Friday, October 26, 2012

'Jane Roe' of Roe v. Wade airs anti-Obama ad in Florida

The transcript:
“I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought ‘legal’ child killing to America.

“I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie.

“Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

“Please, don’t follow in my mistakes. DO NOT vote for Barack Obama. He murders babies.”
The video:
Go to: (October 24, 2012)

Before ...................................................................................................................... and after


Ralph Roister-Doister said...

Let me misuse this topic to some extent to set out a few thoughts about what it means to be anti-abortion, pro-life, in this country at this time.

George Mourdock is the latest republican pro-life politician to be drawn and quartered for his pro-life position, which is that abortion is not a legitimate option for any pregnant woman, even one who owes her pregnancy to rape. It is fair to say that anyone who states such a belief publicly can expect to be reviled, ridiculed, humiliated and rejected by virtually everyone with access to a word processor or a microphone. When was the last time you heard an American bishop, archbishop, or even lowly parish priest, state the matter baldly and directly, without cloaking it in a greater and fuzzier generality, like the catchphrase, “life is sacred.” To be perfectly clear about it, when was the last time you heard or read this statement by a member of the American Catholic clergy: “Abortion is wrong in all circumstances, even the tragic circumstance of rape,” or even better: “Complicity in the abortion of an innocent life is murder, regardless of the circumstances of its conception” Even our jolly falstaffian archbishop Dolan, ever on the prowl for bloviation-worthy moral “biggies,” avoids this one like Joe Biden avoids men with white coats and butterfly nets.

How many American Catholic “pro-lifers” are really one hundred percent pro life?

How many American Catholic “pro-lifers” would be willing to support the consequences of their one hundred percent belief? For example, would they agree with the proposition that all who are complicit in an abortion are guilty of murder? Including the mother?

Yeh, that’s what I thought.

And now you know the difference between Catholic and V2-era Catholic-lite.

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

Excuse me, the politician's name is Richard Mourdock, not George. He is an evangelical Christian, who defeated Richard Lugar, a used-up old shoe and a Methodist, in the recent Indiana primary. Lugar's views on abortion are unknown to him -- please contact a member of his staff for clarification and supporting materials.

Pertinacious Papist said...

Hi Ralph,

Good to hear from you again. Your comments are most welcome. Yes, I've heard about the plight of Mourdock, which is as pitiful as it is predictable.

We are so far removed from the world of confessional Catholic kingdoms and states that politics has become a matter of plugging holes in the dike with one's fingers, like the proverbial Dutch boy, only in hopes of staving off the apparently inevitable deluge of divine judgement and condemnation which we so richly deserve.

Chris said...

On the other hand, let us be grateful that Norma McCorvey is now publicly exposing the lies involved in this case, and begging others not to follow in her shoes.

John Courtney Roister-Doister said...

"We are so far removed from the world of confessional Catholic kingdoms and states . . . "

Indeed we are, and that is why Dignitatus Humanae was supposed to be such a deft stroke, throwing open the windows to the fresh breezes of "political reality."

"It is clear," exult the authors, "that with the passage of time all nations are coming into a closer unity, people of different cultures and religions are being bound together by closer links, and there is a growing awareness of individuality." Fifty years later, the world is more fractured than ever, the interstices in the crackpot dreams of unity and religious freedom gape at us now like open wounds, and individuals count as nothing, even in states where they are supposed to reign supreme.

As political strategists, the V2 fathers were a a gaggle of Wrong Way Corrigans. As spiritual leaders, they and their successors are even worse. Witness a local parish, where the prayers of the faithful ask for graces to those families who are "contemplating difficult decisions." In case you are wondering, the "difficult decision" is to abort or not to abort.

Since when did that become a difficult decision for a serious Catholic? When Catholic leaders threw in their towels and genuflected before "religious liberty" and its well known codicil, "individual conscience."

Anonymous Bosch said...

You paint a gravely bleak picture, Ralph. If this is true (and I am afraid it is), how did we get here? Why do so few other Catholics (especially their leaders) see this? How were they blinded?

Anonymous Bosch said...

That is to say, John Courtney Roister-Doister, how did intellectuals like John Courtney MURRAY acquire the disastrous views they did?

Ralph "who let him in here?" Roister-Doister said...

The thing about America, its "Christian" roots are entirely protestant. When we speak of religious liberty in the American sense of the term, we are saying "every man his own pope" and "every conscience its own divinity." So when Murray convinced the dullards around him to bet all their chips on the double zero of America and Americanism, the bet was actually on protestantism and its ultimately nihilistic roots. Now we see the church, especially in America, wracked by a schizophrenic malady in which its genuinely Catholic identity, and the Dignitatus Humanae test tube baby of American protestantism (an unstable mixture of libertarianism and one world rhapsodizing), battle for control of the body -- something like Ray Milland and Rosey Grier in "The Thing with Two Heads," a movie you will not see on EWTN.

Actually, it is more like "Sybil."