Why I'm Pro-Life

I could post on this subject a million times and have something different to say each time. Today, I want to give the un-reasons. The I'm not pro-life becauses.

• I'm not pro-life because I'm conservative. Yes, I am more conservative than liberal, but I am not a "my side at all costs" conservative. I'm liberal on several issues, at least at heart. I oppose the death penalty. I believe that society must help those who need help (though I frequently disagree with modern liberal thinking about how that help should occur, I tend also to disagree with conservatives on the subject). I am not afraid to disagree with the "conservative" canon when I think it's wrong.

  ---

• I'm not pro-life because I'm a Republican. In fact, I'm only marginally a Republican in many ways, because I believe that conscience must always come before party affiliation. This ties in with the previous comment, because I believe that conscience must always come before political persuasion of the non-party type, also.

  ---

• I'm not pro-life because I hate women. I love women, and I love being a woman. In fact, I am pro-life because I'm sick of the bum deal that men are giving women in abortion. Abortionists (mostly men) are making a pretty penny off of women by selling their wares, and pushing, and hawking, and instructing, and indoctrinating, and luring. I've seen women (girls) forced into abortion clinics to have abortions against their will. I've known women who were in situations where someone tried to force them to have abortions against their wills. I know three such women very closely.

  ---

• Which brings me to my next not. I'm not pro-life because I'm anti-choice. I have seen too many instances where "pro-choice" politics and individuals have fought against individual and group choice. When "pro-choice" organizations like Planned Parenthood fight against informed consent (the right to a sonogram and accurate pregnancy information before making a choice about abortion, for example) it tells me that they are not concerned with women's choice at all, but only with the bottom line.

  ---

• I'm not pro-life because I'm judgmental. I want people to stop judging girls and women for being pregnant. First of all, I am, and you are, a sinner and unworthy to cast the first stone. Second, premarital sex may be a sin, but babies are never a sin. Let me reiterate that: Babies are NEVER a sin. Got that?

  ---

• I'm not pro-life because I'm mean. I think it's mean to pressure women into a painful and psychologically damaging procedure. I think it's mean to dismember a human being because he or she is an inconvenience. I think it is mean to treat any human individual as a political issue or tool, rather than as a person. I believe that whenever possible, we as a society should be compassionate. And killing people is not compassionate.

  ---

• I'm not pro-life because I'm Catholic. Yes, my faith requires me to uphold the value of human life. But frankly, I would be pro-life even if I were an atheist, because every human being has inherent value and I do not believe that one has more value than another, just because of age. And I do not think you have to be a Christian to believe in human worth.

  ---

• I'm not pro-life because I "just don't understand." Yes, I do understand that for many women carrying a child and having the pregnancy become public knowledge can be traumatic and even have devastating repurcussions. Yes, I do understand financial difficulty. (Ask anyone who knows me; boy, oh boy do I understand that one.) Yes, I do understand fear, and having one's life plans interrupted, and having to make sacrifices. I've been through all of those things. Yes, even in conjunction with some of my own pregnancies. But having been through those difficulties, I've also learned that there is light at the end of the tunnel, even when we are too far away from it to see it yet. I've learned that every single time I've made a sacrifice because it was the right thing to do, blessing has resulted. Long term, permanent, beautiful, life-altering blessing. Blessing of a sort that we cannot create for ourselves.

I know all the stereotypes about why people are pro-life. I've even known a few (very few) people who fit those stereotypes. But most of the people I know who oppose abortion do so for very similar reasons to my own.

My friends, and even those who might think themselves my enemies, if you are pro-choice, I beg you to spend half an hour today considering the other side. Nobody but you has to hear your thought processes. Nobody will judge you for it, and nobody will force you to change your views. But please, in the name of kindness, just spend half an hour thinking about it. Then, if you remain unchanged on the subject, you can return to your regularly scheduled thoughts. And may God bless you.

Catechism Highlights

Some teaching worth reflecting upon as those of us in the United States prepare to vote:

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel,[139] the sin of the Sodomites,[140] the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,[141] the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,[142] injustice to the wage earner.[143]

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.

I'll be waiting to hear apologies to the Palins.

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time. Even people who did not believe the rumors were very, very quick to spread them just the same. These same people often people who would call it "mean," "uncharitable," or "immature" if similar rumors were spread about a Democrat. Now it's been announced that Bristol Palin is 5 months pregnant, which of course makes it virtually impossible for her to be the mother of her 4 month old sibling.

The evidence was overwhelmingly against the rumors: legal documents, including birth certificates. Announcements of Sarah Palin's pregnancy, the fact that the baby has Down Syndrome, which is much, much more likely in one's 40's than in one's teens. The only evidence I've seen to the contrary is photos that show Sarah covered with bulky clothing, and the comment that no 44 year old with grown children would get pregnant. All of the speculation was spurious, yet those who knew it still spread the rumors.

Now that the rumors are known to be false, I don't really anticipate any apologies from those mean-spirited people who spread them. I hope they prove me wrong.

The Death of Inconvenience

Today I was greeted at the entrance to the store by a man seeking petition signatures to get items on the ballot. One of them was called "Death with dignity." I cringe even thinking about what it means. "If you have any dignity, you'll off yourself when you become inconvenient."

If that sounds cynical, ask yourself what the message of abortion on demand is. Take a refresher course on the Michael Schiavo School of Disability Management. Let's face it, those who are not 100% self-reliant are treated like parasites on society, no thought given to their past or future accomplishments, or to the fact that by the very fact of their life they have dignity.

So we call it "choice" and kill inconvenient babies. We call it "dignity" and hurry the elderly on their way. We call it "right to die," and we decide for the disabled that they can't really want to live. And we pat ourselves on the back for having brought ourselves to this advanced, modern, humanist way of thinking. We value humans so much that we convince ourselves that the ones who don't have any value should be gone to help those who do have value to have a better human existence. Not only that, but we then go on to convince ourselves it's a kindness we have done.

All of this reminds me of the quote attributed to Ben Franklin, that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. We cannot truly call ourselves enlightened until we start caring about the needs of the sheep.

You know you're a big family if...

You know you're a big family when...

...people count the number of your children out loud when you're in public
...people ask, "Are they all yours?"
...you start counting your children when you're out in public
...you have at least three bunk beds set up in your home
...almost everyone you know has less children than you do
...people say, "Wow! How do you manage?"
...people ask you, out of the blue, if you are Mormon or Catholic.
...you buy your pots and pans in the restaurant supply store
...supposed "family size" food portions seem awfully small
...you complain, "Doesn't anyone make large dining tables anymore?"
...you outgrow your mini-van
...you've heard "Don't you know what causes that?" more times than you'd care to remember
...you've forgotten what it's like to be alone anywhere else but in the bathroom
...your children never run out of playmates among their siblings
...everything you buy is in bulk
...people ask, "Don't you get overwhelmed?"
...you and your husband can no longer hold each child's hand while crossing the street
...it takes a wonderfully long time to hug and kiss everybody
...one of your children looks wistfully at the newborn and asks you, "Can't you have another baby really soon? I hardly get to hold this one because everybody else is taking turns."
...you realize that few houses are designed with your family in mind
...people ask you if you've ever accidentally left any of your children behind
...life around your family never seems boring or dull
...your tent is the largest one in any campground
...you feel sorry for people with only two children
...you sometimes wonder what on earth mothers with only two children do with all their spare time
...whenever you set your dining table, it looks like it used to look when you were expecting lots of company
...you read a cookbook and joke, "They call these meals? Sounds like a little snack to me."
...your gratitude at the abundance of God's blessing moves you to tears unexpectedly
...you start thinking of yourself as "rich in children"
...you secretly think that life in your family might possibly be a much more joyous adventure than life in smaller families
...you are vastly amused at much modern parenting advice, realizing that it is unnecessary, impossible, impractical, or simply silly to try to apply it in a large family setting
...it seems as if you pack more stuff going on a short trip than some people pack when moving their entire household
...you and your husband laugh, "And to think that when we got married, we wanted only four children!"
...your husband sighs happily, "I've finally got my dream car"--and it's a used 15- passenger van.

I don't know where this list originated, but I cannot tell you how true it rings.

There was an old lady who lived in a shoe

Very old, to hear my doctor talk.

I had my first OB appointment yesterday afternoon, and got the litany of risks, most of them age related. "You do realize that there's a drastic increase in the chances of having a Down Syndrome child because of your age?" Yes. "As much as 1 in 260." Yes. "There is also an increased risk of other genetic problems. Are there are any genetic or congenital conditions in your family?" Tourettes, Autism, Aspergers. (Scribble, scribble.) "Is there any diabetes in your family?" Yes. "Who?" I list various family branches and relationships. (Scribble, scribble.) "Do you remember the weights of your previous children?" Yes. 8-12, 7, 7, 8-14, "8-14? David, right? Are you sure?" Yes. (Thoughtful look.) 10-6 1/2. (Scribble, scribble.)

