Abortion, Part 1

I had hoped to blog on this within the month of January, which is an active pro-life month, but it didn’t happen, surprise, surprise.

I’d like to do at least two posts on this important topic; here’s a letter I wrote to a Catholic college student (younger sister of a friend) who was heavily involved with the college Democrat group at her respective college. Unfortunately, she placed herself in the “Well, I’m personally Pro-Life, but I could never tell anyone that they couldn’t have an abortion” crowd. This position has so many holes in it that you could strain spaghetti with it. Here goes:


Dear (student),

Hello, this is from (your sister’s) friend, Heath. Hope you are well and enjoying your classes this semester. It was real nice to see you a few months ago for (friend’s) wedding . . . I can't believe you're in college! :)

Anyway, I've been wanting to send you an e-mail since your sister and I had a conversation at the reception last May. During the course of the evening, the subject of politics arose (yikes!) and your name came up since you seem to be very involved in this area. As we were discussing the last election in November, it was brought up that (your sister) leaned more to the right while you considered yourself a democrat. I was disturbed to find that you considered yourself a "personally opposed" pro-choicer. (Your sister) described some of what she believed was your rationale for your stance, and I expressed some of my concerns with this position, since I've encountered it many times in the past. Since I believe the "personally opposed, BUT . . . " stance to be very dangerous and to contain many holes in its rationale, I would like to give you some different perspectives at which to look.

Please do not look at this e-mail as a personal attack on you specifically, I just want to critique the "personally opposed" view in general. I don't mean to offend in any way, I just want to challenge your thinking in this area since this is a very sensitive issue with me.

First off, I'd like to lay out the issue as I understand it: in the midst of this very serious political, social, and moral issue of abortion, it seems to be the favored stance of many to say that they are personally opposed to abortion and that they would never have one themselves. Nevertheless, it is not right for them to push their views on someone else and to tell them that they should not be in favor of abortion themselves. Also, it's been a favorite tactic for politicians to declare "separation of church and state" and say that their moral and spiritual upbringing should play no role in their political views. Therefore, they are able to say, "I'm pro-life" while continuing to pass pro-choice legislation because this is what their constituents want. This is the way I understand the issue. Feel free to correct anything I've said if I've misrepresented the view. But assuming that I have represented it correctly, allow me to continue.

As much as this stance seems to make sense on the surface, I believe it is fundamentally flawed in many aspects. First off, let's examine the principle itself, by applying it in another area. Let's say that you were over at my house having a conversaton with my wife and me. All of a sudden, Shannon says something that offends me, so I proceed to punch her in the face. Not only that, but I continue on and start kicking her repeatedly to the chest and head area. Heck, let's go as far as to say that I draw a knife and am about to kill her . . . what would you do? If you applied the previous principle, it seems to me that you would do nothing. I mean, you may be "personally opposed" to my actions, but who are you to impose your views on me? I think it's fine to kick the crap out of my wife when she says something dumb . . . if you disagree, keep it to yourself. I think this is where it falls apart philosophically.

But you may say, "Heath, that's such an extreme example; in that case, I would step in and tell you to stop." And I would say, "what's the difference between this example and abortion?" It seems to me that in both instances, a person is killed against their own will while others stand idly by. Heck, at least my wife can defend herself somewhat. Is abortion murder? Absolutely. Here's how one author characterizes partial-birth abortion:

"Currently, the most common and probably best known method of aborting late term babies is Dilatation and Extraction, or D&X. This procedure is popularly known as the "Partial-Birth Abortion." After adequately dilating the cervix, the abortionist uses forceps to reach into the birth canal to grasp the leg of the fully developed five-to-nine month old baby. He forcefully wrenches the child, feet first, from the safe home inside the mother until only the head is left inside the birth canal. By now the baby is kicking and struggling for life. Next, the "doctor" pierces the skull and vacuums the brain from the tiny head. The abortionist then collapses the baby's skull to remove the now lifeless child.

Abortionists find certain advantages to this method. First, the chances of a live baby emerging from the birth canal are dramatically reduced. One abortionist interviewed on a nationally broadcast radio program admitted that a second benefit to the breech delivery of the Partial-Birth Abortion is the fact that one cannot hear the baby screaming as his skull is pierced and emptied." (Troy Newman "Their Blood Cries Out", 42-43)

The book also identifies one abortionist (among many, I'm sure) who "will kill any child, at any age, at least as long as the child's head is still inside the mother's body." (ibid, 63) Is this murder? I would challenge anyone to say otherwise. What's the difference between a baby five minutes before it's born (when it can legally still be killed) and five minutes after? Location, nothing else. Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What a tragedy that a mother's womb, where life if formed and nurtured, can become an execution chamber in this day and age.

Now let me assume that you do agree with me that partial-birth abortion is murder. Then let's take a baby at 9-months gestation and work our way backwards. Is it murder at 8 months, 30 days? 8 months, 29 days? 8 months, 28 days? When does the big change happen when it's no longer a “glob of cells”? Let's say legislation eventually passes that says that an abortion can only take place in the first trimester and let's define the first trimester as 0-12 weeks for this purpose. Now let's say that I want an abortion and I go get one at the very end of my first trimester, 11 weeks, 6 days. No problem, right? But if I go in one day later, they have to send me away? What happened in that 24 hour period? Heck, we can even shorten that period to a few hours, assuming that I were to go in at closing time of my first trimester, and compare it with early the next morning. So apparently, in that 10 hour span, my baby miraculously becomes something worth protecting. Hallelujah!

