B
- Status
D
Della
Guest
There are groups in parishes thoughout the US, as well as pregnancy centers in most major population areas that are trying to do this very thing. But they get almost no attention and certainly no press coverage. People are turning away from abortion as the way to solve unplanned pregnancies, mainly by preventing pregnancies, especially among young people, so things are changing in the right direction. Hopefully, one day that fact that a woman can get an abortion will be ignored and all but forgotten, except in books about antiquated laws that no longer have any meaning for society.
A
anilorak13ska
Guest
I remember when I first heard of the idea that pro-lifers and pro-choicers could agree on wanting to reduce the number of abortions, I thought that would be the sort of “bipartisan” (if you will) joint goal that wouldn’t divide us and help us move in the right direction. Yet I do not see much effort from pro-choicers to reduce the number of abortions, aside from making birth control more and more accessible, which makes me wonder if that’s not just encouraging more sexual activity instead of reducing pregnancies.
I’ve actually heard women say that they will have however many abortions they feel like having, thank you very much. It’s almost as if to spite us for suggesting that this isn’t a day in the park for anyone involved, regardless if you agree that life begins at conception.
I think the problem starts way before the unplanned pregnancy, with the objectification of women and sexualization of girls in popular media. Many feminists agree with this. Many feminists are pro-choice. So this is another area we could join forces with a long-term goal in mind.
I’ve actually heard women say that they will have however many abortions they feel like having, thank you very much. It’s almost as if to spite us for suggesting that this isn’t a day in the park for anyone involved, regardless if you agree that life begins at conception.
I think the problem starts way before the unplanned pregnancy, with the objectification of women and sexualization of girls in popular media. Many feminists agree with this. Many feminists are pro-choice. So this is another area we could join forces with a long-term goal in mind.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Abortion is an industry. The people making a profit from killing babies in their mothers’ wombs are not going to give it up easily. It sounds good, in theory.
However, here’s a reality check. Pay special attention to how deep the denial of the mother was. This happened in front of the mega-abortion center in my city, the largest in the hemisphere as far as we know.
*We don’t usually have women come on the bus until mid-morning. But she came in very early, without even stopping to talk to anyone on the street. She just parked and marched into the bus. She stayed a long time, listened politely to everything we had to say, but remained adamant that she wanted an abortion.
Our nurse talked with her for a long time. We spent a long time on her ultrasound. We could see her little baby so clearly, even the tiny fingers. Our nurse even reached up to the screen and traced the baby’s head, pointed out how we could even distinguish some of the facial features. Over and over, the mother insisted, “I don’t see anything except dots.”
Her baby started to jump, we could see the tiny legs, knees bending and feet kicking…the nurse asked, “Look! Can’t you see your baby jumping?”
**
“I see the dots moving. I don’t see anything else.”**
We were praying silently, begging God to open her eyes and help her really see how beautiful and perfect her tiny unborn baby was. It was unbelievable to us that she really couldn’t make out the shape of this little person.
“Think of all the miracles God has done to give you this little person,” our nurse said, “He must really want to bless you through this baby.”
“That might be true,” the woman answered, “But then He should have given it to somebody else, because I am not interested. And this is my choice.”
“Do you read the Bible?” I asked her.
“I do.”
“There’s a verse in Deuteronomy that says, ‘I set before you today life or death, blessing and curse.’ So you’re right, you do have a choice. And I think it’s pretty obvious what God wants you to choose, because it’s YOU He gave this baby to.”
“Well, that verse is controversial, because you can interpret it different ways. To me, it means God wants me to choose to protect my own life, so I can make this decision to abort.”
“I don’t think so, ma’am – because the end of that verse says, ‘Choose LIFE, therefore, that you AND your children may live.’
God is promising to take care of both of you, and we want to help you get everything you need so He can do that.”
“Well,” the mother answered, “You might be right. But we’ll never know, because I am not interested.”
We had printed several pictures of the baby for her. She wouldn’t take any of them. She was polite, but I have never seen anyone so emotionally detached from the fact that they were pregnant. I hated to use the word “cold,” but she was.
After she left, we started praying even more than we already had been. We sat and prayed, and wept over the pictures of that tiny person. We begged God to touch the heart of this mother so that she would choose to protect her precious baby.
We wanted her to have a chance to receive all the blessings God was promising through this new life, instead of suffering the loss of her child for years, always wondering what might have been.
We went on with the day, still praying, still sometimes tearful, thinking of this innocent life that was in so much danger. We were determined that as long as this baby was still alive there would still be love for him or her in this world – we would love this baby even if nobody else would.
