So you Think You’re Pro-life? Think Again ~ Beneath the Surface with Paul Murano

By: Paul Murano – March. 2016

Paul Murano is the winner of a 2014 Valley Patriot President's Award. He is the cohost of Paying Attention and has been writing for the Valley Patriot since 2004
Paul Murano is the winner of a 2014 Valley Patriot President’s Award and has been writing for the Valley Patriot since 2004

One presidential candidate the other day was accused of being too pro-life. Is that possible? Can a person value human life too much?

If you’ve read this column in the past or have heard the Cheap inflatable water slides Beneath the Surface radio show, you know that I value clarity over almost everything. It appears very clear to me that most people who call themselves pro-life are not, but are in fact pro-choice. This is because the term ‘pro-life’ includes being against all killing, harming, or impeding of innocent human life; and it necessarily includes three vital facets to which most so-called pro-lifers do not ascribe.

First, it is reasonable to conclude that most “pro-lifers” continuously abort their own children and do not even know it. That is because many use the IUD, Depo Provera, the morning after pill, or, most commonly, the common birth control pill. The main aim of the birth control pill is for the artificial hormones in its chemical composition to suppress ovulation to render conception impossible. This, however, is not always effective. Yet, when conception does occur there is a fail-safe: the hormones thin out the lining of the mother’s uterus, making it impossible for the tiny child to attach to the endometrium. This results in flushing out of tiny embryonic babies from the mother’s body without her even knowing it. Only God knows, therefore, if on the pill for any length of time, how many times a woman has aborted.

Second is the notion of “exceptions”. This is popular among politicians who want to claim to be pro-life but not “too pro-life”. This usually includes exceptions for rape and the life of the mother. With today’s technology it is very rare, if not non-existent, to find a case where the doctor would have to choose between the child and the mother. The rare cases when there is an ectopic pregnancy or when a cancerous uterus threatens the mother’s life, when both parties are medically certain to die, it is licit to remove the uterus or the diseased part of the fallopian tube to save the mother. In these cases the intent is to save one life when both would otherwise die, and the child is never directly attacked. This literally would be a lifesaving operation rather than an abortion. Regarding rape, we need to ask whether we should punish an innocent child for the crime of his or her criminal father. While the woman is the victim of a horrible crime, two wrongs never make things right. If you were to survey victims of rape who have kept their babies and those who have aborted them, it is clear that abortion compounds the pain and suffering experienced by the women. Rebecca Kiessling, herself the result of rape, heads a network of women who were conceived in rape, emphasizing their right to life as no less valuable that ours (

Lastly, most “pro-lifers” support practices that impede human life, contributing to our culture of death. These include contraception, in vitro fertilization, and homosexual acts. As discussed in prior columns, choosing to impede or pervert the natural end of sexual union, seeks to separate pleasure from purpose, as bulimia does for eating, and is an intrinsically disordered act. The practice of in vitro fertilization has the added problem by destroying embryos that are no longer “needed” in the process. Additionally, the contraceptive mentality overall rationalizes illicit relationships and sees the conceived baby as a “mistake” that needs “fixing” rather than a gift that needs loving. Every nation that has accepted abortion has first accepted contraception as its precursor and foundation. Most ‘pro-lifers’ fail to realize that abortion will not end until contraception is first rejected.

By supporting the “choice” to practice acts that destroy, impede, or disregard human life, many pro-lifers are unwittingly “pro-choice”. While they oppose the 60 million surgical prenatal homicides (abortions) performed since 1973, they ignore the 250 million caused by chemical abortions, the millions more killed or frozen in suspended animation by the in-vitro process, and the impeding of countless potential human beings through acts which violate natural law that uphold our culture of death. Condoning or supporting any of these anti-life practices is being anything but pro-life.