STAND FOR LIFE

Guest Post - Miss M.'s Story

2008-11-14T17:00:00.000-08:00

This is from a contact that the street ministry of Created4Life had in the UK. Their site is www.created4life.org.

I’m 17. I got pregnant at 15 and had my son at 16 - he is now 15 months. My mum tried to make me have an abortion but there is no way I could ever go through that. People say when you have kids young you ruin your life. It’s not true. I stayed at school all the way through my pregnancy - I was 9 months pregnant doing my GCSE exams! My son is the best thing that ever happened to me. I might not be working now but 1’m planning to work, go to college and hopefully uni. I don’t understand why people have abortions - if you don’t want to get pregnant, use contraception. Why would you want to kill a new life? It’s not the baby’s fault you got pregnant, so why kill it?? Just think about what you’re really doing. Abortion could also prevent you having kids later. Use your heads!!“ Miss M.

2008-11-12T19:27:00.000-08:00

This is the winner of the Pro-Life Video Activism Contest held by Students for Life of America. The entry is from the University of Florida Pro-Life Alliance. For full results go to www.studentsforlife.org

The Holocaust Of The Unborn

2008-11-10T03:58:00.000-08:00

Many opinions of issues in our society recently have been influenced by just the words in the title. For example, when the United States Congress couldn't get much support for the financial bailout package, they changed "bailout" to "rescue," which sounded much more palatable. Illegal aliens in America are often called undocumented workers. "Illegal" sounds too harsh, but if they just had the proper documents, they would be fine. Prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay are called detainees. Terrorists have been described as enemy combatants or even freedom fighters. Liberals in this country now want to be called progressives, because progress has such a nice connotation to it. If you're against anything related to the homosexual lifestyle, you are probably going to be called a homophobe. By describing the down-and-out in our society as homeless, it implies that if they just had a home, everything would be all right.

When the abortion topic is described, the pro-life movement, including yours truly, have let the groups and people supporting abortion define it. The pro-abortion side knows that if they use the word "choice" in describing this, then they have won half the battle. The vast majority of Americans aren't passionate about this issue, so when they hear "choice," then it can't be that bad. Their reaction often is that freedom of choice is the backbone of this country, so those intolerant pro-lifers are trying to limit their right to choose.

How do we counteract this? We have to keep pounding the truth by using the correct language to describe what is occurring. Some will say we are doing the same thing as the other side, but we will not be manipulating the truth behind some pleasant-sounding words. The Holocaust has a specific reaction, and rightfully so. At least six million Jews were killed only because they were Jewish. Approximately 46 million unborn babies in the world are killed every year only because they were unwanted. This worldwide situation could even be described as much worse because of the amount killed, and the unborn never even saw the light of day.

We should now describe the whole issue of abortion as the Holocaust of the unborn. Pro-choice should be called pro-death, pro-extermination, pro-baby killing, or whatever term is appropriate. Why should we let the other side control the issue by not describing it properly? It's time for the pro-life movement to explain publicly what is actually occurring by using the correct language. I think it's appropriate to call ourselves pro-life, but we need to courageously call the other side what they are. This will obviously spawn a reaction that we will need to be ready for, which will prompt us to explain why we label this atrocity the way we do. Even the word "abortion" does not have the impact it should. Maybe we should call it extermination, killing or something similar.

If the pro-lifers control the language of the baby-killing issue, then maybe the world will wake up and realize that we are in the midst of the Holocaust of the unborn.

Eliminating Abortion From The Ground Up

2008-10-30T16:30:00.000-07:00

It seems that so much of what is discussed in the abortion debate has a central focus of either retaining or overturning Roe v. Wade. Many casual observers of the life issue believe that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then abortion would be outlawed in the United States. Of course, the truth is that if it is overturned, then each state will decide the fate of the unborn. Instead of one huge battle for restrictions on abortion, there will be 50 smaller fights. In general, if Roe was overturned now, there would be 16 states that would attempt to protect abortion rights, 22 states that would significantly limit abortion, and 12 states in the middle. Just because there are states that seemingly would restrict abortion, there is no guarantee that it would happen. The pro-choice movement is a powerful force in this country, and they will stop at nothing to further their cause.

On many issues in our culture, the courts have often been the deciding factor, even overturning the will of the people. If state legislatures are able to restrict abortion, that decision will almost surely be contested in the courts. One by-product of having the states decide is that the issue will be in the news more often. Many Americans who rarely think about abortion, will now be prompted to face what the unborn really is.

What's the solution to this situation? Of course, people need to keep fighting for the dissolution of Roe v. Wade, with outstanding pro-life individuals and groups doing that on a daily basis. But while this is occurring, we still lose approximately 3,500 babies a day to abortion in the United States. To have an immediate impact to reduce abortions, it seems that a more effective way is to fight the battle from the bottom up. It all starts with the hearts and minds of the people involved in the abortion decision. The woman who is considering having the baby aborted and the father of that child need to be reached at their core. When their hearts and minds are convinced that what is being killed is a human, then the rest of the pro-life fight will be easier. If they keep the child, then their story will have an impact on their peers and beyond. There will be new converts to the pro-life view, especially in the youth, because one person's mind and heart were changed. With the vast networking that they have on the internet, the pro-life message can spread like wildfire.

Currently there are many groups focusing on the youth in America to choose life. Groups such as Students For Life In America, Justice For All, and many pro-life organizations in high schools and colleges help promote the cause. Recently, the organization Stand True had a pro-life day of silent solidarity in 4,700 campuses across America. These grassroots efforts for the sanctity of life will also be effective down the road legislatively and judicially if and when Roe v. Wade is overturned. If Roe v. Wade is not overturned, then at least the number of babies killed by abortion will be reduced.

When Does Life Begin?

