All in the family
by Carder
The MacDonald family can tell us a thing or 2 about surviving abortion. The story begins in 1968, when Jenn MacDonald‘s mother attempted to abort her, but felt too guilty to finish the job. Jenn says…
Unmarried, still in high school, and alone she tried to abort me, but in 1968 abortion was still illegal. The “procedure” didn’t work and she was supposed to return the next week to try again. Being raised Catholic, she “got the guilts” and didn’t return. But for God‘s grace, I would have been thrown out with the trash.
I was raised poor, unwanted, many times neglected, and used. Overall, mine wasn’t a happy childhood. I was blessed with a faithful Catholic grandmother who loved me and prayed for me, although often from a distance. By most standards, my life as judged from the beginning was a textbook case FOR abortion.
God had other plans. Despite those many painful years, life is worth living. My adult life is filled with joy and meaning. My 5 children are alive today because God’s grace spared their mother.
Recently 2 of Jenn’s children submitted video entries for Lia Mills’ Challenge to Pro-Life Youth Contest.
The video by Jenn’s 7-year-old son is at the top of this post.
Jenn’s 11-year-old daughter composed a song that she worked on for months…
It is from the mouths of babes that we hear such innocent wisdom.
Here is an excerpt from the lyrics, posted with permission from her proud father, Dave MacDonald:
On that day, when my mama’s mom tried to abort her,
God was there,
Through His grace she was spared,
She found those who would care,
His gift of love is why I am alive.
You were there, You were there,
You were watching over us.
By Your grace we were born,
And my daddy’s not alone.
© 2009. E. MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
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.
I honestly believe this is evidence that every person EVER conceived exists for a reason. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby, only ungrateful parents.
“Unwanted” describes not a condition of a child, but an attitude of adults.
If a man, woman, boy or girl is deemed unwanted by anyone else, does that justify killing him/her?
ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments by Randy Alcorn
I agree, there is no such thing as an “unwanted” child, only unwelcoming parents. It is not the state of the child as much as the attitude of the parents.
Rachael C.
Every baby is wanted by someone.
My dog was almost euthanized because she was older and had disabilities and so they assumed she’d be “unwanted.” I want her every day! It’s a miracle and the grace of Jesus that she was spared long enough for these people to see that she was wanted more than anything. And even if no one was wise enough to “want” her, she still has value because she’s who she is. I shudder to think of how human beings have stolen priceless blessings from themselves by imposing the idea of “wanted at the moment” as some criteria for life.
Wantedness is shallow notion anyway. Babies has value whether they are wanted by an adult on not. Value is not imbued- it’s inherent.
By the way- Jenn! How proud must you be! Your children are precious! And your little girl is so talented.
How awesome is the Love of God?!
Jenn you have one very precious family.
Love is the key.
Abortion not only murders an unborn child, it destroys entire generations.
Stud-Muffin:
Please do a mathematical calculation for us that shows how many people are lost as a result of 1 abortion.
Assume a generation is 20 years and that each couple produces just 1 offspring.
Then do the same calculations based on the US average of a 2.1 reproduction rate for each couple (thanks to those famly loving Hispanics).
Please do the math for 100, 200 and 300 years. Also, please provide the algorithm.
Thanks Studly in advance for your Cray Research, AppleG5, Tesla supercomputer like brain.
Oh, and Robert Berger, have you read this post, Mr. Killemasanactofmercyman?
Given just the conditions that HisMan suggested, I have the following calculations:
Assume there is 1 abortion in year 0.
Let’s start with the only 1 child case. Well, 20 years later the child who was aborted will not have her one child. In year 40, the child of the aborted baby will not have her child, etc. This gives us the general formula of 1+(n/20) where n is the number of years after the first abortion. Obvioulsy we also round up or down depending on the value of n since you can’t have fractions of people. So for n=100 years, we have 6 lost human beings. For n=200 years, there are 11 lost human beings. For n=300 thre are 16 lost human beings. Since each person only has one child, the formula is linear and hence does not grow very rapidly.
Now we turn our attention to the 2.1 children case. These numbers are more shocking. The person who was aborted in year 0 would have had 2.1 children after 20 years, for a total loss of 1+2.1=3.1. Then in year 40, the 2.1 children would EACH have had 2.1 children which makes for a total of 4.41+2.1+1=7.51. This gives us what we call a geometric series, and the general formula for the total number of lives lost is (1-2.1^(n+1))/(1-2.1). Note that in this case, the variable n is in 20 YEAR INCREMENTS. That is, if you let n=2, this corresponds to 20 years. If you plug in n=9, this means 9*20=180 years. Thus, to calculate the number of lives lost after 100 years, we use n=100/20=5 to obtain 77 lives lost. To calculate the number of lives lost after 200 years, we use n=200/20=10 to obtain 3184 lives lost. Finally, to calculate the number of lives lost after 300 years, we use n=300/20=15 to obtain 130051 lives lost.
I have to go to class now, but I’ll be back. I think everything there is correct, but there may be errors.
Bobby, now multiply that by the millions of abortions.
Then consider the babies contracepted out of existence.
No wonder that population experts state a culture cannot recover from a population index of 1.2 or 1.3.
What beautiful children with a wonderful message. God bless them!
Beautiful, precious children who know Truth.
Well it’s a good thing we do have couples that use contraception then! It’s okay for the ones we have that don’t to multiply unchecked, but imagine if we all gave it up? Can you now calculate for us world population in 100 years at the current rate vs without birth control. How about 300 years? 500 yrs?
“How can there be too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers…..” ~ Mother Teresa.
I’m not really sure why I should be glad that we have less people in this world through contraception and abortion.
I guess Emma is in agreement with the Elites who met and decided that population control should be their biggest focus. Scary as Hell.
Well, if it’s easier consider the effect contraception alone has on world population then. Besides, it’s more sinificant. Maybe the numbers will be high enough to give you the answer to that question. Maybe not.
“Maybe the numbers will be high enough to give you the answer to that question. Maybe not. ”
No, because I’m not a utilitarian. Even if I thought that the population would be “too large” in many years, I would not simply embrace a solution without considering the morality of that solution in-and-of-itself as opposed to simply considering the ends.
Plus, Emma, you have to understand that the model that HisMan suggested is by no means perfect. It’s a very rough estimate. There are a lot of factors that it doesn’t take into account. Now that isn’t a slam on HisMan; it would probably be too hard to come up with a quick equation given a more complex model. I think his idea was just to get a rough estimate, but it is only an estimate which doesn’t take into account a number of factors.
Are you brave enough to do the calculations then?
I realize that it is an estimate. And my question are you brave enough to do the calculation was just a bait! In actuality the results are academic because people aren’t going to give up birth control anyway
Brave enough? I compute cohomology groups and cofibers all the time. What’s some numbers?
Little math humor there, haha. Not funny, I know.
Anyway, I didn’t quite catch the setup. What is the initial population (if any) and how are people producing, not producing, etc. Just set me up and I’ll do what I can.
Ya got me then!
Start with todays population. Assume that there is no birth control being used by anyone. Ever. There. You got your wish. Now, what’s the population in 100 years? 300 years? 500 years?
What is today’s population and what is the rate at which people produce?
Actually I think I can give you the general formula. Let A_0 = the initial population and x=rate of increase. Then the population would be given by P_0=(A_0)*x^n where n is the number of years. However, this doesn’t take into account death. I believe that gets subtracted off. My guess is death rate is linear. Let d=the number of deaths per year on average in the world. Then I think your equation would be P=(A_0)*x^n -dn. That’s a down and dirty formula.
Hmmm, would the death rate be linear? The idea is that the larger the population, the more deaths you can expect per year. Exponential seems to large, but I”m not convinced that linear is correct. Does anyone know about population behavior?
Now the wheels are turning….. At what point does the population get so large that it affect the death rate? What is the effect?
Abortion deprives babies of the right to life. Wommen who go for abortions don’t think about the long term effects it has on their lives. I thank Jacqueline for those thoughtful words.
If pro-choice people were so concerned with the population, then they would advocate closing every hospital, halting research into illnesses such as HIV/AIDS or cancer, and demand that global warming be encouraged. If they were also concerned with the population, they would have absolutely no problem with the women who die and did die in abortions.
Somehow, I doubt that any pro-choicer is too concerned with this.
A massive population is worrisome, but lifting people out of poverty is the key. More children come from poverty than anywhere, and that is terrifying. Can pro-choicers and pro-lifers agree on this? I hope so. No one deserves to suffer until dead for an empty idiom.
RJ,
I will add to your comment that women aren’t told there will BE ANY long term effects from abortion in their lives.