies to miscarriage. It is in our very nature as women to cherish and nurture babies. Killing a baby on purpose – no matter the age of the child or the mother – is in complete opposition to our nature. So, women suffer after abortion – for the rest of their lives – because they’ve done something against their very nature. (I’m sure there are some who claim that abortion didn’t bother them, but I find that very hard to believe. More likely, they are in denial. I read somewhere that the average is 14 years before they reach out for help. So sad. And those who say “it’s a woman’s right” and “it’s a good thing” actually make it harder for women to seek the healing they need.)

            And let’s not forget: abortion is a violent act to the baby, and is no walk in the park for the mother. To foist that kind of violence onto someone – no matter her age – who has already suffered the violence of rape or the evil of incest is to heap more burdens on her. It is – quite literally – giving the death penalty to the innocent child for the crime of the father.

            The right thing to do is to surround a victim of rape or incest with love and protection and support, including good counseling, medical attention, and whatever else she needs to get through the few months that her pregnancy lasts, plus on-going support afterwards. Find a good home for the baby – whether within her family or outside – and never stop loving and supporting her and communicating to her that she has value and is cherished, no matter what evil has happened to her. That loving support must continue after the baby is born – likely for years. But it is a far shorter path to emotional healing without the added pain and guilt that abortion adds.

            Especially for the young victim of rape/incest who becomes pregnant: telling her that we need to kill her child communicates the notion that young lives are worthless unless they are wanted. But after she has been so violated, she won’t be thinking of herself as worthy of love – and may very well conclude that she, too, is unwanted. Thus, abortion brings further pain on a victim of rape. Note that suicide rates are highest after abortion: http://afterabortion.org/2005/womens-suicide-rates-highest-after-abortion-new-study/

            Some people think that, as a society, we can somehow guarantee a perfect life for everyone – that no one will ever suffer. But that isn’t reality. Of course, we do what we can to avoid it, but suffering is part of life. It is tragic when it happens to a young girl. It is tragic when it happens to a child in the womb. And it is tragic when it happens to older folks, too. We cannot prevent all suffering, but we can help each other get through it. That is the loving thing to do.

            Abortion is the lie that we can make a pregnancy go away, and everything will be just like it was before. It’s a lie. You can never go back. By the time she finds out she’s pregnant, her baby already has a beating heart, fingers, toes, etc. So, you see, a pregnant woman is already a mother. Abortion makes her the mother of a dead baby.

            The better choice for the mother who is not ready to raise a child is to give her baby to a childless couple. Then she is doing something good: a blessing for that family. When she gives her baby for adoption, she can hold her head high, knowing she made the best of a bad situation – no matter how she came to be pregnant. Doing something good for others – along with knowing that her child will have a good and loving home and a good life – can help her immensely during her emotional recovery.

            Just the other day, I was at our local pregnancy resource center, and saw a photo of a very young mother, holding her newborn. Pregnant at 14, she got the support she needed to bring that beautiful child to term. It was her decision to raise the baby – with help, of course. She’s finishing high school now and has a life plan that includes college. She volunteers at the pregnancy center, and is an eloquent spokesperson for the challenges – and rewards – of being a young mother. She is very grateful that she didn’t abort her baby.

            Adoption, too, I’ve seen at the pregnancy resource center. The challenge of those few months fades quickly for such young mothers. The sadness of not raising her own child never quite leaves, but she draws comfort from knowing that she has given her baby the best gift: a good and loving family. Someday, her baby will come looking for her, with gratitude. A woman I met recently had such a story: she’d given her baby for adoption back in the days before Roe v. Wade, when that was well-understood by all of society as the best option. She has great joy now, and has gotten to know her daughter as an adult.

