What does abortion mean to women after they’d had a few years to re-live the experience?
What does abortion mean to them when they realize what they have done?
Does abortion free women, or imprison them in a new form of misogyny?
Women deserve better than abortion.
I can’t do this anymore.
That was the thought.
It came after the realization.
I woke up this morning feeling sick without an illness. I was sorta dizzy, totally dispirited and generally feeling like it was a day to avoid.
Then, I remembered. Today is January 22, a date, to paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, that lives in infamy.
And I thought: I can’t do this anymore. I can’t, I can’t, I can’t deal with the fact of … how many is it? who keeps this grisly toll? … tens of millions of lives taken, tossed in a trash can, flushed down the drain, “disposed of” as waste.
Forty-one years. And each life is a snowflake; unique, irreplaceable and beautiful.
It isn’t tens of millions of lives lost. It is one life lost, and another life lost, and another and another and another until we are looking, not at an individual who is his or her own bright shining star, but at an incomprehensible mass of anonymous bodies piled into mountains of wasted human lives. Their individuality, their essential humanness, lies hidden in the crush of numbers.
Forty-one years of easy killing, and the heavy toll it’s taken, not so much on the babies we’ve murdered, but on us, as a nation, as people, as free moral agents who bear the weight of our decisions, is too much.
Abortion is a gateway drug of killing and social destruction that appears to know no limits in its power to deform, deface and destroy the essential humanness, not just of the unborn, but of whole societies that partake of it.
Abortion. Euthanasia. Embryonic stem cell research. Egg harvesting. Paid surrogacy. Designer babies.
The beat goes on.
Dear God forgive us.
Twelve unborn animals in the womb. Look at each of them, all the way to the end.
According to a first-person account from LifeNews.com, Yale University recently held it’s first pro life conference. The conference was called Vita et Veritas.
The event was hosted by Choose Life at Yale, the campus pro life group. Speakers included representatives from the American Life League, Feminists for Life, and Secular Pro life.
This past weekend, CLAY hosted the first pro-life conference at Yale, called “Vita et Veritas” which means “life and truth” in Latin. Vita et Veritas is a conference that seeks to make the pro-life vision intelligible on college campuses. The event took place at the St. Thomas Moore Chapel with speakers who represented different pro-life perspectives on abortion.
Some of the speakers included Clark Forsythe from Americans United for Life; Hardley Arkes, a faculty member of Amherst College, who was the main architect of the bill that became know as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and author of the book Natural Rights and the Right to Choose“; William L. Saunders, Senior VP for Legal Affairs at Americans United for Life; and Matt Bennett, founder and president of the Christian Union. The full list of speakers and their bios can be foundhere.
The conference had an interfaith panel that discussed the importance of cooperation in the pro-life community between religious and secular groups. This panel included Suzy Ismail from the Center for Muslim Life and Secular Pro-Life President Kelsey Hazzard. Ismail said that many Muslims don’t speak out against abortion, despite having pro-life views. She has been told herself to not talk about abortion when she’s spoken at Muslim conferences. Yet she believes that Muslims have a responsibility to speak out on the issue of abortion. Secular Pro-Life President Hazzard says there are 6 million Americans who are non-religious and pro-life. She represents their voice as she seeks to raise awareness.
Sally Winn, Vice President of Feminists for Life, was also a guest speaker. She gave a talk entitled “Refuse to Choose: Reclaiming Feminism,” in which she discussed how she became pregnant while in college and kept her child. Winn acknowledged how hard it was raising a child in college, with little support, no day care for undergraduates, and no changing tables at the university.
She discussed Yale’s basic health plan, which fully covers abortions yet doesn’t cover the costs of most deliveries. She stated that a student could have to pay $400 out of pocket for a delivery even with “Hospitalization/Specialty Coverage.” Those conditions make it much easier for students to abort than give birth to their children.
Winn is advocating the need for universities to improve their resources so mothers on campus will feel the freedom to have children on campus. She told the Yale Daily News, “I think the future is really bright if we focus on what women need[.] … In my daughter’s lifetime it will be more commonplace for pregnant women to be on college campuses.”
Live Action is at it again. This fascinating set of on the street interviews reveal just how naive and confused people still are about abortion.
It’s interesting that after all this time people are so confused. But, in a way, it’s also hopeful. Their hearts are good. That shows in each of these people. The reasons they give for supporting abortion are based on a naive understanding of the issue and a desire to find justice for women. These people are not evil.
Their impulse to help women is exactly right on. Their understanding of the humanity of an unborn baby and the drastic brutality of abortion itself is what is faulty.
There is much evil in the abortion fight, but that evil is higher (or lower, depending on how you look at it) up the food chain. It rests with the hardened advocates and practitioners who have become pro abortion instead of pro woman. Even with them, conversion and a radical change of heart is possible. In fact, it happens quite a lot.
