Thomas Russell Wingate  

July 2012, May 2014   

October 2014     






I have been saying for decades that there ought to be some sort of shrine for the victims of abortion, but that I had no suggestions as to what it ought to look like.


There should also be a universally recognizable emblem. I favor the life-sized “precious feet” of a ten-week-old baby in utero.




Architects’ drawings of a proposed International Pro-Life Memorial and National Life Center are on the Internet. If it gets built as intended, it will be in Wichita, Kansas.


Sixty crosses on a lawn are to represent sixty million victims.


A replica of the Kotel¹ in Jerusalem is to loom over modernistic buildings.


“Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not”² is the theme of an impressive cenotaph topped by a cross of South American size.




I find geometric minimalism more persuasive than the repetitive use of symbols we have all seen before.


Here, now, are my suggestions:


(a)      There should be a long rectangular reflecting pool with stone benches along it. (I am thinking of the Lincoln Memorial.)


(b)     At one end of the reflecting pool there should be a paved area with eleven tall panels of polished black marble or granite. (I am thinking of the Vietnam Memorial.)


(c)     The panels should be arranged in a gentle arc. The two end panels should be blank. The other panels, from the viewers’ left to right, should contain gold circles which increase in size. These nine panels represent nine months of completed pregnancy. This is why the circles are not the same size, and why the end panels (pre-conception, post-partum) are blank.


(d)     Aside from the circles (18K at least), there should be no inscription whatsoever.


(e)      The arc with nine circles will be iconic. Families will want to be photographed in front of it.


(f)      Not far away one should be able to stand beside, and perhaps upon, three squares of single-colored hexagonal tiles arranged ten by ten.


Each square is to contain tiles of a different color.


          In the first, each tile means one—this demonstrates one hundred.


In the next, each tile means one hundred—this demonstrates ten thousand.


In the third, each tile means ten thousand—this demonstrates one million.


The purpose of all this is to get it across, even to children, how large a number one million is—not to speak of sixty million, increasing daily.


(g)     The victims of abortion can be best represented by sixty hexagonal columns of gray granite, about up to a man’s waist. A circular recess in the top of the granite will hold a (carefully affixed) sphere of red marble or red granite.


          No inscription of any sort would be required or appropriate.


(h)     The columns and their spheres should be arranged in a spiral, indicating that more (and worse) is happening now.


(i)      A life-sized statue of Rachel Weeping should be nearby, but no cenotaph is needed.


(j)      No cross should be part of this exactly because it is so familiar that it ceases to provoke thought or emotion. Besides, nowadays there is much alienation from what was long prized.


          If symbols are divisive, create new symbols.




My scheme has obvious and sudden advantages over the Wichita plan.


For one thing, it ignores the Kotel completely. The savings, in money and in reputation, would be enormous.


For another, it sidesteps the sterility of traditional religious art. Being Protestants, the Wichita planners did not stop to ask themselves: “What do we think this shrine of ours will do that the Virgin of Guadalupe is not doing already?”


Finally, my idea will be self-financing. Dignified replicas of the symbols I propound can be made and sold all over the world.


Why stay in Kansas?




How do we remember the Aztecs? Go ahead, answer: what came into your mind first?


Will America be remembered differently?




California Medicine (around 1973):


The very considerable semantic gymnastics required to rationalize abortion as anything else but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.  




Let us employ or invent terms of our own selection.


Persistence rocks, or wrecks, the cradle.


Your mother was a natalist.


Anti-natalists befog language to deceive even themselves.


Their “choice” is to lie about their motives.


An abortion is a deproductive wrong.




An unforgettable but inexpensive visual protest against permitted abortion has been made in Ottawa. In October 2014 grasses on Parliament Hill were temporarily planted with 100,000 small flags, alternately pink and blue, to remind Canadians of the girls and boys refused birth every year. The exhibit, the exhortation, the reprimand, extended 400 meters.





1 Wikipedia will satisfy the most ardent curiosity.

2 Matthew 2:18, echoing Jeremiah 31:15



Print This Page