« Pope to CDF | Main | Old News is Good News »
February 10, 2006
An ode for Annie...
Ms. Jesus Freak lets loose on abortion. Annie Lamott:
EVERYTHING WAS going swimmingly on the panel. The subject was politics and faith, and I was on stage with two clergymen with progressive spiritual leanings, and a moderator who is liberal and Catholic. We were having a discussion with the audience of 1,300 people in Washington about many of the social justice topics on which we agree — the immorality of the federal budget, the wrongness of the president's war in Iraq. Then an older man came to the mike and raised the issue of abortion, and everyone just lost his or her mind.
Or, at any rate, I did.
Maybe it was the way in which the man couched the question, which was about how we should reconcile our progressive stances on peace and justice with the "murder of a million babies every year in America." The man who asked the question was soft-spoken, neatly and casually dressed.
First Richard, a Franciscan priest, answered that this is indeed a painful issue but that it is not the only "pro-life" issue that progressives — even Catholics — should concern themselves with during elections. There are also the matters of capital punishment and the war in Iraq, and of HIV. Then Jim, an evangelical, spoke about the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the need to diffuse abortion as a political issue, by welcoming pro-choice and pro-life supporters to the discussion, with equal respect for their positions. He spoke gently about how "morally ambiguous" the issue is.
I sat there simmering, like a samovar; nice Jesusy me. The moderator turned to me and asked quietly if I would like to respond. I did: I wanted to respond by pushing over our table.
Instead, I shook my head. I love and respect the Franciscan and the evangelical, and agree with them 90-plus percent of the time. So I did not say anything, at first.
Then, when I was asked to answer the next question, I paused, and returned to the topic of abortion. There was a loud buzzing in my head, the voice of reason that says, "You have the right to remain silent," but the voice of my conscience was insistent. I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion — one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) — but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.
Also, I wanted to wave a gun around, to show what a real murder looks like. This tipped me off that I should hold my tongue, until further notice. And I tried....
Then I said that a woman's right to choose was nobody else's goddamn business. This got their attention.
A cloud of misery fell over the room, and the stage. Finally, Jim said something unifying enough for us to proceed — that liberals must not treat people with opposing opinions on abortion with contempt and exclusion, partly because it's tough material, and partly because it is so critical that we win these next big elections.
It was not until the reception that I finally realized part of the problem — no one had told me that the crowd was made up largely of Catholics.
I had flown in at dawn on a red-eye, and, in my exhaustion, had somehow missed this one tiny bit of information. I was mortified: I had to eat my body weight in chocolate just to calm myself.
But then I asked myself: Would I, should I, have given a calmer answer? Wouldn't it have been more useful and harder to dismiss me if I had sounded more reasonable, less — what is the word — spewy?
Oh, so sorry, Annie. Sorry that the Catholics were cool to your Gospel of Choice.
Here's my question. Annie Lammott is convinced and overjoyed that Jesus loves her. She's been talking about for ages now. Jesus, loves, accepts and gives Annie strength.
So. Why does Jesus love Annie and not the little quiet mini-Annies in the womb?
(Thanks to Patrick Rothwell for finding a link to the conference in question - Richard Rohr and Jim Wallis were the offending squishes. Wow.)
And yes, Annie Lamott is post-abortive. She wrote in one of her books about her experience of a sense of Jesus' presence in the wake of it. It was a powerful scene.
Update: A reader adds this almost first-hand account in the comments below:
...husband and I attended part of the conference Anne Lamott is writing about. skipped the Sunday evening session, and her tantrum. our friends relate that it was like a bomb dropping in the room, destroyed all the goodwill and peace built up over the course of the weekend. so sad. she has to deny it is a life, in order to live with herself, I guess.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83465800669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An ode for Annie...:
» A frightening pro-abortion essay from writingUp
It is with great trepidation that I admit the topic of abortion into my blog. It is a subject about which I am passionate. I am unapologetically pro-life. I hold sacred all human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. I have be [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 10, 2006 5:40:40 PM
» Lamott's Leftism from Stones Cry Out
At his Reformissionary site, Steve McCoy points to this morning's piece by Dr. Al Mohler concerning a pro-choice outburst by Christian author Anne Lamott. You can read Mohler's piece here. Also read Amy Welborn's take on the subject. It was... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 20, 2006 10:31:32 PM
Comments
Amy asks: "So. Why does Jesus love Annie and not the little quiet mini-Annies in the womb?"
Zhou answers, referring to Annie's own words: Because she is not befuddled by "patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies"? Because she is not "some microscopic" thing "no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for, but one of the "real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the current administration." Maybe that is why? At least in her head.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Feb 10, 2006 2:42:44 PM
In other words:
"It's not the Holocaust if I, personally, benefit."
PVO
Posted by: mulopwepaul at Feb 10, 2006 2:47:26 PM
My God. Is she really that self-centered (not to mention utterly stupid)?
Posted by: John Farrell at Feb 10, 2006 2:51:09 PM
And as Ms. Lammott also said:
"We must not inflict life on children who will be resented"
'Inflict life on children', I can't find the right words, but that seems to be one of the most appalling phrases I've ever heard come from the pro-abortion side. Even in the Internet age of decapitation videos, these people can still shock.
Posted by: Otho Laurence at Feb 10, 2006 2:57:33 PM
Ditto, John.
What a mishmash of semantics.
Posted by: Lynn at Feb 10, 2006 3:10:10 PM
Hunnh?: "The most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that."
Posted by: Kathy at Feb 10, 2006 3:16:14 PM
Amy asks: "So. Why does Jesus love Annie and not the little quiet mini-Annies in the womb?"
Answer: Annie is much bigger and more powerful than little Annie.
"I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion — one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) — but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right."
What great insight into the minds of a tyrant.
Posted by: David R. at Feb 10, 2006 3:16:55 PM
"the born person must be allowed to decide what is right."
Apparently that decision may be made (even by a putative Christian!) without any reference to objective standards of right and wrong. How amazingly convenient!
Posted by: Gregg the obscure at Feb 10, 2006 3:17:49 PM
The most interesting part:
"Also, I wanted to wave a gun around, to show what a real murder looks like. This tipped me off that I should hold my tongue . . ."
Something inside that conscience of hers told her that a related sometning in the consciences of others might be repulsed by so demonstrating the logic of her belief. She should spend more time with those somethings.
Posted by: Liam at Feb 10, 2006 3:18:35 PM
I'm sorry, maybe this oversimplifies things, and I do understand that there are socio-economic issues at work as well... but if we "shouldn't inflict life on children" - then maybe we shouldn't have sex until we're in a place where we'd like to rethink that statement?
L
Posted by: Lourdes at Feb 10, 2006 3:20:55 PM
I'm amazed that a pro-choicer is as annoyed with the "seamless garment" dilution as most pro-lifers are.
Posted by: Other Marc at Feb 10, 2006 3:25:47 PM
We should stand with the seamless garment against the extremists on both sides.
Posted by: Tony A at Feb 10, 2006 3:27:07 PM
...and three cheers for the Franciscan, who demonstrated the true, masculine courage so often found in Catholic priests and religious.
Posted by: Bubbles at Feb 10, 2006 3:28:42 PM
It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.
I don't know why this isn't carried out to its logical conclusion. I called into a radio station during the Terri Shiavo debacle, to object. If Terri's life is defined by her usefulness, her quality, and if life has no meaning beyond enjoyment, we are nothing more than animals. We mind as well go into the streets of Calcutta and put a bullet in everyone's brain.
Why don't we kill all the miserable, suffering masses in the world? And whatever the reason, why isn't that same logic applied to the unwanted unborn?
Posted by: Jason at Feb 10, 2006 3:31:57 PM
Well, when you have M&M's for "communion" what do you expect? Sanity?
