Sarah Palin's Trig-ger: Is Post-Abortion Grief Driving Criticism of Pro-Life Gov?

LifeNews ^ | 9-8-2008 | Kevin Burke

[wardaddy]

Abortion is driving it but not any guilt.

most strident pro-abortion women and fembots I’ve known have no guilt over killing their babies

they only feel relief

just look at their rallies

the women who feel guilt are the ones who had an abortion young and then had children later and realized what they had done...them and the men who came to the same realization...there are a lot of folks like that.... probably a lot right here on FR I’d wager

[Silly]

"We are not heroes because we have children with Down syndrome."

Perhaps, but we are villains if we kill them.

[Pajamajan]

"When an issue strikes at a deeply repressed sensitive wound in a person, often the initial reaction is anger."

There are some thought provoking points in this article. Great post.

I hope the Sarah is ready to handle the abortion questions. I fully expect the MSM to ask this:

"If your daughter were raped and wanted an abortion, would you let her get one?" She needs to answer in a way that cuts straight to the heart of the matter.

While it is difficult to see why she shouldn't get an abortion, it goes back to the whole argument in the first place.

Does the life of a baby in his/her mother's womb, have value? Regardless of how the baby was conceived? Or in another example: whether the baby has a defect or not?. Sarah can talk about what she might do in her own family- But the real question is: What is the implication of abortion for our whole society?

How many millions of people are not here today, because they were aborted? Is it necessarily a good thing that we are automatically disposing of babies deemed "not perfect" based on the results of some test? How many "not perfect" people have there been, who have made invaluable contributions to our lives, both personally, and to the world? How many inspiring, heroic, stories are there about such people? Does each life matter?

What about Barak Obama's not supporting the infants born alive (after abortion), legislation? No one needs to demonize him (Barak) about that, because logically, it makes sense. If the mother has decided to take the life of her child, it doesn't matter if the child survives the abortion,he baby should be left to die, because that is what the mother decided would be the fate. I can see the logic there.

The question is: Do we want this for our nation?- A true story exaampe- a baby just like Trigg, survives abortion, but is left to die in a dirty linen bin. A Nurse found him there and held him for 45 min til he died. There was some good that came out of the sad loss of that little baby.

When the nurse, at the clinic, found this child , she had to open her eyes and see the truth- It wasn't a "blob of tissue" in that bin. It was an injured, disabled baby, fighting to live. Because her eyes were opened, she went on to help bring about change in the laws, so that babies who survive late term abortions, can receive medical attention. Such a horrible story makes you wonder how any mother could do such a thing. But lashing out doesn't work.

It might be easy to place ALL blame on the mothers, but putting down women who have had abortions, even late term, inflames the issue. Also, it can trigger the post abortion depression/guilt, mentioned in this article- Which does no good for either side.

Not wanting to be subjected to pain and guilt, the- pro choicer's will refuse to listen to our side- Then we are back at square one; where we are screaming at each other, and getting no where.

(IMO-the majority of women who have abortions are tricked into thinking it's "the easy way out" and "no big deal". They don't realize the truth until after it's over.)

I am not against abortion per se. I am pro choice, but not pro deceit.

If a woman wants an abortion- she needs to be fully informed about it. No "blob of tissue" easy way out, sales pitches.

She should see the ultra sound, hear the babies heart beat, and have to think about at least one week before she can do it. No one should be deceived about what an abortion is.

The woman should be told in no uncertain terms: Abortion is the taking of the life of your child. It is NOT a "blob of tissue". It's a baby. Your baby, who would have grown from infant, to toddler, to school age child, to teenager to adult. It's a "big deal" and will affect you, the mother, for the rest of your life( and in many cases the father too ,knows in the back of his mind that he had a child he failed , who wasn't allowed to live.)

Women should be told that there are far less painful options, than abortion. Why do we only talk about the "permanent solution," , for an unwanted pregnancy?

If the woman doesn't want to want to raise the baby- there are thousands of families waiting for a baby to love. Adoption. Adoption as a possible solution for an unwanted pregnancy - At least the child has a chance to live. All the previous examples lead to the main point .

The most important point to be made, is that all these issues need to be talked about OPENLY and HONESTLY.

WE MUST HAVE A NATIONAL DIALOGUE ABOUT ABORTION, AND DECIDE AS A PEOPLE, WHAT WE WILL DO.

Our citizens need to be educated that if Roe V. Wade is overturned IT DOES NOT MEAN THE END OF ABORTION- IT WILL LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE AND VOTE ON IT ( at the state level)- NOT 7 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DECIDING FOR THE WHOLE NATION, WHAT THE POLICY WILL BE.

This is what needs to be brought out to our citizenry, and I say IT'S ABOUT TIME.

God bless the Palins for being the living examples of the pro life message. Pray for them and for the McCains.

[Pajamajan]

bttt

[Tax-chick]

Excellent post, and sorta parta what I was trying to say, amid all the turmoil. No, my toe isn’t broken.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think everything you're saying about responsibility - guilt- consequences - forgiveness, etc. is true.

What you said about perps not being victims is true, too, but a tautology because it's governed by your definition of "victim." Which is, however, a reasonable one. (Many people use "victim" to mean merely "somebody who suffered something," as in "a cancer victim," "a victim of Communist propaganda," "a victim of alcoholism," whatever, but I think I like your more restricted definition better. Due to the elasticity of current usage,though, you're always gonna need to spell out your definition explicitly. Duty to define.)

I am convinced that Satan, a real, personal, evil being, fallen angel and enemy of mankind, truly and non-metaphorically exists. He is not the ONLY source of evil: the Church typically cites "the world, the flesh, and the devil", meaning external environment, internal weakness of nature, and --- that wild card --- a personal enemy (actually, a legion of them) seeking the ruin of souls.

I believe this because Jesus actually encountered Satan and his posse on many occasions, and I don't think the Gospel writers were lying, or the Son of God hallucinating.

[Tax-chick]

I thought this was somewhat relevant:

"Experience" is often just a fancy word for the mistakes that we belatedly realized we were making, only after the realities of the world made us pay a painful price for being wrong. (Thomas Sowell)

[del4hope]

When I am in discussion with a prochoicer about abortion, I focus on the doctor performing it rather than a desperate mother.

I ask them if they could perform one. If they do say no (and most rational people say no), I ask them then what they think of one who will-—and the politicians who support them.

My views of abortion were formed early. I was already prolife, but a friend of mine from HS shared a story with me that has never left. She already had 3 siblings when her mother had an unplanned pregnancy. Shortly after her mother aborted that baby, one of the other siblings was killed in an accident. My friend shared with me the guilt her mother felt. The mother felt that God was punishing her. I pray that this woman found healing and forgave herself. We know that God forgave her.

[Brookhaven]

Interesting you should talk about the prodigal son prable. Our pastor talked about it recently, and had a somewhat different emphasis. Everyone knows the prodigal son represents lost sinners, and the father represents God, but who does the other son represent?

The loyal son had live a good and proper life. He was loyal and obedient to his father. But what was his reaction when his brother returned asking for forgiveness? He was angry, self-righteous, and unforgiving. He acted as though he was the one that had been sinned against, instead of the father. And even though the father had forgiven the prodigal son, the loyal son refused to do so and instead continued to point out the prodigal’s sins.

I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of “loyal sons” in the church. I know I have (and I admit I have felt that way myself at times.) People who have a condeming, self-righteous nature. Who can’t reach out in love to someone that has sinned, but rather feel the need to make sure the sinner is roundly condemed as though they were the ones sinned against and not God.

Jesus condemed sin, but he reached out in love and compassion to sinners. That is the model we are to follow.

His condemnation of people was almost exclusivly directed at the religious hierarchy of his day. Often accusing them of being unforgiving and hypocritical. As in the following passage (the Pharisee, like the loyal son, is model we should NOT follow.)

Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.

[supercat]

And what happened as a result of his repentance? Did he get his inheritance back, as if nothing had happened and as if no sin had been committed? Did his brother have to divide what remained of the Estate to share with the Prodigal Son?

I don't know that the prodigal son ended up with nothing after his return. If he was accepted back, he would presumably be expected to work the fields and would be entitled to his share of the harvest from thenceforth. I don't know that rewards in heaven are quantified such that the prodigal son would end up with less than his brother, but for one thing: the prodigal son would know that he had betrayed his father, and know forever more that the he had a place in his father's house not because of his deserving, but purely because of his father's grace. See my next post as well.

[supercat]

But what was his reaction when his brother returned asking for forgiveness? He was angry, self-righteous, and unforgiving.

I do wish the parable had gone a little deeper. Of course, when cramming all of everything into a few thousand pages, something's gotta give.

I would suggest that the older son had a reward he very much failed to appreciate: he managed to get through life without having his spirit completely broken, and without having to bear the knowledge that he'd betrayed his father. The father may have slain the fatted calf to celebrate the younger son's return, but I suspect the younger son would have traded all the calves in the world to have changed places with his loyal brother, even though the brother didn't appreciate that.

[DieHard the Hunter]

Gidday Mrs Don-O

You write:

> What you said about perps not being victims is true, too, but a tautology because it’s governed by your definition of “victim.” Which is, however, a reasonable one. (Many people use “victim” to mean merely “somebody who suffered something,” as in “a cancer victim,” “a victim of Communist propaganda,” “a victim of alcoholism,” whatever, but I think I like your more restricted definition better. Due to the elasticity of current usage,though, you’re always gonna need to spell out your definition explicitly. Duty to define.)

I agree. I believe in “Truth in Advertizing”. It does nobody any good to fuzzify the roles played in the crime of Abortion. By mis-labeling the woman seeking the abortion as a “Victim” (which she isn’t — she’s a Perpetrator) we automatically sacrifice any opportunity to help her in a meaningful way.

I feel awfully sorry for someone whose life circumstances place them on the wrong side of the law. Especially as they are getting caught and perp-walked for the first time. That doesn’t make them “victims” tho’. They still need help and they are probably in pain and we should aid them if we can. But we would select a different approach to helping them than we would to, say, the family of the liquor store owner who has just been shot.

Truth in Advertizing = Clarity of Though and Deed.

Cheers
DieHard

[Mrs. Don-o]

Agreed. You write persuasively, DieHard!

Keep in mind, though (I'm preaching to myself here, too) that culpability in objective moral wrongs can be mitigated --- and in some cases reduced quite significantly ---- by subjective lack of adequate knowledge and free consent of the will.

Jesus Himself alluded to this in the midst of His own horrific suffering on the Cross when He prayed, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

The mere fact that the Abortion Entrepreneurs must lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, means that they are aware that many of their prey --- particularly very young women --- might choose differently if they had a clear idea of the truth.

Yet ---I agree--- if we fuzzily label everyone who cooperates with evil as a "passive victim" or make a universal presumption of gross ignorance or mental incapacity, we lose the very clarity we need to help those who are defensively closed-off to us in anger, confusion and pain.

[Coleus]

If you or someone you love is hurting after abortion, visit Rachel’s Vineyard - Healing The Pain of Abortion, One weekend at a Time

http://www.rachelsvineyard.org

Kevin Burke LSW is the co-founder of Rachel’s Vineyard - A Post Abortion Healing Ministry of Priests for Life.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[narses]

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[narses]

Obama Doesn’t Want His Daughters Punished with a Baby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg

CNN on Obama’s Infant Born Alive Act Rejection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY

Jill Stanek on Obama and Born Alive Infant Protection Act (MUST SEE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html

Explosive Audio Found Obama arguing against BAIPA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc

Babies left to die!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

[nina0113]

The only people “wounded” by their participation in abortion are permanently unavailable to receive love and compassion.

Completely untrue. Does New Zealand not have some equivalent of the Silent No More group of women who have acknowledged the pain and guilt they feel after having abortions?

[nina0113]

Those groups are full of broken women who will never forgive themselves...let alone justify it.

We can never justify it, but after a few years of feeling God's forgiveness, I at least managed to forgive myself.

[Salamander]

God bless you, dear woman.

I don’t know of a heavier burden to bear.

My heart goes out to you.