Gobsmacked by Logic: Will Pro-lifers Succumb to Silencing Tactics?

The question is simple and blunt: "If abortion is criminalized, what should the penalty be for a woman who has one?" It's amazing the abortion movement has taken more than three decades to come up with it, but even more dumbfounding that they see it as the "eureka!" moment, the great trump card that will, they believe, stop pro-lifers in their tracks.

This is their new strategy?


For every pro-life victory in the battle for hearts, souls and laws in the land, abortion activists adjust their strategy to compensate, and usually with some success. Last year, they faced their biggest challenge since Roe v. Wade when South Dakota legislators passed a comprehensive ban on abortion that set the model for other states and seemed destined for a Supreme Court showdown (see "A Choice Battle", Michaelmas 2006 Voices). That has only been slowed, not defeated, by abortion activists desperate for an end-run. Planned Parenthood and NARAL stopped the ban from taking effect by launching a mass petition drive, getting the abortion issue to a voter referendum, then deceiving the citizens of South Dakota in a statewide disinformation campaign about the language of the ban. The "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Law" was narrowly defeated by scare tactics, only postponing the inevitable.

Abortion legislation is on the table in many state capitals now, and the road from Sioux Falls to the Supreme Court is being paved by pro-life legal experts, crisis pregnancy centers, and courageous post-abortive women, the real heroes of the pro-life movement.

Abortion activists have adjusted accordingly. First, they launched a new tactic last January using major media to run what posed as in-depth coverage of crisis pregnancy centers, but what was in fact a campaign of deception. ("The Abortion Movement Takes Cover", Pentecost 2007 Voices). Now, they have begun to ambush pro-life people outside abortion clinics with a camera, drop the big question about making women criminals, and post the video online.

 Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen hardly contained her enthusiasm over this new strategy in her piece titled "How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions?" (Newsweek, August 6, 2007). It starts with the description of a YouTube "mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic" in Illinois. "The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations."

Quindlen relishes this story. Especially reporting these responses by pro-lifers: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

This is unacceptable. Her cynicism? That's the level of discourse we get in the media these days. The ambush tactic? That's the type of attack we can expect in the abortion battle at this point. But Quindlen's report on the inability of committed pro-lifers to answer the big questions that still confuse this culture is totally beyond the pale. Because the debate has shifted dramatically in recent years, especially since South Dakota, the pro-life movement owns the argument. There is not one question they should fear, and not one answer the abortion movement can honestly claim as validation for what they do.

But this isn't about honesty. It's about talking points and spin control. Now they're spinning this myth that pro-lifers want to criminalize abortion, and make women criminals for getting one illegally.

Quindlen declared it triumphantly: "A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do?" They are celebrating their cleverness.

This much Quindlen gets right: "If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion."

But she draws a false conclusion: "If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal". Wrong. Not one state has written or planned language in abortion ban legislation that would consider — or allow anyone to consider — the woman a criminal for having an abortion. The party guilty of a crime would be the abortionist. Quindlen and her abortion-backing colleagues came up with this false dichotomy. They propose that, by their logic, the woman is a criminal. And they're pinning that tortured logic on pro-life people; at least on the ambush video and in print articles like Quindlen's. That is, until she inadvertently stumbles on the truth: "Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned," Quindlen writes. "But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable."


Get it Straight

Pro-life legal experts, legislators and advocates know that women are already victims in abortions. Whether the abortionist is a doctor or a back-alley hack, they would be held accountable for breaking the law wherever abortion is banned. This is information all pro-life people need to understand thoroughly.

The South Dakota abortion ban, House Bill 1215, states in Section 4:

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

The South Dakota legislators who drafted it had already crafted legislation to protect women in the earlier informed consent law, HB 1166. Here is one of its provisions:

Require that the State create a written disclosure form that requires the abortion doctor to provide the mother, in person, with all of the risks of abortion to the mother and her unborn child. Require that this disclosure take place before the woman pays for the abortion and before she is taken to the procedure room. Require that the mother must also be provided sufficient time for personal review and discernment.

In other words, a standard informed consent that any medical procedure requires. Planned Parenthood immediately took the law to court and blocked its enforcement. Their argument before the district judge and then the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was that the abortionists' freedom of speech (i.e., not to tell women about all the risks) trumped the women's right to know.

Quindlen's article in Newsweek wraps up with this: "The great thing about video is that you can see the mental wheels turning as these people realize that they somehow have overlooked something central while they were slinging certainties."

