Naturally Pro-Life

Yes, Women Do Have the Right to Information About the Abortion Decision

2011-10-25T20:25:00.000-07:00

Last week I wrote about a pro-choice editorial that argued that pro-lifers should not offer information about abortion to women entering clinics that perform them. We should "let women do what they want," according to the authors.

However, there is that pesky issue of informed choice. Let's say you were about to drink what you thought was a Coke, but it was actually a glass of poison. As far as you knew, it was perfectly safe to drink. Now, if somebody sitting at the table next to you knew that it was poison, wouldn't you want them to tell you? And might that information change your decision to drink the Coke? Furthermore, don't you deserve to have full information about what's in the glass before you make the decision whether or not to drink it?

As I mentioned in my previous post, there are scores of post-abortive women who have spoken out to say that if they had only been told X, Y, or Z before the abortion, they never would have gone through with it. (See point #2 of this piece about crisis pregnancy centers for a heartbreaking example of this.) So clearly, there are some types of information that have the ability to influence this decision. Shouldn't women be given such information, before rather than after the fact?

Just two days ago, Abby Johnson, a former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility, penned one of the most compelling arguments for informed choice that I have ever read. It involves her horrific experience of a medication abortion - specifically, eight weeks of excruciating abdominal pain and cramps, gushing blood and lemon-sized blood clots coming out of her, and the fear that she might be dying - and her subsequent realization that the abortion clinic staff knew that all of these things were likely to happen, yet did not inform her beforehand.

It is difficult to read Abby's reflection and come away with the impression that women always know everything there is to know about the abortion decision when they are entering a clinic. Clearly, they do not. It is inexcusable that the law does not uniformly require abortion providers to give women this kind of information. And it is even more inexcusable that dedicated pro-lifers are criticized for taking it upon themselves to stand out on sidewalks and offer the information that the law inexcusably fails to require.

Pro-Choice Editorial: Women Shouldn't Have the Chance to Change Their Minds About an Abortion

2011-10-20T21:03:00.000-07:00

Last winter, the pro-life community in Chicago received the news that Resurrection Hospital was pioneering a procedure to halt second-trimester abortions when a woman had second thoughts after beginning one. (These later-term procedures normally take a total of 2-3 days to complete.) In fact, Fox News did a story that highlighted this.

Pro-life groups such as the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, which ministers to abortion-bound women on sidewalks outside clinics, are collaborating with the hospital to be able to offer this option to women they encounter who change their minds. From what I understand, very little research has been done on how to stop these procedures. But I think it's terrific that this is being developed. It means that it may not yet be "too late" for a woman who realizes that she does not, in fact, want or need to kill her unborn child.

One would think this could only be a good thing.

Yet I probably shouldn't have been surprised to learn that some pro-choicers (who supposedly support whatever choice a woman makes) don't think so. Central Florida Future, the student newspaper at the University of Central Florida, published an astounding editorial about this new technique of stopping abortions midway through the process.

They state that

there are certain medical uncertainties and ethical questions surrounding the procedure and until these problems are solved we do not approve of this practice.

One wonders what they mean by "medical uncertainties."

A few more paragraphs, and then they say that

medical professionals aren't sure this procedure is entirely safe.

So, what are the "uncertainties"? What are the "safety" issues?

They finally explain:

In 2009, New York University conducted a study on abortion reversals like those performed at Resurrection. Of the four abortion reversals, two resulted in preterm births and the babies did not survive.

OK, now we get it. The editorial staff of Central Florida Future is wary of trying to reverse the process of killing a baby via abortion because....the baby might die as a result of the reversal.

This argument defies logic. Wasn't the baby going to die anyway if the procedure wasn't stopped? Isn't that the whole point? If a woman changes her mind in such a situation, what is there to lose by trying to save the baby?

They end the article by saying:

...several of the women who have had their abortions reversed have come to the conclusion because of "sidewalk counselors" who try to dissuade women from having abortions. ...We also think that "street counselors" shouldn't be approaching women who are considering abortion or are mid-way through the decision; let her do what she wants with her body and her life.

So let me get this straight. If an informed pro-lifer on a street corner offers a woman information about the abortion decision that she might not otherwise get, that pro-lifer is infringing on the woman's ability to do what she wants?

Never in my life have I seen people so threatened by mere information as when I have stood on the sidewalk outside an abortion clinic. Once, a friend of mine went up to a woman who had just come out of the clinic and was waiting to cross the street, and said, "May I offer you some information?" She handed the woman a pamphlet about abortion alternatives, including support services for single moms in the area near the clinic location. The woman seemed pleased to receive the information, and started chatting with my friend. Immediately, one of the clinic volunteers walked up and placed himself in between the two of them, blocking my friend from the woman's view. He said, "You don't have to talk to her if you don't want to."

Wow. And pro-lifers are supposedly the ones who don't respect women? Don't most grown women know that they don't have to talk to someone they don't want to talk to? How condescending. And aren't they smart enough and capable enough to decide whether they want to accept information from someone, and to read and consider it for themselves? What could possibly be the harm in having a pro-lifer at least offer it?

Contrary to what many pro-choicers would have us believe, a woman entering an abortion clinic is not always fully and perfectly informed of exactly what will happen in an abortion and exactly what alternatives are available to her. Stories abound of women who say, "If only someone had said/offered X to me, I never would have had my abortion."

Central Florida Future could not be more wrong. Pro-lifers have the right - actually, the duty - to offer information and support to abortion-bound women who may not otherwise get it. And women deserve the right to have a change of heart about their abortions at any time, no matter how slim the chances that the baby's life can be saved. It is worth a try. Saving a life is always worth a try.

Pro-Choice Writer: Lack of Access to Abortion Often Means Choosing Life, Not Reaching for a Coat Hanger

2011-09-25T17:23:00.000-07:00

I recently happened upon this post at "The Abortioneers," a blog that chronicles the experiences of various people who work directly in the abortion industry. This particular writer was working at an abortion clinic in the South at the time Hurricane Katrina hit, and is now living in a "large metropolitan city" that was also just hit by a hurricane. (I'm guessing she is in D.C. and is talking about Hurricane Irene, which hit the East Cost on the last weekend of August - although the post doesn't specify.)

