Dear Pro-Choice NYer, You Got What You Asked For

Dear Pro-Choice NYer,

You wanted to do whatever you wanted to do with your body, and then claim you had a right to kill your own children when you conceived them because it was just so unfair for anyone to expect you to let a child ever use you against your will. You said you needed your choices, and you needed them without judgement or criticism. You tossed God’s law aside and said that your rights come from man’s law, and that worked for you as long as you thought you were getting your way. Motherhood be damned.

Image credit: The Center for Consumer Freedom (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/)

When the New York City abortion rate was reported (God only knows what it really is) to be 41%, meaning that nearly 2 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion, you didn’t even wince. You were proud those women were exercising their so-called right to choose even when the city health officials made condescending excuses that the high rate was due to the “ignorance” and “ambivalence” of women who hadn’t been indoctrinated in the methods of birth control, or who were too stupid and poor to chose stable relationships.

Even decades ago when your feminist and pro-choice philosophies collided over sex-selective abortion right in your own city, you quieted the voice in your head that was screaming, “No. STOP! You should not,” because you feared that making moral judgments would take away the high and mighty right for you to profit from the ambivalent under the guise of caring about women. In a mind-seering display of mental gymnastics you sought to rephrase the question by separating the chooser from the choice, so that you could justify killing girls in the womb even as you condemned misogyny.

Let me tell you something: Truth does not condescend the human person, male or female of any age, nor does it contradict itself. That should have been warning enough, but you were too blinded by the tenets of the reproductive rights movement and the power you thought it gave you.

And now, the man you trusted to guard your pseudo-freedom in New York City has decided to dictate to new mothers how they will feed their own babies. Starting September 3, Mayor Bloomberg will enforce what is being called “the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation” which requires formula to be locked up and rationed out only if medical professionals can submit a medical reason for needing it. If the mother gets the formula from the state, she also gets a lecture. Why? It seems the people in power don’t really think women can make good choices for themselves or their children, especially the women who give birth.

Sure some of you will support this anti-choice program and justify it based on some feigned concern for the health of newborn babies. Some of you will speak out against it because you see it for the over-imposition of government into private lives that it is. However, I predict that not a single one of you will see the monumental contradiction before you once again.

Like happy and willing slaves, you conceded all your rights to the decisions of the people in power, and now they are dictating that those in charge do what you’ve been fighting against your whole lives – force a woman to let her child use her body. You may justify it as some caring act on the part of the government, but that’s nonsense. Governments don’t care for people; people care for people, and you’ve been advocating for generations that the most extreme bond between the have’s and the have not’s – the bond between mothers and their children – is meaningless unless the individual mother chooses to care for the greedy little thing.

Some people are calling your Mayor Bloomberg a nanny for turning NYC into a nanny-state, but at least nannies care for individual children. I hate to break it to you, Pro-Choice NYer, but you aren’t a child and Mayor Bloomberg and his officials don’t care for you (or the children you decide are worthy of life) individually. This isn’t about caring; it’s about control. It’s Marxism.

This is social materialism, utilitarian ideology about the worth of a human person in the big chemical equation of society. Feeding people taxes the system, just as pregnancy taxes a woman’s body. If it were about caring for the babies, there wouldn’t also exist a law that allowed late-term abortion past the point of viability. There wouldn’t be a law allowing any unborn child to be killed. The same child the state says must be breastfed for it’s health could have been killed the trimester, the month, the week, the day, and the minute before birth with impunity. Wake up! The same people are also busy telling you what you can and cannot eat or drink. They don’t really think you can be trusted to chose wisely for yourself; they see you as objects to be managed.

As pro-life people have said for as long as they’ve needed to use that title, if you promote that one group of humans can treat another dependent group like individual blobs of mindless tissue, don’t be surprised if the day comes when it’s your turn to be grouped as such too. You got what you asked for. Welcome to the world of your choices.

If you want to fix it, start by reaffirming unconditional love between mother and child, and by defending the primary and natural rights of the family.

37 Responses to Dear Pro-Choice NYer, You Got What You Asked For

  • Wow. The reach of the government never ends. Unbelievable.

  • Great writ! My heart goes out to the new mothers that cannot breast feed but wish they could. Now these mothers will have to hear from the government.

