Thanks for sharing this, Dawn. That image of God within her won't let her shake this off. I just left this comment on her post:

It is both little and enormous. A little person. An enormous crime against humanity. The only one with no choice in all this is the one that ends up in the jar. Be brave enough to acknowledge the truth of what you’ve seen and follow it.
Terry | 10.19.08 - 3:43 am | #

An Abortion Perspective

Dawn:

I hardly know where to begin on this comment. My job brings me to an abortion clinic five days a week in order to collect a few of the “specimens.” I am often bemused that a laboratory performs a biopsy on the fetus. It seems to me that the reason for doing a biopsy or any laboratory procedure is to identify the health concerns of a patient.

In this case it is clear what the health concern of the patient actually is without the necessity of a biopsy. Report: The patient died as the result of a criminal act classified by God as murder!

So how then does the doctor mentioned or the student nurse manage to deal with the task of destroying human life? Anyone who has any connection with such an act needs to compartmentalize their activity in order to separate him or herself from such action.

For me personally it isn’t that difficult a task. Just the other day I was speaking to a sidewalk counselor in front of the clinic about how I was able to justify my job requirements.

I attempted to explain that it was a very small part of a much larger job function. Just as I am opposed to smoking I would have little problem selling someone a pack of cigarettes over the counter of a convenience store. But I would never work in a tobacco shop.

So, somehow the nursing student will be able to compartmentalize the action by convincing herself that it is only a part of her educational requirements. She might be able to opt out of such procedure in a hospital and simply refuse to take a job at a murder for hire clinic after she graduates.

As for the doctor I cannot even begin to offer any form of excuse for his actions. And yes seeing the fully formed baby with a beautiful face, tiny hands, fingers, feet, toes, fingernails, toenails, and genital organs is disturbing to me to say the least.

The most disturbing was the one with the head severed from the body. I guess that some people who look down upon an Islamic fascist who would sever the head of an infidel never considered that in the United States of God Bless America we do that every day of the week to thousands of unborn humans.

It is easy to forget that God knew that baby just as well as the victim of fascism. Who then really is the fascist?
Sam | Homepage | 10.19.08 - 10:55 am | #

Will pray!
Scott W. | Homepage | 10.19.08 - 11:44 am | #

Oh, yeah. In five minutes he fixes everything.

When she gets off the table, she's still poor, or being abused by her stepfather, or being slapped around by her philandering S.O., or unemployed, or whatever. All you've done is also leave her with a lifetime of anniversaries to remember the day she did in an act of desperation what she can never undo.

Thanks for nothing. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Christina | Homepage | 10.19.08 - 1:37 pm | #

I wonder if just maybe we ought not to call attention to these moments when people begin to experience stirrings of conscience. I am afraid that our attention only spurs them to harden their hearts, in natural defensiveness. Perhaps those little seeds would sprout and grow better in privacy.
Just a thought,
Susan Peterson
Susan Peterson | 10.19.08 - 5:42 pm | #

Thanks for posting this.
dellbabe68 | 10.19.08 - 7:57 pm | #

You're welcome, dellbabe68.

P.S. Based on your handle, I think we were born the same year. ;^)
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 10.19.08 - 8:06 pm | #

This whole situation makes me sad. I'll pray for the medical student and for pro-lifers who fail in their charity.

In Truth and Love,

-Corey
Corey | Homepage | 10.19.08 - 8:35 pm | #

Because I believe it is important to demonstrate what goes on in Planned Parenthood—butchery that will "[freak] out" even a pro-choicer who has not yet become inured to it—I took screenshots to preserve Pudu Overload's entry.

I'm wondering if it's wise to continue to display a post that its own author deleted?

On one hand, I understand the point that it's "important to demonstrate what goes on in Planned Parenthood."

I've been a major donor to PP over the years, and I'm probably about as pro-choice as it's possible to be. But I think EVERYONE benefits from a clearer picture of what exactly goes on in an abortion clinic. Perhaps if more people knew what a nasty, bloody procedure an abortion is, there would more efforts to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

On the other hand, the author deleted her post, and now her entire blog. While I believe it's technically legal to continue citing deleted blog posts with proper attribution (similar to citing an out-of-print book), I wouldn't imagine that she's pleased that her post is still up on this site.

Please pray that this young medical student and others like her who witness legalized slaughter will receive the grace to see the truth of what is going on— and flee from it.

Is the "grace" of this young medical student still the main issue here? If so, I hope there's an email address somewhere on the screen shot, and I would hope that you at least make an attempt to contact her, to find out how she feels about her deleted post remaining up here.

If she is indeed angry about it, then I would imagine her heart will only grow harder.
L. | Homepage | 10.19.08 - 8:49 pm | #

I'll pray for the medical student and for pro-lifers who fail in their charity.

Good idea, Corey, thanks.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 10.19.08 - 9:07 pm | #

Notice that there are never any, "I started my internship at a CPC today, and it was really shocking..." stories?
Christina | Homepage | 10.19.08 - 10:33 pm | #

We have passed the stage of pretense that it is just about fetal tissue. We are about to elect a pro-infanticide president and hardly a soul is mentioning it. We are on the doorstep of pre-war Germany where the offical taking of life of the imperfect or undesired was also ignored in the name of that society's "choice." It was shortly after that when the gas ovens offered another plateau in the game of "choice" that the Godless pursue with vigor.
Where are the marches?
Keep up the endless, good work!
Don L | 10.20.08 - 6:48 am | #

First off, thanks for writing this. Secondly, I see NOTHING wrong in keeping her post alive on this blog. It's unfortunate she received hate spam.
What bothers me is that she HAD to turn away? Why? Was it too gruesome? Was she shocked that this is what abortion really is? Was it that she saw for the first time the humaness of the little baby? Was she expecting a blob of cells?
If abortion is such a good thing for women, she ought to be able to fully recognize exactly what that "choice" represents. Every time a woman makes this choice SOMEONE dies - her baby.
Patricia | 10.20.08 - 9:29 am | #

I wondered as well if it was a good idea to post all this since the author took it down. I think it is because now I, and many other people are praying for Pudu Overload and others in her position that their hearts not be hardened.That is the main point of this entry, no?
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 9:47 am | #

Wish it were true that the procedure completely fixed everything in my life. It did not. It has been a long and difficult journey to healing. 18 years after I aborted my daughter.

