What the worst argument I’ve heard for abortion says about our culture of nonsense

Abortion-rights supporters stand on both sides of a street near the Gateway Arch as they take part in a protest in favor of reproductive rights Thursday, May 30, 2019, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

I heard some terrible things this past week or so, after sweeping new abortion laws passed in several states. The laws are designed to be contested, and they are not yet in effect. But they have already let loose monsters from deep within our national psyche.

I heard, of course, that if women would just keep their knees together, the problem would take care of itself. I heard that women who have abortions should be thrown in jail, maybe hanged, for murder; and women who have miscarried should have no problem being examined because their uterus might be a crime scene. I heard that women with no good choices simply do not understand what love is.

Advertisement

I heard that foster children, abused children and special needs children are only here because their mothers were not given the choice to put them out of their misery (and to save the taxpayers money). I heard that if abortion is murder, then so is masturbation; if embryos are humans, then ultrasounds are child pornography. I heard that I am self-righteous, cruel and full of hate because I am pro-life. And I have seen dozens of people mock pro-lifers by putting comical hats and mustaches on a photo of a miscarried baby.

How can I persuade your mind to accept something even your body has known since before it was born?

Somehow worst of all was something I hear more and more often, as an argument for abortion on demand, without apology: “If my mom had aborted me, I would not even know it because I would not be here. So what does it matter?”

How can I persuade your mind to accept something even your body has known since before it was born? The body knows that life is better than death. People who attempt to drown themselves will tie their own ankles together because they know that even in the very act of self-extinction, their bodies will fight hard to live. I wonder if we are on our way to reprogramming our brains to evolve past our body’s involuntary thrashing toward life. It does seem like we are trying.

[Don’t miss more stories like this one. Sign up for our newsletter.]

We are trying to persuade ourselves—and worse, to teach children—that life does not mean anything. That there is no such thing as meaning, only consciousness; and once that consciousness is snuffed out, nothing is left. So what does it matter? This is the howlingly bleak idea that makes a “no harm, no foul” abortion possible: No one is around to kick up a fuss, so did anything even happen?

We are trying to persuade ourselves—and worse, to teach children—that life does not mean anything.

I do believe the willingness to extinguish life is learned from a growing culture of nonsense. Nonsense is intensely popular right now. Look at the computer-generated backgrounds to dancing games: One shows women in wedding dresses dancing with a cossack, then with a panda, then with a giant carrot. Why? No reason at all. They are so randomly, senselessly bizarre; at first you are fascinated, then you are repelled.

If you want to work up a good sense of dread, read the essay “Something is wrong on the internet,” which describes the “infrastructural violence” being done to children and to us all through algorithms that create YouTube videos filled with anything that sells, from Peppa Pig cartoons to torture porn, all set to soothing nursery music. With everything nonsensically—and sometimes violently—mashed together, how do we find meaning?

Even things that do mean something are all crammed together in an indiscriminate, ever-scrolling feed that endlessly refreshes itself and offers less and less refreshment, less and less meaning. It feels like someone is trying to drive us insane. It feels like someone is trying to tell us: Here is everything because nothing means anything.

In all that swirling storm of nonsense, we are supposed to take the time to worry about a tiny zygote we cannot even see? What does it matter?

And in all that swirling storm of nonsense, we are supposed to take the time to worry about a tiny zygote we cannot even see? What does it matter?

Let us change pace. Joseph Ratzinger says of the kingdom of heaven:

It is like a grain of mustard, the tiniest of all seeds. It is like a leaven, a small quantity in comparison to the whole mass of the dough, yet decisively important for what becomes of the dough. It is compared again and again to the seed that is planted in the field of the world, where it meets various fates—it is pecked up by the birds, or it is suffocated among the thorns, or else it ripens into abundant fruit.

The kingdom of God, “God’s being-Lord,” as Ratzinger calls it, is so small, so strangely vulnerable. So liable to be flushed away, withered, suffocated, undone, as if it did not matter, as if it did not mean anything. God himself was a tiny zygote, minuscule, secret, a single word in a swirling Babel. The kingdom of God itself is tiny now, as we are tiny.

Let us stop, stop the Babel for a moment, and just be glad that God thinks we mean something, thinks we matter.

Tiny—but not nothing.

I have heard terrible things this week. But the best thing I heard was on Sunday, when the tiny-seed-kingdom-of-God put himself in a cup for us to eat and drink. Why? Because we matter to him. Why do we matter to him? I have no idea. What does it matter to the Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal One if the whole world throws itself away? What does it matter? He does not need us. But every Sunday I show up, and so does he. I must conclude that we matter.

Here is the paradox: Because we matter, he threw his life away for us. How different this death was from the unmaking we so casually allow for each other. How different is death for love than death from nonsense. Death to self for love brings meaning to life.

Christ’s death for love is for everyone: everyone who has suffered, everyone who lolls in privilege, everyone who chafes under the patriarchy and everyone who seethes over feminism. Everyone who rages for the poor lost babies, everyone who rages for the poor perforated women, their wombs pierced by a careless legal scalpel or a desperate back-alley assault. Everyone who has been wounded by abortion and by the terrible accusations flung at them this week and by the dreadful pains of life itself. And most of all, for everyone who does not know it is good that they exist.

Let us stop, stop the Babel for a moment, and just be glad that God thinks we mean something, thinks we matter. He is the Word that calms the storm of nonsense. Remember his death when we speak to each other.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
J Jones
3 months 1 week ago

Ashley, I respect your belief. I know women who had abortions: their reasons include the reality they were married to men who were not reliable and available and sometimes unsafe parents for the children they already had; men who were not reliable and not available and sometimes not safe for their wives because these men were cheating, drinking, in some cases violent to kids and wife; the men controlled the money and the house and the car and the frequency and terms of sex because these were stay-at-home moms in conservative marriages and conservative churches and conservative communities. So, to continue providing for their children without furthering their dependence and the dependence of their children on men who were wholly unreliable, untrustworthy and, thus, wholly unsafe parents snd husbands, these women decided not to remain pregnant.

None of these Roman Catholic women believes in or supports the death penalty; none believes in or supports euthanasia; none believes fetal anomalies require abortion; all value life and all believe they made decisions which reflected that religious, emotional, philosophical, spiritual, MATERNAL value. None of those women regret their decisions. They ALL regret that they were married to men who were unreliable fathers and husbands; they all regretted that that they had not insisted on having their own money and earning power; they all regretted that they belonged to communities that hammer at women about the sanctity of motherhood and marriage because that pressure resulted in them staying in these marriages only to become pregnant again, only to be told by people like you that they were selfish killers and, you have now added, responsible for the destruction of societal respect for "Life", the death penalty, euthanasia and all the abortions in the world.

Congratulations on your baby. Now leave other women alone.

J Jones
3 months 1 week ago

Ashley, I respect your belief. I know women who had abortions: their reasons include the reality they were married to men who were unreliable and unavailable and sometimes unsafe parents for the children they already had and were not reliable and not available and sometimes not safe for their wives because these men were cheating, drinking, in some cases violent to kids and wife, the men controlled the money and the house and the car and the frequency and terms of sex cecause these were stay-at-home moms in conservative marriages and conservative churches and conservative communities. So, to continue providing for their children without furthering their dependence and the dependence of their children on men who were wholly unreliable, untrustworthy and, thus, wholly unsafe parents snd husbands, these women decided not to remain pregnant.

None of these Roman Catholic women believes in or supports the death penalty; none believes in or supports euthanasia; none believes fetal anomalies require abortion; all value life aka Life and all believe they made decisions which reflected that religious, emotional, spiritual, philosophical, MATERNAL value. None of those women regret their decisions not to remain pregnant. They ALL regret that they were married to men who were unreliable fathers and husbands; they ALL regretted that they had not insisted on having their own money and earning power; some regretted having more children than they could ever take on a bus or to most homeless or most domestic violence shelters; and they ALL regretted that they belonged to communities that hammer at women about the sanctity of motherhood and marriage because that resulted in them staying in these marriages only to become pregnant again and only to be told by people like you that their conscientious decision about their own lives meant that they were selfish killers and, you have now added, responsible for the destruction of societal respect for "Life", the death penalty, euthanasia and all the abortions in the world.