Pope Francis is right. We need to love these people, even as we continue the work to stop abortion. We need also to work to end the injustices and cruelty that make abortion seem like an inevitable choice to so many people in the first place.
Watch these and learn.
and finally …
Can a Christian be a Democrat?
That’s a loaded question in today’s America. We have one political party directly targeting Christians to the point of having paid organizers who “work” the churches for them. Meanwhile the other political party has become the outpost for every Christian-bashing group going.
It would seem, based on that analysis, that the party providing the political home to the Christian bashers would be the one to avoid. That was the basic response of many of the commenters on my earlier post on this question.
The arguments went back and forth, up and down, all along the political spectrum, but the upshot was that the Democratic party is hostile territory for traditional Christians, while the Republican Party is more welcoming to them.
One commenter raised the question of what is a Christian. After all, there are some denominations who use the moniker Christian on their church bulletins and fit right in with the Democrats. Are they less Christian than the others?
In my opinion, all this begs the central question. Let me reframe it to be more specific. Can a traditional Christian who accepts, believes and tries to follow the 2,000 year old Christian teachings about human conduct and morality be a Democrat?
The converse question also bears a look: Can that same Christian be a Republican?
I think the answer to both these questions is yes … and no.
You can certainly register as either a Democrat or a Republican. But you may not, on peril of your soul, budge one inch on the 2,000-year consistent teachings of traditional Christianity.
Can’t do it or support it.
Stealing from the poor to give to the rich?
Unjust discrimination against other people?
Following Ayn Rand?
Are you kidding?
The truth is that Christians can and should go just about everywhere in our society. We need to engage the culture at every level. But we cannot compromise the Gospels of Jesus Christ while we are doing it.
If you follow that simple rule, believe me, you’re going to catch flak from whichever political party you join. Both parties torture the Gospels to make the Gospels fit themselves. Both parties have their toady churches who enable them to do this by providing theological cover.
I’ve heard preachers quote take Bible verses out of context to justify everything from gay marriage to doing away with safety standards on food. The right wing does it for the corporations. The left wing does it for the gays and the abortion industry.
This has reached the absurd point that people — intelligent people — will argue about which party is closer to Jesus.
Repeat after me: Political parties are not churches. They are about getting power and keeping power. Everything else they say is a lie.
The Republicans formed their pro life position as a strategy, not as a morality. They realized that it was an issue that could be used as a wedge to divide the Democratic party from their core constituencies of labor and working class people. This has been largely successful for the Republican Party.
It has not benefitted the sanctity of life or Christianity in this country. In fact, it has marginalized the whole concept of the sanctity of human life and turned it into a power issue in power politics. This over-zealous support by many religious leaders of the Republican Party and all its positions, including some that are quite evil, has tarnished the moral and prophetic voice of Christianity and weakened the leadership of Christian clergy.
People are sick of the Jesus-is-a-Republican heresy. Unfortunately, they tend to over-simplify and blame all Christianity for the sins of some of its more politically motivated leaders.
On the other side of the spectrum, good Christians are sick of hearing from the anything goes religious leaders who have searched the scriptures and come up with a namby-pamby version of Jesus that basically oks anything anyone wants to do except be against government hand outs.
Let me be clear about this. You can not say that killing unborn children is ok and speak for Christ at the same time. Conversely, you can not slight the needs of women or ignore the disgusting exploitation of and violence against women that is drowning our culture and be speaking for Jesus.
You can not put your political party ahead of your fealty to Christ and be a faithful Christian. You can not do it. It makes no difference if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you do not look at your party and see that it is doing things that are anathema to Christian teaching and following Christ, you need to get on your knees and pray for forgiveness and guidance. You have put the wrong god to the forefront of your life.
Can a Christian be a Democrat?
Can a Christian be a Republican?
Can a Christian follow their political party instead of Jesus?
We are called to convert the world, not let the world convert us. That includes our political parties.
I’ve written before that Dr Gosnell is the monster that pro choice built.
Dr Gosnell is the recently convicted serial killer/abortionist who operated what some people have described as a “chamber of horrors” in Pennsylvania.
I knew I would catch some flak for saying that, and I did. But I had said it advisedly, based on my experience on both sides of the abortion wars. I knew what I was talking about.
We are seeing the dynamic I referred to acted out once again in Texas; pro choice people are going over the top to fight the regulation of abortion clinics in the name of “women’s health.”