  • Considering the nagging, false information and borderline bulling I’ve experienced at both hospitals that I gave birth at– I do and did breastfeed willingly, and the ladies were trying to do the right thing, and it didn’t cause actual harm so I didn’t speak up at that point– this is especially bothersome.

  • God brings good out of evil. Next Bloomberg will be outlawing contraceptive pills because the hormones are polluting our drinking water and men’s breast are getting to big to fit in their t -shirts.
    Breastfeeding babies is conducive to spiritual maturity. It is the milk of human kindness made physical nourishment. Babies need to be fondled and caressed at the breast and upon the lap.

  • The same child the state says must be breastfed for it’s health could have been killed the trimester, the month, the week, the day, and the minute before birth with impunity. Wake up!

    Excellent point, one that I had not even considered.

  • The underlying philosophy is very old. As Rousseau says, ““Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

  • Don’t tell me, let me guess: the “official” rationale behind this is that breastfed babies are healthier and therefore less of a burden on the healthcare system. Which is the same rationale behind anti-obesity and anti-smoking campaigns and other relentless campaigns to stamp out every bad health habit (except those involving sex, of course). What you do with your own body becomes everybody’s business when “everybody” is paying for your healthcare.

  • Elaine Krewer makes a valid point, but I believe this logic goes back much further, to the French Revolution and the levée en masse.

    If, as Holmes J mordantly observed, “the state has the right to drag the citizen from his home and occupation, put him into uniform and march him into battle, with bayonets at his back,” as well as using “directed labour” in essential industries on the significantly named “home front,” then a concern for the nation’s health becomes a matter of strategic and political significance.

    I believe the first hospital built by the US government was for merchant seamen; precisely the class that could be impressed into the navy, in the event of war.

    Stacey Trasancos is right enough; disinterested philanthropy is seldom the motive of government action.

  • “His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

    We give citizenship to our country, not the citizens. Citizenship is endowed by the state at birth, and citizenship is the tribute that the sovereign person returns to the state. No person can be forced to be free. FREEDOM is from God and is returned to God though the free will of the person. God owns the person. The general will of the people, the will of the goverment, will not go to hell for any citizen. We have to be responsible for our own choices, and in doing so, a person exercises his free will endowed by our Creator. Rousseau did not beleieve in our Creator, so, Rousseau invented this silliness.

  • God is LOVE. Man must love or be lost to God. No human being comes into existence without the creation of his soul by our Creator.
    The atheist demands proof of the existence of God. God is the Supreme Sovereign Being. God is EXISTENCE. God is BEING. God is beauty. Beauty does not need a reason to exist.
    So, the atheist who falls in love has God.

  • “If, as Holmes J mordantly observed, “the state has the right to drag the citizen from his home and occupation, put him into uniform and march him into battle, with bayonets at his back,” as well as using “directed labour” in essential industries on the significantly named “home front,” then a concern for the nation’s health becomes a matter of strategic and political significance.”

    Only under martial law and it is the Congess who declares war for the people. It is the people who choose to defend themselves, when, where and how.

  • Let us remind the government that we, the people, are their employers and they are our employees. The breastmilk of the mother must not be tainted by tyranny. The nourishment of the infant must be real human milk. Breastfeeding an infant must be voluntary, or it will be bitter.

  • “Rousseau did not beleieve in our Creator, so, Rousseau invented this silliness.”

    Why Mary de Voe imagines Rousseau was an atheist, I do not know – “There remains therefore the religion of man or Christianity — not the Christianity of to-day, but that of the Gospel, which is entirely different. By means of this holy, sublime, and real religion all men, being children of one God, recognise one another as brothers, and the society that unites them is not dissolved even at death.” [Du Contrat Social IV:8]

    He was for banishing those who did not believe in “the existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws” [ibid]

  • His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.” WHO gives each citizen to his country and by what right is another person given to anyone else? Rousseau my have believed in God but he did not apply his belief to his citizenship. Now, this is not intended to be nasty cause it sounds nasty, but how did Rousseau avoid addressing his own citizenship?

  • Awesome post. You split atoms with your precision.

  • No, no, no, DA Howard, I am the nuclear engineer here. I split atoms in my day job (well, used to; now I just do engineering). ;-)

    But Stacy’s post is awesome!