After a long while, the woman came back out of Planned Parenthood, and got in her car. As she prepared to drive away, our nurse went out to try and speak with her once more.
“I changed my mind,” was the woman’s response, “I’ve decided I’m too far along. I’m going to keep the baby.”
There is NO WAY to express how overjoyed we were! We were weeping again, but this time with joy and gratitude, because there is only one explanation for things like this: God hearing the desperate cries of His people, and pouring out an abundance of the grace that changes hearts. He moved powerfully that morning, and His touch changed the heart of a mother. This work is never effective without prayer, without the hand of God reaching down to save us from our own brokenness. We had done everything we could to try to save this baby, and without Him, we could do nothing. But with Him, all things are possible!
“In our weakness, He is strong!”*
This woman had her denial broken, but many do not. Pictures are nice but many will not look at them. Pictures have been used for decades, and not just pictures of aborted babies, but babies in the womb. We use little fetal models to show women how small but how developed their baby already is.
It just doesn’t always work. When it does, angels in heaven celebrate with us.
However, here’s a reality check. Pay special attention to how deep the denial of the mother was. This happened in front of the mega-abortion center in my city, the largest in the hemisphere as far as we know.
*We don’t usually have women come on the bus until mid-morning. But she came in very early, without even stopping to talk to anyone on the street. She just parked and marched into the bus. She stayed a long time, listened politely to everything we had to say, but remained adamant that she wanted an abortion.
Our nurse talked with her for a long time. We spent a long time on her ultrasound. We could see her little baby so clearly, even the tiny fingers. Our nurse even reached up to the screen and traced the baby’s head, pointed out how we could even distinguish some of the facial features. Over and over, the mother insisted, “I don’t see anything except dots.”
Her baby started to jump, we could see the tiny legs, knees bending and feet kicking…the nurse asked, “Look! Can’t you see your baby jumping?”
**
“I see the dots moving. I don’t see anything else.”**
We were praying silently, begging God to open her eyes and help her really see how beautiful and perfect her tiny unborn baby was. It was unbelievable to us that she really couldn’t make out the shape of this little person.
“Think of all the miracles God has done to give you this little person,” our nurse said, “He must really want to bless you through this baby.”
“That might be true,” the woman answered, “But then He should have given it to somebody else, because I am not interested. And this is my choice.”
“Do you read the Bible?” I asked her.
“I do.”
“There’s a verse in Deuteronomy that says, ‘I set before you today life or death, blessing and curse.’ So you’re right, you do have a choice. And I think it’s pretty obvious what God wants you to choose, because it’s YOU He gave this baby to.”
“Well, that verse is controversial, because you can interpret it different ways. To me, it means God wants me to choose to protect my own life, so I can make this decision to abort.”
“I don’t think so, ma’am – because the end of that verse says, ‘Choose LIFE, therefore, that you AND your children may live.’
God is promising to take care of both of you, and we want to help you get everything you need so He can do that.”
“Well,” the mother answered, “You might be right. But we’ll never know, because I am not interested.”
We had printed several pictures of the baby for her. She wouldn’t take any of them. She was polite, but I have never seen anyone so emotionally detached from the fact that they were pregnant. I hated to use the word “cold,” but she was.
After she left, we started praying even more than we already had been. We sat and prayed, and wept over the pictures of that tiny person. We begged God to touch the heart of this mother so that she would choose to protect her precious baby.
We wanted her to have a chance to receive all the blessings God was promising through this new life, instead of suffering the loss of her child for years, always wondering what might have been.
We went on with the day, still praying, still sometimes tearful, thinking of this innocent life that was in so much danger. We were determined that as long as this baby was still alive there would still be love for him or her in this world – we would love this baby even if nobody else would.
After a long while, the woman came back out of Planned Parenthood, and got in her car. As she prepared to drive away, our nurse went out to try and speak with her once more.
“I changed my mind,” was the woman’s response, “I’ve decided I’m too far along. I’m going to keep the baby.”
There is NO WAY to express how overjoyed we were! We were weeping again, but this time with joy and gratitude, because there is only one explanation for things like this: God hearing the desperate cries of His people, and pouring out an abundance of the grace that changes hearts. He moved powerfully that morning, and His touch changed the heart of a mother. This work is never effective without prayer, without the hand of God reaching down to save us from our own brokenness. We had done everything we could to try to save this baby, and without Him, we could do nothing. But with Him, all things are possible!
“In our weakness, He is strong!”*
This woman had her denial broken, but many do not. Pictures are nice but many will not look at them. Pictures have been used for decades, and not just pictures of aborted babies, but babies in the womb. We use little fetal models to show women how small but how developed their baby already is.
It just doesn’t always work. When it does, angels in heaven celebrate with us.
G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
The pro-life movement needs to start WAY earlier than when the baby is in the womb. It needs to start with men learning how to lead a family. How to see women as equal, but different. How to value a woman based on the image of God she was created. The pro-life movement needs to strongly educate why objectification is wrong … Why pornography & masturbating are wrong … Why dating for recreation leads to heartbreak … How love is self-giving and not self-taking. Integrity, honesty, and accept responsability with joy.
The pro-life movement needs to teach young women to inspire and not seduce. Teach self worth & awe at her ability to vessel life. How to sensibly submit to men.
We need to teach potential grand-parents to be open to life. To allow their grand-children a chance despite the parents failures. We need to teach friends to cheer life … Find solutions.
By the time the baby’s in the belly of a woman who’s open to abortion, human dignity has already been abused, diminished, and crushed. We need to start the pro-life movement much sooner!!!
The pro-life movement needs to teach young women to inspire and not seduce. Teach self worth & awe at her ability to vessel life. How to sensibly submit to men.
We need to teach potential grand-parents to be open to life. To allow their grand-children a chance despite the parents failures. We need to teach friends to cheer life … Find solutions.
By the time the baby’s in the belly of a woman who’s open to abortion, human dignity has already been abused, diminished, and crushed. We need to start the pro-life movement much sooner!!!
M
Myqyl
Guest
Amen
O
odile53
Guest
I vigorously support any social justice measures that will not only remove the perceived “need” for abortions, but will make that so-called choice ridiculously unthinkable. Many of these social justice measures are identical to ones that the women’s movement has identified as things that they want to see happen, such as better access to health care, wage parity, child care, and the like. To think that people will revert to a 1950’s model of nuclear family is somewhat naive, in my opinion: The genie of the sexual revolution is out of the bottle, and even draconian measures will not suffice to stuff it back in there.
I’m sure I will get flamed massively for this: It is disingenuous to trust that the wealthy in this nation will voluntarily support such consistent funding to ensure that all children of unwanted pregnancies are reared to a fully functional, healthy, and educated adulthood in the interests of the principle of subsidiarity. However, the neoconservative movement would cut what social programs do exist for relief of mothers to the very bone, if not eliminate them entirely. Unfortunately, neoconservative politicians draw the support of Catholics because of their stance on abortion.
I believe it is incredibly hypocritical to support life in the womb, and then cut off support for that life once it is born. Of course, this does not justify abortion, not in the least. I’m just saying that it is morally and intellectually inconsistent to fail to support ALL children, born and unborn. Since the government has a vested interest in the health and welfare of its citizenry, I think that continued, and yes, increased support of minor children is a valid role of the government.
Some European countries, as well as Canada, pay subsidies to ALL women raising children, as well as providing services, in the interests of promoting the health and welfare of new citizens. However, if such a plan were proposed in these United States, I can just hear the right wing screaming “socialism!”
Does it strike anyone else as odd that in civilized nations, new mothers get paid childrearing leave, and somehow we can’t manage to do that right here, in one of the wealthiest nations on planet earth?
However, the children of this nation cannot count on the voluntary largesse and benefice of the wealthy. It simply is not consistent enough. When our local crisis pregnancy center has to rely on hand-me-down car seats to drive those children home from the hospital, I think that speaks volumes about where the hearts and minds of social and fiscal neo-cons are really set!
My spiritual director says that more can be told about a person’s spirituality by a glance at their checkbook.
True, abortion on demand needs to be stopped. But I think the Church can and should use at least some of its political influence to shame our legislators and executives into providing better resources for children once they are born!
Just my two cents’ worth. And by the way, I directly support the pro-life pregnancy crisis center via charitable contributions from my paycheck.
I’m sure I will get flamed massively for this: It is disingenuous to trust that the wealthy in this nation will voluntarily support such consistent funding to ensure that all children of unwanted pregnancies are reared to a fully functional, healthy, and educated adulthood in the interests of the principle of subsidiarity. However, the neoconservative movement would cut what social programs do exist for relief of mothers to the very bone, if not eliminate them entirely. Unfortunately, neoconservative politicians draw the support of Catholics because of their stance on abortion.
I believe it is incredibly hypocritical to support life in the womb, and then cut off support for that life once it is born. Of course, this does not justify abortion, not in the least. I’m just saying that it is morally and intellectually inconsistent to fail to support ALL children, born and unborn. Since the government has a vested interest in the health and welfare of its citizenry, I think that continued, and yes, increased support of minor children is a valid role of the government.
