Are They Afraid of Love? of Family?

Last night Carson Holloway took on the strange attack on Rick Santorum leveled by Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson: that it was odd, or “weird,” that the Santorums would bring their recently deceased newborn son Gabriel home so Gabriel’s siblings could meet their newborn brother who was now with the angels.

Carson looked at the hypocrisy and oddness of their criticism, but it struck me in a different way.

See, liberals like Colmes and Robinson today defend aborting babies that, if born, would likely have a life that people like Colmes and Robinson would deem not worth living. Down Syndrome being one of the most common, but any malady or deformity that would make the child “different,” or could possibly result in the death of the mother or the child shortly after birth, is a clear reason to opt for a “termination.”

Gabriel had a condition that required prenatal surgery. An infection developed and could not be treated. He was born premature, and lived only two hours. If the Santorums did not care about their baby, or babies were truly only “lumps of cells” as supporters of abortion have to tell themselves, then what’s the big deal, right?

But the witness provided by the Santorums of love and the indispensable value of family, of knowing and loving one another, of sharing joys and sorrows, pains and triumphs, and yes, life and death, is at such odds with the culture that can support abortion.

I wonder, if Colmes, Robinson, or anyone who nodded at their criticism of “weird” Rick Santorum were in the Santorums’ place, what would they do? Would they mourn? I would hope so. Would they want the dying child to meet his siblings and his siblings to meet him? Tougher question.

Or would they want to hide death? Would they want to try to forget about it? Move on as though it was little more than an abscess that had to be removed suddenly? Would they talk about it much with the other kids? Or is their thinking so disjointed that they wouldn’t see the irony in expecting *this one* to live because I want it to, while allowing *that one* to be killed violently because, well, women’s health.

Truly, I believe it is a great benefit of being Catholic not to fear death or suffering, but to embrace them as indispensable parts of life. Because in suffering well we are as near to Christ in his crucified glory as we can be on this earth, and death is the passage to meeting Him face-to-face.

Little Gabriel Santorum was baptized before he died. He has seen the Lord face-to-face and can be numbered among the saints of heaven. His siblings, and his parents, are eternally blessed for loving him and knowing him for the short time he was with them here.

I do hope Gabriel and his friends in heaven will come down and soften the hearts of those who thought his life and his family were “weird,” or in any way odd.

2,032 views

Categories:Uncategorized

34 thoughts on “Are They Afraid of Love? of Family?

  1. Allen says:

    Thank you for your condescension on the PDE, it was charitable to assume a fault on my part (ignorance) and then speak against it. Especially since you are wrong about the application of PDE.

    I of course am not suggesting that Santorum had an abortion. But rather that he WOULD have had an abortion if he thought it necessary. According to his account, which is the only one available, he did not commit an abortion.

    However, Santorum’s comment that he ‘would have induced labor’ does not fall under PDE, because the nature of the act (inducing premature labor) is not a moral or neutral act. Inducing labor at any point made the child’s death a virtual certainty. Inducing labor, by Santorum’s own admission, was an act that would result in the death of the child. If the bad effect were intentional brought about, even to save the mother’s life. then there would be moral culpability. The bad effect can never be brought about intentionally under PDE. My contention is that Rick Santorum stated that he WOULD have violated PDE if he thought it necessary. Fortunately it was not.

    However, Karen’s labor induced spontaneously after the application of antibiotics. Thus avoiding them having to intentionally induce labor. Intentionally inducing premature labor cannot fall under PDE, because then induced abortion when maternal life is possibly threatened would be justifiable. You cannot split hairs and say that induced pre-mature birth is not abortion as to do so would merely be an argument about method and not the act itself.

    However, this kind of debate is why Santorum is bad for the Pro-Life movement. If we are having this debate, how do you think the rest of the country will react to this story. Will the general public entertain the fine intricacies of catholic moral teaching, or will they just call it an abortion. You can argue that this is public education issue, and that it could actually raise awareness. But it is much more likely to damage the pro-life movement by having a public pro-life figure perceived as a hypocrite.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      I see your point, Allen. Apologies for the “ignorance” charge, but I still disagree that they intended to violate PDE. Your initial description of the article made it seem like you really didn’t understand, hence my response. Though I should not have assumed. ——— That said, on the substance of your response: they would not have intended the death of the child in inducing labor, but when the options are the certain death of both the mother and the child or the very likely death of only the child, the procedure necessary to save at least one of them is not an abortion. Karen Santorum, in extremis, may have labeled inducing labor “abortion,” but that does not make it so. The child was *going* to die in one scenario and *very likely going* to die in the other scenario. A procedure that opts for one scenario over the other is not a direct abortion, and, in my opinion, does fall under PDE. ———— The problematic part of the article is whether Santorum does, in fact, support the “right” to a direct abortion in the case of rape or incest—clearly a violation of the Catholic position on the sanctity of life. But if this is the problem people have with Santorum, he’s sitting pretty, IMO.