            You know, the woman I admire most in the whole world was an unwed mother at age 14. She was penniless and even homeless when she delivered her baby. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manager. You may have heard of her… Though her baby wasn’t conceived in violence, she certainly saw him die in violence. And she stood by, suffering the awful pain of watching her beloved child be tortured to death. She offered her own terrible suffering together with his in trusting and loving humility to the Creator, who had everything under control – everything planned for the good of us all. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him.” [Romans 8:28] Yes: that applies to victims of rape, incest, and even “oops”.

            As I said in an earlier post: I pray and work and hope that I live to see this society become one where abortion is not only illegal, but unthinkable. Lots of adoptions? Yes, but there are 36 couples waiting for every child adopted, so it won’t be a problem.

            BTW: Have you seen Reece’s Rainbow? That’s proof for you: There is no such thing as an unwanted child.

          • pagansister

            Yes, your response was what I expected. Children having children—rape/incest pregnancy to term? Really? for all? It is up to the child/woman. I come at this from a non-religious point of view. I’m not promoting abortion, just choice for those that want one. You obviously work at a pregnancy center, that’s great. I have no problem at all with what you do. How could I? The organization is undoubtedly a viable alternative for those that want to take advantage of it. I just disagree that Roe V Wade should ever be appealed. I also disagree that” there is no such thing as an unwanted child.” to many stories of a baby being killed right after it was born or abused by the mother or her boyfriend/father until it dies. (accidentally of course –right!). To say that there is no unwanted babies is inaccurate. Those little ones were already here—born to be killed because they weren’t wanted. This is preferable to terminating at less than 3 months into a pregnancy? I’m not for an abortion after that time frame—unless life of mother or extenuating circumstances occur medically. Haven’t seen Reece’s Rainbow. As to Jesus and his “virgin” mother? Raised in the Methodist church so yes, that story is well known. Do I believe all of it? no. No comment to my question below—women having to take responsibility for their own actions?

  • A French girl

    Sorry it’s not really the subject, but it nearly is (and I know it’s in France, but it’s important!): we were more than a million in the streets on Sunday to protest against gay marriage, and it’s the reason there’s no March for Life in France this year. The government says it won’t stop, and none of the foreign media seems to speak about it. But if we can do it, so can you! :) Abortion wasn’t even a topic of discussion in France a few years ago… Now everybody is talking about children, family, and what it means to them. It’s just a beginning, but we can do it!

  • Sammi

    NOOOO MARK WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?? Lincoln? NELSON MANDELA? AHHHHHHHHH I thought you didn’t fall for propaganda….

    • Sammi

      Before you call me a conspiracy theorist and/or uneducated, let me explain that typing out on a smartphone an explanation of how the civil war was NOT in any way at all launched to “free Lincoln’s oppressed brothers and sisters” or how Nelson Mandela was a figurehead for the brutal SACP, and his reforms actually worsened the situation in South Africa to the point that they have the highest crime rate in the world and the most violent hate crimes, well, that would give me carpal tunnel.

      Overall point of the post is great, as always, but I just had to express how severely disappointed I am that someone so otherwise well educated would be so historically inept and use his awesome Chestertonian prose to encourage young men to be like Communists and deified presidents who actually believed black people were inferior and is quoted as saying he would ship them all back to Africa if he could.

  • An Hero

    Marc, is the best heroic adventure you can offer your fellow privileged USAmerican dudes REALLY just a leisurely stroll through our nation’s capital which will result in no change whatsoever in public awareness about abortion, the laws of the land, or indeed anything else of consequence at all?

    Do you really think there are no One Rings left to destroy and no loaves of bread to be stolen for the hungry? (I’m not sure what heroism you see in Huck Finn, whose daring rescue of Jim is somewhat tarnished by the fact that he had just sold the already freed man back into slavery as a joke.)

    Do you think there are no more oppressive regimes left to oppose with MLK and Gandhi’s techniques of nonviolent resistance? Are there no more civil wars to end, no disadvantaged minorities left to emancipate? Are there no New Deals left to be made anywhere in this world, or even here at home? Are there no corporate abuses left to curb? (I assume you meant FDR, but there’s a bone for Teddy just in case.) Are there no government interferences with religion to defy? No institutional racism to oppose?