Some European countries, as well as Canada, pay subsidies to ALL women raising children, as well as providing services, in the interests of promoting the health and welfare of new citizens. However, if such a plan were proposed in these United States, I can just hear the right wing screaming “socialism!”
Does it strike anyone else as odd that in civilized nations, new mothers get paid childrearing leave, and somehow we can’t manage to do that right here, in one of the wealthiest nations on planet earth?
However, the children of this nation cannot count on the voluntary largesse and benefice of the wealthy. It simply is not consistent enough. When our local crisis pregnancy center has to rely on hand-me-down car seats to drive those children home from the hospital, I think that speaks volumes about where the hearts and minds of social and fiscal neo-cons are really set!
My spiritual director says that more can be told about a person’s spirituality by a glance at their checkbook.
True, abortion on demand needs to be stopped. But I think the Church can and should use at least some of its political influence to shame our legislators and executives into providing better resources for children once they are born!
Just my two cents’ worth. And by the way, I directly support the pro-life pregnancy crisis center via charitable contributions from my paycheck.
J
JimG
Guest
I hope you are wrong about this part. Because if the family can not be restored, neither can marriage, neither can motherhood and fatherhood, neither can civilization.
The government will fail as a parent to us all.
A
anilorak13ska
Guest
This gives me much to think about with the election less than 2 weeks away. Just when I had finally come to the realization that I do need to vote Pro-Life before anything else, I’m now realizing that making abortion illegal will not in itself make it nonexistent. But various social programs just may be the ticket to decreasing unwanted pregnancies.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Makes sense to me. If the government’s role is to protect life, it can’t simply leave a pregnant woman “on the street,” where both the mother and unborn are left without medical care and other things.
J
JimG
Guest
This is quite true, and yet, unless the family is rehabilitated as the foundation of society which it is, the end result could well be as unsustainable as social security and medicare. We can give the message, do whatever you want, have as many children with as many fathers as you want, and we will take care of everyone because it is the right thing to do. But without a foundation, the scheme will collapse into chaos.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
O
odile53
Guest
I’ll repeat myself here: I really think that policy makers in the United States should take a second long, hard look at the medical care systems, workers’ benefits, and family support systems in what I like to refer to as “civilized nations”–many of the countries of Western and Northern Europe. However, I think the insurance companies here have powerful lobbyists who perpetuate the myth that accessible health care is somehow socialistic.
People in those countries have longer vacation times, more seamless health coverage, and family subsidies.
I made my disclaimer statement about family stability because as much as we’d like to see the traditional family shored up, given our current social welfare system where a nuclear family does not receive benefits if the father is present unless they are so destitute, is one of the huge things that prevents impoverished people from getting married.
But imagine this: Instead of a $7500 tax deduction, which is meaningless if your income is so low that you don’t have to file federally, each and every woman who gives birth and keeps their child gets a $10,000 annuity payment from the government. Other countries do this, and it doesn’t seem to have bankrupted them. That $10,000 per child can be used in any reasonable way the family sees fit that will support them: It can be used for basics such as food and clothing. It can be applied as a down payment on a house. It can be used toward higher education. But it is there, and not dependent on the income of the family (therefore, there can be a real wage earner present,) nor is it dependent on whatever whimsy the government decides everyone needs to do. I think that just doing this would do a lot to shore up working class and poor families, take some of the burden off middle class families, and the wealthy could invest it in trust funds for the kiddies.
In other countries, every working woman who gives birth gets six months of paid time off from her job to at least give that child a head start in life before going back to work (if she needs to do that,) without negative economic impact. Dad is a lot less likely to go running off at month # 3 of Junior’s life if he doesn’t have to worry about covering the bills with a new mouth to feed.
Sure, this system is open to abuse. But as the neoconservatives are fond of pointing out, our current system is rife with abuse, and at any given cocktail party, will regale you with anecdotal evidence of the same.
It would seem that any nation has a vested interest in raising a healthy and educated future workforce, not to mention a healthy and educated future military, instead of just enabling a permanent poverty class to subsist over numerous generations. Watching capital and jobs being shipped offshore for the last couple of decades demonstrates that we can’t rely on the good will of the upper class to voluntarily help out here. They are profit motivated, pure and simple. They aren’t necessarily going to invest here.
People in those countries have longer vacation times, more seamless health coverage, and family subsidies.
I made my disclaimer statement about family stability because as much as we’d like to see the traditional family shored up, given our current social welfare system where a nuclear family does not receive benefits if the father is present unless they are so destitute, is one of the huge things that prevents impoverished people from getting married.
But imagine this: Instead of a $7500 tax deduction, which is meaningless if your income is so low that you don’t have to file federally, each and every woman who gives birth and keeps their child gets a $10,000 annuity payment from the government. Other countries do this, and it doesn’t seem to have bankrupted them. That $10,000 per child can be used in any reasonable way the family sees fit that will support them: It can be used for basics such as food and clothing. It can be applied as a down payment on a house. It can be used toward higher education. But it is there, and not dependent on the income of the family (therefore, there can be a real wage earner present,) nor is it dependent on whatever whimsy the government decides everyone needs to do. I think that just doing this would do a lot to shore up working class and poor families, take some of the burden off middle class families, and the wealthy could invest it in trust funds for the kiddies.
In other countries, every working woman who gives birth gets six months of paid time off from her job to at least give that child a head start in life before going back to work (if she needs to do that,) without negative economic impact. Dad is a lot less likely to go running off at month # 3 of Junior’s life if he doesn’t have to worry about covering the bills with a new mouth to feed.
Sure, this system is open to abuse. But as the neoconservatives are fond of pointing out, our current system is rife with abuse, and at any given cocktail party, will regale you with anecdotal evidence of the same.
It would seem that any nation has a vested interest in raising a healthy and educated future workforce, not to mention a healthy and educated future military, instead of just enabling a permanent poverty class to subsist over numerous generations. Watching capital and jobs being shipped offshore for the last couple of decades demonstrates that we can’t rely on the good will of the upper class to voluntarily help out here. They are profit motivated, pure and simple. They aren’t necessarily going to invest here.
J
JimG
Guest
Odile53, I like your idea about the annuity. There are many things that government could do to help stabilize families. For example, the dependent allowance and child tax credit have been woefully inadequate for a long time.
But all of those measures must rely on an underlying healthy economy supported by already existing healthy families and productive citizens. Citizens remain the underlying support of government. Whether the social measures of European nations can continue indefinitely remains to be determined. The current economic crisis arises from debt and could bring down the global economy, and knock away such supports in the process.
But all of those measures must rely on an underlying healthy economy supported by already existing healthy families and productive citizens. Citizens remain the underlying support of government. Whether the social measures of European nations can continue indefinitely remains to be determined. The current economic crisis arises from debt and could bring down the global economy, and knock away such supports in the process.
R
ringil
Guest
There is no “good ole’ days”. History is complex and every time has both positive and negative aspects.
R
ringil
Guest
I totally agree! Great post!
J
JimG
Guest
I made no particular statement about “good ole’ days.” My point is rather that the family is the basic element of civilization, and in those periods of history in which the family structure seriously disintegrates, so does civilization.
I’ve mentioned Carle Zimmerman’s book “Family & Civilization” before. It’s a study of family types throughout history, varying from the tribal to the domestic family, to the atomization of family structure. When family structures become atomized, they lack coherence, and so does the underlying civilization. He finds only three instances in which this has happened, once in ancient Greece, once in ancient Rome, in both cases followed by the disintegration of those civilizations, and a third time occurring now in the western world.
So I’m not looking for the good ole days. I’m just hoping for a restoration of family structure. It has unraveled even more than Zimmerman could have predicted just in the space of the last half-century.
Still, when thinking of the term, the “good ole days,” it does seem to me upon reflection that I along with everyone else in the west, have been living in a sort of prosperity bubble throughout my lifetime, and I’m afraid that may be about to end.
From the mid 1940’s post WW-II until the present, in the U.S. And Europe, we’ve had it pretty good, historically speaking. Poverty, not prosperity, is the normal condition of mankind. And those of us who have grown up and lived during this last century have gotten the idea that things can always remain pretty stable. But that’s not necessarily the case. Serious social and economic disruptions can change things within the space of a few years. One should never take it for granted that the government can fix everything.
R
rapunzel77
Guest
Well Said! These are ideas I can 100% get behind. Pro-life and social justice
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
It is a crisis pregnancy clinic on wheels. When PP moved to their new mega-center, they moved away from any crisis pregnancy center. Plus their clients just drive into their parking lot so it’s difficult to pass out any literature or talk to them. So funds were raised for a bus, and the KofC helped with money for a 4-D real-time ultrasound machine, which is what was referred to in the story.
The woman in that anecdote simply could not see her baby even though it was right in front of her in living color and in 3-d. Those images are the ones you see on the Discovery shows that show the baby moving, sucking its thumb, etc. They are fantastic and very vivid.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
How about we go back to the previous model of adoption for children born out of wedlock? Pretty simple. Before legalized abortion, it’s what happened, and it worked pretty well.
- Status