Actually, abortion activists have been slinging their own certainties for decades. It's only a matter of time before a video turns up that captures their wheels turning, while the most committed abortion supporters confront a few questions and see whether there are any true epiphanies.

Questions like: "If the abortion movement is really all about 'choice', why are you so opposed to actually giving women one, by following the standard medical procedure requirement of obtaining 'informed consent'?" "When informed consent laws in different states actually are close to passage, why do you fight them so vigorously?" "If you really are 'pro-choice', what do you have against giving women a two- or three-day consideration period … or even 24 hours … after allowing her to know all her options?"

The Newsweek column concludes that "there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways." But that is wrongheaded and illogical. This is the abortion movement contriving an untenable calculation.

First of all, nobody in the pro-life world, nobody in state or federal government — at least nobody of reason and consequence — is considering holding women accountable for abortions after they're banned. Following from that, women would not be "sent to prison", nor would any other action be taken against them. The pro-life movement is engaged fully in protecting women from abortions, and from the ravages of the "procedure" if they have undergone one, or more. The pro-life movement is the only movement looking out for the health and rights of women.

Turning the Tables

This new tactic of the abortion movement to nail pro-life advocates with one stunning question actually works best when it turns full circle. Especially when it's the post-abortive women themselves pressing for answers.

The week the Quindlen column came out in Newsweek, LifeNews.com ran an interview with Georgette Forney and Janet Morana, co-directors of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, reacting to the continuing deceit of the abortion movement. "To Anna Quindlen and anyone else I would say that women are already serving time for abortion right now in our own prisons", Forney said. "No condescending dismissal of women's torment by abortion ideologues can diminish the daily punishment of guilt, shame, and remorse post-abortive women experience."

The article continued: "Morana made it clear to LifeNews.com what the overwhelming majority of pro-life people believe: women who have abortions are frequently victims as well because of the way abortion businesses sell abortions to them with misinformation…. 'The abortion profiteers and their shills in the press have been telling society for years that whatever it is that abortion terminates, it's not a baby,' Morana explained.

"'This propaganda onslaught has taken its toll in women who believed that lie and who emphatically state today that had they known that their child was not just a "clump of tissue," as abortionists told them, they would have never aborted,' Morana added."

Abortion activists want to put the big questions out there. Let them be prepared to answer them, to carry the argument through to its logical conclusion. Why does an abortionist have more of a right to remain silent about abortion risks than the woman patient does to receive it, when her health is at stake? Why did NY Salon's abortion forum, titled "What's So Bad About Abortion?" refuse any participation to the women from Silent No More, who could actually answer that question? Why does NY Salon's website claim the group "believes passionately in free speech and discussing ideas robustly" but they would not allow Forney to discuss the idea that abortion is bad for women? After all, they already stacked the forum with four abortion advocates, from NARAL, the National Abortion Federation and a British abortion business. But the forum did not include any women who have had abortions and regret that decision. So, did they really want to know what's so bad about abortion, after all?

Furthermore… Why has the abortion movement turned its back for so long on Norma McCorvey after she was useful as "Jane Roe", after she turned pro-life and Catholic and began to work so hard to inform the public about the impact of abortion? Do abortion activists realize that "reproductive rights" is a euphemism to fool the public into blanket acceptance of all contraception and abortion, or are they deluded as well? Although, if they're deluded, they can't answer that.

There's a principle in law and logic that applies here. Never ask a question you can't answer.

Sheila Liaugminas


Sheila Gribben Liaugminas, of Chicago, is a member of the Voices editorial board, and was host of The Right Questions on Relevant Radio and Issues and Answers news show. She and her husband have two sons, one a seminarian and the other a college student. Follow updates on this story (and contact Sheila) at www.inforumblog.com.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Guest

    Great article!  Leave it to the pro-abortion activists to detract from the real issue at hand.

  • Guest

    The short, snap sound-byte answer we want to this question:

    "Are you kidding? She's the victim! When are you guys going to stop fighting laws to ensure she knows what's being done to her, before she does it?"

  • Guest

    Until the "Silent no More" folks are published in Newsweek,what they say in Lifesite is marginalized and will never be considered mainstream.  ie, they won't be listened to by the wider public….we at CE are the choir.

    Also, just a puny point, but I'm offended when post abortive women are referred to as "the heros of the pro life movement".  They did opt to kill their babies when many in the exact circumstances chose not to.  Yes, they are doing valuable work in reparation for their sin and for personal healing, but "the heros"?  Don't marginalize the rest of us.  (I have plenty of friends who were heroic and  have living children and grandchildren to show for it.)

    Thanks for the heads up on the issues.

  • Guest

    I am sorry, but I have a different opinion. One who is responsible for another and uses that position to do harm is more reprehensible then one who harms but had no responsibility. e.g. Judas was more guilty then Caiaphas; A traitor is more guilty then an enemy combatant; A father who kills his family is more reprehensible then a burglar who does the same thing.A woman who kills her unborn child is guilty of a grave crime. This is why it is so painful for many who have had abortions. They know what they did and deeply regret it. If it is a grave crime/sin she deserves some jail time.Of course there can be mitigating circumstances, but justice is blind and she should be punished. We should not say otherwise to make our position more palatable.  

    The study of God is a study of Love

  • Guest

    I'm sorry elkabrikir, but you come off in your whining about the "Silent No More" crowd sounding like the elder brother in the Prodigal Son parable ("I was never promiscuous. I never had an abortion. Yet you call them heroes!" ) In my book [paraphrased] our "[daughters] of ours who had been dead are alive again, were lost, and now are found." I'm willing to "kill the fatted calf" for them for coming forward, going public, and now bravely face the hostility, the taunts, the judgmentalism, etc. of those advocating abortion "rights," or those who deem themselves morally superior to that group of women who now shamefully admit placing their feet in the stirrups. To elkabrikir, and others who share her sentiments, may I say "you are always with [the Church] and all that [the Church offers] is yours." So please don't take this retort as an effort to belittle your victories in your resistance to the Culture of Death. We in the front lines appreciate your struggles more than you can know.

    As for the "gotcha" question of criminalization of aborting women, once pro-lifers catch on to this silly exercise in duplicity that'll be one more question the abortniks won't dare ask again. To paraphrase Andy Warhol, the abortniks better enjoy their "15 minutes of fame" while it lasts because it has the potential for opening up a lot of embarrassing questions the abortniks don't want to address.

  • Guest

    I'm not at all convinced that all post abortive women are victims. Many have multiple abortions because it's the ultimate birth control and evasion of resposibility. All sinners are victims but sinners nonetheless. Some reparations are warranted. I think community service would be good. Certainly most post abortive women have a lot of mixed emotions after the fact. For them to be out in the community would possibly allow them to feel needed and accepted so it would actually be beneficial. The worst thing for these women is to be let off scott free and alone so that the devil can work on their guilt. The real crime was commited inside, the mother was the uninformed and explioted accomplice. There are provisions in the law for that but it would have to go to court. For the sake of sound-byte TV, Arkanabar's answer is good.

  • Guest


    you are entitled to your opinion but please don't accuse me of "whining".To me women who withstood pregnancy, childbirth, ongoing acceptance of adoption or continual parenting under perhaps ongoing difficult circumstances are also "real heros".  Why elevate the repentant murderess above the mother?  (I have friends and relatives who have had abortions and I don't hate them or hold it forever against them, however, these women did kill their children for convenience  well into their 20s and are not role models for young women in the pre abortive condition.  Better not to have sinned in the first place. They are role models for post abortive women and can be helpful in ending the practice of abortion.)

    My objection was to the term "the real heros". I think there's enough heroism to go around.  I'm not a big believer in the concept of victim because I am a sinner who could use victim status as a way to justify some of my sins.  From personal experience, it has been beneficial for me to take full responsibility for what I have done, seek Christ's healing through sacramental confession, and not let anybody blame a third party on my behalf.

    My comments about the "silent no more" crowd referred to Lifesite carrying the news and not the mainstream media.  Until these articles start appearing in "popular media" sources, I think they will be marginalized even by good folks as "extremists".

    We're all in need of forgiveness regardless of the sin,that's for sure.

  • Guest

    It is definitely easier to think of all women who have abortion as victims…it is very hard to understand how someone who knew what she was doing could kill her own child. Some women certainly were not fully aware of what they were doing because they believed the lies that they were told, etc. However, some women having abortions know exactly what they are doing and choose to do it anyway. They resent pro-life assumptions that they would have to be unaware of what an abortion actually is, and feel like we must think that they are stupid or something. The whole "she's the victim" answer falls completely apart in the face of such an attitude. I don't think that we can afford to ignore that aspect of the debate, either.


    The other consideration would be this: if a woman deliberately killed her already born child, no one would hesitate for a second to say that she had committed a crime. It is inconsistent to say on the one hand that an as-yet-unborn child is every bit as human, as deserving of protection, and having the same rights as an already born child and on the other hand that the mother who had the child killed always gets a pass. It really, really is. We need a better answer to this question.

  • Guest

    Interesting article – thanks for addressing.  I have a related question about this that another reader might be able to answer… What did the laws prescribe for penalities prior to 1973?  Was the doctor sent to jail? fined? disbarred? Was the woman or adult accompanying a child given any penalty?

  • Guest

    A Story to contemplate, offered to the pure and the righteous, from one of the “renewed”

     An Unfinished Fable by David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

    Ever since the dragon was released, the kingdom was split into angry factions. The king's high counselors, who had released the dragon, continued to defend their decision. "The dragon has a right to be free," they argued. "Indeed, it is ridding the land of excess children." "And of course," added the royal treasurer, "the dragon is saving these peasant children from lives of poverty. In this way the dragon actually contributes to the kingdom's stability and peace."

    Some who defended the dragon's release even went so far as to insist that it should be worshiped as a god "for the dragon rules over life." "Nonsense," retorted the Righteous. "It is an evil scourge! It is killing innocent children and must be stopped!" What more needed to be said? But much more was said, over and over again, for many years. To the rejoicing of some and the dismay of many, the dragon roamed free during the reigns of six kings. A few of the kings defended the dragon's freedom. Others embraced the cause of the Righteous and cried out in sorrow for the children killed by the dragon. But while these latter kings were willing to shed their tears, none ever risked shedding his blood in the war against the dragon.

    Yes, there was a war. The passion of the Righteous could not be totally suppressed, so they waged their own war against the dragon, even without the king's armies. But each year, as the dragon grew larger on the blood of children, more of the kingdom was brought under the dragon's spell of fear.

    Even among the Righteous, many began to despair that the dragon could ever be defeated. Fear was the dragon's greatest power. In its cunning, it would seek out the mothers and fathers who were least prepared and most easily surprised. Then it would burst upon them with a countenance most terrible, and they would freeze in terror beneath its dreadful gaze. That one moment of despair was all the beast needed to consume their children. In the wake of the dragon's attacks, the spirits of these parents were broken. Many of these Broken wailed and gnashed their teeth in sorrow and shame, for they had failed to protect their children. Others could not bear to live with the horror of their grief. So they lied to themselves and to others, saying, "There was no child. The dragon came upon me, but I was alone. There is no need to fear the dragon." Some even joined the sect of dragon worshipers.

    Such was the dragon's power that only the most unwavering could resist the dragon-fear and save their children. These examples of bravery, however, filled some parents with a false sense of courage and pride. "We would never let the dragon take our children," they boasted. But when the testing came, many of these boasters were struck down by dragon-fear, and the dragon grew fat upon their children. So it was that with each passing year the number of those among the Broken grew. Indeed, many who had once been in the armies of the Righteous were now counted among the Broken.

    As time passed, however, a few of the Broken began to gather together. They began to share their tears, their loss, and their understanding of the dragon's evil. They learned how to comfort each other and to put aside their fears. They found in the message of God's mercy and forgiveness a renewed sense of hope and healing. So it was that they became the Renewed. The Renewed began to go out into the fields to spread their Renewal. Everywhere they found other victims of the dragon–their Broken brothers and sisters–who needed understanding and hope. Some refused their aid, but many others embraced it. In this way, the Renewal began to spread. Among the Righteous, there were a few who began to see in the Renewal portents of the dragon's fall. "The Renewed will become a great army," they predicted. "They have already looked upon the dragon's face and suffered his wrath. They know the dragon well and can no longer be cowed by his gaze."

    Emissaries were sent to share this good news with the generals of the Righteous army. "Come," they called to the Righteous generals, "let us assist in this task to bring healing and strength to the Broken. When they are Renewed, we will build a force against the dragon tenfold greater than we have ever raised before." "Not now," said one general. "Our plans are already laid. Our best hope lies in this next foray–or perhaps the one to follow." "May God speed your good efforts," said another, "but we have no provisions to spare. We must concentrate our efforts on winning the favor of the young prince. When he is king, surely he will appoint new counselors who will put an end to this dragon." "Bah!" said a third. "These Broken are cowards who have called their own fate down upon their heads. God will only use the pure and Righteous to destroy this evil beast. It is ordained that the victory will be ours, not theirs." "Here, take this token," offered a fourth. "It is a sign of my blessing on all that you do."

    So the emissaries returned with a blessing but nothing more. But even without the Righteous generals' treasures or the aid of their armies, the Renewal continued to spread. For fifteen years, the Renewal made converts of the Broken. And in that time, more and more of the Righteous began to lose faith in their generals and to believe in the Renewal instead. "Who but these Renewed can slay the dragon?" they asked. "Each new foray by the generals is rebuffed like the last. Each new prince they groom to be our savior offers our cause his tears, but never his blood." "Who but those humbled by the dragon can truly know his ways?" they said. "Who but those whose children have been consumed by the dragon can fight with the furor of avenging parents? "Yes, who can stop an army of the Renewed? Even the king's high counselors will be silenced by their voice, for the Renewed, more than any, know the truth about the dragon." And so, the Renewal has continued to thrive and the Renewed now populate the land.

    Now there are rumors that they are forming their own army. They are choosing generals from among their own who will lead them against the dragon. Will the generals of the Righteous support the coming battle of the Renewed? Of this, many are uncertain. After all, generals do love their own plans best. No one knows how this story will end, for it is an unfinished fable. But even though it is unfinished, it may still offer us our greatest hope.

  • Guest

    Dear People,

    Don't allow yourself to fall for this "red herring" [as Harry Truman referred to such an argument].

    Law and justice recently sent pro-footballer Michael Vick to prison for dog fighting and mistreatment of animals. People are sent to prison or jail as a logical course of adjudication for killing puppies or drowning kittens. 

    Men are sent to prison for killing an unborn child as a result of violence to the pregnant Mother.

    Why is a pregnant woman who has an abortion a special category? No one is suggesting the death penalty or life in prison are they? Justice and mercy can kiss here, can they not?

    Actions have consequences. Abortion is anti-life and anti-God. This is not my teaching, this is His teaching. We may not presume to know God's final judgement on such acts, but He says, "Vengeance in Mine."

    He also says, "No man hath greater love for his fellow man than he lay down his life for him"

    Punishment can be the destruction of a person or their re-birth. Humans have free will to choose their paths in life, freedom demands it be so. Compassion need not mean only that the guilty shall "walk.' There must be a fitting penance. Christians should see it as a glass half full, the first step in restoration.

    Justice need not be devoid of mercy, but mercy must never be devoid of justice!

    Have we gone mad? We live in a country that criticises its own defenders, the soldiers who defend us by killing murderous combatants who would slit our throats, yet apparently sees no crime in the slaughter of innocent, unborn babies. Further, we see no culpability or punishment fitting for those directly on indirectly responsible for the act of abortion. This is cynical and just plain wrong.


  • Guest


         I don't think Elkabrikir was whining or was begrudging post-abortive women of God's mercy, the way the older brother was in the parable of the Prodigal son.  She was just objecting to regarding them as heroes.  The father in the Prodigal son parable rejoiced at his son's repentance, but didn't call him a hero.  There is a difference.

  • Guest

    There is a key point in the set-up of the "gotcha" question:

    "The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless."

    If by use of the term "nonetheless" the hypothetical question means the woman fully understands under the law that she is killing an innocent human being and then has an abortion anyway, well, sure she should be charged with a crime.  The sentence should depend, just like in every other criminal trial, on the extenuating and mitigating circumstances of each case. So how much time she gets will depend on that.

  • Guest

    Is our justice system, that still prescribes the death penalty, subtle enough to handle justice associated with abortion?  I don't think it is.  The scary reality is we use our bodies as if they are robotic and not part of our being.  Our culture has no idea of the true beauty of a child of God.

    We killed the God man and felt justified.  We sin against him and feel we are due His sacraments.  Through Christ we are redeemed.  Our justice falls on its face 99% of the time.

    GK – God is good!

  • Guest

    I put the question to my 13 year old daughter, "Should a woman who has an abortion face criminal penalties?"

    She responded, "Do they know it's illegal?"

    I answer, "Yes."

    Well, then, it's like any other crime.  She broke the law."

    It seems like she read Protect the Rock's posts

    Their position is untenable politically in this country.  Since our primary goal is to end the massacre of milllions of our brothers an sisters,  we need an immediate path toward that end.  We need to continue to frame the debate around the humanity of the unborn and the violence done to women through abortion.

    To the questioner we should respond, "Does this organism have unique human DNA?" and then refuse to engage any further.  Silence is an answer.

  • Guest


    You are right, of course. All mothers who obtain an abortion are vicitms at some level. But not at every level.

    The reality of our culture of death is that there are pregnant women who are fully informed, completely knowledgable of the effects and consciously choose to kill the baby growing inside them. Some are willing participants and even initiators of the act. They would be considered culpable for their actions by all measures of criminal intent.


