Kathleen Gilbert

Complete interview with Abigail Seidman - abortion and the occult

Kathleen Gilbert
Kathleen Gilbert

LSN: A preliminary question: what faith are you now, if any?

SEIDMAN: I am in the process of being received into the Roman Catholic Church (attending RCIA and planning to formally join at 2011 Easter Vigil).  After a period of study and consideration starting around October/November 2009, I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior in June 2010 and attended an evangelical church for a few months before deciding that the Catholic church was where I belonged. 

Prior to my reversion to Christianity, I had been an atheist/agnostic since my parents left the Episcopal church when I was 6.  I was never a serious practicing wiccan/pagan/new-ager, although I did dabble in it as it was culturally expected.  I mainly stuck to atheism because it felt safe - it cast the pagan activities I had witnessed as silly superstitions with no true spiritual power, which was much more comforting than believing the truth about them. 

I also felt that Christianity would not welcome me if I returned (a belief assisted by my mother, who forbade me to associate closely with Christians, and repeatedly told me that Jesus would not accept me back once I had doubted him, so my only choice was to continue on the path away from him).  This was a common scare-tactic among pagans - “Christians won’t accept you after what you’ve done, so you’d better stick with us and work for the goddess’s triumph over the Christian god.” 

LSN: What aspects of life inside an abortion clinic did you notice were occult in nature? Did occult values assist the abortion process? How and to what extent?

SEIDMAN:  The clinic where my mother worked was pervaded with occult imagery and practices.  There was goddess art and statuary in the office, waiting, counseling, and recovery room areas, and new age music (occasionally including goddess chants and songs) was piped throughout.  The counselors were primarily chosen for their spiritual qualifications, and a few did not even have a degree in a relevant field (ie psychology, counseling, social work).  One was a trained chef turned sex worker (or “sacred prostitute”, as they preferred to think of it). 

After the clinic closed for the evening, the staff would all smoke marijuana together and occasionally take hallucinogens if they were available - this was viewed as a spiritual practice, not a recreational one (they were rather scornful of people who used drugs just to get high for fun rather than to ‘open their minds’ to ‘spiritual realities and higher planes of existence’). 

There were also special ceremonies involved when members of the clinic staff got intentionally pregnant in order to have abortions, which would be conducted after hours with a large group.  I was not welcome at these ceremonies since I had never had an abortion myself (at the time), so I can’t give details, but on one occasion I babysat the infant daughter of a clinic worker during one, upstairs from the clinic, and I remember hearing bits of song/chanting and that the doctor was not present (he was male and the ceremony was female only), so the abortion was obviously being performed by an unqualified person.  The women at the clinic were trained in “underground” abortion techniques in case of Roe v Wade being overturned. 

My mother hosted a menstrual extraction party at our house once in 1992, when there was a lot of fear circulating about the possibility of Bush being re-elected and appointing a lot of pro-life judges, or getting a Republican Congress to work with and chipping away at legal abortion that way.  [Menstrual extraction is a low-tech procedure that removes uterine contents by suction immediately before menses are due, and may be used as a very early abortion method.]

LSN: What was the mood like in this atmosphere?

SEIDMAN: The mood I remember as being dark and terrifying - not in an overtly scary way, but in a pit-of-the-stomach sort of way.  I always had a ‘feeling’ that there was something ‘wrong’ or ‘dangerous’ there - almost a feeling of a presence, which I now recognize as being the exact opposite of the Presence that I feel in a church. 

I now see other things that make sense - like the fact that the baby I watched on occasion upstairs from the clinic never smiled or laughed or played - she screamed most of the time except when her mother was nursing her, after which she would fall into a fitful sleep for a while.  My otherwise-difficult autistic sons, on the other hand, are very soothed by being in a church - any church - and behave, one could say, ‘miraculously’ well!  I would think children would naturally be more sensitive to spiritual things, not having learned yet to filter them out or shut that awareness down.  I know I was very aware of, and joyful about, the presence of God in church when I was little, despite my parents rolling their eyes and telling me to calm down and stop pretending.