2008-10-24T16:18:00.000-07:00

Some in the pro-choice community will give uninformed or flippant answers to the question: When does life begin?
"Oh, nobody can agree on that."
"Nobody really knows."
"How can that tiny speck be a human?"
"Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." (Barack Obama)

The answer among embryologists is that life begins at conception:

Dr. Ronan O'Rahilly and Dr. Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology,2nd ed., p.8, (1996): "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed."

Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, in The Developing Human, p.16, (2003): "Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete to produce a single cell - zygote."

Dr. M. Krieger, The Human Reproductive System, p.88, (1969): All organisms, however large and complex they may be when fullgrown, begin life as but a single cell. This is true of the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum."

William Larson, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., p.1, (2001) Male and female sex cells "unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo - A Defense of Human Life, p. 53 (2008): "The combining of the chromosomes of the sperm and the oocyte generates what every authority in human embryology identifies as a new, distinct, and enduring organism ... the direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it. The human embryo is then, a whole, though immature, and distinct human organism - a human being."

When a pro-choicer is confronted with this information and still disagrees that it is a human, they should be asked: "If it is not a human, then what is it?" "If it is not a life, at what point does it become a life?"

It's amazing that many people who are pro-choice, question the overall scientific evidence for the geneses of life, but agree blindly, for example, with some scientists concerning the controversial subjects of global warming or evolution. In comparison, there is nowhere near the consensus of scientists for the existence of either, but they have no problem quoting the "scientific" results backing the claims for proof of both.

Quotes About Abortion

2008-10-17T16:25:00.000-07:00

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born." - Ronald Reagan

"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." - Ronald Reagan 1982

"I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. - Hillary Clinton

"I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is "Abortion", because it is a war against the child... A direct killing of the innocent child, "Murder" by the mother herself... And if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love... And we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts... - Mother Teresa

"I'm very much a humanist. I'm very much pro-choice. I'm very much politically correct." - Sandra Bernhard

"America you are beautiful . . . and blessed . . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." - Pope John Paul II

In an appearance on the Sally Jesse Raphael show on March 6, 1998, Naomi Judd, country singer, explained that when she became pregnant as an unwed teenager, abortion was "not an option for me." "Having worked as a labor and delivery nurse ... I've seen ultrasounds ... you know that those babies are real." She reminded the audience that if she had had an abortion, the world would have been deprived of the great singing talent of her daughter and fellow performer Wynonna Judd.

"Nobody wants to perform abortions after ten weeks, because by then you see the features of the baby, hands, feet. It's really barbaric." - abortionist quoted in M.D. Doctors Talk About Themselves, by John Pekkanen, p. 93

"If it isn't a baby, then you aren't pregnant, so what are you aborting?" - Author Unknown

Madonna is not pro-life; however, she did say the following after looking at an ultrasound of her daughter Lourdes: "I was stunned when I saw on the ultrasound a tiny, living creature spinning around in my womb. Tap-dancing, I think. Waving its tiny arms around and trying to suck its thumb. I could have sworn I heard it laughing." - Madonna (Source: World Magazine, December 1996)

"If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate." - Gregory Koukl

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." - Edward Abbey

"Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive." - Author Unknown

"I got to where I couldn't stand to look at the little bodies anymore" - Dr. Beverly McMillan, when asked why she stopped performing abortions.

"If we don't know if the unborn is alive, why take the risk? If it's not alive, then why is an abortion necessary?" - Allison Martinez

"We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus ..." - Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former U.S. Surgeon General

Feature Video - The Pro-Life Toolkit

2008-10-10T21:05:00.000-07:00

Defending The Pro-Life View With The SLED Test

2008-10-09T06:19:00.000-07:00

Defending the pro-life position sometimes can seem overwhelming and complicated, but it doesn't have to be. A majority of the objections to the pro-life view can be answered with what is called the SLED test. The SLED test states that the unborn differs from the newborn in four ways, none of which are relevant in deciding whether someone has a right to life. The acronym SLED stands for size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. This was first developed by Stephen Schwarz in his book The Moral Question of Abortion. This pro-life defense has since been adopted by prominent pro-life writers such as Francis Beckwith, Scott Klusendorf, and Stephen Wagner.

Size
When someone brings up that the unborn is so small that it shouldn't have the same rights as a newborn, then it can be shown that the size of a born person doesn't matter to their value. A lineman in the NFL is obviously larger that a figure skater, but that doesn't make him any more valuable as a person. A toddler is smaller than an adult, but they should be granted the same human rights to live. Thus, the unborn are nearly always smaller than a newborn, but that doesn't mean that they have any less value.

Level of Development
Pro-choicers will often say that the unborn is less developed than a newborn, so they are not fully human. A newborn is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent, and an adolescent is less developed than an adult. Even a mentally handicapped adult might not be as developed as a toddler. In all of these examples we wouldn't think of killing a person because they aren't as developed as someone else. But many believe we should kill the unborn just because they are less developed and can't function as a newborn does.

Environment
Of the four parts of the SLED test, environment or location is probably used the most for justifying abortion. Just because people aren't able to see the unborn, then they often think that it doesn't deserve the same human rights as the born child. If you go from one room to another or walk from one house to another, you have the same value. What is unbelievable is that a premature baby can be delivered and given to the mother, but if that baby was just a foot away inside the mother it could be killed. Your geographical location has nothing at all to do with your value as a human being.

Degree of Dependency
A popular argument is that the unborn is less of a human because it is dependent on its mother for life. Through many stages of our lives we are dependent on certain people or machines for our well-being. Some are on kidney machines or pacemakers. The handicapped may be dependent on others just to assist them in routine daily functions. The elderly in nursing homes are dependent on the staff for support. The unborn is relying on the level of dependency from the mother that it is supposed to receive at that stage in life.

It is important to think of human life from conception until death as a continuum. Humans anywhere in that timeline have the same value as other humans, and that isn't affected by their size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency.

Freedom Of Speech And Abortion

2008-09-29T19:28:00.000-07:00

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Have you ever been in a small-group setting where someone mentions their pro-choice opinion on the abortion issue? Then once you or a fellow pro-lifer starts to question their views, they say that they don't want to discuss it or some other response to squelch the debate. This occurs from small group settings to large pro-life exhibits. For example, recently 18 pro-lifers were arrested in Maryland for just standing on the side of the road holding pro-life signs. They were basically arrested for trumped-up charges and later released.

It's very ironic that often it is difficult to have a pro-life display exhibited on college campuses. College professors and administrators preach free speech, tolerance, and diversity but only when it pertains to something they agree with. They usually have very little tolerance for a pro-life group displaying its freedom of speech rights, even though the group is following all the rules for displays set by the administration. The response is sometimes similar from the students who have been indoctrinated by those same professors and administrators. This is a typical reaction of many liberals in our society. If someone questions them, then that person is to be dismissed and their opinions not worthy of respect. With many social topics, including abortion, the liberal side does not want to deal with the logic of the issue. If you oppose their view, you should not be heard; not because of specifics of the claim you made, but only because you oppose their view.

How does a pro-lifer respond to being stifled in such a manner? Verbally fight back with a calm demeanor, and put them on the spot. Ask them if they believe in free speech? In tolerance? In diversity? Of course, they should respond yes to all. Then you agree and state that you believe in free speech for all, tolerance for differing points of view, and a desire to listen to a diversity of opinions. Then offer them the chance to state their opinion as long as you can state yours.

If you are discussing a campus or community exhibit, then other questions could be asked. If they disagree with the display of graphic photos of abortion, then ask them if they would have approved if Holocaust death-camp photos were displayed during World War II. If these photos were used to show the horror of the reality of these camps, then maybe something could have been done to stop them. On countless occasions The New York Times and news magazines have printed photos of alleged torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Were those appropriate to show? Obviously, there are many examples that can be used to prove your point.

The bottom line is that the pro-lifer's view should not take a back seat to any contrary opinion just because the other person does not want to hear it. In conclusion, I believe many liberals in our society would like to change the First Amendment to read something like this:

"Religion should never be established, endorsed or even mentioned by the government or any employee thereof; there shall be no restrictions on the practicing of a religion unless that religion espouses moral values of right and wrong. There should be no restrictions of freedom of speech, unless it differs from what we, the progressives, deem is correct. Freedom of the press should not be abridged unless it is a threat to what we, the progressives, deem is the appropriate view. People may peaceably assemble to reveal the atrocities committed by Republicans, Conservatives, or Christians. Everyone that we, the progressives, approve of have a right to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

Abortion: Front And Center In This Election

2008-09-20T04:35:00.000-07:00

Several events have occurred in the last couple of months that have made the abortion issue one of the prominent topics in the campaigns of both parties. This congruence of events should keep the abortion topic on the front burner until the election.

First of all, there couldn't have been a better display of the differences in the two candidates then when they were asked at the Saddleback Forum about when human rights begin. John McCain stated that life begins at conception, while Barack Obama gave some rambling incoherent answer which he finally said he couldn't answer because it would be above his pay grade.

Barack Obama's view of abortion takes the issue to a whole new level. With his refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State Senator, it displays to the world that he is not only 100% pro-abortion, but if a baby survives an abortion, it should be left to die. Obama has tried to dispute his own vote, but the truth is there for all to see.

Another event that brought abortion to the forefront was the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. This selection has pro-abortion groups fuming for two reasons. Since she's an adamant pro-life woman, it is something they just can't comprehend. It seems they believe every woman should be for women's rights, which, of course, to them means abortion on demand. Also, her decision not to abort her child with Down Syndrome has put the liberals in this country in a perplexing position. Those who believe in abortion usually agree that it can be used to destroy an unborn baby with a disability, and now the whole world can see that Palin and her family love and cherish this baby.

It seems that nearly every day there are abortion comments and stories on the news channels and talk radio from either side of the aisle. For instance, they reported the story of an interview posted on the political Web site Politico with South Carolina's Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler. She said Republican John McCain picked a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." Ads are now running about Gianna Jessen's remarkable story about living through a failed abortion - something Barack Obama was opposed to. If the Republicans keep hammering home Obama's view on abortion, it can be a crucial reason that the undecided or moderates voters will choose McCain.

It is obvious, but not always stated, that abortion has an excellent chance to be the one issue that voters can't ignore in the upcoming election. This gives the pro-lifer an incredible opportunity to discuss abortion with people who rarely ever think about the issue. In the next 40 days there will be increasing dialogue at work, school, or just in social interactions about the issues of this election. The abortion topic can be easily worked into the conversation without people thinking you're trying to ram your views down their throats. Since the mainstream media has virtually ignored Obama's view on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the vast majority of Americans know little or nothing about it. Now is the time to educate them on this and other pro-life views.

Then the shift can be made to what people personally believe about abortion. From what I have heard lately from some, they believe abortion is wrong, but we shouldn't restrict someone from being able to have one. Or in the case of Barack Obama and other politicians, they state that everyone agrees that we need to have a reduction in abortions, but still there should be a right to choose to have one. The logical responses could be, "Why do you think it's wrong, and why should we have less abortions? So you are personally against killing of babies, but for killing of babies if someone else does it? So you are against bank robbery, murder, rape, but it's fine if someone else does it."

I believe the abortion issue in this election will continue to take a front and center position like no other time in our history. Thus, pro-lifers have a tremendous opportunity to explain to their fellow citizens the truth about abortion.

50 Million Dead - No Monument

2008-09-12T18:05:00.000-07:00

In America we are very good at honoring people and events, no matter if they have had a positive or negative impact on our country. It's very commendable to have museums, memorials, and special holidays for these occurrences. We have several monuments for our founding fathers and other Americans that have helped shape America. Every September 11 we hold memorial events for the nearly 3,000 killed in the terrorists attacks. America has a very powerful tribute to the 58,000 killed in the Vietnam War with the Wall in Washington, D.C. and other memorials throughout the United States. The World War II Memorial is now built in Washington D.C. to honor those who served, plus the 417,000 Americans killed in the war. We have Holocaust museums in many communities that display the horrors of this evil that killed approximately six million Jews.

What do we have for the approximately 50 million babies killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade became law in 1973? NOTHING. Why? I see a few reasons for this. So many people have their views shaped by the mainstream media which, of course, never even has run one story about the horror of abortion. On the rare occasion they do run any story about the subject, it almost always displays the pro-life view in a bad light. So for quite a few Americans, it's the old adage "out of sight, out of mind." Many still have the preconceived notion that if the press isn't covering it, then it must not be newsworthy.

Another reason is that many do not see the fetus as an unborn human, or they just don't want to make the effort to analyze what is being killed in an abortion. Also, since it is the law of the land, many don't think it's even a necessary topic of discussion. That is why it is so important to spread the word about the evil of abortion, whether the recipient cares about the subject or not. There has to be a starting point for them where at least they begin thinking about abortion, discussing it, or investigating the issue. Displaying visual images, from ultrasounds to graphic pictures of aborted babies, along with reasoned dialogue have been proven to be very effective. We must have our society as a whole confront the question: What are we killing?

When the American people hear the word "Holocaust" they immediately think of the millions killed and the photos that they have seen of this horror. We must have a goal that someday people will have a similar response when they hear the word "abortion." There must be an automatic negative response concerning the millions of babies killed and the view that this evil will never happen again. Then maybe we will have a monument honoring them.

Pro-Life Persuasion - A Synopsis

2008-09-06T11:47:00.000-07:00

The main focus of all discussions should be “What is the unborn?” Pro-choicers often will skirt around that issue with several different reasons for abortion. They will often say: It’s my choice. The birth will interfere with school or work. It’s just a blob of tissue or clump of cells. The child will be disabled. The mother is a drug addict. The baby will be born in an abusive environment or in poverty. The woman was raped. The health of the mother is in danger.

The premise behind almost all reasons for abortion is that the baby is not a human or that it doesn’t have the value that a born person has. There are two ways of handling most arguments. The first is the SLED test. The letters in SLED stand for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.

Some will say that the unborn is so much smaller than a born person. You can respond by saying “Yes, that’s correct, but a toddler is smaller than an adult but they are both humans with the same intrinsic value.”

Many pro-choicers will say that the unborn is just not as developed as a born child. You should respond by saying that “Yes, you’re right, but young girls are less developed than adult women, or toddlers are less developed than high school students but they are all human.

The argument used mainly by people in the pro-choice movement is that the unborn is in a different location so it should be able to be aborted. Do we change our value when we go from one room to another? What is the big difference between a baby born premature and placed on a mother’s stomach? If that same baby was inches away inside the mother’s womb it could be killed. We are not allowed to kill that born baby so why should society be allowed to kill the unborn. The main difference is the location which should be irrelevant when discussing the value of a person.

Finally, the unborn is more dependent than a toddler, but toddlers are more dependent than adults. Some adults are dependent on medications or devices such as kidney machines or pacemakers but that doesn’t lessen their value.

The next group of arguments can be responded to by using the toddler question. For instance, if someone says that it’s their choice to have an abortion, you can say “Do women have a right to kill their two-year olds?” Also, “There are going to be unwanted children if we don’t have abortions.” A response could be that there are many children in the inner city who have miserable lives. Should we also kill them if we want to?

Another argument is to say that we have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. There have been mothers such as Andrea Yates who used their bodies to kill their children. Do we have a right to tell them not to do that? After using this tactic many will often say that it is different because the toddlers are born and alive. Then you can revert back to the SLED test to show the value of the unborn. Remember to steer the discussion back to defining the value of the unborn. They may then say, “Well, that’s just your opinion that the unborn is human. I don’t think it is.” Then you can say that the science of embryology states from many different sources that from the moment of conception the unborn is a living and distinct human organism.

The unborn has the three characteristics of being alive: growth, metabolizing food for energy, and reacting to stimuli. Its DNA is distinctly human and also different from its human parents. The Law of Biogenesis states that each living thing reproduces its own kind. Obviously, human parents can only produce human offspring. If someone rejects this scientific evidence they must explain two things. They must say what the unborn entity actually is, and then they must explain how two human beings can create a separate being that is not human.

There are a few more reasons that are given for abortion. The health of the mother issue often comes up especially in legislative issues. Actually, there is only one occasion when the health of the mother will be a factor as to the baby being aborted. In an ectopic pregnancy the newly conceived human implants on the wall of the fallopian tube. When it grows the tube will rupture. If we do nothing both mother and child will die. The child should be removed to save the mother. In other conditions the mother and child can be both treated as patients.

One very sensitive argument that is given is that a woman who is raped should be allowed to abort her baby. Always discuss with the person how horrible rape is and what a tragic thing it is to go through. This discussion can lead to the question of “Why should the unborn baby have to be punished for the crime of the father.” Also, if you met the rapist later in court or wherever, you would not be allowed to kill him, so why should the baby be killed. In this case, as in all abortion discussions, the topic of adoption can be brought up.

Often you may only have a short time to talk to someone about the issue. A ten second pro-life view could be used. If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. If it has human parents, it must be human. And living humans like you and I are valuable.

"How Many Babies Have The Pro-lifers Adopted?"

2008-08-29T04:12:00.000-07:00

In discussing abortion with those opposed to the pro-life position, the adoption issue is often brought up but not always by pro-lifers. The question that pro-choicers ask is: "How many babies have you adopted? If you don't want abortion to occur, then the pro-lifers should adopt the babies." Of course, their real motive is not to find out how many babies pro-lifers have adopted; it's just an ad hominem attack. They use the common method of attacking the person making the claim instead of discussing the issue at hand. It's just another example of distraction used to avoid talking about what the unborn baby actually is.

How does one respond to the adoption question espoused by the pro-choicer? The pro-lifer's initial response could possibly be one that surprises them. "I'm glad you brought up the adoption subject. I think we both could agree that adoption is a great solution to someone who doesn't want their child." This may help diffuse a possible confrontational atmosphere. Then the following could be added:
What if someone stated: "I will kill my two-year-old unless you adopt it." If you don't adopt the child, it doesn't give the parent the right to kill it.

Pro-life author Francis Beckwith states the fallacy of the pro-choice adoption question: The fact that a person during Hitler's reign was not willing to hide Jews in his home does not mean he cannot correctly say that the Holocaust was evil and should never happen again.

Unless I am willing to marry my neighbor's wife, I cannot prevent her husband from beating her.

Unless I am willing to adopt my neighbor's daughter, I cannot prevent her mother from abusing her.*

They may say that those examples are different because you're talking about people already born. Then, of course, the conversation can be steered back to talking about the unborn baby.

Before ending the conversation, there are a couple more points that are related to this topic. The whole argument could be reversed and placed at the feet of the pro-choice advocate. You could tell them that their argument is equivalent to you asking: How many pro-choice individuals and organizations assist the woman and her baby if she "chooses" to keep the baby? Since the pro-choice movement believes in "choice," shouldn't they be financially and emotionally supporting the struggling woman who chose not to abort the baby? Also, there are numerous pro-lifers who do adopt children, work with struggling mothers, and do a wide variety of work to assist mothers and babies. Pro-life employees and volunteers assist at hundreds of pregnancy clinics and other organizations throughout the United States.

Finally, the subject of having a better adoption system may be something you both agree on. Most feel that the system needs to be much more streamlined and cheaper. Also, guide them to adoption sites such as www.adoption.com or other sites concerning adoption.

*Francis Beckwith, Politically Correct Death, 1993, Baker Books

Obama's Political Response To Abortion

2008-08-19T18:24:00.000-07:00

Recently at the presidential candidate forum at Saddleback Church in California, Barack Obama stated the following: "I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways -- in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground, and by the way, I have now inserted this in the Democratic Party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions ..."

In examining his belief, the conclusion is that a woman can be for the destruction of a life, as long as the woman doesn't make the decision casually. Because someone wrestles with a decision, then that is reason enough to believe that they are right in carrying out that decision. In other words, according to Obama, there are no moral absolutes on this issue. It's just the same as saying, "Bank robbery is fine as long as the decision to rob the bank was done as a result of deep introspection." Also, it helps if the robber consulted those close to him before he committed the act.

Barack Obama says he is pro-choice, but he wants to reduce the number of abortions. He should be asked why does he want to reduce the number of abortions. Whatever answer he gives probably will contradict being pro-choice. Most politicians respond to the abortion issue in a similar manner. There are a few who are strictly pro-abortion or pro-life, but most fall in a category that attempts to please both sides. When faced with this issue, they will usually say, "Personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but if a woman wants to have one, that's her decision." Often they will respond with, "I think abortion should be rare, but I can't stop a woman from having one. It's her choice." This type of logic is also shared by quite a few Americans. When they take both sides of the argument, it seems that their real purpose is to avoid the issue completely because they don't have a desire to debate either side.

This response sounds foolproof and a very nice way of answering the abortion issue. But if you think closely about the response, it could be asked, "Why do you personally oppose abortion, or why do you think it should be rare?" It seems that their answer would be that it is the taking of a life, or a similar response. The rebuttal would be "So you're against abortion because it takes a life, but it's perfectly fine for someone else to take a life." "You're against the killing of a human, but also for the killing of a human."

What if we settled other issues this way? "I'm personally opposed to murder, but if a person wants to commit it, that's their decision or choice." In 2001 Andrea Yates killed her five young children. Using this logic one could say, "I'm personally opposed to Andrea Yates killing her children, but it's her decision, her choice." We basically could use this logic concerning any law in this country.

The Hypocrisy of the Democrats

2008-08-03T16:28:00.000-07:00

In this political season, there are tremendous opportunities to expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats by discussing the abortion issue with them. Also, it is an ideal time to initiate a discussion about abortion with someone who normally may not think about it. If a Democrat is asked why they vote that way or what the party stands for, a few items usually come up. They will often state that the Democrat Party stands for the little guy, human rights and tolerance.

Some questions to ask them are:

Do Democrats support the little guy? Why do Democrats almost uniformly believe we should destroy the littlest guy in the name of abortion?

Do Democrats believe in human rights? What groups in this world should have basic human rights? Should terrorist prisoners of war have rights? Should the incarcerated in this country have a right to be treated humanly? Do you believe the unborn should have basic human rights, especially the right not to be killed?

Do the Democrats believe we should tolerate certain groups or lifestyles? Why do the Democrats not always tolerate the unborn children group?

When the Democrat is faced with your questions, it seems they will answer in different ways. They may say that they don't care about the abortion issue, which gives one an opportunity to explain the hypocrisy once again. They might also say that they care about the issue, but it's a woman's right to choose. Then the discussion can shift to what the unborn actually is and what the woman is choosing to do.

Many Democrats vote as they do because of family tradition or an affiliation of a particular group, such as a union. Unions, in general, say that they represent the little guy and his rights in the workplace. The Democrat then can be asked about the aborted unborn who will never have a right to even live, let alone workplace rights.

When it comes to specifically Barack Obama, it can be brought to their attention that he has a 100% pro-abortion record in his political career. In fact, in 2002, when he was in the Illinois legislature, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act. This act would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. Also, in 2002, the same type of bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed into law by President Bush. There was nearly unanimous approval by Congress. Even the pro-choice group NARAL supported the legislation.

Recently, Barack Obama gave a well-publicized speech in Berlin, Germany. Excerpts from it show how hypocritical he is:

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?
Pro-life response: Will he stand for the human rights of the unborn? Will he give meaning to the words "never again" to the despicable act of abortion in this country?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?
Pro-life response: Will he project the image that America believes it is acceptable to kill 4,000 of its own every day? Will he reject the torture and death of the unborn? Will he stand for the rule of law against murder?

Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?
Pro-life response: Will Obama continue to discriminate against the unborn who don't quite look like us yet? Will he promise equality and opportunity for all of our people, either born or unborn?

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.
Pro-life response: Does he mean the mistakes of 1.3 million abortions every year in this country?

Click here to read more of my articles at standforlife.net

The Health Of The Mother Exception

2008-07-22T06:32:00.001-07:00

Over the years since Roe v. Wade, many have stated that they are against abortion unless it's for the health of the mother. This exception is common when legislation concerning abortion is debated. What does "health of the mother" really mean? In the case of Doe v. Bolton in 1973, the Supreme Court issued their opinion about it. In this companion case to Roe v. Wade, the Court stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her "health." The Court defined "health" as:

"Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."*

In other words, the "woman's health" aspect could cover almost any reason for abortion. A woman could say that her child would cause her stress, or she is not ready to have a family, and that would be sufficient.

In reality, there is one definite condition that will cause the mother to die, and that is an ectopic pregnancy. It basically is when the new human implants on the wall of the fallopian tube instead of on the wall of the uterus. If left alone, the fallopian tube will eventually rupture and cause the death of the mother and child. In this case, there is no way to have a baby born alive, so it must be removed to save the life of the mother. It's better that one should live instead of both dying as a result of this condition.

There are a few other problems that can cause difficulties for the mother but not severe enough to cause her to die. Conditions such as Toxemia (swelling, elevated blood pressure), Placenta Previa (placenta covers all or part of the cervix), and Placental Abruption (placenta detaches from uterine wall) occur occasionally, but the mother can be treated and, if need be, the delivery can be attempted earlier than normal.

When someone brings up the "health of the mother" exception, ask them to specify what they mean. More often than not, they will just say vaguely "when the woman's health is in danger." That's when it can be explained about ectopic pregnancy and also the other conditions that can be treated. If they bring up the general descriptions of health that are in Doe v. Bolton, then those can be easily refuted. Most of those health exceptions given in that case are a just a convenient reason not to have the child. In the woman's mind they may be legitimate, but she must be shown that her reason doesn't justify killing a baby. Then the shift can be made to the discussion of the nature of the unborn and what really is the result of an abortion. Also, an argument could be made that the health exceptions given in Doe v. Bolton are some of the same reasons not to have an abortion. For instance, many women have gone through great psychological, emotional, and physical stress from having an abortion, either at that time or years later.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

What's Really Behind The Abortion Decision

2008-07-10T17:17:00.000-07:00

For many years, we have heard pro-choicers give numerous reasons for their position, such as: It's in the woman's body, so it's her decision; it's not a human; it's a human, but it will interfere with my work or school; I'm just not ready to have a child, etc. When you examine all the justifications closely, it seems that there is one underlying reason for abortion. It clearly is a self-centered view of the world by the people involved in the abortion decision. Even the title "pro-choice" could easily be changed to "pro-me" or "pro-self," and it would mean exactly the same.

Over the past 30-40 years, our culture has changed, in general, from one of self-sacrifice and sense of community to one of being self-centered. In the 1950s and 1960s, many families had five or six children. You were taught that you were one of a group, and the world did not revolve around you. In general, children didn't go on long vacations every year. If you did, the parents really sacrificed economically so the whole family could drive to Disneyland or wherever. You learned by watching your parents about the sacrifices you had to make to raise a family.

From the late 1970s until today, most families have had only one to three children. A high percentage of those parents indulge their children in whatever activity they want to do, no matter how much it costs. Many parents give the impression, either intended or unintended, that the child is so important that the world often revolves around them. "If it feels like you should do something, do it." If something does happen to go wrong, the child doesn't have to face the consequences because many parents are there to bail them out. They don't need to have self-sacrifice because parents don't want their children to suffer in any way, even though this suffering often will make them stronger. Of course, these are generalizations, but it is all too prevalent in our society.

When the young woman gets pregnant, the logical conclusion is "How does this affect me personally?" How does it affect my school, career, or social life?" What's the quickest way to alleviate my problem?" These kinds of reasons sometimes do not seem that they are adequate, so those who support abortion have to come up with the other responses as to why abortion should be acceptable. Then they have to justify it by using "it's my body, it's not human, it's a parasite, etc." To many, this reasoning is easy since they are implementing their belief system that has permeated their entire life.

Another by-product of this self-absorption view is the change over the years of being an young, unwed pregnant girl. Thirty to forty years ago there was a strong stigma attached to being pregnant in high school. Thus, it was very rare to see. Of course, today there is very little negative reaction to a pregnant teenager. If something is universally acceptable, it's much easier to engage in that activity. Also, since there are so many more pregnant teens, the possibility of abortion becomes even greater.

The pro-lifer has to find a way to deflect the self-absorption of the pro-choice person and get them to focus on the unborn child. This is a hard nut to crack because you're trying to change someone's belief system they have always had. It can be very frustrating, because it seems so obvious that there is a baby that is being killed in the abortion procedure. Often it may look like you're not making any progress, but you are planting a seed in the pro-choicer's mind. If they actually are confronted with the abortion decision, it is very possible that what they have heard from a pro-lifer will surface.