Thank you for posting this.
Carla | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 10:09 am | #

I think it's safe to say we are all pro-choice. And, certainly, everyone is raving equality. Yet in the case of abortion there seems to be a differnt set of rules. The right of the baby to own a choice is veheminantly denied in an adamantly discriminant manner. So, hypocrisy is compounded by illegality, yet it doesn't count because the child has no rights. Is that because (s)he can't vote? No, that would put everyone under 18 y/o at risk. Is it simply age? No, then we threaten not only under 18 y/o, but also over ?? y/o. Is it because (s)he can't speak? No, by that token every mute person is without choice, and by precedent, every other handicap. So, then, by what reasoning is this permitted? Is it by ownership? Oh my! How far reaching is that? Do we own one another? Wives/husbands? Husbands/wives? Parents/children? Heck, we don't even 'own' our pets anymore! So, how is the line drawn to ownership of that life inside of (you)? (Allow me first-person, please.) Well, it must be the contention that that life is part of the dictator's body. That counterdiction ought to cover that. But, it won't, so let me expedite. Your organs are part of your body. Your limbs are part of your body. And, your mind is part of your body. Just as your body houses your soul, so houses it a new body also housing a soul. Now, back to the mind for a moment. The mind, via the spinal network, ministers to every portion of your being. Even body chemistry is effected by the administration of thought and conscience. Without being long-winded, just what is the outcome of negative energy to any body? And if you see abortion as a positive source ... well ... more power to ya. So say I with regard to the paradox created and conquered in the same mind. What further can this duplicity harbor? But, what stability can it find? Yeah, pray I. Not alone for the victims, which are two, but also for the counsel that leads the young minds into this place.
posterior_sling | 10.20.08 - 12:13 pm | #

Thank you for posting this.

You are welcome, Carla.

Pansy, I do not have the same fear that you have that I have done anything to harden the heart of Pudu Overload or others in her position. I have searched my heart, and I believe that I have written only with charity towards her personally, reserving my anger for the acts of killing that she witnessed and the institutions that enable such killing. If there is anything uncharitable in my writings about her that I have failed to recognize, please tell me and I will remove it.

But if you are only saying that the very fact I am calling attention to Pudu Overload's writing means that her heart and those of others may be hardened, I do not agree. With well over 40 million preborn children legally murdered in their mother's womb since Roe vs. Wade, I do not believe we do anyone any favors by neglecting to bring the truth into the light. And whom better to share the truth than someone who favors the legal right to such killing, and yet feels a visceral disgust when confronted with it?

Writings such as Pudu Overload's show how we all, and particularly women, are lied to about abortion. We are lied to every day. We are told that the preborn child is merely tissue--at most, just "blood and white fluff." But when we see, as did Pudu Overload, that it, at a later stage, resembles a baby, we have to make a choice: Either block out from our minds the truth that is before our eyes, or admit that thousands of innocent human beings are being legally murdered every day in our own country.

I do care about Pudu Overload's heart and those of others in her position. That is why I am praying for her and them. How does it help us to hide testimonies like hers? And how does it really help her?
Dawn Eden | 10.20.08 - 12:16 pm | #

We are told that the preborn child is merely tissue--at most, just "blood and white fluff."

No, it's a human embryo -- and some of us believe it does NOT have an absolute right to be be born, if the women gestating it decides she is unwilling to continue to do so.

I know it's not just "merely tissue" because I once held a 7-week old embryo in the palm of my hand (before I flushed it down the toilet).

I am praying, too, for Pudu Overload and other medical students -- as they continues to face the ugly truth in their medical studies, that they find the courage and strength to continue facing them, so that someday, when women like me seek abortions, there will be doctors with the courage to provide them to us.
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 1:07 pm | #

But if you are only saying that the very fact I am calling attention to Pudu Overload's writing means that her heart and those of others may be hardened, I do not agree.

Mine was.

You denied every Christian principle by sneakily publicizing her blog instead of writing to her personally to have a discussion.

Your goal was to have her publicly harassed and shamed while you pray loudly on the streetcorner.

Like the right-wing, hypocritical Pharisee that you are.

She knows who you are now. I hope she has the courage to tell you exactly what she thinks of your position on this issue (she may come to agree, but not because of you), and the whorelike tactics that you use to promote it.

You are the most unChristian "Christian" on the internet.
Thomas | 10.20.08 - 1:55 pm | #

Thanks for being brave. None of this is easy to read. Sometimes when the truth has been told and the denials and lies continue about abortion, all I can do is be quiet and pray to gain the strength to start again.
Jeff | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 2:19 pm | #

Thomas - was Pudu sneakily publicizing her own blog? She published it. This wasn't a private conversation or a personal letter. She didn't expect it to be quoted, ever?

Dawn's blog has a lot more clout, of course, but so do blogs such as Wonkette. What if a fellow pro-choicer had picked up the story and told the world to go support her? (It may have even happened by now.) Would that be sneaky?

Or Dawn's posts themselves... many of which wind up as fodder for pro-abort, anti-chastity posts all over the web. I mean, calling her a "right-wing hypocritical Pharisee" and her actions "whorelike" in her own combox is just the tip of the iceberg. Dawn posts anyway because the ideas matter, and a free people have the right to access to these ideas to make up their own minds. You'll notice that L. and others post their (opposing) views here all the time and aren't shooed away - they are merely debated.

I know how angry I've been about stuff I've read on the web, and I've narrowly avoided a couple of flame wars. (L knows. I'm not perfect in charity, I fear.) But you have no evidence whatsoever of what is in Dawn's heart. It would be just as easy to say that your own hard heart has caused you to react with bitterness to those who do not deserve it - I mean, as long as we're psychoanalyzing on the Internet. Or, perhaps you think that when Dawn promised to ban from this blog those who were rude to Pudu on her blog, that she was doing it to harden the hearts of her own commenters?
nightfly | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 2:28 pm | #

Ugh, nightfly:

But you have no evidence whatsoever of what is in Dawn's heart.

Of course I do. She sneaked around to find someone whose views opposed hers, publicized them without confronting the person, and let her be blindsidedly attacked by insane legions of anti-abortion supporters.

What kind of person does that?

I know, and so do you. It's the kind of person can't stop at controlling her own genitalia. She wants to control the genitalia of other people.

Or, perhaps you think that when Dawn promised to ban from this blog those who were rude to Pudu on her blog, that she was doing it to harden the hearts of her own commenters?

No. Until Pudu got my email, she had no idea who Dawn Eden was. She just got strafed and blindsided by Dawn's fellow lunatics.

Dawn didn't have the ovaries to confront her face-to-face, you see. It served her purposes much better to mount a sneak attack, much as it served the Germans well to destroy Dresden in the middle of the night.

Very Christian, Dawn. How about doing as the Bible says when you disagree with someone about a social issue? Don't know what that is? LOOK IT UP.

Sneaky dirty tactics are the antithesis of Christianity.
Thomas | 10.20.08 - 2:53 pm | #

Thomas? The Allies destroyed Dresden. not the Germans.

