At this years March for Life in Washington D.C., amid freezing temperatures and wintry blasts, it really felt like the tide turning, that the scales of justice were tipping rightward, away from a withered, callous or indifferent national stance on abortion, or if you prefer more direct language, the deliberate killing of an innocent child while it's still in the womb. It was so encouraging to see such vitality in the movement that so many youngsters, teens and college-aged people from around the U.S.A. gather for Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, at the rally on the national mall and the march to the supreme court. The frigid weather did not seem to hold back the pro-lifers, which by some estimates was upwards of 600,000, an overwhelming amount of whom are from Catholic parishes around the country. The sad and pitiable contingent of pro-abortion demonstrators seems to have been dwindling every year and this year if wasn't the coldness of the weather, it may have been the cold-heartedness of their position which dampened their resolve. I saw a grand total of two.
It looked like there were more news network cameras than before. To my amazement, the news network CNN were present. Their report was mostly fair, even asking Jeanne Monahan, the leader of the March for Life, about the 'changing of the tide' in national opinion and the legal advances in restricting abortion in 23 states and over 100 pending pieces of pro-life legislation. There was the usual reference to the pro-life demonstrators as 'anti-abortionist activists' - a term made up recently by liberal, pro-abortion media outlets. And an absurd comment from Catholics For Choice (a term something like 'Jews for Hitler') about "support for choice remain[ing] solid" was left to hang mid-air in all it's euphemistic incompleteness. The New York times, supposedly a newspaper of record, forgot to give such a national event coverage sufficient coverage as I understand there was one photograph related to the event on page A17, while a comparatively pithy story about a resigning teacher in Seattle took today's front page. A washington times photo gallery report made 3 out of 10 pictures to feature pro-abortion demonstrators. I don't know where they found them, amidst the back-drop of 100's of thousands of pro-life marchers. Again, I saw only 2 ! According to the Breitbart 'Big Government' blog, from which the photo above was taken, a local news radio station said that the pro-abortion demonstration had been officially cancelled due to weather. Lila Rose, of pro-life group Live Action, responded "A little chilly for them? It is harder to fight for the dismemberment of children than it is to fight for their lives,”. His Holiness Pope Francis tweeted an encouraging tweet :
"I join the March for Life in Washington with my prayers. May God help us respect all life, especially the most vulnerable"
While the president of the U.S.A., in a statement made yesterday on the 41st anniversary of the Roe Vs. Wade decision, who was probably quietly glad that his own mother chose life, was quick to "recommit" the nation to "protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy...Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.".
But not if you're a defenseless innocent little baby in utero, it would seem. Or a frightened and pressured woman for whom abortion is more likely than not to lead to depression or suicidal thoughts, infertility and prenatal complications and many other associated health problems. The term 'pro-life' means on behalf, or affirmative of , or in favour of, life. There's only, at worst, a small amount of rhetorical dishonesty in that. Where's there's life, it ought to be respected and it's dignity upheld, from the womb to the tomb. But 'choice' is meaningless without it's context. What are you choosing ? Why are you not saying what you are choosing, why is it hanging mid-air, without any justifying foundation. It's a sad day when we do not press people to define precisely what they mean and to press the point to the absurdity and darkness it very definitely entails.
Getting back to the two pro-choicers. I asked one of them, "Can you give me an argument which justifies abortion that does not also justify infanticide ?". Silence, then dismissal and then some talk about not wanting to engage in arguing in circles was my response. Silence again. And then, when I pressed for an answer, I was told that an only when born is a baby legally recognized as such and only then does it have a life to be defended. When, I asked, does the baby become a baby, 5 seconds before he comes down the birth canal ? 1 second ? What is it before then, if not a baby ? Silence. The horrible silence of a nation I pray will end, lest future generations ask of us what we did when this horrific holocaust was happening ? I think the answer can be found in a certain attitude so prevalent in America today. When I was relating the somewhat arduous conditions of the March for Life, cancelled transportations, frigid weather, etc. to a friend. He opined "I'm glad you got to do what you wanted to do". This seemingly live-and-let-live, each to his own, let people have their freedom attitude suffuses the liberal mentality. Oh, would that that latitude be extended to the baby in the womb...
