Pro Life Story

Here’s a moving pro life story about a 21 year old college senior who got pregnant after a drunken college hook up, but found God’s love and changed her life.

  • CG

    The link current begins “http//” but should be “http://” (with a colon between “http” and “//”).

  • Julie C.

    Father, the pro-life story cannot be opened. At least, I can’t!

  • Julie C.

    Thank you so much for sharing this, Father! I had goosebumps through the entire story. Beautiful!

  • Korou

    Poor girl – she made a mistake and got pregnant when she wasn’t ready for it – and now she’s got to give birth to the baby. She seems happy about it, and I hope she continues to be happy, but a little planned parenthood might have saved her a lot of trouble in the future.
    Not exactly what I’d call an inspirational story.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      It’s inspirational because she didn’t kill the baby.

  • Korou

    Baby? What baby?

    • Will

      That’s just being willfully obtuse.

      • Korou

        Not really – it’s making a point. I know that Longenecker means the fetus, and you know that he shouldn’t be calling it a baby.

        • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

          Yucch! Korou are you really in favor of killing unborn children? You really think it’s okay to reach into a woman’s womb, grab the little one’s legs and arms and rip them off then put a pliers up there and grab the skull and crunch it and then suck it all out and throw it away? Or maybe you’re in favor of a saline abortion where you inject poison into the womb to poison the child then cut him up and pull him out. Or perhaps you like partial birth abortion where they deliver the child feet first, then puncture the back of his head with scissors, open the scissors and inject a tube to suck it’s brain out, or maybe you prefer the technique of violently invading the woman’s body with a vacuum pump to rip the baby who cannot defend itself from it’s mother’s womb.

          • Korou

            You sound shocked, and you grossly misrepresent the pro-choice position. Does this mean that you really don’t know the arguments of your opponents? I’m surprised.
            Since the girl in question was “over a month” pregnant, as she says, she could have had a simple and painless abortion through taking medicine. Which would have saved her a lot of trouble and caused no harm to anybody, particularly to a fetus that can’t yet feel pain.
            Sorry, no scissors, saws, pumps, etc. required. All she’d have to do is take some medicine. Or to have a safe and blessedly legal operation which would quickly and easily put her back on her feet.
            So it’s a shame that she didn’t have the facts that she needed in order to make a responsible choice. Her church may have made her feel better about having a baby but she’s still, statistically speaking, in trouble as a new mother who’s a single college student. I hope it works out for her.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            Let’s just shift the argument a bit shall we? “Those Jews, they’re causing financial difficulties for the German people. They’re the cause of our problems. If we just eliminate them our life will be easier and better, and let’s not waste bullets on them and cause them fear and pain. I know! Let’s tell them they’re having a shower and gas them. A quiet injection would, of course, also be good, but that would waste doctor’s time and valuable medicine….”

            Your grotesque argument is riddled with inconsistencies and cruelty. So it’s okay to kill an unborn child as long as you say it does not feel pain? If so, then any death is okay as long as it is painless. An unborn child is not “fully human” or is only a “potential human” so it can be eliminated. So every human being who has not reached his full potential may be eliminated?

            A quick, easy painless medical abortion is okay? It may be preferable to the dismemberment, poisoning, mutilation and slaughter I described, but it’s not. The abortions I described are done every day in America legally, and it happens because many Americans prefer to keep their head in the sand and imagine that it’s nothing more than taking a pill, passing some fluids and flushing the toilet.

        • Julie C.

          Tell that to a mother who loses her baby to miscarriage! Tell that to a mother whose baby is stillborn!

    • u

      If there wasn’t life in there, then she wouldn’t be called ‘pregnant.’

  • Julie C.

    Korou, The Lord really does work in mysterious ways and whether you know it or not or want to admit it or not, you were part of his plan today. Thank you! You have prompted me to take action to combat ignorance like yours.

    • Korou

      Oh, I wouldn’t be so quick to credit God, Julie. This thread has made me more aware of the ignorance about abortions, and more dedicated to sharing information with people to further womens’ rights.

      • Julie C.

        Do you really consider it “womens’ rights” when what you are promoting is murder of an unwanted child? Is it a”woman’s right” to murder her elderly parent when she can’t afford a caretaker and doing so herself would seriously hamper the social lifestyle she desires for herself? That is your mentality isn’t it? Isn’t that what you say to women? “You are a woman. You have rights. If this baby is a burden, then kill it!” Don’t feed us the “womens’ rights” baloney. You are only trying to further your own agenda.

