Abortion and “The Big Lie”

We all marvel at how an entire nation like the Germany of World War II could support the murderous Adolph Hitler.   Indeed, Hitler perpetuated the lie that the Jews were somehow “the problem.”  His most ardent henchman, Joseph Goebbels,  is famous for saying that if you repeat a lie many times people will eventually believe it as truth.  There is a perfect correlation today on how many people, including religious Christians, Jews and others can believe that a perfectly healthy baby can be killed, as long as it is in the mother’s womb.  Take the recent Dr. Gosnell murder trial where he killed babies after the baby came out of the womb.  He routinely snipped the neck of the struggling baby on the table to kill it.  This outraged most people and Dr. Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder.

A reporter recently asked Nancy Pelosi what is the difference between what Dr. Gosnell did and the killing of a baby in the womb?  Pelosi opposes any law limiting partial birth abortion, even though she claims to be Catholic.  She gave an angry convoluted answer, which did not address the question, but trotted out “a woman’s right to choose.”  Watch this video of Pelosi responding to this question – it’s a classic. This is contrary to all logic, yet many people, including good friends of mine who attend the same church I do,  cannot admit that there is no difference.  They keep stating the nonsensical answer that women have “a right to do with their bodies what they like,” or words to that effect.

What has happened in our society, world-wide, is that the lie about abortion has been repeated so many times, and indeed everyday, that these people believe it as truth.  There is no difference between what the Nazis did to six million Jews and what we do today to unborn babies in the womb; the Nazis killed innocent human beings and we kill innocent human beings in the womb.  What supports this claim?  Science has verified that human life begins at conception; logic tells you that the baby in the womb is the same baby in a mother’s loving arms, a few minutes after birth.  Natural  Law, the law written in all of our hearts, tells us that murder is wrong.  You don’t need to be educated to know that murder is wrong.  Should you have any questions about this, just go to anyone in the world and ask them if murder is OK.  Another example of the law written in our heart:  let’s say I come to your house and before I leave I take you nice new Nikon Camera that you spent $1,000 without your permission.  Would the owner of the camera say that was wrong?  We know, by instinct, what is right and wrong.  Abortion is the killing of a human life and it is wrong all the time, under all circumstances.


Can Rape be a Reason for Abortion?

Can rape ever be a justification for abortion?  First, rape is the most horrendous crime that can be committed by one human being against another.  A rapist, in my opinion, is a sub-human animal that must be dealt with in the most severe way and never be let out into society again – yes, that means life in prison, at minimum.  Now, comes the hard part.  Can a woman who suffers such horrific violation abort her unborn, if she gets pregnant after a rape?  Many, including many pro-lifers believe that the answer to this is yes.  In this blog post I want to analyze this situation and give reasons why there is never a reason for a human being to kill another human being; unless a person has been convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death by a court of law.  I know this is also controversial but for the purpose of this article I will not get into it.

The first question we must ask ourselves is always:  What is the unborn?  If the unborn is a human being from the moment of conception, as science has verified that it is, then no human being can be killed no matter how they came into being.  In a rape, you have a victim, the person raped.  If you abort an unborn resulting from the rape, you now have two victims:  the woman and the unborn.  Can we ever kill a human being because that particular human being reminds us of a tragic situation?  As an example, can a woman kill her two-month old baby because every time she looks at it, it reminds her of the rape?  In a September 11, 2012 article published in “The Public Discourse” Michael Stokes Paulsen says that rape is irrelevant to the right to life.  Paulsen proposes a question for the rape victim: “Suppose, following a rape, the victim becomes pregnant and delivers the baby.  But then, a year or two later – or three or four years later – the mother comes to despise the child because the child’s very life and presence reminds her, horribly, daily, painfully, of the awful experience of the rape.  Should we permit the woman to terminate the life of the two-year old or four-year-old child?.”  Most people would say no in this case.  Why not?  The four-year old is a living human being?  Yes, it is, so is the unborn.

The question that most people fail to grasp is that the unborn is a human being.  Unless you come up with a scenario where a human being can be killed by their parents at will, no matter what the age, no human being can be killed.  Simple as that.  If you do not grant this, you must then deny the humanity of the unborn, which is what most “pro-choice” advocates do.  We have a moral question here. Why can we not kill a child we don’t want, for example?  We do not have the choice.  A human life cannot be taken by another; rape, then, is not the issue.  The issue is the humanity of the unborn.  Paulsen, in the earlier mentioned article, states it this way:  “If the fetus or unborn child is an independent living human being, morally deserving to be treated as such, it should make no difference whether that fetus/unborn child was conceived by rape or incest.”

Scott Klusendorf, in his book The Case for Life puts it this way in answering the question of rape and abortion:  “How do you think a civil society should treat innocent human beings who remind us of a painful event?  Is it okay to kill them so we can feel better?”  Another question is will an abortion help the raped woman?  how?  The trauma of the rape cannot be taken away by an abortion.  Click here for  a short essay by Klusendorf on rape and abortion.  Father Frank Pavone, Director of Priests for Life in the United States, in his book Ending Abortion, states that an abortion cannot alleviate the trauma of rape, but it brings a trauma of its own.  On page 49 of this book Fr. Frank mentions that he knows women who’ve had abortions after a rape and who’ve come for counseling not for the rape but for the abortion.

