Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Praying in the face of evil

If you have the stomach for it, go here to read a story about a woman who is proud of her evil. So proud, in fact, that at 83 years of age she thinks it's worth bragging about the fact that she has helped pay for 19,000 abortions.

She has personally helped pay to kill 19,000 (and counting) low-income children. I am guessing that many of them were minority children, though the article doesn't dare mention that.

This white-haired woman--I won't bother calling her a lady, as ladies do not help women butcher their unborn children by signing checks payable to the executioners--in pink and pearls sees nothing whatsoever to be ashamed or embarrassed about.

Before almighty God--Whom she doesn't believe in--she stands condemned by some of her own words:

Gaylor may look like Betty White, but her words still carry the socko punch that once led an audience member at the taping of a Philadelphia talk show to rush her from behind and put her in a chokehold.

On large families: "How presumptuous of someone to think the world is interested in a half-dozen or eight or 10 of their kids."

On anti-abortion activists: "They're religiously motivated, not intellectually motivated."

On abortion: "A blessing."

Gaylor herself has four children who apparently didn't deserve the blessing of abortion. Just enough of her, you see, and way, way too many of the poor.

The face of evil is so banal. An old, wrinkled, woman who has spent her whole life making sure that there are fewer people. Lest you believe the article's hints that she really cares about women, it should be noted that she has been involved in Zero Population Growth (back when it was still called that) and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. There should be fewer people, and they should all be as damned to eternal oblivion as she believes or hopes--hard to say which--she will be.

Tomorrow is the 100th birthday of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. I would like to ask those of my readers who are so inclined to pray the following prayer for her intercession:

Prayer for Mother Teresa's Intercession

Jesus, you made Mother Teresa an inspiring example of firm faith and burning charity, an extraordinary witness to the way of spiritual childhood, and a great and esteemed teacher of the value and dignity of every human life. Grant that she may be venerated and imitated as one of the Church's canonized saints.

Hear the requests of all those who seek her intercession, especially the petition I now implore.. for the conversion of Anne Nicol Gaylor.

May we follow her example in heeding your cry of thirst from the Cross and joyfully loving you in the distressing disguise of the poorest of the poor, especially those most unloved and unwanted.

We ask this through the intercession of Mary, your Mother and the Mother of us all.


Please feel free to share this prayer request with others. I would love it if 19,000 people would pray for Mrs. Gaylor's conversion, so that the evil, and the Evil One, will not triumph over her life.


Sarah said...

I've noticed a lot of pro-abortion advocates (including a colleague of Gaylor's who was quoted in your article) that say, over and over, they're promoting abortion because they want "every child to be a wanted child." It seems like the much more noble mission would be to find these children a loving home with loving parents, because there is no shortage of infertile couples who no doubt "want" these babies. Could it be any more obvious that the only people who don't "want" these children are the advocates like Gaylor?? Those children ARE WANTED -- if not by their bio parents, then by someone else.

Also I find it heinous that Gaylor is allowed to grace the world with four of her offspring, as she embarks on a quest to rid the world of everyone else's. Her message is clear -- she alone gets to decide who is worthy of living or not.

Praying for her.

LarryD said...

Erin - I was going to post on this too, but yours is so good, that any post of mine would not do it justice.

Here's the most vexing quote in the article (IMHO): "For me, it was all about the child," he (Bob West, cofounder of Women's Medical Fund with Gaylor) said. "In the kind of world I want to live in, all children would be wanted."

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CHILD???? So you help the mother kill it? What a twisted sick perverted evil viewpoint. May God have mercy on their souls.

Rebecca in CA said...

If this woman were truly motivated by the good of the women/children involved, why does she not even show a slight interest in talking to these people about whether this is really what they want to do? Why does she only offer help to abort but not help to choose life for their child? More and more I am wondering if there is anyone in the world who holds some kind of consistency in their "pro-choice" position.

Thanks for posting the prayer. God is able to turn hearts, as we saw in the case of Bernard Nathanson.

SherryTex said...

That was hard. It's still hard. But I pray that she is cloaked in God's mercy and forgiveness.

Muscovite said...

So six is too many children, but four, apparently, are just right. What about five, huh? Is that good or bad? What is the magic number of children that is "right"? We all need to know! Oh, that she would enlighten us!

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Ah yes, the Gaylors. Ana Nicol isn't the founder of the Freedom From Religious Foundation, the original totalitarian freethinker there was her daughter Annie Laurie, for whom I would NOT lay me doon and dee. I have a problem with people who bring such evangelical zeal to talking about something they don't believe exists (God). I also have a problem with people who find an affirmative good in funding abortions. I prefer the now deceased man I once worked with, who said

"My position on abortion is very simple. I'm against it. On the other hand, I've never needed one." That was his introduction to why, before Roe v. Wade, he participated in arranging low cost charter flights to Mexico for low income women who wanted abortions. "As long as rich women can fly to Switzerland to abort" he would help poor women make the same choice, if they desired.

Its good that Wisconsin Pro-Life also has people taking calls. Its good that a woman who wants the help they offer can get it. In my book, its also good that a woman who wants an abortion can get help to pay for it, but without the patronizing remarks. I also have friends with eight children, all of them beautiful.

StPoRM said...

"They're religiously motivated, not intellectually motivated."

All of them? Necessarily?

Rebecca in CA said...

So Siarlys, I'm totally against people killing their husbands. That is why I am against the mafia. On the other hand, I've never needed to murder my husband before. It's so great that if I find myself in the difficult position of *needing* to murder him, there will be supportive people available to take my money, do the job, and not question me about my decision or speak to me patronisingly about it.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Rebecca, as I've said in many venues, the most difficult conversation to have, and keep it civil, is when one party to the conversation honestly believes that we are talking about a human being, and the other party honestly believes, no its not. Then, there are people like John Edens, who honestly say, yes it is a human being, but until it is outside the mother, its rights are subordinate to the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy.

I spent a few months reading Gerard Nadal's site. Some of those who comment there got to me more than his own posts did. I never have firm and absolutely confident faith that I'm right about this. I stop and reconsider all the time. But I've never been fully convinced that a woman aborting during the first or at least part of the second trimester is the moral equivalent of a woman murdering her husband.

On the other hand, I know of situations where a horribly abused woman did kill her husband, and in my book, she should have gotten a year's sabbatical in New Zealand to recover, not life in prison.

The bottom line is, if we are talking about a human being, then it is homicide, and if we are not, then its not. I'm more than willing to push back the line now set between second and third trimester, or the somewhat dated concept of "quickening," and provide that once the fetus exhibits basic symptoms of a self-aware nervous system, and has a reasonable ability to sustain itself outside the womb, without artificial life support, then the right to terminate the pregnancy is over. I'm not willing to define the removal of a collection of cells responding to autonomic chemical stimuli as a criminal offense.

Where we have a sliver of common ground is that Mrs. Gaylor appears to feel a need to justify abortion as some kind of affirmative good. Its not. It may be a wise, necessary, rational, or acceptable choice (we would disagree about most of the reasons, if not all). Abortion is, nevertheless, the termination of a natural biological process which will, if not interrupted, result in a live human baby. That is not something to intervene in lightly. It is never good for its own sake.

You might say that deep down Mrs. Gaylor has qualms of conscience about what she is doing. I suspect she does. I don't even think that's a bad thing. Anyone taking on the responsibility to terminate a pregnancy should have qualms, and consider very carefully if this is really what they want to do.

The prayer Erin has posted here is quite sincere, and for all I know, she may be right. Gerard Nadal once posted a headline "What If They Built An Abortion Clinic and Nobody Came?" I think that is precisely the ground on which this issue should be resolved. Persuade every pregnant woman to choose life, and the abortion clinics will be out of business. Don't lean on the criminal law to do it for you. Why not? Because unlike murdering husbands, we simply don't have an overwhelming moral consensus to sustain such a law.

Rebecca in CA said...

I agree. So talking about being personally against abortion but going ahead and helping women to obtain abortions anyway because they "need" to--all of that is red herring talk. It is a distraction.

I agree that moral consensus is far more important than the force of law. However, force of law goes a long way in forming and sustaining moral consensus, at least in this country. Further, up until a century ago, there had been a moral consensus throughout all Christian civilization, that abortion was one of the worst acts, particularly because of the helplessness and innocence of the victim.

If you're unsure whether the fetus is human, or at what time it is human, then you simply do not consider the possibility of going in there with saline and burning it to death. If you think there may be someone in a room but you're not sure, you just don't throw the grenade in there.

Anonymous said...

You know, my own pregnancy was unexpected. I was 33 and had never conceived, so it seemed, sadly, that we were infertile.

Anyway, suddenly there we were, expecting. And the overwhelming response at the time (1987) was some lame pretense at empathy that completely ignored the smile on my face. I had offers to accompany me to an abortion clinic ("I've had four, I'll come with you.")

Fortunately I had learned to listen to my heart and though that constant input did spin me into temporary confusion, it did not make the decision for us. I have to wonder what similar reactions may do to very young or vulnerable women full of self-doubt and lacking support.

BTW, that "baby" graduated from college in May and bought us dinner last night. We cannot imagine our lives without him. My sense, at the time, that this was our only chance at parenthood proved correct. We never conceived again.

All a pregnant woman has to do is what she does every day. Eat, sleep, work, go to school, whatever. If the baby meant to be, the pregnancy will continue. If not, nature interrupts the process.

I only support abortion where it is a choice between losing two lives and losing one. Those situations do exist, but they are nowhere near the millions of abortions performed since RvW.


Siarlys Jenkins said...

The notion of making unsolicited offers to a married woman who conceives for the first time at 33, to accompany her to an abortion clinic, is beyond belief. I won't dissect all the reasons why, its simply absurd, rude, and presumptuous.

Rebecca, as far as force of law goes, I must note that up until 150 years ago, abortion was common and accepted in the United States. It was not widely publicized, talked about, or greeted with profound respect, but it was accepted and practiced.

My mother, a pro-choice life-long Republican, was fond of pointing out to her more hysterical co-workers at Planned Parenthood that the laws passed against abortion beginning in the mid-19th century were passed by overwhelmingly Protestant legislatures, who were mostly under pressure from the newly reorganized medical professional associations.

There was not a universal moral consensus until a century ago, nor was it the Roman Catholic Church that first thought of or advocated for the criminal laws overturned by Roe v. Wade.

I agree that anyone saying they are AGAINST abortion while helping someone obtain one is hypocritical. However, I maintain that one can be opposed to abortion morally, while accepting that as a matter of law, individuals should make their own choices unconstrained by criminal penalties.

I have a CD of Greg Boyd's sermon, where he talks about a woman named Dorothy who helped the teen age daughter of a friend of hers carefully consider all options regarding her pregnancy, in the face of family hostility, with the result that the girl carried the pregnancy to term. Boyd adds "Dorothy votes pro choice, and I think Dorothy is more pro-life than I am." One relevant point, in my mind, is that Dorothy did not urge the young lady to do or not do anything, she provided shelter and support for the pregnant teen to make her own unpressured decision.