    2. mary says:

      Actually, there is indeed another account available, and it is the one written by Karen Santorum herself. She was toxic with a fever of 103 and records the discussion she had with Rick at the time. She eloquently describes her tearful husband, asking her not to leave him, and she also forcefully describes how she NEVER NEVER NEVER even considered inducing labor, therefore the statement that labor came prematurely “thus avoiding THEM having to intentionally induce labor” is not correct. It was never a consideration by THEM (meaning karen, the mother included) to ever do this. Her account was written right within the very day of or day after the event, so I consider it most accurate. Did Rick as the frightened, grieving husband have wild thoughts that inducing premature labor might save her at the risk of Gabriel? Perhaps,but THEY did not agree to this and THEY did not consider this, no matter what was or was not said in a Washington office later. In other words, “we would have induced labor if we had to” if it is a quote is inaccurate. This is not to blame him–he is speaking from his standpoint, but not from hers. Being a woman who myself delivered a stillborn child at almost the same time as Karen Santorum, I can attest that she and I see and remember things quite differently than it seems either of our husbands did. And no, I wasn’t under the influence of any pain medication.
      I applaud Rick Santorum’s honesty in admitting to his own brief frightened thoughts in retrospect, rather than blithely say that everything was peaches and roses. This hardly amounts to hypocrisy. For Karen Santorum and myself, there was no question at all that neither one of us was willing to consider our own lives as more important than our childrens’. Neither of us thought a POTENTIAL risk to ourselves, although severe, was worth a DEFINITE demise of our sons.

      1. Tom Crowe says:

        mary— Thanks for the clarification, I admittedly haven’t read Karen’s account. And thank you for sharing your testimony.

    3. mary says:

      I meant to include this in my other most recent post–my interpretation of Rick’s Washington office quote is that his experience shows the error of his personal brief thinking at the time of the event, namely, in admitting that at the time of his grief and fear during Gabriel’s birth, he would have considered inducing labor, (karen would not, according to her own account written at the time and not later), but living through the experience has shown that was not the best option and “thankfully we did not have to do that.” I consider this as viable an interpretation as yours. Even if it is not so, see my other post regarding my own experiences, occurring soon afafter karen Santorum’s. Sorry gentlemen, but if you haven’t been there, you just don’t know. I am aware some women value themselves over their children and that some murder their unborn babies,but like Karen Santorum, I just can not fathom it. And no, I am not special or sanctimonious, and I bet I am also not uncommon either. There are millions of women like me and like Karen.

  2. Allen says:

    “Or is their thinking so disjointed that they wouldn’t see the irony in expecting *this one* to live because I want it to, while allowing *that one* to be killed violently because, well, women’s health.”

    This seems an odd charge to make in defense of a man who has stated that he would have personally authorized an abortion to preserve his own wife’s health.

    From:http://articles.philly.com/1997-05-04/news/25562508_1_fetal-abnormality-controversial-late-term-abortion-procedure-intact-dilation-and-extraction

    Quote:
    “In the interview, the senator said that his wife’s experience reinforced rather than altered his views about abortion.

    `If that had to be the call, we would have induced labor if we had to,’ the senator said as he sat in his Washington office. `I consider it a blessing that we didn’t have to make that decision.’

    Also this:

    “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.”

    Say all you want about those calling Santorum ‘weird’ but I say that with a history like this, he is bad for the pro-life movement.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Allen, you clearly don’t understand Catholic understanding of “double effect” and how Catholic morality works. Letting things run their course would definitely have meant death for the baby and great danger for Mrs. Santorum. Inducing labor gave both the best chance to survive, though the baby was likely already goner due to the infection—that’s a different case from directly killing the baby in utero. In other words, it would not have been an abortion. Think: ectopic pregnancy, also not an abortion, though the baby is guaranteed to die from the procedure. Learn a little more about how such situations are handled before you opine based on ignorance.