        • Korou

          You may consider the “womans’ rights” movement to be baloney, but you must know that it’s rather bigger than me.
          Also, I have no idea what you mean by “further my own agenda.”

          • Ted Seeber

            I consider the so-called woman’s rights movement to be the most misogynistic institution in our culture of death. There’s only one reason for it- to enable more rape and commercialized sex.

      • Commander Death

        Spoken like one who has tasted the evil wine of being able to kill without consequences. As a professional military officer, we are trained to kill whomever the President orders us to with nary a thought about what they (the enemy) might want for a future. What does this have to do with abortion? Military personnel can real easily fall into the trap of “kill’em all, let God sort them out. They can’t touch me.” But that would then make the military the greatest threat ever to the rest of society. That’s why we have officers, discipline, command and control; keep the monster in the box.
        Those pushing the primacy and total authority of women alone to decide the future, if any, of the society are advocating its total destruction. See Russia, Greenland, Estonia, Japan. All have birth rates far below replacement. Unless something radical happens, by the end of the 21st century, there will be NO more Russians, Japanese, Estonians, Greenlanders. Is this the fate of the USA?

  • Korou

    Yes, let’s shift the argument. Back on top the topic.
    At one time, there is a fetilised egg inside a woman. It knows nothing, it feels nothing. It can barely be called alive. Removing it – which often happens anyway by accident, a miscarriage – will hurt nobody (except, of course, the people who had wanted it to grow more). So. At one end, the woman is pregnant, and an abortion is morally neutral.
    At the other end, there is a well-grown baby inside a mother, almost ready to come out, and no longer a fetus. Abortion at this stage would be murder, or something very close to it, and I don’t think there’s any people of pro-choice views who would argue; which is why that’s illegal.
    Now, in the story you linked to the fetus would have been very much nearer the first example than the second one. Removing it wouldn’t hurt the baby, and it wouldn’t hurt the mother and that, Dwight, is a good basis for a secular moral decision.
    So no, I’m sorry, your gory stories aren’t particularly relevant here, and I see this as an unhappy story of a woman who didn’t know the facts about one of the greatest breakthroughs in medicine and womens’ rights both – safe and legal abortions.
    Now you’ve answered me three times, and each time you’ve missed the point. Have you forgotten that article you wrote way back when about red herrings?

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      As usual your arguments are utilitarian and sentimental, and as I have expounded numerous times, the same arguments can be used to justify most anything, and the gory stories are most certainly relevant because they expose exactly what is happening in our country without a word of dissent from the pro abortion people like yourself. If you really believed what you said you would support a campaign to lower the abortion limit to eight weeks, but you wouldn’t do that would you?

      • Korou

        As usual, you’re fond of oversimplifying complex issues and misrepresenting your opponents’ arguments.
        But since you bring up utilitarian arguments, perhaps you can tell me: why is it wrong to kill somebody? the last time we talked you hadn’t yet managed to articulate a basis for your morality. Have you found one yet?

        • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

          refer to my post Kill Bill from a few weeks ago

      • Korou

        So, are you admitting that it would be fine for the woman to abort her eight-week old baby?
        I’ve presented what I think – at one end abortion is harmless, at the other end its harmful – indeed, rightly illegal – and in the middle is a gray area where difficult choices have to be made.
        How about you?? Are you willing to admit that there’s nothing wrong with an abortion a day, a week or a month after conception?

    • Julie C.

      “one of the greatest breakthroughs in medicine and womens’ rights” – funny, I always thought a prerequisite of a great breakthrough in medicine was to actually save a life! As Ronald Reagan said, “Everyone that is for abortion has already been born!”

      • Korou

        Safe and legalised abortion does a lot to save lives. Which is why it’s a huge breakthrough. Before abortions were legal, and in countries at present where they are illegal, there were/are horribly high levels of mortality in women.

        • Korou

          http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html
          “As the availability of legally induced abortion increased, mortality due to abortion dropped sharply: The number of abortion-related deaths per million live births fell from nearly 40 in 1970 to eight in 1976.28 The trend was caused mainly by a decline in the absolute number of deaths from illegal abortion—especially after Roe v. Wade—from 39 in 1972 to two in 1976.29 After 1975, mortality due to legally induced abortion also fell—from more than three deaths per 100,000 abortions in 1975 to about one in 1976 and even fewer thereafter.”

          Now, reading that, I can’t help but feel that it’s a good thing that women are dying much less.
          Whatever you may say about the fetuses, legalised abortion was, definitely, a medical breakthrough for women. Thank goodness.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            Every abortion causes a death–the death of the child

        • Ted Seeber

          Legal abortion always kills.