Congratulations on your baby, Ashley. Now leave other women alone.

Crystal Watson
3 months 1 week ago

Ashley, I'm all for respecting the lives of existing people. I don't think embryos and fetuses are persons ... yet.

THE CHRISTOFFERSONS
3 months 1 week ago

Life matters. We matter. God loves us, and calls us to love one another.

Christ preached not the law but the fulfillment of the law. He was (and is) looking for something more. The "new covenant" calls us to see that love of God and neighbor is "all the law and the prophets".

It is tempting to solve a problem by using the law as the means. Those who pass laws against abortion believe they are upholding basic principles of life. But the nine months of pregnancy involve much more than the prospect of new life. The abortion issue is difficult because it pits the dignity of emerging new life against the dignity of the woman who is bearing this new life.

Problems are not solved by setting aside important aspects as if they did not exist or did not matter. Those who want the law to prohbit abortion and those who want the law to support a woman's choice are on opposite poles, each with a non-solution. What sensible person would think that the law is a solution in such circumstances?

The article takes the view that if society does not have a law against abortion it is teaching that "life does not mean anything" and "we do not matter". This is a polemic and does not contribute to a solution. There are similar polemics on the other side. Polemics do not teach how we are to love one another. Neither side should presume that the Spirit is not present to the other.

A good society teaches what is good. It is good to face problems honestly, and recognize when pat answers -- on either side -- do not solve anything. There are some problems that have to be worked through by some other means than the law. We should teach this hard truth rather than pat answers.

Nora Bolcon
3 months 1 week ago

Absolutely! I keep commenting the same truth.

As long as Pro-lifers refuse to drop the threat of criminalization and refuse to stop the harassment of women, Pro choicers won't even go to the table to discuss different options with Pro-lifers.

Both sides could joyfully work together to help women by campaigning for public quality daycare and universal health care and longer paid maternity and paternity leaves and by helping women get in contact with social services and other agencies.

This type of work I can back and it actually lowers abortion rates while making abortion a crime raises abortion rates everywhere in the world.

However until pro-lifers take the possibility of criminalizing abortion off the table completely, pro choicers won't trust them enough to come to the table at all.

It is like bringing a loaded gun to a meeting, you can try to dialogue but all the other side sees is and cares about is the loaded gun, until you get rid of it completely.

Abortion is immoral but criminalizing abortion is a misogynistic and immoral choice of reactions to that immorality and a very deadly reaction. There are better ways to react and we need to choose them instead.

Diane Diggs
3 months 1 week ago

You had my total support until you began one of your last statements with "Abortion is immoral...". The last thing that will be helpful on the subject of abortion is a stance that is judgmental.

Nora Bolcon
3 months 1 week ago

Well that is my personal belief so in that respect I an pro life. I don't judge women who make the choice or condemn them as I am not in their shoes and I will fight for women's right to safe legal abortion with all my strength and heart as a Matter of equal liberty. However, I do believe that there is a difference between an egg that contains new life and one that doesn't and many women feel long term pain and a sense of loss after aborting so I prefer we do everything we can so women never abort based on financial reasons when they really did not want to abort.

Again, that is a faith and morality choice and belief. I cant describe abortion as an act of faith and their is fear and some amount of a lack of faith I see in almost every reason given o get an abortion. This leads me to believe therefore there exist some amount of real sin in choosing it. However, I respect you may have a different take than I, and I believe that this is something we must discern, each of us for ourselves with our God. So I judge the choice to get an abortion but not the women who made that choice.

THE CHRISTOFFERSONS
3 months 1 week ago

Jesus preached the reign of God, not the law. As Paul said, "the law kills, the Spirit gives life."

But how can we cultivate a deeper relationship with the Spirit if we are preoccupied with the law? The problem is that the "teaching Church" is preoccupied with the law, and this preoccupation compromises its ability to help people discern what their heart -- the Spirit in every heart -- is saying.

It's like learning the ride a bicycle. If Church teaching keeps you in the training wheels of the law, how can you learn to ride upright on your own? It's about love, which is "all the law and the prophets."

Sure, people are going to fall down as they learn how to stay upright on their own. And there will be some who don't care about being true to the Spirit that is in their heart. But the freedom from the law that Paul talks about in Galatians encompasses both. When the rest of us look from the outside we cannot really know what is going on within another person's heart. The community will be more vibrant if we encourage learning by allowing people to fall down rather than requiring training wheels.

We are just human beings, and we are different. Even if the teaching Church -- or a person in their own conscience -- finds it prudent to take off the training wheels of the law in order to cultivate a relationship with the Spirit that enables riding upright in a love that is free from the law, some of us may judge and others may not when what we see from the outside is not what we would do. But why put the training wheels back on for someone else?

In following Christ we are on journey toward union with a loving God. The reign of God is not the law, but the fulfillment of the law. If we as a community, as the people of God, are stuck in the law how can we say we are followers of Christ?

Is the community going to fall apart -- is it going to come unglued -- unless we put the training wheels back on? That is the question. In modern society where the police power of the civil state does a credible job of maintaining good order, the teaching Church should be able to concentrate on cultivating discernment, without the need for training wheels. There should be very few laws whose enforcement by imposition of training wheels is necessary to preserve the good order of the community. The mission of the Church is the reign of God not community enforcement of law.

Robert Klahn
3 months 1 week ago

This is my goto answer for the anti-abortion people. Anyone who is truly pro-life already agrees with this.

Until I see you advocating for this I will not take you seriously on what you wrote above. This must be policy, this must be priority, this must be an absolute.

I do thank you for your support for a program to feed all the hungry, house all the homeless, provide universal health care, tuition free public college and tech schools, provide jobs for all at a good living wage, decent retirement, and, in general, care for the poor.

Oz Jewel
3 months 1 week ago

It might be that the author is naive or pretending to be for artistic purposes.
We, people, the human race have always been like this from the beginning.
3000 years ago in at least one part of the world the different types of gross evil were enumerated and pronounced as wrong and not to be done.
We call this list the 10 commandments.
Is there anything new under the sun?

Andrew Strada
3 months 1 week ago

Simcha,

I love your perspective on life, your writing style and the fact that you are willing to raise ten children. Keep up the good work and ignore the army of trained poodles nipping at your ankles.

Rhett Segall
3 months 1 week ago

Simcga, the metaphor of the mustard seed is well chosen and clarifying. The NYT's polemic against the sanctity of the unborn frequently highlights that a zygote is about "the size of the period at the end of this sentence." Then their augumentum non sequitur: therefore it doesn't matter that its destroyed. I also think unmasking the rationalization that the aborted will not be here and will therefore not miss being here is important. Your words of truth will be a seed that bears fruit in proper soil. Shalom!

Crystal Watson
3 months 1 week ago

The reason an embryo or zygote will not miss being here is not because it is small, but because it has no brain, it can't think or feel, has no self-consciousness, it isn't yet a person.

Rhett Segall
3 months 1 week ago

Yes, Crystal, the zygote hasn't reached the level of consciousness yet. But those in a coma aren't aware either. If you say "Yes, but they might be brought back to that stage", consider this from the book "Embryo":…the embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or of the father. This is clear because it is growing in its own distinct direction. Its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. Second, the embryo is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, and most important, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. The human embryo, from conception onward, is fully programmed and has the active disposition to use that information to develop himself or herself to the mature stage a human being, and unless prevented by disease or violence, will actually do so, despite possibly significant variation in environment (in the mother’s womb). None of the changes that occur to the embryo after fertilization, for as long he or she survives, generates a new direction of growth…Rather, all of the changes (for example those involving nutrition and environment) either facilitate or retard the internally directed growth of this determinate and enduring individual. (“Embryo” p. 50)

Crystal Watson
3 months 1 week ago

An embryo and a coma patient are not the same. A coma patient is a person in an impaired medical condition - that's why they don't respond. An embryo isn't an impaired person, an embryo isn't *yet* a person - that's why they can't respond.

James M.
3 months 1 week ago

“Here is the paradox: Because we matter, he threw his life away for us.“

STM this is fundamentally mistaken. More accurate would be to say God died for us, to *create* meaning in us. Man is not worth saving, and is totally worthless - what gives us worth, is God’s redemptive action on our behalf. We have no intrinsic worth whatsoever - God’s “attitude” toward us, and nothing intrinsic in us, gives us value. God’s “Subjectivity”, nothing in creation, is what gives value. This destroys all self-righteousness at a stroke, because it leaves us with nothing we can boast, because all good is “located” in God alone.

sheila gray
3 months 1 week ago

The Abortion debate in this country is about the “life” of the mother. Women are being oppressed in many places in this world, but to push this idea that the most important “life” in the equation is that of the unborn child is absurd. It does not compute. I have two children; one is 38 and one is 35. But, I’ve had five pregnancies. Three pregnancies ended before I was three months into it, from my body’s early rejection of the fetus, a “spontaneous abortion”. Carrying a child, giving birth to a child, and living up to the arduous, complex, emotionally and psychologically- taxing (and expensive) 18-year endeavor, is another thing altogether. In my opinion, Life begins when the woman carrying the fetus CHOOSES to be everything her child needs till the end of her life. That is a Sacred choice. It should be mandated to no one, by no one, especially clueless men... How dare you? Who do you think you are - God?

Frank T
3 months 1 week ago

My sympathy to you an your co-religionist sperm supplier.
Your choice of unrestrained baby-making is so ill-conceived that your opinions are not credible.
Not surprisingly, you have both shown utter disregard for the planet that we are inhabiting.

Stephen Samenuk
3 months 1 week ago

Agreed. Obviously, her book, The Sinner's Guide to Natural Family Planning, didn't work out as well as she thought it would.

Sarah Dolski
3 months 1 week ago

Wow Frank, I’m trying to discern if your comment is a serious one or if your joking. I sincerely hope it is the later because I don’t want to believe people would be spewing the kind of judgmental hatred I just read.

Sarah Dolski
3 months 1 week ago

Wow Frank, I’m trying to discern if your comment is a serious one or if your joking. I sincerely hope it is the later because I don’t want to believe people would be spewing the kind of judgmental hatred I just read.

Franklin Falco
3 months 1 week ago

The fact that people are arguing so vehemently about these issues proves that they care. Anti-abortion is one of the few conservative perspectives I can understand. Pro-abortion people aren't evil. They just don't know whether or not fetuses have feelings. They may be concerned about other moral issues such as rape. You didn't mention the death penalty in this article. Also, what does the background of dancing video games have to do with arguments about abortion?

Stephen Samenuk
3 months 1 week ago

The catholic church is good at telling people what to do, then does the opposite........ I would love to know if the author or any pro-life person here has adopted a baby that was to be aborted, or given, what would be tens of thousands of dollars to carry a child to term for adoption. How many of these people have adopted a child in foster care?

Erin B
3 months 1 week ago

Criminalizing abortion won't eradicate it. We need to fix the root cause of abortions first and eliminate the "need." Shaming women isn't a place to start.

Rhett Segall
3 months 1 week ago

I think Dietrich Bonhoeffer cuts through all rationalizations on the issue both in principle and in pastoral perspective. His thoughts are worth pondering:

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question of whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of its life. And that is nothing but murder.

A great many motives may lead to an action of this kind; indeed in cases where it is an act of despair, performed in circumstances of extreme human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual. Precisely in this connection money may conceal many a wanton deed, while the poor man’s more reluctant lapse may far more easily be disclosed. All these considerations must no doubt have a quite decisive influence on our personal and pastoral attitude towards the person concerned, but they cannot in any way alter the fact of murder." ("Bonhoeffer" (Eric Metaxas p. 472)

J Jones
3 months 1 week ago

Rhett, you are (presumably) a man quoting a man quoting a man in response to a silly article by a woman with ten children who implicitly asserts herself here as the one person whose commentary is legit, though hers is full of assertions of others' intent ("we are trying to persuade ourselves"; no one I know is or read on this subject is doing either), rhetorical assertions of others' experience ("first, you are fascinated , then you are repelled"; I am neither and I asked several friends: none of them give it the time of day and they say their kids just see those memes as silly fun, a present day etch-a-sketch sort of thing). Further, Simcha presents an a-historical, reductive argument that abortion is caused by internet memes.

Interestinly, Simcha ties abortion to the flood of the internet but she is an enthusiastic "super-user": she tweets, she retweets tweets, she has a blog, she has a podcast, I would wager she has a Facebook account, she posted this article on her blog, she has a book, she writes articles and on and on. As I said: silliness from a woman who, it would seem, tends toward excess in everything.

Sarah Dolski
3 months 1 week ago

Yeah how could any rational person take seriously a woman who has a lot of kids. I mean for real only uneducated people who can’t control themselves do stuff like that. Right Jones? Because your logic makes so much sense.

The message we can take from Jones is that if you don’t have an educated comment to make, you just start personally attacking the other person. I learned about that in kindergarten. It’s called being a bully.

J Jones
3 months 1 week ago

Sarah, please re-read my comment. I am explicit about my many criticisms of Simcha's writing here, and none of those criticisms of this piece of writing has anything to do with Simcha's self-publicized fertility decisions.

The silly excesses in her writing (again thoroughly described in my comment above) definitely have the look of a pattern when seen in context of a woman who has ten children. I recognize that number may be common in her circle, and that number is, nonetheless, WILDLY excessive in almost any other context in the world, Sarah. Simcha has exceeded the GLOBAL average by 400%. That is a textbook example of "excess", Sarah.

(Sarah, I did not say I think Simcha is uneducated or stupid for having 10 kids. On the contrary. I think she appears educated. How she accomplished that education, I don't know and I don't believe it is relevant. But why do you ask? Do you think she is uneducated for having 10 children? Again, to the contrary, i actually think this whole movement of NFP-produced huge families is pretty sophisticated: it is just another variety of American self-indulgence but this time it is papered over with the look of spiritual sophistication in the form of NFP brochures and Catholic press articles. But it is self-indulgence nonetheless. I imagine I am not alone into this: i do not think this is "sacrificial" or "beautiful" or "God's will". This is quite specifically the will of SIMCHA AND HER HUSBAND, and I think it is a deceptively sophisticated form of self-indulgence. And I believe that is how history, even RCC history, is going to see this 21st Christian fertility movement.

Nope. Simcha is not the victim here. How about we make a deal? You all quit this incessant judging of OTHER women's reproductive decisions, quit making assumptions about why they make those decisions, quit making up silly ahistorical explanations for how other women understand their own private decisions and, then, when you get upset because you don't like how other women are talking about your private decisions, it is entirely likely, in fact almost certain that other women will quit judging YOUR private decisions. Sarah, there is an object lesson here, leftover from kindergarten: treat other women the way you want to be treated.

(Again, see my specific criticisms which have nothing to do with her self-publicized fertility decisions.).

PS

"Silly" doesn't mean stupid or uneducated. It means "lacking common sense or good judgment". It can be situation -specific. It is here.

Crystal Watson
3 months 1 week ago

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the "Christian" who wanted to plot the murder of Hitler. He's the epitome of the ends justifying the means. His thoughts on women's reproductive health mean nothing.

Dolores Pap
3 months 1 week ago

Simca - abortion is a personal moral decision, and I do not believe that the State has the moral right to legislate what I do with my body. The goal should be to educate on proper use of birth control and increase taxes to support families if lack of funds drive abortions, but not to tell women what they can and cannot do because that is just reproductive slavery. Your choice: personal freedom or pro-reproductive slavery.

John Keenan
3 months 1 week ago

All life does not matter.

If all life did matter why don't the lives of women who would die at the hands of unskilled abortionists performing illegal abortions under unsanitary conditions matter?

I have four sisters, fifteen female cousins, and three nieces. They are modern women and will do what they want when they want to. Regardless of what I tell them to do. I would never vote to make abortion a crime in the USA. You don't approve of abortion...don't have one. Medical procedures need to be performed in hospitals not in back alleys.

