Abortion Doctor's Murder Trial Opens

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tighty_Whitey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ishii said:
Well, my experience with the pro-life movement is that it is sympathetic to women who have in fact had abortions - emphasizing God’s mercy, etc - project Rachel, e.g. We need to be merciful toward women who have had abortions, just like we should show mercy to any sinner, of course. I hear a lot of contempt toward Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion rights politicians, but I don’t know about contempt towards the women in crisis pregnancies themselves.
{SNIP}

Ishii
Click to expand...
I agree with what you write about pro-life being sympathetic to women seeking abortions and those who have had abortions. We usually have a women in our group that has had an abortion and she wears a sign attesting to that. When we picket, we picket FOR the woman going in. I look at them as having been duped by PP personal. Sometimes these women will hesitate after they pull into the parking lot…not get out of the cars. Then the PP escorts come out and try to convince the women to come on in. Sometimes the woman doesn’t go in and leaves (yay)!

I think the pro-life movement has been smeared by the pro-aborts. We are constantly being accused of not caring on TV and in the media. We are terrorists! We don’t care about born babies! It’s actually sad to see comments being made that pro-lifers should do more to help the women and babies facing abortion.

Why does the media focus only on the negative? They never show all the alternative pregnancy centers that offer free services. They never talk about Catholic adoption agencies. They never talk about the free housing we provide. NPR NEVER mentions the help women can get. Their angle is always that abortion is safe and doesn’t cause psychological damage, based on surveys by the “impartial Guttmacher Institute.” “Law and Order SVU” often portrays the pro-lifers as rigid and ideological fanatics.

It’s a well kept secret and the pro-abort lobby is working very hard to keep it that way.

War on women indeed. It is NARAL and their ilk who are warring on women.
 
ishii said:
Agree.

Well, my experience with the pro-life movement is that it is sympathetic to women who have in fact had abortions - emphasizing God’s mercy, etc - project Rachel, e.g. We need to be merciful toward women who have had abortions, just like we should show mercy to any sinner, of course. I hear a lot of contempt toward Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion rights politicians, but I don’t know about contempt towards the women in crisis pregnancies themselves.

I know. I read all the posts. I am sorry that you felt mocked and ridiculed. Perhaps the posters meant to contrast the transvaginal ultrasounds with the procedure of abortion which would seem to be much, much more humiliating and invasive. You have to understand that after 40 years of Roe V Wade and millions upon millions of abortions of babies, sometimes we pro-life folks get frustrated and forget that we need to be constructive in our arguments even when we are frustrated and feel that our arguments are a no brainer for any Catholic.

I think that is a very positive and life-affirming idea, Bellasbane. Abortion should be better promoted as an alternative to abortion. Agreed.

Well, sorry if I offended you. We have a duty as citizens living in a country that has elections than have implications on whether our laws will protect the unborn or not. In other words, don’t forget the political side - we need to work toward laws that respect life. And no, the NRA pales in comparison to NARAL which seeks to continue the legal slaughter of the unborn. The NRA merely seeks to protect the interests of legal gun owners and gun manufacturers. Even if you are making good points elsewhere, you are off base in lumping the NRA and NARAL.

Overall, I think I can agree on much of what you post here, Bellasbane. However, I think that anyone pro-life needs to take the next logical step and start really criticizing the pro-abortion rights folks who are part of the problem. I mean the Pelosi’s, Obama’s, Biden’s of our country. It will be difficult to change our laws to protect the unborn if they and the rest of the abortion lobby are allowed to continue to shape our laws.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I think its vital to our mission as Catholics to emphasize to the world what unites us even if we don’t agree on everything. I have thought about this a lot and have decided that it does the Church and its mission no good to emphasize our differences to the world. I don’t mean we should stop discussing our differences and express our views, but this is a public forum and I would like to see people making more of an effort to emphasize and acknowledge what unites us as the People of God.

So I am very very delighted that we are having this conversation, even though I don’t expect to you to change your mind (right away) on issues where we disagree and I hope you don’t expect to change my mind (right away) either!

