A Worried NARAL Is Good News For Pro-Lifers

On Tuesday, Roll Call ran a story about a political group striving to capture a youthful image, and in so doing, find relevance and resonance in one of the most hotly contested political issues of our age.

The group in question? None other than the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League — known to most as NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The problem that NARAL has is simple: it’s facing increasingly youthful, passionate opposition from pro-lifers. The pro-life movement has captured all the vibrant energy on the issue, and that’s something that NARAL hopes to imitate. So much so, that they’re studying young prolifers in the hopes of learning from them.

NARAL leaders have not been shy about acknowledging an “intensity” gap, making it a major theme of last week’s event. In doing so, the group placed Mark Earley Jr., a 24-year-old anti-abortion activist from Virginia, at the center of an effort to fire up members.

The group hired the public affairs firm GMMB to conduct blind interviews with activists on both sides of the issue, then singled out the University of Richmond law student’s tape as the most passionate, said Samantha Gordon, a NARAL spokeswoman. It featured the interview during the dinner “to show that passion to our audience,” she said.

Earley didn’t know he had become the face of the enemy, or even that NARAL was behind the taping, when he was contacted by CQ Roll Call. He said he didn’t mind.

“I had a hunch that it was not for a pro-life organization; I basically just figured my message would be used badly,” he said. “It is good for everyone to know that there are a lot of young people who are very serious about wanting to protect mothers and children.”

If their mission weren’t so vile, this would be laughable. NARAL is on an almost inevitable path to self-destruction. Although a recent NBC News/WSJ Poll shows that support for Roe v. Wade is at its highest point since 1989, that support isn’t unequivocal:

The shift is mostly the result of more Democrats backing the decision—particularly Hispanics and African-Americans—and a slight uptick in support from Republicans.

But the poll showed a consistent tension in Americans’ attitudes toward the decision.

Almost seven in 10 respondents say there are at least some circumstances in which they don’t support abortion.

Some 31% of respondents in the poll said abortion should always be legal, and 9% believed it should be illegal without any exceptions. Between those two opinions are the 23% who thought it should be legal most of the time, but with some exceptions, and the 35% who felt it should be illegal except in circumstances of rape, incest and to save a woman’s life.

But there’s another aspect to this story that nobody is talking about: the demographic war. Pro-lifers skew young in part because their parents — who are presumably also pro-life — have more children, to whom they pass on their philosophy of human dignity and respect for life at all stages. Members of the abortion rights movement champion contraception, small families, and abortion as a means of avoiding the “inconvenience” of a child. It’s only a matter of time, possibly even a single generation, before there are far more of us than there are of them.

NARAL is struggling to project a useful image is because NARAL itself is an organization of a bygone era. Nancy Keenan, the organization’s former president, announced that at the end of 2012 that she would soon be stepping down. The reason?

“Part of my decision was that, at 40, you have the opportunity to engage a new generation, the Millennials, because they are so huge, and that the person at the helm of this organization could reflect that youth and a younger generation,” Keenan said in an interview. “Because now the responsibility lies with these next generations to be vigilant.”

This is the same Keenan who, in 2010, came to a powerful realization:

What worries Keenan is that she just doesn’t see a passion among the post-Roe generation—at least, not among those on her side. This past January, when Keenan’s train pulled into Washington’s Union Station, a few blocks from the Capitol, she was greeted by a swarm of anti-abortion-rights activists. It was the 37th annual March for Life, organized every year on Jan. 22, the anniversary of Roe. “I just thought, my gosh, they are so young,” Keenan recalled. “There are so many of them, and they are so young.”

NARAL is worried, and I can’t help seeing that as a good sign. Abortion is not only a religious issue. (Just ask pro-life atheists.) Things may get worse before they get better, but we have youth on our side. It’s cliche to say it, but children really are our future, and those who love children — and give them the gift of life — are going to shape our course.
(Images courtesy of Alicia Skojec Photography)

5,436 views

Categories:Feature Featured Pro-Life

37 thoughts on “A Worried NARAL Is Good News For Pro-Lifers

  1. J D says:

    I believe the optimism in this piece is good but it needs to be careful. They still have control of our education system (both primary and higher education) and our culture, and it is only now that we are starting seeing some demonstrable measures of success and some positive attitude. I don’t know that the argument “we have bigger families and more kids than them and will soon outnumber them” works, when we have a certain mentality taught to many impressionable kids at a young age, and the reality is that often the formation of those kids is displaced and at times, opposed to the foundations that our families and friends (are supposed to) instill in them.