    2. mary says:

      As Tom correctly noted, allen, you are indeed totally misrepresenting the facts. There are two terms to consider–direct abortion, in which the baby is killed and it is the intent of the procedure to do just that, and indirect abortion, in which a different procedure is done, such as remove a tube, in which the baby will die, but the killing of the baby is NOT the intent of the procedure. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE> A direct abortion is NEVER necessary to save anyone,mother or child, but sometimes another procedure may indeed result in the death of the child. For instance, the removal of a cancerous uterus that is imminently life threatening to a mother may kill a child, but it is the undesired result of the procedure, it is NOT the goal of the procedure, as in the case of an direct abortion. Other situations, in which pregnancy may complicate a condition are often quoted as involving abortion to “save the mother’s life”, when the abortion does nothing of the sort. For instance, the case in Phoenix of a mother with pulmonary hypertension who had an abortion was not cured by the abortion at all. In fact, other treatments were not performed which COULD have helped her condition. She had a DIRECT ABORTION in order to “save her life” which neither saved her life nor treated her pulmonary hypertension.

  3. Bruce says:

    Well done, Tom! This piece truly exposes pro-death liberals as fearful of love, family, and God. We need to pray for pro-death liberals, for they have forsaken their own humanity for ideologies of death and pleasure.

    1. Gordon says:

      Well, Bruce, you’ve figured me out. As a liberal, nothing pleases me more than death. The more innocent, the better. Between my lust for death and my constant efforts to convert everyone I see to homosexuality, I think you’ve got liberalism down to a science. Well, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to work. Actively plotting the moral decay of America 24/7 is a difficult task, but we liberals will just have to rise to the challenge. I just hope I don’t see a happy (a.k.a. straight, white, Christian with at least two children) family while I’m out on my lunch break. Nothing scares me more than that.

      1. Bruce says:

        Gordon – absolutely correct, and it is quite fine that you admitted it. Liberals are all about the culture of death and the culture of the crotch. Whatever gets in the way of that which tickles your crotch must be destroyed, and all consequences (such as children) must be annihilated. Liberals are obsessed with their crotches and death. It is obvious. It is sad. It is the truth. :)

        1. Gordon says:

          Bruce, I apologize. I can’t believe I forgot to mention tickling my crotch in defiance of sexual norms. I am a little behind on my liberal to-do list this week thanks to the holiday, so crotch-tickling (while using contraception, of course) has unfortunately been moved to the back burner. Looks like I may have to “work” late tonight to get everything done. Fortunately the fact that I am, indeed, obsessed with death and my crotch will help keep me focused on my tasks.

          1. Tom Crowe says:

            Wouldn’t that be “contratickleption” in the case of using something that allows one to enjoy the tickling without having to experience the natural consequences such as laughing to the point of shortness of breath or true joy?

          2. Gordon says:

            Tom, to clarify for you and any readers, Bruce and I are using “tickle” as a euphemism here. As I am a liberal, all the things that my liberal friends and I do with our crotches are of course perverse and deviant. However, to use the true verbs here would be appalling and completely inappropriate for this website, or any polite conversation. Thus, “tickle” will suffice. However, you are right in that our perpetual use of contraception does allow us to escape the natural consequences of our actions, e.g. children. After all, we liberals are physically and mentally incapable of performing a sexual act unless it defies God in some way. As Bruce has mentioned time and time again, all liberals are either murderers of unborn children or are disordered homosexuals (some are both)!

          3. Tom Crowe says:

            Gordon— I had no confusion about your use of the word “tickle.” I was being tongue-in-cheek. I don’t believe *everything* you do with your crotch is perverse and deviant: I mean, washing your crotch is just fine, so long as you don’t enjoy it. ;-) (See, that was also supposed to be humorous.) On a slightly more serious note, the beginning of the problem is not what you *do* with regard to sex—the action follows on the mindset. The beginning of the problem is in the mindset/philosophy/anthropology that gives rise to what people do with their bodies. And the problems there are certainly not limited to liberals. It just seems that liberals (and I here include those who are otherwise conservative but have skewed notions vis-a-vis the body) want to declare as normal that which is abnormal, and protect via law that which is harmful to the self and society. That’s the difference.

          4. Bruce says:

            The trouble for you, Gordon, is that you think you’re being facetious, when in fact, you’re telling the truth. You’re in my prayers. :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.