And for the record, Dawn has never attempted to control my genitalia. I think I would have.....um, noticed that.
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 3:02 pm | #

Afterwards, the nurse brought me to the back room again and I saw some things I can't get out of my head. Leaving the clinic through a waiting room full of upset pregnant teenagers, I felt respectful of and impressed by the doctors I met, both of whom have been stalked and threatened many times because of what they do. At the same time, I'm incredibly freaked out by the whole thing and don’t know how to think about it. It simultaneously seems like a small and an enormous thing.

It's true. That human fetus, that young one, is a small and enormous thing. The child is so small. However, so innocent and made in the image of God, the child is made a victim of an enormous crime. It's an enormous crime, because the child is of enormous value. The child is of enormous value, because the child is human.

Please, God give Pudu Overload the clarity to see the grave evil. At the moment, she is conflicted. She has encountered the Truth. I pray that she has the honesty to follow the Truth. May God have mercy on all of us.

Peace,
Bob LeBlanc | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 3:08 pm | #

Um, L.?

Dawn has repeatedly called for the criminalization of abortion.

This would have you on a gurney in prison while you carried your unwanted pregnancy to term. Your doctor would be prosecuted. If that's not control over your genitalia, I don't know what is.

You are allowed to comment here because you are not too controversial.

But maybe you should be.
Thomas | 10.20.08 - 3:08 pm | #

Freaked out? Good--I hope she would be. Butchery should always cause someone to "freak out".

I have a young daughter, and while I do not like abortion, I would not make it illegal. It does have an unfortunate place in the practice of medicine. In some circumstances, I would want her to have that option, even as I hope she would never need to avail herself of it.

However, abortion does not fix the problems that these teenagers walked in the door with. It just adds one more to the list. Abortion should be the last choice, not the first option.
The Freeholder | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 3:15 pm | #

Agreed, Freeholder.
Thomas | 10.20.08 - 3:19 pm | #

You are allowed to comment here because you are not too controversial.

Ha! I'm a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-contraception, sexually libertine Catholic, Thomas. In the world of the DP, that's about as controversial as it gets. :)

This would have you on a gurney in prison while you carried your unwanted pregnancy to term.

Nah, if abortion were criminalized, believe me -- no one would ever know about my pregnancies. I've never seen the primary goal of the pro-life movement as an attempt to control my body -- just to protect any embryos that might form in it. There's a difference. But ultimately, how I use my body, whether lawfully or unlawfully, is up to me.

I, too, agree wholeheartedly with Freeholder (and have a young daughter, too).
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 3:54 pm | #

Thomas, if you're wondering why I regularly delete your comments, it's because you are banned for insulting and attempting to intimidate other commenters as well as me. For that reason, I will delete further comments of yours that escape the ban.
Dawn Eden | 10.20.08 - 4:10 pm | #

thank you dawn. I was insulted by Thomas' comments....they seemed gratuitous and very mean spirited.
ceil | 10.20.08 - 4:47 pm | #

I notice there is a passing discussion of PuduOverload's "moment of conscience", and suggestions as to what she should do with that feeling. When confronted with a harsh reality it seems that many people are suggesting she should have an about face of her belief that abortion is a choice any pregnant woman should be entitled to. That, faced with this, she must either harden her heart against it, or embrace the 'truth'.

I cannot help but be curious if social workers and psychologists have similar moments of conscience when dealing with particularly horrifying cases. If, upon encountering an individual in a truly wretched situation, there comes a moment similar to the medical students, though perhaps accompanied by the opposing sentiment, when a 'pro-life' counsellor might understand what would drive an individual to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy, and have some sympathy for that dreadful choice.
Miss M | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 6:04 pm | #

Dawn,

I don't disagree with you at all for posting this. I can understand the apprehension others have voiced, but that's because I have a low threshold for dealing with the flack I know you will receive for keeping this post up. Pro-choicers love pushing "privacy" and "against my wishes" buttons, and I can see your decision to keep this up would earn you a flood or emails or comments with those same kinds of sentiments. But I do not think you were wrong to do so; I certainly do not think you were unChristian, uncharitable or just plain "wrong". You are just a whole lot braver than I. When I read this entry, what literally came to mind was I would not be brave enough to do this. But I am glad Dawn did.

I also think Pudu Overload needs prayers and God is working on her through you. Pro-choicers think this battles is simply about confrontations. We think it is a battle about education and more, a spiritual battle.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 6:09 pm | #

Pro-choicers think this battle is simply about confrontations.

Huh? How so?
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 6:24 pm | #

Pro-choicers think this battle is simply about confrontations.

Huh? How so?

Honestly L, you are correct, I should not judge what is in the hearts of a whole group of, but when I read the arguments of pro-choicers, they think the battle begins and ends with verbally winning fights. This battle is first and foremost a spiritual battle.

When Dawn said "And again, please pray for her, other medical students who witness abortions, and also, as for pro-lifers who fail in their charity.", I think that is the first thing we pro-lifers must do (or maybe I as a pro-lifer should do). I think many pro-choicers think we write that kind of thing to simply make ourselves look holy and self-righteous. That's what I mean about it being mostly about confrontation.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 6:33 pm | #

Well, I think there are confrontational people on both sides. Dawn has banned pro-life commenters here before -- remember Leif? I don't think either side has a monopoly on lack of charity. I think it really varies between individuals, no matter what their core beliefs.
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 6:41 pm | #

I don't just mean in terms of rude or not rude. I mean I think many pro-choicers do not see this as a spiritual battle, which means changing minds is about convincing people verbally.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 6:49 pm | #

It's a real shame that her blog was forced offline by negative posts (or that's my impression).

In the prolife movement as in the Catholic church, so much harm is done by our Pharisees; those who profess right belief but do not evidence the fruits of the Holy Spirit in their words and lives.

More flies with honey, people.
tour86rocker | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 7:05 pm | #

Wow! This is great interactivity! I'm having fun just watching to see who is the best at dodging stones. What a great socialist nation we are going to be! Dawn, I fault you not one iota. I see your efforts as for the sake of the light. And Pudu Overload has also done no wrong from her standpoint of perspective. She has followed her own freewill in pursuit of vocation, has now been confronted by her own conscience and has been willing to reveal both sides of her own heart. She may be closer to salvation than some of the bloggers think they are. Here a heart is seeking and controversy TO THE GLORY OF THE BLOGGERS is made of it. In this great internet contest, I see railing accusations much like Lucifer's ranting allegations before the throne of God. I, for one, can only laugh at the sordid misgivings of the unbelieving doubters. In what context is the Christian anything but saved and growing?
posterior_sling | 10.20.08 - 7:23 pm | #

To some people on both sides, the abortion debate is largely rhetorical. To others, it's about control -- for instance, pro-lifers who, despite their insistance otherwise, view unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for illicit sexual conduct, and pro-choicers like Thomas above, who think banning abortion is all about controlling women's bodies.

There are many on the pro-choice side who genuinely believe, with all their hearts, that they are helping women, and that's what it's all about. Some of them fail to see that not all women are helped by abortion.

I've also encountered many on the pro-life side who seem to forget that around every embryo -- IVF notwithstanding -- there is a womb, with a woman attached to it.
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 7:24 pm | #

For certain it’s not about grief. At least not according to knowledge. Which of us would have minded being taken directly from the womb into the presence of God? And who would have known us intimately, but two or three? It is for those the grief should be borne. So, now what is it but two sides fighting? The great need here is the same as in every situation, the destiny and the comfort of souls. Yet, we lay that at the feet of neglect rather than the foot of the cross. Or, did I miss something here?
posterior_sling | 10.20.08 - 7:43 pm | #

It's a real shame that her blog was forced offline by negative posts (or that's my impression).

If that is true, then I am sorry. There certainly are "haters" out there on both sides of the issue. However, without having seen the comments to Pudu Overload's now-deleted post, all I have to go on is what Terry, the first commenter above, says he or she posted, which is this:

It is both little and enormous. A little person. An enormous crime against humanity. The only one with no choice in all this is the one that ends up in the jar. Be brave enough to acknowledge the truth of what you’ve seen and follow it.

Those words are stark, but they are certainly not those of a hater. Again, without other evidence, I wonder whether it is that comment, or ones like it, that registered as "hate spam" in Pudu Overload's mind.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 7:44 pm | #

"How does it help us to hide testimonies like hers? And how does it really help her?"

It has nothing to do with "hiding testimony", it's just respecting someone's privacy and their decision to have their writing published or not. I am pro-life, but i have to say if it was my blog and some pro-choice website republished parts of it without my permission even after i took it off my own site.. i'd go ballistic.
dinka | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 7:57 pm | #

I find it interesting that some people choose to direct their anger over this post at me, rather than at the institution--Planned Parenthood--that is attempting to force all OB/GYN students to go through what this poor girl is going through, as well as forcing all medical professionals to participate in abortions.

If Barack Obama is elected President, his first act will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act , which would demolish all restrictions on abortions, including parental-notification laws and the partial-birth abortion ban, and would end the right of medical professionals to refuse to perform abortions.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 8:28 pm | #

She sneaked around to find someone whose views opposed hers,

You keep on using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

People who do things in public get seen. No sneakiness of any kind is need to find them.
Mary | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 9:09 pm | #

I find it interesting that some people choose to direct their anger over this post at me, rather than at the institution...

Why would supporters of legalized abortion direct their anger at Planned Parenthood?
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 9:10 pm | #

pro-lifers who, despite their insistance otherwise, view unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for illicit sexual conduct,

Nonsense.

As witness that we do not approve of abortion in the event that the sexual activitites leading to conception were licit.
Mary | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 9:12 pm | #

(Of course, it may be fair, if you have a busy blog, to give a heads up to those you quote.)

But what is this new found right to not be heard? You can retract an opinion with a new one. You can't retract a thought. If you speak, you may be heard, and how people understand that is beyond your control.

Or is it just a right to be forgotten? You don't have that either. You may in these black lines be seen.

People are coming to believe that they have such a complete right over their own identities that they can decide what others think of them as well as what others may give cause for them to consider. Perhaps the world has always wished for that. This is what it means to make your own reality. The present (real) one must be destroyed.

La, la, how the life goes on.
Philip | 10.20.08 - 9:29 pm | #

Mary, you are likely more compassionate that that, but you don't speak for all pro-lifers -- certainly not for some relatives of mine, who have said of unwanted pregnancies, "THAT will teach her to keep her legs shut next time!"
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 9:29 pm | #

I am on the fence about the wisdom of keeping this up once the blogger took it down.

But I do notice one thing: Once again, Dawn's critics (like Thomas) turn to sexist rants obsessed with her body/sex life.

Interestingly, Dawn didn't even delete his comment referring to "whorelike tactics," which I find amazing...but then again it serves as a useful illustration. Of what I will not say, because then Dawn might just have to ban me. ;)
corita | 10.20.08 - 9:31 pm | #

"am praying, too, for Pudu Overload and other medical students -- as they continues to face the ugly truth in their medical studies, that they find the courage and strength to continue facing them, so that someday, when women like me seek abortions, there will be doctors with the courage to provide them to us."

L, are you a real person? Because I find that comment one of the most sickening things I have ever read. I wonder if you are a made up persona for someone who wants to may pro-choice people look as bad as possible.
Gail F | 10.20.08 - 10:08 pm | #

Gail F., I will take that as a compliment. ;)
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 10:15 pm | #

Gail F., although I have not met her, I can say with reasonable confidence that L. is real.

L., even though I know you are not joking about your position, I thank you for maintaining consistent good humor.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 10:42 pm | #

And thank you, Dawn, for politely tolerating my defense of positions I know you find abhorrent. Must be those "whorelike tactics" of yours, to be civil to those with whom you avidly disagree!
L. | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 10:46 pm | #

"hate-spam" from "the whole antiabortion crew."

Like what? Like, "you know, it's wrong to kill people to solve your problems"?

I'm sure people do receive real hate mail from time to time, but it seems to me that lots receive mail they don't like and call it "hate mail."
Louise | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 4:08 am | #

"...it's just respecting someone's privacy and their decision to have their writing published or not."

The right to privacy applies to confidential records given for the sake of business. This matter was made public by the author and it was her decision to be published -- when she published. Duh. If an author does not expect to be quoted and / or critiqued then they ought not be an author. By the way, if they are critiqued or quoted (and created this much publicity) they're pretty good at authorship. Perhaps this first year medical student should consider writing a book. She may, then, never have to be confronted with killing a baby herself.

Dawn, that bit about authorship goes to you as well. Keep up the good work (service).

Pudu Overload, good luck with your decisions in your young life. At that point in my life I was irresponsible without direction. Nice to see young people on their feet and going somewhere. I truly hope God will bless your choices and lead you in the direction that pleases you.
posterior_sling | 10.21.08 - 9:43 am | #

The right to privacy applies to confidential records given for the sake of business. This matter was made public by the author and it was her decision to be published -- when she published. Duh.

I don't think Dinka meant legally, I think she meant ethically. We all know Dawn wouldn't knowingly do something illegal.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 10:38 am | #

'I find it interesting that some people choose to direct their anger over this post at me, rather than at the institution--Planned Parenthood--that is attempting to force all OB/GYN students to go through what this poor girl is going through, as well as forcing all medical professionals to participate in abortions.'

Yes, they seem unaware of the irony.

Abortion is now a massive and lucrative industry which, like any other industry, needs to secure its future. One way to do this is to implicate as many people as possible in abortion, thus ensuring a large pool of people who, having committed such acts, will have a vested interest in keeping abortion legal. (On the model of a fascist dictator who forces his henchmen to commit crimes to ensure their loyalty to him.) Thus, as more people are drawn in it will become harder to overturn legalisation without a significant cultural shift. Abortion is taking place predominantly amongst the young - the maths is not looking good.
Mandy Wood | 10.21.08 - 12:11 pm | #

So someone is honest about being uncomfortable at what she sees at an abortion clinic. Newsflash--abortion isn't pleasant. But neither are unwanted children. The only difference between pro-choicers and anti-choicers is that the antis, in true Christian tradition, prefer that the kids suffer before they die of abuse, neglect, starvation, etc. Why aren't they standing outside child protection agencies yelling at the parents "Why are you abusing/neglecting your born children?" Volunteer your time at a soup kitchen or a school, be a Big Brother/Sister or a mentor to an ALREADY BORN CHILD instead of standing outside clinics trying to terrorize women. Show you care about children that are already here and maybe, just maybe, I'll believe you're "pro-life." But people like you never will. Until I see ONE site that links to something like Christian Children's Charities or UNICEF, something that actually helps children already here, you will ALWAYS be anti-choice.

PS--if anyone knows of a "pro-life" site that does have links to stuff like that, let me know. Or maybe Dawn could set the pace for others. Someone has to have faith in the antis. It might as well be me.
Patricia Beninato | 10.21.08 - 12:28 pm | #

Pro-choicers (of murder):
A laboratory generated human embryo stays there a few weks. Then is placed in a female orangutan two months.

Then, is put in an incubator the final months.

Can PP claim the "is my body rights" on behalf of the orangutan, to murder the baby?

Regards
Guillermo Bustamante | 10.21.08 - 1:20 pm | #

http://www.ccspm.org/services.aspx
http://www.womendeservebetter.co...urces/ index.htm
http://www.birthright.org/
http://www.heartbeatinternationa...g/ resources.htm
http://www.lifecareservices.org/...g/ services.html
http://www.highlandlifecare.org/
These organizations are endless and in every city.
BTW- All children are not only pleasant, they are beautiful!
Jeff | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 1:39 pm | #

Newsflash--abortion isn't pleasant. But neither are unwanted children.

So what the solution isn't addressing the economic/social issues which surround the pregnancy (poverty, education, employment, housing, child care, etc), but instead kill those who burden us or who have less than our ideal of quality of life? While we're at it, let's kill other burdens in society, starting with the homeless, then the disabled, children in foster care, etc. See my point, who are we to decide another person's quality of life, and it's a slippery slope towards eugenics in deciding who's fit and who is not fit enough to live.

Why are you abusing/neglecting your born children?" Volunteer your time at a soup kitchen or a school, be a Big Brother/Sister or a mentor to an ALREADY BORN CHILD instead of standing outside clinics trying to terrorize women.

Oh, but we do, you just choose to ignore those ideals which challenge your perceptions of pro-lifers as you see fit. For example, Catholic Charities USA provides social services to individuals and families, vocational training, job opportunities, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters. Another example is the thousands of pregnancy resource centers which offer prenatal classes, maternity and infant toddler clothing, hygiene and food items, parenting classes, financial management classes (learning how to budget, owning a checking account, etc), and referrals for education, housing, and employment.

There are a number of pro-lifers such as myself invovled in projects such as Big Brother/Big Sisters, Habitat for Humanity, soup kitchens, and mission. We usually don't go around announcing or advertising our involvement and contributions. For the last 8 years I have been involved in community betterment projects such as volunteered at a local soup kitchen, food pantry, and went on a mission trip to repair homes, and now I'm working at residential facility directly with individuals with developmental and behavioral disabilities. But why should we announce or advertise our involvement and contributions? We should be accountible of our good deeds only to ourselves and our higher power. And one should do acts of kindness from the heart and in humbility, not to make a political point. No matter, we'll never be good enough in your eyes because the tone you've taken here and on your blog in the past shows you're not willing to listen or discuss open-minded, nor risk compromising your views.
Rachael C. | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 1:56 pm | #

[Deleted this response to Patricia--see my comment below. The commenter is a new one and so is not banned, only warned. - Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Chris M | 10.21.08 - 2:22 pm | #

[Deleted. Patricia is banned as per comments rules--see my comment below, posted at the same time as this. Patricia is a longtime reader of this site and is aware that I ban commenters who are incivil. - Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Patricia Beninato | 10.21.08 - 3:11 pm | #

Reminder to everyone: Please read the comments rules, linked at left, and do not attack one another. No one should fear commenting out of feeling that they will be intimidated or called names. Consider this a warning; commenters from either side who continue to intimidate others, including calling names, will have their comments deleted and will be banned.

Most of you are civil and I appreciate it--thank you.
Dawn Eden | 10.21.08 - 3:12 pm | #

Patricia, I've listed many sites. I'm not sure what you're asking for.
Jeff | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 3:17 pm | #

All children are not only pleasant, they are beautiful!

Mine are indeed cute (at least I think so), but they are almost never "pleasant."

One person's blessing is another's curse.
L. | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 4:02 pm | #

Just to be clear, when I said that the quote I posted of L's was sickening, I wasn't attacking her, I was expressing my actual reaction to her statement. It made me feel sick. I really did wonder if her posts were fictional.
Gail F | 10.21.08 - 8:07 pm | #

So someone is honest about being uncomfortable at what she sees at an abortion clinic. Newsflash--abortion isn't pleasant. But neither are unwanted children.

So let's kill babies in the womb, because *maybe* something bad will happen to them after they're born?

The only difference between pro-choicers and anti-choicers is that the antis, in true Christian tradition, prefer that the kids suffer before they die of abuse, neglect, starvation, etc.

And babies who are aborted don't suffer during the abortion? Well blow me down!
Louise | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 9:47 pm | #

But neither are unwanted children. The only difference between pro-choicers and anti-choicers is that the antis, in true Christian tradition, prefer that the kids suffer before they die of abuse, neglect, starvation, etc.

And please overlook that abused children are not only wanted, but planned -- far more likely to be planned and wanted that non-abused children. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of abused children were planned births.
Mary | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 10:08 pm | #

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of abused children were planned births.

Stats for this? Interesting if true.
L. | Homepage | 10.21.08 - 11:58 pm | #

Also -- there is a different between "unplanned" and "unwanted," and the two don't always correlate. I know many unplanned babies that were happy surprises -- and I also know some women (including myself) that planned children simply because our husbands wanted them, even though we didn't.
L. | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 12:00 am | #

I was 53 when my first was born, 54 @ the second. Now they are 5 and 4. I am not looking forward to retirement. Rather I look forward to their education and ask every day to live into their adulthood. I bought a mini-van instead of a sports car. I see the world on TV. My savings are depreciating and I hope against the odds that hydrogen fuel cells hit the big time. Thank God I find work intriguing and look forward to challenge. By the way, I thank Him for my wife, children and the love between us, daily. Without ceasing. Take me back to 2002, knowing all I know now, and my choices would be identical. It took 53 years for the best thing in my life to come to pass! You bet, without a flinch I'd do it again. We can talk about laws and ethics, God's or man's. One who's right may never understand how the other is right also, and we could discuss the principles governing the soul until darkness covers the whole earth (again), but I've only one thing left to say. We were made free first of all. Only you can respond to the life that is in you, that is not your own. Whether a still, small voice or a distinct knocking at the door. And yet, to others it may be that child you are confronted by. But know this, to stop the life that was given you is to deceive no one else and to rob the same of the blessings they were chosen to receive. If you are of the mind that children are no blessing at all, it's simply that you turned your thoughts at some point toward that direction, giving priority to substance rather than life.

Edited By Siteowner
posterior_sling | 10.22.08 - 2:00 am | #

Actually, In my opinion, calling abortion "legalised slaughter" is sickening to me. This med student might want to consider a different field.
Anonymous | 10.22.08 - 9:09 am | #

'I am praying, too, for Pudu Overload and other medical students -- as they continues to face the ugly truth in their medical studies, that they find the courage and strength to continue facing them, so that someday, when women like me seek abortions, there will be doctors with the courage to provide them to us.'

Such a prayer is irrational (at best!) We are told, as Christians, to ask God to protect and deliver us from evil, not participate in it. To pray for the facilitation and continuance of an evil (and who in their right mind would claim that abortion is anything other than evil?) shows a misunderstanding of God.
Mandy Wood | 10.22.08 - 11:44 am | #

I have been trying to wrap around the whole "pro-life opinions are invalid because pro-lifers don't care about children and I know this for a fact because they never link to places like UNICEF" concept. I am not even sure where to begin. I know many, many pro-lifers who donate time, money and energy not just to organized charities but to people they happen to know in real life who are in need. Many people see it all in a days work and it never occurred to them to brag about it on the internet for the sake of the above argument. There are also people because of their particular stage in life who are outraged by abortion but who can do little more than vote and pray. And that is OK too. As far as I know, that is their choice.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 12:41 pm | #

Such a prayer is irrational (at best!)

To each her own. You will pray your way, I will pray mine. :)
L. | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 1:12 pm | #

I think saying "pro-lifers don't care about children" is exactly like saying, "pro-choicers don't care about women," which is to say, it's a ridiculously broad generalization.
L. | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 1:37 pm | #

In fairness, I have to note that ALL prayer is irrational, even the ones we are commanded to pray. God owes us nothing. He wasn't obliged to even bring us into being, and yet He promises all: mercy and redemption and all good things besides.

There is no rationality behind this choice - only love.

I should also note that this understanding about God is as pro-life as it gets. God doesn't look at us for our utility, and in fact our sin killed His son. We have been quite a difficult lot to bear and raise. It would have been far simpler to "solve His problems" with another flood or similar cataclysm. He has instead called us His children and prepared a place for us beside Him forever.
nightfly | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 1:48 pm | #

Fact is: You don't know what kind of mail the Pudu girl got.
...
evil things in the world – lack of food, poverty, pollution – but all I ever seem to read here is abortion, abortion, abortion.

You do not know what every pro-lifer is involved in. Being part of an anti-abortion movement unites people of a similar mindset-they are anti-abortion. It doesn't mean they are or are not anti-war, anti-pollution...but not every pro-lifer holds the same exact views on the rest of the issues. If you go to a place where pro-lifers are discussing pro-life issues, chances are you will not hear about other issues. If you go to a blog or a message board about quilting, chances are you will not also get a discussion about baking cupcakes. Doesn't mean people who quilt don't bake cupcakes.

If what you are asking is do many of us, Catholics in particular hold this issue in esteem above others-yes. Babies being killed before they are born is a top priority issue that is not simply a morality issue from our perspective, but encompasses social justice (first and foremost),child abuse, racism, classicism, family breakdown, misogyny and just plain ole greed.

I of course know you do not agree, and I am not asking you to, but that is a short version-it's not a small issue and it is not one that doesn't touch on every other issue.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 2:16 pm | #

...not every pro-lifer holds the same exact views on the rest of the issues.

And not every pro-lifer holds the same exact views on pro-life issues -- I know many people who call themselves pro-life, and yet would permit abortions in cases of rape/invest. I know others who call themselves pro-life, and yet support "just" wars, and even the death penalty.

Same with the pro-choice side -- I know people whom I would have to call "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice," because they really seem to think that abortion should be the automatic default option in crisis pregnancies, regardless of what the woman herself might prefer.
L. | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 3:11 pm | #

Oh -- I meant to type "rape/incest" above. I didn't mean to obliquely refer to the ongoing financial crisis. :)
L. | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 3:12 pm | #

FYI, Pansy, Swiss Patrol was banned some time ago for ad hominems. I can't keep him from posting, so I delete his posts.
Dawn Eden | 10.22.08 - 3:28 pm | #

I know others who call themselves pro-life, and yet support "just" wars, and even the death penalty.

Those aren't necessarily inconsistent. Take, for example, World War II. Do "pro-life" ideals keep us from killing those who would slaughter 12 million other people? Hardly. The ultimate result of non-interference would be more death, and the death of people whose only "crime" is to have a certain religion, to be disabled, or to not be healthy. Permitting such a situation is hardly "pro-life."

Would pro-life views keep someone from shooting an armed attacker who would slaughter innocent people? Hardly.

The problem is that you can't run around and call yourself "pro-innocent-life, but have no problem stopping the killing of innocents by executing their would-be killers," because it's an awfully long name for a political movement.
theobromophile | 10.22.08 - 3:38 pm | #

Theobromophile, your positions are valid and clear, and I would call you pro-life. But others who call themselves "pro-life" don't make the distinction between "innocent" life and "would-be killers," and think that the latter deserves the same right-to-life as the former. Also, there are pro-life pacifists who don't believe in "just" wars, and consistently oppose ALL wars.

My point is not to discern who should be able to define themselves as "pro-life," but simply to say that there are nuances among the various views of people who do.
L. | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 4:22 pm | #

Dawn,

Had I known that I would have saved the combox space, lol.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 5:04 pm | #

In my opinion, calling abortion "legalised slaughter" is sickening to me.

It's legalized.

It's slaughter.

Where's the problem?
Mary | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 8:15 pm | #

Stats for this? Interesting if true.

As opposed to the claim that unwanted children are abused?

But Dr. Edward Lenoski in his study that 91% of parents of battered children wanted and planned their children. And were willing to admit this after they had abused them.

and I also know some women (including myself) that planned children simply because our husbands wanted them, even though we didn't.

And what do you plan to do to "save" these children?
Mary | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 8:26 pm | #

And what do you plan to do to "save" these children?

Well, I don't think that they necessarily need "saving," just because they weren't wanted in the first place. What would you propose to do? Query prospective parents on whether they truly "want" their babies or not?

Also, Dr. Lenoski's 91% figure appears to have been from a 1980 study that surveyed only 674 abused children. It's fascinating -- but hardly definitive, and nearly 3 decades old.
L. | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 8:43 pm | #

Actually, In my opinion, calling abortion "legalised slaughter" is sickening to me.

Seems like an accurate description to me.
Louise | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 5:57 am | #

I have been trying to wrap around the whole "pro-life opinions are invalid because pro-lifers don't care about children and I know this for a fact because they never link to places like UNICEF" concept. I am not even sure where to begin.

Don't bother, Pansy, it's a completely irrational position.

The question is simply; is it, or is it not okay to kill innocent people to solve your problem. That's it. And it has nothing to do with whether pro-lifers or pro-choicers are the nicer people. Such arguments are a side show and ridiculous even,
Louise | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 6:01 am | #

My point is not to discern who should be able to define themselves as "pro-life," but simply to say that there are nuances among the various views of people who do.

There are indeed, L, but they are essentially irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is ever okay to kill innocent people to solve your problems.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone can countenance such a barbaric and inhumane practice as abortion.
Louise | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 6:05 am | #

Before Pope Benedict came to America to celebrate Mass in New York and Washington, it was revealed that as a young boy in Germany he had had a cousin with Down Syndrome. One day a Nazi doctor came and claimed his cousin for the Third Reich. Taken to be “cared for” at the “hospital” young Karl Ratzinger never saw his cousin again: one of the host of “useless eaters” marked for extermination by that brutal regime.

My wife and I operate St. Joseph’s House, a daycare and respite care home for handicapped children. As it happened one of the children we care for, a wheelchair bound young lady, was chosen along with three other handicapped folks to carry the gifts up to the altar before the consecration at the Mass at Nationals Stadium in Washington D.C. on April 17, 2008. One of these was James, a 30ish man who works in the Officer’s Club at Andrews AFB. James has Down Syndrome. He was chosen to carry the large host which would become the Body of Christ lifted up before the assembled. As James with great ceremony advanced toward the Pope, his native enthusi­asm overcame his reserve and he started to run. Simultaneously the Holy Father leapt from his chair and walked towards James with his arms out­stretched. We have a picture of this moment which I cannot look at without tearing up. What did he see as he gazed so lovingly at James? I believe he saw his cousin. I believe he saw the face of Jesus. And I believe that his great prayer as he elevated that host on that impossibly beautiful day was “As long as you did to these the least of my brethren, you did it to Me.”

The next day April 18th, a boy was born to of all people, the Gover­nor of Alaska. They named him Trig.
Dan LaHood | 10.23.08 - 6:38 am | #

There are indeed, L, but they are essentially irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is ever okay to kill innocent people to solve your problems.

Actually, they're quite relevant, in cases of people who call themselves "pro-life" and yet support the death penalty (since even guilty people are capable of redemption), abotion in cases of rape (since the circumstances of his/her conception don't matter to the embryo) and "just" war (in which civilian casualties are accepted for the "greater good," such as bombing Nazi Germany's Dresden, or Imperial Japan's Hiroshima/Nagasaki). These nuances aren't irrelevant at all!
L. | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 2:15 pm | #

Dawn,
I posted a reply to Patricia, in regards to the meaning of charity and further replying to the radical pro-choice concept that pro-life individuals must prove they care about the born. However I don't see it, not even an edited post. Was it deleted after Patricia was banned?
Thanks,
Rachael C.
Anonymous | 10.23.08 - 3:13 pm | #

Yes, Rachel, that's why I deleted it. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Dawn Eden | 10.23.08 - 3:28 pm | #

L, the nuances are about the term "pro-life" as a term. It is a side-show next to the horrific issue of abortion. It is essentially irrelevant to that issue as an issue currently exterminating 40 million lives a year.

How you can believe that abortion is okay is beyond my comprehension.
Louise | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 7:56 pm | #

and mine, Louise....

ceil
ceil | 10.23.08 - 8:10 pm | #

Well, it is beyond my own comprehension that there are people who believe that each and every human embryo has an involiable right to be carried to term, no matter what the circumstances.
L. | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 8:47 pm | #

Well, it is beyond my own comprehension that there are people who believe that each and every human embryo has an involiable right to be carried to term, no matter what the circumstances.

Well, L, that is because they are human beings and no-one has the right to torture* and kill an innocent person. That's not hard to understand. There is no circumstance so bad that a woman has the right to kill an innocent child and that by the most brutal methods.

*Most methods of abortion would easily qualify as torture. And when people do this kind of thing to animals there is - rightly - public outcry.
Louise | Homepage | 10.24.08 - 1:31 am | #

*Most methods of abortion would easily qualify as torture. And when people do this kind of thing to animals there is - rightly - public outcry.

I don't know that the animal argument helps you much. Any outcry that would ensue would be only if a born animal were tortured.

Domestic animals are routinely forcibly sterilized (for their own good) to prevent overpopulation. This includes pregnant females, although some vets won't sterilize after a certain point in viability of the young.

Bringing animals into the argument invites a whole lot of parallels you probably don't want to invite.
Terezia | 10.24.08 - 5:02 am | #

"Actually, they're quite relevant, in cases of people who call themselves "pro-life" and yet support the death penalty (since even guilty people are capable of redemption)."

True, but in the case of a murderer who cannot be effectively controlled and continues to be a direct and active menace, the death penalty would then be self-defense or defense of the innocent. Should a killer be able to continue to attack and kill in prison? His fellow inmates are entitled to safety, too.

Obviously, it should be far less often applied, and you won't find a sane pro-lifer who supports anything but less death penalty sentencing.
Therese Z | 10.24.08 - 5:27 pm | #

you won't find a sane pro-lifer who supports anything but less death penalty sentencing

I'm actually completely against the death penalty. I know I am in the minority among my fellow conservatives, but I find it gross.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.24.08 - 5:46 pm | #

L. alluded to "people who call themselves 'pro-life' and yet support the death penalty, abortion in cases of rape and "just" war (in which civilian casualties are accepted for the 'greater good,' such as bombing Nazi Germany's Dresden, or Imperial Japan's Hiroshima/Nagasaki). These nuances aren't irrelevant at all!"

L., may I point out that the Pro-Life movement is by no means a monolithic one. Pro-lifers come in Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, even agnostic and atheist. There are politically progressive pro-lifers and middle-of-the-road pro-lifers, as well as conservative ones. There are pro-lifers with advanced degrees and years of professional experience and there are pro-lifers who are still in their junior year of high school.