In the post, she expresses regret that natural disasters sometimes force women to miss their abortion appointments because the clinic can't open or they can't get themselves there. She describes ways in which her clinic still tried to help such women, by rescheduling their appointments and offering to "freeze" the fee for the procedure until they could come back, since abortions are more expensive the further along a pregnancy is. Yet, she acknowledged, waiting an extra week could mean that some women would end up being too far along to legally have the procedure.

Let's forget for a moment the fact that there are legal ways for a woman to get an abortion in the U.S. at pretty much any time during pregnancy, so technically she would never be "too far along." Instead, let's consider the following remark that the writer made about such women:

My heart breaks for any woman who tried to get an abortion this past weekend and will now have to carry to term.

Now hold on a minute. A pro-choice person, arguably one of the most passionately pro-choice out there because she has actually worked in the abortion industry, is actually stating on record that there are women who are going to end up having their babies in a few months because a hurricane prevented them from going to their abortion appointments?

Doesn't that directly contradict one of the most widely-touted pro-choice talking points? Namely, that if abortion isn't available, all women who would have sought one will definitely try some kind of dangerous self-abortion procedure instead?

If that's really true, why isn't she predicting that all those women trapped by the ravages of Irene will be so desperate to end their pregnancies that they will use coat hangers on themselves once they manage to take shelter? If a legal barrier is supposed to guarantee that women will do this, why wouldn't the same be true of a logistical barrier?

The real truth is, many women are ambivalent about their abortions, largely because others are often pressuring them into the decision. In fact, they are sometimes so ambivalent that they decide to leave it up to "fate" to make the decision for them. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of women who found out that there weren't abortion appointments available, or ran into a friend who said she'd help with the pregnancy and child care, or any number of circumstances that they decided to take as a "sign" that they shouldn't have the abortion.

The former clinic worker even acknowledged this point within the same blog post:

I wonder if they see this Hurricane as a sign that they were not meant to abort?

For the sake of all of those precious women, who have already been through so much, and for the sake of the precious children they're carrying, I sure hope that this pro-choice writer was right.

A Debate We Shouldn't Need to Have: Parental Consent for Kids' Preventative STD Vaccinations

2011-09-24T13:27:00.000-07:00

Word on the street is that in California, children as young as 12 may soon be able to get vaccinated against STDs without their parents' knowledge or consent. The debate over this proposed law reminds me a lot of the 16-year debate over Illinois' Parental Notice of Abortion law. Basically, one side says that parents should be involved in major medical decisions for their children, especially when those decisions are precipitated by a child's involvement in premarital sex. The other side says that most children already involve their parents in such decisions, and those who don't have a good reason, such as fear that their parents would physically abuse them if they found out about either the sex or the resulting issue (disease or pregnancy).

Although I won't go into detail about the abortion law in this post, I do want to point out that these two situations are profoundly different. In the case of abortion, the child has already had sex, and the parents could theoretically be unaware of it. And, obviously, they have lost their chance to convince their child not to have sex in the first place. But in the case of the STD vaccine, the child may not necessarily have had sex already. He/she may not even have had any thought of doing so. But under this proposed law, an adult in a position of authority could essentially say to such a child, "Here's something that will make it harder for you to contract a disease from sex. Do you want it? We won't tell your parents."

What kind of effect could that have on a child who would not otherwise have seriously considered having sex? The metamessage that could be perceived is that it's normal for young kids to have sex, and that there are ways to make sure that nothing bad happens as a result. Is that a message that an abstinent child should be permitted to hear from an authority figure without a parent's knowledge?

When a child is in the position of seeking an abortion, there are obviously some dangers present from having had sex that cannot be undone by telling a parent at that point. From this perspective, I can understand those who make the argument against parental notice/consent for abortion, even though I do not agree with them. But my goodness, why not give a fighting chance to those children who have not yet "gone there?" That, I will never understand. After all, sexual purity is not impossible, children's bodies are precious beyond measure, and it is realistic to expect that they can enjoy an innocent childhood free of premarital sex, and save that wonderful gift for someone who will cherish them for a lifetime. If anything, that is a message that kids should be required by law to hear!

No Correction When Pro-Choicer Says Abortion Kills a Baby

2011-02-06T12:39:00.000-08:00

Because I am a pro-lifer who enjoys defending the pro-life position through written apologetics, I've been involved in pro-life/pro-choice debates online for a number of years. (The vast majority are with people I don't know in real life. Although, there is always the occasional exchange on Facebook with someone I met once and/or haven't seen in ten years, who has never interacted with me at all beyond a "friend request," but suddenly comes out of the woodwork to take issue with something I post relating to my pro-life beliefs. Such exchanges are always awkward because I know the person but don't have the mutual trust that I would with a closer friend. Yet I try to take these debates as seriously as I would any other.)

In these debates, I always try to establish common ground with a premise that both of us can accept. One would think we could agree, for example, that abortion kills an unborn baby. After all, "kill" and "baby" are not subjective terms. The pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about whether abortion is right or wrong, not what abortion is. Facts are facts, right?

Yet the pro-choice challenges to my position often begin with these very facts. "No! It's not a baby! It's a clump of cells!" (Never mind that being a baby and being a clump of cells are not mutually exclusive things. In fact, all people, me included, could be accurately described as "clumps of cells.") "No! It's not killing! Killing can't apply to a non-person!" (Never mind that the definition of "kill" says nothing about whether the thing killed is a person or not. And never mind that "person" is not a subjective term either.) And on and on.

I have found these debates over semantics to be overwhelmingly common among pro-choicers who debate pro-lifers. Yet when the context is the discussion of a personal experience rather than debate, pro-choicers sometimes relax their terminology such that it is actually closer to what pro-lifers use, and their fellow pro-choicers barely flinch.

