Stanek weekend question II: Who are today’s 10 most influential pro-lifers?
Newsweek’s top 10 list of today’s most influential leaders of the “religious right” got me thinking.
The only leader Newsweek included who is solely committed to advancing the sanctity of life was Marjorie Dannenfelser, founder and president of the Susan B. Anthony List, well deserved, I might add.
That got me thinking. Who do you think are the most influential pro-lifers in our movement today?
Dec.18, 2010 11:32 am |
Weekend question |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Indirectly: Sarah Palin.
It’s why the Left shrieks.
Without a doubt, the most influential pro-lifer who is actually pro-life and is not supporting or promoting any pro-abortion laws that end with “….and then you can kill the baby” (i.e. “parental consent” laws, etc.) and spreading the Personhood movement around the nation is BOB ENYART.
#1 BOB ENYART
Lila Rose
Stephanie Gray
Abby Johnson
Fr. Frank Pavone
Eduardo Verastegui
Dr. Alveda King
David Bereit
Marjorie Dannenfelser
ALL of the nameless soldiers for life in our world today.
Not necessarily in any particular order… and of course, you go without saying Jill!
Pastor Bob Enyart & Colorado Right to Life
The leadership of American Right to Life
Cal Zastrow & Keith Mason of Personhood USA
Pastor Walter Hoye
Dr. Alan Keyes
Lila Rose
Fr. Frank Pavone
Eduardo Verastegui
Dr. Alveda King
And absolutely, positively not the openly pro-choice, pro-homosexual, pro-evolution Sarah Palin, who has publicly stated she would “absolutely not” ever want to make it illegal to get an abortion, who has advocated keeping specific kinds of infanticide legal (particularly chemical abortions), who as supported Planned Parenthood’s agenda by putting one of their own leaders on the state supreme court and then bragged about what a great judge she’d be, who has openly opposed Creationism and said that public schools should teach only evolution, who has lent her name to advocating for taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research, and who has spent the last year traveling around the country supporting pro-choice RINO Republicans and opposing genuine conservatives in state after state.
Palin is NOT pro-life by any stretch of the imagination, by her own words and actions, both.
You can’t please all of the people, all of the time. :(
I guess that’s why NARAL and PP are always talking about how much money they need to raise to combat Sarah Palin. Because they love her so much. lulz.
Xalisae, surely you do not look to Planned Parenthood for wisdom on right and wrong… By what standard do you judge matters? The words of the wicked? Or the unerring standard of right and wrong in scripture?
PP and NARAL and other liberals love for Palin to represent conservative America precisely because, from their point of view, she is a very weak candidate with almost no experience and who rampantly compromises on moral issues that are key to conservative Christians. She is exactly who they would love to run for president in 2012 because they know they would absolutely demolish her once American Right to Life, Personhood USA, Colorado Right to Life, Human Life Int’l, Operation Rescue/Save America, American Life League and many others publicly expose her as the pro-choice fraud that Palin is.
Fact – Palin is openly and confessedly pro-choice, both in actions and in her own words. All of what I said above is extensively documented with sources at ProlifeProfiles.com . The fact that liberals publicly trash her is NOT the standard of right and wrong. Do not let liberals and baby-killers decide for you who our leadership should be.
Any thoughts on what pro-abortion advocate/group has done the most damage to their own cause?
Cranky, definitely. National Right to Life has horrendously betrayed the pro-life community, has supported pro-abortion legislation and openly pro-abortion politicians, and for decades actively worked against pro-life laws and amendments, particularly any effort to recognize the personhood of the unborn. When Personhood has been proposed at the federal level, they said no, that’s wrong, it is supposedly a “states rights issue” (which is laughably false). Now, we are fighting for personhood at the state level, and they say we are wrong, we need to address things at the federal level, and they have worked directly against us! Their utter corruption seemingly knows no bounds.
Unlike a typical lobbying group that would make donations to the RNC, the NRTL works in the opposite fashion. The Republican Party pays them hundreds of thousands of dollars in return for getting “100% pro-life” ratings for openly pro-abortion politicians.
Furthermore, NRTL has even gone so far as to kick out state affiliates for the crime of refusing to endorse pro-choice politicians and/or supporting personhood. They even kicked out Colorado Right to Life, which is funny since CRTL existed BEFORE NRTL did, and our founder – John Archibold – went on to be the founder of NRTL as well, but he quit NRTL when they went down this corrupted path.
NRTL is one of the biggest enemies of the pro-life community there is, in America today.
Too bad Palin endorsed all those victorious pro-life candidates, my own congressman-elect included. Webster, who defeated the detestable Alan Grayson.
The nerve of her.
I’m sure she counters that, carder, by secretly doing her own abortions in her free time in a converted room in her garage. lol.
I can’t believe nobody’s mentioned Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America yet! Granted, I’m biased: I got my start in pro-life activism as a college student.
That snarky website is something. Talk about worrying about the mote in someone’s eye. Ever heard of the other quote: “He who is not against us is for us”?
You and your site rate the preening, self-aggrandizing Alan Keyes as a great pro-life leader? I guess you would’ve been alongside Custer, handing him his hairbrush as you go down to defeat.
Zealots like you will have no effect, just like the Jewish Zealots against Rome.
I haven’t seen any leader as persuasive as Sarah Palin for this cause.
Jamie,
Quick side-note: in your understandable rage against the mass-slaughter of unborn children, you need to remember that God grants the virtue of TEMPERANCE–the ability to restrain our passions and govern our impulses–to those who are His children. See Galatians 5:22-25, for starters. We need supernatural strength to keep our peace, even in the midst of such evil. If we try to use rage instead of holy conviction, we’ll cause what the military politely calls “collateral damage” to friend and foe, alike; at very least, you’ll be wasting your resources and ammo on non-targets. We’re fighting against the devil, remember? Not flesh and blood, but principalities and powers (cf. Ephesians 6). If we flame everyone who doesn’t meet our personal tastes in zeal, we’ll quickly have no friend or ally left. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
You wrote:
Xalisae, surely you do not look to Planned Parenthood for wisdom on right and wrong… By what standard do you judge matters? The words of the wicked? Or the unerring standard of right and wrong in scripture?
You’re setting up a false dichotomy, Jamie; it’s quite possible to use both, and still (within sane limits) come to a conclusion which differs from yours, or mine. Your own portrayal of Sarah Palin is inflammatory and wild enough to qualify as sheer calumny (which is a sin, btw); Sarah has flaws in her views, but when you describe her as a “fraud”, and worse, you’re going to make it extremely hard for us not to write you off as a crank.
Case in point: do you think it’s possible to have peace, even in the midst of such unspeakable evil as we see in the world today? (Point to ponder: did you ever wonder how the early Christians kept their peace, their temperance, and even their joy, in the midst of watching the Romans scream with glee at murders of Christians, Romans and foreigners alike, in the Coliseum, and in watching the decadent, infanticide-embracing society which surrounded them? They did.)
No one is asking you not to be bold. No one is asking you to be less fervent in your efforts, and even to “call out” people who fall short of their stated ideals. But put away your flame-thrower; it isn’t the tool for the job. Speaking as one who’s done his share of taking “pro-choice Catholics” (and the like) to task very sternly, I don’t say this lightly; your current efforts are over the top, and I fervently urge you to rein them in. Don’t drop your weapons, or your desire to fight; use better weapons, and get some training in how to use them.
Hans, you say Palin is a persuasive leader. Persuasive to what…?
TO KEEP ABORTION LEGAL. Aren’t you paying attention? She has never, in her entire political career, said abortion should be against the law. And on the contrary, she has gone on live, national TV during prime time and said she is “absolutely” against criminalizing it. Yes, she is persuasive… for the pro-abortion side.
How can you not care that she has advanced the homosexual agenda? How can you not care that she has advanced Planned Parenthood’s agend and then bragged about it? Or that she has supported taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research? Or advocated keeping specific forms of abortion legal?
Is none of that even relevant to you? Is that your “pro-life” hero? Is that who you want to be “persuasive?” I pray to God she is not persuasive, because her message is that abortion should be legal. Wake up and smell the incinerators, neighbor.
Can ANYONE provide a single example in Palin’s entire career where she said it should be illegal to get an abortion? Anyone? I realize I won’t get an answer — I’ve asked that question here in the past and no one was able to provide even one single example, including Jill, who is a personal friend of Sarah Palin.
Xalisae,
Heard she’s been aborting caribou lately.
Steven Ertelt
All of the above, and Jill Stanek too!
I hear that Dr. Bernard Nathanson is quite ill and not expected to be with us much longer. What a brave man he is for having repented and done all that he could to shed the light of truth on the darkness he helped visit on us. Mt prayers are with him that he not despair in his twilight here, and that he rest assured of the Mercy of God.
Back to the subject at hand…
Fr. Frank Pavone
Dr. Alveda King
Rep. Chris Smith of NJ
Archbishop Chaput, Denver
Jill Stanek
Sen. Rick Santorum (who will hopefully run for President)
Just a few of my choices.
Jamie,
Would you be against laws requiring smoke detectors that make loud noise because they fail to alert deaf people? Such a law is still worth voting for even though it does not help deaf people because it saves the lives of many other people. It doesn’t say that you can’t make and sell smoke detectors that alert deaf people. Parental Notification laws are the same thing. They could help save the souls of countless unemancipated minors and also would help get rapists off the street, not to mention the babies that parental notification laws would save.
Gerard,
Can u give us a link?
Jamie, Sarah Palin persuades by example. Her child and grandchild would not have survived a pro-choice household.