People come into the Pro-Life movement for different reasons, and bring with them a variety of different perspectives, some of which are more consistent than others. The Pro-Life movement does not typically create or build the pro-life ethic within the individual; that ethic usually originates elsewhere . . . outside, in the individual's family, church, community, or friends.

As Catholics we believe in the law of love, which Jesus put as, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." As Catholics we understand Jesus' words to mean that we are never deliberately to inflict injury or destruction on a fellow human being except in the gravest of circumstances. These circumstances would generally be limited to those absolutely necessary to protect ourselves or other innocent persons from serious harm. (For example, to shoot an armed intruder who is threatening one's child, if it is apparent that this is the only means to secure the child's safety.)

As to other forms of deliberate killing, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have spoken out against the death penalty as a sin against human life, and both have more than once pointed out that "in any war, everyone is the loser." Many Catholics are opposed to both of these, and to abortion, and for the same reasons.

Not every member of the Pro-Life movement holds a consistent ethic of life. However, the Catholic Church does hold such a consistent ethic, and asks its members to do so, as well. I think you will find that most Pro-Life Catholics will have a consistent ethic, or are at least moving in that direction.

~~~~
Marion (Mael Muire) | 10.24.08 - 8:43 pm | #

Thank you for your thoughtful answer, Marion. In fact, the vast majority of the pro-life people I know are Catholic, since I'm Catholic myself (obviously, I'm not devout). I agree the Church's stance is very clear and doesn't allow for much nuance, and yet I see so many variations on the theme, everywhere I turn. Even on this comment thread, there's variations on the death penalty. I also know quite a few pro-life people who would allow abortions in cases of rape.
L. | Homepage | 10.24.08 - 11:17 pm | #

The variations among the views of different Pro-Life persons may be attributable in part to variations in the origins and extent of those views.

Each of us is moving, it is to be hoped, toward greater fullness in Christ and in His love. Some of us are further along; some are less. It is a way, a path. As we approach the Source and Summit, Christ Himself, the fullness of love in Him overflows, and the divergence among us decreases in matters pertaining to virtue - such as justice and charity. For He to whom we draw near is the Sun of Justice and of Charity in whom the perfection of these virtues resides.
Marion | 10.25.08 - 9:36 am | #

L,

I hope I'm not opening up a can of worms in what seems to be a very thoughtful discussion about what it means to be pro-life, but I want to address the issue of rape.

There is always a very imperfect, at best, fit between morality and law. Some of this is because the treatment can be worse than the disease: we don't want to open the door to a tyrannical government in an attempt to create a marginally improved legal system. For example, the Bible teaches that people should support their families, and most people would come to the intuitive moral conclusion that children should care for their parents in their old age. Legislating this, however, could be an absolute nightmare. Reality is that the government is often not the proper body to enforce moral codes.

For many people, this leads directly to a pro-choice ethic, even though they "would never have an abortion." For some pro-lifers, it leads to a desire for modified pro-life laws. This could be, for example, wanting criminal penalties only for the doctor and not the mother.

Furthermore, when you're talking about pro-life laws, you have to deal with the reality of strong, principled opposition to them. The favourite wedge issue of the pro-choice movement seems to be abortion in the case of rape. The lack of a rape exception sunk the South Dakota ban a year ago. In fact, "Jane Roe" exploited the lack of a rape exception in the Texas laws to bring forth Roe v. Wade, which cemented abortion into our legal landscape.

In light of that, a lot of pro-lifers would firmly hope that women who are raped would not abort, but would choose life, but would not want that enacted into law, given the backlash it would create. On a totally pragmatic level, it may be the difference between outlawing 99% of abortions and outlawing 0% in an attempt to outlaw 100%.

My gut tells me that if we had a pro-life culture, in which abortion were restricted or outlawed, but permitted for women who are raped, that many raped women would choose life. I honestly believe that many of them don't have that option now - the social and familial support just isn't there.
theobromophile | 10.26.08 - 1:35 am | #

Theobromophile wrote: "On a totally pragmatic level, it may be the difference between outlawing 99% of abortions and outlawing 0% in an attempt to outlaw 100%."

This is a point that needs to be considered. Many Pro-Lifers realize that there will always be a difference between the ideal and the legal reality. Although the ideal remains the ultimate goal, it may be necessary to adjust one's sights to accomplishing The Possible.

It is as if you are at your own 20- yard line and some of your teammates are fighting to move the ball in the right direction five or ten yards at a time, while others remain at the 20 and hold out for a single 80-yard pass for a touchdown. I think the goal of all the players is the same, but some are more willing than others to go for what they can get.
Marion (Mael Muire) | 10.26.08 - 10:14 am | #

Theobromophile also wrote: "the Bible teaches that people should support their families, and most people would come to the intuitive moral conclusion that children should care for their parents in their old age. Legislating this, however, could be an absolute nightmare. Reality is that the government is often not the proper body to enforce moral codes."

Actually, in some measure, the government does do the equivalent of legislating a little in these areas. For example, many seniors who are frail and in ill health apply for Medicaid. Some years ago, Medicaid wised up to the fact that seniors would sometimes sign over their homes and other assets to their grown children and then promptly go on the dole. In response, Medicaid began to impose a waiting period on senior applicants who had given substantial gifts to family members within the last five years or so. (Let Junior and Mrs. Junior take Pop in for awhile, now that they're enjoying Pop's home.)

Also child support legislation, requiring both parents to provide for minor children even when the parents are no longer married or were never married, could be viewed, in its way, as a form "legislating morality" ("thou shalt provide for thine own offspring.")

~~~~~
Marion (Mael Muire) | 10.26.08 - 10:24 am | #

Well, when you get right down to it, ALL laws legislate morality, by setting forth what is right and what is wrong, and requiring people to act accordingly.

I think adultery is another good example. Believe me, I am no fan of it, but I believe criminalizing it would open up a very bad can of worms indeed.
L. | Homepage | 10.26.08 - 12:33 pm | #

L wrote, "I believe criminalizing it [adultery] would open up a very bad can of worms indeed."

What do we mean by to outlaw a thing? Or to criminalize a thing?

Many people in the United States say they would like to see handguns "outlawed." Do we ask them, "does this mean you want to see handgun owners put in prison, and handgun manufacturers sent to jail?"

Gun control advocates would rightly point out that there are many forms of anti-gun legislation that would help get dangerous handguns off the streets and away from our children, but would not necessarily involve jail time, especially not for first-time gun owners or sellers.

To "outlaw" abortion would mean that the many federal, state, and local laws and official administrative requirements that promote or support abortion or even require referrals for abortion would be off the books, for one thing. And that the tens of millions in taxpayer dollars that go to pay for abortions would dry up, for another.

That would be a good start right there, and without anybody being put behind bars.

~~~~
Marion (Mael Muire) | 10.26.08 - 3:35 pm | #