About a week ago, Senator Wendy Davis of the Texas State Senate engaged in a 13-hour filibuster that resulted in a legislative train wreck for a good piece of pro life legislation. Her actions, along with some filibustering from the Senate gallery, effectively killed a bill that would have required that:
1. Abortion clinics provide the same kind of patient safety as any other ambulatory outpatient surgical center,
2. Doctors who perform abortions in clinics must have hospital privileges at a hospital that is within 30 miles of the clinic,
3. Abortion clinics provide their patients with a phone number which would be answered 24 hours so that they can call for medical follow-up to their abortions,
4. Abortion clinics give women the name and phone number of the emergency facility nearest to her home where she can go for medical care in the case of an emergency after her abortion,
5. Doctors, and not staff, prescribe drugs for a chemical abortion according to FDA guidelines, and that the drugs for chemical abortions may not be dispensed until after the prescribing physician has examined the patient and determined that she is not carrying an ectopic pregnancy.
6. Doctors who perform abortions who prescribe drugs for a chemical abortion also provide follow-up care, including a follow-up examination by the physician to determine that the abortion is complete and a 24 hour phone number in case the woman needs questions answered.
7. Doctors who perform abortions must report adverse affects caused by drugs used in chemical abortions to the FDA according to FDA guidelines.
These are the “outrageous” regulations that pro choice people are demonstrating to stop. In my humble opinion, there is not one thing on this list of requirements that even the most pro choice person would not want for their daughter if she was undergoing an abortion.
Doctors who do abortions — which are a surgery — should have hospital privileges?
Abortion clinics — which are outpatient surgical clinics — should comply with the same health and safety regulations that every other outpatient surgical clinic does?
Abortion docs should examine their patients before surgery and follow up with them afterwards? They should report side effects of the drugs they prescribe to the FDA? They should make sure that women they give abortion-causing drugs aren’t carrying an ectopic pregnancy, when giving those drugs to a woman who is carrying an ectopic pregnancy can cause her to bleed to death?
These regulations are exactly what anyone who is interested in “safe, legal” abortions should want. Frankly, I think the pro choice people should thank the pro life legislators who are pushing this bill for cleaning up their dirty little industry.
However, the pro abortionists have pulled out all the stops to kill this bill, including misrepresenting it to their own followers. I doubt very much that the many “pro choice” people in this country who are buying the stuff the abortion industry is putting out about this legislation actually know what the bill contains.
If they did, most of them would favor the legislation. Frankly, anyone who favors “women’s health” should favor this legislation. But they’ve been conditioned for many decades by the constant drum beat of pro abortion extremists to believe any stupid thing those extremists say. There is little actual thinking that goes into the positions they take on abortion.
I would imagine that even most of the legislators who oppose this bill think they are doing it because if they don’t women will be “sent to the back alleys.”
The Texas legislature can not overturn the United States Supreme Court. Roe is not in danger. What is in danger is the lives of the young women who go to clinics that are protected from providing good medical care by abortion zealots who are so caught up in their cause that they don’t have a genuine thought in their heads.
I read this morning that there are plans for celebrities to come to Texas and speak against the bill. The whole thing has turned into a cause celeb, both literally and figuratively. After all, it turns out that many of the clinics in Texas will have to close because they can’t comply with operating like regular outpatient surgical clinics do.
They want, they demand, that they be exempted from providing good medical care to women because if they do have to provide the same level of care that other outpatient surgical clinics provide, it will endanger women’s health.
Does anyone know who’s on first?
What are we making sure of?
That women’s doctors are free to not follow up with them, don’t have to provide the same health and safety for them that they would for any other surgery, don’t need to examine them before doing surgery on them or administering dangerous drugs to them, and … get ready for this now … don’t even have to have hospital privileges at a nearby hospital.
That’s “women’s health,” abortion style.
Remember Dr Gosnell and his chamber of horrors? This kind of folderol is exactly how pro choice built that monster.
They fight against any and all pro life legislation on the grounds that even safety standards “narrow” Roe. They tell poor deluded women that if laws like this one pass, they will be “forced into the back alleys” again.
So what happens to the women?
A lot of them end up suffering harm that would have been prevented by better medical care. I’m not even talking about what happens to the baby here. I am talking solely about women’s health.
I had to have a couple of surgeries last year. I came home the same day after both of them. Neither of them was as risky as poking around in a pregnant uterus.
I can tell you that I wanted a doctor with hospital privileges holding the knife when he went to work on me. I wanted him to examine me beforehand and make sure that he knew what he was doing and that I was a good candidate for the surgery. I wanted health and safety standards dutifully enforced in the place where he did this surgery. I would have been outraged if I had learned that I was on my own after the surgery with no support or follow up if something went wrong.
Nobody anywhere was out demonstrating for the doctor who cut into my foot to be free to practice dirty medicine, not have hospital privileges and dump me after the surgery. Not one person thought it was outrageous or a violation of my rights that my doctor was required to practice competent medicine on me.
But if I had been a woman who was seeking an abortion, they would have been jumping up and down, demonstrating, filibustering, importing celebrities to defend my “right” to incompetent medical practices.
That’s how pro choice built Dr Gosnell and his chamber of horrors. It’s how they endanger women’s lives all over this country.
Look at this carefully and tell me: What’s wrong with this picture?