It was disturbing enough that a young mother filmed her abortion for the world to see. But what she said a month and a half later was even more disturbing. Sickening would be a better word.
As reported by the New York Daily News, "Emily Letts, 25, a counselor for the Cherry Hill Women's Center decided she wanted to share a positive message when she became pregnant and had an abortion in November."
A "positive message" about terminating a precious little life?
According to Emily, "I know there are women who feel great remorse. I have seen the tears. Grieving is an important part of a woman's process, but what I really wanted to address in my video is guilt."
Of course, they should feel remorse and shed tears. After all, they are mothers who have experienced the miracle of conception and who now carry a tiny little, defenseless baby in their womb. And of course they should grieve.
But in this case, they are feeling remorse for their own decision and grieving over their own actions. The pain is self-induced.
That's why pro-life advocates urge moms to look at an ultrasound before aborting their children. The vast majority of those who do choose to keep their babies.
If Emily was motivated by love, she should have taken videos of the crying, grieving, remorseful, post-abortive mothers. How sobering this would be for others to watch who are wrestling with having an abortion because of extreme circumstances and pressures.
Emily, however, seems oblivious to a mother's natural grief, explaining, "Even though they know 110 percent that this is the best decision for them, they pressure themselves to feel bad about it."
To the contrary, the truth is that years later, many women still question their decision to have an abortion, and they hardly need to "pressure themselves to feel bad about it."
Yet there's more.
About 45 days after the abortion, Emily said, "I don't feel like a bad person. I don't feel sad. I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can make a life."
So, Emily is in "awe of the fact that [she] can make a baby," that she "can make a life." Is she also in awe of the fact that she can also take the life that she "made"? That she can make a baby and then kill that baby?
As for the moral basis of her decision, it articulates the narcissistic, me-first mentality of this generation. As Emily explained, "I knew that what I was going to do was right because it was right for me and no one else."
Her little baby, robbed of life while still in her mother's womb, would certainly say to his or her mother: "Mom, this may have been right for you – although I seriously question that as your child – but it was certainly not right for me."
Did Emily ask what was "right" for her baby?
In his important new book, Making Gay Okay, Robert Reilly points to testimony at the Nuremberg trials by Dr. Karl Brandt, Adolf Hitler's personal physician, "who had been in charge of the Nazi regime's Aktion T-4 euthanasia program to eliminate 'life unworthy of life.' He said in his defense: 'When I said "yes" to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was right.
Death can mean deliverance. Death is life.' He was hanged for war crimes in 1948." It was perverse thinking like this that helped fuel the madness of Nazi Germany.
Reilly noted that in the book The Sacrament of Abortion, Jungian analyst Ginette Paris "calls for 'new rituals as well as laws to restore to abortion its sacred dimension.' Defending the right to partial-birth abortions during a US Senate debate, Senator Barbara Boxer assured her colleagues that mothers who have aborted their children by this means 'buried those babies with love.'"
Reilly then observes, "If abortion is love, then, indeed, as Dr. Brandt said, 'death is life.'"
Emily, there is nothing positive about abortion, and the miracle from God is that you can be part of making a life, not taking it. Death will never be life and abortion will never be love.