Some of the most most impressive statements made by speakers on occasion of the March For Life in Washington yesterday:
“How many of you were born after 1973?” Kristina Garza, leader of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, asked the crowd. Almost every hand went up. Garza nodded. Young people, she said, were conceived “with a target on our backs. If you were born after 1973, there were people out there who wanted to kill you for money.”
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said this generation has grown up around technology that makes it impossible to deny the humanity of the unborn. “We’ve seen our brothers and sisters on ultrasound,” she said. “We’ve Googled abortion and seen the bloody images.”
“Talk about abortion everywhere you go. Do not shut up until we’ve abolished abortion. When someone tells you to stop talking about abortion, say, ‘Join with me to stop abortion and I’ll be more than happy to.’”
Another speaker, Kellly Clinger, told the crowd about her own abortion – an abortion she tried to keep secret from everyone, including her doctor. When she developed an infection after the procedure, however, her secret was revealed. “I didn’t tell my doctor I had an abortion,” she said, “but when I awoke after an invasive exam to see what was wrong with me, my doctor was in tears. When I asked her why, she said, ‘Because I found hands and feet inside of you.’”
It will take time and effort, but I have no doubts in my heart one day will come, possibly still in my lifetime, when people realise abortion is murder, full stop.
The Supreme Court of Alabama issued aninteresting sentence concerning the life of the unborn. Two pregnant women took drugs, gravely endangering the health of their babies, and were sentenced as a result. With the usual callousness of pro-choice people, they argued the babies are not persons, merely clumps of tissues, and therefore to damage them is really not an issue at all, much less a criminal offence.
The Alabama Supreme Court answered along the lines that the exact contrary is the case, and an unborn baby is treated by the law as a life worthy of protection in a range of issues, including of course the one of their health having to be protected from their mothers’ actions. In actual fact, they said, the only matter in which an unborn baby is not protected as a person is the issue of abortion, and this only because of Roe vs Wade.
Notice here the main point: Roe vs Wade is in opposition to the way the US legal system as a whole sees the unborn baby; a (though this is not explicitly said) monstrous creation of judicial activism going not only against the legal conception of an unborn baby, but (and this I add myself) elementary common sense. I do not know anyone who does not refer to the unborn baby as a “baby” instead of a lump of cells. Even the girl informed of an unwanted pregnancy will not say to her girlfriends she has been informed a lump of cells is growing within her; on the contrary, she will refer to him as “baby” even if she wants to abort him, and she will inform a certain boy or man that he is the…. Father, which implies a son, rather than the co-agent in the triggering of the rapid growth of tissues which, like a tumour, will soon have very unpleasant consequences unless properly expunged.
In fact, the way so-called pro-choice activists want us to see an unborn baby is exactly this: they want us to see an unborn baby like a tumour ready to metastasise unless treated promptly and decisively, with the removal and complete elimination of the dangerous excrescences threatening the health of the, er, well, mother.
Hitler is among us. But now he has millions of faces.
Bishop Ricken of Green Bay, Wisconsin, has written a letter to his sheep. This is a short excerpt. Emphases mine.
“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals,” Ricken said in the letter. “Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.”
The full text is here. You’ll find though stuff, like this:
I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete
your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be
supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person.
3. embryonic stem cell research
4. human cloning
5. homosexual “marriage”
These are intrinsically evil. “
Notice a couple of things:
1) The Bishop is not interested in party politics. He does not say “The Republicans say this”, or “the “Democrats say that”. It’s not about the label, but the content.
Does a candidate promote intrinsic evil? Then voting for him endangers your soul. It is fully irrelevant if the party is called “St. Francis peace’n love party”, or “The Democratic party”, or whatever.
2) It is not only about the Presidential race. Almost as equally important is what happens with the huge amount of political positions that are up for grabs: all of the members of the House and one-third of the Senators, with 7 toss-ups which, if they make a Republican majority improbable, at least will make it very difficult to have, say, another lesbian elected to the Supreme Court. Then there is the House, where the Republican majority should be consolidated, hopefully with an increased number of pro-life candidates.
3) Green Bay is in Wisconsin. If you think this State and its 10 electoral votes are safely in Democratic hands, think again; Obama’s advantage is melting fast, and now Joe Biden has to waste precious time in a State the Democrats have won in every election since 1984. Add to this that Ryan is from Wisconsin, and you have the picture.
4) I have no knowledge of Bishop Ricken guffawing with any so-called “pro-choice” candidate, giving them precious photo-opportunities to show how very much in tune with Catholicism they are. If I am wrong, please let me know.
Bishop Ricken will now obviously be accused to make party politics and be trying to influence the outcome of the elections; but you see, the man does not even mention one single party, and the outcome of an election is clearly important if you are a Christian. These are matters of life and death, for the voters’ soul as well as for countless unborn children. A Bishop who ignores these matters is a bishop who betrays the Church.
I doubt many readers of this blog are planning to vote for a so-called pro-choice candidate; but they might have relatives, or friends, or colleagues to whom the concept of “endangering one’s soul through support for intrinsic evil” might be, if the right circumstances arise, be brought nearer.
Kudos to the Bishop. More like him.