Brice Griffin

A post-abortive mother’s response to the ‘I had an abortion’ t-shirt

Brice Griffin
By Brice Griffin
Image

January 16, 2013 (StandTrue.com) - Today I came across a pro-abortion image that made my skin crawl. There was no blood, no little aborted baby parts, no image of death. Instead it was a photo of Gloria Steinem, smiling, arms raised in a celebratory pose, wearing a t-shirt that read, “I had an abortion.” Beneath her it asked, “Do you really need to inconvenience yourself for the next 18 years?”

Where to begin?

As a post-abortive mother of four, this infuriated and disgusted me on many different levels.

Firstly, it rekindles my anger toward the “Women’s Liberation” movement that has so emasculated our men and destroyed our society with things like birth control and abortion on demand until a child’s day of birth. Why is it that men are afraid to speak up for their children as they drive their child’s mother to the abortion mill? Because society has spent the last 40 years telling them that the ultimate display of respect and equality to their female counterparts is the freedom and constitutional right that is killing her child at her simplest whim, as if she were having a tooth or a wart removed. Shut up and let me do what I want.

And going one step further, consider the utter selfishness of the question posed in this graphic. Why inconvenience yourself with a child? Kill it so you can continue your promiscuous lifestyle with no regrets. Tell me, please, the last time you heard a mother say she regretted keeping her child. Women do not regret the children they have; they regret the children they didn’t have.

And on top of that, mothers, did you know that you’re free of your parental responsibility once your child turns 18? WOW! It’s such a relief to know that when my youngest is 18 I will no longer be burdened and tormented by the absolute love and constant worry that envelops my heart for him. Upon their 18th birthday, I can end my relationship with each of my children and resume my wonderful and joyous life that I had without them. They’re on their own for college, so my husband and I can retire early. Really? I can’t imagine a day without them. I miss them when they’re at school, for crying out loud!

In my recent years of pro-life activism, I have been approached by dozens of post-abortive women. Some are ready to begin their healing process. Some don’t want to discuss their experience, but just want to say, “I’ve been there, too, and I appreciate your story.” Some want to know if their destructive behavior is normal. Some want to know if they’ll ever be forgiven. I have never, ever, ever been approached by a woman who said, “Having an abortion was the best decision of my life.” Or even, “My abortion was the right thing to do and I’m ok with it.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The only time I ever met a woman wearing a shirt similar to that of Ms. Steinem was at the DNC, when we were joined at a pro-life prayer vigil by some very loud, dirty, profane women, whose mission was obviously to mock us and our beliefs. When we presented 3,300 flowers to demonstrate the growing number of children killed by abortion in America every day, one of our visitors asked, “CAN I HAVE TWO FLOWERS? ONE FOR EACH OF MY ABORTIONS?” I told her of course and handed her the flowers and she dramatically placed one behind each ear.

My reaction wasn’t enough, I suppose, because as we prayed, she began to yell as loudly as she could that each of these flowers represents a woman who could continue to fulfill her goals, whose life would not be “foreclosed upon,” whose dreams would not be dashed by the burden of a child. If we lunatic pro-lifers had our way, 3,300 women a day would have their futures diminished by being forced to have a child against her will. Her will. Not God’s will, but hers. It’s not about you, or religion, or doing what’s right. It’s about me. I will do what makes me feel good and if I believe I’m a good person then I don’t have to worry about a thing because that God of yours is a forgiving God, isn’t he? I will have sex with whomever I choose, because your God made us sexual beings, didn’t he? Sex feels good for a reason, right? And if that God should make a mistake and create a life in my womb when it’s not convenient for me, then I’ll just take care of it. I’ll kill the child (or remove my uterine contents, as the procedure is described by abortionists) and continue to live my life however I want,  because after all, it was your God who accidentally decided I should be pregnant in the first place. Silly God. Really? Do you really think that God makes mistakes?

I digress. The t-shirt. Would I wear one like it? I had an abortion. That’s not a slogan on a shirt, that’s my reality. There was a time in my early 20s when all I wanted was to get pregnant and have a child. Desperately. I would practically dare my boyfriend, and alternately beg him to begin our little family. Why then, when I finally conceived my first child, was I so easily convinced to “take care of it”? I don’t have an answer. I can say with certainty that if he had reacted with “That’s great news! We’re going to have a family!” that I would have kept the child. Never did I feel like this was my body and my decision. It was us and our decision and he decided that abortion was the answer and I didn’t argue.

The night of the procedure I drank all of the whiskey I could find and I did that for most of the nights following for several months. I wanted to leave the country. I wanted therapy. I wanted to die. I wanted, more than anything in the world, to be INCONVENIENCED FOR THE NEXT 18 YEARS. But I chose not to be inconvenienced, to have my uterine contents removed, to spend the next several years suffering from my decision. Now as I stand on the sidewalk in front of Charlotte’s abortion mills, I am joined by friends who are unable to conceive. How must they feel, longing for a child, watching a woman who chooses convenience over a lifetime of love?