    :-D

  • Stacy, thanks for the reflections immersed in genuine Christian belief. I will for sure translate part of your post into Portuguese to share. God bless.

  • Very well written, Stacy. And timely, too, in this election year.
    I wonder if the liberals, especially those on the right, realise that if the Marxists or their sympathisers gain control they (the libs) will be crushed.

  • It seems to me that the abortion genocide is being encouraged by a bunch of lesbians who envy men and who have contempt or desire for girly women. I had an opportunity to visit an abortion clinic to repair a roof. There were gay looking women in the clinic’s waiting room that seemed to be just hanging out, the way guys hang out at bars looking for women. Some of them had shirts that put men down as slimy, dirty, etc. It was an eye opening experience for me. I did not know it was an abortion clinic since I was working for the landlord. I never went back. Has this observation ever been documented before? I would like to know if it was just this clinic or are there others. I have seen some the women that seem to be pushing the abortion issue and maybe its me but they seem more butch. Is it because these women seem to gravitate toward the women issues in general?nCould someone tell me? From a social science standpoint, how does a lesbian population feel about pregnant women and abortions?

  • I love the great Q-Beam of shining light found in the illuminating use of the word marxism. Idolatry of individual rights in the absence of moral truth clearly invites marxism to fill the void.

  • “Past the point of viability?” What the hell does that mean coming from one who presents herself as a Catholic pro-lifer? The quote above seems gratuitous, jarring. I would’ve expected it from the under-informed twenty and thirty-somethings that this piece was hopefully aimed at. Also, as an aside, please don’t type so fast that you’re oblivious to spelling. Too much of it these days on the internet. But, having said all that, your post is sharp and well-done, and i obviously comcur with the points made here. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE

  • So predictable. More encroachment form the biggest corporate body of them all – the Government. This dole & control thing is getting really intolerable. Didn’t the UK in the 1940s attempt to mandate career paths for their citizens? USSR redux? That British mandate was promptly rebuffed, thank God. Don’t be surprised if such government maneuvering someday gets tried here. But, why not? In the spirit of the general welfare and domestic tranquility, it’s for their our own good? Less responsiblity = less freedom.

  • Bill

    Perhaps you are thinking of “Directed Labour,” introduced in the UK under DORA (The Defence of the Realm Act) 1940, whereby workers could be, in effect, conscripted into “essential industries,” or, more often in practice, prevented from leaving them. It remained in place during post-war reconstruction, but was finally repealed in 1951.

    What rendered it largely ineffective is that most “essential industries” had pre-entry closed shop agreements with the Trade Unions, meaning that no one could be hired, who was not already a member of the union. The attempt to introduce “Bevin Boys” into the Lanarkshire coal-fields caused a widespread strike, with the railwaymen “blacking” (refusing to handle) coal from the affected pits. It was only after the attack on the “workers’ fatherland” in July 1941 that the unions gave up their objections for “the duration.”

  • I am a sidewalk counselor at an abortion clinic in New Jersey. We are urban, and have the same population demographics as New York City. Since I am a man, I spend more time talking to the men. Just this past week, Greg (name changed) and his girlfriend were sent to the clinic by the hospital. She had miscarried, and the doctors sent her to the clinic to have the already dead fetus removed. Yeah, I can see the medical logic in that; the same abortionist that kills a child in the womb and evacuates the dead child is medically skilled to perform this procedure. But what a hell hole to send a woman who has miscarried! God help us; what emotional ignorance on the part of the medical professionals that sent this couple to a ghetto of infanticide.

    Greg had to go outside while she was in the procedure. He just could not stand being in there. What made it nauseating was the laughing and humor of the “repeaters”. One young woman was having her fifth abortion. Here, his girlfriend told Greg that she felt worthless about not being physically able to sustain the life, and now this couple was thrown in with the hardcore. The poor guy was numb at first, but when he started talking the pain and the sorrow came out. He and his girlfriend will be OK. They have been together seven years, and now plan to marry and start a family within a context of a Catholic family. We gave him Rachel’s Vineyard literature, and assured him that God loves them both, and that great people, like Dorothy Day, have been in worse and turned it around.

