The following comes from a Jan. 3 posting on the blogsite of the Survivors.
I view the abortion debate as a spectrum. One pole is 100% pro-life, against abortion and contraception in all circumstances, and the other pole is 100% pro-abortion at any stage, even after birth. Many Americans take the pro-life end of the spectrum. Few Americans publicly defend the pro-abortion pole. Most fall somewhere in the middle. The “mushy middle” is the pro-life activists’ battleground. It’s where we educate, activate, agitate, and create tension over the issue, pushing people to make a decision. The activist’s job is to polarize.
Survivors’ Campus Outreach activists have dozens of conversations with college and high school students weekly. We see every facet of the abortion debate and we have conversations every week with students who defend the pro-abortion pole – students who say that they think infants and toddlers are not persons.
Here are two conversations from this semester:
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, December 3, 2014
Sam: What do you think about this?
Student: I’m pro-choice.
Sam: What choice?
Student: The choice of the intellectual human.
Sam: What would you consider an intellectual human being?
Student: An intellectual human is a 5, 6 or 7 year old. They don’t know anything until 5, 6 or 7 years old.
Sam: So you think it’s OK to kill 2, 3 and 4 year olds?
Student: Yes, under that criteria, I guess it would be OK.
Sam: So it’s OK to kill kids then?
Student: Yes. I have to go.
Golden West College, October 15, 2014
Josh: What do you think about this?
Student: Well it’s not very pleasant but people do what they want.
Josh: Yeah, it isn’t pleasant. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty horrible. Do you know what an abortion does?
Student: It kills a fetus.
Josh: Can you define “fetus”?
Student: It’s a fetus!
Josh: “Fetus” is just Latin for “child” or “offspring.” Is the fetus a human fetus?
Josh: When is it OK to kill a defenseless human life?
Student: Many times.
Josh: Let’s say a woman is in a situation where she feels she can’t have a kid, or she can’t support her child, or whatever the case, can’t we give these children up for adoption?
Student: Well, maybe, but abortion is a better option.
Josh: If a woman had a 2-year-old child and she lost her job and couldn’t really afford to take care of her kid, can she drown the child in her bathtub?
Student: Yes, absolutely.
Josh: So you’re OK with killing children…?
There is no logical way to disprove the humanity of the child before birth. It is only logical for someone who is truly pro-abortion to argue that the child may be a human being, but circumstances warrant killing him anyway.
The fact that we are seeing students take a staunch pro-abortion/anti-life stance indicates that we are close to ending abortion. We are making people choose to be either for or against abortion. Some are going to choose the ugly extreme of abortion and infanticide. Most Americans, however, are not. Most are going to choose to be 100% against abortion in all circumstances. This trend of accepting abortion after birth is not a failure on our part. It is proof that we are winning, that we are eliminating the middle of the spectrum, and it is a cause for hope in this new year in the battle to end abortion.
To read the original posting, click here.
Yes, a woman can drown a two-year old if she loses her job AND she does not accept that human life is a sacred gift.
Killing a two-year old is murder and should be dealt with accordingly.
When a father “abandon” to death the girl/woman he impregnated and his child that he procreated…. is it called abortion too?
If the man does not provide food to his unborn child, then his child dies…of course, the food will reach the baby through the mother’s umbilical cord.
Who is supposed to provide food? The FATHER…….If not, isn’t the father a killer ?
The father is not a killer even though he might have prevented the deaths. God will judge him for his lack of responsibility and compassion.
There are some questions that demand a “yes” or “no” answer. This is one of those. “Is it okay to kill a person at any stage of development or life stage?” That would be a “no” and not one hair has to be split, nothing relative about the question, it is NOT okay. A person is one who has been conceived, all the way to the day of their natural death. If they take up any space at all on the planet (including the space within a mother’s womb) they are a person, and deserving of consideration and respect as such, and must be allowed the opportunity to experience life and to reach the potential that they were created to attain.
So I assume by your post you are also opposed to the Death Penalty and to pre-emptive military strikes?
YFC, killing babies in no way compares to killing criminals. Babies have done no wrong, murderers have.
John, I agree with you that children are not criminals, but Life Lady said that the taking of life calls for a yes or no answer. She says no hairs need be split, so here you are trying to split hairs. I agree with her when she says “Is it okay to kill a person at any stage of development or life stage?” That would be a “no” and not one hair has to be split, nothing relative about the question, it is NOT okay. A person is one who has been conceived, all the way to the day of their natural death. If they take up any space at all on the planet (including the space within a mother’s womb) they are a person, and deserving of consideration and respect as such, and must be allowed the opportunity to experience life and to reach the potential that they were created to attain.”
Leftist and their moral equivalence,, the more I read their posts the more I want to be with my dogs….You are a false Catholic YFC…
So YFC, what do you think should be done to those who commit murder?
Your Fellow Catholic, you raise a good question and one that many people have and it deserved to be answered. I know you know the faith so I don’t think I need to tell you that abortion and the death penalty and preemptive military strikes are not moral equivalents. Abortion is intrinsically evil whereas the other two people of good faith can disagree on and still be in good standing with the Church. The conversation about abortion is pretty straight forward and I’m sure we agree on that. The death penalty and preemptive military strikes are circumstances that by themselves are not evil, but I also know they are easily corrupted by politics and money that quickly taint them. If a murderer wanted to offer his death as atonement for his sins, it could be something that helps him save his soul. But I don’t have confidence that we live in a society where that sort of situation will ever happen let alone be common. One use of the death penalty is when law enforcement are trying to get information out of a suspect and they will agree to take the death penalty off the table for information that will bring the situation to a close and hopefully help the family of the victim. (They will take it off the table if the suspect will say where the body is etc.) I’m not against using it as a tool in that way.
