Being Pro-life is not Extreme

Abortion advocate criticizes Patrick McIlheran

Life in the wombLisa Subeck is the Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin. Earlier this week, she criticized columnist Patrick McIlheran for calling 87 year old Anne Gaylor, who funded and coordinated nearly 19,000 abortions, a "sweet little old granny blood money". Subeck called McIlheran's article an example of "extreme rhetoric" that gives license to the "extreme and violent" element of the anti-choice movement.

In other words, Subeck's point is if you refer to abortion as murder, the blood is on your hands when violence occurs. Thus, in the interest of public safety, mainstream news outlets have an obligation not to publish McIlheran's "anti-choice" rhetoric.

Subeck says she respects the right for pro-life advocates to express their views, but places arbitrary restraints on what they can and cannot say. If pro-life advocates listen to Subeck and don't use terms like "murder" when discussing the extermination of human life, then doesn't it, in an way, legitimize her cause? After all, if abortion is not murder, then what part makes it morally wrong? As an aside, I've always found it fascinating that Democrats talk about reducing the frequency of abortions while never explaining why they think its so important.

The Real Debate

The real debate is not about rare instances of violence that is or is not incited by rhetoric, but why Anne Gaylor aided in 19,000 abortions when there is a myriad of childless couples desperately waiting to adopt babies. Hell, there are even some couples willing to adopt disabled babies.

This reminds me of the powerful testimony of Gianna Jessen. Gianna was the providential survivor of a botched abortion. Her 17 year old mother chose to undergo a third trimester abortion by way of toxic saline injection. When ingested, saline burns the baby both inside and out causing a dead delivery. But to the nurse's surprise, a frail 2 lbs. baby was born alive. The nurse immediately called an ambulance, which transported little GIanna to a local Emergency Department.

Of course, the botched abortion caused some health complications. The abortive procedure starved Gianna's brain of needed oxygen. This caused permanent cerebral palsy, which serves as a reminder to Gianna how lucky she is to be alive. Later, Gianna Jessen was adopted by a loving family.

That was 33 years ago, and now Gianna Jessen is a powerful spokesperson for the pro-life movement. She thanks God for the gift of life and the freedom of choice - a freedom she uses to live productively. During her life's journey, she has encountered other survivors of abortive procedures, some who weren't as fortunate. Recently, she met a 2 year old survivor of a saline abortion named Sarah. Besides facial disfigurement, the procedure caused permanent blindness, severe seizures, and cerebral palsy. Much like Gianna, Sarah never got a choice.


This is the sort of testimony that encourages the same vigorous debate Lisa Subeck has underhandedly requested. How many unborn babies like Gianna could have lived an industrious life if given the choice? And why do pro-choice advocates believe that the mother is the ultimate authority of the baby's life?

The biblical story of Jeremiah should serve as a good reminder of this point. As the story goes, God knew Jeremiah before he was conceived and set out a prophet's life before he was formed in the womb. What if Jeremiah's mother chose to abort him? Wouldn't she have usurped God's authority?

As a whole, the Hispanic community is pro-life. They are more likely to support candidates who are pro-life than candidates who are pro-choice. We have elections coming up on November 2nd; make sure you know where candidates stand on the issue of life.

Comments (0)

Write comment

[b] [i] [u] [s] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   


Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.