Trash talk: Abortion proponents say Karen Santorum didn’t lose a baby, she had an abortion
Jezebel confuses an attempt to undergo surgery to save the life of her child with procedures a woman undergoes a to end the life of her child.
The Santorums’ child was not going to live regardless, yet Karen Santorum risked her life to take the pregnancy as far as possible. Both she and her husband committed to an early delivery with hope that a miracle would occur and their child would survive.
Karen Santorum wasn’t going to live to carry the baby to term and the baby, due to a defect, didn’t have much of a chance outside the womb, but there was a chance. It does happen. The Santorums chose the route that provided the biggest return for the gamble.
How asinine and petty for women to politicize the loss of a child for a straw man argument. Doing all you can to prevent the loss of a child you wanted is nothing like planning the execution of a child you don’t want. Of course, I don’t expect a site operated by drunk, self-described “slut machine(s)” who talk about how they don’t report rape (but like to use it as a political issue nonetheless) to understand the elementary difference. Perhaps, like our President, the issue is “above their pay grade.”…
Jezebel is a little late to the game of exploiting the Santorums’ loss; Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson have both name-called the Santorums over their loss. Instead of asking about Santorum’s record as a senator, media instead makes fun of infant death and trumps up a nontroversy to prove their pipe dream of hypocrisy.
~ Dana Loesch, Big Journalism, January 6
[Photo via chron.com]
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.
the pro death crowd always twists and turns things. they come off as a bunch of kooks because they havent a clue. actually they are a bunch of kooks like nancy pelosi calling people who are anti abortion “woman killers.” lol
Go Dana!!! Loved it!!
Ugh. People who call what the Santorums did an abortion really, really piss me off. They did absolutely everything they could to give both mother and child the best chance possible. Including Karen risking her life so that her child could have the best chance possible to survive. And their child died anyway. But, hey! This is a good opportunity to accuse them of standing for everything they hate on top of reminding them of one of the worst experiences of their lives and forcing them to face all that in public! Why not?
Seriously, swearing and throwing things level pissed off.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you’d kill your own child (or support someone else killing theirs), lying is certainly not beneath you.
Been over this and over this and over this with several pro-aborts. Don’t understand how a child dying soon after birth due to extreme prematurity is the same as planning to kill that same child through an abortion.
Because some abortions are accomplished through induced labor of an extremely premature baby, therefore the Santorum’s son Gabriel being born premature is, gasp, an abortion too.
They’re delusional. I really think these women carry such guilt over their own abortions they want every other woman to be guilty of the same thing. Safety in numbers. They won’t feel as bad over their own abortions if every other woman has had an abortion too… even the ones who really didn’t have an abortion.
Even if was an abortion (and I am not saying it was) it was not hyporcitical for the Santorum’s to have one since Karen’s own life was at risk. The logic of this is simple. If Rick and the doctors let Karen die the baby would have died as well.
Here is a blurb from Jezebel with my emphasis added:
“Let’s get down to brass tacks: Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Personhood Pledge-signing, Griswold vs. Connecticut-opposing, Mr. Ban Abortion in All Circumstances With No Exception for the Life of the Mother, believes that the actions of his own wife should be treated as criminal. Why? Because, back in 1996, his wife had a procedure that resulted in the deliberate death of her fetus, even though it was a matter of saving her own life.
Karen Santorum’s difficult pregnancy and resultant life-saving, induced early delivery is nosecret; in a 2004 interview with NPR’s Terry Gross, her husband characterized the 1996 procedure as a harrowing but necessary. Karen, in her 19th week of pregnancy, received a risky surgery to save a pregnancy that doctors thought had little chance of survival. After the surgery, she came down with an infection, and doctors told Rick that unless the source of the infection — the fetus — was removed, his wife would DIE and his already-born children would be MOTHERLESS. The doctor also told Santorum that his wife’s fetus would not survive outside of the womb. According to Santorum, Karen went into labor as a result of the antibiotics, and then doctors gave her a drug that further induced labor. She delivered, and unfortunately the doctors were right.”
I don’t think these people read their own writing.
According to an article below Karen could have obtained sepsis, a deadly infection more commonly known as a form of blood poisoning.
According to this article she had surgery in order to help the fetus, which resulted in her catching an infection. The baby was born later as result of non-induced premature labor.
Here is an article from the philly inquirer:
Karen was in her 19th week of pregnancy. Husband and wife were in a suburban Virginia office for a routine sonogram when a radiologist told them that the fetus Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die.
