Cardinal Egan: "I know what I saw."

Well, I have here in my hand six nifty photos taken in your dreamt-of theocracy:

1. a pregnant woman chained up in a government facility until she gives birth, because she made it known that she planned to get an abortion;

2. a dead woman, who died of bleeding and/or infection after she got an abortion from an unqualified person;

3. a woman permanently scarred and/or sickened and/or infertile and/or incontinent and/or unable to have vaginal intercourse because she got an abortion from an unqualified person;

4. a woman who is driven to mental instability because the State is forcing her to bring her baby to term;

5. a woman who is driven to mental instability because the State forced her to bring her baby to term;

6. a woman who is driven to mental instability because her only choice for an abortion was one performed (i) in secrecy, under threat of punishment, and (ii) by an unqualified person, and the experience was horribly traumatic.

My photos sway me more than yours. I have some more I need to pick up down at the drugstore, of the men in these women's lives. They're pretty neat, too.

-O

Ossicle:

You look at that picture of the baby and see a straw man's fantasy. I look at that picture and see a tiny human who shouldn't have to die for the sins of others.

Elmo,

You mean we disagree? Stunning!

-O

"I look at that picture and see a tiny human who shouldn't have to die for the sins of others."

As my Catholic friends are wont to say, "Bingo."

And as an adoptee, that little dude could have been me, had not my mother done the right thing.

Come on, Ossicle. I'll supply the scissors. Care to stick them in the back of his/her head?

Hello Ossicle,

I see one other thing in your six scenarios:

A dead baby.

"I look at that picture and see a tiny human who shouldn't have to die for the sins of others." Exactly so.

It's a nice photo. The dear Cardinal's argument for what it means is, sadly, full of embarrassing fallacies and dodges.

Jillian,

Would you care to elaborate?

The deeper question isn't what we see, it's what we're going to do about it.

Roe was 35 years ago. We've been at this for a generation with precious little to show for all those efforts. For 23 of the past 35 years the White House was occupied by a Republican. Today 7 of 9 Justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by post-Roe Republicans. Our history is clear and damning: electing Republicans is not going to end abortion. Compare the Republican success with cutting taxes, even as we fought two wars simultaneously, with the GOP's failure to stop one abortion. Pathetic. Worse than pathetic.

Our efforts need to be redirected to changing our culture. We need to make abortion unnecessary and so unthinkable. We need to embrace what the Church refers to as "economia" and put everything back on the table to achieve that goal. Already we see IVF aiding in changing how people think about the fetus in a positive way, no-one now claims that a baby isn't a baby. We can condemn IVF or see how it can advance our cause, but to be clear those who condemn it are undermining their own cause merely to claim rectitude of ideas.

If anything is clear in the Bible it is this: God doesn't particularly care about what we think, He cares deeply about what we do or don't do. Saying "but I was absolutely right" to the only Absolute in the universe just ain't gonna cut it, folks.

It's actually 2nd trimester, hattio.

Right on, "the stupid Chris"! I get so tired of trying to convince my "vote Republican at any cost because of abortion" friends that this is not the way to end these terrible crimes. And I have come to the firm conclusion that many Republican politicians just say the right thing without really being commited to doing anything about it. And it is time we hold them accountable for that.

For "hattio," I certainly agree with you that the radicals on each side have not only captured the parties' platforms, but have also prevented a lot of progress from being made to at least reduce abortions. As the stupid Chris points out, trying to be absolute on this issue has just caused it to get worse.

In the picture I posted, I see a beautiful wedding ceremony between two women who have been together for 50 years and want equal rights under the law. Many people will see those same beautiful women and see people who are a danger to the American family. Others will see two beautiful women, feel happy they are together, but still believe same-sex marriage is wrong.

In Cardinal Egan's picture, I see a human form. I also see a potential human that is completely dependent on a woman's body and blood for its very existence. I believe abortion is a tragedy, but I believe denying women health care choices and policing the doctor's office is a tragedy.

The picture of fetus is as complex as the picture of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon finally being allowed to get married.

I see a picture of future transplant parts. (Ok, I'm being deliberately nasty, but he asked for it.)

I see someone who, according to the neuroticons, must be sacrificed so that The One may ascend and the Republicans may be duly punished for their sins.

How do you know it's second trimester? Any citations?

The linked article says 20 weeks (without supporting evidence, but if you search images.google.com for "fetus 20 weeks" that's pretty close to what comes up).

Egan (and Deegan) are two of my family names (from County Tipperary). Probably a relative.

Since I cannot tell whether or not the fetus in the picture has a heartbeat or the ability for brain function, I cannot make the decision as to the fetus's viability.

I have long been against abortion after the first trimester. But that is it. There is no blanket ban on abortion in my religion, and I think it very wise not to adopt the beliefs of another.

P.S. That is likely a 30-33 week fetus.

Most of all, give the rest of us the same freedom you had - the freedom to decide for ourselves exactly what is for the best.

Presumably "you" does not include the snuffed.

I had thought about crafting a post to highlight the absurdity of ronbailey's second paragraph about how people who don't like theft shouldn't steal but instead work to end the unequal distribution of property, and people who don't like suicide bombers shouldn't be one and instead should work to correct the root causes of terror, and people who don't like murder shouldn't murder and instead should work to end the root causes of evil, at which point I realized his post must be satire. But with progressives sometimes you just can't tell. It's called Morran's Law.

For those of us that don't think life begins at conception, we look at your attempt to strong arm the rest of us as nothing but thuggery.

But that's just satire!

From RonBailey...

"You don't like [killing babies]? Then don't [kill] one, for crying out loud. Work to provide viable solutions for women facing unplanned pregnancies. Work to provide affordable and effective contraceptive options for disadvantaged women. Lobby school boards to provide mandatory sex-education classes.

Most of all, give the rest of us the same freedom you had - the freedom to [to kill a baby if we want to]."

Doesn't this just sound absurd? Or am I the only one who sees it?

I_Like_Dragyn,
a baby has a heartbeat at about week five after the start of a woman's last period (about 3 weeks after conception).
First brain waves start up at about 6 to 8 weeks.
Up until viability it's a . . . what? Rutebega? Punishment? Blob?

"Up until viability it's a . . . what? Rutebega? Punishment? Blob?"

What is the child after it is born? Does it deserve protection and care then? Or should the government's concerns end when the baby leaves the birth canal alive?

Ahem. (Regaining composure)

No, Barack Obama is not perfect on abortion. Nor was Hitler perfect on the protection of Jews.

"Welfare increases won't impact their desire to abort a child rather than give birth; and since many if not most of these abort simply because the child is inconvenient to the expectant mother it's hard to see how increased government funding could possibly create a more positive outcome."

For those women who can otherwise afford to have a child, it may not make a difference. However, those are also the women who, if Roe is overturned, have the ability to drive to a state where abortion is legal and obtain it there. They also have the ability to seek "alternative" methods, i.e. illegal services.

However, the National Right to Life committee offers up these statistics on reasons women have abortions.

www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/reasonsabortions.html

According to these statistics, 23% of the women who have abortions do so because they feel they cannot afford to have the child. This may cover a number of reasons, but certainly it is a significant enough number to merit strong consideration of policies to address why they cannot afford to have the child.

I know this approach is not perfect...far from it. But the legislative approach has done so little for the past 35 years. Overturning Roe will simply move the struggle to 50 state legislatures, eating up more valuable resources and time, with no guarantee of any success. And we know where the Human Life amendment is going...nowhere.

And still, unborn children would continue to die. For so long the conservative-dominated pro-life movement has insisted on a legislative-only approach, actively resisting any other approach that might have more success in saving lives.

Why?

This is the area that has been virtually ignored for the past 35 years, while the legal restriction avenue has been pursued almost exclusively. Isn't it time to listen to these women who, if they could afford the child, would carry the baby to term?

fbc: "And if you vote for him, you are a participant in the children he plans to kill."

*ahem* In 1988 I was part of the group of Christians who brought Pat Robertson a victory in the Iowa caucuses. Four years later I was a delegate to the state convention and helped author and pass the platform plank calling for adoption of the Human Life Amendment. I have done sidewalk counseling, pray-ins, and helped at local Birthright centers. I have lobbied at the state and federal level for adoption of pro-life legislation AND pro-family economic policies.

I listened in abject horror as Henry Hyde spoke with a delegation of pro-life citizens in Washington, DC and told us that even with clear majorities in both houses of Congress (55-45 in the Senate, and 228-207 in the House) he would not risk bringing forward the HLA in committee because "we need to elect more Republicans before we can move that amendment."

Of course, during this time they were moving many other things that seemed to have a higher priority, such as every tax cut and spending cut they could think of, as well as impeaching President Clinton. But no, there would be no action on the proposed Human Life Amendment. But sure enough in 1998, we had the HLA brought back front and center.

All the pro-life community has done in supporting the GOP is keep the GOP in power. If Roe is overturned you will see a massive push to elect more Republicans in state legislatures. And there will never be enough Republicans. Why? Because the moment abortion is taken off the table as an issue, the GOP loses one of the most reliable methods of activating their base.

I walked away from the conservative pro-life movement and the GOP in the late 1990s. Both groups seemed more concerned about staying in power than saving unborn children.

fbc, you tell me that I will have blood on my hands if I vote for Obama. Fine...I am quite comfortable standing before my Lord on the day of judgment and explaining my actions to Him.

Can you say the same thing?

What a depressing reaction. Those who say, "That child is a human life worthy of protection" are, in your eyes, guilty of breeding hate and contempt, simply by their very words. Those who would vivisect her in her mother's womb, or promote the same, are presumably as innocent as lambs. It's an interesting way to see the world.

Amen, Rod.

RJohnson,

What more is needed in your estimation? There are refundable child tax credits, there are numerous pro-life groups that will do whatever it takes to provide for mothers in crisis who don't want to harm their child, and there is a social safety net for the impoverished. I could get behind a social program that provides for medical care and a few grand a year for any poor person who wants to have a child, but I question the decrease in abortions we would see through such a program. Take the DFW area for example. There need not be a single abortion in the DFW area for true economic hardship. Not one. The vibrant pro-life community here provides financial support during and after pregnancy. Yet the abortion mills in town are still up and running.

Without question the GOP takes advantage of pro-life voters. But you're not going to get judicial appointments like Thomas, Roberts and Alito out of Obama. You're going to get zero restrictions on abortion, public funding for abortions both domestically and abroad, and all sorts of wacky experiments performed on the preborn. I'm not sure men of good will can even pay their taxes in the Obamanation. And that's somehow preferable to the failure of the GOP to stack the court and pass the HLA?

Get your party to move away from its ideological commitment to murder and voters can have a choice. Until then there really isn't an alternative to the GOP.

"Get your party to move away from its ideological commitment to murder and voters can have a choice. Until then there really isn't an alternative to the GOP."

Physician, heal thyself. Over 3000 dead Americans in Iraq. The worst execution record of the Western World. White House-approved torture, supported by the GOP's presidential candidate.

When you are done waashing the blood off your hands, come back and talk to us.

"What is the child after it is born? Does it deserve protection and care then? Or should the government's concerns end when the baby leaves the birth canal alive?"

RJohnson, do you live in some jurisdiction that has no homicide laws? If there are homicide laws, that minimal protection is already more than unborn babies have. And of course, there are many more protections and benefits extended to born people in this nation, most of which even (gasp) pro-life conservatives agree with.

Geez, Rod. You have broached a cask of lurid amontillado. What next? An incinerated Jew at the feet of Torquemada?

Put Eddie Egan in a Dominican's soutane and fly him back four hundred years and he'd be burning Jewish anusim at the stake. This patron of pederasts has forfeited the moral high ground. He's but a Bernie Law with an incongruous idiolect that burlesques standard English, let alone classical Latin. A cloaca of moral feculence that sulphurous hellfire itself would cringe to purge. Let "Necktie Joe" Ratzinger bestow another patriarchal basilica on him with a lifetime sinecure on the Noviordinarians' shekel. Babylon? Babylon was a river of righteousness and redemption compared with the pestilential sewer of Sodom in Rome.

Did you not flee Vatican vice because of his iniquitous ilk? Yet you now exult as if vindicated by his hypocritical pretense of moral certitude? Do you bear the cross of his vice upon your shoulders? Do you expiate his guilt by your innocence? Or would you not have him sear his sins on the raging pyres of purgatory? The Evil One grins when a naif is snared. You consort unawares with evil, even when veiled with a veneer of virtue.

Rant aside, that's a baby. But not because he says so.

I'm working on it, Daniel. But as has been discussed previously, engaging in a war (even an unjust war coupled with tortue) and killing every domestic bad guy we can find (and even a few who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time), as unjust, nasty and unacceptable as those actions are, can't hold a candle to one year of the post-Roe American abortuary.

And, Sigilaris, if it's an unjust action what does the gender of the people who tell you it's unjust matter? If "You don't have a uterus" is a valid argument, then an equally valid argument would be that women can't make up rules about rape committed by men because they don't have penises. But it's not, in either case.

fbc
October 29, 2008 8:46 PM
And if you vote for him, you are a participant in the children he plans to kill.

Oh, now that's just silly.

Loudon is a Fool
October 29, 2008 9:17 PM
There need not be a single abortion in the DFW area for true economic hardship. Not one. The vibrant pro-life community here provides financial support during and after pregnancy. Yet the abortion mills in town are still up and running.

When you get down to it, isn't the basic reason for most abortions simply that the woman would rather not be pregnant at that particular time?

Obviously, not being a woman myself, I don't have a personal perspective on the situation, but I doubt most women considering abortion think of it in terms of how great it is to kill a baby, but rather in terms of how nice it would be not to be pregnant anymore.

Maybe the way to go would be to develop fetal transplant procedures so that the embryos being gestated by a women who would rather not be pregnant could be transfered to the uterus of a woman who is willing to undergo the pregnancy.

Or develop artificial wombs and you don't even need to match the donor up with a human recipient.

Again, not being female I don't have intimate knowledge of how women think about this sort of thing, but I could imagine not wanting to be pregnant, but not particularly wanting to kill the fetus and being okay with letting someone else go through the pregnancy.

Call me crazy, Loudon, but politicians make policy on behalf of the nation. Therefore, when they act immorally on behalf of the nation by waging war, torturing, executing, and harming the poor, those are issues that become larger concerns than a decision made between an individual woman and an individual doctor.

So the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and all the dead, wounded, and maimed U.S. soldiers are our collective immorality done on our behalf by the leaders of your party. When the state executes, it does it on behalf of the people. When the state tortures, it tortures on behalf of the people. Those immoral acts are done for our benefit.

Abortion is a tragedy,but it is also about an individual woman's decision made in consultation with her private doctor. It is not done by politicians on behalf of our nation. Therefore, the actions of public officials acting on our behalf to kill and torture is a public policy concern that is different from an individual woman meeting with her individual doctor to end a pregnancy.

Hello RJohnson

[i]If it could be shown that a small tax increase (say, for sake of argument, $50 a year) for the next 100 years would reduce abortions by 25%, would you consider it worth it?[/i]

I wouldn't be much of a pro-lifer if I said no, would I?

It would not be enough. Not even close. But every life saved...

Proving that might be problematic. But I accept your proposition at face value for the sake of argument.

But while I grant that poverty is one factor that contributes to abortion - and that some (some, I say, not all) may be too reluctant to reconsider how the government can help in this regard - the real reason for the abortion culture is the the hypersexualization of society. If you are going to have a saturated culture of sex-on-demand, sex-without-consequences, you are going to have an abortion culture as well, because the demand for it as a contraceptive of last resort will be far too intense to deny. I don't think one will be driven back without the other. Which is why I know we're in this for the long haul.

But then slavery was not defeated overnight, either. It lasted in America for two and a half centuries. But that didn't make Wilberforce or Garrison give up trying to kill it.