LSN: What deities were worshipped?

SEIDMAN:  The main figure worshipped was The Goddess, goddess figures from various traditions (Hindu, Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc) were seen as ‘archetypes’ or ‘faces’ of this one true goddess, who was viewed as being in opposition to (and ultimately, to triumph over) the Judeo-Christian God.  The goddess was taught to me as being more ancient, having created the world and people to live in it peacefully in a prehistoric ‘golden age’ of matriarchal rule, before the rise of patriarchy and civilization.  God was painted as a diabolical figure, jealous of the Goddess’s power, who invented the idea of rape and taught human men to practice it, bringing about the end of humans living in a natural, violence-free state. 

Women were encouraged to choose particular goddess figures as their personal role models or patrons (much like Catholics choosing a confirmation saint).  The culture was rather lesbian-separatist (and in that way different from other pagan individuals or groups that I’ve researched or been in contact with), in that ONLY goddesses were worshipped, never gods, and men were not welcome to participate in ceremonies and only barely tolerated as sexual or romantic partners. 

The clinic’s only male employee was the doctor, and he was strictly business - he showed up, he performed procedures, he left.  I got to know him fairly well over the years and he was just in it for the money, he thought the spirituality was ridiculous.  He preferred to work in a medical/professional environment (the other clinics where he worked, including the one where my first abortion was performed, were no different from any other doctor’s office in layout or procedure), but his and his wife’s addictions to spending made him work whenever and wherever he could, so he tolerated the goddess stuff.  (He was also a bit of a sex addict, so the clinic staff’s willingness to fornicate freely and have abortions whenever possible definitely worked in his favor, and most of the clinic employees had sex with him at some point, except for the sworn lesbians ....)

Interestingly, the Goddess was also known as the Great Dragon (this was said to be her “truest form”) - which I was quite surprised to find out existed in the Bible as well, although definitely not a person to be worshipped!  Seriously, I had no idea.  My exposure to the Bible and Christian theology was minimal at best until a year ago.  You could have knocked me over with a feather when I read Revelation. 

I had always been a bit afraid of Mary due to my past and wanting to repudiate anything resembling goddess-worship, so Revelation and its account of the great dragon being at war with the true Queen of Heaven, the mother of Christ, was truly a revelation for me, and toppled my final objection to becoming Catholic rather than remaining nondenominational Protestant.  I had heard Mary strongly denounced by my mother and her friends, but their rationale was that she was the ideal oppressed Christian woman and had been set up by sadistic patriarchal men as an impossible model for women to conform to, being both a virgin and a mother.  (Their ideal was to be promiscuous and childless, like Artemis/Diana.)  I have since found the spiritual motherhood of Mary to be a great comfort to me as a mis-mothered and now motherless woman (my mother has stopped speaking to me as I have become a stronger Christian and more prominent pro-lifer, and I’m fine with that as I find her presence even on the phone to be a sort of “spiritual toxin”).

LSN: Did you notice any effect of pro-life prayer on life inside the clinic?

SEIDMAN: The best example of pro-life prayer and its effectiveness can be found in a story I posted to my local pro-life group’s blog (http://prolifecville.blogspot.com/2010/10/power-of-prayer-never-give-up.html).

I also remember one clinic worker seeking to reach out and form some sort of partnership with the local CPCs, as it bothered her that women who decided against abortion were just being pushed out the door with no further assistance.  She struck up some friendships with CPC staff and had tours of each others’ facilities arranged; and eventually came to an agreement with the CPC that in the event of a woman changing her mind about abortion during the counseling process, she would be set up with an immediate CPC appointment and given directions there by the abortion clinic staff (the CPC naturally refused a reciprocal agreement to make abortion appointments for women who were not swayed by their arguments for life).  I don’t know what became of this in the long term, as she is no longer employed there; but I do know that the clinic’s new location (it was forced to move due to the former building being bought and demolished for new construction) is back-to-back with the CPC.  Coincidence?

I also had some positive interactions with one sidewalk counselor in particular, who is now older and doesn’t get out to the clinic but is apparently still active in local pro-life fundraising - I hope to meet her again when I travel to Toledo next fall to speak at their 40 Days For Life kickoff rally.  She had an adopted son who was my age and I could tell that she really felt for me as a teenage girl being misled and abused by my mother and her friends.  It was as though she could see past the cold front I put up right into my heart that wanted to be free from the twisted world I was growing up in.

LSN: How widespread do you believe the behavior you witnessed to be among abortion clinics?

SEIDMAN:  I really can’t say.  I think the independent and/or feminist-oriented clinics would be more likely to be similar to what I experienced.  The owner of the clinic I’ve described was a good friend of the late Dr. George Tiller and the descriptions of his clinic that I’ve read sound like there was more going on there than just business, too.  Many if not most clinics are strictly business (including, in general, Planned Parenthood affiliates), but that does not preclude individuals or groups who work in those clinics, or abortion advocates in general, being involved to some degree in the occult.  I believe many of them are, although many are also atheists, or liberal Christians. 

I do believe that the occult believers are the “core” of the pro-abortion movement, just as the born-again Christians are the “core” of the pro-life movement, and I see no harm in striking at its heart, and informing “pro-choice” people (particularly the well-meaning but misguided Christians) of who and what they are truly associating themselves with.

LSN: Please tell me anything else you find surprising about your experience vis a vis the occult, or something you think the typical pro-lifer would not guess to be so.

SEIDMAN:  I think the thing that pro-lifers have found to be the most surprising, in my discussions with them thus far, is that the paganism/wicca/goddess-worship IS taken seriously by many liberals, pro-choicers, feminists, etc.  It’s not just a boogeyman.  Whether or not one believes that these spiritual beliefs and practices have any power, the fact is that there is a significant population of people who do, and who believe in it just as wholeheartedly as we believe in Christianity or other faiths. 

I’ve had a bit of disbelief from Christian pro-lifers who seem to not be able to comprehend someone honestly believing in another religion and not just rebelling against Christianity (which they, of course, know to be true - doesn’t everybody?) - they tend to be the ones who were raised Christian and sort of kept in the “Christian bubble”, and just really aren’t aware that there are people, even in modern America, who did not come from the same sort of background, people who may not have even been exposed to Christianity except in the vague cultural sense (celebrating Christmas as a secular holiday, etc).  There needs to be more educational work done about this, because I know the “core” of pro-lifers does tend to be lifelong Christians (especially the younger set), and many of them are just a bit naive or sheltered. 

I have written and spoken a bit on effective outreach to atheists. and the information has been mostly well-received (and used to positive effect by a team of sidewalk counselors in Fairfax, VA).  I plan to work on a guide to outreach for pagan believers too, since there are a great many pagan-friendly arguments for life, and also the scientific approach can work with nearly anyone (and the science is definitely on the pro-life side!). 

To me at least, religious conversion is secondary to conversion to pro-life beliefs.  I was pro-life for many, many years before accepting Christianity, and although I wasn’t a strong activist during that time, I did donate to secular pro-life groups like Feminists For Life, and voted for pro-life candidates whenever possible, as well as privately voicing and arguing my stance among friends.  I would rather see a hundred pro-life atheists in the world than one pro-abortion Christian.

Truth. Delivered daily.

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

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten

,

Federal judge strikes down Nebraska’s marriage law

Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten
By Kirsten Anderson

LINCOLN, NE, March 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Homosexual activists celebrated another victory Monday as U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon once again ordered the state of Nebraska to stop enforcing its marriage protection amendment, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Bataillon, who was appointed by former president Bill Clinton, struck down the amendment when it was first challenged by gay activists ten years ago, but his decision was overturned by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Now that gay activists have challenged the law again, the judge has issued a new ruling barring its enforcement, citing the recent string of federal court victories by supporters of same-sex “marriage.”

Bataillon said laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples unfairly discriminate based on “archaic” and “outdated” gender stereotypes.  

“[Nebraska’s Marriage] Amendment explicitly creates a classification based on gender because a person's eligibility to marry, or to have his or her marriage recognized, is based on the gender of the individuals seeking to marry,” Bataillon wrote.  “[It] is an unabashedly gender-specific infringement of the equal rights of its citizens.”

The judge rejected the state’s assertion that the citizens of Nebraska, who approved the marriage amendment in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote, should be the ones to make any changes to the societally accepted definition of marriage.

“The Amendment is not somehow insulated from review because it was enacted by a significant majority,” Bataillon wrote.  “Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the courts; the recourse is called constitutional law.”

Bataillon also rejected the state’s argument that traditional male-female marriages deserve special protection because they are the natural, ideal environment in which children are conceived and raised.

“With the advent of modern science and modern adoption laws, same sex couples can and do responsibly raise children,” the judge wrote. “Unfortunately, this law inhibits their commendable efforts.”

Bataillon condemned the state’s prohibition of adoption by same-sex couples as “particularly harmful” and “constitutionally repugnant.”

“The State's supposed purpose in channeling children into stable relationships is not served by a same-sex marriage ban,” Bataillon wrote.  “It is both underinclusive in that it allows heterosexual people to have and rear children in unstable or abusive situations and at the same time prevents committed and stable same-sex couples from adopting and providing loving homes to children.”

“The policy has no rational connection to the State's purported purpose of strengthening families and, in fact, it thwarts that purpose by denying deserving children a stable home.”

In conclusion, the judge ordered state officials to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and granting full marital benefits to same-sex couples who “married” outside the state, writing: “All relevant state officials are ordered to treat same-sex couples the same as different sex couples in the context of processing a marriage license or determining the rights, protections, obligations or benefits of marriage.”

Homosexual activists praised Bataillon’s ruling Monday, with the Nebraska ACLU calling it “a day for celebration.”

One of the homosexual plaintiffs in the case, Tracey Weitz, said she and her lesbian lover were taking the ACLU’s words to heart. “I think we'll have a bigger party than we did when we were married,” she told KETV.

But others were not as pleased with the decision, including state officials and some religious leaders.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman, and has as one of its principal purposes the procreation and rearing of children,” Roman Catholic Archbishop George Lucas and Bishops James Conley and William Dendinger said in a joint statement. "Marriage was established by God before the state and before the Church, and the vitality of both depends on the fruitful union of husband and wife."

“Because [Bataillon's] decision undermines the fundamental human right of every child to know, and as far as possible, be united with his or her mother and father, we pray for a just resolution in higher courts."

Bataillon made his order effective March 9, to give state officials a week to appeal.  Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts, a Republican, and Attorney General Doug Peterson immediately sought to overturn the ruling, filing a request for an emergency injunction with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The definition of marriage is an issue for the people of Nebraska, and an activist judge should not substitute his personal political preferences for the will of the people,” Ricketts said.  He said he and Peterson intend to keep up the fight to “uphold Nebraska's Constitution and the will of the people of our great state.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

San Diego’s new bishop champions ‘seamless garment’ theory: poverty on same moral level as abortion

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

ROME, March 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pope Francis’ latest episcopal appointment in the United States, to the Diocese of San Diego, is a bishop known as a champion of leftwing political causes under the rubric of the “seamless garment” theory, placing abortion and euthanasia on the same moral level as immigration and poverty.

The Vatican announced Tuesday that Bishop Robert McElroy, currently an auxiliary bishop in San Francisco, will replace Bishop Cirilo Flores, who died of cancer last year.

The liberal Jesuit magazine America, with whom McElroy has a long and friendly relationship, was effusive at the appointment, calling McElroy an “advocate for the poor” and the appointment by Pope Francis “highly significant.” America’s Gerard O’Connell called McElroy “one of the intellectual heavyweights in the American hierarchy” who has “wholeheartedly embraced the vision and pastoral approach of Pope Francis.” He replaces Bishop Cirilo Flores, who died of cancer last year.