After consulting with specialists, who offered several options including abortion, the Santorums decided on long-shot intrauterine surgery to correct an obstruction of the urinary tract called posterior urethral valve syndrome.
A few days later, rare “bladder shunt” surgery was performed at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. The incision in the womb carried a high risk of infection.
Two days later, at home in the Pittsburgh suburb of Verona, Karen Santorum became feverish. Her Philadelphia doctors instructed her to hurry to Pittsburgh’s Magee-Women’s Hospital, which has a unit specializing in high-risk pregnancies.
After examining Karen, who was nearly incoherent with a 105-degree fever, a doctor at Magee led Santorum into the hallway outside her room and said that she had an intrauterine infection and some type of medical intervention was necessary. Unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was removed from Karen’s body, she would likely die.
At minimum, the doctor said, Karen had to be given antibiotics intravenously or she might go into septic shock and die.
The Santorums were at a crossroads.
Once they agreed to use antibiotics, they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew would most likely not survive outside the womb.
“The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum said. “Obviously, if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just the child is going to die, I mean it’s a pretty easy call.”
Shivering under heated blankets in Magee’s labor and delivery unit as her body tried to reject the source of the infection, Karen felt cramping from early labor.
Santorum agreed to start his wife on intravenous antibiotics “to buy her some time,” he said.
The antibiotics brought Karen’s fever down. The doctor suggested a drug to accelerate her labor.
“The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,” Santorum said. “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”
As her fever subsided, Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.
Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.
Karen, a soft-spoken red-haired 37-year-old, said that “ultimately” she would have agreed to intervention for the sake of her other children.
“If the physician came to me and said if we don’t deliver your baby in one hour you will be dead, yeah, I would have to do it,” she said. “But for me, it was at the very end. I would never make a decision like that until all other means had been thoroughly exhausted.”
The fetus was delivered at 20 weeks, at least a month shy of what most doctors consider viability.
In the months after the birth and death of Gabriel Michael Santorum, rumors began circulating in the Pennsylvania medical community that Karen Santorum had undergone an abortion. Those rumors found their way to The Inquirer, prompting the questions that led to this article.
“There are a lot of people who aren’t big fans of Rick Santorum,” the senator said of the rumors. “You’re a public figure, and you’re out there. Maybe it accomplishes a political purpose”…
“Because some abortions are accomplished through induced labor of an extremely premature baby, therefore the Santorum’s son Gabriel being born premature is, gasp, an abortion too”
So then are you okay with women inducing labor at any time? Even if it is intentionally premature with the hopes that the fetus will die? Are you okay with that?
It is my understanding that the Santorums didn’t bring on early labor to save the life of the child. They had Mrs. Santorum take antibiotics to save her own life, which brought on labor.
This is not the same as abortion. Even the Catholic Church permits fetus-killing medical actions–such as chemotherapy–so long as their express purpose is to save the woman’s life and the fetus’s death is only a side effect.
The reason that liberals such as myself criticize the Santorums is that if Mr. Santorum has his way, doctors will be too afraid of being arrested for abortion to allow women to save their own lives the way Mrs. Santorum did. It’s hypocritical of Mr. Santorum to support laws that would make it harder for other couples to do what he and his wife did.
It seems that the editors at Jezebel are not the only ones who should read their own writing. This point of this article is that Mr. Santorum supports banning abortion even if the woman is going to die if she doesn’t have one and it maintains that if such laws had been in place during Karen Santorum’s medical emergency, she would be dead right now. It also speculates that her delivery might have been deliberate–an abortion–rather than a side effect but fully acknowledges that the Santorums might well be telling the truth. Here’s a quote:
“But whether or not Karen Santorum had an abortion or medically induced the birth of a non-viable fetus shouldn’t matter in the eyes of someone with views as extreme as Santorum, as he is one of a disturbingly large group of politicians who believe that women should not be allowed to abort under any circumstances. Santorum’s even against abortion if there were no hope of the fetus surviving to full term, or even if the woman carrying the fetus risked death doing so.”
Anyone who wants to ban abortion with no exception even for the LIFE of the mother IS NOT PRO-LIFE. It is Mr. Santorum, not Jezebel or Planned Parenthood or even an abortion clinic, who is pro-death.
“Because some abortions are accomplished through induced labor of an extremely premature baby, therefore the Santorum’s son Gabriel being born premature is, gasp, an abortion too”
So then are you okay with women inducing labor at any time? Even if it is intentionally premature with the hopes that the fetus will die? Are you okay with that?
Where is this question even coming from?
“intentionally premature with hopes that the fetus will die” would be – wait for it – an ABORTION. Which pro-lifers are against.