And finally, I thought that Planned Parenthood’s intention was to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Safe, legal and rare. It’s everyone’s argument now: safe, legal and rare. We don’t want any women dying in back-alley abortion clinics, or resorting to the old coat hanger method, do we? Tonya Reaves. Marla Cardamone. Diana Lopez. Carole Wingo. Nichole Williams. Tanya Williamson. These women weren’t killed in a dark alley. Several of them died immediately after leaving Planned Parenthood.

Safe? For whom? In nearly 100% of abortions, a child is killed. And these and many more women died as a result of a botched abortion. Legal, you betcha. Rare? Planned Parenthood recently released a report that boasted 333,964 children were killed in their facilities during fiscal year 2011-2012. One child was aborted, and one mother diminished, every 90 seconds. Safe, legal and rare. That’s why we need Planned Parenthood; we need to keep abortion safe, legal and rare.

Closing, I wonder, does the question “Do you really need to inconvenience yourself for the next 18 years” sound like it comes from an organization that doesn't want you to have an abortion? Or from an organization that sees you and your uterine contents as nothing more than a dollar sign…?

God, I thank you for blessing me with these four inconveniences. Please tell my baby who sits with you that I love him, I’m sorry, and his sisters and brother will beam when they meet him.

Reprinted with permission from StandTrue.com.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

PBS defends decision to air pro-abortion documentary ‘After Tiller’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Under pressure for showing the pro-abortion documentary "After Tiller" on Labor Day, PBS' "POV" affiliate has defended the decision in response to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews.

The producers of the film say their goal with the documentary, which tells the stories of four late-term abortion doctors after the killing of infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller, is to "change public perception of third-trimester abortion providers by building a movement dedicated to supporting their right to work with a special focus on maintaining their safety.” 

POV told LifeSiteNews, "We do believe that 'After Tiller' adds another dimension to an issue that is being debated widely." Asked if POV will show a pro-life documentary, the organization said that it "does not have any other films currently scheduled on this issue. POV received almost 1000 film submissions each year through our annual call for entries and we welcome the opportunity to consider films with a range of points of view."

When asked whether POV was concerned about alienating its viewership -- since PBS received millions in federal tax dollars in 2012 and half of Americans identify as pro-life -- POV said, "The filmmakers would like the film to add to the discussion around these issues. Abortion is already a legal procedure."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"This is an issue that people feel passionately about and will have a passionate response to. We are hopeful that the majority of people can see it for what it is, another lens on a very difficult issue." 

In addition to the documentary, POV has written materials for community leaders and teachers to share. A cursory examination of the 29-page document, which is available publicly, appears to include links to outside sources that defend Roe v. Wade, an examination of the constitutional right to privacy, and "a good explanation of the link between abortion law and the right to privacy," among other information.

Likewise, seven clips recommended for student viewing -- grades 11 and beyond -- include scenes where couples choose abortion because the children are disabled. Another shows pro-life advocates outside a doctor's child's school, and a third is described as showing "why [one of the film's doctors] chose to offer abortion services and includes descriptions of what can happen when abortion is illegal or unavailable, including stories of women who injured themselves when they tried to terminate their own pregnancies and children who were abused because they were unwanted."

Another clip "includes footage of protesters, as well as news coverage of a hearing in the Nebraska State Legislature in which abortion opponents make reference to the idea that a fetus feels pain." The clip's description fails to note that it is a scientifically proven fact that unborn children can feel pain.

The documentary is set to air on PBS at 10 p.m. Eastern on Labor Day.

Kirsten Andersen contributed to this article.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

He defended ‘real’ marriage, and then was beheaded for it

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

A Christian man was executed during the night by a high-profile ruler after making an uncompromising defense of real marriage.

The Christian, who was renowned for his holiness, had told the ruler in public that his relationship with his partner was “against the law” of God. The Christian’s words enraged the ruler’s partner who successfully plotted to have him permanently silenced.

John the Baptist was first imprisoned before he was beheaded. The Catholic Church honors him today, August 29, as a martyr and saint.

While John’s death happened a little less than 2,000 years ago, his heroic stance for real marriage is more pertinent today than ever before.

According to the Gospel of Mark, the ruler Herod had ‘married’ his brother’s wife Herodias. When John told Herod with complete frankness, “It is against the law for you to have your brother’s wife,” Herodias became “furious” with him to the point of wanting him killed for his intolerance, bullying, and hate-speech.

Herodias found her opportunity to silence John by having her daughter please Herod during a dance at a party. Herod offered the girl anything she wanted. The daughter turned to her mother for advice, and Herodias said to ask for John’s head on a platter.

Those who fight for real marriage today can learn three important lessons from John’s example.