Now my contention is that that miraculous moment happened at conception. Two substances from different beings that would have shortly perished have come together to form a new creation. From that point on, this little being will gradually develop into what I held in my arms 15 months ago. Now when did my wife and I start calling that embryo a baby? From the day we found out she was pregnant. When someone miscarriages early in a pregnancy, do we say, "Sorry, to hear that you lost that glob of cells in your uterus"? No, we say, "very sorry to hear that you lost your BABY." We don't choose an arbitrary date and say to ourselves, "Well, if a friend miscarries before "X" weeks of gestation then I'll call it an embryo, but if she miscarries after that, I'll call it a baby." Silliness.

Now let's look at the political aspect of this issue. To let you know where I'm coming from, I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I think that each has it right in some areas, and each has it wrong in some areas. In moral issues, I would lean much more to the right, whereas, in certain social issues, I would lean more to the left. Unfortunately for the democrats, I also believe in a hierarchy of issues, and at the top of that hierarchy is abortion. Though I don't like to be classified as a "one-issue" voter, I INSIST that a candidate I would potentially vote for MUST be pro-life. That's the litmus test for me. No issue is more important. Tax cuts, welfare, affirmative action . . . all insignificant when compared to mass genocide. Therefore, it drives me batty when I hear someone say, "Well, I'm pro-life and this candidate is pro-choice, but he wants to lower taxes so I'll vote for him." If Hitler was running for office, and you thought his stance on welfare was great for the country, but you knew he was exterminating Jews and Catholics, would you vote for him? How about if someone supported terrorism? What if Kerry had said, "Well, I know I support terrorism, but look at this sweet health care plan I'll implement!"

What I can't figure out is the difference in principle in these scenarios and that of the typical liberal take on abortion. The "personally opposed, but . . ." position seems to spawn from this misunderstanding of the "separation of church and state." Many folks seem to think that this principle implies that anything relating to religious beliefs, even morals, must be completely taken out of the equation when it comes to politics. It seems absurd to think that our founding fathers would agree with this. For instance, let's say that a case came before the Supreme Court over murder. The murderer admits to slaying another person, but says that the law against killing someone else should be overturned since it's based on a religious principle: the Judeo-Christian injunction that "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Could it be overturned? Of course this is purely hypothetical but it brings up an important question: what is Truth? Is it okay to kill another human being? If it is not, why? Why is one opinion on a subject better than another? Our holy father Pope Benedict XVI warned us right off the bat about the "dictatorship of relativism" that has conquered the world. It throws "truth" to the wolves and tells us, "hey, everybody's right." What that brings about is mass confusion on what is good and what is not. For example (again), murder . . . why is it wrong? Who says? What about pedophilia? Polygamy? Bestiality? Necrophilia? There are people all over the world that believe that one or more of these things are fine and dandy and don't see what the big deal is. And our relativistic culture says, fine.

The Catholic Church says that this is unacceptable. There *is* truth, and it can be found. And it also says that you CANNOT be a true follower of Christ when you go against His teachings transmitted through his visible body, the Church. And this brings me to an important point: you cannot be a pro-choice catholic. It's an oxymoron, an impossibility. It's like being a black member of the KKK, or a Jewish Anti-Semite. To consider yourself pro-choice and receive the Body and Blood of our Lord is like spitting in the face of Jesus Himself. It's a travesty. Unfortunately, we have many catholic representatives who cry, "Separation of Church and State!" and proceed to pass pro-choice legislation. They have received what they wished for: separation from the Church in favor of the state. Choosing a skewed view of the Bill of Rights over God's law is never a good idea.

As this e-mail is getting quite lengthy, let me list a few links and points I'd like to make before I conclude. In no particular order:

1) Science is showing us that abortion is very detrimental to the well-being of the women who receive them, mentally, physically, and emotionally. An article that summarizes some of these findings is located here:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/june2005/bachiochi.htm

and an article exposing the abortion-breast cancer link (that the pro-choicers will say does not exist) is here:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2002/feature3.htm

2. A recent article I came across noted that Democrats have been killing off their future supporters for years through abortion. Most women who would receive an abortion would be pro-choice and therefore, democrats, and they have been killing their children off at the rate of 4000 a day for 32 years. Since liberals usually spawn liberals and vice versa, the democrats have lost a substantial amount (literally millions)of possible voters through abortion. Brilliant.

3. Pictures are worth a thousand words:

http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/index.htm#galleries

I was only able to look at a few images before turning away.

Let me conclude by reiterating that my intention is not to offend. My intention is to show that the "personally opposed" postition is contrary to the separaton of church and state, contrary to Catholicism (and Christianity in general), and contrary to pure reason. I'd love to hear your views on this e-mail, especially if I've misrepresented the position in the least. If you can provide a defense of it, I'd love to hear it and contemplate it.

Hope you're enjoying the the end of the year and looking forward to your Christmas break!

God bless,
Heath Morber