I have never seen pre-emptive military strikes OK’d by the Church. Jesus Christ, through His Vicar, has asked “Never Again War!”.
The Church is opposed to capital punishment, except in cases where it is necessary to prevent the death of innocents. The Church has made the value judgement that at this time in history, capital punishment is not necessary.
All Human Life is Sacred.
I don’t know where in the Just War Theory specifically to point you. But I must say the contemporary example of Iraq doesn’t fit in my book. To say this may be a threat many years from now so we are going to invade is absurd. My only point is that we can discuss that and still be Catholics in good standing. Whereas with abortion you can’t say it’s justified and be in good standing in the Church. It’s an important distinction.
As far as the death penalty goes, yes the Church is against it now but hasn’t always been historically. What this can show us is that there is something about the here and now where that needs to be reined in and more closely examined, but the state setting aside certain crimes to be considered for this punishment is, in and of it’s self not evil. All life is sacred. That should always be the underlying principle. That is off in our society to say the least. So it is perhaps fitting to for the Church to ask us about how we have our governments killing criminals. But again, this is a conversation that we can have, and as Catholics remain in good standing, whereas with abortion there is the reality that every act is 100% evil. Please don’t misunderstand and think I’m like ra-ra for the death penalty or something. I only hope to point out it’s distinction from abortion because it’s important difference. God bless.
As Catholics we have something to offer that is unique to this public discourse that is taking place. We are in the midst of a “culture of death” . We can make the important point that the culture of life begins with the completely innocent and totally defenseless and can spread out from there.
God bless you Carol. I agree with you. This article made me cry. To think that students would find it ok to murder the innocent is heartbreaking. The answers the student gave made him sound like a narcissistic sociopath which have been known to have no feelings. Perhaps that is how abortionist are created. God help us.
Judging by the criteria of ‘not knowing anything’ being a permissible excuse for killing, I’d think these students better watch their backs for they are not displaying much understanding. Their parents – or whoever is paying for their ‘education’ – might just take this logic as the basis for cutting them off, or cutting them up.
Or vice versa. Yikes! (remember the old joke, treat your children well, because it might be them choosing your nursing home) Thanks again, o wise Ann.
Ann, this is the darkness sidewalk counselors are up against everyday. Sadly, the question is not an abstraction but there is an actual completely innocent and totally defenseless baby who will be violently murdered for no other reason except that their existence is inconvenient to others. It is my constant prayer that you and every other person who loves God will help be the light to those who were raised in such darkness and only know darkness. Please pray for our efforts. When talking to kids like this (sorry that’s how I see them, kids) it’s unfathomable to them that anyone would love them or care about their life or their problems and issues. Their parents are usually divorced and /or remarried and have new kids with their new spouse so these kids are treated as leftovers from the adults ungratified life. It’s very sad. Good grief is right.
Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being for the convenience of another.
These innocent human beings suffer pain from dismemberment, chemical burning, and poisoning about 9.3 weeks after conception.
When are people going to discuss ABSTAINING from SEX so their will be no pregnancy,
and to avoid Sexually Transmitted Diseases ?
Here again are problems created by grammar. Sure, any woman CAN (able) kill her child, but MAY she (be permitted) , that should be the question. It’s pretty well been ascertained that our college students’ intellectual capacity of the last twenty years or so have been deteriorating as evidenced by test scores, testimony of employers and educators as well as from little interviews like these. It’s sad but most assuredly not their fault. My whole point is that ALL of this is the result of mothers leaving their children to be taught by strangers. There’s nothing worse for children or society than motherless homes. I’ve been saying it all of my adult life. When there’s proper mothering there’s a reverence for life, a more cohesive understanding of what it is to be human. We can all point our fingers at society etc. but to me, there wouldn’t be stupid questions like this if a mother stayed home until her children were at least six years old. I do not believe in the ‘it’s not the quantity of time, but the quality” argument. No one can make a child feel more loved, more ‘at home’ in the world than his or her mother. Period.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher,
VERY GOOD POINTS!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher
VERY GOOD STATEMENTS!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher
The conversation about the death penalty today is not so much about saving souls, which is unfortunate since the Catholic Church is in the soul saving business, but it is focused on the corruption and flaws of the system. That conversation needs to happen because of the corruption and flaws in the system. I have mixed feelings now about the state putting someone to death knowing the imperfections of the system, even though I think criminals are better off here than most places in the world. So I wonder if the conversation about state executions needs to be focused on the state and the inherent problems we have in government. It’s the same with the preemptive war conversation. Under the just war theory, a country can go to war preemptively if they are about to be attacked. But I was at a Theology on Tap in Chicago back in 2003 where I heard Cardinal George submit to the crowd that Iraq could arguably attack us because we posed an imminent threat to them (It was right before we attacked them, it could have been 2004, I’m getting so old). Two years after 9/11, you should have heard the gasps in the crowd, but I think he was courageous and brave to point this out. So the morality of when you go to war and when you don’t has never changed but what changes is the politics, the money and the circumstances.
Carol excellent comments.