Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

October 2, 2008

The one thing a pro-abortion person cannot admit

The debate rages on, and what is becoming more and more clear is that those in the pro-abortion camp cannot—ever—say that a baby in the womb is a human being.  Call it anything but a baby:  a “product of conception,” a fetus, a mass of tissue, a complex collection of cells–but not a human being.  To assent to the possibility that an unborn baby posesses humanity means the complete breakdown of any semblence of rationality the pro-abortion movement might have.

It’s really quite sad and pathetic, this suspension of disbelief about the nature of the child in the womb, that abortion supporters display.  And to me, it’s also really, really frightening.  It illustrates the departure from rationality that exemplifies the abortion-at-all-costs mentality.  How on earth could so many otherwise (in most cases) rational, decent even, human beings be so utterly deceived? 

Well, let us never discount the real and present evil that surrounds this tragedy.  It’s so thick that you can almost cut it with a knife.  Satan is the greatest deceiver, and he and his demons are doing their best to poison the minds of people to the point that some think it’s okay to kill our unborn, no matter what the circumstance, and for no reason at all.  This is why appeal to reason usually makes no difference to the abortion advocate.  Evil Incarnate is clouding the judgement of people who should know better.  

I recently read a chapter from a book titled, The Marketing of Evil: How radicals, elitists, and pseudo-experts sell us corruption disguised as freedom, by David Kupelian.  I plan on purchasing the book.  The chapter I read that focuses on abortion, called Blood Confessions, has been deemed by many as the most powerful expose on abortion that they’ve encountered, and it is.  It centers on actual former abortion advocates and abortion doctors and their conversions from the movement.  Especially highlighted is the experience of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the founder of NARAL, the National Association and Reproductive Rights Action League.  I wish I could find this chapter in its entirety online so that I could link to it.  I agree; it IS powerful and compelling.  What I will do is try to highlight the “best” of it for you.   

As Nathanson describes his progression from a doctor who performed 75,000 abortions during his career to a leading pro-life advocate, mainly due to increasing science and technology, he says this: 

“As a result of all of this technology–looking at this baby, examining it, investigating it, watching its metabolic functions, watching it urinate, swallow, move and sleep, watching it dream, which you could see by its rapid eye movements via ultrasounds, treating it, operating on it–I finally came to the conviction that this was my patient.  This was a person!  I was a physician, pledged to save my patients’ lives, not to destroy them.  So I changed my mind on the subject of abortion.  There was nothing religious about it.  This was purely a change of mind as a result of this fantastic technology, and the new insights and perceptions I had into the nature of the unborn child.”

In 1985, Nathanson decided to put an ultrasound machine on the abdomen of a woman undergoing an abortion and videotape what happens.  The results were horrifying and shocking, and the film, called “Silent Scream,” provoked widespread panic among abortion advocates.  In 1987, Nathanson released another film, titled “Eclipse of Reason.”  Nathanson said:

” ‘The Silent Scream’ dealt with a child who was aborted at 12 weeks.  But there are four hundred abortions every day in this country that are done after the third month of pregnancy.  Contrary to popular misconception, Roe V. Wade makes abortion permissable up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.  I wanted to dramatize what happens in one of these late abortions, after the third month.  This is a shattering film.”

I found the following to be so disturbing, that I cried as I read it.  Please read no further if you don’t wish to be incredibly upset.  But I feel it necessary to highlight the gruesome nature of the procedure.

Kupelian writes:

“Every year in the United States more than a million abortions are performed–including tens of thousands of late-term abortions (after the twelfth week.)  Some of these late abortions are carried out by means of amniotic infusion (the injection of a foreign subtance into the amniotic sac) of saline, prostaglandin, urea, or another agent designed to kill the unborn baby.  The saline is injected into the woman’s sac and the baby swallows it.  The baby starts dying a slow, violent death.  The mother feels everything, and many times it is at this point when she realizes that she really has a live baby inside of her, because the baby starts fighting violently for his or her life.  He’s just fighting inside because he’s burning.

‘One night a lady delivered, and I was called in to see her because she was uncontrollable,’ said David Brewer, M.D., of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

As a military physician in Fort Rucher, Alabama, Brewer performed abortions for 10 years.  ‘I went in the room, and she was going to pieces; she was having a nervous breakdown, screaming and thrashing.  The nurses were upset because they couldn’t get any work done, and all the other patients were upset because this lady was screaming.  I walked in, and here was her little saline abortion baby kicking.  It had been born alive, and was kicking and moving for a little while before it finally died of those terrible burns, because the salt solution gets into the lungs and burns the lungs, too.’ “

But amniotic infusion is only one abortion method.  Many entail D&E, Dilation and Extraction, in which the baby is cut up and extracted in pieces.  There are many late-term D&Es as well.  Kupelian tells the experience of Carol Everett, a nurse who started five abortion clinics and helped assist in abortions at these clinics in Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma:

“The question of how doctors could tear apart a virtually full-grown baby is painful, perplexing, mystifying.

‘Psychologically,’ noted Everett, ‘the doctors always sized the baby at ’24 weeks.’ However, we did an abortion on one baby I feel was almost full-term.  The baby’s muscle structure was so strong that it would not come apart.  The baby died when the doctor pulled the head off the body.’ ” 

Everett goes on,

” ‘There are no words to describe how bad it really is.  I’ve seen sonograms of the baby pulling away from the instruments as they are introduced into the vagina.  And I’ve seen D&Es through 32 weeks done without the mother’s being put to sleep.  And yes, they hurt and they are very painful to the baby, and yes, they are very, very painful to the woman.  I’ve seen six people hold a woman on the table whil they did her abortion.’ “

After reading this, I am absolutely unable to understand HOW someone could continue to deny the humanity of an unborn baby.  But Kupelian deftly and eloquently attempts to describe the psychology behind the pro-abortion person’s mindset, and he does a commendable job.

Kupelian writes:

“Whereas once upon a time pregnant mothers were respectully, lovingly referred to as being ‘with child,’ today we coldly refer to the unborn, not as a child, but as a fetus.  Indeed, the word fetus has taken on qualities and characteristics convenient to the pro-abortion viewpoint–implying something less than human, with little intrinsic worth, and therefore disposable.  If an abortionist or pro-choicer looks at a fetus, his eyes will see a perfectly formed human child–for that is what a fetus actually is–but his mind will see something else, an ugly, nonhuman, disposable lump of tissue.  Interestingly, if there were no word for fetus, such a switch of realities would be more difficult.  The word itself becomes a convenient carrier of the ugly, nonhuman characteristics, and is thus a key tool for denying the humanity of the unborn human child.”

Again, to go back to my original post, about Elana Sigall:  Her very ability to hear her husband say he “loves that baby” (the baby she goes on to abort), and her own acknowledgement of its humanity makes me shudder, because she is one of the most extreme cases:  that of a pro-abortion advocate who does indeed see an unborn baby as a baby, and who chooses to end its life anyway.   I desperately pray for the conversion of all those in the pro-abortion movement:  it is my duty as a Christian to love everyone…even the most reprehensible.  I cannot help but think that there’s a special place in hell for people who would love their unborn baby and then go on to have it killed.

If you have followed the ongoing debate in the comments section, you will have realized that no amount of logic or reason is enough to sway the abortion supporter.  As human beings, it is hard to admit we’re wrong.  Kupelian states, “We’re dealing with very deep denial here.” He recounts his experience with a Planned Parenthood attorney, who, when shown a picture of a five-gallon bucket filled with dead, late-term aborted babies (the result of one day’s abortion at a Canadian hospital), his response was “to deny that what he saw were really human babies, and suggested that perhaps they were actually dead monkeys.” He denied what was right in front of his eyes. 

Kupelian: 

“Babies? fetuses? monkies? This sleight-of-hand substitution of a false reality for the real one may make more sense when you consider that a skilled hypnotist can cause his subject to see a doll as a real baby and, more chillingly, to see a real baby as only a doll.  But we’re not talking about hypnosis here–or are we?

When a stage hypnotist can so quickly and dramatically alter his subject’s perceptions–making an educated adult forget his own name, believe he’s a yodeling champion, or strut around on stage clucking like a rooster–isn’t it reasonable to think that whatever mysterious dynamics allow this sort of mental manipulation on stage would also crop up, perhaps in more disguised ways, in real life?  If so, how does a population get itself into such a trance, such a grotesque and deadly delusion, all the while believing it has embraced something enlightened and liberating?”

Kupelian goes on, and says that not only is this possible, but it has happened before:  the master hypnotist?  Adolf Hitler, who played on the latent anti-Semitism of his people, their wounded pride over the total loss of WW I and their subsequent humiliation at Versailles.  

“…[Understanding] their need for a scapegoat to excuse their defeat and help them reclaim their national pride, Adolf Hitler played the German people like a virtuoso violinist plays a Stradivarius–not only with emotional speech, but with a massive, relentless propaganda campaign backed by intimidating rallies and terrorizing street bullies.  Bypassing reason, he appealed directly and intensely to raw emotion, and he radically altered their perception of reality.”

Kupelian goes on to write:

“In America, the process is much more subtle but no less pervasive.  First, over the last few decades our nation embraced the notion that total sexual freedom, without restriction of any kind, is a right, an entitlement.  We’ve been seduced into blaming moralists as oppressors, and thus separating sexuality from its God-ordained purpose–the sanctified union between husband and wife within the protective confines of marriage, from which issues the most precious of all things:  our children.  We have abandoned reason and self-restraint in favor of the self-indulgent fulfillment of our personal desires and lusts.  And logically, if sex without consequences is the top priority–which it has become–then abortion simply has to be an option, no matter what.

“Second, a huge factor in making abortion acceptable, indeed, a ‘fundamental American right,’ has been the change in American law.  Whether in Nazi Germany or in Roe v. Wade America, legalizing something is immensely powerful in persuading people of the moral acceptability of immoral acts.  In fact, for a great many people, legal equals moral.” 

Who are the victims of America’s abortion holocaust?  It’s is not just babies and vulnerable women; it’s everyone who is “pro-choice”–they’ve been duped, in the very worst way.  “They are victims of sophisticated marketing campaigns designed to appeal to their deepest feelings about freedom and equality while simultaneously hooking them through powerful appeals to their selfishness.”

Indeed, Norma McCorvey–the original “Jane Roe” on behalf of whom the Roe v. Wade case was fought and won–has herself admitted the the whole thing was a fraud.  She was used by abortion attorneys in their quest to legalize abortion.  No doubt a good many of us hadn’t heard about this:  In 2003, McCorvey filed suit in a federal court to have Roe v. Wade overturned.   “Among her 5,437 pages of evidence were affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testified that having an abortion had devastating emotional, physical, and psychological effects on them.” (Kupelian)

So, no, appeal to reason is not able to change the hearts and minds of the pro-abortion advocate.  Kupelian states, “In truth, it’s one thing to make a person do something wrong by deceiving him into thinking that it was right, but it is quite another thing to get him to face that fact that it was wrong and that he has been deceived.  The human ego doesn’t like to see that it is wrong, and it especially doesn’t like to admit it was manipulated by another.” 

Most of you Catholics have probably heard of or read Peter Kreeft (pronounced Kreft).  He is no intellectual lightweight.  He wrote what he calls “The Apple Argument Against Abortion,” in which he takes a 13 step purely logical, Socratic method of arguing against abortion.  Here is the link: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0045.html 

He has this to say:  “I hope a reader can show me where I’ve gone astray in the sequence of 13 steps that constitute this argument. I honestly wish a pro-choicer would someday show me one argument that proved that fetuses are not persons.”  

He provocatively (and accurately) concludes: 

“I think most people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first.  Or, since many pro-choicers insist that abortion is about sex, not about babies, the only way to justify their scorn of virginity is a scorn of intellectual virginity.  The only way to justify their loss of moral innocence is to lose their intellectual innocence.

If the above paragraph offends you, I challenge you to calmly and honestly ask your own conscience and reason whether, where, and why it is false.”

I think the greatest thing that any of us can do is pray that hearts and minds continue to change about abortion.  Another thing is to continue to challenge others when they casually suggest their support for a woman’s “right to choose.”  That sounds so benign, generous, and compassionate.  But it is one of the greatest destructive forces in our nation, and it hurts all of us.  Challenge it.  Don’t vote for a politician who is pro-abortion.  (Especially one who is the most radically pro-abortion politician we’ve ever seen, by name, Barack Hussein Obama.)  And continue to remind others that a baby in the womb is, indeed, a baby.

Related:  The faulty logic of the abortion movement

Advertisements

9 Comments »

  1. I haven’t read anything stated more clearly. Thanks, Lindy. I wish the world were listening.

    Comment by Dee — October 2, 2008 @ 10:00 am |Reply

  2. Another excellent and insightful post Lindy…
    …and you are so right when you say that evil is alive, well and working in this world. The devil is working constantly and not so subtle these days to get us all to proclaim evil as “good”….
    Abortion because it kills the most vulnerable and innocent among us is truly evidence of this.

    Comment by trish — October 2, 2008 @ 11:01 am |Reply

  3. Abortion kills. But making abortion illegal doesnt eliminate abortions…How do we eliminate abortions?????

    Comment by elizabeth — October 2, 2008 @ 11:21 am |Reply

  4. Elizabeth: Neither does making first degree murder against the law eliminate murder. It unfortunately still happens. So, should we get rid of laws against murder?

    Many equate legality with morality, or at least they might think, “Well, it’s not illegal, so it can’t be THAT bad!”

    Why wouldn’t it be a step in the right direction to make abortion (which does kill, as you say) illegal? If abortion kills, and one can admit that readily, why have a law protecting it?

    Comment by lindyborer — October 2, 2008 @ 1:11 pm |Reply

  5. My point is that once you make it illegal, what are you going to do then? How do you solve for unwanted pregnancies? I spend time in a slum in Buenos Aires where the poverty cant be explained. There is a 19 year old girl there who has 6 kids…they dont have shoes to go to school…she is pregnant again. There are cultures and economic stratas that abstinence education wont work. What can you (not you specifically, but the pro-life movement) do to help her?

    Comment by elizabeth — October 2, 2008 @ 4:20 pm |Reply

  6. You are to be commended fo the work you are doing. It sounds to me as though your concern is absolutely genuine, and I think your question is a good one. I obviously don’t have all the answers, but I know that, based on my strong convictions regarding the very direct link between contraception and abortion, I could never in good faith simply tell this girl, “Well, you should have your partner wear a condom.” This is like trying to just put a band-aid on a festering wound; it won’t have a sure or lasting effect. Condoms fail, the Pill fails. (frequently) It’s a whole lot easier to say, “Use contraception”, yes. But I think, in the end, it’s a short-term strategy that will never solve the underlying problem: the fact that the only proven way to not get pregnant is to save sex for marriage or not have it. If this 19 year old girl is married, you would do a world of good to her in explaining NFP, and how it her cycle is designed.

    I know I’ll get tons of crap for that one. (not necessarily from you, understand. From others listening in.) People, especially in our society, do not understand NFP. I would caution anyone in shooting from the hip about this one. At least do me the favor of actually researching it first, from a reputable source, preferably a Catholic one. It IS effective, and it improves relationships and lets a woman know that she has intrinsic worth, something that the contraceptive mentality does not.

    I think this link is helpful in understanding how something like condom promotion alone has been ineffective in reducing unwanted pregnancies and AIDS. http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=234

    But, poverty is a terrible thing. And there isn’t an easy answer. I’m fully prepared to believe you when you say that there are cultures and economic stratas where abstinence education won’t work. Would contraception education work? According to the research presented in the above link regarding Botswana and Uganda, I’m not so sure that it would.

    But, back to abortion, there has been a direct relationship between the advent of the Pill (and the contraceptive mentality) and abortion:

    “It is noteworthy that as acceptance and use of contraception have increased in our society, so have acceptance and use of abortion. Couples who unintentionally conceive a child while using contraception are far more likely to resort to abortion than others.” (http://www.priestsforlife.org/contraception/index.htm)

    So, again, as a Catholic, I cannot in good faith promote it as a cure-all for the painful dilemma that faces this girl and others like her. I can continue to do my charitable duty by contributing both time and money to fight poverty, and I can offer my love and goodwill, and try to promote abstinence or even adoption when I can.

    Comment by lindyborer — October 2, 2008 @ 8:31 pm |Reply

  7. As an afterthought: I think you might find great encouragement, insight and inspiration from Mother Theresa of Calcutta. She knew about poverty and slums.

    Comment by lindyborer — October 2, 2008 @ 8:49 pm |Reply

  8. Hi,

    Please read my article :
    http://taniamoulik.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/safe-abortion-a-medical-miracle/

    Comment by taniam — October 30, 2008 @ 12:58 pm |Reply

  9. Why Obama is doomed to fail.

    Premise:
    God is absolutely perfect in the order of all things. God is perfectly just, merciful, powerful, wise, and loving. He does not lack any perfection found in the created order because he is the first efficient cause and creates all perfection. God’s perfection is grounded in the fact that he is synonymous with existence itself and thus encompasses all being. God is the first efficient cause and exists in complete actuality there can be found nothing wanting in him. Since God has no potentiality he encompasses all that is. Essentially, being is synonymous with goodness, and God, as absolute being, is also absolute goodness. Now it might seem strange that goodness is synonymous with being, but one must realize that perfection is impossible without existence. A perfect being is one that exists fully realized and actualized with no deficiencies. Deficiencies cannot exist in a perfectly actual being and thus God is perfect. God is a purely self-existent being that exists in complete actuality. God is not a being that is created by another god; neither does God create himself into existence. Rather, God has always existed as an unchanging, completely actualized being. God is his own existence as well as his own essence. Since God is the first efficient cause who creates all perfection, God cannot be imperfect. All that He Wills comes into existence in perfection. All that is Chaos (disorder) is, therefore, imperfection and not of God but against God and therefore brought about by something that is anti-God. If God exists and is a perfect being, then what He brings forth through His Will must be, by its very nature, right, just and perfect. Perfection entails authority and order. Being the first efficient cause, God is the creator of authority and order and the Grantor of authority and order – “All authority comes from God”, not from people.
    Power to rule gained through misrepresentation, cheating and lying is authority gained by the actions of men, who are imperfect and using imperfect methods and tactics, not that granted by God. In order for man to assume authority, he must build his ascension to authority on the basis of what is good, perfect and honest; ”be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect” and “ a house built on a weak foundation will not stand”. Authority also entails order. God is order, the grantor of authority and the first efficient cause that creates (brings into existence which includes life) all perfection.
    Obama and his team, have none of the qualities mentioned above. They ascended to authority and power on bases of lies and deception and they are against the life of the unborn, the ultimate and finest creation of a Being who is infinitely knowledgeable and powerful and perfect in all ways.

    Conclusion:
    If a perfect God exists (and He does), then Obama’s authority is not authority granted by God but an authority which is granted by votes (deceived human beings – an imperfect entity), based on misrepresentations, emotions and feelings, not reasoning, logic and order. It is a campaign that used tactics against order (even though it seemed orderly and efficient), honesty and all the qualities that are not from God, Who is a perfect being. Therefore, it is a house built on a weak foundation and not an authority granted by God. It is a falsehood and therefore destined to failure. And, since a country or nation is only as good as its people, and a majority in this country is a people who think emotionally, based on feelings rather then the ability to reason, America is in a heap of trouble, will only get weaker, more disorganized, more chaotic, violent and destined to failure and ultimate demise. And, even if Obama changes for the good, it still won’t go right because he is not the one that’s suppose to be in that position of authority. We just put a man in office that’s not suppose to be there.

    Comment by Michael — November 14, 2008 @ 1:48 am |Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: