When future generations look back at us, what will they see?
They will see a society that prided itself on being humane and concerned for human rights, but one that also engaged in the practice of killing small children by dismemberment or poisoning/burning.
It did not do this to all its children, just certain ones, who were still in the first phase of their lives. It was a practice called abortion.
One would think that such a practice, with its ghastly methods, would be outlawed. It was not; it was perfectly legal. In fact the individual states were forbidden by the Supreme Court to outlaw it and protect these children.
Many in the society welcomed this, for they wanted to keep the practice "safe" and legal. Didn't they find it odd to refer to a practice that destroys little children as "safe"?
It was a society that held up very high standards in condemning discrimination against people merely because they were in some way different from those who happened to be the majority, such as in skin color.
But it was also a society that treated some of its members very differently from others because they were different: much smaller, much more dependent than the majority, and not in a familiar environment. They were treated differently in that they could be killed if they did not fit into others' plans.
Perhaps that was part of the explanation why a practice that kills a child was called safe: the child doesn't count as a real person because she is different (too small, etc.).
In other cases such an attitude would be vigorously condemned as discrimination. Here it was approved, and often strongly supported.
Laws that allowed people to murder babies were called liberal, while in other contexts that term referred (among other things) to the protection of those who could not protect themselves.
The child was not taken seriously as a real person. Perhaps that explains how those who favored this practice would vigorously defend "a woman's right to choose." They called themselves "Pro-Choice," thus conveniently avoiding any reference to the killing of the child. They would ordinarily defend choice only in personal matters that did not adversely affect others. They would never defend a right to choose to kill a person, or to discriminate against a person.
It was a society that itself looked back on a horror scene, a holocaust where some six million people were exterminated. It was aghast at what it saw, and kept saying "Never again!" It did not see that essentially the same thing was going on in its own neighborhoods.
This is what they will see.
What will they say?
Probably many things. One of them being, "Why didn't those people who did see abortion for what it is do something?"
That brings us back to the present, where we can look ahead to the future. For us the question is: what must we do now to end the mass abortion killings? Let me suggest the following Call to Action.
We must awaken the American people to what is happening. Two things should be stressed: the reality of the child and how abortion kills the child, the ghastly methods and their results.
A major part of this education campaign should be pictures of the child. In so many cases, seeing is believing. If a woman sees her child, she may change her mind about having an abortion. Dr. Bernard Nathanson discusses an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which reported an interview:
[T]wo women in the early part of pregnancy ... were privileged to watch their infants on an ultrasound screen. The women were asked if they would still entertain the thought of abortion after having seen their babies move, breathe, and do all those inexpressibly endearing things that all babies do, born or unborn. Both women categorically rejected the abortion option, one stating: "I feel that it is human. It belongs to me. I couldn't have an abortion now."
We must stress that abortion is not a private matter. Joseph Scheidler urges us to "develop an educational program that concentrates on the unborn child as an unseen victim. It is essential that this victim becomes a real person in the mind of the community. The more the unborn is acknowledged, the less tolerant the community will be of taking that person's life."
Why do those who support abortion not see its victim as a real person?
I think a major factor is prejudice. We must work to overcome this prejudice where it exists, and a good first step is to understand it. Germain Grisez, in his excellent treatise, "Abortion and Prejudice against the Unborn" explains: "Prejudice takes advantage of a difference" between "those who are prejudiced" and "those against whom there is prejudice." Those who are prejudiced are so for "an intelligible motive" that explains the "development and persistence" of the prejudice. For abortion there is an obvious motive: the desire to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
While prejudiced people are not simply dishonest, they act as if they suspected the truth and were trying to avoid facing it.
People who are racially prejudiced do not like to be shown facts and have a hard time following arguments that might dislodge their prejudice.
This resistance is always surprising, especially when it is encountered (as often happens) in persons who are extremely perceptive and logical in other matters.
The same applies to prejudice against the unborn.
Further, "a system built on prejudice is never consistent." People who are pro-abortion are generally very strongly opposed to racial prejudice. Perhaps that helps to assure them that they themselves can't be prejudiced. But, in fact, prejudice is a universal human danger, which any of us can fall into.
To speak of prejudice here is not to level a charge against persons who favor abortion; it is simply a way of trying to understand an aspect of the pro-abortion mentality.
How can people favor allowing babies to be killed?
The viewpoint of prejudice helps to provide an answer.
There is also, I think, the fact that many people do not support abortion as a conclusion from a process of reasoning. Rather, they first decide that abortion is necessary or desirable, then find reasons to support this view. One such reason is the so-called unreality of the "fetus" as a person. That, in turn, is a prejudice against the unborn.
In addition to those who explicitly favor abortion, there is a large majority who are complacent. They are in between, neither actively pro-abortion nor filled with outrage at this horror. They must be awakened to a response of outrage, and inspired to form a movement to end this mass killing. They must come to see abortion in a new way. According to Brennan:
As long as abortion remains at the psychologically-remote and abstract level of removing insignificant tissue or contents from the womb, not that many people are likely to get upset. The holocaust perspective, on the other hand, possesses a tremendous potential for breaking through this facade and revealing the harsh realities of large-scale killing, whatever the historical period of their perpetration, and whether the victims be born or unborn. Only when people are allowed access to the concrete, emotionally repugnant facts of unborn baby killing will they be filled with outrage and motivated to demand an end to the destruction .
One of the most important tasks is devising ways of reaching the American people with a message to awaken them to the reality of the child-killing that is politely referred to as abortion.
Perhaps a mass mailing can be arranged. A vital part of this message is a call to action: "If you are outraged at abortion, then ________," specifying what a person should do.
We must prepare a program of political action for ending the mass killing. We must prepare bills to be introduced in Congress. We must devise strategies for reversing court decisions that protect the alleged right to kill instead of the rights of the victim. We can then focus people's energy into specific programs: support this bill, call this government official, etc.
In pursuing the first two steps, our objective must be clear: full membership of preborn children in the community (full status as persons and full protection under the law). There can be no compromise on this. The child can never be killed to benefit the woman or others, any more than the woman or others could be killed to benefit the child.
It is essential that legal protection for preborn persons be written into the Constitution, so that no future court or legislature can ever deprive them of it again.
There must be a Constitutional amendment that specifically states that preborn children are persons and entitled to full legal protection.
Three elements are essential:
One, the amendment must restore personhood to the unborn child.
Two, it must clearly apply from the beginning of life, conception-fertilization.
Three, its prohibition of abortion-killing must contain no exceptions.
It will be said that this objective cannot be achieved all at once. If this is so, we should work in stages, doing what we can at each stage and continuing until our task is complete. It is important to be clear on the difference between this approach and one that accepts compromises. We might, for example, start out with a law that bans saline abortions: they are so horrible that it is hard to believe they are used, and even sanctioned by law.
Someone who is unclear whether or not the "fetus" is a person could still see the horror of doing this to any living creature, for whom the evidence (presence of nerve endings, etc.) is overwhelming that it feels excruciating pain, and for a considerable time. A law banning the saline method would not condone other abortions; it would simply not mention them.
Once this is accomplished, we must work in stages to forbid other types of abortion as well.
Working for such a law does not constitute a compromise on principle. It means climbing the first rung of a ladder before climbing the second.
If abortions that cause more pain are greater evils than those that cause less pain (or no pain), we should outlaw the greater evil if we cannot outlaw both evils. Incomplete laws are better than no law at all.
However, we must not compromise, allowing an incomplete law that would eliminate or seriously reduce the chances of a complete law later. We must never say that a little bit of murder is acceptable. No murder is acceptable. We must constantly work towards eliminating all abortions.
People who do not understand that a very early abortion is wrong will usually see the wrongness of a late abortion. There are parallel examples in which the wrongness of some abortions is easier to see than that of others. Thus, if we can convince people that certain abortions should be prohibited, we should do so; and then continue our efforts to extend this to all other abortions as well.
Keeping in mind, then, the temporary character of these stages, let me suggest some examples of them.
A law, or court ruling, that allows protection for the child; then one that requires it.
A ban on all third trimester abortions, then second then first; or, a ban on killing a viable child, then a previable child.
A ban on abortions that cause the worst pain or are more likely to cause pain; then, a ban on others.
A ban on all surgical abortions and abortion pills (e.g., RU486); then, one on abortifacients.
A denial that there is any right to an abortion. This would mean prohibiting all abortions other than the hard cases (rape, incest, health and life of the woman); then, prohibiting these as well.
The first stage would eliminate about ninety-seven percent of all abortions, a great first step, but only a first step.
These five items refer to eliminating all abortions, stage by stage. The remaining nine concern abortions that remain at any stage short of the final stage. They are aimed at reducing the harm done to the child, to the woman, and to the family; at curtailing the number of abortions; and at lessening the inherent evil of abortion (e.g., by banning government funding).
There should be no abortions at all, at least no legal abortions, but as long as it is impossible to ban all legal abortions, those that occur must include:
Anesthesia for the child in all cases where there is even a slight chance of pain for the child.
An informed consent requirement. Any person considering a medical procedure has a right to a full disclosure concerning what that procedure involves and what its possible consequences are. It can be expected that this requirement will significantly reduce the number of abortions.
The full disclosure should include all relevant information about the effects of the abortion: (A) What the child looks like, her status of development.
(B) What abortion does to the child, the methods of abortion, the high probability of terrible pain for the child, and the length of time of the procedure. (
C) What abortion can do to the woman, short term and long term, physically, psychologically, and in regard to future pregnancies: how it can effect her relationships with others.
(D) Where applicable, the hazards of eugenic abortions (for eliminating handicapped babies), especially amniocentesis.
(E) Alternatives to abortion.
(F) Support groups ready to help the woman continue a difficult pregnancy, especially by supporting her in the face of pressure by others to abort.
It is of the greatest importance that the woman be given this information honestly and objectively, that she be encouraged to ask questions. Any kind of pressure in the direction of abortion must be prohibited.
A forty-eight-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed, so that the woman has time to change her mind. Many do. It is a tragedy when a woman is rushed into an abortion, one she may regret bitterly.
A requirement that in all live births, the child be given complete medical treatment to maximize his chances for survival and health.
Parental consent for minors, something required for all other medical treatments. Making an exception for abortion is outrageous.
Spousal consent for married women. Excluding the father is a terrible injustice. The father has obligations of child support; he should also have corresponding rights. For unmarried women, the right of legal intervention for the father of the child.
A ban on all government funding of abortion.
A ban on all other government participation in abortion.
This includes a ban on: offering abortions at government facilities such as military bases, granting tax exempt status to organizations that promote or perform abortions, funding such organizations, promoting abortion in government-sponsored programs, such as family planning.
Other measures, such as a ban on all advertising for so-called abortion services, and excluding abortion from health insurance plans.
As many of these proposals as possible should be enacted concurrently, and coordinated with one another.
While working towards this objective, we must continue our efforts to save babies and their mothers from abortion.
An excellent guide to this is Joseph Scheidler's book, Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion. His first way is sidewalk counseling, in which pro-lifers go to abortion clinics "to intercede for the baby's life":
Sidewalk counseling is a method of saving babies by talking to their parents in front of the abortion clinic. It is probably the single most valuable activity that a pro-life person can engage in. When pro-lifers counsel in front of an abortion clinic, they are coming between the woman and the doctor, between the baby who is scheduled to be killed and the doctor who will do the killing. These efforts can be highly successful:
Women can be turned back. In Chicago, in one thirty day period, half a dozen sidewalk counselors at only a few clinics were able to stop ninety women from having abortions. Seventeen were stopped in a single morning at a clinic on Michigan Avenue. While a few of these women may have gone back to have their abortions later, more than ninety percent did not return and they kept in touch with the pro-life counseling center.
As the title indicates, there are many things one can do to fight the evil of abortion. A sample of these include: The Counter-Demonstration, How to Get on Talk Shows, Aids to Effective Lobbying, Call their Bluff: the Legal Threat, and Warn the Garbage Man, "You're Hauling Corpses." All of these ways are non-violent, and there is a chapter, "Violence: Why It Won't Work."
Besides Scheidler's suggestions, especially direct intervention on the sidewalk, there are several other specific things we should do:
We should support women with problem pregnancies. We should encourage them to keep their babies. If they are being pressured by others to kill their babies, we should offer them a haven of support and encouragement. In all these things there should be both spiritual and material assistance.
We should work to encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion for cases where the woman is unable to raise the child.
We should be concerned with women who have had abortions.
If you or someone you love is suffering from the emotional or physical aftereffects Of abortion, you can find compassionate help and support from women who have been through the same experience by contacting any of the WEBA chapters in your state, or any of the other post-abortion counseling groups which are being formed. If WEBA is not listed in your phone directory, call one of your local or state right-to-life organizations and they will be able to give you a phone number for the post-abortion support group nearest you. Most of these groups have a hot-line that you can call to talk to a sympathetic, non-judgmental member at any time, whenever you need them.
There is also a nationwide toll-free crisis hot line: 1-800-848-5683.
Abortion can be devastating to women, in many ways, as we have seen. We should continue our research into this: How many women suffer? From which problems? For how long? How severely? We should carefully examine the challenges of abortion defenders. Our aim must always be to find the truth.
We must warn women of the hazards of abortion. I see this as a task of the greatest importance. We must protect not only the child, but also the mother. This protection can come from the law, and from an awakened public that realizes the evil of abortion and condemns it. It can also come from an awareness of the terrible things abortion can do to women. The myth of "safe abortions" must be exposed for what it is. We must work towards a general awareness of the threat of abortion to women. "Having an abortion can be hazardous to your health" must become a household phrase.
Saving babies, supporting women before their decision and after it, these are our present tasks. Many organizations exist for these purposes; let us join them, or start new ones where there are none. We cannot merely be against abortion; we must be for the woman and her child, and we should translate this commitment into action. In fact, we are against abortion only because we are for the child and his mother.
Through all this, we must see ourselves as advocates of the preborn child: voices for those who cannot speak for themselves, who are forgotten because they are unseen. Equally, we must be advocates of women, supporting and encouraging them. For both the child and the woman, we must promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
These commitments must continue after we achieve our objective of fully recognized personhood for the child. That will be a major step, but it will not be the end of the road. The temptation to succumb to abortion will remain after it has been made illegal. The struggle for justice is an ongoing one.
Finally, I would like to suggest that we work to heal the wounds in our society resulting from the bitter struggle over abortion. If we affirm the personhood of the preborn child and the woman, we must also affirm the personhood of all those who advocate abortion. We must try to help them see abortion in a new way.
catholic woman dont have to go through abortion because they are to marry before any sexual practice and should be prepared tpo have a baby . catholic woman have no clue what the feeling is like when you know you cant possibly look after another child , they have no clue so doubt it would scare a catholic community when they dont experience such .
and also you talk about descrimination , well your discriminating against me and other woman who choose to abort for their own reasons such as rape , homelessness and drug addiction or in my situation i had no money after 8 children , i fell preagnant after a doctor told me to go off my pill because it was causing blood clots and and he said because i had been on it for years i shouldnt get preagnanyt for another 8 months well he was wrong . so i had my own reasons my rights and i aborted when my ovam was only in the stages of cell splitting and transformation preparation of child development. so i know that i wasnt killing a breathing moving child.
so unless you have been raped and cant deal with preagnancy after such an ordeal and scared of rejecting your baby then you wouldnt know .
you only know the proceedure you dont acctualy know whats its like to carry and unwanted child that you didnt purposly create.
you can rant on about your boycotting of abortion methods an abortion all together , but i think orphanages are full enough theres too much population and disease and too many unlooked after children and kids that wish they wernt here . you support all this .
i suppose everyone has their opinions but why dont you just accept thing that woman try to keep private , they we have to tolerate your churches and bible bashing. people that dont belive in god or anything christian can only just take enough of catholic/christian ranting about everything and improvement in life saving , doctors and scientists are trying to improve the quality of life respect that as a religion because we respect and tolerate yours.
posted by: LynnKramer (reply)
post date: 02.02.04 (11:18 am)
I have 2 sisters, and 4 cousins, adopted by our families. I forget which ones, but they are all leading happy and productive lives. Their bio-moms were children themselves (13yrs - 21 yrs) and 2 were from families who just couldn't cope with more children.
By the way, most of them have (after 18 yrs and with permission) gotten in contact with their bio-families and so good things can happen in bad situations. The deaths of these people would have accomplished nothing other than to enrich the abortionists and harmed the bio-moms' mental health. I find that there can be tremendous guilt feelings late associated with aborting a pregnancy all around. What have you against adoption? Hmmm?
posted by: SaxonPreistess (reply)
post date: 02.05.04 (5:11 am)
also your missing the point there lynn kramer are also many children that dont lead productive livesand ruin many other people lives . i'm not saying they should have been aborted but because of the parents they have bad lives and wish they werent here . in poland there were 80,000 abandoned children in 2003 and no one wants them and in every other country there are more than 80,000 unwanted children that are born. so you support the crisis the world has to go through the emotional distruction over these poor kids and poverty. if we had more population control there wouldnt be this problem , well not too such an extent.
posted by: AsatruViking (reply)
post date: 02.05.04 (5:18 am)
i have nothing against adoption , you took my answer all wrong. i was saying that if people had the freedom to abort a split cell ovum there wouldnt be so much sadness over poor innocent children that want to be loved or not be here. abortion is also freedom , freedom for a child and for the carrier , without guilt over leaving a child . abortion when preformed is only the removal of a split cell formation , doctors and anyone experienced in abortion would explain its just like cutting your toe nail. a microscopic egg , that cannot move breath or anything . when you get preagnant you dont just suddenly feel a kick in your tummy you dont feel that for 4 months after or more.
When future generations look back at us, what will they see?