I'm no longer surprised, but thankfully sickened and saddened by the twists and turns pro-abortion people must do to legitimize their campaign. I'm a rational, intellectually honest, debate lovin' girl, but I cannot comprehend (though I've tried) how they come up with this incomprehension.
I wish it were just the chocolate talking.
Posted by: JenB at Feb 10, 2006 3:34:06 PM
For what it's worth. Here is a link to the conference in question which was sponsored by Sojourner's Magazine. It is quite interesting that it was Richard Rohr and Jim Wallis that made her near-postal.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=p&NewsID=5140
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Feb 10, 2006 3:34:49 PM
Lamotte also writes: "I have had my abortions."
Never underestimate the role of personal experience in the psychology of the pro-choice position.
Lord have mercy on Anne Lamotte.
Posted by: Prayer at Feb 10, 2006 3:40:29 PM
Annie needs to hear that "a person's a person, no matter how small".
She needs to understand that being is goodness.
That life is a good in itself even if it is lived in less than perfect conditions.
When I read what she wrote I heard the genuine authentic voice of a person whose thoughts, understanding, and way of seeing are so different from mine, I don't know how to bridge the gap.
I was struck by the "wanted to show them what murder looks like." Suppose she shot the man and he crashed to the floor with blood coming out of him. That's what murder looks like. Then look at one of those so often abominated aborted fetus pictures...the tiny severed arm,hand, and fingers... That's what murder looks like too..and a more extended and violent murder too. The victim is just smaller.
And why can't we convince her that giving life is better for women than destroying their own children within their bodies. Why? Why is this so hard to see? Most women who considered abortion and then went ahead and had their babies don't resent them; they love them and can hardly bear to think they might have had them killed before they were born. And so many who did have abortions long for the children they had killed and would do anything to be able to redo the decision and give birth.
Why is it so hard to convey this?
By the way, let us commend the courage of the man who stood up and spoke for the unborn at this panel. That can't have been easy. And the opposite to that Franciscan who sold out the unborn for his liberal mess of pottage.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Feb 10, 2006 3:45:18 PM
Urgh, Lamotte's words indeed are serpentine semantics if I heard one. Just goes to show that even though she loves Christ and believes he loves her, she'd rather not imitate him. Christ gave himself up so that others may live, while Lamotte would rather give up others so that she may live.
Posted by: Pax Christi at Feb 10, 2006 3:48:21 PM
"It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present."
What this woman is really saying is: "Am I my brother's keeper?"
And she's twisting it around to make it a moral necessity to say NO, YOU AREN'T.
These people are seriously twisted...
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Feb 10, 2006 3:51:34 PM
I guess I am going to have to let my ignorance show - who is Annie Lamotte?
Posted by: anne at Feb 10, 2006 4:02:22 PM
She seems to think you can only be "responsible and adoring and present" on your own terms, when you choose to. If she is a believer, doesn't she understand that God gives out the assignments? Once there is a new life growing inside you...even if it got there because you were raped, you have an assignment from God to cherish it, to let it grow, to eat good food, avoid alcohol and drugs, and give birth to it, because you are the only one who can do that. After that, you can give it up for adoption to others who want to cherish it, if you can't do it yourself. (But if you lived in a world where giving a baby up meant leaving it to die, then you would still have an assignment from God to put it to your breast and nourish it, and to do your best to raise it, to show it kindness and give it guidance and teaching. Whether you ever planned to have a baby or not. )God might give you an assignment to take care of your aging father or sick spouse, and that might not fit in with your life plans either. And there is no saying that it is unfair that God gives this assignment of growing a baby only to women. That's HIS plan-are you going to argue with it? Were you there when he created great whales? (Job)
But I am preaching to the choir here. I want to be talking to Annie. (Is this the Annie of Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? Or a different Annie. Sorry, I don't recognize the name.)
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Feb 10, 2006 4:03:09 PM
What? Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM, did not stand against abortion? Impossible! Isn't he the same Catholic priest who wrote:
We want absolutes and a reference point so bad, we actually manufacture some, whether they are, in fact, absolutes at all. The Bible has made it very clear that the only absolute is God himself, and not any moral stance, nation, country, church, or explanation. Neither abortion nor homosexuality were ever a litmus test for Christian belief for the first 2000 years of the church! Only the Creed. Jesus never once talked about either of them. If any moral position, was held absolute for the first 300 years, it was this: Christians would be non violent, and would take care of the poor. Jesus talked plenty about both of these (That is historical and Biblical record).(Source)It does not seem to matter that power, greed, deceit, capital punishment, oppression of the poor, imperialism, arrogance, and war mongering are also immoral, and clearly non-Gospel and non-family values. These are vices that the American conservative does not worry about at all, in fact, Western capitalism is built on them--so they cannot be recognized as important or moral issues. (For the most part, liberalism does not critique them either, however. Notice that Kerry could not really disagree with the war, or our basic consumerism, materialism, capital punishment, or American imperialism.)
At any rate, it leaves Democrats in election after election, looking like the fuzzy "allowers" instead of the principled believers. That is the way the "red states" think, and represents the culture war that the liberals do not understand. Jim Wallis would strongly recommend Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas? as the best analysis of what has happened in America. As I quoted in the last Radical Grace, "the Right is Wrong, but the Left just doesn't get it"!
In a word, the Republics have overwhelmingly succeeded at GETTING PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN ACTUAL SELF INTEREST by an appeal to what looks like moral high ground. Fits everything I know about ego structuring and the inner search for righteousness. This has actually outweighed people's concerns for terrorism, the economy, truth, life itself, etc. Many Hispanics, blacks, and poor people actually voted for Bush, even though he structurally cares nothing about them. But he makes them feel like they are standing for something moral! That is all the insecure ego needs.
In the upcoming years we must find ways to address this "body oriented" morality, which has always held churchy people captive, but now seems to be widespread. The body holds human shame and inferiority, and people can be most controlled at that level--just as the elders tried to do with the woman caught in Adultery, and America tried to do in the Clinton/Lewinksy debacle. No matter that Bill Clinton's lies did not kill 100,000 Iraqi people! We want body morality, not really a demanding Biblical morality. No concern about social values, or justice values, or basic truthfulness, just puritanical concern for keeping human bodies so called "pure," by preoccupation with issues like abortion, those terrible gays, and stem cell research. All of which can be addressed by a more nuanced morality. But America does not like nuance or compassion. We like sound bite morality and quick put downs (on both sides, by the way).
Few of us, Democrats or Republicans, Evangelicals or Catholic, are consistently pro-life at all. But we are all "pro moral superiority", which allows us to feel moral, while actually risking nothing or going nowhere genuinely new. (Note that neither Reagan nor Bush have actually risked any political capital to oppose abortion, they just SAY they are against it. It is merely verbal one upmanship, and Americans are foolish enough to buy it). These body issues, these pretensions at being pro-life, demand very little change of 90% of the population, but allow us to remain preoccupied with trying to change others. How convenient for the ego. How disturbing for the future of religion and state.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Feb 10, 2006 4:03:43 PM
I do not understand how someone can claim to be Christian and support abortion. Abortion contractdicts the heart of what Jesus preached. Jesus preached love and giving oneself up for others (which are the same thing) and every abortion results from a failure to live up to this.
When I first heard the "every child a wanted child" slogan I thought it was a pro-life slogan, and it still sounds that way to me. Whenever I hear or read it, I think yes, that's right, let us love every child.
Posted by: Dan at Feb 10, 2006 4:03:44 PM
"a link to the conference in question - Richard Rohr and Jim Wallis were the offending squishes. Wow.)"
How did I know it would be Rohr and Wallis?!!
Posted by: midwestmom at Feb 10, 2006 4:04:27 PM



















