Sunday, October 24, 2010

40 Days, and tiny white crosses

There were some in the yard outside of the Catholic parish where my family and I went to Confession yesterday. Rows and rows of them; over five hundred in all.

Tiny white crosses, lined up on the ground. Each representing some of the nearly 1.4 million human beings killed in America each year by what we like to call "choice."

Each of those crosses represents a baby unloved, unwanted, despised enough to be disposed of by a woman who wanted to forget. Most women don't forget, though. And many, no matter what they say in public or write on blogs or forums, were deeply traumatized by the abortion--by the absolute knowledge and moral certainty that what they carried inside of them was their own precious, unique, irreplaceable child, whom they sentenced to death at the hands of a hired executioner.

So many women who do, finally, admit their grief and pain and guilt and horror over having made such a terrible "choice" will also say that while they were in denial over this grief and pain, anything having to do with abortion, or even anything that reminded them of their abortion, could trigger anything from rage to nausea to panic attacks to a whole host of other unexplained emotional responses. Certainly people who put up those tiny white crosses can attest to the number of times the crosses get pulled out of the ground, or run over by cars, or otherwise vandalized--yet the crosses do no harm to anyone; they merely stand in silent witness to the lives lost forever, the little lives that sometimes no one but their mothers and their killers even knew existed.

Still, people who want women to continue to have the right to choose to pay someone to kill their children have a tendency to call displays like this one "anti-choice," betraying in this ugly phrase the simple fact that the only choice they believe in is the one that results in one more dead baby, and one more tiny white cross upon a green and quiet lawn.


Siarlys Jenkins said...

It is wrong to call such a display "anti-choice." Nobody's choice is coerced by people who sincerely believe that all abortion is murder of a child displaying crosses on a lawn to say so.

Anyone who sincerely believes otherwise should have the moral fortitude and integrity to say, no, they are wrong about that, but they have the right to say it.

Further, anyone who finds it a bit disturbing should stop and think about whether the people setting up the crosses might be right.

L. said...

Resorting to vandalism is never a good way to get any point across.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I would be the first to condemn vandalism or intimidation by pro-life demonstrators, and I've been known to turn a thumb down at the gaggle who picket a local Planned Parenthood, but I am at a loss to find evidence of "vandalism" in Erin's post. Little white churches placed on church property? It's not like anyone even trespassed on clinic property... which wouldn't necessarily be vandalism either. It all sounds like free speech to me.

Red Cardigan said...

Siarlys, the vandalism is when the church's pro-life group puts these crosses up, and then people come along and tear them down. I know of one occasion when someone came along in a car and drove over the field of crosses, causing significant damage. The perpetrator was never identified, as far as I know.

L. said...

Yes, I was referring to, "Certainly people who put up those tiny white crosses can attest to the number of times the crosses get pulled out of the ground, or run over by cars, or otherwise vandalized..." in the original post.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Ah, now I understand. I must have missed that part, or forgotten it. OK, you have two pro-choice commenters on your side on this one.