If we get a chance, I’d like to discuss and compare NARAL and the NRA on another thread. I think it could be a very fruitful discussion! I would like to explore how we understand the role of these organizations and their mission in society in relation to our organization (i.e., the Catholic Church) and our mission in society (which is to create a Culture of Life). I’m not sure which forum that would go under.

We definitely need to change abortion laws - there we find common ground. Where we may disagree is how to change them. The way I see it, it boils down to two issues: 1) finding the right balance between the competing rights of the woman and the child, and 2) managing the competing responsibilities of the mother and the father. I believe the law needs to be a package deal that includes both of these components, because this isn’t just about saving babies lives, its about transforming the culture.

One approach would be to straighten things out piece by piece - to start by saving the babies and then dealing with the fallout later. Since I can envision some pretty horrible “fall out”, I’m not so sure that would be an improvement on the status quo.

Before people start accusing me of being willing to sacrifice millions of babies for some “idealized woman-centered” solution, I hope they will think about how this relates to the Church’s opposition to distributing condoms in Africa in order to combat the spread of HIV. My understanding is that while distributing condoms may be an effective strategy for saving lives in the short term, in the long run it only serves to reinforce a culture that leads to more HIV infections. In the same way, I believe that anti-abortion laws that disempower women and contribute to their poverty may save lives in the short term, but these conditions reinforce a culture of death - which leads to more abortions.

I see abortion as one part of the larger issue of female gendercide - the routine worldwide killing of women and baby girls. The most obvious form of female gendercide is gender selective abortions, but that is not the only form. All over the world, people are selectively raped, murdered, starved, overworked, given inadequate health care and beaten because they are female. The numbers are staggering and the impact can be seen in the fact that there are more men alive in the world today then there are women - even though in all other natural populations that statistic is reversed. This is a life issue the transcends all others - and I pray someday that our all male Church hierarchy will start emphasizing it more.

Human sex ratio
What Is Gendercide?
It’s a girl: The three deadliest words in the world
 
I would love to see that thread, Bella, but I’m confused why you would even compare NARAL to the NRA. Gun ownership isn’t an intrinsic evil.
 
scipio337 said:
I would love to see that thread, Bella, but I’m confused why you would even compare NARAL to the NRA. Gun ownership isn’t an intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
Nor does gun OWNERSHIP mean killing of innocents whereas NARAL does promote the killing of innocents. The only comparison I can make is a similar set of initials.

Not just apples vs oranges, this comparison is apples vs atomic bombs. Both start with “a” but the similarity ends there.

Lisa
 
Couple issues, I’ll try to keep it brief.
jediliz said:
the judge, Judge Jeffrey Minehart, does anyone know who appointed him? Wouldn’t be surprised if it was Obama or Clinton (unless he was appointed by the governor and we know they refused to inspect the filthy murder slaughter house).
Click to expand...
Appointed by Penn Gov Schweiker, who stepped down in 2002,a Republican and a Catholic.It looks like one of the counts was reinstated (clerical error in the first place) - I was astonished to see that Gosnell’s defense rested after only three days without calling a single witness. Five of the charges dropped were for abuse of a corpse, which is minor relative to late-term abortion and infanticide.

Citation for reinstatement:
nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/judge-throws-out-some-charges-against-dr-kermit-gosnell.html?_r=0

An interesting quote from this article shows how entrenched the language is:

Bryan Kemper, youth outreach director for Priests for Life, an anti-abortion group, said he was “obviously frustrated” with the judge’s decision. Mr. Kemper, who traveled from Ohio to attend the trial, said he was convinced that Dr. Gosnell had deliberately killed live fetuses.

“It makes no sense to me that he could snip the back of the neck of a baby that was not alive,” Mr. Kemper said during a break in the hearing.

The writer has consistently used “viable fetuses” or “live fetuses” in previous stories on the case.

Rather than re-post, I’ll paraphrse.
Bellasbane wrote of “trap” laws and “TRAP” laws, which in either case seem to be discussing laws that are worded generally but meant to be single-purpose to attack abortion clinics. It reminds me of a local ordinance in the small town where I did my first undergrad, that stated that all higher education institutions in the county had to allocate a minimum of 5% of every construction project to local masonry companies. The county had 20,000 people, two higher ed schools (my university and an osteopathic school), and one masonry company. This is why when we had classrooms wired for T1 we had to also pay for the bricklayers to build these brick columns all over campus.