    • Ted Seeber

      That’s because your point is based not in fact, but in fantasy.

    • John

      Korou,
      You say the fertilized egg is barely alive! It is every much as alive as you are, and if someone doesn’t kill it, it has a longer life expectancy than you. And as for your statistics, you reach the wrong conclusion, its not that legalized abortion reduced abortions per live birth, its that a record number of women use birth control. which often are abortifacents but not included in the abortion stats. Also, worldwide, many more female babies are aborted than male, so actually more females are dying.

      Why do you insist on calling it a fetus? When does it cease being a fetus and become a baby? What changes biologically in the fetus/unborn child to graduate it from fetusdom? If the fetus is taken via Cesarian Section versus carrying to term versus premature birth does that change its status? Babies that are 23 weeks may be viable so does that give them the Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Where do you draw the line?

      I draw it, as does my Church, at conception. That is when it becomes a living human being, and as the Declaration of Independence says, “All men were CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

      Our nation was founded on the premise that God created all me equal, and have unalienable rights, including the right to life.

      John

  • Julie C.

    “I see this as an unhappy story of a woman who didn’t know the facts” – Korou, did you read the same story that I did? This was not a unhappy story! This was a beautiful story because not only was the baby’s life saved, but so was the mothers. Yea, she could have listened to you and aborted this life inside of her. Then she could have immediately gone back to the same old lifestyle of sleeping around with no respect for herself. She chose life for her baby and is now overflowing with confidence and grace. She will make a great true advocate for women’s rights!

    • Korou

      Yes, Julie, I did read the same story that you did. Did I say the mother-to-be was sad? She’s obviously very happy. But I think the story is a sad one, because now, no matter how she feels herself, she is putting herself in a very difficult situation. I don’t think it’s likely her story will have a happy ending, though of course I hope that it will.
      A true advocate for women’s rights? Which rights? The right to choose what to do with your own body?

      • Julie C.

        Korou, you stated, “I think the story is a sad one, because now, no matter how she feels herself, she is putting herself in a very difficult situation. I don’t think it’s likely her story will have a happy ending”. Seriously? You must be right, I guess, because certainly she would have been so much better off getting drunk and having sex with a new guy every weekend. That is what you mean by women’s rights, isn’t it. The woman has a right to be promiscuous as much as she wants and then kill the baby if she happens to get pregnant in the process. Yes, Korou, she is a much better advocate for women’s rights than you will ever be. Whether you believe in God or not, you must believe that somehow women were made to support life. That is our purpose – to give new life. Men certainly cannot do it. She has learned from her mistakes. She has developed into a confident, secure young woman and she will make an excellent mother. You know, you could just agree with the Catholic Church, Korou, and say that abstinence before marriage is the best policy.

  • FW Ken

    The pro-choice arguments, those articulated here and others, are well known and well understood. Korou apparently fails to understand that the well known and well understood arguments are well rejected by people who regard the fetus as an unborn baby. This is science, of course, since that “clump of cells” never becomes anything but a person with legal rights. The only thing lacking before birth is the legal recognition denied by a degenerate and degraded society.

    Abortion strikes at the most basic of human communities – the family. Beginning with the hard cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, the slope became slippery until clear viable babies can be killed, and babies who survive abortion, may or not be killed, at the whim of the “doctors”.

  • http://platytera.blogspot.com/ Christian

    “It knows nothing, it feels nothing. It can barely be called alive.”
    As is also true for the freshly-laid eggs of, say, loggerhead turtles. Killing those eggs obviously doesn’t kill a loggerhead turtle.

    • Korou

      I’m not sure what your point is, but they sound delicious.

      • Julie C.

        Loggerhead turtles – it is against the law in the US to touch or disturb a loggerhead turtle egg in the nest. Believe it or not, the law in America puts loggerhead turtle eggs before human babies!

  • Donna G.

    Korou, your arguments are so muddled and your choice of words so unfortunate that it puzzles me that you think you are doing work to further the pro-choice cause – on this blog of all places.

    • Korou

      Can you give me an example, then, of a place where you have seen cogent and well-made arguments by pro-choice people?

      • Julie C.

        I have never seen a well-made pro-choice argument because murder is murder no matter what name you want to give it.

        • Korou

          Q.E.D.

          • Julie C.

            If you are agreeing that well-made pro-choice arguments do not exist, then could that possibly be because you cannot defend the indefensible? As I said, murder is murder no matter what it is called or what flag in which it is wrapped!