Tyler, thank you for posting that excerpt from the Philly Inquirer. I was looking for it yesterday and couldn’t find it. The accusation that Karen Santorum had an abortion is patently false. She had a NON-INTENTIONAL premature delivery and her child unfortunately was too ill and too young to survive.
I developed preeclampsia in my 31st week of pregnancy. They hospitalized me and gave me meds to bring my blood pressure down. They sent me home. Days later, they re- admitted me, as my blood pressure had climbed back up. They gave me steroid shots to help mature my baby’s lungs. after they saw that my blood pressure was not going down as much as they hoped, they induced my labor to deliver the baby. After 19 1/2 hours of labor, she just was not coming (hey..she knew she hadn’t been in there a full 40 weeks, yet!), so they did a c-section.They gave her a little oxygen for about a week, and the next week she was on “room air”. I lived, she lived. We’re both fine. It’s called “pre-term delivery”…NOT abortion.
The reason that liberals such as myself criticize the Santorums is that if Mr. Santorum has his way, doctors will be too afraid of being arrested for abortion to allow women to save their own lives the way Mrs. Santorum did. It’s hypocritical of Mr. Santorum to support laws that would make it harder for other couples to do what he and his wife did.
Proof for this? Evidence?
I believe that this kind of talk is just pro-abortion alarmism. They are saying that women will be routinely arrested for miscarriages, for heaven’s sake!
Of course, if we ever come down to enacting a law that allows abortion only to save the life of the mother, a clear definition of abortion and what should and should not be permitted in saving a woman’s life should be carefully spelled out in the law so that this won’t be likely to happen. No pro-lifer I know of would be opposed to the life-saving use of antibiotics as in the Santorums’ case being illegal. And, if the quotes given from Mr Santorum are correct, neither, I suspect, would he.
The problem with the “life of the mother” exception is that it’s never just life – pro-aborts always insist on adding “health” to it. That’s partly because “health” is defined by abortion law (cf. Doe v. Bolton) so broadly as to include almost any reason at all, including the mother’s age and socio-economic condition. When crafting a life of the mother exception pro-aborts would want to expand “life” to include “health,” etc. it is this kind of broad-based exceptions that pro-lifers like Santorum are fighting against, because pro-aborts don’t mean by their terms what the rest of us mean.
I am all for clarity in this area; but alarmist rhetoric is not going to bring us any closer to a solution.
During the sixties, it was not unheard of for a woman who went to the hospital with any kind of uterine bleeding to be refused treatment because the doctors were afraid they’d be accused of having performed an abortion on her.
“No pro-lifer I know of would be opposed to the life-saving use of antibiotics as in the Santorums’ case being illegal.”
That’s the difference between real pro-lifers and people who are just anti-abortion, like Mr. Santorum. He supports a ban on abortion that does not include a life exception.
There SHOULD be a health exception in abortion laws. Let’s say a woman with MS gets pregnant despite her best efforts. If she has a baby she’ll be stuck in a wheelchair. Who gets to decide whether that’s too much for her to take? The government or the woman herself?
And what about the woman who’s already had four kids and the varicose veins are so bad that if she has another she’ll walk with a limp for the rest of her life? Should the government get to decide if that’s too much or should the woman get to decide for herself?
That’s why it’s pro-choice and not pro-abortion. It’s about putting the decision in the women’s own hands. Real pro-choice people are just as against forced abortions in China as they are against the lack of life exception in South American countries.
Hey, does the above comment mean that cc and joan aren’t really pro-choice since they both support China’s one child policy and forced abortions? cc, joan, are you going to just take that? You both claim to be pro-choice.
The reason the likes of Jezebel won’t prevail is because they subconciously know they are wrong. Otherwise they would never make our point by referring to the life of the MOTHER.
Sorry DRF but you’re full of it. Santorum supports abolishing abortion with no exception for rape or incest, and has CLEARLY never said he would sacrifice a woman’s life for her baby. You are making stuff up.
I am sure the Santorums’ views on abortion are in line with Catholic Church teachings, which I – a protestant – also agree with. A child conceived in rape or incest should NEVER be executed for their fathers’ crimes. Would you incarcerate the 2-year-old son of a thief for his father’s crime? Would you give a lethal injection to a serial killer’s 6-year-old daughter? Why then, would anyone ever advocate for the execution of a rapist’s child? A second act of heinous violence does not cancel out the first.
Prolifers cannot be cowed and intimidated by pro-aborts lies and BS anymore, buddy. We HAVE HAD ENOUGH! And, we are educated on the truth.
Here is an overview of Santorum’s prolife work and stance:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Abortion/
@DRF: If the so-called “pro-choice” people were against forced abortions, then where was that community’s outrage when a Texas mother tried to literally drag her daughter into two separate abortion facilities to force her to kill her unborn child? (Story is right at the top, and the link goes to the ADF site, which provides PDFs of some of the relevant court documents–redacted, obvs.) Where are the legions of pro-“choice” “feminists” angry at Kermit Gosnell for routinely performing forced abortions? (Go to page 55. Under the first block quote, after “It will probably be best to pay the extra money…” read item number 3.) Why isn’t the pro-“choice” movement up in arms every other week for the many, many women who are killed or attacked because their partner couldn’t stand the fact that they chose life? These things aren’t just happening “in China” or off somewhere where you don’t have to think about them, they’re happening right under your face. But there’s no outrage. There’s barely any acknowledgement.
Until I see the supposed bastions of choice and liberty start caring about these people, I’m calling them what they are: pro-abortion. Because for these women, who didn’t make the abortion choice, they don’t care.
DRF,
“No pro-lifer I know of would be opposed to the life-saving use of antibiotics as in the Santorums’ case being illegal.”
Sorry, I didn’t proofread my work! I meant to write: “No pro-lifer I know of would be opposed to the life-saving use of antibiotics as in the Santorums’ case being legal.”
You have not done anything to show that Santorum would oppose any such language himself. As I said, pro-lifers are opposed to broad-based exceptions to the life of the mother because the way the pro-aborts want them worded, they are so broad-based as to be meaningless.
Your other cases are not even applicable to the situation. A woman who should not get pregnant for medical reasons has any number of options. She can give up sexual relations, she can have her tubes tied and stop worrying about the problem, she can use other birth control, accepting the slight risk of becoming pregnant, etc. There is no reason for the government to be involved at all. Nor do I think it should be. All of this is before another life enters the picture.
However, when it comes to the already-existing innocent human being in the womb being deliberately destroyed, that is where I believe the government should step it, because it has the job of promoting justice by protecting innocent human life.
It’s very simple really.
@Mods: I have a link-heavy comment (6:33 PM) that got tagged by the spam filter. I think someone may need to go in and fish it out. *smiles and bats lashes*
Got it, Alice! :)
Part of the problem is that pro-lifers and poor-choicers operate on two different definitions of “abortion”.
For poor-choicers, any termination of pregnancy, especially before viability, is an abortion *regardless of intentions* or circumstances.
For pro-lifers, the early delivery of a fetus to save the life of a mother, when all other options are exhausted and there is no desire to kill the fetus is not an abortion.
Poor-choicers accuse pro-lifers of hypocrisy without even understanding what pro-lifers are advocating, creating a strawman.
Having a child is a very personal step and one that should ultimately be made by the female who will be carrying the baby.
In a perfect world every baby would be wanted and welcomed into a good home and taken good care of. We don’t live in a perfect world.
For those of you that believe abortion is murder, I respect that and would expect you’d never resort to ending your pregnancy unless your life were in danger – but… for you to assume your standards should be met by every other woman in this world, I’d ask you to spend some time volunteering at an abused women’s/ suicidal prevention agency or something similar.
After 16 years and losing 14 girls & women to suicide and violence, I could no longer take it and have moved on to less heartbreaking volunteer work. Of the 14, two were repeating drug abusers that just couldn’t get clean. One was a very sad case of a wife convinced her husband was cheating on her when in reality, no such thing had gone on. Two had terminal illnesses and wanted to ‘spare’ their families.
The other nine were various results of unwanted pregnancy. One was certain her husband would kill her if he found out she were pregnant (again) and she was right. Three tried to abort themselves… knitting needle, and coat hangers – two bled to death and one died from infection. I don’t call these ‘suicide’ but rather ‘violent’ deaths. One pregnant by her father, hanged herself. She was 12. The rest were young girls so terrified of their parents that death was preferable.
I’m not telling you these stories to change your minds in your personal lives. I’m telling you things that happened in one life (mine) regarding many young women from many backgrounds with one similar problem that ended terribly. Not one of these females was ‘trashy’ or careless. They all shared a feeling of shock at being pregnant and desperate to find a solution.
I was a Catholic ‘counselor’ in the mid 70’s.
When I had my third miscarriage and our Priest came to visit at the hospital – he told me “God had saved our baby’s soul for the next time. God has such love for the unborn and sometimes things just go wrong, so he saves up little souls to replace when time is just right.” I’m sure this is blasphemy but it mended my aching heart.
I don’t judge any woman for any choice she may make. Only God has the right to judge. I will live forever with the thought I might have saved one of those young women by giving them the gift of an open mind.
During the sixties, it was not unheard of for a woman who went to the hospital with any kind of uterine bleeding to be refused treatment because the doctors were afraid they’d be accused of having performed an abortion on her.
Ummm…and yet…you guys are also so very fond of telling us about the vast “septic wards” Pre-Roe where women were receiving care for illegal abortions and apparently dying by the boatload as well…Can you all keep your story straight at all?!
Having a child is a very personal step and one that should ultimately be made by the female who will be carrying the baby.
Yes. And as Pro-Lifers, we don’t disagree with that statement. The only problem is, biologically, a woman has already had her part in creating a child after she becomes pregnant. The child is already had. They exist and are alive. We simply do not want to allow anyone to kill that child.
In a perfect world every baby would be wanted and welcomed into a good home and taken good care of. We don’t live in a perfect world.
And also, in a perfect world, I would be able to afford a new car and a 4 bedroom house right now. Just because the world is not perfect doesn’t mean I should be able to rob a bank to afford those things, or kill a car/home owner and take those things from them simply because I would need or want them.
For those of you that believe abortion is murder, I respect that and would expect you’d never resort to ending your pregnancy unless your life were in danger – but… for you to assume your standards should be met by every other woman in this world, I’d ask you to spend some time volunteering at an abused women’s/ suicidal prevention agency or something similar.
I don’t believe abortion is murder. Murder is illegal, by definition. Abortion currently is not. However, (and this goes well beyond my personal taste or beliefs) abortion IS the killing of a young human being by a doctor typically employed by one or both of that child’s parents. Again, this is not simply my belief, it is scientific fact. My belief is that killing a child in elective abortion SHOULD be illegal. I don’t care if other people meet my standards, but precisely because we ARE talking about an issue of a very young child being killed by a parent or parents, society MUST demand that minimal standards of not ending that child’s life be met for the child’s sake. Because I know what I know, and abortion is what it is, I would NEVER be able to just look the other way, no more than I would if I ran into a man in an alleyway beating his child to death (I’m sorry, but I am not content to let that remain “his choice”, even if he is the sole individual responsible for bearing the burden of raising that child). The reason I am as pro-life as I am is precisely BECAUSE I have been the suicidal/abused woman in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and I know that no circumstance I was in warranted me ending the life of my daughter. She deserved to have her life protected by law, and it wasn’t. Every child like her ALSO deserves that very basic consideration, and I’m not going to stop until they get it.
Maggie,
If a mother holding her child is about to jump off a bridge, I’m not going to be “open-minded” about telling her she can go ahead and toss the child over, just as long as she doesn’t go with her.
We should try to save both, don’t you think?
“I’m telling you things that happened in one life (mine) regarding many young women from many backgrounds with one similar problem that ended terribly.”
Those are heartbreaking stories Maggie. But do you really believe that the “problem” those women faced was pregnancy? Really? A 12 year old is pregnant by her father and the pregnancy is the problem? A woman is trapped with an abusive husband and pregnancy is her problem? Young girls so terrified of their parents that they commit suicide and you think pregnancy was the problem? I’m astounded.
we know a lot more about abortion today and with 4d ultrasounds you can tell its a baby. and now we have the site “cemetery of choice” filled with dead women after legalized abortion. many of these girls killed themselves over their dead aborted babies. many were killed by the abortionists. abortion is murder. it always has been.
“I’m not going to stop until they get it.”
Interesting. So how will this crusader-like mentality play out in your future profession as an ultrasound tech? If a patient says she wants an abortion, are you going to strap her to the table and lock the door?
I want to thank those of you who responded for being as kind as you were over something so deeply painful. I still consider myself Christian, although I’m sure there are those among you who would disagree.
I do have a question, if you’d be good enough to answer; why do you label people ‘pro-death’? Do you truly feel these women look forward to abortion?
Did you know that Catholics lead in statistics for abortion? I can promise you they despise this data and are deeply ashamed. They are followed closely by Christians in general and then of course, the secular world. I’m sure none of these women are happy about what they’ve done. There are many theories to these outcomes… too many to go into here.
Please check then double check the research behind my statements. I’m confident you’ll find them legitimate. What I truly don’t understand is the animosity here given to any and all that have a differing life story. Shouldn’t we be trying to reach out to stop abortion, rather than ridicule each other?
“why do you label people ‘pro-death’?”
– I don’t believe I’ve ever used that label, but when I’ve seen it used it has typically been in regards to people that work to further an agenda of abortion, not toward individual women that have had abortions.
“Do you truly feel these women look forward to abortion?”
– No. From what I’ve seen, the women choosing abortion feel trapped by circumstances and the lack of a support network.
“What I truly don’t understand is the animosity here given to any and all that have a differing life story.”
– I don’t think I see generalized animosity here. We all have a differing life story and many of the woman posting on this blog have had abortions.
“Shouldn’t we be trying to reach out to stop abortion, rather than ridicule each other?”
– Yes.
Maggie,
Why did the three self-abort when abortion is legal?
Maggie, the ones we are calling “pro-death” aren’t the women having abortions, but those who are advocating them. The types that never met any abortion they didn’t like, who would consider trying to reduce the number of abortions in any way at all as a limitation on women’s “freedom of choice” rather than as offering them more choices. We mean the ghouls at Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics who profit by abortion and want to expand their business. These people are “pro-death.”
We do not have any animosity toward the women who have had abortions or their life stories. We have enormous compassion for them. Many of the pro-life women here are post-abortive themselves. Keep reading here and you will find out this and much more.
In regard to the Catholics having abortions, it’s probably true. Everyone is a sinner and many Catholic women have done things in desperate circumstances that they know are wrong. This is NOT a reason to consider the teachings of the Catholic Church or any Christian Church on abortion untrue. A true moral law remains a true moral law, regardless of whether anyone is obeying it or not. Widespread disobedience of this moral law is wreaking havoc in this country.
It is the Catholics who support abortion in the public opinion polls that are doing the real harm. We have one who posts frequently here (“joan”) who is pro-abortion. She also admits that she darkens the Church door only at Christmas and Easter, scorns the majority of Catholic teaching as well as the authority of the Pope and bishops, doesn’t believe in natural law, is thoroughly utilitarian in her philosophy (forced abortion in China, hurray!), a complete moral relativist, and yet in an opinion poll, she would undoubtedly call herself Catholic. Her Catholicism is merely a bit of cultural baggage, but this is what she calls herself. Pro-abortion Catholic ranks are made up of people like these.
I applaud you for wanting to reduce abortion. But I think you still need to learn the real facts of the situation and more of what pro-lifers really believe. This blog is a good place to start!
Maggie, the ones we are calling “pro-death” aren’t the women having abortions, but those who are advocating them.
We mean the types that never met any abortion they didn’t like, who would consider trying to reduce the number of abortions in any way at all as a limitation on women’s “freedom of choice,” unlike pro-lifers, who are offering
them MORE choices. We mean the ghouls at Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics who profit by abortion and want to expand their business. These people are “pro-death.”
We do not have any animosity toward the women who have had abortions or their life stories. We have enormous compassion for them. Many of the pro-life women here are post-abortive themselves. Many spend much of their free time at Pregnancy Care Centers offering free resources of all kinds to pregnant women to keep them from choosing
abortion. If the “pro-choicers” really were pro-choice, they would be in the trenches with us, working in these
centers to make sure that women in crisis pregnancies get real choices. But Planned Parenthood and NARAL are involved in a massive campaign to shut these centers down, not because we limit choice, but because we help reduce
abortion and they know it. Keep reading here and you will find out this and much more.
In regard to the Catholics having abortions, it’s probably true. Everyone is a sinner and many Catholic women have
done things in desperate circumstances that they know are wrong. This is NOT a reason to consider the teachings of
the Catholic Church or any Christian Church on abortion untrue. A true moral law remains a true moral law, regardless of whether anyone is obeying it or not. Much less is it a reason to think abortion is not harmful. The
widespread disobedience of this moral law is wreaking havoc in this country at this moment.
It is the Catholics who say they support abortion in the public opinion polls and belong to “pro-choice” that are
doing the real harm. We have one who posts frequently here (“joan”) who is pro-abortion. She also admits that she
darkens the Church door only at Christmas and Easter, has never been known to mention God, Jesus, Mary, etc. in a
single comment since I started reading them, scorns the majority of Catholic teaching as well as the authority of
the Pope and bishops, doesn’t believe in natural law, is thoroughly utilitarian in her philosophy (forced abortion
in China, hurray!), and a complete moral relativist, and yet in an opinion poll, she would undoubtedly call herself
Catholic. Her Catholicism is merely a bit of cultural baggage she carries around, but this is what she calls
herself. Pro-abortion Catholic ranks are made up of people like these.
I applaud you for wanting to stop abortion. But I think you still need to learn the real facts of the situation and more of what pro-lifers really believe. This blog is a good place to start!
(I have almost zero connectivity today and had to write this offline- I tried to post an earlier version – had no idea it went through. I’m submitting here the one I rewrote.)
Maggie,
I hope you don’t feel that pro-lifers ridicule pro-abortion people or yourself. Pro-Lifers are simply trying to bring clarity to the issues.
For example, the term “pro-choice” really is a meaningless label. What choice are they talking about? Clearly they are not talking about the choice to go buy a pair of shoes or buy an I-Pod!! We need to examine the content of the choice they are talking about: does the unborn deserve to live or to die; can a woman kill the unborn or not. If the choice is something other than this, or is “more” than this the pro-choice side is lisleading the public. The question is: does bodily autonomy include the right to kill another human being?
Pro-lifers respond emphatically: We don’t think so!! Bodily autonomy ends as soon as it harms another human being’s body.
Interesting. So how will this crusader-like mentality play out in your future profession as an ultrasound tech? If a patient says she wants an abortion, are you going to strap her to the table and lock the door?
Nope. I was thinking that using the truth would be so much more effective. You know…little things…like…stressing the truth that we would be looking at a woman’s child rather than a “blob of tissue”, and seeing and hearing the child’s beating heart instead of “heart tones”. The truth.
Do not forget to point out that those “blobs of tissue” have faces with eyes and noses and mouths….oh and wait…arms and hands with fingers?? No way!! Legs, feet and toes too!!
INCREDIBLE!!
“There SHOULD be a health exception in abortion laws. Let’s say a woman with MS gets pregnant despite her best efforts.”
WOW! That’s a VERY telling remark, DRF!
I can only assume you mean, “Her best efforts at contracepting.” Sexual intercourse isn’t a plaything, but a holy act between man and woman. Man and woman MARRIED to EACH OTHER, in fact. If you wish to insist on treating human sexuality as a plaything, be aware that doing so would pretty much require us to allow your moral values to over-rule ours. That wouldn’t fit too well with the constant howl against imposing values!
My favourite pro-choice misuse of language is: “the product of conception”
Can there be a more clinical, economic utilitarian view of humanity?
Tyler,
I’m not really sure why these women – all married – chose to abort themselves but I do have some ideas. Legal abortion was relatively new and one would need to go to ‘the city’ to obtain one; expensive, so their husbands would have to be told in order to get the money; they all had young-ish children at home and were stay-at-home moms so their absence would be questioned – remember, we were good Catholics, everyone knew everyone else and most of their business, besides. These tragic events were all within 1.5 years, and after the gossip I’d not had another (self-abort) until the year I quit. She was 17, valedictorian, beautiful and my last. – I believe hers was a suicide because she was so very bright – she had to know better.
I was so, so sure of right and wrong. There were no shades of grey. Life was life no matter what any of my ‘progressive’ ( heartless ) counterparts were spouting. I no longer feel that way. Life is all shades of grey. When I even get close to judging another for any reason – I give it up to God – and go to where I can be of service. I didn’t have to lose those nine desperate, terrified women and in turn loose 18. I had brochures in my desk – evil, pulsing things a woman had dropped off from Planned Parenthood. I was so cold to her; barely allowed her to sit. I was young and strong and knew the devil when I saw her. The minute she left, I threw them in the trash. For the first time in months my trash wasn’t emptied. I don’t know why but I picked them up and shoved them to the back of my lowest drawer and didn’t see them again until I walked out of my office some 14 years later. But I always knew they were there.
Today I would have said my memorized lines and I would have looked seriously into the eyes I was counseling. There is a certain look. The look says: ” I believe you but you don’t know my life. You don’t know what I go home to. Walk a mile in my shoes, then tell me this baby is a blessing. I just want to die and get it over with” I would hand those eyes a brochure and leave it to my God to judge. If I’m sent to Hell, so be it. I’ve lived and caused a hell for others here on earth that I might have prevented.
I’m done now. I’m not young and strong anymore. I’m old and ashamed and carry their hopeless cry’s for help every waking and some sleeping hours. Yes, abortion is horrible, awful! So much of life is. Sometimes we must pick the lesser of two evils and who am I to choose for another? I now feed the hungry and teach english as a second language to migrant workers. This is joyous work that God has directed me to and I’m so very grateful.
I see others here are confrontational and demanding and that’s all fine. I’m not trying to change anything with anyone else. For some odd reason that even I don’t understand, I’ve told my story, that’s all.
Maggie,
Reading your comments, at first I’m inclined to be absolutely furious with you: You appear to me to have given up and surrendered. On the other hand, perhaps your experience can demonstrate..one of my greater frustrations..with the pro-life concept. Your comments speak of the despair you’ve witnessed as a counselor and the horror you’ve encountered. Inherent within these experiences seems to be an outrage that you couldn’t repair a major portion of a person’s life with your efforts.
I think it noteworthy that one of the larger frustrations I’ve experienced has been with what all the Pro-Life movement doesn’t seem capable of comprehending. For some reason, people don’t seem willing to admit that efforts elsewhere will have consequences. If we don’t insist on teaching chastity in schools, if we don’t insist on admitting to the differences between men and women, if we don’t challenge any person to take relationships seriously, we can be guaranteed that incredible suffering will continue for a long time to come.
Don’t forget, by the time a woman comes to a Crisis Pregnancy Center, she’s already–usually–thoroughly immersed herself in a lifestyle that..generally..has already been given over to death and lust. They won’t be known in that way, but that’s what they are.
For example, I once knew a 17-year-old kid who would be having a baby within several months. I worked with her at my college job. One night, we happened to have something of a dispute about something related to her pregnancy; she let slip that she and her boyfriend had been having sex because, “It was something to do!!” I actually met the kid she’d been with; I had ample cause to wonder why on earth she’d picked HIM. He seemed..quite irresponsible to me.
It’s a sad fact of life, but we have little choice but to be pretty confrontational regarding many matters. It’s not pretty, but evil doesn’t typically give way to virtue without a fight. That fight usually involves admitting to the existence of a very serious problem, realizing that it won’t be resolved quickly, but deciding to struggle through it anyway.
It’s true enough that a good deal of life IS awful. I’ve long been quite irritated by efforts to insist otherwise; they’ve always seemed..quite short-sighted to me.
I would encourage you to pray for mothers and fathers, to be a passionate advocate for human dignity. I would also encourage you to be on the lookout for those situation where you might be able to help people who’re dealing with pregnancy issues. Ironic though it may be, you’d seem to me to be a good candidate for helping someone to work through that. You know better than most about what sort of a struggle they’ll see.
Seems to me that’s a word that people could definitely benefit from hearing.
“I don’t judge any woman for any choice she may make. ”
Yes, you do. You are judging the women here who choose to speak out against the killing of unborn children and who want this barbaric ‘choice’ made illegal because abortion kills an innocent human and is destructive to his/her mother.
“When I even get close to judging another for any reason – I give it up to God – and go to where I can be of service.”
And Jill’s is where you thought you could be of service? I’d ask you to spend some time volunteering at an abused women’s/ suicidal prevention agency.
maggie,
Killing their babies behind their husbands’ backs wasn’t going to help them get out of their obviously pitiful relationships. Killing her baby wasn’t going to guarantee the valedictorian would go to the best school and get her degree. There is nothing those women needed that couldn’t be offered or given WITHOUT killing their children.
The fact that you were ill-equipped to talk to them doesn’t mean that killing their children WAS the answer (although, it sounds as though this is what you’ve convinced yourself of to try and soothe you). They probably could’ve benefited from talking to a woman who actually HAD been in situations like theirs but was able to get out WITHOUT killing. Them being shown that it was possible probably would’ve helped more than some stupid pamphlet for PP so they could be whisked away and have their child killed and torn from their bodies.
I mean, it really sounds like you came from a place with a silver spoon, and when confronted with reality, just couldn’t handle it, and your world crumbled. But rather than admit this, it seems as though you’re willing to choke down what you know is right deep down (that women shouldn’t kill their children) and just let them at it because YOU don’t know how to deal, or YOU don’t know how you would deal with a situation like that. I mean…how were these women supposed to believe that their children were blessings when it doesn’t even sound as though YOU believed it when you were telling them that?
I feel sorry for you. You sound hopeless, crushed, and defeated. Please hang around here and listen to some stories of women who were in crisis, pregnant and sitting with the razor at their wrists, but who did the right thing and came out on the other side with their children intact along with their dignity. Let us remind you that women are stronger than we think we are.
It’s really clear from the story that she was given antibiotics to save her life and thus the life of her baby. The antibiotics were given in the hope of saving both. They had the unintended consequence of triggering labor. She did not directly act against the child. In the process of trying to save both of them the child died. That is not an abortion.
“Real pro-choice people are just as against forced abortions in China (then there must not be many “real pro-choicers”) as they are against the lack of life exception in South American countries (and what countries would that be? maybe you haven’t heard “pro-choicers” terrific job in spreading infanticide all over the continent).