The point is to be fair in the law. I will say that stated intent should have less to do with it provided there are other benefits - someone who is pro gun-control is not out of line to require gun stores to have a business permit. Should an abortion provider have to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital? Probably - and if there’s ample evidence to suggest a safety risk to not having a hospital within reasonable access, I wouldn’t consider it a TRAP law. If, on the other hand, the law requires an abortion clinic to be within walking distance of the ER while the nearest one is 4 miles away, that’s obvious. Let’s not jettison legitimate concerns even if they would incur costs on abortion providers. The pledge of Roe had been to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Those should be in balance, and safety shouldn’t be compromised for the sake of legality, nor should safety be an excuse to remove legality (although abortion is completely unsafe for the murdered baby).

Bellasbane brought up the need for conversion, and several times. I applaud her (I guess, her?) for that. All who are against abortion need to focus on keeping abortion rare, even while it remains safe and legal. The legal fight may or may not be won, but keeping abortion rare - by focusing on the women, the causes of their plight, and the mentality and culture that says “should I terminate this pregnancy?” rather than “what can I do to help this baby?”. Yes, a baby is a lot of work. I wish people would see that when they decide to head to the bedroom. It’s a decision my wife and I talk about probably every month - “are we ready for another baby?” and when we aren’t but there’s a risk we do something else. That’s not a detriment (yes, as a guy, I’d always like more sex, but as a father and husband I know where my responsibilities are) but a choice and one that’s integral to our marriage.

It doesn’t help us that the face of pro-life to many pro-choicers is an anti-abortion protester screaming at women who are not having an easy time to begin with. I wish they would see us as a partner - we have many goals in common such as increased access to health care for poor women, assisting mothers who are struggling and families that are falling apart. I think the key difference tha tleads to all others is one of perspective. Ours is to make sure that every child is born, theirs is to give women choices that include birth and abortion.At some point I think Planned Parenthood may have been less sympathetic to abortion but it’s become such a commodity, and so ubiquitous, that nothing is thought of it. Catholics seek to reduce abortion, seeing it as a problem in itself and a symptom of deeper problems. I don’t think everyone in the pro-choice camp sees abortion as a problem that needs to be solved. To us, a just society is one where no woman needs to turn to abortion. To them, a just society can be had even while abortion persists provided that it is a matter of volition rather than poverty, abuse or another social ill at cause.
 
bellasbane said:
The people who work in pregnancy crisis centers are not the problem - they are part of the solution. Raising awareness about what they do is a key strategy in learning to focus more on the women.

The problem is the impression many women have that the pro-life movement is “judgmental and uncaring” and that’s due to many reasons. Some of it is due to the laws that target women seeking abortions and some of it is due to the rhetoric of pro-life activists who openly or subtly express contempt towards women who experience crisis pregnancies or have abortions. People pick up on that sort of stuff. .
Click to expand...
If women have the impression that the pro-life movement is “judgmental and uncaring” it’s because they are getting that information from abortion rights advocates not from crisis pregnancy centers, sidewalk counsellers, the March for Life, Rachel’s Vineyard, 40 Days for Life or Priests for Life. You can claim this attitude is “subtle” but like the supposed “dog whistle” racism inherent in words like “urban” or “apartment” you have to look REEEEEEEALLLLY hard to find it.

The reality is that most women seeking abortions don’t encounter pro-life support because this movement doesnt get HALF A BILLION DOLLARS from us taxpayers. The March for Life which has hundreds of thousands of participants barely gets a mention in the MSM whereas three scruffy demonstrators for “Occupy” are front page news. The MEDIA is the one carrying the water for the abortion lobby, assisted ably by pro abortion politicians like Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius etc.

I have heard many testimonies of women who had abortions or worked in abortuaries. Many of them said they “thought” pro life people were hateful or critical but most admitted they had never actually encountered any pro life people. I do agree that in the past, some of the demonstrations were a bit shrill with gruesome photos and such but one of the things that turned Abby Johnson’s heart was the kindess of the pro life women who worked outside the abortion clinic where she worked. Women who call Crisis Pregnancy Centers or other pro life support groups are treated kindly and sympathetically.

The other thing you have to understand is human nature. We are weak but we hate to admit we are weak. We will take the easiest route possible to solve a problem. It is FAR easier to have an abortion than to have a baby. A woman who wishes to abort may do so in almost complete anonymity. The abortion clinic workers are well schooled in what to say such as “it’s just a blob of tissue” “it’s easy” “you’ll be fine tomorrow…” No one has to know that they made a “mistake.” Abortion is EASY (in the short run) and thus it is the first path for the vast majority of women facing an unintended pregnancy.

However for a woman to choose life, it requires a HUGE amount of courage. Not only must they admit to being pregnant unintentionally but as is obvious, others will clearly know they are pregnant and the judgmental attitude associated with this in a world where “freedom” and irresponsibility are championed. Further having a baby requires a sacrifice, a huge sacrifice. For a young woman looking forward to college or a career path, looking forward to being able to go out and have fun, the idea of a baby is quite daunting. More should consider adoption but unfortunately societal pressure is for women to keep their babies. Ask any adoption agency how many babies are available these days. If they aren’t aborted, they are kept by the (single) mother.

In a wierd way, back in the Stone Age when I was a teen, pregnant girls were spirited away to “live with an aunt…” and mostly put their babies up for adoption. As time has gone on, more of these girls have not left school (temporarily) and are pushed to keep their babies rather than adopting them to a stable family. Again it takes courage to make that sacrifice and allow their child to be adopted.

I think you are very optimistic that we can change the culture, particularly given the media and taxpayer support of the abortuaries and abortion providers. It will require a huge cultural shift in the opposite direction of the current trends. We have neither the media nor the money that the forces of darkness have. I am not trying to sound too despairing but it is an uphill battle. That’s why I think restricting abortions, forcing abortion providers like Planned Parenthood provide options for women instead of just taking their money, are going to be far more effective than just slogging along as we have. I firmly believe that much like slavery, when it’s easier to own slaves or get abortions than the alternative, only a change in the laws will effect a change in society.

Lisa
 
scipio337 said:
I would love to see that thread, Bella, but I’m confused why you would even compare NARAL to the NRA. Gun ownership isn’t an intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
Do you have an idea of what forum would be appropriate?

I know different forums have different rules. This one needs a news story, others prohibit political discussions (and it will probably get political even if we are commenting on politics instead of with politics).
 
bellasbane said:
Before people start accusing me of being willing to sacrifice millions of babies for some “idealized woman-centered” solution, I hope they will think about how this relates to the Church’s opposition to distributing condoms in Africa in order to combat the spread of HIV. My understanding is that while distributing condoms may be an effective strategy for saving lives in the short term, in the long run it only serves to reinforce a culture that leads to more HIV infections. In the same way,** I believe that anti-abortion laws that disempower women and contribute to their poverty may save lives in the short term, but these conditions reinforce a culture of death - which leads to more abortions.**

I see abortion as one part of the larger issue of female gendercide - the routine worldwide killing of women and baby girls. The most obvious form of female gendercide is gender selective abortions, but that is not the only form. All over the world, people are selectively raped, murdered, starved, overworked, given inadequate health care and beaten because they are female. The numbers are staggering and the impact can be seen in the fact that there are more men alive in the world today then there are women - even though in all other natural populations that statistic is reversed. This is a life issue the transcends all others - and I pray someday that our all male Church hierarchy will start emphasizing it more.

Human sex ratio
What Is Gendercide?
It’s a girl: The three deadliest words in the world
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that you vote pro-choice because you believe anti-abortion laws cause gendercide? That is the whackiest stance I’ve ever seen a Catholic take.
 
rlg94086 said:
Are you trying to say that you vote pro-choice because you believe anti-abortion laws cause gendercide? That is the whackiest stance I’ve ever seen a Catholic take.
Click to expand...
I didn’t take it that way. It’s that worldwide, less value are placed on the lives of women (as abortion is a large part of gendercide across the world), but I’m not sure how that specifically applies to the US. A bill was recently defeated that banned sex (and race) selective abortions.

Then there was this stomach turning rationalization in Slate.

Why Pro-Choicers Should Be OK With Sex-Selection Abortions

slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/05/31/sex_selection_abortion_and_the_pro_choice_movement_why_liberals_shouldn_t_gulp.html

Bella, you might try the moral theology or social justice forums, but the question is above my pay grade. 😉
 
scipio337 said:
I didn’t take it that way. It’s that worldwide, less value are placed on the lives of women (as abortion is a large part of gendercide across the world), but I’m not sure how that specifically applies to the US. A bill was recently defeated that banned sex (and race) selective abortions.

Then there was this stomach turning rationalization in Slate.

Why Pro-Choicers Should Be OK With Sex-Selection Abortions

slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/05/31/sex_selection_abortion_and_the_pro_choice_movement_why_liberals_shouldn_t_gulp.html

Bella, you might try the moral theology or social justice forums, but the question is above my pay grade. 😉
Click to expand...
I agree that crime against women worldwide is a very serious problem, but, as I bolded, bellasbane is very much saying that banning abortion leads to poverty which worsens the situation. She certainly seems to conclude that banning abortion is a net evil. I don’t see how one can’t come to the conclusion that she is willing to sacrifice unborn children to a perceived greater good of keeping women out of poverty.

It is a very pro-choice argument. If I’m reading her words incorrectly, please explain it for me.
 
losh14 said:
The point is to be fair in the law. I will say that stated intent should have less to do with it provided there are other benefits - someone who is pro gun-control is not out of line to require gun stores to have a business permit. Should an abortion provider have to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital? Probably - and if there’s ample evidence to suggest a safety risk to not having a hospital within reasonable access, I wouldn’t consider it a TRAP law. If, on the other hand, the law requires an abortion clinic to be within walking distance of the ER while the nearest one is 4 miles away, that’s obvious. Let’s not jettison legitimate concerns even if they would incur costs on abortion providers. The pledge of Roe had been to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Those should be in balance, and safety shouldn’t be compromised for the sake of legality, nor should safety be an excuse to remove legality (although abortion is completely unsafe for the murdered baby).
Click to expand...
I can’t say whether the laws are reasonable or not. That is for the courts to decide. However, the people who wrote the laws admit their intention was not to increase safety, but to shut down the clinics. I agree that shutting down clinics by definition will make it safer for some babies (others will just be aborted in the next state) but that argument won’t hold up in court - the fact that Gosnell’s defense against murder was that he killed the babies before they were born in evidence enough of that.

I worry that this sort of strategy is inherently wrong even if it results in a desired outcome, because next time the target may be a constitutional right that I support. The Catholic Church is in the middle of a religious liberty dispute over a law that conflicts with our faith. Some people believe it was written that way on purpose. I wouldn’t go that far, but I also would rule out the possibility of something like that deliberately happening in the future.
 
bellasbane said:
I can’t say whether the laws are reasonable or not. That is for the courts to decide. However, the people who wrote the laws admit their intention was not to increase safety, but to shut down the clinics. I agree that shutting down clinics by definition will make it safer for some babies (others will just be aborted in the next state) but that argument won’t hold up in court - the fact that Gosnell’s defense against murder was that he killed the babies before they were born in evidence enough of that.

I worry that this sort of strategy is inherently wrong even if it results in a desired outcome, because next time the target may be a constitutional right that I support. The Catholic Church is in the middle of a religious liberty dispute over a law that conflicts with our faith. Some people believe it was written that way on purpose. I wouldn’t go that far, but I also would rule out the possibility of something like that deliberately happening in the future.
Click to expand...
Bellasbane, I don’t know if you refer to the Mississippi law but the ORIGINATION of the law was for patient safety although the legislators admitted that they “were not unhappy” that this law would effectively close the one stand alone clinic.Now the abortion lobby can claim that the law was designed to shut down that clinic but I see this as a collateral effect.

Also I don’t know if you saw my post in response but even if a right exists to avail yourself of the service, there is no “right” to have the service in the neighborhood. If a woman needs an abortion, they are not dependent only on this clinic are they? I just Googled Planned Parenthood Mississippi and there were two clinics listed. Hospitals (other than regligiously affiliated) also provide abortions. I think the objection to this clinic closing is simply a reflection that the abortion lobby sees its favor and its strength waning, not that women would not be able to access abortion if it closed.

Further abortion is NOT a constitutional right, certainly not enshrined as a specific amendment. As someone noted, a “right to privacy” supposedly exists in the ether of rettricting illegal search and seizure.

As to the HHS Mandate, I do not think it was intended to restrict religious liberty. The reality is that Sebelius is a very ignorant woman. Look at her testimony when asked if she realized enacting this would run afoul of many religions’ teachings and she looked totally dumbfounded, admitting “we never thought about it.” Sadly this moronic female has a substantial amount of power…but I digress 😃

Abortion is common because it’s easy. It’s cheap. It’s anonymous. Abortion has the favor of the MSM and the Democrat party. We are fighting enemies from all directions. Chipping away via laws is IMO a very effective way to make other options more appealing.

Lisa
 
scipio337 said:
I didn’t take it that way. It’s that worldwide, less value are placed on the lives of women (as abortion is a large part of gendercide across the world), but I’m not sure how that specifically applies to the US. A bill was recently defeated that banned sex (and race) selective abortions.

Then there was this stomach turning rationalization in Slate.

Why Pro-Choicers Should Be OK With Sex-Selection Abortions

slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/05/31/sex_selection_abortion_and_the_pro_choice_movement_why_liberals_shouldn_t_gulp.html

Bella, you might try the moral theology or social justice forums, but the question is above my pay grade. 😉
Click to expand...
Very chilling article Scipio. You make a good point. I think it is similar to the one that losh14 was making when he said:
losh14 said:
Catholics seek to reduce abortion, seeing it as a problem in itself and a symptom of deeper problems. I don’t think everyone in the pro-choice camp sees abortion as a problem that needs to be solved. To us, a just society is one where no woman needs to turn to abortion. To them, a just society can be had even while abortion persists provided that it is a matter of volition rather than poverty, abuse or another social ill at cause.
Click to expand...
It reminds me that we have to triage our efforts as we work to change the culture. We are dealing with a spectrum of belief and some people are way out there in scary land. Fortunately, I do think this is a minority view. I think something like 70% of Americans believe abortion is the taking of a human life. That’s very hopeful.
 
scipio337 said:
I didn’t take it that way. It’s that worldwide, less value are placed on the lives of women (as abortion is a large part of gendercide across the world), but I’m not sure how that specifically applies to the US. A bill was recently defeated that banned sex (and race) selective abortions.

Then there was this stomach turning rationalization in Slate.

Why Pro-Choicers Should Be OK With Sex-Selection Abortions

slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/05/31/sex_selection_abortion_and_the_pro_choice_movement_why_liberals_shouldn_t_gulp.html

Bella, you might try the moral theology or social justice forums, but the question is above my pay grade. 😉
Click to expand...
Note the following:

What’s relevant is that it’s entirely irrelevant why a woman wants an abortion.

***Strategically, it makes no sense to give in to this idea that there’s somehow something a little queasier about having an abortion for gender than, say, for money. ***These are equally legitimate reasons (or, if you are on the other side, equally illegitimate). One might make you uncomfortable in your gut, but it can’t make the movement hesitate. Because that hesitation—that pause of, well, yes this one is complicated, or, as Amanda says, this one is “unpleasant to contemplate”—makes it that much easier for so many of those other reasons (money, timing, work) to seem a little not-OK too.
This ties into a column I read regarding the canard, “safe legal and rare.” As the writer (David Limbaugh yes Rush’s brother but don’t hate on him…) said, if there were nothing inherently WRONG with abortion why should it be rare?

If the old "tissue"canard is true, then why wouldn’t it be equally valid to say we hope wart removals are “rare.”

If this is such an essential medical service that simply removes unneeded or unwanted tissue, then why make reference to the numbers? Maybe even the pro-choicers realize that abortion has become birth control…it’s easy and it’s cheap…rather than a thoughtfully and carefully considered decision in the face of desperation. The millions of babies aborted are mainly aborted due to their inconvenient timing, not because there aren’t alternatives.

I’d LOVE to see as much money and power focused on making abortion rare as is currently used to keep it legal

Lisa
 
Lots of stuff to respond to - sorry its taken so long to get back.
LisaA said:
If women have the impression that the pro-life movement is “judgmental and uncaring” it’s because they are getting that information from abortion rights advocates not from crisis pregnancy centers, sidewalk counsellers, the March for Life, Rachel’s Vineyard, 40 Days for Life or Priests for Life. You can claim this attitude is “subtle” but like the supposed “dog whistle” racism inherent in words like “urban” or “apartment” you have to look REEEEEEEALLLLY hard to find it.

The reality is that most women seeking abortions don’t encounter pro-life support because this movement doesnt get HALF A BILLION DOLLARS from us taxpayers. The March for Life which has hundreds of thousands of participants barely gets a mention in the MSM whereas three scruffy demonstrators for “Occupy” are front page news. The MEDIA is the one carrying the water for the abortion lobby, assisted ably by pro abortion politicians like Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius etc. I have heard many testimonies of women who had abortions or worked in abortuaries. Many of them said they “thought” pro life people were hateful or critical but most admitted they had never actually encountered any pro life people. I do agree that in the past, some of the demonstrations were a bit shrill with gruesome photos and such but one of the things that turned Abby Johnson’s heart was the kindess of the pro life women who worked outside the abortion clinic where she worked. Women who call Crisis Pregnancy Centers or other pro life support groups are treated kindly and sympathetically.
Click to expand...
I got the words “judgmental and uncaring” from the homily given by Cardinal Seán. Here is what he said:

“(19:17) Abortion is considered the least of the three evils, because it’s perceived as offering the greatest hope to the woman to preserve her sense of self and this is why so many women deeply resent our pro-life movement which they perceive as uncaring and judgmental. (19:39) We have consistently focused on the safety of the unborn child, while the pro-abortion activists focus on the woman in crisis. With almost one hundred abortions for every adoption, we have so much work to do. Obviously, we must never abandon our commitment to the unborn child, a precious human being made in the image and likeness of God, but we must learn to focus more on the woman in crisis.(20:11) We must listen with empathy to be able to communicate the Gospel of Life.”
Building a Culture of Life: Cardinal Seán O’Malley at the 2013 March for Life.

As much as I love and admire Cardinal Seán, in typical Church leader fashion, he packs a lot into a few sentences and then leaves us to figure out how to unpack it. So maybe you will read these words and interpret them the same way I do or you might interpret them differently. (I encourage everyone to watch the entire homily - and then watch it again!)

I interpret his words to mean that the perception of the pro-life movement as “judgmental and uncaring” is both a reality and a liability. However, Cardinal Seán doesn’t say WHO is responsible for perpetuating this notion, but links it to the idea that the movement is regarded as inherently threatening for the reason he gives. However, he doesn’t advocate changing our commitment to the unborn child, but instead wants us to learn to focus more on the woman. Later in the homily, he identifies Pregnancy Crisis centers and Project Rachel as examples to follow and emphasizes the need to make better use of the media.

In my response to Ishii, I said there are many reasons for why people perceive the pro-life movement as “judgmental and uncaring” and gave two examples based on my own experience:

  1. *]Laws that target women seeking abortions
    *]The rhetoric of pro-life activists who openly or subtly express contempt towards women who experience crisis pregnancies or have abortions.

    To this list, you would like to add how the MSM portrays the pro-life movement. Fair enough. However, that isn’t something we can make them change, but we can launch our own counter media campaign.
 
bellasbane said:

  1. *]Laws that target women seeking abortions
    *]The rhetoric of pro-life activists who openly or subtly express contempt towards women who experience crisis pregnancies or have abortions.
Click to expand...

  1. I have not seen these attitudes at all. We are told to be loving, prayerful, forgiving. There are countless shelters and free pregnancy centers that help women in crisis pregnancies. I volunteer in one.

    It’s NARAL, PP, and the media that are painting this picture, not reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top