March for Life

I had two guests from the March for Life come by my humble home this Friday. If I understood the figures correctly (and I am notoriously bad at simple math, so bear with me if I got them wrong) the number of people who showed up for the March for Life outnumbered the number who showed up for the Inauguration of Mr ‘The One’ Obama’s second term. (Picture a crowd of 500,000. That is only nine-tenths of one percent of the number of human beings that have been aborted since Roe v. Wade.)

If so, it is a hopeful sign. With ultrasound, with images like “Silent Scream” (not for the squeamish; not for kids) and with the Darwinian process of abortionists eliminating their next generation from the gene pool, it seems that the false-to-facts emotional association used by the Left to associate babies in the womb with nonhuman tissue is failing to carry its old black magic.

Abortion will be abolished first in the civilized West, and later in the barbaric places of the world, but only if we are devout and diligent. Every pro-aborticide politician must be shamed and defeated soundly, every pro-abort publication must be shunned and pressured and shut down, every pro-abort judge must be impeached, and every pro-abort piece of legislation must be repealed. If it can be done nonviolently, let is be done so; but if blood must be shed, as it was during the civil war for the abominable sin of slavery, a far lesser sin, we must endure the punishment as merciful heaven directs.

A day will come when mothers will no longer kill their children. Work for that day.

(You will, of course, see no honest mention of the march or its numbers in the mainstream media. The media are the enemy. Media Delenda Est.)

—————————————————————–

And now for the video portion of our memorial service:

And here is the rebuttal from the non-psycho side of the issue:

18 Comments

  1. Comment by ladyhobbit:

    There was actually an article in USA Today this year! http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/25/abortion-march-for-life-washington/1864051/
    I like the photo gallery because of one picture that shows the gigantic size of the crowd. I’ve marched a few times myself. (One year I was able to meet with my younger son, who was at Franciscan University at the time, marching with his fellow students. My older daughter went every year while she was in college because the entire college went: Christendom College of Front Royal, Virginia.) The sense of camaraderie with kind and caring people is a beautiful feature of the March.
    P.S. I sent a message to your LiveJournal inbox.

    • Comment by Joseph M:

      Cool!

      NPR, OTOH, had this little photo gallery http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/25/170292683/photos-scenes-from-the-march-for-life that is conspicuous for its lack of a full crowd shot, and uses the phrase “thousands” to describe a crowd in the hundreds of thousands. Why not just go with ‘dozens’, as in tens of thousands of dozens? Sheesh.

      Our eldest daughter marched this year with the contingent from Benedictine College in Kansas – 20% of the student body made the 60 hour round-trip bus ride to be there, even though Monday morning classes will be held as usual. Love it.

      The rest of my family made the West Coast Walk in San Francisco (our own little Mos Eisley, where Han would have plenty of reasons to shoot first), where it was great to see over a dozen bishops and the Papal Nuncio, who flew in from DC to be here for the morning mass. West Coast had about 50K walkers, not that you’ll hear about that, either.

  2. Comment by CPE Gaebler:

    As much as I gather that Huffington Post is mainly a Leftist propaganda mill, they did have a decent piece on the March for Life:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/march-for-life-2013_n_2552570.html
    They included some actual quotes about what the March for Life, and the pro-life movement, is actually about. I was impressed.

    • Comment by robertjwizard:

      It was decent, but I wonder at this sentence,

      The annual event took on added significance for many in the crowd because this year marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that created a constitutional right to abortion in some circumstances.

      Some circumstances? If I were a woman, I am pretty sure I could hook up with someone anonymous at my bar, have him pound my snizz for a couple of hours, discover – oops! a few weeks later and have it vacuumed out in a single afternoon. And rinse and repeat.

      That makes it a little more than just (don’t freak out everyone, I’m about to use scare quotes!) “some circumstances”. I would say with few restrictions. If you can get one because ya like to partay and get laid and scrambling a child’s brains and having it sucked out is less convenient (both physically and spiritually) than having a root canal – then it’s a right in any circumstance whatsoever. Because that is the worse circumstance, because you don’t wanna.

      And there are certainly women out there for whom an abortion is of no trouble to the conscience whatsoever.

      If abortion were allowed only in cases of rape incest or to save the life of the mother, then “some circumstances” would make sense as a descriptor.

      But, small picking, it was pretty fair.

      • Comment by John C Wright:

        Some circumstances?

        Allow me to explain. Unlike nine out of ten pundits you will hear discussing the case of Roe v Wade, I have actually read the case. That case did not create an unlimited constitutional right to abortion under any circumstances. Instead, the court outlined a three-tiered rule. In the first trimester, abortions could not be regulated by the state; in the second trimester, regulations which served some overriding state interest were permissible; in the third trimester, regulations which had a rational relationship to a legitimate end of government were permissible. Or something like that — honestly I do not recall the wording of the standard.

        This standard was abandoned in later cases as the law courts plunged gaily down the slippery slope into an abortion-on-demand culture which shocks even the most leftwing of European socialist nations (who have waiting periods, or need a doctor’s permission, and so on.)

        Roe v Wade does indeed hold that abortion is a constitutionally protected right in some circumstances. The article simply does not mention the later cases that expanded the rights of to Abortion-on-demand, paid for by Catholics, with Baptists Not Allowed to Picket Abortuaries, and a constitutional right never to have any judge elevated to a justice of the Supreme Court who does not lave his hands in the blood of the slaughtered innocents.

        • Comment by Mary:

          True, technically it was Doe vs. Bolton that allowed it in any circumstances — that was because it was that one that decreed that anything at all about a woman’s life was her health — but since it was handed down the same day, it’s hardly much later.”

    • Comment by robertjwizard:

      ah, man it got held for moderation! It was the “pound my snizz” comment, wasn’t it?

  3. Comment by gray mouser:

    You will, of course, see no honest mention of the march or its numbers in the mainstream media. The media are the enemy. Media Delenda Est.

    Isn’t this the truth. The NYT conceded that “tens of thousands” marched this year. Which I suppose it technically correct since 650,000 people (the last figure I saw regarding crowd size) is 65 ten thousands. Of course, the headline to that article mentioned that “thousands” were at the March for Life.

    The NYT is nothing if not petty. And shameless.

  4. Comment by momofthree:

    Reading the comments on one of these published accounts of the March, I was reminded of an argument often lobbed at the “fetus worshipers” as termed by one commenter. This woman listed harsh statistics about malnourished children, children in foster care and school dropout rates, and concluded that pro-lifers would be better off fighting for children who were “actually here” in her terms.

    I have come across this thought pattern many times before; indeed, I actually subscribed to some variant of it myself in my earl twenties. But neither then nor now do I hear much in the way of a cogent rebuttal to this line of argument on blogs. It seems to me that the best answer is to point out the flaw in her logic, namely, that if she were correct, then it would be immoral to do anything at all or fight for any cause whatsoever until all children were loved, clothed, fed and schooled “adequately”. In her paradigm, it is horribly misguided to donate money to art museums or to prevent cruelty to animals, or to take trips or buy furniture or raise the heat in your home past 60 degrees or eat anything beyond mere sustenance until the utopian goal of 100% child fulfillment and care is reached (at least nationally).

    Then again, perhaps this thinking believes that a reduction in abortion will merely exacerbate such stats. (A line of thinking supposedly supported by Levitt in Freakonomics if you remember the purported link between abortion and a subsequent reduction in national crime rates). It is my impression that this research was flawed….anyone know before I make a fool of myself online?

    Thoughts?

    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

      Ah, the truly painful bit is that Pro-Lifers are trying to help all the children, but are stopped quite often by the government in the name of “Cultural Genocide”. Forcing saints such as our host to go outside the country to succor the needy young.

      • Comment by John C Wright:

        Was this comment referring to me?!! I hope you are being sarcastic, or trying to insult the saints. I adopted a Chinese girl because I did not want the biological mother showing up on my doorstep a few years from now, claiming to be free of drug-abuse or whatever, and demanding the child back. Also, Orientals are cuter than Whites as babies, and the Chinese, for reasons of race-pride, do not allow kids with hidden defects or diseases to be adopted. I wanted superior stock.

        I was not “forced” our of the country. Don’t attributed sainthood to people who do things for selfish and cynical motives, please.

        The only even minimally good part of my motive was that I knew a Chinese girl raised in American can end up as Governor of California or something, whereas in the continent-sized slave camp of Red China, she has no future.

        • Comment by Vicq Ruiz:

          I did not want the biological mother showing up on my doorstep a few years from now

          Boy howdy, is that the truth. My nephew and his wife adopted a fine young man at the age of about 18 months. Three years later, birth mom comes up out of nowhere insisting on her “rights” to participate in the raising of the child. This has caused pain both emotional and legal that went on for a decade.

          Christians (and others) who strongly support the pro-life cause should tread very lightly in advocating for the rights of “birth parents”. If we want adoption rather than abortion, we need to clearly guarantee the primacy of the adoptive parents, and if the child wishes to contact his birth parents, that should happen only at the child’s request and only at the age of maturity.

  5. Comment by Vicq Ruiz:

    A day will come when mothers will no longer kill their children

    I agree that that day can, and should, come. But I’m interested in your choice of words.

    Do you believe that the mother who obtains an abortion should be prosecuted as a murderer, or at least an accessory to murder? I rarely hear a pro-life advocate who is prepared to reach that conclusion, one which I consider to be difficult to avoid.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Do you believe that the mother who obtains an abortion should be prosecuted as a murderer, or at least an accessory to murder?

      The state of the law before Roe v Wade did not hold aborticide to be first degree murder, although it was illegal in 30 states or so. I am content that the law should return to the position it was in before the Supreme Court unconstitutionally arrogated legislative powers to itself. Once abortion is illegal in all fifty states, and the United States uses its power and influence overseas to cow weaker nations also into making it illegal, there will be time enough to discuss whether to impose the severest of penalties, and persuade lawmakers to that effect.

      Let us abolish no fault divorce and penalize by law and by the informal sanction of culture the fornication and adultery which is now in fashion, and stop funding families to break up among the poor, and we might see a sufficient drop in the unnatural practices of Moloch not to require so severe a penalty.

      However I do urgently think any Catholic politician who publicly advocates abortion should be executed by the secular arm for heresy, by the method described above, namely, having scissors driven into the skull, brain sucked out through a tube, and limbs chopped off. I am just kidding! They should be burned at the stake by a slow fire, and buried at the crossroads, not on holy ground, with a stake through the heart. This is because I think followers of Christ should uphold a higher standard.

      • Comment by Vicq Ruiz:

        I don’t know that you personally have ever asserted that “abortion is murder”.

        But many have, vocally and repeatedly…..and I scarcely think that they do so simply because it makes a punchy slogan.

        If they intend that the term murder should not be used lightly, they have a duty to consider its legal implications.

        Would you be content with a legal regime under which the premeditated killing of a child four months after birth is a capital crime, whereas the premeditated killing of that same child four months before birth is a lesser crime?

        How can such a scenario fail to assign a lesser value to the unborn than to the born? And having done that, is there a moral ground upon which one could oppose abortion being made a misdemeanor?

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          You speak, as many people do, as if the universe did not exist before Roe v Wade. There was a time in this country when abortion was illegal. Did the world in those days seem to you to be suffering from an appalling injustice because no mother who had aborted her child was given the electric chair?

          Manslaughter is also murder, as is negligent homicide and second-degree murder (so-called crimes of passion). Rarely or ever are these punished with the death penalty. Is the use of the word murder diminished by describing these crimes as murder? All however are felonies, and none are misdemeanors.

Leave a Reply