    It will take more than a single generation to change the culture, and I don’t think it’s “only a matter of time”, it’s a struggle we have to acknowledge and live. We need to win this fight with good example, good persuasion, and good parenting to our youth to contrast the mantra of abortion “rights”, contraceptive mentality, euthanasia, and dignified autonomous suicide, with the roots of a world view that more fully realizes and respects the dignity of each human individual.

    1. I agree. As one of the pro-life “breeders,” ;-) it’s not enough just to have more kids. We have to raise them right, and keep them from being “recruited” by our evil culture.

  2. Brian Wise says:

    Yes, it’s very possible that the day is coming when each year hundreds of thousands of our wives/daughters/sisters/aunts in the United States will have……………..illegal abortions. For over 20 years Not One Pro-Lifer has been willing to answer my question—”What do YOU believe the legal consequences should be for a woman who chooses to have an Illegal abortion? A small fine? A large fine? Local jail? Federal prison? No consequence at all? What if she refuses to name her abortion provider? Is that a crime?” I predict that No One reading this will answer that question. Some many respond to my post, but they won’t say what THEY would like to see happen to women who have illegal abortions.

    1. abadilla says:

      Brian, very simple, whether a woman has a legal or an illegal abortion she should repent from her crime. Jail time? Well, if she is guilty of a crime, she should go to jail too but also the abortionist. Sure, are there situations in which she should not be going to jail? Yes, perhaps house arrest while she takes care of other children she somehow allowed to live. If a person kills another person willfully, not as a result of an accident, doesn’t he or she go to jail? So, if a woman kills her child in the womb willfully, why shuldn’t she go to jail?
      In any case Brian, you seem to place all your compassion on the perpetrators instead of feeling sorry for the 55 million unborn children butchered since January 22, 1973. Why?

      1. Rev. Mark Goodman says:

        Its late, so I am posting a hasty response here, so bare with me if there are spelling errors in it. I am pro-life, but there are situations where abortion is medically required and that being said, its not logical to outlaw /ALL/ abortion, but only outlaw abortions conducted because they infant would cause the mother an “inconvenience”. I do not keep the catechism of the Catholic Church around my home, so I cannot find the section exactly, but I believe I would be correct in saying that the CCC states that it is permissible to end a child’s life if the mothers is directly threatened (I.E a ectopic pregnancy). Thanks anyone who can clarify this for me.

        The Very Reverend Mark Goodman

        1. abadilla says:

          Reverend,
          I know, for certain, the Church does not believe in abortions even in cases of rape and incest because even in these cases the child is “always” innocent of the circumstances in which he or she were conceived. Having said that, I will have to look at the Catechism and other church documents to say anything on ectopic pregnancies because I don’t know much about them.
          I will definitely get back to you on this one.

        2. J D says:

          Reverend,
          I believe that the CCC states that even in cases of the mother’s life and health, it is impermissible to directly kill her child, another human being.
          From the CCC:
          “2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

          The Catholic encyclopedia goes into far more depth:
          http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
          “Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires. ”

          “However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked.”

        3. abadilla says:

          Hi. Reverend Goodman,

          O.K. I did my homework and ectopic pregnancies are complicated moral issues. One thing I found for sure is that a chid just beginning his or her life will not survive and if the mother is not treated immediately, she will face death. Apparently Catholic moral theologians do wrestle here with a moral dilemma and I hope this article will help you understand the Catholic position better. Now, it is a complicated matter and it does not lend itself to short concise explanations. I think many of us are simply not aware of ectopic pregnancies because women rarely face them. I will continue to do more research because it is something I should know as a Catholic and as a teacher.

          http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0815-weling-ectopic-pregnancy.htm

      2. Brian Wise says:

        abadilla—I hope I’m not putting the wrong words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying, “I want abortion to be illegal and I want women who have illegal abortions to go to jail, or at least house arrest.” Thank you for being very honest. I believe that most Pro-Lifers, especially “Pro-Life Activists”, share your view and want women who have illegal abortions to be imprisoned. But, most of them won’t say it. I think they are waiting until abortion becomes illegal and THEN they will work hard for laws that require the imprisonment of women who have illegal abortions. And, that is one reason why I oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. Instead, I believe we shoiuld ALL work together to greatly reduce unwanted pregnancies (and thus greatly reduce abortion).
        I have to say that I’m confused as to why you would want a woman who “murdered” her “baby” to be under “house arrest” so she can take care of her other children. Why would you want her to be anywhere NEAR her other children if she “murdered” one of her other “babies”? I don’t get it.
        I could lie to you and pretend that in my heart I consider a six-week old embryo the size of my thumb nail, that doesn’t yet have eyes, a nose, ears, fingers, or toes, to be a “baby”, but, I’m sorry, rightly or wrongly, I do not. Maybe one day I will. In the meantime, yes, I have more compassion for the woman who is struggling with her conscience about what to do about her unwanted pregnancy than I have for the embryo or fetus that SHE is carrying in HER body. Should I lie and say that I don’t feel that way? Since about 90% of all abortions in the U.S. each year are performed by the eighth week of pregnancy, I would have no problem with banning abortions after the eighth week (as long as their was an exception for the woman’s health). I certainly support, as does Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions after viability, even in cases of rape and incest. But, I certainly do not support banning the “morning-after pill” which prevents a single-celled fertilized egg the size of the period at the end of this sentence from implanting in a woman’s uterus. In fact, I think the “morning-after pill” should be easily affordable and accessible to all women in order to help prevent abortion. The medical profession says pregnancy begins at “implantation” and I have no reason to disagree with them.
        Anyway, I certainly respect your views on this issue. You should always follow your conscience when it comes to this issue. I just strongly disagree with putting women in jail for having an abortion. Maybe my view on that will change one day, but I really don’t think it will.

        1. abadilla says:

          “I believe that most Pro-Lifers, especially “Pro-Life Activists”, share your view and want women who have illegal abortions to be imprisoned.”

          Actually, among most pro-lifers, my view is definitely a minority opinion.

          I do believe the vast majority of pro-lifers would like Roe vs Wade to be changed by the Supreme Court but most would not want women who have abortions to go to jail, they want the doctors who perform abortions to go to jail.

          “Why would you want her to be anywhere NEAR her other children if she “murdered” one of her other “babies”? I don’t get it.”

          Good question Brian, good question, Many women who commit an abortion think, mistakenly, they are just getting rid of the product of conception, a bundle of tissue and nothing more, it isn’t a crime, but born children, in their minds, are fully human and merit protection, well that’s not the case withe the way they view the unborn. Those kids who are born should be protected under the law and she would never advocate for their killing. I know of a student of mine whose mom is a nurse. Now, how she can justify being a nurse and destroying the unborn is beyond me.

          “I could lie to you and pretend that in my heart I consider a six-week old embryo the size of my thumb nail, that doesn’t yet have eyes, a nose, ears, fingers, or toes, to be a “baby”, but, I’m sorry, rightly or wrongly, I do not.”

          I know that is your position otherwise you could not justify abortion. You need some rationale to back up your position on abortion.

          “In the meantime, yes, I have more compassion for the woman who is struggling with her conscience about what to do about her unwanted pregnancy than I have for the embryo or fetus that SHE is carrying in HER body.”

          I know this may sound weird to you but I care about them both. When I say that a woman who has committed an illegal abortion, which is just a theory in this country, should go to jail, it is because a crime has been committed and she has to pay for that crime, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about her. I also would like for her to get all the psychological help possible because I believe the destruction of her own flesh is something she is going to have to live with for the rest of her life. Indeed it is true she is carrying that fetus in her body, but the dependancy of that fetus on her, does not give her permission to kill him or her as if dependancy were a death sentence. It is no longer just her body, it is also the body of a separate entity who, when born, will not be a cow or a horse or a chicken but a human being because that is what a child is from the moment of conception, a human being.

          “Since about 90% of all abortions in the U.S. each year are performed by the eighth week of pregnancy, I would have no problem with banning abortions after the eighth week (as long as their was an exception for the woman’s health).”
          I can’t favor the destruction of the unborn at any stage of its development in the womb of the mother. To me it is completely arbitrary to say as a zygote the child is “less human” than as a fetus. All human beings must be respected from the moment of conception till natural death. As far as the “women’s health” is concerned, any pregnant woman can tell you that there are issues of health all though the nine months of pregnancy, so, when do we say, “arbitrarily,” that because of her health the child can be aborted?
          The morning-after pill is an abortifacient, so I can’t support its use, and I would question the statement that the majority of doctors now see the beginning of life at implantation rather than conception. It is amazing to me that scientists who should be objective in their observations suddenly bent to the whims of secular society because they want to justify the destruction of the unborn.
          Brian, just a question you do not have to answer because it is rather personal. If you are a Catholic, how do you justify abortion in any way, shape or manner in a Church that has condemned the practice ever since the Didache, 2000 years ago?

          1. Brian Wise says:

            Thanks for your post and for your responses to my questions and statements!
            Yes, I am a Catholic, and it would probably take me 10+ pages to explain how and why I went from being a Catholic in my 20s in the 1980s who had an “Abortion Is Child Abuse!” bumper sticker on my car and (believe it or not) actually participated in “Operation Rescue” protests in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Corpus Christi, Texas TO being a Catholic in my 50s who now opposes overturning Roe v. Wade. The (too) simple (but quick) answer is that over the years I have educated myself about this issue, rather than just repeating the “sound bites” and the “slogans” that I was taught by a Pro-Life group in my parish church when I was quite young. (By the way, there were actually very few members of that group. Most of the members of my parish church were not interested in joining that Pro-Life group. At the time, I thought that was very odd. But, now I know that that is not uncommon. And, I also now know why that is often the case.) One of the most important reasons for my “conversion” on this issue was listening (REALLY listening) to quite a few Catholic women (and, yes, believe it or not, very devout and practicing Catholic women) who educated me and told me their stories and explained to me why they were both “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice”. To say that listening to these Catholic women was a “real eye-opener” is an understatement.
            Now, IF “abortion is murder” (and I realize you reject the “IF”), then EVERYONE should oppose abortion, whether they are Catholic or
            Non-Catholic. Back when I used to say “Abortion is murder!”, I never thought, “Well, Catholics, of course, should oppose abortion, but Non-Catholics might have a different view”. Instead, I believed that whether one was a Catholic or not was irrelevant. So, back then and still today I don’t “get” the concept of “But, you’re a CATHOLIC! So, you HAVE to oppose abortion!”, as if Non-Catholics are “free” to support “murder”,
            Well, this is already longer than I had planned it to be. My point is that where you are on this issue, I once was. My “change of heart” was in no way an “easy” one. And, I would expect less than 1% of Pro-Lifers to have a “change of heart” on this issue like I did. I do disagree with you, though, when you say that your position in favor of imprisoning women who have illegal abortions is a “minority” position among Pro-Lifers. I believe you are wrong about that. IF abortion is ever criminalized, I believe that the most vocal Pro-Life activists will work tirelessly to see that women who have illegal abortions are put in prison. They think that is the logical thing to do, the moral thing to do, and the “Scriptural” thing to do. They do not find that to be “scary” at all (like I do!). They think it makes perfect sense.
            Anyway, “time will tell” what the future holds for this issue. I believe that very little will change on this issue before I leave this earth. But, I think our grand-children and great-grand-children could see a very different America when it comes to this issue. My hope is that there will be very very few, if any abortions, but NOT because it is a crime and NOT because our wives/daughters/mothers/sisters/aunts are put in prison for having illegal abortions, BUT because there are very very few, if any, unwanted pregnancies. Let’s work on that NOW!
            Thanks for reading!

          2. abadilla says:

            I read your reply last night but I was too stunned to answer it.
            Why was I stunned? Simple. I cannot compute in my mind how a Roman Catholic can see this issue in the manner you understand it. I can definitely understand how a person like Norma McCormick could go from being pro-choice to being pro-life, but I have never seen a pro-lifer suddenly believe in abortion as many politicians do, not out of principle but out of political expediency. However, I do believe your conversion in the opposite direction is sincere but I still don’t get it.
            You are right in stating that many pro-lifers at the parish level simply parrot what they hear about abortion. They do not bother to go deeper to understand the issue better, but ultimately one is shown by Science, not by our faith, that what is growing in the womb is a human being. Once one is faced by such a reality, what is one supposed to do, believe in the opposite? Understand that to the Church abortion is not just a crime but primarily a human rights issue. It has been condemned by the Didache in the early Church when Christians did not have the benefit of Science to tell them about the humanity of the unborn. The Church has condemned it in no uncertain terms in the words of the Fathers of the Church. The Church has condemned through the Successors of Peter. The Second Vatican Council calls it an “abomination.” John Paul II condemned it in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, the Catechism condemns it, Benedict XVI has condemned it and the very application of excommunication to those who in full knowledge commit an abortion should tell us something of the gravity of the crime. Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta used to call abortion the “butchery” of the unborn and said so in front of President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton during a prayer gathering. I only tell you all of these facts because you do claim to be a Catholic.
            I believe both, Catholics, non Catholics atheists, agnostics, you name it, should support the unborn because ultimately it is primarily a human rights issue, not just a religious belief millions of Roman Catholics hold.
            I can understand that your conversion came from listening to women and by listening to them you can’t possibly believe that throwing them into jail is a good thing after committing an abortion. I can see that much, but I can’t compute that you have grand-children and still believe in abortion, when those grand-children were once in the womb and were as human as you and I are right now.
            You state that you hope there are fewer and fewer abortions, but why would you care if to you those little creatures are not human beings? I hope no one ever dies of abortion, a procedure that is so cruel and repugnant I can’t describe it here. If someone is chasing you or I down the street with the intention of doing us harm, we can run, we can hide, but a child in the womb of the mother can’t run away from the doctor who is about to murder him or her. They are innocent, bouncing up and down in the amniotic fluid of their mothers and not expecting any harm coming to them.
            As for most pro-lifers believing what I believe about throwing women in prison for killing their children, trust me, my opinion is definitely a minority opinion. Most pro-lifers believe the doctors who perform abortion should go to jail, not women.

          3. Brian Wise says:

            abadilla-Thanks for your post and also for the link to the story about the Priest who was conceived as a result of rape.

            As I mentioned in my previous post, where you stand on this issue right now, I once stood there, too. Therefore, I am not “stunned” or surprised at all by your comments, thoughts, and beliefs. I have heard your words, and other similar words, from everyone in the Pro-Life group I used to belong to, and sometimes those words came out of my OWN mouth. I realize that our “conversation” is confusing and “awkward”, because I have been “inside your head”, so to speak, because I once believed everything you believe today. But, you have never been “inside my head”, so to speak, because I’m guessing that when it comes to the abortion issue, you have ALWAYS believed what you believe today. I say that because you have never written something like, “Well, I USED to believe that, but I don’t anymore. I USED to think that was the case, but now I know it is not.” Therefore, I assume that there has never been a time in your life when you even “questioned” some Pro-Life “arguments”. Now, I neither expect or want or hope that you “change your views”. I respect your views, all the more so because “I’ve been there!” And, I feel respect from you, too. For example, you have never called me some ot the horrible names that some people have called me when they find out that I support Roe v. Wade. I realize that you are just trying to “understand” my position, especially since I am Catholic.

            Let’s go back to a previous post where you stated that a woman who has an illegal abortion could maybe be put under “house arrest” so she can continue to take care of her other children. And, yes, you explained that response a little bit, but what that statement says to me is——-There is at least a TINY part of abadilla that does NOT equate abortion with “killing a baby”. For example, if a woman stabbed her one-week old baby to death, I don’t think you would want her to be allowed to continue to care for her other children. But, you at least consider the possibility that a woman who has an abortion is still fit to raise her other children. That tells me that, even in YOUR mind, aborting an embryo or a fetus is SOMEHOW different from “killing a baby”. Maybe 99% of you is always thinking, “Every Abortion Kills A Baby!”, but maybe 1% of you, maybe sub-consciously, thinks, “Abortion is not EXACTLY the same as ‘killing a baby’.

            When I was first introduced to the Pro-Life Movement at a young age, I was shown photos of late-term fetuses that had been aborted and I was told, “This is what EVERY abortion looks like!” I now know that that is not true. I don’t know if the “morning-after pill” was around in the 80s, but I never heard about it back then. If I HAD been told that there was a pill that a woman could take 24 hours after being raped that would prevent a single-celled fertilized egg, the size of the period at the end of this sentence, from being implanted in her uterus and thus beginning pregnancy, I don’t care HOW “Pro-LIfe” I was back then, I would NEVER have believed that that was “killing a baby” or that the woman should NOT be allowed the choice to take that pill. But, I was always shown photos of late-term fetuses and told that every abortion looked like that. I was never told that most women have abortions when the embryo is smaller than a pinto bean and doesn’t yet have eyes, a nose, ears, fingers, or toes. Now, I’m not saying that YOU should change your view that even the single-cell fertilized egg or the six-week old embryo should be protected by law. But, I will use your word, “stunned”, and say, I have to admit I am “stunned” that you cannot understand why SOME people, even Catholics, DO make a distinction between the “morning-after pill” and an abortion at 6 months, or an abortion at six-weeks and an abortion at 6 months. Yes, I understand you saying, “But, it’s a HUMAN LIFE from the very beginning!”, but I do NOT understand you saying, “I can’t COMPREHEND how someone could support a woman taking the morning-after pill because it kills a baby!” Pro-Lifers can say until they are blue in the face that the morning-after pill “kills a baby”, but saying it will never make it true. It is NOT true.

            I know this is TOO LONG, but I will try to quickly answer your comment about “Why would I CARE if there are fewer abortions if I don’t think the little creatures are human beings?” Well, I DO care BECAUSE I know we ARE talking about “human life”! I don’t want to ever give the impression that I went from thinking “Abortion Kills Babies” to thinking “Abortion Is Like Pulling A Tooth”. I don’t know ANYONE who believes that. And, I also don’t know ANYONE who supports Roe v. Wade who believes that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion after viability for ANY reason just because it is her body. And, like I said before, I personally could support banning abortions even before viability, since most women have abortions by the eighth week anyway. But, will I ever support banning the morning-after pill? No. If a woman wants to terminate a six-week pregnancy, do I want the government to tell her, “No! You MUST continue the pregnancy for the next seven-and-a-half months against your will”? No,

            Anyway, I really think that if I was not a Catholic I would still be “where I am today on this issue” and even though I AM a Catholic, this is “where I am today on this issue”. I can’t “pretend” to feel differently just because “The Pope says……” or because “The Church teaches…..”. I’m not saying the Church is wrong and I am right. I am saying, “This is what I think today. This is how I feel about this today. This is what I’ve come to believe today.” In other words, I am being honest. You are being honest about your beliefs, too. That’s why I will always respect your views.

          4. chris scanlan says:

            Brian, this comment will be overly simplistic and not near thorough enough to count as an adequate response, I just want to map out the vision I have of your views and hope that I come close to understanding where you are coming from.
            You are Catholic. You were pro-life but now you are not (at least not in the sense it is commonly used). You support the use of the morning-after pill, but maintain that a fertilized egg is human life? (help me on this one) And wish abortions to end, but do not think that law should be a factor in ending all abortion just some.
            So you believe abortion ends human life, but its ok because…why?
            i’ll need help on this one too. It’s not because you believe in a woman’s right to chose, because you believe that there should be limits. So is the limit the viability of the unborn human life? I must be off somewhere, I just don’t know where it is.
            I’m looking forward to your response! (Also I understand if you would like to wait for abadilla to respond as well so you could save time by writing one instead of 2 responses)
            Also sorry this comment is all jumbled, I’m definitely a little scatterbrained tonight

          5. Brian Wise says:

            Thanks for your comments, Chris! And, by the way, your comments don’t seem “jumbled” to me. Apparently, though, my previous posts have been confusing and inarticulate and I’m trying to figure out how to answer abadilla’s and your questions so that my answers make sense. I don’t want to just repeat myself, especially if my previous answers didn’t make clear what I believe, so I’ll try some new answers and hope they aren’t as confusing as the ones I gave before!

            Yes, I approve of the morning-after pill AND I believe the single-celled fertilized egg, which is the size of the period at the end of this sentence, IS Human Life. I also believe that the HUMAN sperm and the HUMAN unfertilized eggs are Human Life, too. They are clearly HUMAN and they are clearly ALIVE. But, I do not consider the HUMAN and LIVING sperm and the HUMAN and LIVING unfertilzed egg to be Human BEINGS, nor Human “Persons”. Some states are currently trying to pass “Personhood” bills in order to say, ‘The One-Minute Old fertilized egg in a woman’s womb is a ‘person’ and cannont be ‘killed’.”

            If those “Personhood Bills” are passed and upheld by the Supreme Court, then the fertilized egg, according to the law, will be recognized as a “person”. Why? Well, because the “law” says so. If a Bill was passed and upheld by the Supreme Court that says, “Every Human Sperm is a ‘person’ and ‘spilling your seed’ is a crime”, then the Human Sperm, according to the law, would be recognized as a “person”. Why? Well, because the “law” says so. Will the day come when a majority of Americans support laws that recognize a fertilized egg as a “person” and thus outlaw the morning-after pill? Time will tell. My “guess” is, No, that day will never come. But, I could be wrong. Now, how about a purely hypothetical question? (Yeah, I know, I hate them, too.) You have two and only two choices—–a woman takes the morning-after pill within 24 hours of intercourse and prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in her uterus OR that woman has a surgical abortion when she is five-months pregnant. Which do you choose. I don’t have to “think twice” to know my answer. I’m guessing that you are “unable” to choose, because you consider them BOTH equally “killing”, “sinful”, and “immoral”, and that you just can’t choose one “evil” over the other. I don’t have a problem with that, even though IF I also considered them BOTH “killing”, I would STILL not hesitate to choose the morning-after pill. I would just

          6. chris scanlan says:

            Wow! Awesome post! Now i still have a few questions and I will provide answers/explanations if I can, unfortunately, I’m in the same position Abadilla was in last night, in that I don’t have the time to give an answer that you deserve, especially since you took the time to answer my questions and comments. I’ll do my best to address this before tomorrow afternoon. In the meantime, have a good night and thank you for your response!

            God bless!

          7. abadilla says:

            Brian, I will definitely reply to you but I can’t do so tonight because your post is so long, I would not have enough time to do my work and reply to you at this moment. In the meantime, enjoy Chris’ intervention.

      3. Jeffrey Lyons says:

        It’s difficult to believe that someone living in the 21st century could hold these views.

        1. chris scanlan says:

          Hmm, perhaps we should follow the example of Hitler, Stalin, and communist China? They certainly seem to be the example of the 21st century mindset you speak of. Sorry but i’ll stick with my prolife views that defend the defenseless despite the current culture telling us its ok to kill a child for no reason.

          1. chris scanlan says:

            This was my comment, after writing it i came to the conclusion that it was hastily written and was in poor taste and judgment. I hope you’ll forgive me for having posted this comment. While I am pro-life, I realize I should chose my words more carefully when speaking in a public forum.

          2. Jeffrey Lyons says:

            No need to ask for forgiveness from me. I often respond too quickly also. It’s part of being human. I thank-you for your consideration.

        2. abadilla says:

          Which is another way of saying I hold views that are medieval, but I ask you what I already asked, “If anyone commits murder, whether woman or man, should they be answerable to the law? What’s so medieval or antiquated about holding this belief in the 21st Century?

          1. Jeffrey Lyons says:

            Rather than reply to your question, I’m going to wait for one or more ladies to add their input to this post.

          2. abadilla says:

            Well, the answer to my question is very simple. Anyone who commits murder, whether woman or man should “face the music” of their actions. Also, more and more people are not going to see your postings or mine because the story is getting old and unless they go to the archives, they will never find it.

          3. Jeffrey Lyons says:

            That’s ok. I’ll still wait for more input from the ladies.

          4. chris scanlan says:

            their input doesn’t change objective facts and reality. If a person is killed by another person, then it is murder. The only argument is whether the unborn child is a person. It sounds harsh to say every woman that has had an abortion is responsible for killing another person, but that is the answer every person should arrive at if they look at this question objectively. So while waiting for the input of the ladies would be nice, especially since they add another point of view, it still won’t change the outcome of the argument.

          5. abadilla says:

            Well, Jeffrey might have the mentality of many, if the ladies run the Church, then the priesthood is O.K. as if the teaching of the Church where a matter of which gender is in power to make changes.

          6. Jeffrey Lyons says:

            It won’t change the outcome of your argument. It may change the outcome of others argument.

          7. abadilla says:

            Be my guest!

          8. Being endowed by our Creator with two X chromosomes, I’ll bite. :-) It may sound harsh, but it’s a truth most post-abortive women already know: the abortionist murdered another human being. The mother paid the abortionist to do it. In a sense, she put out a hit on her own child. If murder is a crime, she is guilty of a crime, yes. However, I do believe that, in evaluating that crime, factors such as mental health, education, information, and belief, etc do come into play. In most cases, I believe the abortionist is more guilty than the mother, and should likely go to prison. The mother is a much tougher question. I could see lesser charges, better interventive programs, etc. I also believe it would be hard for any justice system to do worse to a woman than she has suffered and will suffer. The woman who has had an abortion is an accessory to murder, yes, but she is also usually a victim. Often in multiple ways.

      4. Jeffrey Lyons says:

        I’d really like to get the input from one or more women regarding this issue.

        1. abadilla says:

          They are free to do it in this forum. Whatever any woman thinks, abortion always results in the loss of an innocent human life.

    2. Your projected scenario attempts to paint a very black and white picture, like there would be no factors to take into account. So your prediction is correct, because I cannot give a definitive answer. Factors on punishment would include pressure to have an abortion, how much support the woman had, what her economic condition was, at what point during the pregnancy she actually received the abortion, etc. I believe that she should be charged with being an accessory to murder. If she refused to provide the name of the abortion provider, I would say that it would make the sentence more severe.

      1. Brian Wise says:

        Thanks for your response! I think you actually DID give a pretty “definitive answer”. You say that women who have illegal abortions “should be charged with being an accessorty to murder”. Well, that obviously means going to prison if found guilty. You say that women who refuse to name the abortion provider should have a more severe sentence. That also sounds like “going to prison” to me. Anyway, thank you for being very honest in your answer! If you read my “reply” to “abadilla”, you will learn more about my thoughts on this. And, like I say to “abadilla”, I certainly respect your views on this issue!

        1. The pro-life activist Ramesh Ponnuru has suggested stripping abortionists of their licenses and imposing huge fines on those who perform them without a license. I thought those are good ideas, and I think anti-abortion people should definitely talk more about this issue.

  3. chris scanlan says:

    One reason I think the younger generation takes this issue as seriously as it does, is that they, at some point will come to the realization that they too, could have been aborted. It’s becoming more and more difficult to be neutral on this issue. You either belief that life is precious from the moment of conception or you believe that convenience takes precedence over life.

    1. Absolutely. Born in the post-roe era after being conceived out of wedlock by a mother whose family was not exactly one that faded into the crowd, my husband definitely considers himself a survivor of the abortion holocaust. They could have “taken care of” my MIL’s “little problem”… And I would not have the amazing family that I do today. Thank you to God, and to my husband’s parents…

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.