Not yet supporting a Human Life Amendment vs. overturning Roe doesn’t make her pro-choice. Neither does acknowledging the rare “life of the mother” exceptions. Nor a mild “I respect their opinion” politicalspeak about rape and incest.
We are agreed that abortion is the moral issue of our time. But eating our own does not strengthen us.
My picks are Cardinal Burke, Bishop Olmsted, and PBXIV.
@Jamie As misguided as NRTL is I wouldn’t qualify them as pro_abortion.
Hey, Don’t any-one forget Father Euteneuer (he and Fr. Pavone are top of the list, no exeption!)
Also my own Bishop Robert Finn, and his comrad, Bishop Joseph Naumann. (read this: http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2010/05/archbishop-naumann-bishop-finn-join.html)
Oh oh! I have a good one to add! Missy Smith!
Carder,
Link to Nathanson?
When will Christians wake up to politicians who say they are personally pro-life when their rhetoric and record show otherwise? Case in point: Sarah Palin. When Christians tragically state, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” I look in God’s Word and I don’t read that anywhere, but I do read this: “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m not perfect, but even in my imperfection, I would never, as Sarah Palin has:
Say, “I don’t think [the morning after pill] should necessarily be illegal.”
Appoint a Planned Parenthood board member to my state’s supreme court.
Say, “[Abortion] should be up to the people to decide.”
State, “[I] believe in a culture of life from cradle to grave.” as it does on her Facebook page. From cradle to grave? Really, Sarah?
Refer to the morning after pill as contraception.
Say, “I oppose the use of public funds for elective abortions.” Translated, some preborn children have less value than others.
Accept a vice-presidential nomination from a pro-choice presidential candidate.
Say, “I respect people’s opinion on this,” concerning abortion in the circumstance of rape.
Say the individual states can decide whether its citizens can kill their preborn children or not.
So, even though none of us are perfect, a strong pro-life Christian doesn’t have to be perfect to know all the above are not true, Christian, pro-life positions.
Christians really should have better discernment than to say Sarah Palin is in the top ten of influential pro-lifers.
What would you say about someone who said, “I am personally against slavery, but I respect people’s opinion on this?”
Gerard,
Yeah, link to the information that you got that he’s ill.
However you want to characterize her, the fact of the matter is that she had the highest number of successful political endorsements for the 2010 elections. Candidates for governor, senate, and the House, she placed her impramatur and the majority of them won.
And they happened to be prolife.
Which means, when they assume office, they should not be hostile to prolife legislation. Across the board. I say “should” to allow for a sellout or two.
Notice I used the word “indirectly”. If good prolife legislation comes out of this new congress come January, then I’d say she was phenomenally influential.
The only good prolife legislation is legislation that says abortion is illegal in all circumstances. Anything other than that compromises on God’s enduring command, “Thou shall not murder.”
Carder,
People in the national pro-life leadership who know him well shared that information with me at a meeting this week.
Jill, can you define “influential” please? Who are we seeking to influence?
I note that most (though not all) of the nominations above are people who have a visible presence in the media. They are known to us because they are in the spotlight for various reasons, often due partly to their poise and presentation in a public format, and/ or a unique experience thay had that launched them into “pro-life stardom.”
I would like to nominate a dear friend of mine who none of you will have heard of.
She became pregnant at 16 to a man who she knew had a less-than desirable character, but due to family and cultural pressure, agreed to marry him. In the next six years, she birthed four babies, and while pregnant with the fifth, he abandoned her.
This all happened decades before the crisis pregnancy center movement had begun, long before there were welfare benefits and community support for single mothers. She was left very much alone, with five little ones, at the age of 22.
She mended clothes, cleaned houses, and did whatever she could to keep her kids clean, warm and fed. She admits now that it’s a miracle that there wasn’t more pressure applied to her to release her babies for adoption, as many single mothers of her generation had experienced.
After several years, she met and married a single father who was raising four boys on his own. He too was an alcoholic, and things were a bit of a mess, until they both met Jesus. Then everything changed. They both decided they wanted to whatever they could to serve God in whatever way He asked.
Twenty four years ago, she started working for the organisation that I now direct. She started out a few days a week, running the reception desk and answering the phone. She received a meagre part-time salary for a few years, and then when the agency went through a lean patch, volunteered to work for free, and never went back on pay even though we could have afforded to pay her, if she had wanted us to.
For twenty four years, she did everything that was asked of her, including tasks that many may consider menial and inconsequential. She cleaned, counted donations, organized fundraisers, and sorted baby gear. She also counselled, befriended and offered practical help to countless young women who were vulnerable to abortion, and literally hundreds of them responded to her love and found the strength to resist the temptation to abort and instead joyfully birthed their babies.
She also studied, read, listened and learned as much as she could about post-abortion grief and opened her heart to many women who were suffering in silence, leading them to a place of healing and peace.
After twenty four years, she has recently stepped down from her practical responsibilities within our agency. She is remaining on our board in an advisory capacity.
There are women whose “babies” now have babies of their own, who still seek her out for a chat over a cup of tea. I’m not sure everyone even realises that she has stepped down yet, as she did that as she has done everything else, with no personal fanfare.
I am confident that we have only witnessed the “tip of the iceberg” of the fruit of her humble, servant hearted-life. I told her once that I am sure that when she reaches heaven, God is going to give her a “This is Your Life” moment, when she will be able to see fully the impact on thousands that her years of service have created (which brought her to tears.)
I tell her story because I am sure that there are thousands of other women, (and a few guys :o) just like her, quietly serving away- never granted a headline, or an award, or any recognition- creating immeasurable influence because of countless lives touched with love and grace.
Let’s not forget who we do this for. We need some people who can influence the media, some who can influence politicians, some who can influence their communities, churches and neighbours, but perhaps, most of all, we need many, many people who are willing to influence the newly pregnant woman, smothered in fear, self doubt or deception, with love, hope and no-strings-attached, as-long-as-she-needs-it support, so that she may welcome her precious child.
Love is the greatest influencer. Love always wins.
Michelle, your story brings a tear to my eye. You’re right. There are so many more unsung pro-life heroes than pro-lifers in the spotlight. I meet them all the time in my travels. Their crowns will have so many more jewels.
Michelle,
Well, what’s her name?
I’m with you Michelle..I have been blessed to know many people like that as well, who have quietly been on the front lines for years and years…it is through their influence and prayers that we are even where we are today.. they do all for God…I will be forever grateful for their sacrifices and example
It is true about Dr Nathanson…please keep him in your prayers. Jesus we trust in you!
Thanks to meteor for the love, sure appreciate the kind words.
However, it’s sad to see some use a forum Jill intended to honor pro-life heroes and champions as their personal space for trashing pro-life people and pro-life groups. Are you so full of hatred that you can’t talk up the people you like without bashing others? Pretty sad.
Abortion will end when some people realize the enemy is abortion and not each other.
“Abortion will end when some people realize the enemy is abortion and not each other.”
How true…sometimes we are our own worse enemy.
It is not about us however, but about Him.
He creates different things for different reasons…different talents and different ministries…some speak to some people, other to others..all good…with many wonderful people…some out in the open, some hidden from all but Him….all, please God, bringing graces and blessings and working towards an end to abortion….
The Scheidler family is always a potent force, though much of their work is not always attention getting on a national level.
Looking at the question from another perspective–which person was most responsible for getting 42 new pro-life congressmen and women elected? Non other than Pelosi. with some help from Harry and Barry.
Y’know, if I were just a wee bit wiser, I’d probably let Steve’s comment say it all. But since my own comment was brought into this, I suppose I should say something…
Scott Evans wrote:
When Christians tragically state, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” I look in God’s Word and I don’t read that anywhere, but I do read this: “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48.
God’s Word also states, “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Perhaps you might reconsider your kamikaze charge against other pro-lifers, at least to the extent that you don’t go flinging detractions, calumnies, and rash judgments, right and left? You and Jamie (do you know each other?) seem to think that other pro-lifers are somehow unaware of Sarah Palin’s positional shortcomings (which you describe very badly, and distort very well). I assure you, we’re aware. We’re just not in the habit of eating our own wounded, as a general practise.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m not perfect,
That’s very big of you. So… why did you bring up Matthew 5:48, if you and Sarah Palin and we all fail to live up to it? Are you insinuating that Sarah Palin is willfully *resisting* any progress in the path to holiness? If so, I’d be very interested to know how you know that. Otherwise, you seem to be spewing venom at any target whose behaviours don’t meet your personal tastes in perfection.
Let me be very clear, in case you missed it: I (and others on this blog) are very well aware of Sarah Palin’s true shortcomings. But your own presentation (which, again, mirrors that of Jamie) is exaggerated to the point of hysteria and outright falsehood, and there’s no need for you to do that. If you’d kept your temper (as the Holy Spirit empowers us to do, via the virtue of Temperance… see above) and lamented Sarah’s weak points, I don’t think you’d have found many people to disagree with you. But when you arrive, screaming in all directions, throwing wildly distorted accusations and innuendos (see below), and threatening anathemas against any pro-lifer who doesn’t fall into lock-step with your particular vision, you come across as one who’s having a temper tantrum, rather than a prophet of God.
Did you forget, for example, that the question of this thread was, “Who were the most influential pro-lifers?” It didn’t ask, “Who was the most perfect” or “who was the most pure in ideology”. Certainly, bring in your comments and laments. But would you be so kind as to keep a civil and restrained tongue in your head? You’re not gaining any allies, this way, I think… and do remember that calumny, etc., is a sin.
but even in my imperfection, I would never, as Sarah Palin has, […] state, “[I] believe in a culture of life from cradle to grave.” as it does on her Facebook page.
You wouldn’t?
From cradle to grave? Really, Sarah?
Look: the horse that you’ve been beating is certifiably dead; all right? Beyond that, what else would you call someone who does not accept the nonsense “abortion exceptions for rape and incest”, who rejects embryonic stem-cell research, and who rejected pressures to abort her own Down’s Syndrome baby, Trig? Of course, she has flaws in her position; but for you to say that she’s “not pro-life” is equivocative, puerile nonsense.
[I would never] Refer to the morning after pill as contraception.
Perhaps a bit of context would help your understanding? Here’s an excerpt of the Katie Couric interview, from where you pulled your “quote” (with my emphasis added):
So… how can Sarah Palin be “all for contraception”, while clearly rejecting approval of the morning-after pill? Isn’t it patently obvious that she’s making a distinction? Why else would she bring up the idea that “life begins at conception”, unless she thought that the morning-after pill (which DOES operate as a contraceptive, in addition to its baby-killing effects) threatened it? You seem to have cherry-picked Sarah’s comments in an attempt to paint her with a brush of your pre-arranged choosing, friend.
Say, “I oppose the use of public funds for elective abortions.” Translated, some preborn children have less value than others.
(??) I beg your pardon? How does that follow?
Accept a vice-presidential nomination from a pro-choice presidential candidate.
Oh, come, now! Even given John McCain’s troubling pro-life record (and, for the record, I voted for Alan Keyes instead of John McCain, in the 2008 primary), it’s simply hysterical for you to call him “pro-choice”, without many needed qualifiers; and even so: why on earth do you think that Sarah should have “kept herself utterly aloof” from an opportunity to influence both John McCain and the USA toward the good?
Say, “I respect people’s opinion on this,” concerning abortion in the circumstance of rape.
You’re taking this using the darkest possible interpretation, of course; you don’t, for example, allow for the possibility that the context (see the same interview) shows Sarah trying to be civil, and not bad-mouth people who believe differently. It’s quite possible to hate someone’s position, but respect them; and it’s even possible to respect the sincerity of someone who’s sincerely wrong. I, for one, follow the moral law which says, “do not judge rashly”, when there is good evidence to support a more generous interpretation. You don’t, apparently.
What would you say about someone who said, “I am personally against slavery, but I respect people’s opinion on this?”
I would ask them to clarify. If someone said, “I’m opposed, but I won’t impose my morality on others”, I’d chide them for talking nonsense; if they said, “I respect their views (in the specific sense that I respect the people who may be sincere in holding them), even though they’re wrong”, I would have no objection.
Re: issues of tone while engaging those who disagree with you, see my previous comments.
Jamie,
NRTL is WRONG to organize against personhood in Montana. And they would be just as wrong to organize against Parental Notification Laws.
That’s right, truthseeker. Imagine how drastically NRTL’s donations would decrease if they organized against parental notification laws. They have salaries and pensions to protect. Not a few pesky preborn children who’s grandparents give permission to have them killed.
For what it’s worth: I’m also underwhelmed by NRTL (and many state affiliates), and I’ve been grieved by those who fight against personhood amendments; but again, I’d strongly urge pro-lifers of all types to keep “friendly fire” to a minimum. Keep asserting your clear and undiluted message, by all means; but approach people as if they’re sincerely mistaken, not as if they’re conniving seditionists to the pro-life cause (unless clear and convincing evidence… not just half-baked assumptions and ill-thought-out attacks… proves otherwise)!
What Paladin said. (3:58pm)
“Our Lord’s patience means salvation…” 9-11, while tragic, happened once. More children are killed every day on average in this country, and have been since 1973. Just how patient do we have to be?
I don’t consider facts a kamikaze charge against pro-lifers who compromise. They are not pure pro-lifers. They are pro-choice with exceptions. What you and others call Sarah Palin’s shortcomings, God calls preborn children.
I brought up Matthew 5:48 because even in my imperfection (as I stated in that post), I would never consider taking the positions of Sarah Palin, NRTL, and so many other compromisers and regulators.
When it comes to killing children, perfection and a pure ideology is an absolute requirement. You do believe in absolutes, I hope. Perfection and unpure ideology would make abortion illegal. Imperfection and unpure ideology allow it to continue.
I believe in a culture of life from conception to grave which includes cradle to grave.
“Cradle to grave” is liberal, socialist terminology. Hardly what a pro-lifer should be saying, especially a high-profile politician who should be able to choose her words more wisely.
Sarah: “Well I am all for contraception and I am all for preventative measures that are legal and safe…” So, even if that legal and safe contraception kills a human embryo when many, if not most, do?
Sarah: “I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. I haven’t spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.” Fewer and fewer abortions? How about zero abortions? Again, I’m not perfect, but in my imperfection I know a position of “fewer and fewer murdered preborn children” is wicked. Would she also say, “I would like to see fewer and fewer month-old babies killed in this world?” Or, “I would like to see fewer and fewer slaves in this world?” Of course not. So why does this imperfect pro-lifer speak differently of the preborn than she would of the already born?
Sarah: “But personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception.” First of all, the morning-after pill is not contraception. The definition of contraception is the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means. Incredulously, Sarah Palin doesn’t even know that simple fact. If the woman conceived the night before, the morning after is hardly a contraceptive. It is an abortion. Again, what you call Sarah Palin’s imperfections, God calls babies. Secondly, she didn’t reject approval for the morning after pill, she just said she wouldn’t participate in it. If she truly believes life begins at conception, she would say, “I would ban the morning after pill if I could because, if the woman conceived the night before, it is an abortion.” She didn’t come even close to saying that.
When she said she opposes the use of public funds for elective abortions, that means she must approve of the use of public funds for abortions for the life of the mother but those laws are not meant to save the mother but to kill the baby. When a woman is faced with a crisis pregnancy, the goal should never be to kill either person but to save them both if possible. If it gets to the point that it’s not possible, then the baby should be delivered and many times, tragically, will not survive. But if a woman is in a crisis, how could it ever be advantageous to her health to start to deliver the baby then stop to kill him? So by approving public funds for elective abortions, a true pro-lifer would never say there is such a thing as an elective abortion.
John McCain is pro-choice state-by-state and said he would not seek a constitutional ban on abortion. He came to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape and incest and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions. Hardly someone a pure pro-lifer should align themselves with.
Sarah “respects people’s opinion on this,” concerning abortion in the circumstance of rape. How could any pro-lifer ever respect anyone with such an opinion that it’s OK to kill a child for the crime of his father? That’s hardly judging rashly.
So you would have no objection to someone saying, “I respect their views even though they’re wrong?” What’s to respect?
My tone is nothing compared to the slaughter of 4,000 or so preborn babies daily on average in this country. We’re not talking about cheating at cards here.
Carder- she wouldn’t want you to know her name, only the name of the One she serves. That’s my point. In my opinion, the most influential people in the pro-life movement are the ones who quietly, faithfully stand in the gap for the unborn with their lives of service.
I hope we don’t confuse “influential” with celebrity. I am not minimising the value of the service of some of the people who have been named in this thread. I am just reminding everyone that while there are a hand-full of recognisable names working to make abortion unthinkable and unavailable, there are thousands, perhaps millions more working quietly, without fanfare to make abortion unneccessary by ministering to the women and children in the crux of this battle. They are the unsung heroes of the pro-life movement, ending abortion one woman and one child at a time.
Paladin
December 19th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
You said it all in that post, Paladin.
All soldiers, in all armies, in all wars do two things well:
They see the war as revolving around their particular spot on the battlefield, and they bellyache loud and long. It’s no different with many pro-lifers. Were do we draw the line with who is a leader?
I’m not so much underwhelmed by individuals or individual organizations as I am mystified by the lack of coordinate strategy between many groups, as I am saddened by the degree of ego and parsimoniousness when it comes to sharing resources.
Paladin is right, the original question centered on who is most influential, and not who is the perfect spokesperson. On my blog, I only ever praise individual pro-lifers and their work. I don’t bother looking for perfection, because I’m so far from it myself. It would be damned hypocritical of me to expect of others what I’ll never attain in this life.
What I sense more than anything else on this thread derailment is frustration, and the nagging question of when this nightmare will finally end. We seek the perfect more as we seek the silver bullet more.
There is no silver bullet, and there won’t be. There is only the hard work of evangelization. A people of faith do not tolerate the slaughter of innocents.
The personhood issue is one of recognizing the humanity of the unborn, which means recognizing the rights and needs of others as equal to, and even trumping our own. That requires selflessness, which means abandoning narcissism, which requires hope, which requires faith, which requires authentic love.
So we have our work cut out for us, which begins with a long look into the mirror.
Me first.
Jill – the One and only one who deserves to top your list – and I think Michelle at 1:13AM is spot on as far as transformations and pro-life influence are concerned:
Jesus Christ
Any pro-life list without Him is completely lacking. While Michelle’s friend provides a beautiful model of servitude, it’s only through the transformative power of Christ lives may be fully saved.
And without Him – the pro-life effort would most likely not exist.
There is no silver bullet, and there won’t be. There is only the hard work of evangelization. A people of faith do not tolerate the slaughter of innocents.
People-just people-should not tolerate the slaughter of innocents. No one should. And anyone with any shred of decency left within them should be decrying this practice of child murder wherever they can, whenever they can, no matter what their personal beliefs in any other area might be.
I would say the following are the most influential:
Lou Engle
Gianna Jensen
Matt Locket
Luana Stoltenberg
And the countless women who are post abortive and share their testimonies on how abortion has hurt them.
Not to make this an epic battle of 10,000+ word essays (or to drag this thread even more interminably off-topic; this’ll be my last time, I promise!), but…
Scott Evans wrote, in reply to my comment:
“Our Lord’s patience means salvation…” 9-11, while tragic, happened once. More children are killed every day on average in this country, and have been since 1973. Just how patient do we have to be?
See, here’s where your rhetoric (which, forgive me, is very sloppy in its reasoning and message) causes a great deal of incodental trouble:
1) You imply that we (who don’t march lock-step with your specific vision and tastes) either don’t know the death-toll of the abortion holocaust, or else we don’t care. That, sir, is arrogant, and you need to leave that sort of inflammatory rhetoric by the wayside.
2) You imply that patience implies inaction, and that is as wrong as it is ridiculous. Do you seriously think that WHAT we do is unimportant, so long as we’re “doing something”? Try to run a war (such as this truly is!), and see where that gets you: “Soldiers, we have no specific orders for you, other than to do something, and… well… shoot people!” That is reckless and irresponsible.
3) You’ll note that I actually said “temperance”, not “patience”, yes? The quote I used from St. Peter’s letter wasn’t meant in that instance to highlight patience (though that’s certainly a good thing); I used it especially for the warning that people can take whatever Scriptures they wish, and distort them (intentionally or unintentionally) to their own destruction. I.e. don’t play “Bible Bingo” with me, and try to think that out-of-context, dubiously-interpreted “proof texts” settle your case for you. They don’t.
4) As for “how temperate/patient do we have to be?”, let me paraphrase your own statement, as a question: “How perfect do we have to be?” Jesus seems to think, “as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” You and I have no excuse for letting our tempers and passions run amok, simply because we “can’t stand it anymore”. Wars… especially long, protracted ones… are won with conviction, not with rage. Conviction is born of controlled, patient, temperate choices in accord with the moral good, using the most prudent means available; rage is simply lashing out in whatever way suits you at the moment. The latter might make you feel better, temporarily (perhaps), but that’s no way to win a war; in fact, it makes you a sitting duck.
I don’t consider facts a kamikaze charge against pro-lifers who compromise.
I don’t, either. But your “facts” are largely distortions, inflamed rumours, innuendoes, and raw opinion, mixed in with some accurate data. Stick to the data, and throw out the inflamed nonsense; if your argument is sound, you won’t need it, anyway.
They are not pure pro-lifers.
And you are not a pure pro-lifer, nor are you a pure man. Nor am I. Get a grip on yourself, will you? Arrogance is not the way to advance the Kingdom of God, nor is it compatible with true deal and conviction.
Perhaps this will make my point clearer. Contrast the following two statements:
1) There are a lot of things Sarah Palin does right, and I applaud them; but I wish she were more well-informed on issues of abortifacients and less inclined to nuance her statements in favour of political sensibilities! Can we all contact her and urge her to rethink these “weak spots”, and pray for God’s grace to guide her toward fuller truth, while building her up in the things she does well?
2) Sarah Palin touts herself as a “pro-lifer”, but she’s nothing more than a hypocrite, a phony, a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, a diluter of the true fight, and a traitor to life itself, and anyone who esteems her is a traitor, as well!
The first, I hope you see, addresses the same points, but without the puerile and (frankly) narcissistic temper-tantrum of the second. The second does no good (whom will it convince, who doesn’t already agree completely with it?), and it can do a great deal of harm… including to the souls of those who use it.
What you and others call Sarah Palin’s shortcomings, God calls preborn children.
Let’s not get hysterical and maudlin, here; that statement was pure polemical theatre, and (as it’s written) it makes no sense at all.
I brought up Matthew 5:48 because even in my imperfection (as I stated in that post), I would never consider taking the positions of Sarah Palin, NRTL, and so many other compromisers and regulators.
(*sigh*) You said that before, yes. You don’t seem to have picked up on the fact that it is your METHOD (including such vituperous bile [“compromisers”, “regulators”] as you hurl against those who don’t meet your specific approval), not your content, with which I (and others) have a problem. Even good ends do not justify evil means, friend; or don’t you believe that?
When it comes to killing children, perfection and a pure ideology is an absolute requirement.
Then you are disqualified, by your own admission, yes? Or will you now admit that your flambuoyant and acerbic comments might have outstripped logical coherence?
You do believe in absolutes, I hope.
I do. I hope you’re not implying that those who choose means other than yours (so long as those means are morally licit) are relativists?
Perfection and unpure ideology would make abortion illegal.
I think you may’ve meant “pure” instead of “unpure” (i.e. “impure”), yes?
Imperfection and unpure ideology allow it to continue.
See above. If so, then you’re part of the problem, by your own (earlier) admission.