    Msgr. Reilly of “Helpers of God’s Precious Infants” says that for those hardcore, before the woman physically aborts her child, she spiritually aborts it. Often we are not effective to change their choice in the 30-45 seconds we have to talk to them before they enter the clinic. All we can do is try to prevent the next one. I have to say, the 41% abortion rate is chilling. From my own observations, I have to believe that many of these are the 4-5 abortion repeaters that we see. Not every woman who walks into a clinic is sobered by the choice. Worse, many walk out without any personal resolution to change habits or sexual activity.

  • Markrite, I think her comment, “there wouldn’t also exist a law that allowed late-term abortion past the point of viability” was meant to make very clear the fact that the gov’t doesn’t really care about children, by allowing EVEN those that could live survive outside the womb (were they to be born at that point) to be aborted.

    I agree with her making that point, if for no other reason than it shows that ‘if you allow X, then Y and Z must also be allowed’. There are so many Catholic women that, unfortunately, believe in the woman’s right to choose; if they buy into the belief that a ‘fetus’ is not really a baby, then it is difficult to make them understand the Pro-Life position. However, if you can get them to understand that their belief also makes ‘Y and Z’ acceptable, then It may cause them to rethink their position.

    I was one of those who, upon seeing that people were appalled that female babies were specificaly being aborted, immediately made the connection – if you believe that abortion AT ANY STAGE OF LIFE should be legal, you have NO right to have any say in who or what type of baby is aborted. Abortions based on sex, mental abnormalities and even physical characteristics all are fair game.

    It needs to be made very clear that to believe in abortion means allowing all these other things.

    I read a paper recently, I believe th doctors were out of Austria, saying that post birth killing should be legal, if there was some abnormality. They stated correctly that if a country allowed abortion, the point at which it was allowed (up to 4, 5, or 6 months) was merely a line in the sand. They were correct. If we allow taking a life for any reason, then taking a life for any reason must follow.

    Right now we are having this discussion about the unborn. How much longer before the discussion will be about the elderly?

  • Joash M. wrote, “It seems to me that the abortion genocide is being encouraged by a bunch of lesbians who envy men and who have contempt or desire for girly women.”

    Oh, it’s not just contempt. It’s lust.

    “24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. ” Romans 1:24-27

    While there are some heroic homosexuals and lesbians who try to remain chaste and celibate, living lives in conformance to St. Paul’s admonition that we offer up our bodies as living sacrifices, these militant homosexuals and lesbians are godless, reprobate perverts who need to be relegated back into the closet from whence they came.

  • “I read a paper recently, I believe th doctors were out of Austria, saying that post birth killing should be legal, if there was some abnormality.”

    Can you provide a link or citation to this paper? This is EXACTLY how the Jewish Holocaust started. This information would be useful.

  • Here you go: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

    Thanks everyone for the comments, I’m reading them from email and truly appreciate it.

  • Paul: “While there are some heroic homosexuals and lesbians who try to remain chaste and celibate, living lives in conformance to St. Paul’s admonition that we offer up our bodies as living sacrifices, these militant homosexuals and lesbians are godless, reprobate perverts who need to be relegated back into the closet from whence they came.”

    There are many, many heroic homosexuals and lesbians who remain chaste and celibate and there are many, many heterosexuals who remain chaste and celibate starting with our leader, Jesus Christ. The evil side likes to pretend that there are few and that they are weird or abnormal, but I tell you there are multitudes, the norm and the blessed. If I do not get to heaven, and the good Lord leaves me on earth, I hope it is with a community of chaste and celibates, for such is the joy of innocence, to have recapitulated our original innocence.

  • Yes, Mary De Voe, as usual you are 100% correct. I wish I could write like you, but often I get too darn mad and fly off the handle. I think it was St. Peter – or maybe St. Paul or both – who said that such anger is not of God. I got a lot of work to do on myself.

  • I think it could be that New York State is pulling these measures as an economic response to the extra burden it will have to carry in medicare. In other words, it is not ideology driving this, but state economic survival in the face of the HHS.

  • Well said, Stacy. The call to “wake up!” runs an unbroken line from Creation, through the prophets, and has culminated in Jesus’ continuing call to awaken to the Kingdom of God when and where we are. You have beautifully articulated this call in your piece; I hear Jesus’ words echoing in yours. Though many of us still sleep, let us pray that we awaken, that we hear and respond to God’s call upon our lives, and that more of us will humbly yet firmly choose to speak the wake-up call of God into the lives of those around us.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .