Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the infamous SCOTUS decision that required all states to allow unrestricted abortion. It is the day that our government officially installed a “might makes right” ideology. My size and power means that I have the “right” to destroy human life inside my body that I find inconvenient, untimely, or otherwise undesirable. Will this human life hinder my goals in life? Am I just “not ready” to be a mother? Does this human life have some characteristic I find objectionable? Then I get to destroy it. There is so much wrong with this way of thinking, but that’s what we are up against.

Many people used to support abortion but changed their minds. Here are a few:

Here is a list of more people who used to support abortion but are now against it, including some former Planned Parenthood workers, abortion doctors, and politicians. Here is another list (there might be some overlap).

Even though Democrats get the rap for abortion, not all Dems support it. For example, there is an organization called Democrats for Life of America. Evidently, one in three Democrats is pro-life. Isn’t that wonderful? So refreshing. There is also a Facebook page called:

Whole Life: Pro-life Democrats, Progressives, and Feminists

I am unsure how many people it represents but I follow them to show support for our common cause.



I wish I had a dad

According to my analytics, last week somebody found my blog by searching for the phrase, “I wish I had a dad.” I haven’t written on that exact topic, so I searched for that phrase to see where my blog appeared, and which post appeared, in the results. I couldn’t find it, but while scanning it became clear to me that a lot of others have written on that exact topic.

If by some chance you are here because you were searching for that phrase, and you wished you had a dad, let me offer this little bit of information and hopefully comfort to you.

1) You aren’t alone. A lot of people wish they had a dad.

2) It’s not your fault that you don’t have a dad.

3) Our culture believes that the definition of freedom includes having the State annul familial obligations whenever adults want. So part of the reason you don’t have a dad is because our culture was more concerned about your dad’s freedom (from you and your other parent) than your feelings about him, and your legitimate need for him.

4) If you don’t have a dad because you were donor conceived, then it’s also true that our culture is more concerned about your mom’s ability to choose how to reproduce than what those choices do to you, your long term prospects, and your feelings.

I say things as plainly as I can because I don’t want to be misunderstood. But I also hope for something else:

It doesn’t have to be that way for future generations. YOU can be part of the change. You can tell your story and speak out so that others don’t choose to do to their children what was done to you. If enough people speak out, then laws can be changed so that these injustices aren’t condoned by the State. The adults around you failed in their duties, but the State and the wider culture has a large part of the blame. When the State annuls people’s familial obligations without cause, it is acting unjustly and outside of its authority.

5) If you are grieving alone because you don’t have a dad, then you may be experiencing disenfranchised grief. This is grief that is not acknowledged or accepted by the wider culture. As a way to be part of a community who understands you, you might want to consider publishing your story online for others to read. It will help you see that you’re not alone, and there is a small movement afoot that calls attention to the injustice you are facing. If you want to tell your story, there are a couple of websites that want to hear what you have to say. They will publish your story, anonymously if you prefer:

  • Donor conceived people can do that here.
  • Others without dads can do that here (single mom by choice, kids harmed by divorce and/or parental alienation, kids in gay households, etc).

Finally, it is OK to put your mother and your father together in your heart and your mind. Your mom and your dad are each half of who you are. Speaking for myself, I fully acknowledge the legitimacy of that family triad, YOU, your mother and your father. Even if you don’t know what your dad looks like, that’s OK. He’s there in you, along with your mom. That is real because it is YOU. You don’t have to tell anybody that you’ve done this. But if you do tell somebody and they don’t agree, just remind that that this is your choice. Everybody else gets a choice, right? So do you. I think that part of the healing process includes letting ourselves acknowledge this, because it is truth.

holy family

“Sexual liberation” is a fraud

Somebody left a thoughtful comment on a recent post. I wrote a comment but it got too long, so decided to make it into its own post.

Yes, I am probably dealing with survivor’s guilt. Part of the problem in my case was that the “kids are resilient” rhetoric, that has been promoted by professionals for decades, meant that I had literally zero assistance in getting through a number of extraordinarily difficult circumstances related to my family structure. To then learn later in life that I was almost aborted was sort of like a strange form of icing in the cake, it fit the rest of the story in a weird sort of way.

I now need to be free to grieve all of that, and do so in my own time and in my own way. “Kids are resilient” blocked my ability to grieve, not only because it stunted my own mental and emotional processes, but it meant and continues to mean that people around me are, generally, very unsupportive. At least until I explain things to them. At first, they don’t get it because all of the professionals told them that I should be OK. Well, the professionals were wrong. They were promoting an agenda that I believe actually harmed a lot of people.

This blog is an outlet for me to record my thoughts for my children. But I also hope to do something else: there are plenty of blogs and websites telling people that kids are OK after divorce, that abortion is OK, that remarriage is OK, that porn isn’t harmful, that pot is OK, etc. There needs to be a counter balance to that, a first person account of what it was like for a child to live under the “sexual liberation” ideology. That’s me, to a tee. My parents went along with the new “liberation” ideology, which meant that there is at least one child who had no sense of family because of it, one child who was constantly told who her family should be, then should not be, then should be, then should not be AND ON AND ON. This led to me being exposed to a lot of things that were confusing, painful and contradictory. I was supposed to be “resilient,” so I kept my mouth shut and coped as best I could, FEELING VERY ALONE. And not only feeling alone, but actually being alone in that place. Put another way: “sexual liberation” meant that I was the lone member of a “family,” which makes no sense if you haven’t lived it, but that’s how it was. I now see that “liberation” for the fraud that it is. I’m going to educate my kids about it, and I hope my efforts will help other people as well.

What is really mind blowing for people is that I was never sexually molested, and I know that my parents loved me in their own way. I was never hungry, always had clean clothes to wear, attended excellent schools, was well-liked by my teachers, got good grades for the most part, etc. They really didn’t think that I needed my own permanent family, and I blame:

  • the professionals
  • liberal religious leaders
  • politicians
  • the media

The people in power imagined that they could keep all of the benefits of the socially conservative family structure (a permanent triad of father, mother and children) while at the same time denigrating it, eroding it legally, and now officially throwing it away at the policy level.

“Intact family for me but not for thee,” that’s what I hear from the elites. Their hypocrisy disgusts me.

The State’s (very active) role in family breakdown

I was thinking more about how abortion and no-fault divorce are similar. Here’s a chart I made that shows it more clearly. I included another category: anonymous gamete donation.

How the State “frees” some at the expense of others

So you can see the pattern. In each case, the State is siding with one person (Party A) while simultaneously providing no legal defense for the other person (Party B). It is obviously unjust for the State to provide Party A with absolute control, and to deny Party B any legal means to stop the action.

Why is this happening? It’s because of how we view freedom. We believe that freedom includes being free from familial obligations. That is bad enough on its own and in fact, stating it that plainly makes it seem pathological. But what is even worse is that we believe that the State has an obligation to uphold that version of freedom, even though it is profoundly unjust for many people. In prior generations, I’m pretty sure this mindset would have been viewed as irresponsibility, not as freedom. Our forebears recognized the difference between liberty and license.

We are living in a time when an entire class of people (Party B) are summarily denied the opportunity for justice so that others can be “free” from their obligations (Party A). One way to view slavery is that the slave has no legal means to stop the slave-owner from doing certain things. That pattern is playing out today under the guise of sexual and reproductive “liberty.” This is more evidence those ideas are regressive. Some people get to be “free” while others, who are directly impacted by that “freedom,” are denied justice as a matter of course.

Now it should be obvious how active the State is in breaking down the family. So much family breakdown happens because of how the State has positioned itself. If the State provided a way for Party B to defend against the action, and denied Party A unilateral capacity to commit the action, so much family breakdown just wouldn’t happen.

See also:

Liberals vs. conservatives and “the oppressed”

Liberals are fond of talking about “the oppressed.” Conservatives are concerned about “the oppressed” too, we just define them differently. I almost posted this as a comment on somebody else’s blog but decided against it:

I think that one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives in the Church is how they define terms such as “the oppressed” and those “on the margins.” My definition of those terms includes any and all human life conceived and/or born by those who do not hold to the historical Christian understanding of sexual/reproductive ethics (ie, sex inside marriage only, and marriage as between one man and one woman). If any particular conception happens outside the historical Christian parameters, then that human life stands a greater chance of being oppressed through abortion or a fractured family structure. Their suffering certainly happens on the margins. Not only is that suffering invisible to the wider culture, the state is an active participant in the cause of that suffering.

Don’t let liberals get away with claiming the moral high ground on sexual/reproductive issues, especially if they are Catholic. For one thing, adults have options; the unborn and children do not. For another thing, our Catholic forebearers were correct in their defense of Catholic sexual/reproductive ethics. The fruit of losing those ethics is evidence of this fact. Finally, we are all Trinitarians, and God wrote the Trinity into our family structure. Liberal Catholics should not be allowed to discount this. As just one example, their embrace of same-sex marriage is tantamount to iconoclasm.

The sexual/reproductive “liberty” is regressive. Here are a few ways it is taking us backwards:

  • It justifies buying and selling human life
  • It justifies killing innocent human life
  • It justifies family structures that have been repudiated due to their oppressive nature to women and children (and the Christian concept of marriage was not unjust for women and children; quite the opposite in fact)

See also:

There are at least two pro-life contradictions

Even among those in the pro-life camp, there is controversy over using the sorts of images that appear in this video. I am in favor of it, but even so, I am not sure how much these images do for the cause, or how many people convert to the cause because of the images. Unfortunately, the “right to choose” is propped up by at least two more fundamental “rights,” “rights” many in the pro-life movement have embraced.

What this means is that, logically, the pro-life movement as a whole has embraced a contradiction. Many in it have embraced the more fundamental “rights” while arguing against the “right to choose.” If the more fundamental “rights” are true, then the “right to choose” is much more difficult to argue against. But if the more fundamental “rights” are false, then the “right to choose” is much easier to argue against. I wonder what would happen if everybody in the pro-life movement rejected the more fundamental “rights.”

Even so, slaughtering the unborn is barbaric no matter what contradictions those who oppose it hold. Innocent human life is inviolable.

See also:

If abortion is OK, why contracept?

My daughter, her husband, and I attended a prolife walk-a-thon last weekend. While we were walking, my daughter said:

“If abortion is OK, why do we have contraception?”

Smart girl. She is putting the pieces together. I’m so proud of her.

It’s a great question. If anybody reading this is pro-choice, would you mind sharing here why you contracept? I won’t argue with you. I am genuinely curious as to your thought process.

(Sexual) Freedom isn’t free

The unborn and children are the ones who bear the price for sexual freedom.

We know that freedom isn’t free. It is a popular saying among patriots. Somebody has to pay for liberty, with their life, with their limbs, with their sanity. It is an obvious fact of life.

Sexual liberty is the same. For some people to enjoy that liberty, others have to be dismembered, have to ache, have to suffer, have to cry, have to struggle for the rest of their lives with mental or emotional issues. We are completely comfortable with subjecting our unborn and our children to death and/or a perpetual states of chaos so that we can exercise this most cherished freedom.

Our government has taken sides in this fight, in favor of adults having access to unrestricted orgasms. It shields them from the consequences of their sexual activity, thereby becoming an active participant in what happens to the victims.

Let’s compare real liberty with the false idea of “sexual liberty.” Who benefits and who pays?

Matrix of real liberty vs. sexual liberty

Just war for real liberty The fight for “sexual liberty”
The beneficiaries General citizenry Adults who fight against restrictions on male orgasms
The cost-bearers The military The unborn, children, discarded sex partners

The unborn and children, who are weak, vulnerable, helpless, and needy, serve the same role as the military, with their strong men, equipment, machinery, training, leadership, and ability to choose whether or not to take that risk.

I was going to put some photos of each type here (military injuries, abortion) but they were too horrific. Suffice to say that both are bloody and shocking and so are quite similar in that respect. We can also think of veterans who suffer with PTSD, as well as children who experience mental and emotional disturbances as a result of family-structure failure.

That’s not very flattering for sexual liberty’s beneficiaries, is it? They are monsters and they don’t even know it. But they are not beyond redemption and I don’t mean to imply that they are. While we live there is always hope. But advocacy for tearing a small human out of his mother’s womb is monstrous. It embodies the very definition of monster:

an inhumanly cruel and wicked person

Put another way: if tearing a small human out of his mother’s womb, for the purpose of causing his death, is not wicked, then nothing is wicked. So thank God some people are upholding the definition of “wicked.” It is a legitimate category.

If you’ve done wicked things, welcome to the club! So have I (not abortion, but other things). But we can’t keep doing them and we can’t condone others doing them. We have to stop and turn around.

Sexual liberty is a pagan, selfish, bloody, murderous, torturous ideology. No Christian should have anything to do with it.

might makes right 2

Communism and the individual

Libertarianism is known for being concerned with the individual, but people are often surprised to learn that Marxism is as well. Until fairly recently I was under the impression that Marxists were only concerned about growing the power of the state, but after doing my own research I discovered that this is a gross mischaracterization of their intent. Here are a few quotes from to show what I mean:

Socialism means the freeing of the individual from the fetters which weigh upon him under the capitalistic system. (Source)

Quite contrary to commonly accepted ideas it was an intensely humane and tenderly sympathetic spirit that gave birth to Marxism. The widespread impression that there is something remote, cold, and inhuman about the persons and theories of Marx and Engels, and something crippling, regimenting and enslaving about the order of society they sought – that capitalism, with its play on the words individual, individualistic, laissez-faire, revealed a warmth and a human understanding which these others lacked – is wholly false and utterly belied by the Russian society based on Marxian principles. The precise opposite is indeed the truth. The activities of Marx and Engels sprang from a consuming compassion aroused by the trail of horror that marked the course of capitalism; it issued in a widespread amelioration of human suffering. (Source)

We need scarcely say that the notion that the maximum of Socialism corresponds to the minimum of individual liberty is as preposterous a travesty of any great principle as ever entered the perversest head of man. Socialism demands the greatest possible liberty (or licence if you will) of the individual, limited only by the condition of its not infringing on the principle of equality of liberty… one of the aims of Socialism is the minimisation of the positive and mechanical coercion by society of the individual in all departments at human life. (Source)

I’m not proof-texting. Here is a site search for the word “individual” at There are about 17,000 results. Read a few examples for yourself to see what I mean.

Search for the word “individual” at