Case in point: Penelope Trunk, a blogger whose posts I often enjoy reading. She gives helpful advice about issues that hit home for me at this stage in my life, such as how to balance one's career and personal life. In making her points, she is quite open about her own personal life and beliefs, including the fact that she's had two abortions. In fact, she's probably best known for a Twitter post she wrote back in September of 2009 stating she was grateful to be having a miscarriage because she'd originally wanted an abortion and it was going to be difficult to get. (This post got so much attention that Penelope ended up going on CNN to talk about it.)

What really struck me when reading Penelope's abortion accounts was that she repeatedly referred to the unborn as a baby and acknowledged the fact that abortion kills that baby.

For example, on June 17, 2009, she wrote of her prior abortions: "[A]n abortion is terrible. You never stop thinking about the baby you killed. You never stop thinking about the guy you were with when you killed the baby you made with him. You never stop wondering."

And in the same post, about her feelings while sitting on the table waiting for her abortion: "I couldn’t stop screaming. I was too scared. I felt absolutely sick that I was going to kill a baby."

Later that year, on September 24, 2009, she wrote in defense of her Twitter post about the miscarriage: "And what is up with the fact that just one, single person commented about how Wisconsin has a three-week waiting period for abortions? It is absolutely outrageous how difficult it was going to be for me to get an abortion, and it’s outrageous that no one is outraged." And two paragraphs later: "I’m linking to Planned Parenthood so everyone can make a donation. This organization is enabling women to have the right to abortion."

Given the way pro-choicers usually respond to me when I refer to abortion as killing a baby, it's interesting to see their response when a person who's unmistakably pro-choice also refers to abortion as just that. In this case, of the 615 comments to the post about Penelope's abortion experiences, many of which came from pro-choicers, not one corrected her terminology. Many aspects of abortion were discussed and debated, but her definition of abortion went unchallenged.

This is worth thinking about for a moment. Really, what's most important to pro-choicers is that abortion remain legal. So as long as Penelope agrees with that, she gets no flak, even if she essentially acknowledges the pro-life point that abortion kills a baby.

Pro-choice apologetics are clearly not uniform. They can even be contradictory. It's strange that the pro-choice side isn't more interested in getting "on message" in their defense of legalized abortion.

Maybe it's because there is no message that adequately justifies deliberately taking an innocent human life.

Talking with Pro-Abortion Street Canvassers: Part II

2010-10-31T18:55:00.000-07:00

Almost a year ago, I wrote about the experience of talking with pro-abortion street canvassers. I referenced a specific conversation in which the canvasser refused to accept written materials that refuted the points she was making.

That was not a productive conversation. In fact, I was furious upon ending it, and the canvasser seemed to be as well. I was so depressed that I was almost ready to throw in the towel on any sort of future effort to reach out to people who have been deceived by the pro-abortion point of view.

Well, this past summer, that changed. One hot Thursday afternoon at the end of July, I was afforded the amazing opportunity to talk to this same canvasser again. The way it happened was really fortuitous. When I talked to her last year, it was downtown while on a break from work, and this time I ran into her right by my house, while headed to the gym on a rare weekday off from work. I was walking at my usual brisk pace, listening to my iPod, when suddenly, right in my path, there she was, waving and beckoning me to come over and talk to her. I immediately recognized her, and the whole horrible experience of the previous year came rushing back to me. It was clear that she didn't recognize me (if anything, I look a lot different in gym clothes than I do in work clothes!) and I had about a millisecond to decide whether I was going to stop and talk or just ignore her and walk on by.

I think that in that millisecond, something in my subconscious told me that if I ran into this young woman again, against all odds of such a coincidence, I should take it as a sign that I was meant to have a second conversation with her. So I stopped.

What followed was probably the most interesting half hour in recent memory. It would be impossible to recount all of the twists and turns that the conversation took. It started with the reason the canvassers were out, which, unsurprisingly, was to get support for Planned Parenthood's preferred ways to implement the Obama health care law (i.e., get as much funding for abortions as possible). We discussed several public policy topics of which I have some knowledge, ranging from taxpayer funding of abortion and whether public funding actually encourages abortion as a choice, to whether it's scientifically provable that the unborn are human beings and whether the law should reflect that. By listening carefully and showing that I understood her point for point, I was actually able to present the logic of the pro-life position in a way that never would have been possible in our previous conversation. This time we were calm and thoughtful, and I truly tried to give her the benefit of the doubt on each point and forget that I'd heard every one of them a billion times before.

But the point when things got really interesting was when I asked her why this issue was so important and personal for her that she was willing to spend all day, every day flagging down strangers on street corners to talk to them about it. At that point, we started to talk about both of our past experiences with men and the experiences of our female friends and acquaintances. I found out that this young woman was very wounded by her past experiences. She had seen so many men abuse and take advantage of women sexually and leave them "holding the bag" (i.e., a baby or an STD) that she had concluded that women simply didn't have enough rights. In her mind, these types of situations would be best rectified by using the law to artificially make women more like men are naturally (i.e., immune to a lot of the natural physical consequences of sex). Yes, in her mind, what women really needed was the ability to prevent themselves from becoming pregnant as a result of sex, and/or to destroy a pregnancy that happened by "accident." After all, men never need to worry about these things, so we just need to equalize what nature made unequal.

I told her that I could see where she was coming from. I actually know personally of several situations where a woman was sleeping with a man, became pregnant, had the baby without his support, and was left in poverty to raise the child alone. Terrible, of course. It is obvious to me that such a situation is much worse for the woman because the man does not have to worry about the physical consequences of sex. If he does not want to face the consequences of his actions, no one can truly make him do so, short of throwing him in jail (and even that threat does not always work). Few people would argue that this is a desirable state of affairs.

Where I disagree is on the point that trying to artificially make women more physically like men (i.e., not pregnant or unable to get that way) would really fix this problem. At best it is a "bandaid" solution that doesn't truly get at the underlying issue, which is men disrespecting women and using sex as an instrument of power, control and self-gratification rather than love. If anything, I think the availability of contraception and abortion actually encourages men to engage in such behavior, since it gives sex at least the appearance of being consequence-free for the man. It is unclear to me how this would encourage more loving behavior on the man's part.