Many “pro-choice” advocates will present the rape situation to somehow prove that abortion is ok.  This is a red herring on their part.  If someone comes up with this I ask them if they would support a law that bans abortion for all cases, except rape?  Most would not; why?They want abortion for any reason; the rape question is just a debate diversion.

There is a solution that no one mentions:  Adoption.  A woman who conceives as a result of a rape can give up her baby for adoption and never see it again.  Why is killing the baby a better option?    There are people out there begging for a baby to adopt, why not give up the baby for adoption?  Don’t want to go through the process?  You can drop off a baby at any fire station with no questions asked.  Why kill it?  Is it better to kill than to surrender the baby so a loving parent can raise it?  Here is a list of 15 famous people who were adopted.   Could your baby have been one of these?:  Click here to see the list. We don’t know if any of these were conceived in rape, but if they were, would it have made a difference.  Steve Jobs changed everybody’s life with computers.  We’ve killed over 55 million babies since 1973, the entire population of a country such as Great Britain or Italy.  Could one of these have been the one to cure diabetes, cancer or other diseases?  We will never know.

Can You Run That by me Again?

A typical, hackneyed response, by a “pro-choice” Roman Catholic, such as Vice President Joe Biden  is “I accept my church’s teaching that life begins at conception, but I’m not going to force it upon those who disagree.”    Can you run that by me again?  You believe that life begins at conception, which necessarily means that at conception a human being exists, but you will not interfere with the killing of  a human being?    It is a contradiction in logic, philosophy, science and everything else. Click here  and listen to VP Biden and Congressman Ryan describe their view on abortion during the Vice President debate of 2012.  What the Vice President is saying is that some human beings can be killed at will if one chooses to.  Secondly, he says that we cannot force those who disagree – what?   What universe are you from?  Every society in this universe has laws against killing human beings.  In the U.S.  we even have laws against killing animals gratuitously.  What the Vice President is saying is pure nonsense, yet this view is widely held in the liberal Catholic community, as well as with most liberal Christians.

The Vice President, in the debate refered to earlier, states that he’s “a practicing Catholic my whole life.”  As Lieutenant Columbo would say, “can I ask you one last question?”  What makes you a Catholic, if you say that you believe in the Church teaching but anyone who disagrees can do whatever they want and you’re ok with it?   How do you separate your private life from your public life?

Here is an example.  During slavery in the early 1800s, the vice president would have said, I believe that slavery is wrong, as my church says, but I’m not going to force it upon those who have different views.  This exactly what the Vice President is saying about abortion.  This is the insanity of the liberal mind.

U.S. Catholic Church Punts On First Down

The other night at a Knights of Columbus meeting our chaplain asked if there were any questions after his brief Chaplain’s Report.  One person asked a very good question:  Why does the Church do nothing about apostate Catholic politicians who publicly rebuke the Church on abortion and marriage issues?  I’ve asked this question myself for a long time.  The chaplain, who is my pastor, and one of the best orators that I’ve ever seen, gave a very tortured and circular answer that evaded the question.  This is very typical of the U.S. Church’s position on these issues:  The Church is very timid when it comes to confronting these issues with those who publicly oppose it.  When some bishops come out and speak against those who are for same-sex marriage and abortion, they walk on eggs.    They have the ball, first and ten,  and they punt, to use a football analogy.  This is what perplexes most faithful Catholics.

The problem, I believe, is that the Church has been co-opted by the culture, and intimidated into silence.  In our politically correct culture of our day, you are not allowed to call evil what it is:  evil; if you do they will take your head off.  The Church has fallen victim to this type of intimidation.  Why, you may ask, is this the case?  The culture has many “divisions,” to use a military analogy.  The culture has the big pulpit, the main stream media, Hollywood, the Universities, public education and they have the liberal Catholics who consider, abortion and marriage to be subjective options which they totally approve of.  How do I know this?  I speak to many of my liberal Catholic friends and this is what most will tell you.  Abortion is a “woman’s right to choose,”   and same-sex marriage is now the “in” thing to do; so get on the bandwagon.

A close liberal friend of mine brought me an article the other day, written by a Jesuit priest, Fr. Thomas J. Reese, called “Is there a Political Plan B for the Bishops?.”  Jesuits are notoriously liberal and known to follow their own way, rather than the Church.  The article suggests that the bishops who’ve been outspoken about same-sex marriage and abortion during the election season should go along with what the young people want, namely same-sex marriage and the legality of abortion. Fr. Reese suggest a surrender:  “First, it is clear there is an approaching tsunami of young voters who will eventually make same-sex marriage legal in most states.  The likelihood of stopping this tsunami is very low.”  “If making abortion illegal is an impossible dream in the current political environment, what is plan B? Plan B has to be working with politicians of any stripe, including pro-abortion-rights politicians, in supporting programs that will reduce the number of abortions.”  What?  supporting programs that will reduce the number of abortions?  What might these programs be?  How about making murder legal and just supporting programs that discourage murder?  This is the insanity and the moral collapse of some church leaders.  Heaven help us.