  1. Those proudly living in ungodly and unnatural relationships — often referred to in today’s sociopolitical sphere as ‘marriage’ — will despise those who tell them what they are doing is wrong. Real marriage defenders must expect opposition to their message from the highest levels.
  2. Despite facing opposition, John was not afraid to defend God’s plan for marriage in the public square, even holding a secular ruler accountable to this plan. John, following the third book of the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 20:21), held that a man marrying the wife of his brother was an act of “impurity” and therefore abhorrent to God. Real marriage defenders must boldly proclaim today that God is the author of marriage, an institution he created to be a life-long union between one man and one woman from which children arise and in which they are best nurtured. Marriage can be nothing more, nothing less.
  3. John did not compromise on the truth of marriage as revealed by God, even to the point of suffering imprisonment and death for his unpopular position. Real marriage defenders must never compromise on the truth of marriage, even if the government, corporate North America, and the entire secular education system says otherwise. They must learn to recognize the new “Herodias” of today who despises those raising a voice against her lifestyle. They must stand their ground no matter what may come, no matter what the cost.

John the Baptist was not intolerant or a bigot, he simply lived the word of God without compromise, speaking the word of truth when it was needed, knowing that God’s way is always the best way. Were John alive today, he would be at the forefront of the grassroots movement opposing the social and political agenda to remake marriage in the image of man.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

If he were alive today he might speak simple but eloquent words such as, “It is against God’s law for two men or two women to be together as a husband and wife in marriage. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.” 

He would most likely be hated. He would be ridiculed. He would surely have the human rights tribunals throwing the book at him. But he would be speaking the truth and have God as his ally. 

The time may not be far off when those who defend real marriage, like John, will be presented with the choice of following Caesar or making the ultimate sacrifice. May God grant his faithful the grace to persevere in whatever might come. St. John the Baptist, pray for us!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
The Wunderlich family Mike Donnelly / Home School Legal Defence Association
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

German homeschoolers regain custody of children, vow to stay and fight for freedom

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

One year to the day since a team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed a homeschooling family’s residence near Darmstadt, Germany, and forcibly removed all four of the family’s children, aged 7 to 14, a state appeals court has returned custody of the children to their parents.

The reason given for the removal was that parents Dirk and Petra Wunderlich continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.

The children were returned three weeks after being taken, following an international outcry spearheaded by the Home School Legal Defense Association.

However, a lower court imposed the condition on the parents that their children were required to attend state schools in order for them to be released, and took legal custody of the children in order to prevent the family from leaving the country.

In a decision that was still highly critical of the parents and of homeschooling, the appeals court decided that the action of the lower court in putting the children in the custody of the state was “disproportional” and ordered complete custody returned to the parents, according to a statement by the HSLDA.

The Wunderlichs, who began homeschooling again when the court signaled it would rule this way, said they were very pleased with the result, but noted that the court’s harsh words about homeschooling indicated that their battle was far from over.

“We have won custody and we are glad about that,” Dirk said.

“The court said that taking our children away was not proportionate—only because the authorities should apply very high fines and criminal prosecution instead. But this decision upholds the absurd idea that homeschooling is child endangerment and an abuse of parental authority.”

The Wunderlichs are now free to emigrate to another country where homeschooling is legal, if they choose, but they said they intend to remain in Germany and work for educational freedom.

“While we no longer fear that our children will be taken away as long as we are living in Hessen, it can still happen to other people in Germany,” Dirk said. “Now we fear crushing fines up to $75,000 and jail. This should not be tolerated in a civilized country.”

Petra Wunderlich said, "We could not do this without the help of HSLDA,” but cautioned that, “No family can fight the powerful German state—it is too much, too expensive."

"If it were not for HSLDA and their support, I am afraid our children would still be in state custody. We are so grateful and thank all homeschoolers who have helped us by helping HSLDA.”

HSLDA’s Director for Global Outreach, Michael Donnelly, said he welcomed the ruling but was concerned about the court’s troubling language.

“We welcome this ruling that overturns what was an outrageous abuse of judicial power,” he said.

“The lower court decision to take away legal custody of the children essentially imprisoned the Wunderlich family in Germany. But this decision does not go far enough. The court has only grudgingly given back custody and has further signaled to local authorities that they should still go after the Wunderlichs with criminal charges or fines.”

Donnelly pointed out that such behavior in a democratic country is problematic.

“Imprisonment and fines for homeschooling are outside the bounds of what free societies that respect fundamental human rights should tolerate,” he explained.

“Freedom and fundamental human rights norms demand respect for parental decision making in education. Germany’s state and national policies that permit banning home education must be changed.

"Such policies from a leading European democracy not only threaten the rights of tens of thousands of German families but establish a dangerous example that other countries may be tempted to follow,” Donnelly warned.

HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris said that acting on behalf of the Wunderlichs was an important stand for freedom.

“The Wunderlichs are a good and decent family whose basic human rights were violated and are still threatened,” Farris said.

“Their fight is our fight," Farris stressed, "and we will continue to support those who stand against German policy banning homeschooling that violates international legal norms. Free people cannot tolerate such oppression and we will do whatever we can to fight for families like the Wunderlichs both here in the United States and abroad. We must stand up to this kind of persecution where it occurs or we risk seeing own freedom weakened.”

Visit the HSLDA website dedicated to helping the Wunderlich family and other German homeschoolers here.

Contact the German embassy in the U.S. here.

Contact the German embassy in Canada here.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook