Opinions: do you like this letter to a pro-abortion politician?

Congressional Representantive Carolyn Maloney is about as hardcore pro-abortion as you can be without actually joining a rural Chinese forced-abortion posse. Tonight I was perusing her website and found, of all the things in the world, a “Kid’s Page”!!! I drafted this letter in reaction. Tell me what you think.

						November 17, 2008

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney
2331 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Maloney,

I notice that your website contains a Kids’ Page with the following phrase: “I represent ALL people in New York’s 14th district, including kids like you!”  I am glad to see your commitment to represent kids.  As you know, abortion is the primary cause of death among the kids you represent in New York’s 14th district, and I write to inquire what you are doing to stop it.

Your constituents are being killed in gruesome ways.  First-trimester abortions are most often performed by shredding the baby limb from limb with a plastic vacuum tube which pulls the body parts into a bottle (suction aspiration).   Another common first-trimester abortion technique is the chopping of the baby into pieces with a loop-shaped steel knife (dilation and curettage).  Second-trimester abortions are most often performed by using forceps to twist off legs and arms of the baby, after which the skull is crushed (dilation and evacuation).  The most difficult part of this technique is that the baby’s head often floats away inside the uterus after decapitation, requiring several tries for the abortionist to finally catch it.   Horrors such as these occur daily among your constituency.  

Tragically, many public officials fail to distinguish between serving the public and killing the public.  Abortion is not just a “religious issue” or “womens’ issue.”  Abortion is the ripping off of arms and legs of little babies, and the crushing of their skulls.  Please advise me how you plan to protect kids, whom you acknowledge you represent, from this hideous fate.  What action do you plan to take to protect the unborn children of New York’s 14th district?
						Very truly yours,


						[gamera's name here]

pc: District Offices

Any good?

It’s a well written letter. Here’s my little nit-picky suggestions. I only offer these because they are solicited, not to be the grammar police in any way.

I’d take the quotes off of religions issue “religious issue” and “womens’ issue”, it sounds less condescending.

Also, it’s women’s, not womens’

“Abortion is the ripping off of arms and legs of little babies” may be grammatically correct (I’m not sure), but the “off of” doesn’t read well. I’d reword it to something like “Abortion is ripping off arms and legs of little babies”

I think “Please advise me how” should be “Please advise me on how”

That’s great. I sure hope that Carolyn reads it.

Thanks. I wound up editing the third paragraph down by removing those first two lines, so the paragraph now begins with “Please advise …” and I followed your suggesting to make it read “on how.”

Thanks for your help. Let’s hope someone in her office at least considers it.

Thanks. She may or may not read it. I once interned for a state legislator and they basically wanted to know the gist of their letters (via interns and staffers) without having to read them. Some letters do get through to the actual legislator, and a lot don’t, but at a bare minimum at least someone on her staff will read it. Plus, hey, every pro-life letter to a politician is another headache for Planned Parenthood.

:tiphat: :clapping: Excellent letter. There’s nothing like describing the procedure to make it clear how evil abortion is. It’s not like removing a mole. A little skull is crushed. Little limbs are ripped loose. The baby struggles to get away. If more mothers knew this they would run from the “clinics” of destruction.:frowning:
Thank you.

I am not sure I see the point. Looking at the Rep.'s website it seems that there has been reasonable support for some pro-life issues. Why not try building on common ground instead of lecturing?

We are at a point in this country where we cannot even vote for a major party presidential candidate who holds the Church’s position on abortion. The candidate widely considered ‘most’ correct on abortion, Sarah Palin, told the AP in 2006 that it wasn’t her place to push her views on the public. Based on the op’eds and open letters in the Anchorage Daily News, this was a position she has held to in state office.

We are directly instructed in the Catechism to view the words and deeds of others in the most favorable light. Even when we reluctantly reach the conclussion that others are in moral error, we are supposed to convince and instruct in the spirit of kindness. If you have a politician who has some real empathy for woman’s and children’s health, why not build on that common ground for the benefit of all? Such a candidate would probably be open to helping to support alternatives to abortion and minimizing causal factors in abortions.

Cooperation would both help society at large, and offer opportunities for the politician’s understanding of the breadth and scope of our view of human life to grow. If you start the conversation by calling someone a baby killer, are you really looking to effect positive change? I always ask myself, which character in Luke 18:9-14 am I most emulating?

Reasonable cooperation on pro-life issues? I note that Rep. Maloney has been a given a 100% approval rating from NARAL, so they must consider her pretty much to the pro-abortion side of the equation. It may be that she does need to confront the reality of what abortion is.

I think it’s great you’re speaking up! I have a few suggestions, some of which Jefe_Wyatt already covered.

I suggest you remove the phrase “limb from limb,” as it seems your letter speaks of limbs a bit much. I think the sentence sounds better overall if it just says: “performed by shredding the baby with (or into) a plastic vacuum tube…”

I think you missed out on a word; I believe you mean “twist off *the *legs and arms”

Personally, I’m in favor of keeping the first sentence of the third paragraph; I thought it was excellent. So you don’t have to go back and figure out what sentence I’m talking about, it’s this one:

And that’s it. Hope you haven’t already sent the letter!

When someone brings up NARAL we are already thinking in political terms. McCain has a very reasonable rating, but from a Catholic point of view, he has some very serious flaws on the issue of life, including an evil position on abortion.

If one spends a lot of time immersed in politics, this can be confusing. If you define ‘life’ as ‘abortion’, you are already so far removed from Catholic teaching that discussion is probably difficult, if not impossible.

If, on the other hand, you use the Church’s definition of life, which is conception to natural death, in ever possible condition, then you should be able to find common ground with any politician who is committing any energy to the common good.

Put it this way, if someone from the Westborro Baptist Church protests a funeral and shouts “fag church!” at me, I am going to try to tune it out. Even if they hand me pictures of a supposed priest molesting a child, I am going to be a Catholic. Sick to my stomach, but a Catholic. If you want to convince someone of anything, you have to make an effort to relate to them and build on common ground. Lecturing, particularly the shrieking, self rightous kind, is easiest to tune out because it is hypocritical and not particularly Christian. We all have sins to confess and all have unworthiness to recall, so playing Pharisee just encourages the person we are talking down to to see themselves as the Publican.

If you want moral authority, try to communicate with the compassion of Christ. You just can’t get any more credible than Him!

I intend to communicate with compassion; but I also do not intend to downplay the evil of tolerating a million abortion deaths per year. A large number of Catholic Bishops saw fit to speak out on the issue, and they spoke with authority and compassion, indicating the overriding importance of this issue for Catholics.

But in trying to address this evil, many Catholics are choosing some degree of cooperation with intrinsic evil (ex. voting for a ‘lesser of evils’). These choices are potentially licit, but they still involve evil, so we should be very careful making relative moral comparisons to others.

Notice that, in the Gospels, Jesus was often confronted with moral gotcha’s, but never had to select a lesser evil. He always saw the true relationship to natural law clearly and always chose a path that was inarguably just and challenged his attackers in a way that permitted their salvation.

We are not Jesus, so we often muddle along and make the best choices that we can. But having failed to emulate Jesus’ example fully, we should be suitably humble and aware of our own imperfections.

If it is not clear, I am trying to use examples because I am merely trying to convey some understanding of my point of view. I am not even asking you to agree with it, just understand it.

The reality is that even 40% of regular church going Catholics believe in some level of legalized abortion. We procure about 27% of the abortions in the US, which appears disproportionately high for our demographic. US Catholic hospitals perform tens of thousands of abortive procedures each year which would not be licit in countries in Central and South America with solid Catholic majorities.

We have to change hearts and minds. I happen to think that common ground and building on it is the best way. A deeply held belief must be fully integrated into a person’s complete world view. Find the common ground (would you beat your own newborn to death? No, great we agree), then gently, insistantly build.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.