I believe in a culture of life from conception to grave which includes cradle to grave.
“Cradle to grave” is liberal, socialist terminology. Hardly what a pro-lifer should be saying, especially a high-profile politician who should be able to choose her words more wisely.
(??) Did I finally hear an admission that Sarah Palin might have “chosen words poorly”, rather than “enacted base treachery and introduced compromise into the purity of the movement”?
Do you even read what you write? If her error was one of poor word choice (or even imperfect understanding of the concepts involved), then could you not bring yourself to tailor your reaction in THAT direction, rather than using epithets more suited to attacking “moral monsters”?
[Many similar comments deleted for space; if you’d like me to address one specifically, feel free to ask.]
When she said she opposes the use of public funds for elective abortions, that means she must approve of the use of public funds for abortions for the life of the mother but those laws are not meant to save the mother but to kill the baby.
“She must”, eh? Explain your reasoning, please. In my day, logic said that “I oppose [x] in [y] circumstances” does not logically imply that “I accept [x] in [non-y] circumstances”…
When a woman is faced with a crisis pregnancy, the goal should never be to kill either person but to save them both if possible.
Of course.
If it gets to the point that it’s not possible, then the baby should be delivered and many times, tragically, will not survive.
Right.
So by approving public funds for elective abortions, a true pro-lifer would never say there is such a thing as an elective abortion.
“Elective abortion” is a technical term in the political arena, Scott; she didn’t make it up “on the fly”. “Elective abortion” means, to the secular public, “abortion not necessitated by medical need”. You and I know that there is no medical need to target the baby for death; nor is it ever morally licit to do so; she apparently doesn’t (and many people are muddled about the idea… such as in an ectopic pregnancy, where the lines get more difficult for many people to see). So… work to *educate* her on that point; don’t write her off as a “traitor” and turn a flame-thrower on her! Change your tools, not your mission!
[John McCain comments deleted for space]
(*sigh*) Lord, what did I ever do to deserve being put in the position of defending John McCain…?
Look, Scott: maybe a word picture/example will help you understand my point.
Are you Catholic? Are you, more specifically, a Catholic who exclusively attends the Traditional Latin Mass, and sees the necessity of keeping all the pre-Vatican-II fasts and regulations? No? Then you, friend, are a heretic, pure and simple, and your damnation is virtually assured unless you repent of your heretic ways. The Church teaches “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”–“outside of the Church, there is no salvation”, you know!
There. Did I convince you to become a card-carrying member of the Society of St. Pius V?
The above was an example of what my mother calls “a little knowledge being a dangerous thing”. Some “Catholics” actually believe all of the above, and they think that you (as a non-sedevacantist, to say nothing of being a non-Catholic [horrors!]) on the fast-boat to Hell… and they’d feel that any attempt to “water down” that “truth” would be tantamount to treason and heresy itself. They’re wrong, of course (and Catholic teaching proves it)… but you’re doing that very same thing, in your own way, with your own “core of beliefs”. You’re raining down “anathemas” on everyone who doesn’t reach your minimum requisite of “purity”.
Let me say again, one last time (God willing): IT IS FINE TO HAVE PURE GOALS. But it is NOT fine to use “purity” as a pretext for savaging other pro-lifers, left and right. It makes you look, quite frankly, like a spoiled child who’s having a temper-tantrum, and it does no good at all. Seriously: if your method convinces no one (since your audience will either be repulsed by you, or they’ll agree with you and your methods already), and it changes nothing, then don’t you think you might try something a bit different (i.e. drop your flame-thrower, and stop insulting everyone who walks within 100 feet of you)?
Do you would have no objection to someone saying, “I respect their views even though they’re wrong?” What’s to respect?
You seem to have missed my earlier response to that point (December 19th, 2010 at 3:58 pm, second-to-last paragraph). Read it again, please.
My tone is nothing compared to the slaughter of 4,000 or so preborn babies daily on average in this country. We’re not talking about cheating at cards here.
Ah! So the existence of greater sin justifies your lesser sin? Odd concept, friend… and morally incoherent. Jamie (who seems to agree with your approach) said, to Xalisae, “You don’t let [whatever evil he mentioned] make your decisions, do you?” Perhaps you might take his advice, and not let a “comparison with murderers” blunt your conscience about your own wrongdoings?
Note: perhaps, if you’re very eager to continue this conversation, we could ask the moderators to start a thread about “the means of changing the pro-abortion culture”, or something like that? This thread has, as a friend put it, “gone to Mars, and back”.
As for my suggestions:
Gianna Jessen
Pope John Paul II
Rebecca Kiessling
Blessed Mother Teresa (of Calcutta)
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
Cardinal John O’Connor
Fr. Richard Marx (founder of Human Life International)
Fr. Frank Pavone
Dr. Alveda King
Kathy Ireland