I pointed out to this young woman that situations like the ones she mentioned would rarely even happen to begin with if society taught men to truly love and respect women, and taught women that they deserve nothing less than this from men. I pointed out that a truly loving man would never put his beloved in a situation where she could get a disease or be left alone in poverty to raise a child. In other words, a man who truly loves a woman would ONLY use his sexuality as an instrument of love. And within that truth lies the solution.

This was the point where the conversation sort of ground to a halt. She didn't exactly disagree with me. No, more than anything, she was just skeptical that men could ever be convinced to live like that. In her mind, men are inherently selfish scoundrels who just want what they can get from women, and women should just forget about trying to change that. The best we can hope for is to be able to "protect" ourselves (with birth control and abortion) so we don't get hurt too badly.

And this is when I concluded that the most basic difference between the pro-life and pro-legalized-abortion camps is hope. Hope in the future, hope in the beautiful and naturally-present differences between men and women, hope in the inherent goodness of people, hope in our ability to inspire change in society, hope in the lasting power of true love.

We have it, they don't. That's pretty much the essence of it.

I told this young woman that based on the incredible examples of love between a man and a woman that I have witnessed in my life, I have incredible hope that I too will find that kind of love someday, and hope that all women, including her, will hold out for the same - because we are too precious to accept anything less. And I wished her the best. She thanked me for the conversation and we went our separate ways.

It certainly makes sense that someone who has never seen an example of faithful, selfless, committed love between a man and a woman is so cynical about the power of that kind of love to change the world. I pray that every pro-lifer finds some way to impart a bit of hope in the power of love to the many wounded people out there who have no rational reason to believe in it.

Monty Python and the Holy Truth: A Lesson in Natural Law

2010-07-24T17:16:00.000-07:00

Author James Penrice has a marvelous post up at Catholic Online on the concept of natural law. His material comes from a surprising source: a scene from the 1979 film Monty Python's Life of Brian.

I have to wonder if the creators of the film knew what a profound statement they were making when they wrote this scene. The point, of course, is that people and things are the way they are; they comprise a reality that we didn't create and cannot deny. Therefore, pointing out that someone cannot act contrary to reality is not actually an act of oppression, no matter how much certain activist groups want to portray it that way.

Go read the whole thing. It's excellent.

Statutory Rape: A Key Issue Left Out of the Debate on Parental Notice for Abortions

2010-05-29T17:10:00.001-07:00

In all of the press surrounding the recent release of Illinois' Parental Notice of Abortion law from its permanent court injunction, many voices have been given platforms to pontificate about why it's a really bad thing for the law to require that parents be notified before their minor daughters undergo abortions. Even though these voices do not even come close to representing the beliefs of a majority of citizens, the Chicago newspapers have given them extremely disproportionate coverage. Even when one considers the published opinions that do represent the views of the majority, it is clear that a key issue (if not the key issue) has been left out of the debate. I've written the Chicago Tribune twice now to expose this issue, and they have not published my letters. Below is my latest attempt, responding in particular to Dr. Emily Godfrey's letter which was published on May 14th.

Dr. Emily Godfrey's letter, "Parental Notice of Abortion Act is harmful to girls," reiterated the typical argument from those who oppose a legal requirement that parents be notified of a minor daughter's intention to have an abortion. It goes something like this: Pregnant minors can make all medical decisions about their pregnancies (e.g., prenatal care, C-sections) without involving their parents. Why should abortion be any different?

Dr. Godfrey actually admits the difference when she says: "My patients...should not be forced by a 'one-size-fits-all' state law to notify parents that they are pregnant." The concern, therefore, is not really about the girl's freedom to make the "medical decision" to have an abortion (the law, after all, does not require parental consent), but about concealing the girl's pregnancy and the sexual activity that caused it. With this in mind, it becomes obvious that a girl's decision to have a C-section has no bearing on whether others are aware of her pregnancy.

According to the American Bar Association, the majority of teen pregnancies are fathered by adult men. Furthermore, undercover research by organizations such as Live Action Films and Life Dynamics Incorporated has revealed abortion clinic employees offering to help young clients to conceal the age of their partners, despite being mandatory reporters of sexual abuse. Given these facts, it is unconscionable that the issue of statutory rape continues to be left out of the public debate on Illinois' parental notice law. To say that this law is reasonable would be an understatement. It is the absolute minimum that abortion clinics should be doing to protect the vulnerable teens of our state.

How To Hold On To Your Man: Advice Columnist Almost Gets It Right

2010-05-23T20:27:00.000-07:00

I sometimes enjoy perusing online advice columns and shows, particularly those related to love and relationships. It's interesting to see what issues people are having, whether I identify with them, and whether I agree with the advice given.

Often I think that advice given on sexual matters actually hits close to the truth, yet still falls short. There really do seem to be certain truths written into nature, knowable by anyone regardless of religious faith tradition, that most people seem to acknowledge at least implicitly.

Like the fact that it's not the best idea to have sex with someone who doesn't care about you.

This was the crux of the advice given in this YouTube video from YourTango to a woman wondering why men tend to leave her after she sleeps with them.

The woman asks YourTango:

How can I prevent a man from leaving after sex? After dating a man for two months we finally had sex. It was really great but right after he became distant and soon after disappeared entirely. I was devastated. Why do men do this? What can I do to prevent this from happening again?

The advice from YourTango's Evan Marc Katz was as follows:

I've got a really simple policy for you if you want to prevent men from leaving after sex. Don't sleep with them until they are your boyfriend. So, how you execute this plan is, if you're getting hot and heavy with a guy, and he wants to sleep with you, and offers to sleep with you, all you have to do, in a very simple matter-of-fact tone, is say, "I would love to sleep with you right now. I would love to ravish you right now. The thing is, I don't sleep with any man until I know that he's my boyfriend and we're committed to each other." You tell him that, you're pretty much letting him know that you are interested in him. So you're not rejecting him, you're just rejecting the idea of sex right now, and so this puts him in a very simple predicament. Either: "Wow, I respect this woman, and I think I do want to see this relationship forward, to be her boyfriend," or: "Aw, man, I just wanted to have sex with her, and she's making it difficult for me, so I think I'm gonna leave." And if he leaves, and never calls you after this date, then guess what? You just spared yourself the trouble of sleeping with a guy and finding out that he's gonna break your heart. Pretty foolproof, huh?

I think the advice-giver is definitely on the right track. He at least acknowledges that there's really no point in sleeping with a man whom you know doesn't care about you. (This is something that certain avowed feminists evidently don't agree with, as I noted in one of my other recent posts.) However, I don't agree that his suggested "policy" is "pretty foolproof." As one of the commenters to the video opined:

Not that foolproof. It is not like guys are signing contracts. If a guy is a big enough creep to sleep with you and run away, he is a big enough creep to say he wants to be your boyfriend, sleep with you and then run away.

True. After all, "boyfriend" is kind fuzzily defined; it means different things to different people. And it's certainly no guarantee that you won't be left and heartbroken just the same as you might be if you hadn't declared yourself boyfriend-and-girlfriend. As the commenter said, that's not a contract.

But you know what is? Marriage. Marriage happens when a man is willing to say (not just to you, but to the whole world, including the government and - if you're religious - God), that he will love you and stand by your side as long as you both shall live. In good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, with his whole being, fully, completely, and selflessly. Can that promise be broken too? Sure it can. But I think that it is the best guarantee that we have (in this life, anyway) that a man truly loves a woman, and is not just in the relationship for his own sexual pleasure. I would go so far as to say that if a man says he loves a woman, but isn't willing to make that promise to her for life, it isn't really love. As Michael Voris said in a recent episode of The Vortex (and as I also quoted in another recent post):

When you love anything, you by definition love it radically. If you don't, it's not really love. It's warmth, or fondness, or affection, or nostalgia, or duty, or obligation - call it whatever you want, but it ain't love.

Here's my message to women like the advice-seeker in this video. Ask yourself whether the man in your life loves you radically. (It should be an easy question if you're completely honest with yourself.) If the answer is no, move along. You deserve to experience true love: love that lasts forever, that accepts you exactly as you are, that gives selflessly, is unconditional and unchanging. Accept nothing less.

Now that's empowering.

"Love is By Definition Radical"

2010-05-19T09:33:00.000-07:00

Michael Voris, a Catholic and fellow ND alum, produces and hosts a show known as The Vortex. For the past couple of months I've been watching it regularly. In it, he covers many topics of interest to Catholics, particularly information about people and movements that try to distort or discredit the Catholic Church's moral teachings. A couple of weeks ago he put out an episode called Radical, Man. Radical. It was about Catholics who don't want to speak out about the truths of the faith in order to save others because it would be too "radical" to do so.

There were many good points made in the episode, but one quote in particular jumped out at me as being relevant to all people (not just Catholics) from a natural-law perspective, especially in light of some of the responses to my post yesterday about contraception.

The quote was as follows:

When you love anything, you by definition love it radically. If you don't, it's not really love. It's warmth, or fondness, or affection, or nostalgia, or duty, or obligation - call it whatever you want, but it ain't love. What parent doesn't love their child radically? What spouse doesn't love their spouse radically? Love is radical. It's why you get out of bed in the morning. It's why you labor throughout the day. It's what directs your thoughts and your heart.

Would our culture agree with the statement that "when you love anything, you by definition love it radically?" It would seem not. I mean, I so often hear from people that they need/want to have sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend because they "love" them, yet they're not sure whether they want to be together forever, so they're not going to get married and are going to use all manner of hormones and devices to "protect" themselves from the possible effects of sex with one another. So, it's clear that they don't view love as a free, total, faithful, radical, selfless gift of one person to another. If they did, they'd be committing to that person for life, and they certainly wouldn't feel that there is anything in the other person that they need to be "protected" from.

So the question becomes: When such a person says that they "love" their boyfriend or girlfriend, what do they really mean?

Is it really possible to understand love in any way other than how Michael Voris describes it?

The Pill: Empowering Women Who Have Sex with Men They Don't Even Like

2010-05-17T20:32:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has been paying the slightest bit of attention to the "lame"-stream media over the past couple of weeks has no doubt heard that this month marks the 50th anniversary of "The Pill." Pro-abortion groups and others claiming to represent women's interests are seizing the opportunity to make proclamations about how empowered and liberated women have become due to the increasing availability of hormonal contraceptives.

In fact, last week Planned Parenthood sent out an e-mail message to supporters asking them to go to PP's website and share personal stories about how the Pill has changed their lives, with the hope that these testimonies would convince federal policymakers to further increase access and subsidies for the Pill. On their website, they've even created a timeline that groups all of these submissions according to the year in which each story occurred.

I started idly clicking through them, and was very underwhelmed by the proliferation of the usual buzzwords: "control," "empowerment," "family planning," "choice," "feminism," "gender equality," and "having children when I'm ready." But then when I got to 1983, the following caught my eye:

I worked for Planned Parenthood for several years in the 80's. I saw hundreds of scared young women come into our clinic and leave feeling more in control of their lives. I was stunned to learn how many young women are sexually involved with men they don't even like -- at least this way they wouldn't have an unplanned pregnancy on top of other problems. --Judy W., 1983

What? Are you kidding me? Now I've heard it all. For years I've read and listened to PP and their ilk weaving stories of loving couples carefully discerning when to bring a child into the world so as to love it most fully. Situations like that, they claim, are the main reason why we need things like the Pill available. But the admission above blows that fairytale out of the water. And it ought to have any self-respecting woman scratching her head.

For starters, what on earth is the point of being sexually involved with a man you don't like? And if you sterilize yourself with something like the Pill, actively guaranteeing that he'll never have any reason to be with you other than his own erotic desire - no babies, no love, no life together - who does that benefit? Him or you?

This is female empowerment?

It is so sad that Planned Parenthood would offer contraception as a solution for a woman in this situation. Why not question why she's involved in such intimate activity with someone she doesn't like? Why not tell her that she deserves a man who will love and care for her fully, in good times and in bad; and accept all aspects of her? Why not remind her that she is not an object to be used for a man's pleasure?

But no. The so-called feminists clearly don't think women are strong enough to take this kind of talk to heart, buck up, and go out in search of something better. The most they can do is slap a band-aid on the problem. It's hopeless to actually get you into a healthy relationship, so at least we'll try to make sure you don't get pregnant.

If women stopped enabling immature and selfish men by contracepting, and actually held out for men who would truly love and respect them exactly as they are, I can only imagine the changes that would take place in our society. I pray that all women realize what kind of man they deserve and accept nothing less.

Is It Enough to Talk About Abortion With "Fair-Minded Words"?

2010-05-16T15:55:00.000-07:00

This afternoon I happened upon this YouTube video showing a snippet of President Barack Obama's 2009 commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. I was actually present in person for this speech, and I remember this segment as one of the most disingenuous parts. In fact, I myself was almost - almost - taken in by the apparent reasonableness of it.

Here's what he said:

A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose."

The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website.

And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

Many commentators later cheered him as sounding so "reasonable." But if you translate this into plain English, what does it come down to? Barack Obama supports the legal right to kill a baby in the womb. And he understandably wants to "fight" those who disagree with him on that. Well, his encounter with this doctor taught him that both of those things are just fine - he doesn't have to "change his underlying position," as long as he talks nice about pro-lifers.

Too often, both sides of the abortion debate treat it as something that's merely academic. Is this killing a baby or isn't it? Who knows? Your opinion is just as good as mine. And as long as we chill out and "presume good faith" on the part of our opponents, we can continue forever, deadlocked in our diametrically opposed positions, and everything will be just hunky-dory. Meanwhile, the killing of babies continues, and no one is paying attention to this, the heart of the matter.

Enough with the rhetorical games. Science clearly proves that abortion kills a living human being. There is no question about that. Either we will (individually and collectively) take a stand and end this injustice or we won't. All President Obama did at the University of Notre Dame was to confuse people into thinking that they can opt-out of this decision. After all, the most that can be asked of us is that we speak about the fundamental civil rights issue of our time in "fair-minded words."

And ironically, a baby cries in the background during this part of his speech, reminding us that this topic encompasses more than just the words we use to talk about it.

Talking with Pro-Abortion Street Canvassers

2009-12-23T20:37:00.000-08:00

If you'd told me a year ago that I'd have advanced beyond blogging about pro-life issues to actually talking, face-to-face, to abortion defenders, I'd have called you crazy. Yet that is precisely what has happened.

Today I want to mention specifically the experience of talking with street canvassers. You know, the ones who call out to people walking by on the sidewalk, offering literature and asking for support for their organizations. One of the most visible canvassing organizations in downtown Chicago is Planned Parenthood, and currently, they're trying to drum up public support for President Obama's health care reform bills.

A friend of mine actually became aware of their presence long before I did, and she's talked to them more than I have as well. I suppose that's partly because she is out on the streets during the day more than I am. She's had a few successful conversations, including one in which the guy she was talking to ended up stopping his canvassing for PP and starting with another organization. Praise God for that. And, interestingly enough, as she began to recount another conversation to me while we were on the bus together last weekend, a guy sitting in the seat across from us overheard and introduced himself as a PP canvasser. Naturally, that turned into a conversation as well.

A couple of things have struck me while talking to these people. The first is how indoctrinated they sound. They literally all repeat the same catchphrases: "anti-choice forces are hijacking health care reform"; "97% of what Planned Parenthood does is preventative in nature and only 3% is abortion related"; "women should be in complete control of their bodies"; "women should have access to reproductive health care."

The second striking thing about the canvassers is their complete lack of ability to argue a point. When challenged on any of the above points, not once has any of them actually defended it with anything resembling an argument; all they do is paraphrase the statement and/or try to get out of continuing the conversation further.

For example:

Canvasser: "Abortion is essential reproductive health care for women."

Me or my friend: "How is it health care? It is a completely elective procedure almost 100% of the time. It doesn't cure any illnesses or disease."

Canvasser: "I can see that I'm not going to convince you."

Me or my friend: "Well, maybe if you had a reason for your point of view, you would. Seriously, why should abortion be considered health care?"

Canvasser: "Women should have complete control over their bodies."

Me or my friend: "Uh huh...but is control really an inherently good thing? People can 'control' their bodies in lots of ways that aren't healthy."

Canvasser: "Women can't be free unless they have complete control over their bodies. That includes abortion."

Me or my friend: "We're getting away from the point here. Even if I agreed with you on the control thing, how does that mean abortion is health care?"

Canvasser: "I can see I'm not going to convince you."

These people are in complete, utter denial about what they are doing. Even when confronted, they avoid the key points. Once, after a canvasser told me that abortion wasn't "included in health care reform," I offered her a stack of paper articles from mainstream news sources explaining how and why abortion was, in fact, "included in health care reform." Her response? She gestured for me to take them back and said, "No thanks - I'm pretty set in my beliefs."

Most of us have beliefs in which we are "pretty set." Yet, I can't think of a single intellectually honest person I know who would refuse to look at new information that might challenge her current way of thinking. The surer you are about your beliefs, the more you should welcome challenges, right? - because your beliefs, if true, should withstand them. I have never said to a pro-abortion debate partner, "I can see I'm not going to convince you." I lead with the reasoning and let that stand on its own truth. And if they avoid it, I state it another way, until the point is finally made.

I don't know what to do with conversations like these that always seem to lead to a dead end. Sometimes I wonder if having them is a waste of time. Yet, most people don't change their minds about anything overnight, and some former abortion-industry employees have said that they changed their minds due to the cumulative effect of pro-life rhetoric that they heard or read. It just took one "aha!" moment to bring it all home for them. So, you never know. Maybe we're planting seeds. It's hard not to at least try; each person is a life in need of saving. I pray for each and every one of them. May they know the true peace and joy that comes from living the culture of life. Anything less is a cheap imitation and falls far short of the greatness that we human beings are capable of.

Constant Craving

2009-12-01T21:41:00.000-08:00

Tonight I was listening to k.d. lang's famous hit song "Constant Craving" and thinking about how all of us humans really are the same in some basic (natural) ways, such as wanting to be loved and cared for by another person. I really do believe that today's hookup culture, at its root, reflects a people looking for love. We've just gotten our wires crossed.

The happiest couples I know are those who experience sex as a total, ecstatic, mutual self-giving, with no reservations and exclusive for life. And that makes sense, doesn't it? After all, such couples bond more deeply to one another and renew their commitment to one another every time they have sex. They never have to worry about sexually-transmitted infections. They understand their fertility and how their bodies work. They've discerned together whether or not they are seeking a pregnancy and have accepted the awesome creative power that comes with their sexuality. With such a bond comes strong and healthy families, and in turn, a stronger and healthier society.

Yet, when I express to people the above view of sexuality, they're often quick to inform me that this is "only my view" and that I "can't expect others to follow it" or "shouldn't impose my beliefs on others." In fact, I read an article a couple of months ago which condemned abstinence education, admonishing the reader that "Human nature is difficult to overcome in the name of religious beliefs."

Wow. Well, actually, the view that sex should be reserved for someone whom you've promised to love for the rest of your life isn't necessarily based on religion. Many religions do teach that this is the right thing to do, but in reality this teaching is based on the natural law - those self-evident moral truths that are written into the world and into us. Contrary to the author's statement in the paragraph above, human nature is actually consistent with the view of sex that I have described. As noted, individuals and the society they live in function better and are happier when this model is followed - and everyone, in their heart of hearts, ultimately wants love, presumably the most fulfilling love there is.

As for the charge that I can't impose my beliefs on others, I must say that is a given. No beliefs, whether about this or something else, can be imposed - only PROposed. Everyone has a free will and they have the choice to accept ANY idea or not. As for the admonishment that I can't expect others to follow this belief - well, I don't know about that. I've been involved with several groups whose mission is to spread this beautiful message about experiencing sex meaningfully, and I must say that people's responses have moved me to tears. So many have been thrilled to hear the message (and in some cases upset that they never heard it before) and put it into practice in their own lives, with immediate and dramatic changes resulting.

The point is, this is all about happiness, not imposing restrictions on people. I've found that sex treated with the utmost care - and practiced the way it naturally makes sense to do so - is actually pretty freeing and empowering. So why wouldn't I want to share that with others? I hope that no one will object to hearing something that could make their life better, especially on the grounds that "it's just your view." Every idea out there is just someone's view, and at least some ideas are good - so why not just listen and give it a try? It could change your life.

The Natural Law = Bigotry? Please.

2009-11-29T22:27:00.000-08:00

I love George Weigel.

He is quite possibly THE most articulate Catholic apologist in America today, as well as the most learned historian of our Church. Yet, the main reason I love his writing has to do with his adeptness at explaining the Catholic teachings that are rooted in natural-law thinking. He explains them in such a way that anyone, even a non-Catholic, can understand. And what I appreciate the most is the way in which he continually hammers home this point that one needn't be Catholic to accept the arguments that Catholics raise in the public square.

A favorite quote of mine on this point came from a piece he wrote back in April about the Obama-Notre Dame controversy:

"Daley and Biden (and Kathleen Sebelius and John Kerry and Barbara Mikulski and Susan Collins and Clan Kennedy and the rest of the Catholic pro-abortion pols) are not the arbiters of the truth of Catholic faith. More to the public point, they are dead wrong on what is at stake in the life-issues debate. For what is at stake, to repeat, is not some peculiarity of Catholic dogma but a publicly accessible truth about justice that everyone willing to take an argument seriously can grasp."

But what I really wanted to highlight today was his Nov. 27 column on Catholic Exchange, titled: "The Natural Law = Bigotry? Please."

It's full of good stuff, but here are a few highlights:

"...[T]he Post's indictment -- in an editorial titled 'Mr. Cuccinelli's bigotry' -- centered on the fact that candidate Cuccinelli had described homosexual behavior as contrary to 'natural law' and had further suggested that natural law was a useful guide to public policy...the Post's anonymous editorial writer described Mr. Cuccinelli's appeal to natural law as a 'retrofit (of) the old language of racism, bias, and intolerance in a new context'...Baloney. What's being retrofitted here is an old-time anti-Catholic bigotry, tarted up in the guise of tolerance and extended to those who think there are moral truths built into the world and into us -- truths that we can grasp by reason." [emphasis added]

Bravo, Prof. Weigel, on the restatement of the definition of natural law. Moral truths built into the world and into us. I like it. Here's another passage:

"Ken Cuccinelli is a serious, practicing Catholic. He's also a sophisticated politician who knows that you don't argue public policy in the public square on the basis of uniquely Catholic theological premises. Rather, you make your arguments in a public vocabulary, accessible to all. That's the grammar and vocabulary of the natural moral law: the basis on which Thomas Jefferson argued the case for American national independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., promoted the civil rights of African Americans, and John Paul II passionately and effectively defended the religious and political rights of all." [emphasis added]

He goes into further detail about how these leaders argued their cases in the public square and how ridiculous it is to call any of this "bigotry." Go and read the whole thing.

Biology 101 as the Foundation for a Natural Law Approach

2009-11-28T21:41:00.000-08:00

Videos like this are always both sad and unsurprising. Sad because it's always heartbreaking to hear someone talk about doing something so gravely evil as murdering a child. And unsurprising because deceived pro-choicers have always found ways to call a grave evil a moral necessity. It's almost as if intellectual dishonesty is par for the course. It has to be; there's no way to maintain a pro-choice position without it.