    Should they get an automatic pass just to make it politically tenable?

    The US legal system, notwithstanding the blunt instrument that it is, ought to hold all of the participants in the killing of an innocent human life accountable.  And, again, there are procedures in the system to weigh issues of mitigation and extenuation.

    That is, of course, in regard to the legal aspect of dealing with this issue.  In the spiritual regard, we must love all those involved and pray, fast, and do penance for them.  By God's grace everyone is called to Him. 

  • Guest

    How about we go with humility "The acknowledgement of truth".  God is everything and we are a speck.  God loves the speck.

    Can't we tell the pro-abortionists that what our justice system decides to do is of a very small consequence when we are talking about souls living with this crime for eternity?  Maybe this would be too much "God talk" for them to handle, but I am called to witness to the truth so "God talk" I will do.

    What man's justice system decides to do with people who, with full knowledge, commit the crime of abortion will be similar to what it has done in the past when laws are broken. (better explained by comments already posted above).  America does not have a perfect system of justice, but better than most on earth.

    However, life on earth is a mere blink compared to eternity.  What matters is that every soul has the opportunity to know the truth and repent to God through Jesus so His mercy can reign and heal their soul before it is too late. 

    Everyone needs to know that this sin is forgivable by God when a heart repents.  See the Heaven Speaks series found at http://www.directionforourtimes.com to see what Jesus is saying about Abortion, prisoners, depression, divorce, etc.   They are free downloads.  These are private revelations meant for the entire world.  Everything that the Catholic Church expects regarding private revelations is being done at Direction for Our Times.  The local Bishop has approved the distribution of these messages and is working in complete obedience to the Catholic Church.  Check it out and bask in the graces that are being offered to anyone willing to listen.

    As for the abortion question, let's take the long view and consider the punishment that God will hand down to those who never find him or feel that they are worthy of his forgiveness.  It is our job to tell them that they are worthy of his love and forgiveness no matter what the sin. If I don't do that, then may God have mercy on my soul for staying silent. 

  • Guest

    Many of these women who did it and suffer with what they did would rather have some kind of penance (punishment). So they could release some of their guilt. We are all children after all.

    If the abortionists released exactly what was going to happen to women, many would be prevented. Some would do it any way because their conscience is severed.

    Abortionists are afraid that if they show all the women what is going to happen, they will run away and not let the door hit them on the way out. Then were will they get their money to continue. (The Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil!)

  • Guest

    Protect the Rock.

    I agree with your first post about he crime and punishment and mitigating circumstances……  No, abortive women shouldn't get a "pass".  I'm talking about political realities and the imminent danger of 1.3 million babies.  I also agree with perusha and downum.

    This is very complicated for sure.  I wonder if we'll have a bloody civil war …. I can't believe I live in a "civilization" where we're even having this discussion!

  • Guest

    This is not the only "new tactic." The real issue is contraception. There have been many articles recently on the other side–dire warnings of the pro-lifers "coming to take our protection away!"  I wonder if they will actually start asking –"So, are you gonna take the pill away, too?"–I don't know, though, since the packaging states that it is an abortifacient–do they want to make women aware of that fact?

    Unfortunately, we as "pro-lifers" are not united in what to do or say about this big elephant in the bedroom. Pray for our OB/GYNs to start discerning and fighting like some pharmacists are! The real legal issue, IMHO, will be the enormous lawsuits which will come in the next decades from women who have various cancers or other ailments which will inevitably be linked to abortions and contraceptive use!

  • Guest

    The premise of this article is wrong.  I can't be the only one who personally knows a "catholic" young woman who had at least 2 abortions that I know of, and would quite gladly have had more except that she married and provided her husband with 3 sons.  This woman baldly acknowleges that she murdered her children for her own convenience. 

    Based on my experience with this girl, I would agree with some of the respondents here that not ALL abortion "survivors" are "victims".  Surely, some have been lied to and induced into committing such a crime, and they surely deserve some mercy.  Then, there are the ones like my daugher's friend.

    It's certainly a case of 'arrested (psychological) development', but I remain glad to this day that I raised my girls with the motto from the old Robert Blakely TV show, "Baretta": "If you can't do d' time, don't do d' crime"!

  • Guest

    A woman is an anti-hero for having an abortion. She is a hero for publicly proclaiming her error and admitting her shame. It is strange how both hero and anti-hero lives within us all.


    The study of God is a study of Love

  • Guest


    It seems like the key difference is whether one repents and seeks forgiveness or not. That is the difference between sinners and saints.