Lancelot,

I don't want to live in a country that polices doctors offices. It's that simple. There is something profoundly immoral and unjust about the power of the state controlling the reproductive lives and health of women. That question of justice and immorality are balanced are against the question of immorality that comes with our nation's abortion policy. I'd rather vote for a candidate who wants to lower the number of abortions and who is opposed to war, torture, and capital punishment than vote for a candidate who wants to send the police to protect the unborn, but wages war, supports torture, and appoints judges who allow executions.

"If the government has a duty to preserve the common good (at some level, either state or federal), and that includes a duty to protect life,"

It also has a duty to protect citizens from the oppressive power of the state. Sending the police into the the doctor's office to control a woman's reproductive rights and medical decision is such an oppression.

Two observations from a mostly-lurker on this blog:

1) I find it fascinating that it's actually the pro-choice position that is sustained by what is essentially a taphysical arguement that is the lineal descendant of the old religious debates about when "ensoulment" occurs. To believe that an unborn (1st or 2nd trimester) child is not yet a human life requires one to believe that there is some metaphysical change somewhere in between conception and the 3rd trimester that makes a mass of cells somehow become a human being. Viewed objectively, everything that we have learned about the biological basis of conception and fetal development over the last 40 years points in the opposite direction. If you take metaphysics (or religion) out of the equation, it's difficult to see why a living thing that possesses a unique set of human DNA is not, in fact, a human.

2) I think it will take much more than legal remedies to effect any real change in the abortion rate. If Roe v. Wade was repealed tomorrow, abortion would still be available almost everywhere it is cuurently easily available. The culture at large has accepted the status quo. Political activism on behalf of the helpless has historically come from the the liberal side of the political spectrum, and the vast majority of liberals have been conditioned to accept the pro-choice position as an article of faith. It's going to take a long-term concerted effort to educate people that there are alternatives to abortion and to make those alternatives readily available (and seen as desireable by comparison) to effect any real change.

All of this said, I despair that there is now no political voice for the pro-life position

I love that there are groups that will help and support women who are considering an abortion to not have one. I don't doubt their sincerity one iota.

But you don't create a culture of life by responding to emergencies, you create a culture of life by preventing them in the first place. That means offering support for EVERY pregnancy, not just those who're considering aborting their baby.

The usual suspects are upset at calling this child a child.

Oh, and Occicle's reasoning is, ah, calcified.

me
October 29, 2008 11:08 PM
Oh for crying out loud! Now we've moved into the truly retarded (my sincere apologies to the mentally disabled) parts of the pro-choice "arguments". No one is arguing that a woman should be continue with and ectopic pregnancy or one that will threaten her life. Really, people - I'm not sure you've worked hard enough to come up with a more ridiculous and asinine "argument". I for one would be utterly embarrassed to say something so dumb. *Ahem* (Deep breaths)

If you would re-read the comment thread, you would see that "Loudon is a Fool" made the statement "Hence the intrinsic evil of abortion in all circumstances" to which I asked the question, "What about ectopic pregnancies?"

I am waiting for "Loudon is a Fool" to respond to my question about whether or not an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is an intrinsic evil.

What say you, "me"? Is abortion, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy an intrinsic evil or not?

"What more is needed in your estimation? There are refundable child tax credits, there are numerous pro-life groups that will do whatever it takes to provide for mothers in crisis who don't want to harm their child, and there is a social safety net for the impoverished."

The problem with child tax credits is that you do not receive them until you file your taxes. Women faces expenses 24/365 with a child, especially if they are a single parent working in a sub-poverty level job.

How about this for a start.
- Increase the amount a person can earn and still receive benefits. Far too many women find themselves losing the very financial support that enables them to go to work simply because they earn more than the poverty level. Ramp it up to 2 or 3 times the poverty level, and have it include full health care coverage for both the child and the parent(s).
- Increase funding for social service agencies. Social workers are WAY too overloaded to monitor their clients. Many have double or triple the number of clients that they can actually track effectively. A social worker can be the parents' primary point of support for connecting with government support as well as the government's primary point of accountability for compliance with rules and regulations.

"I could get behind a social program that provides for medical care and a few grand a year for any poor person who wants to have a child, but I question the decrease in abortions we would see through such a program."

The study I mentioned earlier shows that there is a tie between increased medical care for women and children and decreased abortions. Both the local Planned Parenthood and Birthright struggle for funding to provide basic healthcare for women, both those expecting and those not pregnant but in need of OB/GYN services.

Community medical centers should also see an increase in funding. These are good alternatives to emergency room care for the poor women facing pregnancy. In larger communities such centers that stay open 24 hours can play a vital role in bringing a healthy child into the world, and keeping him/her healthy once they are here.

"Take the DFW area for example. There need not be a single abortion in the DFW area for true economic hardship. Not one. The vibrant pro-life community here provides financial support during and after pregnancy. Yet the abortion mills in town are still up and running."

Again, this approach will not stop all abortions. But neither will the legislative approach. My point is simply this: we cannot afford any longer to neglect the social spending side of the equation. 35 years of focusing on legislative solutions has done relatively little to save the lives of children. In those states and cities where this approach has been tried, the number of abortions has decreased.

John E. - Agn. Stoic
October 29, 2008 11:23 PM
That uterine wall is a lovely shade of eggshell blue.

****

That's how the doctors tell that the baby's a boy! ;-)

"I would just as soon not have a small group of old men who will never be pregnant making the rules for what I do about things that are happening inside my body."

Sig, not only is your perpetual sexism showing, but your agism is leaking out too!

Oh, and carping on the obviously erroneous claim that the photo is not retouched is a nice combination of a red herring and a straw man.

I would say we call that a "straw herring". Calling it a "red man" would be tooooooo politically incorrent (on nearly infinitely many levels).

"I find forcing a 13-year old girl who’s been raped by her step-father to carry a fetus to term when she does not want to, intrinsically evil."

Silly Scott, when will you ever learn. Unless you are a 13 year old girl knocked up by incest rape, you cannot (especially as a MAN) comment on such things.

Grow a womb and get back to us (and tell your step-father to step off).

What about ectopic pregnancies?

That's addressed through the principle of double effect.

Let’s try this again: Those of us that are pro-choice do not consider that when a cell divides into two cells it is a “baby”. No matter how many times you folks repeat your obsessive mantra you will have a hard time convincing us two cells or one before it divides is a “baby”. Yes, there comes a time when I personally am not comfortable thinking of “it” as cells anymore and while I would not call it a “baby” until it is born I do think that by third trimester there has been plenty of time to decide what to do. You folks need to realize that those of us that are pro-choice do not like killing babies and find it highly offensive when you insist in your language that we do. Here are some examples of your obsessive blindness:

Nichole
What is it about a photo of a pre-term baby that makes it “knee jerk sensationalism?” If it stirs up emotion, it’s because it’s BABY and us humans are hard wired (by God, in my opinion, or by “nature” if you’d rather) to love, care for, and protect our young. By the way, I see no hate language in the article.

Rod Dreher
What a depressing reaction. Those who say, "That child is a human life worthy of protection" are, in your eyes, guilty of breeding hate and contempt, simply by their very words. Those who would vivisect her in her mother's womb, or promote the same, are presumably as innocent as lambs. It's an interesting way to see the world.

Erin Manning
I see a human child whose life is worthy of protection from conception until his or her natural death.

If you are right that a cell is a child then I agree with your assertions: a child is worthy of protection. However, I am not sure that a cell or a couple of cells is a baby or a child (the vernacular meaning of child is typically that a child is older than a baby I think). If you cannot concede the fact that there are those that can legitimately believe that a couple cells are not babies and therefore we are not guilty of baby or child genocide then you have an obsessive disorder that deserves therapy. Most rational folks do not go along with your most extreme assertions (I will not even get into the contraception issue). Would it hurt you people to just acknowledge the fact that some may disagree for legitimate reasons? I am not qualified to “pronounce” when cells become a baby so I just say at birth. However, I am up for questioning this belief. It would not matter what I said anyway so why set up your straw man trap of making me into a narcissistic megalomaniac with a god complex? It seems as though you want to level off your obsessive irrationality by making others equally pathological. This is not an argument only a strategy. I think that decision needs to be made by the very messy democratic process. There is also a notion that you folks insidiously do not mention – this is a religious issue for you. Your religion teaches you that a baby occurs from conception. Since you will not question your religious authorities (as you have stated in previous posts) it can only be an object of faith for you and not for those of us that are not Christians. Is it hate language to tell people that because they do not believe in your religion they are baby killers? Here is a quote from your loving Eminence:

“It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers.”

Who in their right mind would kill 1,600,000 babies? This is a serious charge and if it is not true then the charge is very hateful. Since this is a religious conviction for you, you cannot conceive of the possibility that it is not true – this would effectively deny your faith. So, rather than admit the possibility that we are not baby killers you continually assault us with your venom. We are not baby killers and will continue to deny your nastiness. We have different beliefs about what a “baby” is and that does not make us baby killers. I guess I could call you adult killers for voting for and justifying the Iraq war but I know that would only make you angry and get us no closer to a rational meeting of the minds on this issue. I do not have the religious motivation to condemn you in any case but I do think that adult murder is clearly murder and you Repubs certainly have blood on your hands. I guess that is between you and your god but be careful about condemning others for murder when your crimes are so apparent.

So long as pro-lifers would rather win the argument than solve the problem we're not going to change the culture of death.

Our effort would be better spent considering how to ensure that every pregnancy is desired, at which point every debate about abortion is effectively rendered moot.

RJohnson,
Your experience mirrors my own, though you sound like you have more knowledge of the inner workings of politics and pro-life work.

I only spent 19 years in the pro-life movement before I finally realized what we were doing wasn't working. And just like you, I realized that IF Roe is ever overturned, it would go to the States. That doesn't really solve the problem does it?

Behind every baby is a woman and we HAVE to meet her needs if we want that baby to live.

Erin Manning, what is your source for your stats. I have never seen those before so I am interested to read where your's came from.

Radical Catholic Mom, the stats came from this pro-life website:

abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

but their sources are the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood. The stats appear to be from 1996 onward, but I don't know if the data from the report issued earlier this year has been added in to these statistics yet. I do know that the 2008 report indicated the continued downward trend in the number of overall abortions, and I recall seeing that there was a slight increase in the number of older women and lower income women seeking abortions as compared to the younger clients--but I think that younger women still account for about half, though I'd have to see if I can find the reports from this year's analysis.

A sobering reality is that slightly more than one in five of all pregnancies in America end in abortion.

I look at that image and I see a plaster-cast of someone's idea of an idealized image of a fetus. I see propaganda - the source is written on the side of the photo. You have to consider the source.

Roland is right: "Rant aside, that's a baby. But not because he says so. " Sometimes things are true despite the Catholic Church thinking so too!

More generally, I sometimes wonder how much of the prolife movement is actually trying to reduce abortion, and how much it is trying to score points about the inferior morality of secular modernity. If the former, I would suggest a mixed bag of policies to reduce the abortion rate:

1. Set a limit at some point, considerably lower than the USA's absurdly high 26 weeks, and ban abortion above that age, except in cases of the near certainty of the mother's death.

2. Give sound sex education to children, beginning before puberty. This should involve (i) the basic biological facts, (ii) information on the use of contraception, (iii) acknowledgment that for most people sex has moral components, (iv) emphasis that, even for people who are not members of pro-chastity religions, chastity is a rational and feasible objective.

3. Provide high-level material and moral support to girls/women who nevertheless do get pregnant.

Some countries, Germany for example, actually make a better job of this approach than do the USA or UK.

Max Schadenfreude
October 29, 2008 11:34 PM
John E. - Agn. Stoic
October 29, 2008 11:23 PM
That uterine wall is a lovely shade of eggshell blue.
****
That's how the doctors tell that the baby's a boy! ;-)

+50 points, for the win!

"It would be a longish piece of writing to explain it fully, but Cardinal Egan employs the occultic/magical belief system, the rhetorical ploys, and rhetorical emphases of e.g. an astrologer. Really not what a respectable high level clergyman should be doing."

Jillian, ever hear of Polanyi's 'tacit knowledge' or Newman's 'illative sense'? Epistemology does not reduce to the radical either/or of Enlightenment rationalism and magical thinking.

Scott R.
October 29, 2008 11:40 PM
Hence the intrinsic evil of abortion in all circumstances.

I find forcing a 13-year old girl who’s been raped by her step-father to carry a fetus to term when she does not want to, intrinsically evil.

Scott, a 13 year old who is being raped by her step-father needs much more help than just an abortion. In fact, it is usually the step-father himself who brings her in for the abortion so his crimes won't be found out.

I also think you will have to come up with more common examples than 13yo incest victims or eptopic pregnancies. Those are a very small percentage of abortions.

Abortions are most usually obtained by women who simply don't want to be pregnant. The opportunity they had for exercising their choices should have been taken before they begain having sex with a man they knew they couldn't raise a family with.

RJohnson, I was merely addressing your initial question as to whether pro-lifers wanted to extend "protection" to people after they were born as well as before. The answer is, yes, of course, we already have, and fully support at least the same protection to the born as we are asking for the unborn. If we totally eliminated (and I'm not suggesting this) everything other than homicide laws, we would STILL be in favor of maintaining the same kind of protection we are asking for, for the unborn. So asking whether we wish to have the same kind of protection for the born that we are requesting for the unborn is basically asking whether we want to ban abortion while repealing the homicide laws, which is silly.

The other issues of whether we should extend them not only protection, but other kinds of aid, are worth discussing, but separate from the question you asked about protection.

"Abortions are most usually obtained by women who simply don't want to be pregnant. The opportunity they had for exercising their choices should have been taken before they begain having sex with a man they knew they couldn't raise a family with."

And to punish you for your bad decision, we are going to send in the police to your doctor's office and use the state's power to control your reproductive choices. The power of the moral state. Clearly you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself and your own autonomy and rights are of no concern.

Erin,

Sorry, I can’t look at that kind of website. I do not even like to see the newer gory TV series. I got into engineering because I did not like blood and guts. I will also tell you that I feel real pain over anyone that has to get an abortion. I also have two kids that I totally worship – nuts about them so this whole topic makes me cringe. However, I am also a practical person. I know for a fact that Jimmy Swaggart’s daughter got an abortion. I grew up in Baton Rouge a couple blocks from his house. I know kids that were confidentially informed of this. Not only him but there have been many cases where the most pro-lifer types have resorted to abortion. I think many of the ladies that have had abortions when they were younger feel guilt and remorse and turn into rabid pro-lifers. Here is the deal – even if you succeeded in outlawing it, abortions still happen as they did in the old days. I am sure we could dig up those pictures as well if we were ghouls. Think about this – in the days of Jesus there was no birth control. Ancients were also known to perform crude abortions to terminate pregnancies. Jesus never once stated that women should not terminate pregnancies. In fact, when the women caught in adultery was brought before him, setup by the religious types of his day (Jewish law called for her to be stoned to death) what did Jesus say, “He who is without sin cast the first stone” He told her, “Go and sin no more”. Last night I ended that post doing something a bit mischievous for which I apologize – I stated that you were guilty of murder for supporting the Iraq war. This is not something I think works with regard to argument but I wanted you to feel what if feels like to be on the receiving end – the golden rule in reverse. If you are a normal human you should feel anger and you certainly will not want to mindfully listen to my argument about why you are a murderer after that – it shuts down communication. Additionally, think about what Jesus would do – the only folks Jesus blasted in his life were religious folks. Think about that. Yes I believe Iraq was an inexcusable war and plenty of blame to go around I might add. I always knew it was terribly wrong at the time and I did not even have access to mixed intelligence data. I hold Repubs and Dems accountable with votes, blogs and mainly lots of yelling at the TV (thank god for catharsis). However, I know that name calling in blogs is only a selfish catharsis for me at your expense and I have more faith in reasonable arguments than to sink to that level. I am not asking you to change your beliefs I only ask that you think about how to more effectively communicate your argument. I would also ask you to utilize the example of Jesus. Don’t make Jesus into a militant after your own image – let his life and words guide your behavior. You only profane him with your religious based judgments and militant justifications of your politics - all this from a non-Christian but one who has great respect for the Bible and the figure of Christ.

"I believe that the emphasis on the legislative side has dominated things for the past 35 years with limited success. I think it is time to try new approaches, and only one party seems willing to consider that."

Here, here! Take heart RJohnson. There are a growing number of us who feel the same way and we are the 30 and under crowd!

I think that part of the talking past which is going on is that neither side is willing to address the core issue which concerns the other side. Pro-choice people keep saying that an abortion ban is unenforceable, could pose problems with how to deal with women who seek abortions and may lead to an increase in women suffering death or permanent injury from illegal abortions. The pro-life people keep saying that it is evil to kill unborn babies, particularly when we doing it at a rate of 3000 a day. Both of these arguments are completely true when you get right down to it. I think that the point where we can move forward on this issue will come when the concerns being raised by pro-choice and pro-life people are generally acknowledged and a game plan to move forward is formed in light of all of the realities at play. This will mean that pro-choice people are going to have to let go of half-baked arguments that an unborn baby isn't really a person and pro-life people are going to have to let go of the fantasy that we can stop abortions by making them illegal all at once. Ultimately, it will mean us as a society having to turn away from the sexual anarchy which is now the norm in favor of a more restrained, realistic view of sex which takes the serious consequences of sex into account rather than just our right to our private enjoyments. Simply promoting more birth control and better sex ed is like promoting seat belts and air bags to combat drunk driving - completely secondary. It will mean both providing better services (particularly in urban and rural areas) - hopefully through the private sector - to women having babies. It will mean a society which actually values its children enough to live as if it values its children (ie develops communities, advertising, entertainment and such which is mindful of the presence and needs of children). It will mean fewer political fights and more cultural involvement.

However, all of this will be made much easier and will happen much more quickly if we all stop ignoring each other. We need pro-choice folks to be willing to say, "yes abortion is evil and a civilized society cannot allow thousands of the most vulnerable humans to be killed each day. It should stop." And we need pro-life people to say, "we cannot stop abortion through laws without also doing grave harm to people. We must work to address the problems which lead to abortions and that will arise if abortion is not such an easy option for women." So, any takers?

Me, that was an excellent and eloquent appeal to consensus and cooperation. Ordinarily, I'd join my voice to yours. In this case, I must play against expectations and reiterate my questions in my October 30, 2008 11:13 AM post.

My perspective -- and assuredly the disclosure of my personal bias on this subject -- is firsthand knowledge of women who lived the coathanger/back alley butcher stories. Women who found ways to have "miscarriages" because their husbands were abusive, or they were raped, or simply knew that carrying a baby to term in their towns and in their families would leave them scarred for life, because they saw plenty of examples of that in women who ran that gauntlet before them.

So, I want answers to the legislation questions. I want answers to the challenges concerning treatment of unmarried women who get pregnant, of married women in abusive relationships, and women who are the victims of rape (a term I also apply to date rape and the boyfriend who assumes sexual permission and refuses to cooperate in contraception). I especially want to know that the loving and respectful treatment of, say, a Bristol Palin is going to become the norm in every conservative family and town, and that it is not a result of the Palin family's high public profile.

After re-reading 100 comments this is clearly not a war between two cultures but a fight within one culture. Ameircan culture is about easy living and facile judgement. The abortion debate is about the right to harrumph.

Limit abortions? Totalitarianism! cries the left. Support families? Socialism! cries the right. Americans get to choose which victim is more pathetic, the 13-year-old girl raped and impregnated by her stepfather or the 22 week old fetus.

Nothing will change because Americans really don't want it to change. And the beat goes on....

For all that I may resemble some of your remarks, the (not so!) stupid Chris, your last post is exactly on target. Well said.

Some see what is plain to see. Some see what they want to see. And some have implanted a line from "Blowin' in the Wind" in my head. (Hint: They see but pretend not to.)

A little vignette from the Sacrament of Penance, oops, Rite of Reconciliation.

Woman: Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been two weeks since my last confession. I had an abortion because my boyfriend got me pregnant. I lied to my mother about where I was when I went for the abortion. I shoplifted some curtains at Bed, Bath and Beyond. For these and all my sins I am sorry.

Priest: For your penance say five Our Fathers and five Hail Marys and make a good act of contrition.

Woman: Oh, Father, by the way, does this take care of the latae sententiae excommunication?

Priest: Why, yes, my child, it does. Why do you ask?

Woman: I am going to do a novena and go to mass and communion so I can get a plenary indulgence.

Priest: Excellent. But you must vow to amend your life and sin no more.

Woman: Oh yes, Father, I will.

Priest: Go in pece, my child.

Woman: Thank you, Father.

Roland, that's silly. You know as well as I do that the priest couldn't offer absolution until the woman had promised to make restitution for the theft. :)

Franklin, first of all, I don't have to prove that an embryo is a human being worthy of protection; you have to prove he or she isn't, since he or she is clearly a living human being genetically distinct from his or her mother. At what point does the embryo "magically" become a human being, Franklin? And why should I have to abide by your religious, personal, philosophical or sentimental definition of that moment? And so long as we can arbitrarily define human personhood, we can arbitrarily define it to include or exclude anyone we like.

As for your earlier comment, I've dealt with it before: penalties for those who perform abortions, period. The woman should be seen as a victim, since no woman in her right mind would be so depraved as to kill her own child without either a mental lapse or the deception of the abortionist--that's how society should look at it, even if it's a legal fiction to a certain extent.

And to be honest, isn't that how we usually treat those girls who give birth in secret and then kill the child or let him or her die? Aren't we more concerned about helping them then punishing them? Is that because we all secretly believe infanticide should be legal, or because we realize that no sane and balanced person would ever do such a terrible thing without tremendous emotional or psychological pressure?

Maybe some of those girls really are moral monsters who hate babies and enjoyed the killing, but we generally let the law err on the side of lenience. I see no reason why it would be any different were abortion to return to being illegal.

Erin: Roland, that's silly. You know as well as I do that the priest couldn't offer absolution until the woman had promised to make restitution for the theft. :)

God love you, Erin. I knew after I posted that that you would pick up on it.

The sad part of it is, though, how to make restitution for the abortion?

As usual, this issue can't be intelligently discussed without the usual anti-Catholic "jokes" which aren't funny because they aren't based on anything Catholics really do or say...YAWWWNNNNNNN
Now, on to the topic at hand: The fact that with this clear untouched photograph, anyone can plainly see that, regardless of when cells have divided to the point of developing a fetus at this stage, the fact remains that the cells HAVE divided and the "lump of tissue" now is clearly a human being, so it is impossible to argue that earlier, it was not. It was not formerly a nonliving entity which later became a person. From day one, that embryo, then fetus HAS BEEN the same PERSON. You cannot argue against that fact logically. If you support killing that person, admit that is what you are doing. Don't pretend it's because you are "supportive of the pregnant woman" who "needs an abortion" for some moral reason. Is it perhaps because you don't want to take responsibility for the child you helped conceive or you don't want to pay child support for 18 years because you were irresponsible and selfish? Hmmmmm.....At least be honest!

Abortion is grosteque and it is murder pure and simple. However, I believe the real issue in this country is the cost to raise a child. The girls and women who choose to abort need options, real options. Quality, free medical care. Great adoptive parents who honestly want a baby of their own. The mothers who choose to raise their baby need financial support,educational support, spiritual support this all without judgement and condemnation. It is a double standard when a teenager is pregnant and attending high school, the girl is treated like trash, many whisper about her, parents protest her attendance....IF we as citizens want to make a difference we need to stop this.Lets give these mothers HOPE, a chance.
Lets face it just because it is LEGAL doesnt mean we have to participate in it. Its legal for me to drink and I dont. It is legal for me to smoke cigarettes but I dont. It is legal for me to carry about guns but I dont. Lots of things are legal doesnt mean we have to participate. Provide alternatives for these mothers to be, a place for hope. Raising a child is a life long commitment, are you willing to help? Dont vote down democrats with social programs because they wont make abortion illegal. Bush, Daddy Bush and Reagan never made abortion illegal either and they all ran on the anti-abortion platform. Vote for the candidate who will help the mother to be, who will help provide medical,educational,services,etc for the mother and child. AND now what can YOU do? How can YOU help, even just one mother? How can your church organize to help with medical care, childcare, pampers, babysitting, spiritual support, love, kind words, etc

A small vignette from the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

The doctor had told the parents to call the priest. There was nothing he could do. The priest anointed the daughter though he knew she had already died. The doctor and priest left together and spoke outside the house of the dead girl.

"I told them to call you, but I didn't tell them she was already dead," said the doctor.

"That's good that you did. What happened?" asked the priest.

"The mother said she had had stomach cramps and suddenly started bleeding profusely from the vagina. The girl had had an abortion in the morning. Some quack in an apartment in town. I've seen enough of them to know."

"I've seen a few of them myself," said the priest.

"You can still anoint even though you know they are dead?" asked the doctor.

"We don't really know when the soul leaves the body. Perhaps her soul was waiting for a final absolution. Girls like that we try to help. Get them to keep the baby. Or have the diocesan adoption agency talk to them. Even then some are desperate enough to risk their life with a back-alley abortion. Or a self-induced abortion."

"The most gruesome kind," said the doctor.

"Fr. O'Leary over at St. Brendan's had a case last week of a mother of six who had tried to abort herself. She bled to death in the bathroom. Her husband found her when he came home from work. She evidently could not face having another child."

"He gave her the last rites?" asked the doctor.

"Yes."

"Maybe the Church should soften its position on abortion," said the doctor.

"It wouldn't change anything. It's still illegal. The charlatans will go right on butchering. Besides, the Church teaches that life begins at conception when the soul and body are united."

"The Church knows when the soul enters the body but not when it leaves it?" asked the doctor with a wry smile.

"We always err on the side of caution," said the priest with a knowing look.

Postscript. This story took place in 1972. The diocesan adoption agency no longer exists. It was closed by the bishop when the state courts mandated that it place orphaned children with homosexuals. The priest is retired. His parish was canonically suppressed (closed) and sold to pay for the homosexual pederast lawsuits. The rectory, convent, school and church have been converted to condominiums and a community center in the now fashionable upscale gay district. Extreme Unction has been relabeled the Anointing of the Sick. It has not been used for a woman dying from a botched abortion in recent memory.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18–19)