    Or is your opinion of your fellow US male really so low that you think an honest call to arms against the real atrocities in this world would be too much for their atrophied, privileged selves? Or is your privilege so great that you, too, are simply aware of any better alternatives than this for our unfulfilled heroes?

    • Claude

      This needed to be said and you said it well.

      (I assume you meant FDR, but there’s a bone for Teddy just in case.)

      Heh.

  • d1esqk

    Whether or not I agree with your standpoint is currently not relevant, but it appears you’re appealing for men to act not because they oppose abortion, but because they could commit great deeds. That’s kind of… Yeah. :/

  • Dave G.

    Almost a great post that gets worrisome and then redeems itself in the end. For greatness can be defined in many ways. It wasn’t just Aragorn who was great, but it was also a simple Hobbit who, in the end, just wanted that ‘mediocre existence’. The tendency to separate the two, or to think those who aren’t as influential as Washington (or rich as Bill Gates, or as famous as the Beatles) have sold themselves cheap forgets that being a Moses or a Paul or a David is as much a calling as it is an opportunity. It’s the stuff of post-Boomer narcissism finding its fulfillment in the 80s consumerism and materialism as anything to do with Christian history. That the piece makes it around to remind us of the important, if little, things we can do saves it from simply being a rehash of old Bloom County comic strips, mocking the simple person, and equating a life worth living as only that which is worth reading about in a book. So overall, a good post. Because it can be the simple person going out and doing that one little thing that is as great as any general or president or king. And that’s worth remembering.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      “It wasn’t just Aragorn who was great, but it was also a simple Hobbit who, in the end, just wanted that ‘mediocre existence’.”

      Ah, but that Hobbit accomplished great things. It was because of his humility that he was able to carry the ring for so long without being completely consumed by it.

      Also, the other Hobbits who went on the journey came back completely changed. They found the courage to lead their people to defeat Saruman once and for all.

      You are correct in saying that the little things can be heroic. But they are not nothing, and much of what we do is indeed nothing.

  • slawq

    Three problems. One, reading The Lord of the Rings doesn’t make me want to be heroic or manly. Two, there are plenty of problems in the world that you can take a stand on, such as genocide in Africa, tyranny in Syria and North Korea, ect. And three, this post doesn’t apply to those who don’t consider a clump of cells to have the same value as a human being.

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Europe/Indian-woman-died-pleading-Irish-abortion-laws-denied-a-termination/Article1-959655.aspx

    • http://www.facebook.com/janine.w.burton Janine Wieber Burton

      One problem: the baby in the womb is a clump of cells just like you & I are a clump of cells. IT IS A HUMAN BEING. Because they are configured differently does not make them less so. My “clump of cells” is configured differently now than it was prior to my 4 children being born and my “clump of cells” will be configured differently when I am a 70 year-old woman (God-willing I make it that long). But I am still me and still very much a HUMAN BEING.

      • slawq

        A monkey is a clump of cells. An ameba is a clump of cells. Neither of them are human. What makes someone a human being is when their clump of cells forms together into a recognizable human being, with working organ systems attributed to human beings. People disagree on at one point a pregnency becomes a human being, which is why different states have different times during pregnancies in which abortions are allowed. However, speaking from a purely secular point of view, I don’t think that something two cells big is a human being. I realize that the spiritual view (at least for Catholics) is that a human is born right at the moment of conception, but that is a purely religious view. My problem with the post is that it assumes people who aren’t against abortion are in favor of baby murder. That’s not the case at all. I would never sacrifice the life of a 31 year old women to save something no more recognizable than an ameba. That’s the difference between your movement and me.

        • I like books

          Actually the fact that a separate human being is formed at conception is a biological truth based on the facts that the new child has its own genetic code, is alive, and is a separate organism from its mother. It has literally nothing to do with religion at all.

