Priests for Life

 

OTHER SECTIONS
America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America
Sees Abortion


Prayer Campaign

Join our Facebook Cause
"Pray to End Abortion"


Take Action

Social Networking

Rachel's Vineyard,
A Ministry of Priests For Life


Silent No More Awareness Campaign, A Project
of Priests For Life

Clergy Resources
SIGN UP FOR EMAIL


 

Letter 167

Abortion advocates sometimes say they can't understand why right-to-lifers think they have the right to interfere in the toughest decision a woman will ever make.

I agree that the decision to have an abortion is probably the toughest a woman will ever make. What appalls me is that people insist on making her choose this terrible option.

Pregnant women have many needs, and no two women's situations are identical. But abortion enthusiasts offer only their one-size-fits-all solution. Why, after all, should they help a family find decent housing when they can scrape out the woman's uterus and send her home? Why take your neighbor's kids off her hands once in a while when you can just refer her to the local abortionist? Why bother chasing down the deadbeat dad when you can shut the woman up with a quick abortion?

Women know that legal abortion limits their real options. Abortion marketer Charlotte Taft even said that the attitude of many women at her clinic was, "If you weren't here, I wouldn't have to make this choice." And those women are right. If abortion marketers have been so successful at presenting abortion as the only option, regardless of circumstances, it is difficult to see past it. Other possibilities aren't even explored.

The question isn't, "What right do we have to interfere?" It is, "What right do we have to abandon these women just when they need us the most?" And that's a question that's rarely asked, and never satisfactorily answered.

Letter 168

Abortion advocates sometimes say they can't understand why right-to-lifers think they have the right to interfere in the toughest decision a woman will ever make.

If someone knew that Susan Smith was planning to drown her sons, would these abortion advocates condemn him for interfering? Susan has said that in her despair, it seemed to be her only choice. It was a terrible and difficult decision. What would have given anyone the right to interfere in the most difficult decision Susan Smith ever made?

Susan had other options. The boys' father or grandparents would have taken them in. But she was mentally unstable and couldn't see that she had options. Susan would probably be quite grateful today if someone had interfered.

Women who have had abortions describe their decisions the same way Susan Smith described hers. They feel trapped. They can see no other way out. They are unable to see other options. Abortion advocates want us to abandon those women to their despair. How cruel!

Pro-lifers risk arrest, assault by the police, and financial ruin to offer a way out to despairing women. They are spat on, screamed at, molested, and hated for reaching out in love to strangers. The people who make money off the women's misery, on the other hand, are praised. Something is wrong here.

Next time pro-abortion people want to condemn pro-lifers, let them first talk to the women pro-lifers have helped. Their eyes might be opened--but only if they are willing to listen.

Letter 169

Abortion advocates sometimes say they can't understand why right-to-lifers think they have the right to interfere in the toughest decision a woman will ever make.

What I can't understand is why so-called "pro-choicers" sit back and let women get channeled into decisions they don't want to make.

One slick sales tactic abortion clinics use is to have the woman pay for the abortion and fill out the paperwork before they even do the pregnancy test. In effect, they have her agree to purchase the abortion service before she even finds out if she really is pregnant or not! If they tell her the test is positive, she will feel like she has failed to honor a contract if she doesn't go through with the abortion. Many women also realize that all or some of their money may not be refunded if they decide against abortion.

What would we think if exterminators routinely refused to inspect a house for termites unless the homeowners had already paid for a full extermination? Or if dentists required pre-payment for a root canal before they even performed the exam? Or if mechanics demanded the cost of a complete overhaul up-front before they'd look under the hood?

Routine practices inside abortion mills make it plain that their goal is to sell as many abortions as possible, regardless of what the women really want.

Letter 170

Abortion proponents sometimes say that pro-lifers have no business "interfering" in the "tragic" situation of an unplanned pregnancy.

I'm glad they have brought up the tragedy angle.

Tragedy always attracts vultures. Hurricanes and earthquakes attract looters. Car wrecks attract ambulance chasers. A difficult pregnancy attracts abortionists.

Let's look for a moment at the difference between "interfering" and "helping" the woman with an ill-timed pregnancy.

Some people offer her food, shelter, clothing, medical care, child care, and furniture. They offer her help finishing school, looking for work, or finding a better place to live. These people are pro-lifers who support crisis pregnancy centers all across America. They are said to be "interfering."

Some people take her money, kill her baby, and shove her out into the parking lot to bleed. These people are abortion clinic workers. They are said to be "helping."

The distinction is clear. An abortion-free community offers people the chance to reach out to one another in love and compassion. Abortion offers people the chance to make money from other people's misery.

I would rather be condemned for "interfering" than be a blood-sucking bottom feeder that profits from women's despair. Abortion advocates are free to choose otherwise.

Letter 171

Pro-abortion people sometimes draw a picture of pathos: a woman choosing to have an abortion. They imply that because the decision is difficult, and involves family, moral issues, and religious beliefs, the decision to abort must be correct.

Let's step away from abortion to see if this is a valid idea. Imagine that a Muslim heard that his new next-door neighbor was Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. As a Muslim, his religion would not just permit him to kill Rushdie--it would demand it. Should he go through with it? After all, it is a very difficult thing to take a life. On the other hand, he might be legitimately concerned about the influence Rushdie might have on his two young daughters--their very souls could be jeopardized by living so close to the man. This Muslim might pray and fast for many weeks, consult his spiritual leaders, search his sacred books for guidance. After much soul-searching and many tears, he might decide that as much as he hates to do it, he must kill his neighbor.

Would you, as a juror, acquit him on the grounds that you have no business judging a man making the most agonizing decision of his life? Would it matter if you found out that the neighbor wasn't really Rushdie, just a look-alike?

The point is, there is nothing intrinsically noble about agonizing over a decision. One can assume that Susan Smith agonized over drowning her sons, but that didn't make it right.

Letter 202

Pro-choicers find fault with use of the term "abortions of convenience." They claim "women never use abortion frivolously, but only in situations of terrible necessity."

Pro-choicers like to keep the focus on the so-called "hard case" abortions, instead of what their own information proves is far more common--"convenience" abortions. They want the people to be fooled into believing most abortions are for dire circumstances. But then, figures show that if you add together all the abortions done because the baby might be unhealthy, or because the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, or because the mother has health problems, or because the woman is pregnant through rape or incest, they account for--at the very most--7 percent of all the abortions done in America.

In an interview carried in the March 9, 1989, edition of the communist publication Revolutionary Worker, Marilyn Buckham, director of Buffalo GYN Womenservices Clinic, was asked about the reasons women have abortions. She said she is "sick and tired" of hearing, "Women don't do this lightly." Of her own clinic, she said, "Ninety-eight percent of women do it lightly in here...They think of abortion like brushing their...teeth, and that's okay with me."

Now, I'd like to know if the pro-choice candidate would be willing to outlaw clearly frivolous abortions, and allow them only for "situations of terrible necessity."

Of course, he wouldn't. He gets his campaign funds from the abortion industry, and they're counting on 93 to 98 percent of their income from clearly frivolous abortions. How would they prop up his campaign if they were left with only 2 to 7 percent of their income?

This pro-choice candidate knows which side his bread is buttered on.

Letter 203

Pro-choicers often vehemently oppose use of the term "abortions of convenience." They claim that "women never use abortion frivolously, but only in situations of terrible necessity."

In fact, frivolous abortions are so common that even most people who are openly pro-abortion no longer bother to deny them. A good example is found in a February 12, 1990, Newsweek column written by outspoken abortion advocate, Kim C. Flodin. She talks freely about her two abortions which she admitted were "thrust upon me by my own carelessness." She even mentioned dreaming about one of the children she aborted. She speculated that it was a little boy and said that remembering him made her "immeasurably sad." Then, in the last paragraph, she summed up the whole pro-abortion position: "I was pregnant, I carried two unborn children and I chose, for completely selfish reasons, to deny them life so that I could better my own. It may not sound catchy, but it's the only way I know how to say it."

How pro-choicers can reconcile what the woman herself calls "completely selfish reasons" with "terrible necessity" is beyond me. Unless, of course, pro-choicers consider anything done with a selfish motive to be necessary.

Letter 204

Pro-choicers often vehemently oppose use of the term "abortions of convenience." They claim that "women never use abortion frivolously, but only in situations of terrible necessity."

Advocates of legal abortion claim that abortion is not a wrong, but a right. If it is a right, should the reasons matter? Why should pro-abortion people even care if abortions are used frivolously? If abortion is a right, it shouldn't matter if the woman is aborting because she is a poor, downtrodden mother of seven, suffering from gestational diabetes, pregnant with the severely deformed child of a rapist, or if she is a wealthy conceptual artist who got pregnant on purpose because she wants to use the fetus in a sculpture.

The very fact that abortion advocates go to such great lengths to pretend that women have legitimate reasons to abort shows that they know it is not a right. It is a terrible wrong.

Letter 205

Those favoring legal abortion claim that "women never use abortion frivolously, but only in situations of terrible necessity."

How about the rock singer Sinead O'Connor? In the August 18, 1991, Austin American Statesman, she said she wrote the song "My Special Child" two weeks after an abortion. The article quoted her as saying, "It was a planned pregnancy, which I was very happy about. I was completely in love with the father of the child...But things didn't work out between us, and we were both unhappy. It was too much for him to be able to handle. He was young and I was on tour, and I was feeling ill all the time because I was pregnant, and I was feeling so awful and I made the decision that it would be better for everybody if I had the abortion." So here we have a wealthy, healthy young woman aborting a planned baby because she was tired of being pregnant and she had a falling out with her lover. This hardly constitutes a situation of "terrible necessity." It sounds more like a spoiled brat who breaks her toys in a temper tantrum. Only it wasn't inanimate things she broke, but the bones and flesh of her own child.

If abortion advocates really believe that abortions should only be for "situations of terrible necessity," they should be willing to define "necessity," and tell these snotty little rich girls to grow up.

Letter 298

In her editorial on Thursday, a pro-choicer demanded to know how anybody who has never had an abortion could understand what the aborting woman is going through.

Well, I've never beaten my children. Does that mean I shouldn't speak out against child abuse? Quite the contrary! The fact that I am able to handle the stresses of parenthood without beating my children shows that child-beating is not necessary. I am a living example of how to raise your children without abusing them.

The fact that I've never had an abortion makes me even more of an expert on unplanned pregnancy than the woman who has aborted. After all, she was only pregnant a few weeks before copping out. I stuck it out for the full nine months, and have been raising the child in question for the past 11 years. I am proof that abortion is not necessary, a living example of how to handle a problem pregnancy without killing the baby.

In fact, women like me are the abortion industry's worst enemies. How can they convince other women that abortion is a necessity when so many other women thrive without it? And I'm not just talking about well-off, resourceful women. I'm talking about ordinary women facing difficult situations. We are the experts.

If we are going to do anything to reduce this country's staggering abortion rate, it will start with listening to women who give birth to their babies, not the women who kill them.

Letter 299

In her editorial on Thursday, a pro-choicer demanded to know how anybody who has never had an abortion could understand what the aborting woman is going through.

Well, I have had an abortion, and I know what that woman entering the abortion mill is about to go through. That's why I'm outside picketing.

I understand the feelings of being overwhelmed and utterly unable to cope with a baby. Nobody told me that those feelings are normal in early pregnancy, and that they would pass in a few weeks. Instead, I now live with the feelings of being overwhelmed and utterly unable to cope with knowing that I killed my baby. I exchanged a normal and temporary problem for an abnormal and permanent problem. And I paid $300 for the privilege.

I understand what it feels like to be processed like a chicken in a meat-packing plant. I understand what it feels like to be invaded with the instruments of death. I understand the physical and emotional pain. I know the rush of agony when the awful reality sets in.

It's a lot easier to be pro-choice when all abortion is to you is an abstract "right." After having lived through one, I cannot understand why anyone would wish this on other women.

And I'm not alone. The pro-life movement has many women who submitted themselves to abortion. We are the voice of experience and deserve to be heard.

Letter 385

Why does the abortion industry fight so hard against legislation that would prohibit sex-selection abortions? Do we really want it to be legal for an unborn baby to have her life taken just because her mother wishes she was a boy, or vice versa?

Many abortion advocates claim that sex-selection abortions don't happen. If that is true, what would it hurt to outlaw them? But every time a state has tried to make them illegal, the abortion industry has called out their best lawyers, used their most vicious lobbying tactics, and spent whatever money it took to keep them legal. If they didn't know for a fact that sex-selection abortions occurred--with some frequency--they wouldn't spend 10 cents fighting to keep them legal. The fact is, not only do they know it happens, they condone it.

The December 1, 1975, edition of Medical World News contained an article titled "Boy or Girl: Now Choice, Not Chance," in which Dr. Elizabeth B. Connell, president of Planned Parenthood's National Medical Committee, said, "...once the state of fetal diagnostics are moved from second to first trimester, so abortion falls within the menstrual extraction period, Planned Parenthood will increasingly connote planning the sex as well as the spacing of offspring."

In America today, her prediction has become reality. It's sad but true. We have become such a crazed consumer society that we'll "return" a baby as "defective" if he or she isn't the sex we wanted. It's pathetic and indefensible.

Letter 386

Why does the abortion industry fight so hard against legislation that would prohibit sex-selection abortions? Do we really want it to be legal for an unborn baby to have her life taken just because her mother wishes she was a boy, or vice versa?

Abortion advocates claim that sex-selection abortions don't happen. But in his book Abortion Practice, Warren Hern describes a patient who has a sex-selection abortion "for her own mental health as well as the welfare of her family." As if the baby, just by being a little boy, jeopardized his family's well-being enough to justify killing him!

And of course, the abortion industry's media stooges are now called upon to defend the practice. Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post wrote an article in which he addressed the subject in the following manner: "Abortion for sex selection in the eighth month may not be good, but that is for the people themselves to decide."

As much as the abortion advocates harp on those rare abortions related to rape, incest, severe maternal health concerns, and grave fetal deformity, the truth is, every abortion they defend is no more defensible than sex-selection abortions. After all, if abortion really kills a baby, nothing can justify it. And if abortion only removes unwanted tissue, any reason is good enough.

The fact that we balk at sex-selection abortions shows that we are not yet morally dead. Deep down, we recognize that abortion is wrong.

Letter 387

Why does the abortion industry fight so hard against legislation that would prohibit sex-selection abortions? Do we really want it to be legal for an unborn baby to have her life taken just because her mother wishes she was a boy, or vice versa?

It is interesting how the issue of sex-selection abortions relates to the lie abortionists tell about protecting the interests of women. This is a problem for them, because the majority of babies killed because they are the "wrong" sex are female.

In the November 22, 1976, AMA News, the pro-abortion American Medical Association included an article titled "Signs of Trouble Ahead," which said, "A sad irony now confronts the feminists who fought so hard and so long to make abortion on demand legally available. Abortion is increasingly being used to end the life of healthy unborn infants just because they are not the sex their parents prefer. And almost all of the unborn babies being aborted for no reason except that they are of an unwanted sex are female." So just being female is now considered a birth defect severe enough to justify death. And their execution is being defended by people who say their only mission in life is to protect the interests of women! It's just one more example of why the pro-life position is the pro-woman position. After all, how can a society eradicate discrimination against women, while allowing babies to be destroyed whose only "flaw" is that they are female?

Letter 388

Selective reduction is a procedure done to a woman who is pregnant with more babies than she wants.

A description of this procedure was printed in the April 21, 1988, New England Journal of Medicine. "Using ultrasound to locate each fetus, the doctors would insert a needle into the chest cavity of the most accessible fetus and place the needle tip into the heart of the baby. Potassium chloride was then injected into the heart, and the heart was viewed on the ultrasound screen until it stopped beating. Even at nine weeks, three of the 12 fetuses selected for elimination presented problems. The heart continued to beat and the procedure had to be repeated."

Abortion advocates will excuse this example on the grounds that this particular woman had taken fertility drugs and conceived at least 13 babies. They will argue that this particular procedure was carried out to save life, since not all 13 babies could survive in one womb. That's true. However, that's not my point. The procedure would be the same for a woman who simply wanted twins instead of triplets, or a boy instead of a boy and a girl.

Abortion advocates claim that this never happens, or is uncommon. That's not the issue. Since they have been so good at abolishing minimal reporting requirements, no one really knows how often it happens. But we do know it sometimes happens.

The question is, should it?

Letter 400

A guest column yesterday kept insisting that abortion is necessary to help women cope with unplanned pregnancies.

We're always hearing that. But in reality, if we have legal abortion to help women with unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, we have a problem. On November 5, 1991, Oprah Winfrey's television program was about divorce. One of the women on the show knew that her marriage was coming apart and purposely got pregnant, believing that the promise of a child would make her husband stay with her. However, when she saw that her plan had failed and the pregnancy wasn't going to keep her husband from leaving, she had an abortion. My question is whether she should have been legally allowed to have that abortion. In other words, should it be legal for a woman to get an abortion when she got pregnant on purpose in the first place?

And this isn't the only scenario. Women get pregnant to test their relationships, to test their fertility, or because in their social circle it is a rite of passage. Then they have abortions that were planned even before they got pregnant. And it doesn't matter how seldom or often this happens. My question is, should we be allowing this to happen at all?

Letter 401

Yesterday's abortion rally had many speakers who touted abortion as necessary "as long as women find themselves unexpectedly pregnant."

But let's look at the other side of the coin. What about a career woman who decides she wants to have a baby, begins actively trying to get pregnant, gets offered a once-in-a-lifetime promotion, and then discovers she is pregnant? Or a woman pregnant through artificial insemination who later changes her mind? Or the woman who gets pregnant to test her relationship, to see if she can get pregnant, or because in her social circle it is a rite of passage?

Maybe these scenarios aren't common, but the abortion industry wants to spend 90 percent of the time talking about abortions done on women pregnant through rape and incest, or on women carrying a less-than-perfect baby, or on a woman whose life is threatened by the pregnancy, when all of these are proven by the abortion industry's own data to be extremely rare. Even if it just happens one time a year, should it be legal for a woman who purposely got pregnant to get an abortion? Should whether she was intending to abort when she got pregnant enter into the debate? After all, a fundamental guiding principle of legalized abortion always centered around the issues of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies.

These planned abortions are something we should at least talk about.

Letter 402

In yesterday's column, a pro-choicer brought up the old familiar refrain, "No woman ever wants an abortion. Abortions are not acts of whim or fancy, but of tragic and compelling necessity."

I agree. However, if that's true, it's obvious that a truly pro-woman position would not be to fight for their ability to make an abortion decision, but to work toward a society that would help them not make such a decision.

If we know that a friend is considering suicide, we are not helping him by making it easier for him to do so. If we were truly interested in his well-being, we would help him deal with the problems that are causing him to consider it in the first place. The same thing is true here. It's only logical that if women don't really want to submit to abortions, then their lives are not being improved by a self-serving abortion industry making it possible for them to do so. So my question is this: What are abortion advocates doing to help pregnant women not make the decision that everyone readily admits they don't want to make? And I'm not interested in their "heroic" efforts at birth control. My question refers to women who are already pregnant. Again, what will they do for her so that she doesn't have to make the decision that the abortion industry admits she doesn't want to make?

Of course, the answer is...absolutely nothing!

 

 

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172 • Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-735-3448, (718) 980-4400 • Fax 718-980-6515
mail@priestsforlife.org