Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

January 27, 2010

To call one’s self “pro-choice” implies, well, a CHOICE

Filed under: abortion — by lindyborer @ 7:36 am
Tags: , , , ,

So apparently there’s this big kerfuffle involving a commercial by Focus On the Family featuring Tim Tebow and his mom that’s set to air during the Super Bowl.  Read about it here.  It’s a pro-life ad which chronicles the 1987 against-the-odds birth of the Heisman winner.  His mother was encouraged to abort her son due to an illness she acquired during her pregnancy with him.  She ignored this advice from her doctors and gave birth to Tim, who has gone on to accomplish some pretty amazing things. 

The usual suspects (“Womens’ groups”) are throwing a hissy-fit over the ad, even though no one–including them–has seen it yet.  They claim that it advances a pro-life agenda. 

Oh, how terrible to comprehend!  What filth, what tripe, what downright evil–that a commercial might influence someone to choose LIFE?!?  What a horrible thing that a commercial might provide encouragement to a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy to…NOT kill her baby!!

Focus on the Family claims that it’s really quite tame and that it basically relates an uplifting, pro-family story with a really happy ending. 

My question is this:  Why is it that supposedly “pro-choice” groups have such a hard time hearing about such stories?  What about the fact that a mom CHOSE to have a baby–and that baby just happened to grow up to accomplish marvelous things–is so vulgar to them?  After all,  being “pro-choice” implies that one is equally fine with either choice chosen.  These supposedly “pro-choice” groups really become transparent each time they make a huge deal out of these stories with happy endings.  I mean, what kind of people hear such stories and grow so irrationally angry?

Let me attempt to answer my own question.  The kind of people who are not, in fact, pro-CHOICE.  They are simpy pro-ABORTION, and their unwillingness to celebrate good and happy endings with the rest of us just really makes them look, well, twisted

(Besides, am I the only one who actually looks forward to there being a Super Bowl commercial that doesn’t feature some mostly naked woman pushing tortilla chips or beer?  How is that message “good” for women?  What message does that send to my little boy and girl?)

Bring on the ad, I say, and further reveal the sickness of the pro-abortion movement.

RELATED:  Sarah Palin decimates NOW on her Facebook page–awesome.

October 3, 2008

Abortion: It’s time to be outraged

To round out the week, I’m going to concentrate on abortion once again.  This coming Monday, October 6th is Pro-Life Memorial Day: 

“On the first Monday in October, the U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term. This is a day on which pro-lifers across the nation will mourn the victims of America’s hidden holocaust: abortion.  Who will hear the cries of these preborn children? Who will be their voice? Who will mourn their deaths? On October 6, thousands of Americans nationwide will be mourning the victims of abortion by wearing black armbands, gathering for prayer and candlelight vigils at the U.S. Supreme Court and abortion facilities nationwide, wearing the official Pro-Life Memorial Day 2008 T-shirt and engaging in many other activities.” (for more information visit http://www.prolifememorialday.com/2008/)

One of the most tragic things about abortion is that these babies have no voice.  Except for you and me.  The legality of abortion is an embarassment to a civilized society.  How “enlightened” are we, really, if we can sit back and just let this happen?  How civilized are we, that we let our innocent children be slaughtered?    

I’m sorry, I can barely type right now.  I am shaking, because I just viewed this page at priestsforlife.org: http://priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm

If you happen to be ambivalent, I urge you to look at these images of aborted babies, and see if your conscience stirs.  See if they don’t move you to tears.  See if they don’t sicken and outrage you.  See if they don’t light a fire in you to start praying and acting to stop it.  We’re a civilized society?  I’m really not so sure about that.

Planned Parenthood laments the fact that they’re increasingly unable to find doctors with the “skill” and “courage” to provide abortions.  How much skill does it take to forcibly tear off an infant’s head?  How much courage does it take to rip an infant apart?  Well, enough courage to have to face these innocent human lives one day, to look at their perfect completion and know that you put an end to their earthly existence.  Enough courage to look at their Creator, who knew them the moment they were conceived, even before, and to try to explain to Him how it was the “right” thing to do.  Personally, I’d be quaking. 

But make no mistake:  our own action or inaction will be judged as well.  When our Creator looks upon us one day, will he see us as willing accomplices in this tragedy?  Or will he see our having done everything imaginable to give “the least of these” a voice?

I challenge you to look at these images of aborted babies, and to go on to vote for a political candidate who is the most radical pro-abortion candidate we’ve ever seen.  If you’re Catholic, go ahead and ignore the Church’s warning if you want.  But, as a last resort, look at the pictures of these babies and see if you can, with a clear conscience, vote for a man who would codify abortion into law, via the “Freedom of Choice Act,” and make it irreversible.  A man who would require our tax dollars to fund the practice.  A man who voted to deny infants born alive after failed attempts to kill them medical care.  Couldn’t he have at least voted “Present” on this one, too, like most of his other votes?  This individual, Barack Obama, sickens me, and he should sicken you, too.   

“Proportionate reasons?”  Catholics, there is no proportionate reason imaginable that could sway your vote toward a man who would rather his daughters undergo an abortion–who would rather see his own grandchildren murdered–than see his daughters “punished with a baby.”  Barack Obama not only displays a lack of intellect, he displays something arguably worse:  a lack of morality.

I’ll leave you with this quote from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, orignial founder of NARAL, now a pro-life advocate:

“I’m going to set it against my Jewish heritage and the Holocaust in Europe.  The abortion holocaust is beyond the ordinary discourse of morality and rational condemnation.  It is not enough to pronounce it absolutely evil.  Absolute evil used to characterize this abortion tragedy (43 million and counting) is an inept formulation.  The abortion tragedy is a new event, severed from connections with traditional presuppositions of history, psychology, politics and morality.  It extends beyond the deliberations of reason, beyond the discernments of moral judgment, beyond meaning itself.  It trivializes itself to call itself merely a holocaust or a tragedy.  It is, in the words of Arthur Cohen, perhaps the world’s leading scholar on the European Holocaust, a mysterium tremendum, an utter mystery to the rational mind—a mystery that carries with it not only the aspect of vastness, but the resonance of terror, something so unutterably diabolic as to be literally unknowable to us.  This is an evil torn free of its moorings in reason and causality, an ordinary secular corruption raised to unimaginable powers of magnification and limitless extremity.

Nelly Sachs, a poetess who wrote poems on the Holocaust in Europe and who won the Nobel Prize in 1966, wrote a poem called “Chorus of the Unborn.”  Permit me to give you a few lines:

We, the unborn, the yearning has begun to plague us

as shores of blood broaden to receive us.

Like dew, we sink into love but still

the shadows of time lie like questions over our secret.”

October 1, 2008

The faulty logic of the abortion movement, continued

There is a fascinating philosophical argument going on in the comments section of my last post.  The argument is not new, but it is nonetheless interesting.  Something that has re-asserted itself in my mind:  the abortion debate is just as much as a spiritual battle as one of morality, or law, or health.  You can present someone with the facts, and then they completely ignore those facts and say you’re being “emotionally manipulative.”  Complete blindness.  Really, you should check it out.  I really want to thank Jon, who has singlehandedly blown away the adversaries.  And he was decidedly UN-emotional, thank you very much.  Quite rational.  

Though I do allow myself to get emotional over abortion.  How can I not?  Having children of my own, carrying them for nine months in my body–a thought ocurred to me at three in the morning.  Take my eldest:  He is so full of life and spunk.  He’s the light of my life.  He says things that slay me.  He doesn’t like milk on his cereal.  He enjoys reading the table of contents almost better than the book itself.  He enjoys going to the bathroom with the light off.  He only eats spiced meat.  He logs in upwards of 25,000 words a day.  He enjoys swinging as high as he can.  He states the camel as his favorite animal.  Everything he is, every unique and sometimes annoying thing, he had in his make-up the moment he was conceived.  So, to argue–even only until the baby is “viable”–that that baby could be destroyed, you’ve destroyed all that with it.  It is a tragedy beyond words.

As far as fetal pain, hell YES it’s a genuine concern.  A whole lot of abortion advocates–and I mean most, perhaps all who are strongly pro-abortion–argue their position from an “it’s the mother’s ultimate choice.”  So, I assume, in their understanding, this choice should be available to her just as much at the end of the pregnancy as at the beginning.  So, what do these abortion fanatics think about the reality of fetal pain then?  This has been repeatedly ignored.  I imagine a baby would feel its skull being punctured and its brains being sucked out.  I would imagine a baby would feel its limbs being torn off.  I would imagine that a baby would feel the burns of a saline abortion.  Indeed, there are a number of people walking around with these burns on their bodies–they survived the horrific procedure.  

They are now in a catch-22.  If one then said that abortion should stop after the fetus can feel pain–and there isn’t conclusive data to establish when that is yet, but it’s looking like a lot LESS than 26 weeks–is to admit that life begins only when someone can feel pain.  If I’m under general anesthesia, I can feel no pain.  So am I then dead?  (As far as when a fetus can feel pain, consider this statement made in a British medical journal: “Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus.”)

Another component of abortion that is completely ignored is its effects on the women who undergo them.  Direct harm includes physical injury and death, psychological trauma, and increased risk of breast cancer.  (There is a definite link between abortion and breast cancer, where three out of four peer-reviewed studies reveals a significant correlation between abortion and cancer.) Indirect harm includes sexual promiscuity and increased risk of STDs, including increased incidence of cervical cancer, coarsened relationships between men and women, domestic abuse, child abuse, and increase in the repeat abortion rate.  So, with all these negative consequences for women, can abortion still be called a “necessary evil?”  Arguably, abortion-on-demand has been the largest experiment on women and society ever.  

Come on concerned feminists:  abortion hurts women.  Where is your outrage?  Research the Silent No More campaign to read more about the devastating effects of abortion on women.  There are a number of prominent converts to the pro-life cause, as well, such as the founder of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, and Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade.

The more I read and immerse myself in this issue, the more strengthened is my resolve to do my part to stop it.  If that means simply blogging about it, well, I’ll do it.  And I’ll never stop praying.

The pro-life movement continues to make huge strides here in the US.  Anyone who would claim otherwise needs to widen their scope.  Consider these headlines:

“There is a clear and definite trend toward a drop in access to [abortion].” -Susan Tew, the Alan Guttmacher Institute

“Abortion is a matter of choice in this country not only for women but for physicians as well.  All over the country, most physicians are choosing not to do it.”  -American Medical News

“Unless drastic changes are made, American women will lose the right to abortion and the Supreme Court won’t be the cause of it…the reason will be that physicians either can’t or won’t perform this essential service.” -Barbara Radford, former director, National Abortion Federation

“…the availability of abortions is diminishing because fewer doctors are willing to perform the procedure.” -The Washington Post

“Those who run abortion clinics, even in large cities, say that recruiting doctors is now their most serious problem.”  -The San Fransisco Chronicle

“…no doctors want to come and work in abortion clinics.  Guess what?  No nurses want to come and work in abortion clinics.” -Genevieve Grein, manager, Choice Medical Group, Santa Cruz, Calif.

“Those doctors who have the skill and the courage to provide abortion in today’s political climate are a shrinking population. New providers are not coming along at anything like a replacement rate.” -Jospeh Felmand, director of counseling and education, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

“We have got to have more providers to replace those who are leaving…” -Eleanor Smeal, founder, Feminist Majority Foundation

Continue the good fight!  We are winning; the tide is turning. 

I’m adding Jill Stanek’s blog to my blogroll.  If you don’t know her story, here is an excerpt of an article she wrote, titled “The Ultimate Civil Rights Movement: A peek into the future of pro-life efforts to end abortion”:

“I was baptized by fire into the pro-life movement seven years ago on discovering the hospital where I worked as a registered nurse committed late-term abortions that sometimes ended with live births.  Babies spunky enough to survive their abortions were nevertheless shelved to die in a labor and delivery department soiled utility room in accordance with their mothers’ intent.

Holding one of those babies for the 45 minutes he lived changed my life.  Before then, I was an apathetic pro-lifer, uncomfortable with the topic and disconcerted by activists.  Would that  all pro-aborts might have held that little guy.  Would that it wouldn’t take that.”

Jill Stanek has become a leader in the pro-life movement and helping stop “live-birth abortion,” and in 2002 President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.  Yes BAIPA, the same BAIPA that Barack Obama voted against.  If you would like to read her full story, here is the link: http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm 

She goes on to say later in the article:

“The graphic images were my biggest hurdle.  I thought they were over-the-top. 

But if picketers like Joe Scheidler of Pro-Life Action League were willing to protest in front of my hospital, I took them, along with their graphic signs.

One particular time I was standing next to Joe holding my non-graphic sign while he held the one with the photo of the baby’s head being held by forceps.

You usually don’t talk much during pickets, one of the culture’s nuances.  Time is spent praying with or without a Rosary, or just watching faces in cars going by as they view our signs, which is always interesting.

Well, I began to stare at the little aborted baby’s picture. 

I decided he looked the same age as the aborted baby I held.  I noted this little guy’s dark hair and beautiful little round head, even though half his face was torn off. I imagined how his hair should have smelled like baby lotion.

Suddenly, he bacame a real baby to me.  And I began to feel ashamed that I was embarrassed about his baby picture, grotesque as it was.  I thought, what a difference will that baby’s life and death make if I don’t honor him by showing the world his first (and last) photo?”

Ever since, I have held a graphic aborted baby sign at any picket I’ve attended.”

She goes on,

“Fr. Farank Pavone of Priests for Life teachies that graphic photos have been a vital part of all modern social justice movements, such as those of Emmett Till.

Emmett was a 14-year-old black boy from Chicago.  In the summer of 1955, Emmett convinced his mom to let him visit relatives in Mississippi.  Emmett didn’t realize how blacks were viewed in the south, and on a dare he said hello and then, “bye, baby” to a white teenager working in a grocery store.

This prank cost Emmett his life.  Three days later, two of the girl’s relatives pulled Emmett from his uncle’s home, stripped him naked, beat him beyond recognition, shot him in the head, gouged out one of his eyes, wrapped barbed wire around his body, tied his neck to a 100-pound cotton gin fan, and dumped his body into the Tallahatchie River.

When Emmett’s mother received her boy in his casket back in Chicago, she insisted on an open casket and asked a new magazine at the time named Jet to print photos of her slain, disfigured son.  Mrs. Till’s actions ignited the modern-day Civil Rights movement. 

She said, ‘After the body arrived, I knew I had to look and see and make sure it was Emmett.  That was when I decided that I wanted the whole world to see what I had seen. There was no way I could describe what was in that box.  No way.  And I just wanted the world to see.’

Some 50,000 people viewed Emmett’s mutilated body over the course of three days.  And Jet magazine ran the pictures.

The publisher of Jet magazine recalled, ‘There were people on the staff who were squeamish about the photographs.  I had reservations, too, but I decided finally that if it happened it was our responsibility to print it and let the world experience man’s unhumanity to man.’

That issue of Jet sold out immediately.  Those photos did as much as any other event to traumatize Black America and prepare the way for the Freedom Movement of the sixties.”

Make no mistake: abortion is a civil rights issue.  Babies have a civil right to LIVE.  If graphic images of aborted babies bother you, thank the Good Lord for it, because it means you still have a conscience. 

I will never stop fighting to end abortion.

September 30, 2008

The faulty logic of the abortion movement

I’m going to sidetrack a bit today from the bailout stuff, to gripe about “mommy lit.” 

Last winter, I ran across an ad for a publication called “Brain, Child–the Magazine for Thinking Mothers.”  Looking for something like this, and tired of all the fluff found in traditional “mom” publications, I decided to try it out for a year.  It’s not all bad–some of it is quite good.  It’s basically a selection of essays written by women across the country relating to such issues as simple as potty-training, to more complicated issues as being parents of adopted transracial children.  Of course, sometimes I agree and sometimes I do not, but that is true of any magazine.  But, I’ve generally found that such “intellectual” publications generally take a very cynical view, and feel that in order to be “intellectual,” one must blindly admit to being pro-abortion, no matter what.  It’s ironic to me, in that these “intellectual moms” writing for mothering and mom-centered magazines, seem to be at war with their unborn offspring.

Along this line, an article in the latest publication literally sickened me.  The article, titled “Somewhere Near the Bottom,” was written by a woman named Elana Sigall, and it detailed the series of events that led her to abort her third child.  The intro stated, “What are the ‘good’ reasons for having a baby?  What are the ‘good’ reasons to have an abortion?”  At one point in the article, she almost rejoiced that the level of her Hcg (the pregnancy hormone) was abnormally high, because this would have ended her “dilemma”:  It would have meant a definite abortion, as high levels of Hcg “sometimes” indicate birth defects such as Down Syndrome.  I’m not joking:  it was that callous.  She lamented that she felt she was having to make a choice between “this new baby and me.”  If she had this baby, she would have nothing to show for turning forty “except three children in diapers and a one-night-a-week job.”  She “agonized” for weeks over her decision.  She was happily married, and her husband, Michael, “wanted the baby very, very much–” the only item under her “cons” list.  She went to the abortion clinic the first time, and they did the ultrasound, only pointed it away from her (a common practice; for the mother to see the baby almost always means she will not go through with the abortion.)  Michael could see the ultrasound, and she could see his tears as he looked at his small son or daughter.  She didn’t go through it at that point.

She debated for a long time.  She lamented the fact that her middle child would have to move in with the oldest, and that the new baby’s room would have holes in the wall from his stuff.  She went to the abortion clinic four times in all, and backed out the first three.  On the third visit, they are on the elevator, and Michael is crying.  Here is their conversation on the elevator:

“I just keep thinking about the baby.  But I know that I have to think of you.  That’s my priority.  You have to be there for Talia and for Julian.”

She said, “The baby has gotten off to such a bad start.”

He replied, “Really?  I was thinking just the opposite.  That baby’s a fighter.  Been here three times already and still around.  I love that baby.  I can’t wait to hold that baby.”

They leave, go out to dinner, and then it was decided that she go back, without Michael, as “she had to do it alone.” 

She goes through with the abortion.  They had to administer general anesthesia, because she was so far along.  She woke up sobbing uncontrollably.  She said, “The grief found me quickly.  I was one hundred percent sure I had done the wrong thing.  All of my reasons for feeling hesitant seemed trivial and surmountable, especially compared to these new horrible feelings. Once the pregnancy was over, I could conjure up again all of the reasons that I loved having children.  That was, in an odd way, a relief.”

Contrary to what one might think, she ends the essay by chastizing women who “shrink from acknowledging their own abortions.”  She quotes feminist political activist Barbara Ehrenreich:  “You can blame a lot of folks, from media bigwigs to bishops, if we lose our reproductive rights, but it’s the women who shrink from acknowledging their own abortions who really irk me…The freedoms that we exercise but do not acknowledge are easily taken away.”

In other words, let’s advocate and push on women a practice that truly harms them–both physically and psychologically–and then throw them under the bus when they are broken about it afterwards.  That doesn’t sound like genuine “feminist” concern for women.  It sounds like blind political ideology to me.  And incredibly evil. 

The whole essay indicated to me the faulty logic of the abortion movement; a movement that continually fails to acknowledge a great Truth: all life is precious, no matter what the circumstances.   To argue that “all babies deserve to be wanted” is to gloss over the fact that “all babies should deserve to be granted a chance at life,” and deserve to NOT be torn apart limb from limb in their mother’s womb.

Sigall concludes, “In the hierarchy of abortions, mine must be somewhere near the bottom–under women with no job and no education and no husband and no money and under women with the education and money and desire to find out that a fetus has birth defects.”  She goes on, (unbelievably), “But the right to choose cannot be measured against an objective set of ‘good reasons;’ we cannot embrace any argument that ranks some choices as less ‘sketchy’ than others.  Would we rank the reasons for wanting children–what about ego satisfaction, loneliness, wealth transfer, extra help at home, boredom?”   In other words, for Sigall, there cannot ever be any solid moral ground when it comes to abortion.  Any reason is a good reason to have an abortion–no matter how trivial. 

The entire essay was made more horrific by the continued acknowledgment–by Sigall and her husband–that the “baby” was just that–a “baby.”  A living, breathing, separate, unique human being with its own soul apart theirs.  They were entirely aware of this:  it wasn’t just a “mass of tissue” to them, which somehow makes the idea behind the abortion movement a little more palatable.  If pro-abortion people truly thought that a baby was just a “mass of tissue,” then one could perhaps understand their point of view a bit more. (Not make it right, though.)  But technology has made it impossible for even the most pro-abortion among us to persist in this faulty belief.  And that’s what makes today’s abortion movement so utterly despicable.

In the afterword of the article, Sigall states that the essay is “a celebration of the children I have.  For me, it is a kind of love letter to them.  It is about how much I needed to want each of them, and how much I do.”  So, I suppose that it might also be called an anti-love letter to the child she aborted.  Apparently, for Sigall, the decision to end a child’s life in the womb should be solely dependent on the passing whims of the mother who carries that life–and nothing else.  Perhaps Sigall shouldn’t be surprised if, one day, her own children deem her as too much of an inconvenience to support in her old age, and to end her life in response to their own whims.   

I feel sorry for Sigall.  The child whose life she ended will haunt her for the rest of her “enlightened” life.

Blog at WordPress.com.