          Trying to recognize a child’s humanity based on what it looks like ends up being arbitrary. “It has to look like us” is not good enough. Watch this (I don’t believe this at all! It’s just a demonstration): What makes someone a human being is when their clump of cells forms together into a recognizable human being, with working organ systems attributed to human beings, and white skin. Prove me wrong. I just made an arbitrary definition, so how can you possibly do that?

          The objective measures of humanity are these: alive, separate (not independent) organism, having one’s own human genetic code.

          • pagansister

            “——and is a separate organism from its mother” No, it is not separate until birth. It cannot survive outside the womb as it is totally dependent on the woman. Sure perhaps the genetic code etc is it’s own, however it is basically a parasite until birth.

          • Phil

            A strange analogy, considering parasites are separate organisms from their host.

          • pagansister

            Would they live without their host?

          • Phil

            Some parasites do, some parasites don’t. That is, however, a non-sequitur. Whether or not they would live without their host is not a determining factor in regards to whether or not it is a separate organism.

          • pagansister

            In this case, the “organism: wouldn’t live without the host.

          • Phil

            Which is, once again, completely irrelevant to the fact that it is a separate organism.

          • pagansister

            And that separate organism depends on the host—thus is it really separate?

      • pagansister

        Should we give those in the womb the right to vote? IMO, and it is just that, my opinion, a termination should take place in the first 3 months—if a woman decides that. After that time she should go to term. Hopefully no woman will decide to terminate, alternatives are available. Saying that—safe terminations should always be available as the former underground, illegal ones were death traps for the women. I’m old enough to remember those days—women had to leave this country to terminate if they felt it necessary OR they did it themselves. Metal coat hangers —

  • Curious

    Do you think mothers who abort their children should be given a lethal injection, or should they just be put in prison for life? What about the doctors who assist them?

    Also, have you ever adopted a child? Do you agree that the state should provide more help for single mothers, finacially? It would probably reduce the rates of abortion if they did, since a lot of abortions are done for financial reasons.

  • Veylon

    There needs to be a follow up to this pose. “In Defense of the March for Life: Part 2″, in which the author tells us, explicitly and in detail, what he means to do.

    He pictures Aragorn raising his bow, ready to fire an arrow into the body of an enemy. Is this then a call for violence? Take up literal, physical arms and kill or die? Lots and lots and lots of revolutionaries took brave stands against colonialism. Crazy Horse, Simon Bolivar, Emilio Aguinaldo, Mohandas Gandhi, Thaddeus Kosciuszko. If this is worse than colonialism by some unspecified magnitude, it’s surely okay to fire a few bullets (or even a lot of bullets) to put an end to it. Three thousand lives are being ended every day. Surely it’s worth your life to stop, or even slow down, such a rate. Those Middle East guys (or Ted Kaczynski) aren’t scared to put on a bomb vest or drive a truck full of explosives, so what’s wrong with you guys? You can’t be an Aragorn (or even a Faramir) without making a lot of dead orcs.

    He names Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Then is he calling for to refuse to obey the law and accept punishment – however severe – until fellow citizens can no longer bear to punish? Will you go to jail? Lose your money, your house, your job? Any of you can, right this very minute, drive yourself to a clinic somewhere and chain yourself to the doors. Better yet, the entirety of the anti-abortion population in a given town could do this, one after another, keeping the clinic shut. If the Gandhi followers could lay on railroad tracks, this can be done too, right?

    And I don’t mean this entirely in mockery. I see a lot of righteous indignation and harrumphing. I see a lot of whining and self-congratulatory rhetoric. I see nobody doing anything the slightest bit effectual except the guys firebombing clinics and shooting doctors. And they generally get called terrorists and are shunned even by the anti-abortion folks.

    Just for once, I’d like to hear a plan of action. Because I’m curious.

  • John (not McCain)

    Have you ever given money to any organization that has a history of enabling and covering up the rape of children?

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Anderson’s Correlary to Godwin’s Law.