My mother had eight live births and one miscarriage. At least one of my sisters knows she was an unwanted pregnancy. At least one of my sisters has had an abortion. I've seen the damage Vatican Roulette can do in my own family.

30% of American diocesan Catholic priests are (practicing?) homosexuals, 70% of priests in independent orders like the Society of Jesus and Dominicans, et. al., are (practicing?) homosexuals? While abortion may be a sin it is not a crime. Sex with minors is not only a sin it is also a crime. The church better get it's own house in order. I, for one, refuse to take advice on family planning, birth control, and abortion from a gang of priests who have more sex than I do.

A few weeks ago we had the gospel of Jesus and the adulteress. Jesus said "they have not condemned you? Neither do I, go and sin no more." Change the word adultery to abortion and I believe Jesus would have said the same thing. I doubt seriously Jesus would be marching on our nations capital lobbying to criminalize abortion.

The issue of abortion should be something strictly between the mother, her physician, and her spiritual advisor. If you aren't one of those three people, it is none of your business.

I have no problem with the church mourning the death of these "children." I have no problem with putting little white crosses in front of a church to memorialize them. Everyone wants a place to mourn the passing of a loved one. Even a mother who has had an abortion.

However, if someone has been through an abortion, repented, and been given absolution how does hanging signs in front of Churches bemoaning the number of abortions performed help a sinner who has been party to an abortion accept absolution?

Since we are singling out sins to broadcast opinions about on huge signs hanging from our churches I want to know did I miss the meeting where it was decided what sins get the "abortion treatment?" When are we going to bring back the scarlet letter?

How would chaste priests feel passing under a sign hanging in front of a church which said "WE WON'T HAVE SEX WITH YOUR CHILDREN?"

It is offensive that the Church would put sole emphasis on the birth of a child yet be so silent on what it takes to feed, raise, and educate a child. How can you be pro-life and anti-clean water, anti-clean air, anti-living wage, anti-social safety net, anti-aid to families with dependent children, anti-unemployment compensation, what about gun control, what about being anti-death penalty and anti everything else that goes along with the true meaning of being "pro-life?"

Pro-birth does not equal pro-life. It appears that the right to life ends at birth.

When am I going to hear as much about the rest of what pro-life stands for as I hear about anti-abortion?

When is the church going to start taking a position against politicians who are bought and paid for by special interests which have no interest in the fullness of being pro-life?

Wake up Pope Francis, wake up all you Cardinals and Bishops who have covered up this sex scandal, wake up all you sexually active priests! Having priestly sex and going to confession does not make for a valid confession.

Most people vote with their feet and don't take the time to express this opinion. And yes, I have taken my pastor and parochial vicar to task on exactly this issue. In precisely these words.

Quit playing politics with peoples lives and get back to preaching the word of God. Or have you lost faith in your own evangelization? Because it appears millions and millions of people are ignoring you and continuing to have abortions every year. I do not want any religion dictating what my legal rights are in this country.

If the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over while expecting something different to happen then this is insane.

Why are millions of people not listening to what you preach?

Why is your message failing to be heard?

Why don't you stop contributing to the Babel on abortion and start fleshing out what the totality of pro-life stands for?

What are my pro-life credentials?

I will be sixty-five years old this year and I am raising a 13 year old. I have been divorced from my son's mother since 2008. I have managed to live a chaste life since his mother and I separated. I know it can be done.

If only your concern for real, tangible, flesh and blood people standing, breathing, and living in your very presence were as strong as your concern for microscopically small insignificant clusters of cells called zygotes.

Advertisement

The latest from america

Ciaran Freeman spent last summer, after his year as an O’Hare fellow at America Media, combing through movies about Catholic schools and ranking them. The findings were published here. Since then, readers have written in to let Mr. Freeman know what films he overlooked in his top-10 ranking.
Our readersSeptember 13, 2019
I had never truly experienced what representation in media felt like until I watched Hulu’s “Ramy.”
Mansur ShaheenSeptember 13, 2019
Photo: AP/America
Published in 1953, the children’s book can act a parable for coming to grips with climate change.
Christopher PramukSeptember 13, 2019