The Rape Question In The Abortion Discussion

2008-06-28T03:52:00.000-07:00

In a span of a half-hour during a pro-life exhibit on a college campus, two women explained to me their rape stories. One said that she was a product of a rape, and her mother put her up for adoption. Of course, she was so thankful that her mother didn't abort her. The other woman said that she was raped as a teenager and had regretted her abortion ever since. There was real pain in her voice. It was such a contrast in emotions on such a powerful issue. They were both so glad that the truth was being displayed about abortion.

What if the woman was raped? This is the question that comes up in most discussions of the abortion issue. Steve Wagner of the organization Stand to Reason states that there is an underlying reason for this inquiry. He explains that they are testing you to see if you're compassionate toward the woman who has gone through this. It is important to focus on how horrific an act it is and to be very sensitive to the suffering of the woman. This is not some ploy to get to your ultimate goal, but a sincere view of the situation. If someone I cared for was raped, it would be devastating. I then wouldn't want a pro-lifer telling them that it's a baby, so they can't abort it, without showing some compassion first.

Eventually, the situation has to be viewed in its entire context. Obviously, the act of rape is horrible, but that is the fault of the rapist and not the baby. The baby is just as innocent as if it was a product of a loving situation. Why should it be punished because of what the father did. If the woman was able to confront the rapist later, she wouldn't be allowed to kill him. Why should she kill the one that is totally innocent in this situation. There are legitimate concerns that if she has the child, she will always connect it to the rape. Many say that this would be devastating for her on a daily basis. Obviously, this could be the case, but I think that once the baby is born, most mothers would love that child just as they would any other. There are many babies born to teenage moms who were with a guy who deserted them once he found out she was pregnant. I don't think they focus on the situation of the father in their day-to-day caring of the child. Of course, it's not the same as rape, but I think the mother-child bond can overcome most obstacles. As always, having the baby adopted is a great alternative to any terrible situation.

Often people justify abortion by using the rape reason. They usually believe in abortion on demand for any reason. Steve Wagner explains a good way to test this. Since only 1% of the women use rape as the reason for abortion, then you will go along with them in justifying abortion for rape. But if you agree with them on this one point, they will need to join with you to try to ban the other 99% of abortions. If they don't agree, they will ultimately have to admit that they are for abortions for many more reasons. Then the discussion can be focused on the nature and value of the unborn baby.

Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: "What if she was raped?" 2005 Justice For All. www.JFAweb.org

Do Pro-Choicers Really Believe What They Say?

2008-06-22T15:16:00.001-07:00

There are several reasons that pro-choicers give for having an abortion. The main ones are:

1. Every child should be a wanted child.
2. It's in the woman's body, so she can have an abortion, even if she believes it's human.
3. The baby will interfere with work, school, or the mother's social life.
4. The child will live in poverty or other negative social conditions.
5. If the mother is a drug addict, then the child will likely be addicted.
6. We should be able to abort deformed and handicapped babies.

Do abortion proponents really believe what they are saying? The evidence says emphatically NO. If they really believed this, why aren't they advocating that the children born into tough situations be put to death? This sounds ludicrous, but it logically follows from their argument. Also, do they really believe that they should be able to kill a human inside of them? With a strong self-examination of this belief, I think many would change their mind. What do they tell all the single mothers who are struggling with work or school? I don't believe they would dare tell them that they should have aborted their child in the womb or that their child they now have should be killed.

Do they really believe that if a baby is born into poverty, addicted to drugs, or whatever they deem not to be a perfect situation, then the child is going to be in that condition the rest of its life? Often they don't look at the big picture. They don't want to give the child a chance to live and usually have their conditions change. What do they tell the parents taking care of a disabled child? I don't believe they would ever tell them that it would have been easier on them and the child if he or she was aborted.

The pro-life argument, though, follows consistently from conception to death. The belief is that every life is valuable no matter what the unborn child might face when born. When the baby is born into whatever situation, it still is a life that should be cherished until death.

It then seems that the pro-choice advocates are pro-life after the baby is born. This means that if someone lives to be 75, then the pro-choicers are actually pro-life about 99% of the time. Their view of euthanasia would change this percentage slightly. Then we have the pro-lifers who are pro-life 100% of the time. The result is that the 1% view is the one that is legal in this country, with a disregard for the 99% pro-life belief.

It's Time To Take Action!

2008-06-15T08:31:00.000-07:00

The mainstream media has had their own agenda concerning abortion and the pro-life perspective. Basically, they have ignored the issue, except when it is pertaining to some new court ruling. Their view is based on many premises they have about abortion and the people who are against it:

1. Abortion is a private matter between the woman and her doctor.
2. It's a reproductive health issue.
3. Pro-lifers belong to two groups that they do not like: Christians and conservatives.
4. It's the law, so these two groups should just shut up.
5. If they actually had positive pro-life stories, they would have to answer to their colleagues at cocktail parties. It's not worth it.

As a result of seeing or reading the media for years, many Americans start believing the media's perspective and, thus, keep quiet about the issue. Also, their thinking is probably that if they don't see abortion stories on the news, then the issue must not be that important. Unfortunately, conservative talk radio, magazines, or television generally do not give the topic it's proper airing either.

It's time for the pro-lifers in our country to be on offense and control the agenda and premises that go with it. We need to force the media to explain their views by exposing them to the truth about abortion. Now it's time for the masses to actively support the pro-life position. We need to convince the people who are not passionate about the pro-life movement, but agree with it, that it's time to take action.

How do we do this? Here's a few suggestions.
1. Write letters to the newspaper. Contact your local radio and television stations if they have a story where a pro-life viewpoint is missing.
2. Discuss the issue with friends or co-workers. Of course, you might need to ease into the conversation so they won't get turned off.
3. Ask people who agree with you to spread the message in a like manner.
4. Get involved with any local pro-life group or church organization that is actively spreading the message.
5. Go to monthlycallforlife.com or prolifeunity.com and see how you can help. Also check their calendars for events in your area.
6. Research the many online sites that give you the tools or training to advance the pro-life view to the public.
7. Contact the legislators and government leaders and tell them that now is the time to eliminate abortion in this country. Also, corresponding with them about a certain bill can make a difference.

Should We Show Abortion Images?

2008-06-09T15:55:00.000-07:00

We live in a visual age where people often don't respond to any crisis until they see videos or pictures of it. Every few years there turns up a new dire condition in a different country in Africa. We see news reports of starving citizens or mass killing of people by some tyrannical leader or government. Often these problems have been going on for years, but we don't react until we see footage of them on the national news or photos in a magazine.
Even the horrors of the holocaust have more impact when you see pictures from the extermination camps.

That is why it is totally appropriate to show either video or still photos of aborted babies, especially to someone who is considering an abortion. It brings to light what the result of an abortion is. That is why pro-choice proponents don't want them to be shown. But if they are pro-choice, wouldn't they want people to see them, along with the use of the most advanced ultrasound technology. Women would then be given all the information they need to make an informed choice. Most would agree that when you have to make a difficult choice in life, then you should have all the information possible.

It Makes No Sense!

2008-06-01T20:47:00.000-07:00

There are many interesting aspects of the abortion issue that make no sense.

1) There are laws in 36 states that, in general, say that killing a fetus by anyone but the mother and the abortion doctor is a crime. In our society, do we call any other act a crime or not depending on who is committing it? Is the fetus a person only when it is killed by somebody other than the mother or doctor?

2) One of the main issues for the Catholic Church is the sanctity of life, but a large percentage of Catholics vote for Democrats, who are almost 100% pro-choice.

3) Why doesn't anyone ask a pregnant mother how far along she is with her fetus? When she's expecting she often will say she's going to have a baby or she can feel the baby move. When the pro-choicers want to abort it, the term "baby" is never used. It's then just a fetus, a parasite, or a blob.

4) It's interesting how our society reacts when a newborn is found dead in a dumpster, or wherever. There is the appropriate reaction of sadness, disgust, and outrage. The news reporters give the report with a grim face and solemn tone of voice. But if the woman killed it a short time earlier when it was in the womb, then there would be no reporting of it or no societal indignation. In fact, it is so inconsequential to most people that they don't even care to know it happened.

5) The Democrat Party and liberal view is that they are for the little guy. Also, they often shout from the rooftops about human rights violations somewhere in the world. But, of course, they exclude being a proponent of the littlest guy and disregard its human rights.

Distracting From The Discussion

2008-05-24T04:55:00.000-07:00

Often in a discussion of abortion one side will try to distract the other by not focusing on the topic at hand, but defending their position by repeating the mantras of their side. For example, when a pro-life view of the nature of the unborn is given, the pro-choicer's rebuttal sometimes is, "It's the woman's right to choose" or "It's her body" or any number of arguments. The goal is to distract the pro-lifer from their view because the pro-choicer is very uncomfortable about talking about what the unborn is. Then the pro-lifer should state "Let's first discuss what the unborn is before we move on to one of your assertions." If they agree, then you can take each claim one at a time. If they continually distract you before you're done with the original discussion then there is no need to pursue the conversation any further. A helpful way to get the pro-choicer focused is to say "Let's talk through my claim first, and you will have an opportunity to show me that I possibly could be wrong. I want to listen to what you have to say about my assertions on the issue."

The reverse is also true. If the pro-choicer first makes a claim, then the pro-lifer shouldn't automatically dismiss it. They also shouldn't start with their own mantras, such as "Abortion is murder," or "Aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?" It's the pro-lifers responsibility to work through the pro-choice arguments, one at a time, and attempt to show the fallacy of them.

In both cases there needs to constantly be a focus on one particular area of the debate. It must be done in a logical fashion or emotions often will take over on either side and little progress will be made.

Short Pro-Life Statements

2008-05-18T16:48:00.000-07:00

What if you have only a short time to make a case for the pro-life position? Here are a few statements that can help:

1) If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. If it has human parents, it must be human. And living humans like you and I are valuable.

2) If you don't know if the unborn is alive, then why take the risk by having an abortion? If it's not alive, then why is an abortion necessary?

3) The heart of the unborn begins to beat at three weeks and the brain begins to function at six weeks.

4) The unborn has the three characteristics of being alive: growth, metabolizing food for energy, and reacting to stimuli. Its DNA is distinctly human and also different from its human parents.

5) The Law of Biogenesis states that each living thing that reproduces creates its own kind. Obviously, human parents can only produce human offspring.

6) How can two humans create something that is not human but later becomes one?

7) We don't allow the killing of toddlers, so why should the killing of unborn humans be accepted?

The Burden Of Proof In The Abortion Discussion

2008-05-14T17:44:00.000-07:00

In discussions about the abortion issue, there are often claims made that are not backed up by facts. For instance, a pro-choicer will often make the claim that the unborn is not a human at a certain stage of development. The burden is on them to back up their statement with evidence. It is not the time for the pro-lifer to begin stating his argument. Several questions could be asked to the pro-choicer, such as: Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have for that claim? If it is not a human, then what is it? What makes you think that it is not a human at this stage of development, but it is at another? Thus, the subject of the discussion stays focused on defining the unborn. Also, a potential volatile situation is often diffused because the pro-choicer must rationally defend his statement. If he can't explain what the entity is, then it is time for the pro-lifer to move in with the statements: If it has human parents, it must be human. It also has its own genetic makeup that is uniquely its own. By putting the burden of proof on the one making the claim, then the pro-life argument is often made for the pro-lifer without them having to make a long convincing argument.