      • John (not McCain)

        What would that be? That it’s “rude” to point out that the world’s largest pedophile ring is in fact the world’s largest pedophile ring?

        • Phil

          No. It would be that the longer a discussion about the Catholic Church continues, the closer the likeliness that someone brings up the abuse scandal gets to 100%.

          It’s also patently untrue. World’s largest? No. That is public schools. And use of the word “ring” indicates an intentionality and organization that is certainly not present. Enabling is also untrue. In reality, the Church has spent more money and implemented more programs and safeguards to combat the issue than any other organization ever has. 95% of abuse from 1950 to today occurred before 1995. No other organization with a pedophila problem (which is pretty much all of them) can boast of a reduction anywhere near that.

  • Rich

    See you at the March!

  • pagansister

    As a woman who has reached an age way past reproduction, but is fortunate to have lived long enough to see Roe V Wade put into law—I have one thing to say—women have the right to handle their reproduction, preferably using birth control methods —pill, condoms, IUD, celibacy or if their faith dictates—-ABC. They also have the right to terminate a pregnancy if they choose. It is so simple —-no law should force women to have children anymore than it should force them to end a pregnancy. Marching is wonderful—perhaps someone will change their mind—but legally? No changes should be made. I would totally prefer that no one feel it necessary to terminate—but that decision is for the woman (and perhaps the male involved should he be around) to make.

    • Phil

      No law is, or ever has, forced them to have children. They have the right not to have any children, whether abortion is legal or not. Their right is put into practice by the use of self control, something that, unfortunately, people don’t want to bother with anymore because heading to a clinic and burning a few thousand dollars is a quick and easy fix and doesn’t require personal responsibility.

      • pagansister

        Self control? Does that include in marriage? All women who are married do not choose to deliver a child. Yes, in this secular country no one is “forced” to have children. Some religions, however, feel it is a requirement—and puts that in the sacrament of marriage ceremony. So in a way that is mental force. It discourages the use of ABC, thus not allowing a more reliable means of birth prevention. As for sex outside of marriage? That is part of life for some—-and that really is not the business of those it doesn’t involve. For some the money they have to spend for the termination is less than raising a child they can’t afford to feed, house, clothe and take care of. As I continue to state—-it is a personal decision for a woman, and not that of outsiders.

        • pagansister

          Should say: “not allowing a more reliable means of pregnancy prevention.”

        • Phil

          I would have to say that you are underestimating the degree of self control to which I am speaking.

          And your argument “that is a part of life for some”. Really? So because it is a part of life for some, we should just accept it? Murder is a part of life for gangs, so it’s ok for gangs. Meth is a part of life for drug addicts, so let them use meth. That’s not any sort of solid line of reasoning.

          You can call it a personal decision of a woman all you want. You’re just wrong every time you say it.

          • pagansister

            That would be your opinion, which you are entitled to just as I am entitled to mine. (referring to your last statement).

            As to the part of life statement? We were discussing sexual activity outside of marriage. IF we were discussing meth addicts, gangs etc. then I would have addressed that. I will not condemn people have a sex life—it is none of my business. Again, not discussing gangs etc. on this particular thread.

  • The Other Weirdo

    You realize that the whole point of 2.5 books of LoTR was a delaying action to get a superweapon to backfire on its creator by sending two horribly damaged barefoot little people on an unlikely trek across a wasteland to outbluff an even more outrageously damaged little person so he could do out of malice through accident what the heroes would be unable to do out of the goodness of their hearts? All the battles and acts of heroism and of cruelty and of ignorance and of fear depicted in the books mattered not a single damn. It all hinged on the One Ring and whether it could be unmade or not.

  • Claude

    I am pro-choice, but to all of you marching tomorrow: godspeed!

  • fresca

    This is great, I appreciate everything you’re saying, my only problem is that this doesn’t just have to apply to men. Women (like myself) are fully capable of wanting to go an adventures and play the hero just as much as men are! But other than that, great article


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X