The most ardent pro-choicers have long acknowledged that abortion is, in fact, killing. Yet your common, everyday, non-activist pro-choice person will spam every abortion-related message board on the internet (and even some non-abortion-related ones) with euphemism, equivocation, and personal insult to the contrary. It almost makes one wonder what would happen if they took apologetics instruction from the doctors they are defending. C'mon, guys, get with the program; the pro-abortion-choice mantra is: "Yes, of course it is killing; it's a sad and tragic thing, but women and their pregnancies are complicated, and so it's a necessary evil sometimes."

The average (reasonable) person does not agree with that statement. In fact, the average person's conscience recoils at the idea of killing any innocent person - for any reason. They are only able to tolerate abortion because they have deceived themselves as to what it truly is. Abortionists and the radical activists who defend them, however, have employed no such basic biological deception. Their deception is of a higher order: one that somehow imagines that we must ever kill one innocent person to protect another. Most people would not accept such a deception, but fortunately for the pro-choice side, there are a variety of self-contradictory deceptions to choose from, and each person receives the one she finds easiest to accept.

What does all of this have to do with the natural law? Well, the concept of natural law states that rules for how humans ought to live can be observed in human nature itself. It is obvious to most people that killing fellow humans does not produce good outcomes. It deprives the victim of a happy future; it tears apart relationships; and it leaves regret and emotional wreckage in its wake. Few would deny these things. But in order to get to the point where we are applying natural law theory to abortion, we must first acknowledge the simple biological reality that abortion equals killing a fellow human being. It is amazing how difficult it can be for some people to make that very simple first step, but if those doing the killing and those who defend them have made it, how hard could it be for the rest of us?

Gay Marriage as a Natural Law Question

2009-11-27T22:35:00.000-08:00

Advocates of gay marriage have long stated that they do not wish to undermine religious freedom by forcing churches with moral objections to gay marriage to perform ceremonies uniting same-sex couples. In fact, when the Illinois General Assembly introduced civil unions legislation in the spring of 2009, they named the legislation the Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act for this very reason: the legislation explicitly protected religious institutions from being compelled to "solemnize or officiate" civil unions.

In the heat of that legislative session, State Rep. Greg Harris, lead sponsor of this controversial bill, even told me that as strongly as he felt about gay marriage, he felt just as strongly about religious freedom - and that's why he made sure that this opt-out clause for churches was included.

Even a couple of self-described orthodox Catholics once told me that even though they accept the Church's teaching on this, they think it's okay to have gay marriage legislation as long as the Church doesn't have to participate in these marriage ceremonies.

What is going on here?

I think it's the same phenomenon that happens with so-called "pro-choice Catholic" politicians. While saying they accept Church teaching - or, failing that, that the Church at least has a right to believe and teach what she does - they show absolutely no understanding of WHY the Church believes and teaches what she does.

WHY does the Church teach against gay marriage?

Because it is contrary to the natural law. (#2357)

Because sexuality is (naturally) ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. Because sexuality concerns the innermost being of the human person and is realized in a truly human way only way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. Because homosexual activity does not image God's free, total, faithful, and fruitful love for us. And we can see in the tragic sexual disease (e.g., HIV) rates for active homosexuals the negative consequences of using our bodies in a way that was not naturally intended. We can also see in repeated studies the consequences for many children who grow up without both a male and female parent. The list goes on and on.

In short, the Church teaches against gay marriage because it is not what human beings were made for. It goes against our nature and ultimately harms those who practice it, in both body and spirit.

Therefore, how could it ever be enough to simply grant that those who disagree with gay marriage shouldn't have to be involved in the ceremonies? What about down the road, when such couples want to adopt children? Should Church-based adoption agencies be compelled to release children to couples whose unions they believe are intrinsically harmful to those couples, any children in their care, and the wider society? What about when it comes time for Church-affiliated institutions to choose the benefit packages that they will offer to their employees? Should they be compelled to grant marriage-like benefits to employees to protect and strengthen unions they recognize as harmful to all involved? Should Church-affiliated grade schools be compelled to hire employees who openly live a gay lifestyle that they recognize as harmful to that person and to society?

No matter where a person stands on the gay marriage question, these are issues that everyone should consider. The Church does not teach against gay marriage for an arbitrary, obscure "religious" reason. This is about much more than a ceremony. Ultimately it is about two competing worldviews. It is about the relationships between people and how they affect those people and the world they live in. As always, the Church's teaching is rooted in natural law which can reveal to everyone, even the non-believer, the self-evident truth about how human beings are supposed to function in the world.

George Washington on the Natural Law

2009-11-27T22:28:00.000-08:00

"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..."

I'm a Politician Who Just Happens to be Catholic

2009-11-27T22:13:00.000-08:00

Jack Kenny at the New American recently wrote an article describing the New Hampshire Institute of Politics' forum "Catholics in the Public Square." Kenny astutely sums up the problem with many Catholic politicians today who don't understand that they still retain their Catholic identity while in public service. In his words: "They seem to think separation of church and state requires a divorce of morality from law." Therefore, they see no problem with voting for laws that protect - and, in some cases, expand - the so-called right to abortion.

This really gets to the heart of it. Does anyone truly believe that laws should have nothing to do with morality? That the Church has no rational reason for what she believes and proclaims as the moral truth other than "God says this is bad"?

The Church, as the voice of Christ on earth, teaches us not only that God says things are bad, but the reason why. Her critics would do well to inform themselves of the actual reasoning behind the teachings. They may be surprised to find that it makes intuitive sense.

Naturally Pro-Life

2009-11-27T21:46:00.000-08:00

Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will,man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstainfrom action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of hisnature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternallaw. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

--"Natural Law," New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

One of the most beautiful things about being Catholic is the faith's sacramental mentality - meaning that almost any material thing can be an outward sign of the presence of God. Indeed, the way nature is ordered reveals what God has intended for it. Moral principle tends to be reflected in how nature "works" best; therefore, most teachings that are typically described as "religious" are actually self-evidently true for anyone who takes the time to examine inherent human nature and act in accordance with it.

Nowhere is this more true than with the issue of abortion. While the pro-life position is often described as a "religious" belief and subsequently dismissed or ridiculed as irrelevant, rarely does the critic take the time to actually examine the "why" behind the belief. That "why" is the subject of this blog.