Monday, October 06, 2008

The staggering statistic

Last Friday night, my husband and I went to our diocesan benefit for the pro-life agencies: Birthchoice, Gabriel Project, Family Honor, and Project Rachel. Their combined annual budget is minuscule compared to the behemoth of Planned Parenthood.

Our guest speaker was Fr. Scott Newman of St. Mary's in Greenville, South Carolina. To put the abstract number of nearly 48 million babies aborted since Roe v Wade he said this: Take the deaths of September 11th. You would need a September 11th every day for the next 43 years to equal the present numbers.

Stop and pray where you are for an end to the slaughter.

7 comments:

Owen said...

Sunday I cycled to our Life Chain and stood for an hour silently proclaiming "Abortion kills children." I've written all four candidates in our riding hoping for election - no, only three as the incumbent Catholic NDP MP has positions I already known about and cannot affirm (pro abortion, pro same sex marriage, pro euthanasia) - the Liberal and the Green are anti-life on all three counts as well. The Conservative wrote back avoiding two but answered if a private member bill came to the House regarding abortion she would vote based on a pro life position. Well, that's something. Maybe I will be able to vote in this election after all.

Mark in Spokane said...

That certainly places the abortion regime in its proper horrible context. What an unimaginable tragedy. We certainly need to pray for an end to his horror, and for the souls of its victims, and for the strength to stand up in the public square and fight for the right to life.

Argent said...

What really gets me is when people tell me they're tired of the abortion issue always being part of the political scene. Frankly, it's the only issue for me. Because if life in its most vulnerable state isn't defended, then what good is every other issue. A silent holocaust is being carried out day after day all in the name of "choice". Imagine standing in front of the throne of judgment in the future and saying this to God, "Oh, I got tired of that issue."

48 million lives....and counting.

Mark in Spokane said...

I agree with you completely. For me, this is the only issue because without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. What benefit to I receive from any earthly good -- health care, employment, housing, free association, etc. -- if I'm not alive to enjoy it?

The right to life is the first and most fundamental right, the basis of all the other goods we can enjoy in this world. So, until it is secure, until the right to life is protected, no other right or good is safe. Thus, it is in fact, the only issue.

Dan Hunter said...

How can anyone trust a candidate on any other issue, if he supports the murder of the unborn?

As well as the excellent arguments above, I would put forth, to those that claim that, "its not a one issue race here',that I could never trust a President with the keys to the missile silo, if he murders infants.
I could never trust a President to defend our borders if he will not defend innocent baby life.
I could never trust a President to provide for the poor, if he does not provide for the poorest of the poor, in their moms wombs.

A Presidents primary job is to provide security for his countrymen.

Isnt the womb supposed to be the securest place of all?

Owen said...

An important update for the record"

Our Progressive Conservative candidate has followed up her initial response with an apology for missing the other two questions and answered that she believes marriage is between one man and one woman and she would never support a bill to legalize euthanasia because to do otherwise would be inconsistent with her pro life position. So, our family is able to vote now after all.

For this I am giving thanks. Two of the four voters in our family voted today at the advance polls. One week today we will have a new government for better or for worse.

frival said...

Another way to help people look at it is through simple math, since we're talking about "balancing" among many factors. Assign a semi-random large value for pro-life issues, say 100, since: (1) they necessarily affect the greatest percentage of people (everyone), (2) the end result of getting it wrong is the worst possible (death) and is irreversible, (3) it is not considered an area open for the prudential judgment of civil leaders (vis-a-vis, say, war or tax levels).

Then assign weights to other issues such as welfare, healthcare and so on. These necessarily will have significantly lower weights (say 1 or 5 or 10) if anyone is interested in being honest. What you'll find, if you're being honest, is that they just cannot add up to the impact pro-life issues have. And you haven't even had to get into theology yet.

I'm still working through the idea, but I thought I'd toss it out there and "see what sticks".