  • http://www.patheos.com Deacon Tom

    Well let’s see now–since abortion has been legal, a few women’s lives have been saved from botched illegal abortions. The cost of this alleged benefit—millions of lives of unborn children. Sounds reasonable—NOT! At least Peter Singer has the guts to call abortion what it is-the killing of a human life. Although I don’t agree with his arguments at all, he logically argues that we should have the right to kill infants during their first year or so if they are too inconvenient. At least Singer is honest about it. The argument that abortion is OK if done early is inconsistent with the science-a human life is present. If you believe in God, then abortion is playing God with human life-something that Catholics believe we are not to do.

  • FW Ken

    The relevant question to ask about pro-choice arguments is “about what other form of murder would you make that argument?” They respond “its not murder”. To which we reply “you are entitled to your opinion; you need to understand that those who disagree with you are committed to resisting the enforcement of your opinion in law, since it constitutes murder.”

    When they bring out the slaughter of women by “back-alley butchers”, we reply that maternal death tracked with all surgical deaths, declining with the advent of antibiotics. Besides, the numbers were cooked at the time.”

  • Sus

    From the story linked: “God confirmed His love for me when I finally built up the courage to tell my parents I was pregnant; my parents never condemned me, but instead embraced me and loved me and supported me. God confirmed His love for me when I finally went to confession and the priest praised me for my choice of life and gave me the grace to forgive myself. ”
    How do we help the women without supportive families? How do we help the women that already have children that are hungry because of lack of money? How we we help the women that don’t belong to a church with a supportive pastor? How do we help women that are mentally ill with PPD and are told she shouldn’t have any more children or she may lose her mind?
    Without answers to those questions, I’m not willing to give up my pro-choice belief.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      Adoption.

    • Ted Seeber

      Fr. Taaffe Homes. PRC. Catholic Charities. There are a LOT of answers to your question.

  • Korou

    Is not a viable social solution.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      Adoption is an excellent option. Of course it is. There are long lines of couples waiting and longing for a newborn baby to adopt. Modern adoption agencies walk beside the pregnant woman offering her every choice for herself and her child. They offer counseling and support services through the whole difficult process until the point the woman decides she no longer needs them. Adoption brings a child to a loving and caring home, provides childless couples with the children they long for. The only health risk for the woman is the ordinary risk of childbearing. The health risk for the unborn child means he lives rather than being killed in his own mother’s womb. Why don’t you check your facts and take a humane and loving position in favor of life instead of the cruel and heartless destruction of unborn children. I notice that you did not deny that you would allow abortions much later in pregnancy–therefore you endorse the dismemberment and tearing apart of tiny children at a point when they feel pain. Dismemberment and destruction when they are trapped in the womb and have no way to escape the sharp tools and the suction pump. Go watch ‘The Silent Scream’ then continue to be pro abortion and you will descend ever deeper into a dark and inhuman place.

      • Niemand

        The only health risk for the woman is the ordinary risk of childbearing.

        Well, that and a lifetime of mental health problems. There have been only a few studies of the mental and physical effects of relinquishing a child for adoption, but they’ve essentially all found that it does profound and permanent damage to the mother. There is little or no data that any of the attempts at decreasing the trauma, i.e. open adoption, have been successful. If a woman wants to go through with it nonetheless, fine, but she should be told the risks and not lied to and told that it is perfectly safe.

        Also, the “ordinary” risks of childbirth are nontrivial. They are, for example, higher than the risk of any form of birth control, including taking oral contraceptives and smoking (until age 40 when smoking finally dominates). If you really want to convince people who are against forced childbirth that you care about women’s health, I would suggest you drop the dismissal of the risks of childbirth.

        • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

          The mental health after effects of abortion are alarming–depression, despair and suicide– and the physical and chemical invasion to the mother’s body is terrifying, abortion kills babies and harms women.

  • Niemand

    the physical and chemical invasion to the mother’s body

    Seriously? “Physical and chemical invasion”? You sound like a Christian Scientist, rather than a Catholic. Abortion is a minor procedure compared to, say, c-section or even “normal” delivery (which often involves episiotomy, stitching to repair tears in the vagina or cervix, oxytocin shots to contract the uterus, and, frequently, a D and C to clear retained placenta-the very same procedure as is used in most abortions.)

    I think you’d be best off steering clear of doctors altogether if you consider an abortion too invasive. Because an abortion is nothing next to an appendectomy or cardiac stent placement or, on the “chemical invasion” side, chemotherapy, thrombolytics, or IV antibiotics.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      A physical or chemical invasion to save a life is one thing. A physical or chemical invasion to destroy a life is another.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X