Planned Parenthood’s Deception

Defunding Planned Parenthood has been a hot issue in the recent weeks, mainly due to an undercover video of a Planned Parenthood office director coaching prospective clients how they can obtain their services even though they identified themselves as underage sex traffickers. Click here to see the Liveaction.org video.  These stings are done by a brave young woman, Lila Rose and her organization, Live Action; she has appeared on many media outlets, here is a clip from the O’Rielly Factor:  Click here to watch it.

I recently wrote my Senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, to ask her to vote for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  Her response was very predictable; she repeated the hackneyed and trite mantra that Planned Parenthood offers so many other servicers such as birth control pills that “prevent unwanted pregnancies”  and for that reason she favors taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.   The facts are that, although Planned Parenthood does offer such services, their meat and butter is abortion, so the $363 millions dollars they receive from taxpayers go to kill innocent unborn babies.  There are approximately 1.5 million abortions done per year in the United States.  In Los Angeles County, where I live, there are 154 abortions performed every day from 6:00 AM  to 6:00 PM.  Why should we who believe that an abortion is the killing of an unborn human being, be forced to pay for this atrocity?  Non abortion services, with the exception of birth control, are provided by the many pregnancy Help Centers around the county.  Not one penny is given to them for this.  If Senator Feinstein believes that this is a good idea why not subsidize these centers? She would refuse to fund these centers, why?  They really believe in abortion; a two year-old can figure this out.  We, as moral people, have a duty to vote all of these people out of office.

In her new book, Unplanned, The dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood Director, Abby Johnson details how Planned Parenthood depends on abortions to meet their bottom line.  One of the most dramatic parts of her book is when she details this fact.  Her regional directors called a meeting and stated that each office had to produce a certain amount of cash flow – they were expected to produce results.  The only way to make such money was to increase the number of abortions performed, so if an office did abortion, say only two days a week, they were expected to do more abortions.

The political  left will always tell you that they are tolerant.  Tolerant?  Mention something they disagree with, such as marriage is only between a man and a woman or abortion and see how tolerant they are.  The fact is they are tolerant of anything they believe in such as moral relativism.  If you say that you believe that the Bible, for instance, as your moral guide, they will laugh at you.  Tolerant?  No.  They are the least tolerant people I know.

Moral Relativism and Abortion

Many of my friends, including fellow Catholics, are very liberal in their politics, including being “pro-choice.”  In the many years of speaking with these friends I’ve encountered one overriding constant – an embrace of moral relativism.  Moral relativism is the view that right and wrong are relative.  A person who subscribes to this view would say that he/she is the arbiter of what is right and wrong, in other words, something may be right for you but wrong for me.  A typical answer as to what is the basis of your values,? for example, would be “my heart.” This view flies in the face of Christianity, Scripture in general and the Catholic Church in particular.  As I’ve pointed out in a previous post of June 30, 2010 on this blog , this view is a self-refuting fallacy.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very strong on how we should use conscience, it states that we will be judged for wrong conscience decisions.   Article 6 Section 1777 states as follows: Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.”  Is the “pro-choice” Christian hearing God when choosing the “pro-choice” position?  I don’t think so.

As a Catholic, I’ve noticed that my fellow Catholic friends who hold this view have come to this view based on their right to “conscience.”  However, this is a common error.  conscience in Catholic Teaching requires that the “conscience” be an informed one, not merely my personal preference.  In other words, if you claim “conscience” for your decision, it must be able to stand the test of truth, knowledge, and be supported by facts.  Pope Benedict XVI has written brilliantly on the problem of conscience wrongly applied.  In his book “On Conscience,” the Pope states: “Liberalism’s idea of conscience was, in fact, presupposed here:  Conscience does not open the way to the redemptive road to truth – which either does not exist or, if it does, is too demanding.  It is the faculty that dispenses with truth” (p.16). He further explains:  “the identification of conscience with superficial consciousness, the reduction of man to his subjective, does not liberate but enslaves.  It makes us totally dependent on the prevailing opinions, and debases these with every passing day.  The reduction of conscience to subject certitude betokens at the same time a retreat from truth” (pp.21-22).

My liberal Catholic or Christian friends have been convinced by our culture, reinforced by Hollywood, the media, the University, and their other liberal friends that if they think that something is right for them then they’re in, even if it is wrong, such as abortion.  Now, the easy first question here is wait a minute!  This is a huge issue – life and death, not whether I like chocolate ice cream or vanilla.  The question of abortion is akin to you committing murder and rationalizing it as a “choice of conscience.”  You need to have a better measure of your conscience for this.  This question came to me when I was “pro-choice” prior to my 40s.  One of the most compelling reasons I chose to become pro-life was that I finally understood that such a huge issue as life and death cannot rest on “my conscience” without sufficient logical and reasonable documentation.  I kept asking myself, if I were to appear before the Lord and asked to give a defense of my “conscience” position regarding abortion could I provide a sufficiently strong case?  And what would that case be based on?