Then the lecture about what to expect. High risk pregnancy, watching it more closely, especially after 30 weeks... if there are any problems I get referred to an OB (my doctor is in family practice), am I sure I don't have any particular worries about this one? Do I want genetic testing? Do I want genetic counseling?

The end conclusion is that the doctor is more worried than I am. I'm less than two years older than I was when the last pregnancy began, and I have no reason to think that 40 is some magic cutoff line between a healthy and an unhealthy pregnancy. I'm marginally older, and I believe I have marginally more risk. Frankly I'm more concerned with the risk of an upcoming c-section than I am with the risk of a baby with problems.

I'm also not terribly concerned that someone -- even a doctor -- think I'm old.

When You Are Old

When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;
How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim Soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;
And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.
(William Butler Yeats)

My love has not fled. How can I be truly old?

Demand Truth in Advertising

I've gotten fed up with the idea that "choice" requires that women be denied full disclosure about medical procedures, medications, how they work, and what their risks are.

The condom, widely promoted as a deterrent to sexually transmitted diseases, does not prevent the most prevalent STD, Human Papilloma Virus. It also does not prevent Herpes, and the pores in latex are approximately 1000 times larger than the AIDS virus. Condoms continue to be promoted for the prevention of STDs and AIDS without this disclaimer.

The IUD and IUC are known only to prevent implantation, not conception, yet both are listed in medical literature as contraceptives. Women who do not choose abortion are being tricked into inducing abortion with these abortifacients.

Progesterone only contraceptives, known to work almost exclusively by preventing implantation and not conception, are marketed as contraceptives. Women who do not choose abortion are being tricked into inducing abortion with these abortifacients.

"The Pill," or the traditional two hormone birth control pill, is known to have a dual action of contraception and an abortifacient "backup" action; yet this information is not listed on packaging or package inserts. Women who do not choose abortion are being tricked into inducing abortion with these abortifacients.

Abortion is marketed as the destruction of "tissue" but mothers are routinely left ignorant about the state of development of this "tissue" before making the choice to destroy it. Abortion practitioners and promoters are fighting to make it illegal to obtain this information by ultrasound.

It is time for us to DEMAND the truth. They tell us that we have choices, but we deserve the right to make informed choices. We have a right to demand that providers of birth control and sex-industry medical chemicals and procedures be legally required to tell us the truth.

Women's liberation has supposedly made us equal to men; so why are we still being exploited for the profit of medical companies and practitioners by being denied access to full and accurate information about our own health care?

Get the word out. Spread it far and wide. Tell your representatives and senators. We have the right to know the truth.

Please distribute this appeal to everyone you know. They deserve to know the truth.

Something to Ponder

The majority of abortions are performed for the convenience of men, not for the convenience of women.

Women suffer more of the emotional consequences. Women suffer all of the physical/health side effects. Women suffer the brunt of judgment. Yet it is men who pressure women to have abortions more often than not, to alleviate their own responsibility. I've seen men drag their sexual partners forcefully into abortion clinics, with the assistance of the "pro-choice escorts." I've heard men talk women into getting abortions. I've heard parents talk their children into getting abortions; and I've known parents who tried to trick or force their offspring to abort without their consent.

I've read studies that back up what my own observations tell me, but I don't have the data at hand right now. Do any readers happen to have or know where to find the evidence?

Let's Call a Spayed a Spayed

I'm sick of being called a fascist. Anyone else who is tired of being called a fascist merely for having opinions that differ with those of the far left, raise your hands. OK, now you're in the stick-em-up pose they prefer from you.

What really gets me about the word fascist is that it is so widely used that it's come to be taken for assumed truth. Someone who opposes abortion: A, is trying to push his religion on others. (Women are presumed to be pro-"choice"); B, must be a fundamentalist who thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant and that believing in evolution should be a jailable crime; C, therefore is a fascist and is consequently guilty of killing 20 million Jews in the Holocaust.

But if you examine these "truths" that are so widely taken for granted as common knowledge, what you find is that the examination does not uphold the statement. In fact, quite the opposite.

First, let us examine the idea that abortion is a religious issue. Yes, it is true that my Church teaches that abortion is a sin. It also teaches that intentionally abusing the earth is a sin, and shoplifting is a sin. Nobody would ever accuse me of being a fascist for recycling. That is, I suppose, because recycling is something that most people who throw around the word fascist approve of. You're only a fascist if they disagree with you.

Let's move on to the stereotypes of Fundamentalists. I will be honest, I have some theological differences with many of the denominations (and nondenominations) that would typically be called "Fundamentalist." But these theological differences should never be confused with an idea that I think Fundamentalists are stupid, backward, or afraid of science or education. Some are. Some Catholics are, too. So are a lot of Atheists. The truth is that a stereotype is just a stereotype... and something I would think the so-called left ought to be ashamed of engaging in. Would these liberals be proud to stereotype black people as eating nothing but collard greens and watermelon? Would they approve of spreading the image of the Native American as a savage scalping warrior who kills any white man he can find? How about the telling of "fag" jokes? If they find such things abhorrent, then they should also examine their bigotry against those who have religious convictions different from their own.

Finally, let's move on to the real issue, the one that all the others are leading up to: fascism. Are pro-life people fascists? The reality that any truly logical person must face is that you cannot answer that question without first learning the definition of the word fascism. To call someone something without knowing what that something means would be, in a word, dumb.

Dictionary.com defines fascism as follows:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Evidently those who support abortion stop at the word dictator and refuse to read farther. They've decided that anyone who opposes abortion supports a dictatorship. Fingers go in ears. Nanana, they're not listening anymore, nanananana...

But do read the rest of the definition. Let's look at the part about forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, for example. It is the abortion industry that has repeatedly attempted to suppress not only opposition and criticism, but even knowledge. They have opposed the right of a woman to have a sonogram before deciding whether to have an abortion. They have opposed bills that would require clinics to tell mothers the stage of their babies' development. They have opposed the rights of those who disagree to peacefully assemble. It sounds like it is the pro-abortion movement that wishes to forcibly suppress opposition and criticism.

But surely the regimentation of industry is an anti-abortion tactic, right?

Think again. The pro-abortion lobby has pushed through laws that forbid -- yes, forbid religious groups to practice their faith if it does not support abortion. State after state, under pro-abortion pressure, is requiring Catholic employers to provide insurance that covers abortion and contraception. State after state is passing laws, again under pro-abortion pressure, to require pharmacists to dispense abortifacients, even if such dispensing brings about automatic excommunication from their Church.

Wow. It's the pro-abortion side that's working at the regimentation of industry, too.

And, as it happens, it is the pro-abortion side that has had pro-life people arrested for racketeering, merely for peacefully protesting. It is the pro-abortion side that constantly cites freedom, choice, and equal rights to show that supporting abortion is the only American thing to do.

Did I mention that the majority of abortions are committed upon minorities? Did I mention that Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization that performs the largest number of abortions in the United States (Planned Parenthood) planned it that way? To quote: "The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."

Let me repeat the Dictionary.com definition of fascism:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

The Pro-Abortion camp forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism, seeks to regiment all industry and commerce, emphasizes aggressive nationalistic values, and promotes the extermination of minority people.

There's only one question left to ask: Who's the fascist?

Ping to Samantha Burns.

Who's Really Benefitting?

Dawn Eden, in her usual delight of words writes a brief exposition of the lyrics of a song, in "From Bed to Verse." I highly recommend the read.

In it, she describes a feminist discussion about the meaning of the song, being the way men use women. Dawn describes the ache of sleeping with a person when words of love have not been expressed. All I could think was how very sad... not that men are using women in such a way, but that today women are asking to be so used. It's a "right" to be used and tossed. A right guaranteed by everyone from the abortion industry to many state governments.

I really cannot understand how people who purport to stand up for the "rights" of women can so highly recommend their emotional bruising and physical using as an expression of emancipation. If that's freedom, I'll pass.

New Sidebar Item

Thanks to WardWideWeb who pointed me to it, and to Uncool Mommy for providing it. She's looking for someone to help host the ticker, because it's using a lot of her bandwidth. If you're able, please click on the image and offer your help.

Gregoire vs. Conscience

When a professional board endorses a professional rule for its own, it usually will get a fair hearing. That is, unless the rule is related in any way to child sex or abortion. Then, the government will step in offering opinions and legislative hurdles to ensure that child sex and abortion not only continue but continue with or without the full consent of all involved.

This is the case with a recent proposal by the Washington State Pharmacy Board to allow a conscience clause to exempt pharmacists from participating in abortion who have moral or religious objections. It is worth noting that the proposal itself isn't even very solid, and in fact only exempts pharmacists under very specific conditions: another pharmacist must be available to fill the prescription, and the refusing pharmacist is obligated to give a referral.

Washington state governer Christine Gregoire, however, does not believe that pharmacists should have a right to act within their consciences, nor that they have the knowledge and wisdom to be allowed to act according to their long years of training, and take the liberty of advising patients as to the safety and workings of the medicines they purchase. As a politician she is, evidently, better qualified to make this medical decision than a pharmacist who spent eight years learning the trade.

And well she should be. As a practicing Catholic, she understands that any Catholic pharmacist who dispenses abortifacient medicines incurs excommunication. She no doubt understands, also, that pharmacists of many other faiths also suffer either external or internal consequences from such a violation of conscience. But as a politician in a pro-choice party, she has already come to terms with the question of conscience versus career, and has concluded that conscience doesn't weigh heavily. The obvious extension of this conclusion is that, as a politician, she has the right to make this decision for other people in other professions, as well.

Never mind the first amendment. Never mind being pro-choice, in fact. The moment that any individual is forced to participate in an abortion, it ceases to be a "choice." The politician is superior to the constitution, and to choice, and to God Himself.

You go, Ms. Gregoire. But where I suspect you're going, I hope you have a portable fan handy.

When we teach children that only some people count...

... we can't really be surprised when something like this happens.

It seems that the number of teenage assaults on homeless people is growing.

"It's the perception that it's someone insignificant that doesn't matter," said Emmanuel Smith, a counselor at the Pine Street Inn, a Boston homeless shelter.

In the overwhelming number of cases, the attackers are teenagers, according to the national report.

How can we really be surprised, when our society has spent a generation and a half working hard at ensuring that children never doubt the privilege of the strong over the rights of the weak? They learn that babies are disposable, and we can't really give any better reason than the intuitive understanding that they can't speak for themselves. Same with Terri Schiavo. Those who can't speak for themselves, our children are being taught, don't deserve any rights. They are non-people.

Even those who don't agree with this thought about the weak are generally told to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. "Don't be intolerant of those who disagree with you," we teach them. Yet few are teaching the same message to those who approve of abortion and euthanasia. The homes, the parents, the churches, who continue to teach compassion for the weak, and genuine equality of all people regardless of ability, age, or health, are marginalized and treated by media and courts alike as extremists.

Since when is it extremist to believe that all sorts of people have an equal right to exist?

This is a subject that has been on my mind much lately, when I hear phrases like "advanced maternal age" thrown around as though a 1% increase in the possibility of giving birth to a child with disabilities constitutes a medical condition or a disease. The implication is that older mothers should have high-intervention pregnancies so that they have the opportunity to destroy any offspring who turn out to be "imperfect." At least, the subtle message tells us, we should be less inclined to make babies when we know that some of them may be disabled.

If questioned, those who laud the destruction of "damaged" babies will often give very lofty sounding arguments about not wanting a child to suffer. But I ask you, whom have you ever known who did not suffer? Have you yourself led a pain free existence? Has your mother? Your next door neighbor?

If your ten year old got injured in an accident and would suffer headaches for the rest of his life, would you suggest that he should be killed? Replaced? Can you even imagine anyone saying "It's ok, you can always have another one"? So why is society so ready to write off unborn people who will suffer?

I don't really believe that abortion is meant to alleviate the suffering of a child. I think it's just easier to believe that than it is to admit that we don't really feel as bad treating an unseen, unspeaking person as a non entity, as we would if this person were bright, visible, and well-spoken.

And when we teach kids this way of looking at it, they show that they are smarter than the grownups who teach them. They understand that the message isn't really one of compassion, but of the worthlessness of those who don't have the power to speak up.

No, we can't be surprised if we teach children to kill unborn babies, and they set homeless people on fire.

When a picture screams a thousand words

Like my charming and patient husband, I had a look at pictures taken last week at the Walk for Life West Coast, which included a number of photos of counter protesters. True to form, Joel and I agree on the subject, but had somewhat different reactions to the pictures. He is pithier, but I tend to want to respond to every photo, sign, and allegation. For your benefit, I've resisted giving response to each and every image, but a few cried out for answers.


These are the same people who say men should not be allowed a say in abortion because they aren't the ones who have to carry the babies. Does anyone else see the illogic, even hypocrisy, then, of lesbians fighting for abortion?


And then there's the perpetual message of all liberals:



The very clear and lucid message here being "If they don't agree with me, they're fascists and want to kill Jews. There, that'll show 'em." Yeah. It shows me that they don't have any real argument, so they resort to the ever-present assertion that only Hitler would disagree with them. And we know it's true, because they say so.


This one demonstrates the obvious truth that liberals are kinder, gentler, and more compassionate than pro-lifers. Doesn't it?

And then, to prove that they are really advocating choice, this fellow holds up a telling sign:







I wonder what this one means by free? The abortionist is, in "pro choice" rhetoric, presented like a women's rights hero, selflessly offering a service that allows women to live in freedom. But whom are they asking for free abortion on demand from? If these heroic champions of abortion were really in it to ensure women's rights, how about if they offered the service for free, instead of demanding that those who do not favor abortion pay for abortions with their taxes?




But the whole counter protest, and in fact the entire pro-abortion movement, seems to redeem itself here, with the message that it's really for the sake of the poor children. No child deserves to be unwanted, right? So why do they fight so hard to make the public see children as unwanted diseases, parasites to be removed?

It amazes me that in the name of helping children, they fight to kill them, in the name of "choice" so many want to impose their choice of abortion on everyone else, and in advocating a business that makes a huge profit each year, it is the government and those who choose not to support abortion who are blamed for the cost, not the abortion facilities and practitioners who actually collect the money.

I didn't even go to page two of this photo journal. I couldn't help thinking that the pro-abortion protesters had already made their views abundantly heard; but if you want to see the rest, the link is at the top of this post.

A Girl and Her Choice

At National Review, Katherine Jean Lopez recently posted an article about a Supreme Court case regarding parental notification for abortion. Specifically, New Hampshire is coming under scrutiny, and the Family Research Council has filed an amicus brief. In this brief, the FRC does something we sometimes forget to do: gives a theoretical example of a child in "need" of unnotified abortion a name. It names her Jane, and discusses what she faces.

Much of the brief gives arguments that are familiar to many of us, though it carries the arguments more clearly toward their logical conclusions. The law, it points out, in every state recognizes that a teenager does not have the decision-making maturity that an adult has. I highly recommend reading the National Review article, if nothing else, to see the strong case that the brief makes for this point.

The point that really struck me, though, came next. Assuming a very strong case for the need for abortion without parental notification, the example shows Jane as pregnant, and with a serious medical condition.

"Doctors inform Jane that her pregnancy and expectant motherhood — challenging and rattling as they are — are complicated by a serious health risk which, doctors say, has to be dealt with now. Delay of even two days, they say, is dangerous. Though she is free to call out to her parents for help, Jane does not wish to do so, at least not yet.

The doctors keep telling her to choose now."

The thing we often tend to ignore in much of abortion rhetoric is that abortion is not only a medical procedure, it is also a business. It involves a contractual service, and one that is irrevocable at that, for non-refundable cash upfront. It is the only contract I know of that a minor can sign unprotected by parent or guardian.

The teenager -- Jane -- is pressured to make a decision that impacts her health, carries serious risks to her health, and even potentially to her life. This pressure is to sign, without any time to think about it, a contract that she cannot change her mind about. She is pressured to do this, in the absence of parental notification laws, without any help or support from her family. As the document points out, she does not have a husband, by definition, because this would make her emancipated. So this youngster who is presumed not to have the judgment to determine what kind of pain medicine to take for a headache is forced to make a decision that has life-changing effects, without the help of her loved ones. Not merely asked, but in many cases indeed pressured.

If an adult woman buys a vacuum cleaner from a door-to-door salesman, in many states, she has three days to change her mind. It takes weeks to obtain a home equity loan. It takes months to buy a house. It takes years to decide what you want to be when you grow up. And you can change your mind about all of these decisions; but the decision to abort is permanent, much more emotionally vested, and "protected," in cases where parental notification does not exist, against the imposition of either having help making a decision or having the right to change one's mind.

The people who stand to make a profit from Jane's decision to abort... should they really be the only ones allowed to assist her in making this choice?

Just One Woman

After reading through some of the accounts at Feminists for Life of women who have died from abortions, I could imagine defenders of abortion looking at the list of twelve names and shrugging. Twelve deaths are hardly an apocalypse, I can hear some voice saying.

So a doctor made a mistake. It's sad, yes; but that is the price we pay for freedom, right? And really, can you hold just one mistake against a person? Anyone can make a mistake, and we all do.

On many other subjects, I've been one of the voices defending against crucifying people for a single mistake. From president to housewife, we really do all make mistakes. But I can't manage to adopt that aproach when it comes to a death from abortion. You see, each one of these women who died at the hands of a man committed to killing someone on that table was not "one mistake." They were women. Human beings. Unfortunately, we frequently count deaths with numbers; but the reality is that no human being is a mere statistic. Each of these victims was loved, and left behind someone whose world partly crumbled away in devastation because their dear daughter, sister, mother, wife, or lover died needlessly and violently.

If you asked the four year old son of Jane Doe whether Mommy's death was easier to take, knowing that many others come out of the procedure physically fine, do you think he would have stopped crying, stopped hurting, and said "oh, well in that case, I guess it's ok,"? Do you think he now, at sixteen, realizes he was selfish to feel like his world caved in when his mother died, because a bigger principle, of freedom of choice, is at stake? Does it make him less deserving, somehow, of the hug and the beaming of pride on his mother's face when he graduates from high school?

She was just one woman. It's a bigger issue than that, isn't it?

Or is it?

Life only begins in the womb.

My daughter just finished watching "Yours Mine and Ours" in the next room, just as I was giving thought to the culture that contraception has spawned, and the damage it has done to the Catholic Church. It seems an irony that this was the movie she happened to plug in today, because it is about two widowed Catholics, Frank Beardsley and Helen North (Played by Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball), who fall in love. The challenge begins when they reveal to each other how many children they have. He has 10, and she has 8. Yes, you guessed it, they marry.

One of the highlights of the movie is a touching speech Henry Fonda gives one of the teenagers as his character is heading toward the car to drive his wife to the hospital to deliver yet another child. The daughter has been struggling with having a boyfriend who is upset that she won't "put out," and who claims that if she loved him she would.

Frank begins, "I've got a message for Larry. You tell him that this is what it's all about. This is the real happening. If you wanna know what love really is, take a look around you. Take a good look at your mother."

The mother, who has just entered the scene, says "Not now!"

"Yes, now," he continues. "It's giving life that counts. Until you're ready for it, all the rest is just a big fraud. All the crazy haircuts in the world won't keep it turning. Life isn't a love-in, it's the dishes, and the orthodontist, and the shoe repairman, and ground round instead of roast beef.

"And I'll tell you something else. It isn't going to bed with a man that proves you're in love with him, it's waking up in the morning and facing the drab, miserable, wonderful, everyday world with him that counts."

After an interruption or two, he gets Helen into the car, and before sliding in himself, concludes his speech. "I suppose having nineteen kids is carrying it a bit too far, but if we had it to do over, who would we skip... you?"

The exciting thing, upon reflection, is that the North-Beardsley family is real. I've heard from people who have met members of the family that several of the children, after they grew to adulthood, became nuns. I don't know if any priests came out of the brood, but I do know that the Helen and Frank ended up with at least 60 grandchildren. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if more nuns or priests came out of the next generation. At the very least, we can say that this couple contributed considerably to the Catholic population.

The point that got me started on all of this was a conversation my husband and I had this morning, before we even realized what our youngster was watching. Our 1 1/2 year old sat on my lap and clasped his hands together, his signal to request us to pray the Our Father with him. He attempts to make a sign of the cross, alternately hitting one side of his chest and then the other several times, and finally clapping his hands. Joel asked (probably only half in jest) if we were priming him to be a priest, and I said he should at least grow up knowing it's an option, but it's God who calls men to the priesthood. However, I noted, it isn't surprising that we have a priest shortage in the United States, when so many families are limiting their size. When a couple has only one or two children, they are not likely to encourage them to become priests, because they want grandchildren.

I think most Catholics hunger for the fellowship that smaller parishes can bring. I believe most Catholics realize that we have a real need for more priests in the United States. And I suspect, alas, that most Catholics feel that "someone" should fill that need. Someone being someone else. Not our children. Studies have shown that most Catholics contracept.

Isn't the connection clear? It is up to "someone" to provide us with priests, and it is up to "someone" to keep the Church going. "But as for me and my household," seems to be the modern creed, "we will serve the Lord in comfort." Comfort meaning fewer sacrifices, more material goods. Comfort meaning having only as many children as we feel like having. Comfort meaning roast beef, not ground round.

This is the legacy of contraception. Catholics continue to be, for the most part, pro-life in the sense of being anti-abortion. But how can we be pro-life and not be pro-family, pro-child?

I know very devout Catholics who cannot, for various reasons, have big families. I know families who hurt over that fact. But meanwhile, a vast number of families who can simply refuse because it will jeopardize their level of material comfort. They would never consider abortion, but they would also never consider letting God play any part in deciding what their blessings might be.

I know parishes that welcome families and children of every age; but meanwhile, I also know parishes that are very anti-abortion yet never welcome children into their worship circles until they are old enough not to be an inconvenience. The quality of the sound system is more important than giving welcome to infants and their mothers. I have heard pastors and congregation members suggest that mothers with small children have no business attending Mass. I have witnessed parishes shuffle all pre-communion children off to childcare, under the impression that they don't need any exposure to their faith until then, and that the adults are really better off without children around to cause distraction and inconvenience.

If we claim to welcome children in the womb but then reject them from our faith community once born, can we really claim to be pro-life? If we refuse to consider abortion, but we contracept to avoid having children, can we really claim that our pro-life beliefs make any difference in our lives?

And if our beliefs make no difference in our lives, what is their worth?

Our Family May Be a Circus, but We Aren't Freaks.

Not too long ago, Joel and I were at Wal-Mart with our usual cartful of family-sized groceries. When we got to the front of the line, nobody was behind us. As we placed our items on the conveyer belt, the clerk chatted with us, with a friendly smile. Then a young couple lined up behind us, and the mood changed.

The girl-woman began griping to her boyfriend about there being no "quick check" and how long this was taking. She spoke just loudly enough for me to be sure that she intended for me to hear her complaints that our purchase was taking too long. Couldn't we see that these important people behind us had important things to do at the lake, and we were taking up their valuable time purchasing vegetables and milk?

Never mind that the stranger was mistaken about quick checks at the store. At the time, at least two quick-check lines were open. Never mind that they were quite able to see the size of our load before they decided to queue behind us. What really bothered me was that she seemed indignant that we were buying enough groceries to feed a family of eight.

Yes, a family of eight. Go ahead, gasp now. (This was before little Nine came into creation.)Yes, we had the audacity not only to have six kids, all home at the same time, but to be buying sufficient groceries to keep them fed! And we were inconveniencing The Young and the Roostless by our mere presence.

So far in the past few years I've seen counties pass laws to dictate how many square feet or how many bedrooms a family must have per person; I've seen the eco-protestors attempting to illegalize or penalize the ownership of large vehicles. And I've seen state-published pamphlets targeting Spanish-speaking people with contraception propaganda that they don't bother distributing to English-speaking people.

What do all of these movements and thought-lines have in common? They all target large families and groups of people that frequently have them. Abortion and contraception literature is one of the few forms of racial discrimination that is not only allowed by the government but actually created and distributed by it.

European Christians now have negative population growth, and the US is coming closer to it daily. This is not good for the economy, nor is it good for the character of our nation. Places like France and Germany are in danger of losing their very cultural roots by the elimination of the cultures that have grown there for thousands of years, and the U.S. would be next, if those who scorn families had their way.

Large families are not caused by ignorance or lack of social consciousness. They are usually caused by the presence of values in the home, and affection between a husband and a wife. Next time I hear "You're pregnant? Don't you know what causes that?" I think I'll answer, simply, "Yes. Love."

Michael Schiavo's health in terminal condition!

A nurse makes this point atBlogsforTerri: "If you have to starve & dehydrate a person to get them to die, then you'd better ask yourself the following question: Exactly how terminal is this person?! The answer is: They aren't terminal!"

It has been discovered that Michael Schiavo, too, has a terminal health condition and is dependent upon food and water to remain alive. He has not yet stated whether or not he would wish to be kept alive in this state, or whether a court appointed guardian should make the decision for him.

Update on Terri Schiavo

The latest news on Terri Schiavo is that, despite the supoena from Congress, Judge Greer (may his career rest in peace) has ordered her feeding tube removed. I do believe this signals the end of his career, and I hold out hope that he may even go to jail for this. One can only suspect at this point what his motives are, whether he is so very pro-death that he will do anything, at any cost, to bring it about; or whether he's being paid by someone to ensure that Terri does not live to talk.

Whatever his reasons may be, at this point the most important thing for us, however, is not to speculate but to pray for Terri. Prayer works! Don't forget it, and don't doubt it. Pray, pray, pray. Pray urgently, and pray with all your heart. God can still move mountains.