In a 2013 interview with O’Connell for La Stampa’s Inside the Vatican magazine, McElroy called poverty the “preeminent” issue for the Catholic Church, and complained, “In recent years, the conference of bishops has labeled abortion and euthanasia as the preeminent issues in the political order, but not poverty. This has had the effect of downgrading the perceived importance of poverty as a central focus for the Church’s witness.”

He added that the US bishops’ focus on issues of “intrinsic evil” like abortion, has distracted them from the fight against “structural sin” that is normally cited by the Church’s far-left as the cause of poverty. “I think that both issues should be intertwined in the Church’s approach to advancing the common good in the political order because I believe that it is compassion which morally unites these two issues – compassion for the suffering of the poor and compassion for the unborn.”

“I still am a believer in the underlying logic of Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment approach that saw all life issues as part of a continuum linked by the Catholic notions of compassion and justice.”

He made explicit his belief that the life issues are on an equal par with prudential matters like just war theory and immigration reform in a column for America the same year. Pope Francis’ “teachings demand a transformation of the existing Catholic political conversation in our nation, a transformation reflecting three themes: prioritizing the issue of poverty, focusing not only on intrinsic evils but also on structural sin, and acting with prudence when applying Catholic moral principles to specific legal enactments,” he wrote.

To truly be a “church for the poor,” the Catholic Church “must elevate the issue of poverty to the very top of its political agenda, establishing poverty alongside abortion as the pre-eminent moral issues.”

McElroy has also joined the left-leaning majority of US Catholic bishops in refusing to deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. In a 2005 column for America, he called the proposal “partisan,” “Republican,” and “coercive.”

McElroy conceded that the existence of “pro-choice” Catholic politicians represents a “major failure in Church life,” but added that the suggestion that such people have excommunicated themselves “casts aside all the limitations and admonitions to pastoral solicitude that the church has traditionally demanded.” Repeating a favorite phrase of many US bishops, McElroy said that Americans “recoil from the use of the Eucharist as a political weapon.” 

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
David F. Prentis

, , , ,

Contraception gave us divorce and gay ‘marriage’ and will destroy us: here’s how

David F. Prentis
By

March 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Although there has always been contraception, its acceptance and practice by society as a whole is a relatively new phenomenon. In the first part of the 20th century barrier methods became through mass production increasingly used. However, with the advent of the hormonal contraceptive pill in the 1960s the contraceptive era, ushering in the sexual revolution, really took off.

The term “revolution” is by no means exaggerated, for the result was a fundamental change in the understanding of human sexuality in society. With the pill, people thought, nothing can happen, i.e. no child could be conceived. Inhibitions broke down, so that there was an increase in adultery, living together before marriage and living together with no thought of marriage. Amoral sex education with the message, “You can do anything you like so long as your partner agrees and you use contraception. If there is an accident, have an abortion,” promoted sexual promiscuity from puberty onwards. Sexual activity has been degraded into a form of entertainment.

The immediate consequences of promiscuity starting in adolescence are obvious: the rampant increase of sexually transmitted diseases, infertility and the incapability of forming long-term relationships through frequent changes of partners and repeated disappointments.

The assumption that “nothing can happen” is erroneous, because contraceptives are by no means 100% effective. Children are conceived, and such “errors” must be corrected – the child is aborted.[1] The result has been devastating: the number of babies killed by abortion every year is about the same as the total number of deaths in the whole of World War II.

Apart from the carnage, enormous havoc is created in the relationship of the parents, whether married or not, very often leading to its breakdown. It would also be naive to imagine that Catholic women never resort to abortion.

The situation of couples practising NFP however is quite different. They are aware every day of the state of their fertility, asking themselves whether the marriage act on that day would result in conception; they do not lose sight of the child who could be conceived. They do not forget the fundamental purpose of the act. An unplanned child is therefore usually accepted.

The widespread practice of abortion leads to euthanasia. If it is acceptable to kill one category of people, then it is logically acceptable to kill others, specifically the ill, the handicapped and the old, for human life is no longer sacred. A chilling example of this kind of development can be seen in the National Socialist regime in Germany.

The pill “culture” leads to the rejection of children, small families, and a demographic winter. In the long-term it will be impossible to pay pensions. For couples practising NFP however, the child is neither an error nor a threat. Their natural love of children is not destroyed. They have larger families. The 15 teaching couples in our organisation, for example, have 62 children so far, an average of 4.1 per family.

The separation of sexual activity from child-bearing leads to the acceptance of the production of children through assisted reproduction without recourse to the marital act in the case of infertility. Through IVF society is being led, inspired by Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, to the acceptance of controlled reproduction. Human beings are reduced to products. They are mass produced, selected, rejected, frozen or used in experiments. They are treated as material goods, in short, as slaves.

Slavery has been formally reintroduced into society. A doctor, whether mixing sperm and eggs in a Petri dish or injecting a sperm into an egg, is playing God. The arrogance of it! Surely this modern sin should be listed amongst those which cry to heaven.

When the practice of sterilised sexual intercourse is accepted, it leads logically to the acceptance of all practices leading to orgasm: oral, anal, homosexual acts, etc. The whole homosexual movement has become possible only through the general acceptance of contraceptive practice and the reduction of sexuality to a source of entertainment.

The practice of contraception within marriage contains within itself the mutual rejection of the spouses. It leads to the destruction of love. It belongs to the nature of love to give oneself, even to the point of sacrifice, seen eminently in the self-sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Even in our ordinary life a mother’s sacrifice of herself for her child is by no means exceptional. A mother will naturally go to great lengths to help her child, exceptionally even giving up her own life. The marriage act is meant to be an act of mutual love. The natural fruit of that love is the child. The spouses give and receive each other mutually completely. Even during the naturally infertile days of the cycle they give each other all they have at that time – their mutual love.

But if they use contraception they say to each other subconsciously, “I do give myself to you, but without my fertility, and I don’t want your fertility either.” Is that love? The act which in its nature expresses the total self-giving and receiving of the spouses contains an element of rejection, and therefore becomes a lie. When this act of rejection is systematically and continually repeated, love dies. The marriage is at least burdened. Many marriages break down.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Couples who use NFP do not practise this subconscious, systematic rejection. From personal experience and observation of our clients we see that such marriages are more stable. This is also shown in studies. Greater stability is evident even in those without religious practice. [2]

Contraception, which leads logically to other evils as described above, is destroying society. There are too few children and nations are dying out. It leads to abortion, as those who promote it concede. The combination of promoting promiscuity through Godless sex education, the long-term use of hormonal contraception with back-up abortions and the postponement of child-bearing leads to increased infertility.

The solution offered is not a true therapy of infertility, but assisted reproduction which bypasses the normal process of transmission of life through the marriage act. The long-term purpose of this policy could well be the desire to subject reproduction to state control, which would allow only those children to be born who pass quality control. At present this is illusory, but the tendency can be seen. It would appear that an elite group wishes to create a society of virtual slaves obedient to their desires. A new totalitarianism is being formed.

To this end it is necessary to destroy or at least weaken marriage and the family. For this purpose contraception, especially the convenient hormonal forms, is eminently suitable. And those who pour their millions into the homosexual movement and the gender ideology are not concerned with helping homosexuals and those with problems of sexual identity. Rather they are using these people to extend the concept of marriage and ultimately to widen its meaning so much as to make it meaningless.

 


[1] Baklinski, P, Two-thirds of women seeking abortions were using contraception: Britain’s largest abortion provider, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/two-thirds-of-women-seeking-abortions-were-using-contraception-britains-lar

[2] Wilson, M.A.: The Practice of Natural Family Planning versu the Use of Artificial Birth Control: Family, Sexual and Moral Issues, Catholic Social Sceince Review, Volume VII, November 2002.

Rhomberg, W., Rhomberg, M, Weißenbach, H.: Natural Family Planning (NFP): The Symptothermal Method (Rötzer) as a Familiy Binding Tool. Results of a Survey among Members of INER, 2008, http://www.iner.org/files/02_anwenden/Download/NER%20Survey%202008%20Cathol%20Soc%20Sci%20Rev.pdf

 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook