Life Dynamics

Pro-Life Answers

Discussing the issue of abortion to others is an important skill for any pro-life person to have. Everyday more people are waking up to the reality of abortion and are willing to, at the very least, listen to the pro-life message. Knowing the true heart of the typical questions or misconceptions as well as the common pro-choice movement’s rhetoric and deceptions can help you learn how to respond to them in the future. Learning to answer these questions may not help you convert the most hardcore pro-choicer, but many of them will never change their mind no matter what you do or say. Your true victories are talking with people whose support is marginal or to a woman who may be considering abortion.

Below is a list of typical arguments that have been heard from the pro-choice side. Remember that most of these questions or arguments are based on at least one untrue assumption, and that when you respond you must expose that untrue assumption. Otherwise the listener will conclude that the assumption is true and we lose, no matter what else is said. It is all crucial that we don’t reinforce our opponent’s position. These people are masters at spinning their positions to make them sound reasonable and attractive. Our job is to make sure that the public hears what they are really saying.

The issue is who decides, the woman or the state. It’s about freedom of choice.

The abortion lobby has always realized that abortion itself is indefensible. This has forced them to argue that whether abortion is the deliberate killing of a living human being or not, is unrelated to the question of whether it should be legal. In short, they have to divert attention toward the philosophical concepts of “choice” and “who decides” because they can’t afford for the public to look at what’s being chosen and decided.

To imply that the issue is not abortion, but choice, is to say that what’s being chosen is irrelevant. That is clearly illogical given that all choices are not equal. Choosing whether to buy a new car is vastly different than choosing whether to produce child pornography, and the morality of those choices is not affected by the eventual decision. However, the pro-choice position is that abortion becomes acceptable simply by the act of choosing to do it.

Defenders of slavery also used this same strategy. During the 1858 Abraham Lincoln- Stephen Douglas debates, Douglas said he did not support outlawing slavery, saying, “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits.”

Just substitute the word abortion every place the word slavery appears, and this statement perfectly defines the pro-choice position in America today. Lincoln’s response to Douglas’ pro-choice position on slavery was, “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”

Lincoln recognized that there is nothing intrinsically noble about the concept of choice, and that there are choices which a society cannot allow the individual to make.

The fact is, before one can rightly claim that the issue is “choice” or “who decides,” he or she must first examine what’s being chosen. If it’s what color shoes to wear, that’s one thing; if it’s whether to kill another human being, that’s another. Except in self-defense, the decision about whether one human being can kill another one cannot be left up to the individual who wants to do the killing.

Besides, this “who decides, the woman or the state” rhetoric is idiotic on its face. Laws against abortion would not let the state decide who gets abortions any more than laws against rape let the state decide who gets raped. Instead, they establish that certain behaviors are so unacceptable they must be illegal.

Finally, as used by abortion advocates, the term “pro-choice” is both inaccurate and dishonest. In an abortion, at least three people are directly impacted: the mother, the father, and the child. The pro-choice argument is that only one is entitled to a choice. Additionally, it has never been a part of their agenda to protect any choice other than abortion. They don’t lobby for women to have the legal right to be prostitutes or use crack cocaine. Yet these laws, and thousands of others, deny women “the right to choose” just as much as laws preventing abortion would.

The government has no right to interfere in people’s personal choices.

To say that government should let people make all of their own choices is neither practical nor desirable. We cannot let people make their own choices to rape, rob or drive drunk. We cannot let them make the choices to embezzle, defraud, write hot checks, drive their cars over the speed limit, slander other people, etc. By definition, the goal of every law is to deny someone the legal ability to choose a particular activity, and many prohibited choices could even be considered “personal.” For example, it is illegal to have sexual relations with a sibling, or a child, or an animal, or a dead body.

As for abortion, it is not the government’s role to protect one individual’s choice to kill his fellow human beings. Given the biological fact that the unborn are living human beings, the question is not whether the government has the right to prohibit abortion, but whether it has the right not to.

The government has no right to come into our bedrooms.

Abortions are not done in bedrooms. But even if they were, the bedroom is no more a sanctuary from the law than is a cornfield.

The reality is, many illegal acts happen in bedrooms. In fact, some – spousal abuse, incest, statutory rape, and pedophilia, just to name a few – usually happen in bedrooms. Let’s also not forget that back when abortion was illegal, the public was at no greater risk of having their bedrooms invaded by the state than they are today.

No one has the right to tell a woman she has to have a child.

The pro-life movement has never suggested that women should be required to have children. However, it is a biological fact that when a woman is pregnant she already has a child. Our argument is that this child should not be butchered.

The government should not be involved in the practice of medicine.

Telling physicians that they can’t kill people is not practicing medicine. Besides, the government is already involved in the practice of medicine. With the exception of abortion, medicine is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America.

The government has an obligation to fund abortions for poor women.

On one hand, the abortion lobby says that abortion is a private decision in which the government has no right to be involved. Then, they demand that the government pay for abortions and force even pro-life taxpayers to buy abortions for other people. They defend this obvious hypocrisy by pointing out that government often requires taxpayers to pay for things with which they disagree. For example, people opposed to war have to pay taxes which fund the military.

However, the abortion lobby’s position is that government has no right to even be involved in the abortion issue. So why should government pay for something which the recipients of those funds say is none of the government’s business? After all, if we concluded that national defense was none of the government’s business, we would not use tax money to buy jet fighters.

Also, just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t mean the government has to pay for it. Americans have the right to own guns, but the government doesn’t provide free pistols to poor people. We have a right to free speech, but the government doesn’t buy public address systems for poor people. We are also guaranteed freedom of religion, but the government has no obligation to purchase Bibles for poor churches.

Government should stay out of abortion. Don’t subsidize it and don’t prohibit it.

That’s as irrational as saying that if we neither subsidize nor prohibit lynching black people, we’re staying out of racism.

I’d rather pay $300 for a welfare mom’s abortion than thousands to raise her kid.

Few issues speak more clearly about the immorality of the pro-choice mentality than the argument that abortion should be used to save us tax money. Imagine that the two-year-old daughter of a family on welfare fell into an abandoned well. Authorities calculate that since a funeral is cheaper than a rescue, and since this little girl might be on welfare for the rest of her life, the financially sound thing to do is just flood the well with water. Once the child floats to the top, the coroner can scoop up her body, have it buried, and the taxpayers will have saved a bundle. That is obviously a monstrous idea, but it is no more so than telling poor women that if they will kill their children to save us money, we’ll pay the killer.

Now if America is serious about having a social policy based on the philosophy that it’s cheaper to execute a child than support one, then we should start encouraging families on welfare to not only kill their unborn children, but their born children as well. Remember, the guiding principle here is not morality but saving money. If we are willing to ignore the biological fact that their unborn children are living human beings, why should we care that their born children are living human beings?

I am against abortion but I look at all the issues. Besides, most political offices have nothing to do with abortion.

For people who believe that abortion is murder, a candidate’s position on other issues is irrelevant. The slaughter of children cannot be equated to any other social, cultural or political issue. It is also irrelevant that most political offices have no impact on abortion. If a candidate is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, voters will not ignore that just because the office he is seeking has no impact on racial issues. That dynamic also applies in this case. People who support legalized abortion are not morally qualified to serve in any public office.

It is interesting to note that the number of people killed during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center is virtually the same as the number of unborn children killed daily in America’s death camps. In other words, for the unborn every day is 9/11. If the rest of us were being hit like that, no one would be saying that there are other issues to consider.

We should not have litmus tests for politicians and judges.

That is pure rubbish. A politician could be attractive, intelligent, experienced and have all the right answers to the important issues of the day, but if he was found to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan most people would view that as a litmus test. If a judge was nominated to the Supreme Court and it was discovered that he had written a law review article saying women should not be allowed to vote, that would be a litmus test. If a politician said that the terrorists who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center had legitimate reasons for doing so, that too would be a litmus test.

In fact, there are many legitimate and positive reasons for litmus tests, and people who claim they don’t have any are either lying or they lack a well-developed belief system. In either case, such people should never be entrusted with positions of power or influence.

Abortion is about empowering women.

If you want to see the weakest and most subservient women in America, just look at the faces of those entering an abortion clinic. What you will see is sadness, desperation, fear, and resignation. What you will not see is women who feel empowered or in control.

These faces make it clear that, like suicide, abortion is a choice made by tragic people who have been convinced they have no choice. Better than anyone else, women who submit to abortion understand why no woman was ever admired for having an abortion, and why no woman ever bragged about her abortion, and why no woman ever climbed off an abortionist’s table with a higher opinion of herself than she had when she climbed onto it.

This nonsense that women must have the right to kill their children in order to be equal to men is an invention of the abortion industry. With almost no exceptions, pioneers of the women’s movement like Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Sarah Norton, Emma Goldman, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were outspoken opponents of legal abortion. Alice Paul, who wrote the original Equal Rights Amendment, called abortion the ultimate exploitation of women. Even suffragist newspapers such as Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, had editorial policies which openly attacked both abortion and abortionists.

These early feminists saw that abortion is patronizing and paternalistic and that a woman’s willingness to submit to it doesn’t free her, it devalues her. They understood that legalized abortion is nothing more than a safety net for sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible men. Today, after over 30 years of legalized abortion, that view has been so thoroughly proven true that some abortion advocates no longer even bother to deny it. In fact, some say it should be celebrated.

On May 11, 1990, the PBS radio program Spectrum featured the staunchly pro-choice Ann Taylor-Flemming saying, “I came of age with the women’s movement. It has given license to my ambitions and dreams, and filled me with the fervor for equality that permeates all that I do. But this time, I want to turn the tables a bit. Take an issue that always seems like a women’s issue and pitch it directly towards the men out there. And that issue is abortion… it’s time now to invite the men of America back in, to ask them to raise their voices for choice… I dare say that many of them have impregnated women along the way, and then let off the hook in a big, big way – emotionally, economically and every other way – when the women went ahead and had abortions… the sense of relief for themselves was mixed with sympathy for and gratitude towards those women whose ultimate responsibility it was to relieve them of responsibility by having abortions… it would sure be nice to hear from all those men out there whose lives have been changed, bettered, and substantially eased because they were not forced into unwanted fatherhood.”

It is hard to imagine that even the most bigoted male chauvinist would suggest that women have a responsibility to let men who impregnate them “off the hook” by submitting to abortion. Yet here is that very argument being espoused by someone who claims to be an advocate for women.

Today, abortion apologists continue to push the idea that having a clean place to kill their babies is the cornerstone of women’s equality. That lie is a self-serving perversion of the basic values of legitimate feminism. As pro-life feminist Melissa Simmons-Tulin once said, “Women will never climb to equality over the dead bodies of their children.”

It’s the woman’s body. It’s her decision.

First, it is nonsense to suggest that the law never tells people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. In fact, there are many things which people are not legally allowed to do with their bodies. To name just a few, they cannot sell them for sex, or sell their organs to people who need transplants, or put certain drugs into their bodies.

Second, statements like this ignore the fact that, by any rational standard, the unborn child is a separate individual from its mother.

In fact, if an unborn child had the ability to commit a crime, it has everything necessary for a forensic expert to identify it in court. Long before the point at which most abortions are done, the unborn child has its own DNA code, its own fingerprints, and its own blood type – none of which match the mother.

The individuality of the unborn was evident in 1999 when a Tennessee surgeon had just completed an operation on an unborn baby and was about to close the incision in the mom’s abdomen. Before he could do so, the child punched his arm through the incision and grasped the doctor’s finger. A photo of this event ended up on magazine covers and television sets around the world. The question is, who grabbed the doctor’s finger?

Abortion is a women’s issue. Men have no right to even be involved.

First, people who think men have no right to be involved in the abortion issue should be careful what they ask for. Polls consistently find that women oppose abortion at a higher rate than men, they are more opposed to government funding of abortion, more active in the pro-life movement, and are more likely to favor banning abortion outright. It is abundantly clear that if men were excluded, support for abortion would plummet.

Second, men don’t need to be given the right to speak out against abortion, they already have a responsibility to do so. Real men don’t just stand around with their hands in their pockets while helpless children are slaughtered for money. Third, the pro-choice crowd never tells men who support legal abortion to keep quiet, and they have never said that the 1973 Supreme Court had no right to be involved in the Roe v. Wade decision, despite the fact every member was male.

They also don’t seem to mind that the overwhelming majority of abortionists are men, and they never say anything about the male “escorts” outside the abortion mills or even the men who force women into having abortions. Evidently, the only men these people want to be censored are those who think women deserve better than abortion.

Finally, if the argument is that men shouldn’t be allowed to participate simply because they can’t get pregnant, what about women who can’t get pregnant? Should only young, sexually active, fertile women who are not practicing birth control be allowed to have an opinion about abortion?

What others believe about abortion is irrelevant. All that matters is what the woman believes.

In other words, it doesn’t matter whether abortion is murder or not as long as the person who hires the killer thinks it isn’t. Using that looney logic, the Ku Klux Klan should be allowed to legally kill black people as long as they claim to honestly believe that black people are not really human beings.

Obviously, we cannot allow individuals to create their own realities in order to justify killing other people. In the case of abortion, if woman “A” believes it’s murder and woman “B” believes it’s just a choice, it is not possible for both of them to be right.

The issue is whether we trust women to be their own moral agents.

Among the millions of people in the pro-life movement, the vast majority are women, including most of its leaders. To suggest that this female-dominated entity seeks to squash other women, or doesn’t trust women, would be silly if it were not so condescending. This is just another shabby tactic the abortion lobby uses to keep from having to defend abortion.

To understand how truly asinine this “trust women” rhetoric is, imagine someone opposing laws against rape or incest because he “trusts men to be their own moral agents.”

Or imagine that a woman is scheduled to have an abortion tomorrow, but gives birth in her home today. If the baby survives, should she be allowed to kill it? After all, the child was going to be killed the next day anyway. Why should she lose her “right to choose” because of a premature delivery that was completely beyond her control? Is she only allowed to pay someone else to kill her baby, but not allowed to kill it herself? Are we saying that we only trust women to make good moral decisions while they’re pregnant?

If we are supposed to just blindly trust women, why not trust them across the board? Let each woman make her own moral choice about whether to stop at red lights, embezzle money from her employer, write bad checks, use cocaine, or become a prostitute. Let’s also exempt all female business owners from discrimination laws which make it illegal for companies to refuse employment or service to minorities. In fact, since every law on the books prevents women from choosing to engage in a particular activity and says that women can’t be trusted to make that decision, shouldn’t the pro-choice mob be screaming that women should be exempted from all laws? Do they trust women or don’t they?

The reality is that the only reason for the law to even exist is because people – men and women – can’t be trusted to always do what’s right. Laws are necessary to keep them from inflicting their immoral decisions on others.

Clearly, this “trust women” rhetoric is a sham. By using the term “moral agents” to describe women who submit to abortion, the pro-choice gang hopes to create the illusion that women who pay to have their children slaughtered do so out of some kind of moral conviction. It’s just a rhetorical shell-game to make abortion seem morally defensible.

If abortion is illegal, how will women who miscarry convince the authorities that they didn't actually illegal abortions?

The police do not investigate instances where no one could be charged with a crime. Since no one is calling for women to be prosecuted for having illegal abortions, there is no motive for the authorities to investigate miscarriages. For proof, check out how often miscarriages were investigated by the police and how many women were prosecuted prior to abortion being legalized in 1973.

What gives you the right to tell a woman she can’t terminate her pregnancy?

This is more pro-choice double talk. These people know that we are not trying to stop pregnancy terminations. All pregnancies terminate! The only issue is whether they terminate with a live baby or a dead one. Abortion is not about the termination of pregnancy, but the termination of human life.

Now, if the question is, what gives us the right to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion, the answer is absolutely nothing. In a society of laws, no one is allowed to decide what activities others may or may not engage in. As individuals, we have no more right to tell a woman she can’t hire someone to kill her unborn child than we have to tell her she can’t rob convenience stores. However, it is right for there to be laws which say she can’t do so. Just as government has the responsibility and the right to prevent armed robbery, it has the responsibility and the right to prevent the killing of innocent human beings, including those waiting to be born.

Women must be free to control their reproductive lives.

First, abortion is not about reproduction. When a woman is pregnant, reproduction has already taken place. Abortion is about killing the child that has been produced. Second, what kind of perverted mind sees the right to kill one’s own offspring as a symbol of freedom? As pro-life feminist Frederica Mathewes-Green once observed, a woman killing her child through abortion is like an animal gnawing off its own leg to get out of a trap. Abortion, she said, is not a sign that women are free, but that they are desperate.

The Supreme Court settled this once and for all. They said that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Although, the word “abortion” does not appear in the Constitution, in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses the right to abortion. However, the word “privacy” is not found in the Constitution either. Despite that, the Court said that a right to privacy is found in a “penumbra” (shadow) of the Constitution. That little example of verbal gymnastics is known as “judicial activism” which simply means that the Court started with the conclusion they wanted and twisted the Constitution to make it fit.

After he died, the notes of Harry Blackmun – the Supreme Court Justice who wrote Roe v. Wade – were released and they made it undeniable that Blackmun, and the majority of the Supreme Court, found a right to abortion because that is what they set out to find. When they saw that the Constitution contained no foundation to support their political agenda, they simply manufactured one. This is best exemplified in their assertion that abortion is constitutional because the unborn are not “persons.” That is the modern version of a tactic the Court has used in the past to make certain groups constitutionally invisible. In their 1857 Dred Scott decision, they ruled that slavery was constitutional because black people were not “citizens.”

As for the claim that the abortion issue was settled by Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has a long history of discovering that some of its prior decisions were wrong. We do not have to accept that abortion is a settled issue because of Roe v. Wade anymore than our ancestors had to accept that slavery was a settled issue because of Dred Scott.

Why should a fetus have more rights than the woman?

It shouldn’t. The pro-life position has never been that the baby’s rights are superior to the mom’s, but that they are equal. If our country was intentionally slaughtering women by the millions just so children could lead the lives they would prefer to live, the pro-life movement would be fighting that with the same intensity that we now fight abortion.

Our point is that while everyone has the right to live their life as they wish, they cannot kill other people in order to do so. When we say to a man that he cannot kill someone in order to get the money to buy a new car, we are not saying that he has no right to buy a new car or that he has fewer rights than the person he might kill. We’re simply telling him that one person’s right to life is more valuable than someone else’s right to buy a new car.

That same dynamic applies in the case of abortion. Remember, the abortion industry’s own data proves that virtually every abortion performed in America is done for non-medical reasons on a healthy baby and a healthy woman who just doesn’t want to be pregnant. This clearly proves that the abortion issue is a conflict between the baby’s right to life and the mother’s desire not to be pregnant. And while that desire may be reasonable, we can’t allow her to kill someone in order to fulfill it.

For over 30 years, the abortion lobby has told the public that protecting the unborn would trample on the rights of women. That is a lie. The Constitution was specifically designed to deal with situations like this.

Assuming that there is a constitutional right to privacy, before the law can say that someone’s right to participate in a certain activity is protected by that right to privacy, it must first ask, “The privacy to do what?”

One of the principles of the Constitution is that rights are never absolute. They all have limits. For example, libel and slander laws impose a limit on free speech, as do some consumer protection and price-fixing laws.

We also have a right to the free exercise of religion, but we cannot legally kill someone even if our religion requires human sacrifice.

Rights also have value relative to each other. For example, a store owner does not have the right to shoot a shoplifter – even if that is the only way he can recover his property. Our society says a thief’s right to life is superior to a store owner’s right to own property. This infringement on property rights is based on the relativity of rights which the law and any rational person supports.

This principle of rights having limits and relativity is how the Constitution weighs one individual’s rights against another’s.

In the case of abortion, the question is not whether a woman has a right to privacy, but whether her right to privacy supersedes her child’s right to life. To say that it does, is to contend that there are limits to rights specifically expressed in the Constitution, but no limits on a right which had to be invented in a “penumbra.”

In the final analysis, it is as preposterous to suggest that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is a matter of privacy as it is to say it is a constitutional right. And this is precisely the reason why abortion defenders viscously attack any nominee to the Supreme Court who says he or she will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

I am not for abortion on demand. I support the compromise in Roe v. Wade.

This rhetoric is designed to conceal the fact that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy.   For over 30 years, the abortion lobby, with the help of their media lapdogs, has been able to carry out this deception because of a scam perpetrated by the Supreme Court in 1973.

Harry Blackmun – the Supreme Court Justice who wrote Roe v. Wade – clearly understood that the country would not support unlimited abortion on demand. However, his writings prove that this was the political goal that he and others on the Court sought. So they issued Roe v. Wade which included the following language: “State regulation protective of fetal life after viability has both logical and biological justifications: and if a state is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may proscribe abortion during that period except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Obviously, this appears to allow states to prohibit abortion after viability. The problem is, while it is normal for legal decisions such as this to include definitions of the important words and terms used in the ruling, in Roe the Court chose to omit any definition of the word “health.” However, on the same day they issued Roe, they also issued what’s known as a “companion decision.” That’s where two or more decisions on a common subject are released which must be read together to get the full effect of the ruling. The companion to Roe is called Doe v. Bolton and it contains this definition for health: “…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.”

So, the court creates the illusion of a compromise by ruling in Roe that states can prohibit abortion under certain circumstances unless the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health. At that same moment, they bury within Doe a definition of health so broad that it literally covers any circumstance in which a woman might be pregnant, thus removing all elements of the phony compromise.

The Supreme Court was counting on the probability that the decision which legalized abortion would get all the attention, while its companion would be ignored – except by lawyers, judges and legislators. The evidence of how well this scam worked is that, today, most people know about Roe v. Wade but few have ever even heard of Doe v. Bolton.

The point is, when a pro-choice politician or activist says they support the compromise reached in Roe, they are lying. They are fully aware that no such compromise exists. They also know that legislation restricting abortion which includes an exception for the “health” of the woman is meaningless. In fact, that is precisely why they always demand a health exception in any abortion-related legislation.

How can a fetus have constitutional rights before it is viable?

Viability is a phony issue. The Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and, today, abortion clinics across America routinely advertise elective abortions past the point where it is known that babies can survive on their own.

We also know that viability is a function of medical technology and unrelated to the question of whether the unborn are living human beings or not. This is proven by the fact that premature babies are now routinely surviving at gestational ages that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago, despite the reality that unborn children are not biologically different than they’ve ever been.

Finally, if the argument is that the unborn are not viable because they are dependent on others to survive, then a one-year-old baby is no more viable than an unborn baby. Neither can survive alone. That could also be said about people who are severely handicapped or suffering from some debilitating illness, as well as people who are senile, comatose, unconscious, or under general anesthesia. If the ability to survive without others is what creates the right to life, these people have no more right to life than the unborn.

How can tissue only a quarter of an inch in diameter have constitutional rights?

In the first place, most abortions happen well after the unborn child is that small, and only a moron could see a sonogram image of an unborn child and dismiss it as mere tissue.

Beyond that, if size is the yardstick for constitutional rights, how big does a human being have to get before it starts having these rights? Is weight or height the determining factor? Do these rights come on gradually as size increases and, if so, what is the ratio of size to rights? Should men have more rights than women since they are generally larger? If someone loses weight do they lose rights?

The Constitution says that people have to be “born or naturalized in the United States” to have rights. A fetus is not born.

Clearly, the right to life is extended to people beyond those who were born or naturalized in the United States. For example, it is not legal to murder a foreign visitor to the United States despite the fact that this person was neither born nor naturalized here.

Whether abortion was legal or not at that time is both debatable and irrelevant. We have many laws that didn’t exist then and we’ve eliminated many that did. For example, at that time it was legal to own slaves and illegal for women to vote.

There is no consensus for outlawing abortion. Most Americans are pro-choice.

The pro-choice position is that abortion should be legal on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. There has never been even one poll which showed majority support for that position. The most that can be said is that a majority of people may support abortion in the extremely rare “hard-case” situations. Since even abortion industry studies show that virtually no abortions are done for these reasons, it is clear that most Americans do not support the vast majority of abortions that are actually performed.

This “pro-choice majority” lie is nothing more than political spin and the abortion industry’s own actions prove it. Anyone who believes their viewpoint has majority support will steer their battles toward the legislatures where majorities rule. But the abortion lobby has spent over 30 years doing whatever it takes to keep abortion out of the legislatures and in the courts. Only people who know they can’t win in the legislatures would do that.

Let’s also not forget that, in 1850, there was no consensus in America for outlawing slavery or allowing women to vote. There was also a time when consensus was that the earth is flat. In fact, world history is littered with examples where “consensus” simply meant that most of the fools were on one side. Moreover, if consensus is what should drive abortion policy, that’s one more reason to overturn Roe. In 1973, there certainly was no consensus for legalizing abortion on demand.

I am pro-life, but I think abortion should be allowed in certain situations.

Some people call themselves pro-life, despite saying abortion should be allowed in some cases. The most common are when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or health, when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when the unborn child is disabled. Other people even call themselves pro-life simply because they say that elective abortion should be legal only during the first trimester.

To see how intellectually dishonest these positions are, paraphrase them. For example, “I am pro-life, but it’s okay to kill babies who were conceived in rape” or, “I am pro-life, but it’s okay to kill children with Down’s syndrome” or, “I am pro-life, but it’s okay to kill babies during the earliest stages of their lives,” etc. When paraphrased like this, the “pro-life with exceptions” philosophy always contradicts itself. It is as irrational as saying, “Everyone has a right to be free, but slavery should be legal in certain situations.”

To be accurate, when someone says that they are “pro-life with exceptions” what they are really saying is that they support the “choice” to kill some babies (those conceived in rape, those who are handicapped, etc.) but oppose the “choice” to kill others. In other words, the only honest way to define their position is, “pro-choice with exceptions.”

Why should abortion be illegal if the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life?

The moment we agree that there are some circumstances in which it is permissible to intentionally kill a child, we have, in effect, adopted the pro-choice position. This is something understood even by the leader of the most prolific baby killing machine the world has ever known. On August 4, 2004, Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt was on KABC radio in Los Angeles and said this about pro-lifers, “…if you press them, they will almost always say that they believe in any case that the life of the woman – if a woman’s life is at stake – that it should take precedent… so they’re already, to some degree, pro-choice they just don’t know it.”

On the legal front, some scholars have suggested that if the law ever prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother, if a woman claimed she would commit suicide if denied an abortion, that would satisfy the legal definition of a threat to her life.

From the pro-life perspective, when the public is shown that a legitimate argument can be made against abortion even in this situation, it becomes easier for them to understand why there should be no exceptions under any circumstances. After all, this is the “gold-standard” for exceptions.

Defending this position starts with recognizing that with modern medicine the chances that continuing a pregnancy to term might kill the mom are extraordinarily rare. However, in those cases where that possibility might exist, the crucial issue is intent.

If a car wreck has trapped two passengers in such a way that saving one might take the life of the other, the emergency personnel on the scene would never intentionally kill one to get the other one out. Instead, they would do everything possible to save both. If in that process one loses its life, that would be seen as a regrettable, but unavoidable, outcome. That dynamic applies when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. The woman’s physician should be directed to do everything possible to save both mother and baby. If in that effort the child dies, that should be considered an unavoidable, thus lawful, outcome. However, it is as morally indefensible to kill the baby to save the mother as it would be to kill the mother to save the baby.

In short, the “no-exceptions” position is not that the baby’s rights are superior to the moms, but that they are equal. It is a position that protects women without caving in to the irrational and morally bankrupt view that it is sometimes “necessary” to kill their children.

How can you tell a woman whose fetus is handicapped that she has to have it?

To begin with, when a woman is pregnant she has no choice but to “have the baby.” The question is whether she will have a live baby or a dead one. Also, doctors sometimes make mistakes and it is not uncommon for women to give birth to healthy babies after being told that their unborn children had problems.

Most importantly, however, is that people with disabilities are not less valuable than those without, and no one has the right to decide that their lives are not worth living or protecting – not even their mothers.

One of the most incredible aspects of the abortion lobby’s approach to the disabled is that they try to sell it as compassionate. What is often overlooked in all this is the fact that the “choice” they offer is not between a life with handicaps or one without, but between a life with handicaps or no life at all. When abortion apologists call that compassion, let’s recognize for whom this compassion is being shown. Make no mistake, abortions on the disabled are done for us, not them.

Now, if that is not true, and if we truly believe in this “better-dead-than-disabled” philosophy, why limit our compassion to the unborn? Perhaps, as the following people are suggesting, “the right to choose” should be extended beyond the womb.

“There is little evidence that termination of an infant’s life in the first few months following extraction from the womb could be looked upon as murder… It would seem to be more ‘inhumane’ to kill an adult chimpanzee than a newborn baby, since the chimpanzee has greater mental awareness. Murder cannot logically apply to a life form with less mental awareness than a primate.”

Winston L. Duke
Article: The New Biology
Reason magazine, August 1972

 

“No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to life.”

Dr. Francis Crick
Nobel Prize winner
Pacific News Service, January, 1978

 

“In our book, Should the Baby Live, my colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggested that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.”

Peter Singer
Professor of Bio-Ethics
Princeton University

 

“It is reasonable to describe infanticide as post-natal abortion… Infanticide is actually a very humane thing when you are dealing with misbegotten infants. We might have to encourage it under certain conditionalities of excess population especially when you’re dealing with defective children.”

Joseph Fletcher
Professor of Ethics
Harvard Divinity School
Infanticide and the Value of Life,
Prometheus Books, 1978

 

“Infanticide has a logical continuity with abortion and even with contraception.”

Edward Pohlman, Researcher
Planned Parenthood
Psychology of Birth Planning
Shankman Publishing
Cambridge MA, 1967

 

“If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering.”

Dr. James D. Watson
Nobel Prize winner
Time magazine, May 28, 1973

 

These quotes, and many more like them, come from people with very well-established pro-choice credentials. Regrettably, attitudes like theirs are now commonplace within the so-called “bio-ethics” community and they force us to consider how long it will be until the right to kill an imperfect child becomes the responsibility to do so. At a 1986 symposium called, “Prenatal Diagnosis and Its Impact on Society” Dr. James Sorenson, a Professor of Socio-Medical Sciences at Boston University, observed that, “American opinion is rapidly moving toward the position where parents who have an abnormal child may be considered irresponsible.” To see that this observation is not at all farfetched, compare his quote to the issue of family size.

In the past, it was common for Americans to have large families. But now, the prevailing attitude is that couples who have more than one or two children are being selfish and irresponsible. In fact, it is not unheard of for people who have four or five children to be publicly confronted by total strangers. That is true even for those couples who want – and can easily afford – a large family.

This attitude was created by the view that large families are no longer “necessary” and that they use up too many public services and resources. The problem is, those same things could also be said about the handicapped.

Today, there are studies indicating that 90% of all unborn children who are diagnosed with Down syndrome are executed in the womb. Clearly, we have come to the point that when pre-natal testing reveals a less-than-perfect baby, abortion is the default position. In fact, women in this situation often say they feel they actually have to justify not having an abortion. It now seems that when people hear of a handicapped child being born, for many their first thought is, “Didn’t the mother know about this when she was pregnant?” If that is where we are – and I am convinced it is – then Sorenson’s prediction has already come true.

Finally, if it is compassionate to execute an unborn child who might have a disability and might live an unpleasant life, it would be even more compassionate to execute a five-year-old who we know is disabled and who we know is living an unpleasant life. In other words, while the quotes given earlier suggest extending the “right to choose” only a short time past birth, if the underlying principle is sound, why should we stop there? Again, why put arbitrary limits on our compassion?

Remember, when the Nazis set out to create the “Master Race,” they began by executing the handicapped and selling it as compassion. If America is going to embrace that same philosophy, executing the born makes as much sense as executing the unborn.

Why should a woman who was the victim of rape or incest have to bear a child?

When pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest, the baby is not only the child of the rapist but of the woman as well. Today, it is not unusual for rape victims who aborted their children to say they have come to grips with having been the victim of someone else’s violence, but cannot accept that they inflicted violence on their own baby. On the other hand, you never hear a rape victim who did not have an abortion later say she wished she had. In fact, they often see the baby as the only good thing that came from the situation.

There are those who argue that this baby would be a constant reminder of the rape. When adoption is suggested, the response is that many women are not emotionally able to carry a child for nine months and then give it to someone else to raise. In other words, we’re asked to believe that the kind of woman who would be traumatized by placing her child with a loving family, would be happier if her baby was brutally ripped to shreds, thrown in a dumpster and hauled off to a landfill.

Even if we bought into that, let’s imagine that a woman was kidnapped and held for two years during which time she gave birth to her captor’s son. When rescued, the woman says the baby is a constant reminder of her ordeal but that she could not stand to give him up to someone else to raise. Would we allow her to have him killed? After all, the dynamics used to justify abortion also exist in this situation.

Other people rationalize abortion for rape and incest because the pregnancy was beyond the woman’s control. That too is illogical. Allowing a victim of violence and brutality to inflict violence and brutality upon her own child will not return the control that the rapist stole from her, nor will it address the physical or psychological damage that was done to her.

Finally, we must never forget that the unborn child created through an act of violence is no less a living human being than the one created through an act of love. And just as we would not discriminate against a five-year-old who was conceived in rape or incest, neither should we discriminate against an unborn child who was so conceived.

If abortion is illegal, what should the penalty be for a woman who has one?

Laws prohibiting abortion target the abortionist, not the woman. This is evidenced by the fact that, before Roe v. Wade, American women were never indicted for having illegal abortions. For several pragmatic reasons, that same approach should be adopted when abortion is again illegal.

First, except in the extremely unlikely event that a woman is actually caught in the act of having an illegal abortion, a conviction would be virtually impossible.

Second, the woman is the best source of information needed to bring charges against the abortionist. If she also faced prosecution, she would not cooperate with the authorities, thus keeping them from getting the evidence needed to convict the abortionist. That would leave him free to kill again.

This doesn’t excuse the woman for having participated in an illegal act which took the life of her child. It simply recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society, and that legal sanctions against the woman would reduce the chances of that happening. It’s no different than the authorities giving immunity to a small-time drug user in exchange for information on a big-time drug dealer.

Remember, the goal of the pro-life movement is to stop abortion. Imprisoning a woman who had an illegal abortion would prevent nothing since her child is already dead. However, imprisoning the abortionist might save thousands of babies in the future.

The point is, jail is exactly where every abortionist deserves to be. If giving women a pass on prosecution is the best way to make that happen, that is a deal worth making. As for the pro-life movement, we just don’t know of a practical incentive for jailing women who submit to abortions. The really odd thing is, it always seems to be someone from the pro-choice crowd who argues that they should be. So I have a suggestion. If these people think it’s unfair for abortionists to go to jail but not their customers, they need to be the ones lobbying for legislation to put women in jail.

No woman ever wanted an abortion. They only do it when they have good reasons.

If it’s true that no woman ever wanted an abortion, why is abortion the pro-choice mob’s inevitable solution for women with unplanned pregnancies? It’s like saying no woman wants to commit suicide so we’ll help her out by selling her a pistol. The question is, if the abortion lobby cares so much about women, why aren’t they helping them not do what everyone agrees they don’t want to do? Is it because they’re in the pistol business?

As for the reasons women have abortions, that’s irrelevant. If the unborn are not living human beings, no justification for abortion is necessary. If they are living human beings, no justification for abortion is possible.

Outlawing abortion will impose an unequal burden on poor women. Wealthy women will just go to other countries.

This nonsensical argument is like saying we should not have drug laws since the rich can get them in other countries. Governments cannot shirk their responsibilities on the basis of what other governments do. If Canada legalizes cocaine use, or prostitution, or incest, that does not mean we have to do so as well. If it does, then we need to abolish our entire legislative process since virtually everything we make illegal is legal somewhere else.

Also, we are not limited to passing only those laws that we know beforehand will be evenly applied across all socio-economic groups. We know that laws against robbery and drugs impact the poor more than the rich, while insider trading, stock manipulation, and tax evasion laws impact the rich more than the poor. Yet we enforce all of them.

Now, if the point of this is that prohibiting abortion is discriminatory, that is correct. When abortion is illegal, a child is safer in the womb of a poor woman than a rich one, since wealthy parents can afford to take their children outside the country to be killed.

This is the toughest decision a woman will ever make. No one has a right to interfere.

Murdering your child should be a tough decision. Just imagine how cold-blooded a woman would have to be to say it was no big deal. But simply because a decision is tough, does not mean it is either morally defensible or beyond the legitimate interest of the law. If a man is thinking about killing his 10-year-old daughter to collect on an insurance policy, it may be the toughest decision he ever had to make but that doesn’t mean it should be legal.

Of course, the real question is, why is abortion the toughest decision a woman will ever make? Perhaps it’s because within every woman who submits to an abortion, is the realization she is murdering her own baby.

Why shouldn’t a woman whose baby is going to die anyway have an abortion?

Doctors are not always right when they make this diagnosis, but even when they are, there is an enormous moral distinction between the natural death of a child and the intentional killing of one. It is the same as the distinction between a man dying from a heart attack or being killed in a holdup.

The question is, once we have adopted this “going-to-die-anyway” standard, why apply it only to the unborn? If a man is charged with murder, shouldn’t we drop the charges if we discover that the victim already had a fatal disease? Or when certain medical experiments are too dangerous to be attempted under normal circumstances, why shouldn’t we force prisoners on death row to participate since they’re going to die anyway?

I don’t like surgical abortions, but there’s nothing wrong with the abortion pill.

This is like a man who poisoned his wife trying to portray himself as morally superior to the man who bludgeoned his wife with an ax. In the case of abortion, it may be more aesthetically pleasing to kill children with chemicals than with scalpels, but the victims are just as dead and the abortionists are still cowardly and cold-blooded hired serial killers.

Regarding the “abortion pill” RU-486, there is a chilling association between the German holocaust and America’s holocaust.

When the Nazis converted from shooting their victims to gassing them, the chemical they chose was called Zyklon B which had been developed and manufactured by a company named I.G. Farben.

After the war, I.G. Farben changed its name to Hoechst AG. Today, Hoechst is a pharmaceutical giant with subsidiaries all over the world, including the United States. One of those subsidiaries is a French company named Roussel Uclaf, the developer of RU-486. In other words, the same corporation that created Zyklon B for Germany’s death camps, later created RU-486 for America’s death camps.

What about a woman who can’t afford another child or isn’t ready to be a mom?

To begin with, when a woman is pregnant whether she is ready or not, she already is a mom. At that point, her only “choice” is to be the mother of a living baby or a dead one.

Second, poverty is not a justification for killing your children. No one would excuse a father for killing his five-year-old daughter because he could no longer afford her.

Additionally, the abortion industry’s own statistics prove that almost every abortion it sells has nothing to do with poverty, but is instead sold to a woman who simply doesn’t want to be pregnant.

An interesting observation about the relationship between poverty and abortion, is that poor women are rarely the ones agitating for abortion. Instead, it always seems to be rich, white, elitist gadflies and liberal social engineers who become so distressed about poor women having access to abortion.

How can you deny women health care?

Just because a procedure is performed in a medical facility doesn’t automatically make it health care. Breast augmentation would be a good example of that.

Health care relates to the treatment of disease, injury or illness. Since pregnancy is none of those, abortion cannot be accurately labeled health care. In fact, abortion has the same relationship to health care and medicine that prostitution has to love and romance.

If abortion is outlawed women will again be killed in back-alley abortions.

Virtually every study on this subject has concluded that deaths and injuries due to illegal abortion have been wildly exaggerated and that the vast majority of illegal abortions were done by licensed doctors who were simply breaking the law.

Not only are abortion apologists lying when they say that thousands of women used to die every year from back-alley, coat-hanger abortions, but their own research proves it.

Figures released in 1986 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) show that in the 15 years prior to the legalization of abortion, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in the entire United States was 136 per year and dropping.

Obviously, it is a tragedy when even one young woman loses her life in this way. However, there is a way to protect women against illegal abortions without butchering millions of defenseless children.

The first thing to keep in mind is that pro-lifers don’t do abortions. If abortion were outlawed today and illegal abortionists started springing up next week, every one of them would be someone who is pro-choice. In fact, every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion – whether it was legal or illegal – was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice. In other words, when the abortion lobby says, “If abortion is made illegal, women will die,” what they’re actually saying is, “If you stop us from killing babies, we’re going to start killing women.”

So clearly, the solution to the back-alley abortion problem is for the pro-choice gang to agree not to do them. They could also help us pass legislation requiring that, (a) people who commit illegal abortions are to be prosecuted under the same homicide statutes that apply to any other hired killer and, (b) anyone who coerces a woman to have an illegal abortion, or helps to arrange an illegal abortion, is to be charged as an accessory to homicide.

Of course, these people are never going to agree to this because they never cared about this issue to begin with. They simply wanted to make it look like we are responsible for the pregnant women they are threatening to kill. The fact is, every time one of these radical pro-choice fanatics screams about dirty coat-hangers and back-alley abortions, the blood is on their hands – not ours.

Also, if the motivation for legalized abortion really is to save the lives of women, why don’t we legalize rape? After all, it is not uncommon for a woman to be killed by a rapist to keep her from identifying him to the authorities. Legalizing rape would save those women by taking away that motivation. We could also set up rape clinics where rapists could take their victims. These centers could offer clean rooms, condom machines, emergency contraception, and perhaps even doctors on staff in case the rapist injures his victim. We could even issue licenses to rapists requiring them to undergo routine testing for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Remember, the pro-choice argument is that women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, and that keeping abortion legal will make sure they occur in a clean and safe environment. Those dynamics also apply to rape. Keeping rape illegal has not prevented women from being raped, so why not at least try to prevent back-alley rapes? As ridiculous as this suggestion is, if the goal is saving women’s lives, it makes as much sense as legalized abortion.

Late-term abortions are not done unless the woman’s life is in danger or the baby is already dead or couldn’t survive.

In April of 1995, George Tiller – the notorious late-term abortionist from Wichita, Kansas – spoke at the National Abortion Federation’s 19th Annual Meeting in New Orleans, where he stated, “We have some experience with late terminations, about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past five years.”

Tiller admits that of the 10,000 children he killed between 24 and 36 weeks in a five year period, 8% had fetal anomalies. And we cannot assume that the other 92% were to protect the lives of the mothers, since modern medical technology makes it extremely rare for pregnancy to be life-threatening, and since abortions to protect the lives or health of the mothers are done earlier in the pregnancies.

Tiller’s admissions were confirmed at the National Abortion Federation’s Annual Meeting in San Francisco in 1996. Martin Haskell – the Ohio abortionist who invented partial-birth (D&X) abortion – stated, “Two of the criticisms that I’ve been hearing lately about how our side is structuring its debate is that, one, we seem to be taking a position that-in the case of the D&X-that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case. The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure verses the 90% who it’s elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period, and then as you get on towards 28 weeks it becomes closer to a hundred percent. But these seem to be very uncomfortable issues for people on our side of the debate to deal with.”

Haskell is admitting that his pro-choice colleagues have been lying about the babies in late-term abortions being dead before the procedures start, and lying about women having these procedures for health reasons. He even admits that as the pregnancies got further along, the percentage that were elective increased, with 28-week and later abortions being virtually 100% elective.

What about a 14-year-old girl who finds herself pregnant?

No 14-year-old girl ever “found” herself pregnant. She got pregnant. This deceptive rhetoric is intended to rationalize abortion by projecting women as victims of their pregnancies rather than participants in them.

The answer to abortion is not in making it against the law but in changing hearts. You cannot legislate morality.

The answer to all of humanity’s problems is in changing hearts. In fact, we wouldn’t need any laws if everyone would always do what is right instead of what is wrong. But until that day comes, the role of the law is not to change hearts but to restrain the heartless. As Martin Luther King once pointed out, the law could not make people love him but it could keep people from lynching him.

Regarding abortion, our government has no right to allow its victims to be slaughtered waiting for the killers to have a change of heart. Besides, if abortion is not murder we do not need a change of heart. If it is murder, the law has no right to allow the heartless to do it.

While it is true that the law can’t make an immoral person moral, to say that we don’t legislate morality is idiotic. Every law passed is someone’s idea of right and wrong. The law is the mechanism society uses to decide which behaviors it will and will not tolerate. If those decisions are not going to be based on morality, what should they be based on?

You have no right to tell others what to believe. You people are just anti-choice extremists.

Given that “choice” is now defined as the right to butcher defenseless children by the millions, we are indeed anti-choice. If that also makes us extremists, so be it.

However, to contend that we are trying to tell people what to believe is absurd. Laws are passed to control behavior, not thought. Laws which prohibit armed robbery are not at all concerned about what people think about armed robbery, as long as they don’t commit them. That is how we view abortion. We don’t really care what people think about the unborn, as long as they don’t kill them.

I am personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t inflict my beliefs on others.

The only basis for being opposed to abortion is the recognition that it is the killing of a child. Therefore, when someone takes this “personally opposed” position, what they are saying is, “I understand that abortion is the intentional slaughter of defenseless children, but I’m not going to do anything to stop it.”

That raises the question: which other innocent human beings do they think it should be legal to kill? Also, are they equally tolerant on other issues? Presumably, they are also “personally opposed” to rape, armed robbery, racial discrimination, and wife-beating. Do they have a problem inflicting their personal beliefs regarding these issues as well?

It is especially fraudulent for politicians to take this position. Inflicting their views on others is precisely what legislators are elected to do and every vote they make does just that. Further, if a politician is not going to be guided by his own personal views, then (a) why would he bother to tell us what his personal views are, and (b) exactly whose personal views is he going to be guided by?

Politicians who say they are Christians but that they won’t impose their religious beliefs on others are also frauds. If some guy claimed to be a Christian while owning a chain of triple-X theaters and porn shops, no one would believe that he is sincere about his faith. That also applies to politicians. When a person says that if their faith collides with their politics, it is their faith they will abandon, what they are actually saying is that God can’t trust them. So why should we?

Of course, when it comes to this “forcing beliefs” issue, the most important point is that 45 to 50 million dead babies have had the pro-choice mob’s beliefs forced on them.

Someone can be opposed to abortion but still be pro-choice.

This is an outright lie. The only people in this country who are truly opposed to abortion are those who are calling for the unborn to be protected by law. This is simply the rhetoric of people who want to have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they recognize, and want for themselves, the moral superiority of the pro-life position. On the other hand, they lack the character and courage to fight for it.

This position is similar to the “personally opposed” one discussed above. Again, there is no reason to be opposed to abortion except the recognition that it is the killing of a child. So what these people are really saying is, “I would never kill my baby, but I wouldn’t stop someone else from killing their baby.”

To see how truly asinine that is, imagine someone who says, “I would never own a slave, but I wouldn’t stop someone else from owning one.” Could we honestly conclude that such a person is opposed to slavery?

This is a religious issue and you have no right to force your beliefs on other people. Keep your Rosaries off my ovaries!

A person does not have to be religious to say it’s wrong to murder a child, any more than they have to be religious to say it’s wrong to steal money. Just because many pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs does not make abortion a religious issue. Remember, the civil rights movement was often led by pastors and headquartered in churches, but that didn’t make civil rights a religious issue.

To say that abortion should be off limits to the law because most pro-life people are Christians, is as illogical as saying we should do away with laws against theft because one of the Ten Commandments is, “Thou shalt not steal.” If we are going to start rejecting laws simply because they are supported by religion, given that there is hardly anything illegal which is not also prohibited by Scripture, then we will have to do away with all of our laws.

As for the ovary issue, we pro-lifers are as indifferent to our opponents’ ovaries, as we are to their spleens, gall bladders, and tonsils.

Is it possible for someone to be pro-choice and a Christian?

No. Christian doctrine declares that God is the author of life and that He is incapable of making mistakes. From those beliefs, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that when life exists in the womb, it is God’s will that it be there. Given that support for legal abortion denies both of these realities, by definition, it is incompatible with Christian belief.

People who claim to be both pro-choice and Christian are, basically, asserting three things. The first is that life is not a right inherited from God, but a privilege bestowed by human beings who can withhold it if they “choose” to do so. The second is that God is neutral on whether a child He created is brutally torn limb from limb. Finally, they are saying it is possible to reject the innocent new lives which God creates without rejecting God Himself. From a Christian perspective, these arguments are absurd.

The bottom line is, a Christian cannot be pro-choice about the intentional destruction of innocent human life any more than they can be pro-choice about rape, robbery, slavery, incest, child abuse, etc.

The Bible does not condemn abortion and Jesus never spoke out against it.

To suggest that the Bible is silent on abortion is a lie. In both the Old and New Testaments, the language used to describe born and unborn people is the same. For example, in Luke 1:41, the unborn John the Baptist is called a “brephos” which means “babe” or “baby” in Greek. Then, in the very next chapter, the born Jesus is also called a “brephos.” We are also told that Elizabeth’s baby leapt in her womb upon being in the presence of Mary. Should we conclude that this makes no statement about the unborn? If so, and if the Bible is silent on abortion, then it is logical to also conclude that Scripture is indifferent about whether these women would have aborted Jesus and John the Baptist. After all, by pro-choice reasoning, at this point they didn’t even exist. (A few Scriptural references to the unborn include: Genesis 25:22-24; Job 31:15; Psalm 22:9-10; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5; Hosea 12:2-3; Luke 1:15; Luke 1:41; and Exodus 21:22-24.)

Moreover, not every word Jesus uttered is recorded in Scripture so there is no way to know whether He ever addressed abortion or not. We should also remember that there is no record of Jesus ever speaking out against slavery – a point which apologists for slavery routinely made. In fact, most of our laws relate to behaviors which neither Jesus nor the Bible specifically addressed.

I know abortion is wrong, but I don’t feel the Lord leading me to take a stand on it.

Imagine that a group of men are standing outside their church on a Sunday morning when they witness that a screaming young girl is being raped and murdered in a field next door. When the police arrive, they ask these men what they did when they saw what was happening. They reply, “Well, we gathered together and prayed for her and we prayed for the rapist to have a change of heart. But you know, we’re Christians and we didn’t feel the Lord calling on us to do anything about it.”

No one would be stupid enough to buy that nonsense. Everyone would know that these guys didn’t get involved because they were more concerned for themselves than they were for the girl. It was safe and comfortable inside the church and the girl was not worth the risks they would face trying to save her.

That is a perfect analogy to how the church has addressed the abortion holocaust.

God gave us free will and it is not our place to judge women who have abortions.

First, we are not judging women who submit to abortions – we are trying to stop them. Second, should we apply this “free will” standard to a man who is on trial for killing his wife? Should we say we have no right to judge him? Does this philosophy apply across the board or only to the unborn?

Issues like this are good examples of how “open-minded” people can be about murder once they figure out that they cannot be the one who is murdered. In fact, the biggest factor in the battle over legalized abortion is that the people who defend it are already born. At its core, this battle is about arrogance and selfishness. It is the formerly unborn turning their backs on the currently unborn and saying to them, “You’re not as good as us. You don’t deserve to live in our world.” Of course, if these people could be transported back into the womb, it’s a pretty safe bet that their views on “choice” and “free-will” would be quite different – at least until they were born.

Abortion is just one of many issues the church has to be concerned about.

If abortion is the taking of a human life – and even many pro-aborts now openly admit that it is – then our country is engaged in the largest holocaust in world history. To suggest that this is even in the same universe as any other issue is indefensible. If those who say abortion is just “one of many issues” were the ones who might be sliced open alive and have their skulls crushed, you can be assured that they would be singing a different tune.

The strategy behind equating abortion with other issues is to neutralize the abortion issue and silence pro-lifers. It is generally used by (a) closet pro-aborts trying to conceal their position, (b) abortion agnostics, (c) luke-warm pro-lifers desperate for some way to excuse their own – or their church’s – inaction and (d) people who call themselves Christians but want to justify voting for a pro-abortion politician. To expose just what a scam this argument is, ask someone who makes it if they would ever vote for a white supremacist on the basis that race is just “one of many issues.”

I believe that abortion is wrong, but the solution is prayer.

To begin with, belief is irrelevant if it does not control behavior. A rapist might believe that what he is doing is wrong, but that means nothing to his victim. Likewise, today it is not unheard of for abortion clinic workers to say that they believe abortion is wrong. Of course, that belief is little comfort to the baby whose head is being ripped off.

Second, prayer is not intended to be a substitute for action. Imagine that a five-year-old girl has been hit by a car and is possibly dying in the street. As Christians, we believe that God has the power to reach down from Heaven and instantly heal her. But does that mean we shouldn’t call an ambulance or take any other action on her behalf? Should we just stand around and pray?

Obviously, not even the most sincere believer in the power of prayer would suggest such a thing. So the question becomes, if we believe that the unborn has the same right to life as the born, why are we so willing to say that all we will do to save their lives is pray for them? How can we justify one standard for protecting the unborn but a different one for protecting our own born children, while claiming that both have the same right to life?

That double standard is hypocritical, cowardly, and inconsistent with the pro-life principle. While prayer must always remain a central part of the pro-life effort, it must not be used as an excuse for inaction.

My job is to save souls, not bodies. Besides, those babies go to heaven anyway.

In other words, abortion can be tolerated because the victims are sinless. This perverted theology is often the refuge of a Christian minister who is looking for a way to justify his cowardice and inaction over abortion.

The question is, would he apply this standard to anyone other than the unborn? If his own daughter was about to be murdered, would he try to stop it or just shrug it off because she is going to go to heaven anyway? If he was on a jury and it was clear that the accused was guilty of murder, but the victim’s pastor testified that the victim went to heaven, would he let the killer go free? If an ax-murderer came into his church and began hacking at people who were saved, would he just look on with a smile comfortable that the victims were going to heaven?

Better yet, would he be willing to put this philosophy into action by immediately killing everyone he leads to the Lord, thus removing the possibility they might one day reject Him?

If a woman isn’t ready for a baby, maybe it’s best that she abort and ask God to bring the child back at a better time.

When a woman is pregnant it doesn’t matter whether she is ready for a baby or not. She has a baby. The only question is whether she is going to keep her baby, place it for adoption, or kill it. Furthermore, it is pure idiocy to think that a baby can be aborted and then “brought back” later. The mother of this dead child might have another baby one day, but the one she aborts is dead forever.

Finally, don’t for a moment believe that God is going to conspire with a woman to butcher a baby that He gave to her.

When a woman miscarries, did God do an abortion on her?

If a man dies of a heart attack, from a moral perspective that is quite different than if he had been shot to death by a carjacker. That distinction also exists between a miscarriage and an induced abortion. There are many things which God is allowed to do that man is not allowed to do. The refusal to accept that reality is the basis of the pro-choice mentality.

Theologians can’t agree when a soul enters the body.

So what? Theologians don’t make law. Further, we can’t legally or scientifically prove that souls even exist, much less show that one has entered a body. So if we can kill the unborn because we don’t know whether souls have entered their bodies, we can also kill 30-year-olds on the same basis.

The fetus is only a potential human life.

Only through mind-numbing stupidity could someone suggest that when human sperm and human eggs unite they produce something that is only “potential human life.”

If the word “potential” is suggesting that the unborn is only potentially alive, that is easily disproved. Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, sonograms show movements and heartbeats that do not belong to the woman. Whatever else the fetus is, it is impossible to logically argue that it is not, at least, alive.

On the other hand, for “potential” to be referring to the word human, a fetus would have to have the potential of becoming either a human being or some other form of life. Perhaps a parrot or a spider. Of course, the problem is that there is no record of such a thing having ever occurred.

So while it may be reasonable to say that a fetus is a potential major league baseball star or a potential school teacher, it is idiotic to say that a fetus is a potential human being. If for no other reason, the fetus is a living human being because that is the only thing it can be.

Also, if the issue is “development,” let’s not forget that human beings develop for their entire lives. A fetus is less developed than a newborn just as a child is less developed than an adult. But being less developed than an adult does not mean that a child is any less a human being. That’s also true of the unborn.

Pro-lifers aren’t the only ones who know that it is a baby who is killed in an abortion. At a National Abortion Federation conference in Philadelphia during September of 1994, Texas abortion clinic director, Charlotte Taft, said, “When [a pro-choice activist in the Dallas community] came into our clinic – we were inviting her to learn more about abortions – this is a quote from this woman – she said, ‘If I believed that abortion was the deliberate ending of a potential human life, I could not be pro-choice.’ I said, ‘It would be best for you not to see a sonogram.’”

Less than two years later, at another National Abortion Federation conference in San Francisco, a New York abortion clinic director, Merle Hoffman, stated “…I mean, we are talking about an abortion here. And uh, also that the staff is uncomfortable when a patient said, ‘I think I’m killing my baby.’ So I’m comfortable with saying, ‘Yes, you are, and how do you feel about that?’”

No one can prove when life begins. It is up to the woman to decide.

Trying to rationalize abortion using this argument is utter nonsense. If we don’t know when life begins, then we can’t say it has begun at birth, or at age five, or at 50. By this logic, the law could never convict someone for murdering a 30-year-old woman because there is no way to prove that she was alive.

The fact is, no scientific, biological, or medical textbook says that life begins at any point other than conception. Further, simple deductive reasoning proves that life begins at conception because that is the only time it can begin. Any other point is strictly arbitrary.

However, even if it were true that no one can prove when life begins, that is not a justification for legalized abortion.

The pro-life position is that the unborn should be left alone. Obviously, a person does not have to prove anything about the unborn in order to justify taking that view. On the other hand, the pro-choice position is that it should be legal to butcher the unborn by the millions because no one can prove that they are living human beings. To appreciate just how irrational this is, imagine that the judge and jury in a capital murder case sentenced a man to death because no one could prove that he was not guilty. The public would be justifiably enraged. They understand that the state is the one taking action and that, therefore, the burden of proof belongs to them. The prosecution is required to prove that the man is guilty in order to convict him, but the defense has no obligation to prove anything in order to justify leaving him alone.

In other words, our judicial system is designed to err on the side of life. We would rather let a thousand murderers go free, than execute even one innocent person.

The question is why we don’t apply this standard to the unborn. Why aren’t we saying to the pro-choice mob, “Before we’ll let you kill the unborn, you have to prove that they are not living human beings.” After all, to say that no one knows when life begins is, at the very least, an acknowledgement that it might begin at conception. Shouldn’t we leave the unborn alone until we find out for sure? Saying we can execute the unborn because no one can prove when life begins, is no different than saying we can execute an accused murderer because no one can prove he’s innocent.

Amazingly, when cornered on this, some abortion apologists will contend that abortion should be allowed even if we accept that the unborn are living human beings. The question then becomes, if the humanity of the unborn is irrelevant when deciding whether they can be killed, why is the humanity of a five-year-old relevant when making the same decision?

As for this brainless contention that women must be allowed to decide when the lives of their children have begun, imagine two children who are conceived at the same moment. Three months later, one mother talks about her baby, knows its sex, has named it, and has even seen it on an ultrasound screen. The other mother believes that the life of her child hasn’t begun yet and decides to have it killed by abortion. The pro-choice mentality is that both mothers are right, despite the fact it is physically impossible for that to be true.

Also, if women are to be the ones who decide when life begins, why should they lose that right by giving birth? If a woman who sincerely believes that life doesn’t begin until speech is possible, kills her three-month-old daughter, should she be charged with murder? What makes her belief that life begins at speech less valid than another woman’s belief that life begins in the second trimester, or at birth, or at any other arbitrarily chosen point? And what gives society the right to charge this woman with murder, while saying that women are the ones who decide when life begins?

If a baby is not a white, healthy, newborn it stands little chance of being adopted.

The National Counsel for Adoption says that while there is indeed a long waiting list for healthy white babies, there are also parents on waiting lists for minority and physically challenged babies. This is confirmed by Christian Homes and Special Kids, a non-profit organization founded to support families with special-needs children. At any given time, they have a database of several hundred families waiting to adopt children with even the most severe physical challenges, including children who are terminal and those who are born addicted to drugs. The truth is, the chances of a newborn not being adopted are minuscule regardless of circumstances.

Today, the problem with adoption is not babies, but older children, and since they are already born that problem has nothing to do with abortion. The abortion lobby counters that if newborns are not available, families would be more likely to adopt these older children. In other words, the pro-choice solution is to force people to take the children society wants them to adopt, by brutally slaughtering the children they want to adopt.

If the abortion lobby wants us to believe that they are only killing babies no one wants, here is a suggestion that will settle the whole abortion debate once and for all. Let’s create a national computer database of people who want to adopt a baby. Any pregnant woman who doesn’t want her baby would have access to this database. If there is someone in the database who wants to adopt her baby, she could not legally have an abortion. But if no one is willing to take her baby, she could legally have the child killed by abortion.

Of course, the abortion industry is never going to take this deal because they know it would immediately bankrupt every one of their death camps. They realize that there is no such thing as an unwanted baby and that every single child they butcher is wanted by someone. Their “every child a wanted child” rhetoric, and this “disease of unwantedness,” are simply scams they conjured up to justify abortion and create a market for their product.

There are more abortions than people waiting to adopt. What do we do after these people have gotten a baby?

This assumes that once abortion is illegal every woman with an unplanned pregnancy will place her baby for adoption. That is clearly not true, given that even the most unwanted pregnancies do not automatically produce unwanted babies.

This issue also erroneously assumes that the people on waiting lists to adopt would only adopt one child. If the supply of babies increased, the cost of adoption would go down and most of these people would jump at the chance to adopt more than one child. Also, the reduced cost of adoption would increase the number of lower and middle income families who could adopt. Other factors that increase the pool of potential adoptive parents is the growing problem of infertility, and the fact that there is now less stigma attached to single parent adoptions.

What about the children who get adopted by people who abuse or neglect them?

Only the pro-choice mob would try to sell this concept that people spend thousands of dollars, endure a grueling adoption process and wait for years, just so they can have a child to sexually abuse, torture, abandon, neglect or kill. Even in those incredibly rare cases where abuse might occur in adoptive families, it can’t approach the horror of being brutally sliced up by some abortionist. It is safe to assume that unborn children would rather take their chances in the worst adoptive family than in the best abortion clinic.

Let’s make one other thing clear. The pro-choice solution to the incredibly rare bad adoption is not a good adoption, but an abortion. As is always the case, the only solution these people have for any problem is baby killing. In this example, their suggestion that we can solve adoption problems by executing the adoptees, is like saying we can prevent rapes by executing women.

What about a woman who says she could not carry a child for nine months and then give it up for adoption?

If a man told the police that he beat his ex-girlfriend to death because, “If I can’t have her, nobody can,” no one would buy that as a defense for what he did. That’s because society expects men to accept that they don’t own their wives or girlfriends, and to have the emotional strength to deal with knowing that “their woman” is with someone else. But the pro-choice mentality is that women are too hysterical and weak to live up to that standard. Instead, behavior that is reprehensible and criminal in men, must be treated as a “choice” for women. It is also interesting that the same people who say women risk being traumatized by placing their babies for adoption, also sell the idea that women are never traumatized by having their babies butchered.

Why don’t you help people who are already here, like the homeless?

First, unborn children are already here. If that were not the case, there would be nothing to kill.   Second, there are about 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers in America, each funded and staffed by the pro-life movement and each providing its services free of charge. Third, when pro-life groups solicit money to finance these centers, our biggest problem is that almost every pro-lifer we approach is also contributing to other organizations whose sole purpose is to help people.

This claim that pro-lifers only care about abortion is an outright lie. However, let’s assume that no pro-lifer anywhere in the world is involved in even one effort to help other people. What does that have to do with our efforts to keep the pro-choice mob from killing every baby they can get their hands on? Where is it written that when someone tries to prevent innocent human beings from being butchered, they are responsible for solving all the world’s social problems? If a man tries to stop a poor child from being murdered in a drive-by shooting, do we say it’s none of his business unless he has a plan to end poverty?

There is a legal group called the Innocence Project which represents prisoners who claim they were falsely convicted. They have been successful in numerous instances where they were able to prove that a man was on death row for a murder he didn’t commit.

When they are trying to save the life of a condemned prisoner who may be innocent, should they be told to butt out unless they are doing something about homelessness, child abuse, hunger, and all of the world’s other social problems? As ridiculous as that sounds, that is precisely what the pro-choice crowd says about abortion. They say that unless the pro-life movement can solve all the problems an unborn girl might face in her life, then we have no right to keep them from killing her.

The reality is, when the choice is between helping people who have no place to live or helping people who are being butchered by the millions, we have to choose the latter.

However, if the pro-choice crowd is so concerned about homelessness, they have the power to end it anytime they want to. All they have to do is pick out one homeless person and take him home. Since there are more abortion advocates than homeless people, this would end the problem instantly, without controversy and without tax money. In fact, they could use this “adult adoption” plan to eliminate hunger, poverty, unemployment or any other social problem.

Of course, the pro-choice crowd is never going to go for this. Their only interest in the homeless, or the poor, or the unemployed, or the hungry, or any other disadvantaged group is to use them as a skirt to hide behind so they don’t have to defend abortion.

We have a nation of babies having babies.

Why is a pregnant 14-year-old who wants to give birth just “a baby having a baby,” but a 14-year-old who submits to abortion is “a young woman exercising her constitutional rights?” And why isn’t the abortion industry referring to these girls as “babies having abortions?” Are they marketing abortion as some kind of sick rite of passage? If you’re 14 and give birth you’re a baby, but submit to abortion and you suddenly become a woman.

Millions of children are already starving.

Of the more than 3,000 American children slaughtered every day by abortion, the percentage who would have lived in hunger is tiny and the number who would have one day starved to death is, for all practical purposes, zero. The children who are starving in this world live almost exclusively in third-world nations with corrupt political regimes who sometimes starve their people on purpose, and in countries with inefficient farming techniques and poor food distribution systems. We could kill every unborn child in America for the next 50 years and it would not solve any of those problems or provide a single bite of food for even one starving child.

Besides, if bloodshed is the solution to hunger, it doesn’t make sense to kill the unborn. We should be killing adults since they eat more. We could save even more food by establishing a pre-set age at which we have determined that the elderly take more calories out of the food chain than the amount of good they do for society. When someone reaches that age, we would simply “put them down” and take the food they would have eaten for ourselves. Given that abortion clinics are already set-up for this sort of thing, expanding their services to include the elderly would be easy and highly profitable. The government might even be willing to kick in a few tax dollars since killing these folks would be considerably cheaper than keeping them on Medicare and Social Security.

What about overpopulation?

It is debatable whether overpopulation is a problem or not. Some recent data suggests that a bigger problem is declining birth rates which do not even replenish existing populations. However, if overpopulation is a problem, why limit our options to killing the unborn? It would be easy to put a legal limit on life at the other end as well, and enforce it through mandatory euthanasia at a pre-determined age. At the very least, we should immediately outlaw any medical research that’s intended to extend life. After all, if overpopulation really is a problem, it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars every year looking for ways to make people live longer.

In fact, whether it’s prohibitions on research or mandatory euthanasia, bumping off the elderly makes more sense than killing the unborn. The elderly use up more of our resources and they put a tremendous strain on our health care system. With our population growing older, and the baby boomers starting to retire, this plan could be exactly what we need to save Medicare and Social Security.

I don’t want to pay for all the social problems created by unwanted children.

The pro-choice crowd has had over 30 years to weed out all the “unwanted people,” and no one can argue that they’ve been stingy in carrying out the death sentences. So far, they’ve butchered between 45 and 50 million babies and they continue to kill them at the rate of over 3,000 a day. Meanwhile, we are asked to ignore the fact that, since this holocaust began, America has suffered huge increases in teen pregnancy, homelessness, hunger, welfare, divorce, poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, deadbeat dads, gangs, illegal drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, high school drop outs, and the list goes on and on.

The fact is, every single social problem which the pro-choice mob says will get worse if we make abortion illegal, actually became worse after we made abortion legal. Beyond that, the financial burden of these social problems is overwhelming. Any way you cut it, the American taxpayer is subsidizing the abortion industry.

However, let’s say for a moment that instead of getting worse our social problems had been helped by killing babies. Would that justify it? Do we really want to be the kind of country that uses child sacrifice as a tool of social engineering? Is the wholesale slaughter of innocent and defenseless people justified if it solves our problems? And if that is going to be our attitude, why kill the unborn? They are the one category of human beings who had nothing to do with creating these problems and whose death would not solve them.

The bottom line is, as a solution to social problems, abortion is ineffective and morally indefensible. It is also the ultimate example of selfishness. For proof, notice that no one ever volunteers to give their own life to solve social problems, they only insist that others do so.

To end child abuse, we need to make sure that every child is a wanted child.

First, this completely ignores the fact that abortion is itself the ultimate example of child abuse. Second, the right to life of a human being is not determined by whether or not some other human being wants them. There are many born people in the world who we could label as unwanted, but that doesn’t mean we can kill them. As for abortion, wantedness is a function of the humanity and character of the mother. It has absolutely nothing to do with the right to life of her child.

Third, this idea of preventing child abuse which might occur sometime in the future by executing the potential victims today, makes about as much sense as trying to eradicate wife-beating by executing all married women.

This issue also assumes that unwanted pregnancies always produce unwanted children. The truth is that even among women whose pregnancies were the most unwanted, it is rare for them not to want their baby.

Further, there is no evidence that unplanned – or even unwanted – children are any more likely to be abused than planned or wanted ones. To the contrary, in 1980, Professor Edward Lenoski at the University of Southern California studied over 600 cases of child abuse. He found that in over 90% of these cases, the parents said that the child they abused had been a wanted child.

The fact is, since abortion was made legal in 1973, we have killed unborn children by the tens of millions yet child abuse has increased dramatically. According to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1973, there were 167,000 cases of child abuse reported in the United States. In 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services reported 1,694,756 child abuse investigations in the United States. In 450,817 cases, the abuse was confirmed, and in another 58,964 it was determined that abuse was “indicated.”

Some of this 10-fold increase in child abuse could be due to better reporting, but better reporting could not possibly explain an increase of this magnitude. There is no other rational conclusion but that our country has suffered a staggering increase in child abuse since we legalized abortion. That fact demands that we force the pro-choice gang to answer one very simple question. If legalized abortion reduces child abuse by making sure that every child is a wanted child – and since you’ve executed between 45 and 50 million children so far – where did all these children who are being abused today come from?

Some children are forced to lead terrible lives. Isn’t abortion better than that?

In other words, abortion is done out of compassion for the one being ripped to shreds. Using this perverted logic, slavery could also be rationalized. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it could be argued that a person is better off as a well-cared-for slave in America, than slowly starving to death in some filthy AIDS-infested third-world dictatorship.

Also, how do we identify which unborn children will lead these terrible lives so we don’t inadvertently butcher some who might have lived good lives? Should only women who promise to give their children terrible lives be allowed to have them killed?

We also know that a lot of born children already live terrible lives. So why don’t we start killing them as well? After all, if it is compassionate to kill people who might live a terrible life someday in the future, surely it is even more compassionate to kill people who we know are living terrible lives right now.

Contraception is the answer to abortion.

While this may seem logical, in practice it is now clear that pushing contraception increases sexual activity at a greater rate than it increases the use of contraception. This became apparent starting in the 1960s when America’s dramatic increase in contraception use was accompanied by an equally dramatic rise in sexual activity, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases.

Despite this, the abortion lobby and the pill pushers continue to market contraception as the holy grail of pregnancy prevention. In private, however, they sing a different song. Dr. Robert Hatcher is a widely recognized expert in the field of contraception, a professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and author of the book, Contraception Technology. At a 1995 National Abortion Federation meeting held in New Orleans, Hatcher cited a study conducted at Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, saying, “…half of the women put on Norplant, and half put on oral contraceptives-now listen to these numbers-at the end of 15 months, all these women not wanting to become pregnant, 38 percent of the pill patients were pregnant! Thirty-eight percent! What are we doing? We’re giving them a fertility pill!”

Hatcher’s observation on the relationship between birth control and pregnancy rates are not new. After a 1958 Planned Parenthood conference, a report was published on its findings which included the following statement: “It was recognized by the conference participants that no scientific evidence has been developed to support the claim that increased availability of contraceptive services will clearly result in a decreased illegal abortion rate.” (The fact that this quote relates to illegal abortion is irrelevant. The question of how contraception use affects pregnancy rates is not influenced by the legal status of abortion.)

This report was edited by Dr. Mary Calderone, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, and the Chairman of the Statement Committee was Alan Guttmacher for whom Planned Parenthood’s research branch is named. One of the participants in this conference was Dr. Alfred Kinsey. When another of the attendees continued to push contraception as the way to eradicate abortion, Kinsey responded, “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives.”

Another problem with this “contraception as a cure for abortion” argument is that many common methods of contraception are, in reality, abortions.

When a woman’s egg is fertilized, a new human life is created. Within 24 hours, cell division begins and a few days later this tiny human being will have traveled to its mother’s womb and attached itself there. This new life is first called a zygote, then a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, an adolescent, an adult, etc. These labels identify the stages of human development, but no stage is any more or less human than the others.

Anything which prevents this process from beginning could be accurately described as contraception. However, once fertilization has occurred, the only thing that can stop the process is death. The manufacturers of birth control pills, patches, injections, morning after pills, etc., say their products are intended to prevent conception, but admit that when this fails the drugs can also prevent implantation.

In those instances, that means they did not prevent the pregnancy from occurring, they prevented it from continuing. That is abortion, not contraception. Also, even though intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are marketed as contraception, they are designed only to prevent implantation. Again, that is abortion, not contraception.

In an effort to hide all this from American women, the abortion lobby uses the concocted term “pre-embryo” to describe the stage of human life from fertilization to implantation. Then they claim that since the woman is not pregnant until implantation occurs, destroying this “pre-embryo” or preventing it from implanting is not an abortion.   That is pure gibberish.   There is no such thing as a “pre-embryo” and even if there were it would be irrelevant. You could invent the term “pre-adult” to describe teenagers, but that wouldn’t mean that they are not human beings.

Why do the same people who oppose abortion always fight against sex education and birth control?

The pro-life movement has never been opposed to sex education. What we oppose are the sex education programs which have caused America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and abortion.

In the 1960s, organizations like Planned Parenthood began pushing something they called “value-neutral contraception-based” sex education. They contended that the way to reduce the relatively small teen pregnancy rate of that era, was to isolate morality from sex and teach kids the mechanics of having sexual relationships without getting pregnant. In effect, this approach was not value-neutral at all, it simply replaced traditional values with Planned Parenthood’s values.

Their argument for leaving values out of sex education is that teaching sexual morality is the responsibility of parents. However, they originally marketed the idea of sex education in the public schools by saying that parents weren’t talking to their kids about sex. That begs the question, if parents weren’t talking to their kids about sex before it was taught in the schools, what was going to make them start doing so afterward? Also, how is this message absorbed by children living in homes where the parents do talk about sexual morality? What do those kids think when their parents tell them that pre-marital sex is wrong, while their teachers are telling them that it is neither right nor wrong?

Of course, when the philosophy that sex can be morally neutral is delivered to teenagers, the guaranteed result is an increase in the rate at which they are sexually active, which is exactly what happened.

Those who defend this value-neutral contraception-based approach say that if birth control was taught and adhered to, teen pregnancy would not be a problem. This is not supported by real-world experience. After America’s public schools began introducing value-neutral contraception-based sex-ed in the 1960s, our relatively small teen pregnancy problem exploded into an epidemic of promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, children are now having sex at much younger ages. Forty years ago, for a 12-year-old girl to be pregnant would have been front-page news. Today, it is not even unusual.

Despite its well-documented failures, the abortion lobby continues to push value-neutral contraception-based sex education, while arguing that abstinence-based programs are unrealistic because teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do. To understand the fallacy in that, imagine that a teenage girl tells her parents that she is not interested in having sex but her boyfriend is pressuring her.

In such a case, should her parents tell her that she is being unrealistic to expect him to be abstinent? Should they advise her to either jump in bed with him or just accept that he will go out and have sex with other girls?

Obviously, no decent parent would say that to their daughter. They would tell her that abstinence is entirely reasonable.

So if it is indeed realistic for a teenage boy to abstain because his girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex, then it is just as realistic for him to abstain because he has been taught that it is the right thing to do. The argument that kids are going to have sex no matter what we do is a lie. The most that can be said is that some kids will have sex no matter what we do.

Today, many liberal social engineers recognize that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They abhor the abstinence message, but they see it gaining popularity among parents who have seen that value-neutral contraception-based sex education has been a train wreck. So now they’re pushing “Abstinence Plus” or “Comprehensive Sex Education.” Trying to appear reasonable, they now claim to support abstinence-based programs as an addition to contraception-based programs. Some even grudgingly agree that abstinence can be primary.

This is a scam. These people know that pushing contraception and abstinence together will neutralize the abstinence message. It’s no different than parents telling their teenagers, “Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, don’t spill anything on the seats” or “Don’t smoke, but if you do, use filtered cigarettes” or “Don’t take a gun to school, but if you do, don’t point it at anyone” or “Don’t use heroin, but if you do, don’t leave needles lying around where your little brother can get them” or “Don’t drive my new Corvette while I’m out of town, but if you do, replace the gas you use.”

The fact is, America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted disease was caused by a dramatic increase in sexual activity among children, and all the condoms and birth control pills in the world will not turn that around. The only solution is to reduce the sexual activity rate of children, and mixed messages will never do that.

Some people argue that abstinence-only programs write off those children who don’t remain abstinent and places them at a higher risk for pregnancy, diseases, and abortion. To some degree, that may be a valid argument. However, that doesn’t mean abstinence-only programs shouldn’t be adopted.

When laws requiring children to be strapped into child safety seats were being considered, it was already known that some children would die because they were in these seats. For example, when cars accidentally go into a river or lake, some children will drown when their parents panic and can’t get them out of their car seats. Other children will die in car fires because their parents were rendered unconscious during the wreck and not available to get them out of the car seat. In some crashes, children who might have been thrown from cars and survived, will instead die because they were strapped into a car seat.

The legislators who supported these child-restraint laws were aware of these risks. But, in passing these laws, they were not saying, “We’re willing to write off those children who will die because they were in a car seat.” Instead, they recognized that child safety seats save more lives than they take. In a perfect world they would be able to pass a law to save every child who gets into a car wreck, but they don’t live in such a world so they tried to save the most lives possible.

That dynamic also applies to abstinence-based sex education. No one believes it will save every child, but it will save the most children possible. On the other hand, it is sheer insanity to believe that value-neutral contraception-based sex education is a solution to the massive social problems that were created by value-neutral contraception-based sex education.

The real question is why organizations like Planned Parenthood continue to push it. The answer is that, for them, it hasn’t failed. It has provided a steady stream of customers for their birth control pills, abortions, and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases.

To see that the real objective of Planned Parenthood’s sex education system is to create a market for their “reproductive health care” business, recall an issue from the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, Planned Parenthood types were constantly whining about what they called the “double standard.” They said it was unfair for sexually active girls to be labeled as tramps, while sexually active boys were seen as just red-blooded, all-American boys sowing their wild oats. And even though their objections to this hypocrisy were certainly warranted, it was their solution to the problem that exposed their hidden agenda.

Once they were allowed into the nation’s classrooms, they did not work toward higher standards from boys, they pushed society to accept lower standards from its girls. They understood that higher standards for boys would reduce the demand for their products but lower standards for girls would increase it.

In effect, value-neutral contraception-based sex education was not a social policy as much as a business plan. The “value-neutral” part would guarantee an explosion in teen sexual activity and create the foundation for a “reproductive health-care” industry which they intended to dominate.

Unfortunately, their plan worked. Today, teenage girls are as “liberated” to be sexually promiscuous as teenage boys, and the result has been a financial bonanza for Planned Parenthood. Every year they rake in hundreds of millions in tax dollars to patch up problems that their sex education system created in the first place. America is learning the hard way that allowing amoral hustlers from the “reproductive health-care” industry to teach children about sex, is like hiring crack dealers to teach them about drugs.

While it may be hard for some people to accept that Planned Parenthood would inflict this sort of misery on children for political or financial gain, they should keep in mind that corporations do not work against their own interests. We have all seen that alcohol and tobacco companies will target children, and it would be naive to think that these gigantic multi-national corporations would market harmful products to children, but another one wouldn’t. The reality is that teen pregnancy is a cash cow for Planned Parenthood, and their sex education system keeps it well fed.

Why should a woman who is acting responsibly be forced into motherhood just because her birth control failed?

The idea that when someone is “acting responsibly” they should be immune from consequences is nonsense. Even when people are driving their cars responsibly, they can still get into accidents and they are still responsible for the damage they do. In the case of sexual activity, acting responsibly goes beyond just taking steps to avoid pregnancy. It is also accepting – before having sex – that a child may be conceived. Abortion is about letting people avoid this part of their responsibility.

Also, if women should not be forced to take on the responsibilities of having a child simply because their birth control failed, do we extend this same option to men? If a man was “acting responsibly” by using a condom and his partner was “acting responsibly” by using birth control, if a pregnancy results and he offers to pay for an abortion, should we say that he has fulfilled his legal obligations? This is especially relevant given that if she decides to abort he is legally powerless to stop her, but if she doesn’t abort he can be forced to pay for a child whose intentional execution he could not legally prevent. If abortion is about equal rights – as the pro-choice gang claims – how can “forced fatherhood” be right if “forced motherhood” is wrong?

Abortion is safer than childbirth.

To begin with, abortion is certainly not safer for the baby. As for the mom, if we buy into this myth that abortion is safer than childbirth, and if our goal is to protect women, why aren’t we encouraging women to abort all of their pregnancies? Obviously, that would save the most women. Also, if we’re trying to protect women from their children, we should allow women to legally kill their born children as well. After all, children sometimes cause the death of a parent through an accident, and some will even grow up to one day abuse or murder their parents.

Abortion is not used as birth control.

Statistics published by even pro-abortion organizations like The Alan Guttmacher Institute, as well as the U.S. Government’s Centers for Disease Control, expose this claim as a lie. The data shows that, (a) about 35% of all American women of child-bearing age will have had at least one abortion by age 45 (b) approximately half of all abortions are repeat abortions, and (c) only a tiny fraction of abortions are done for the so-called “hard cases” such as rape, incest, life-of-the-mother, or fetal anomalies.

At a 1994 National Abortion Federation conference in Ohio, contraception expert Paula Hillard, a professor at the University of Cincinnati, cited a study showing that over one-fourth of women having abortions were on birth control pills. Abortionist Suzanne Poppema then stated, “…the overview that Paula did was fabulous… it’s the kind of information we need to show to people that women do not use abortion as a birth control method, because they’re all contracepting somehow before in the month that they got pregnant.”

Incredibly, this bewildered woman is saying that because many women who have abortions were contracepting, that proves they are not using abortion as contraception. In fact, it proves just the opposite! Hillard’s figures clearly show that abortion is being routinely used as “back-up” birth control.

Another issue not to be overlooked is the fact that having abortion available when birth control fails does not protect women, but makes them easier to sexually exploit. This is evident when pro-life speakers visit schools to talk with teenagers about abortion. They inevitably find that it is the boys who most viciously defend abortion. Just like adult men, these guys have figured out that abortion is a sales tool to talk girls into having sex and a safety net to avoid responsibility if those girls end up pregnant. This may help explain why polls consistently find greater support for legal abortion from males than from females.

Legalized abortion has also made it easier for older men to sexually exploit underage girls. In America today, this is a problem of epidemic proportions and we now know that a major contributor to it is the fact that the abortion industry knowingly protects the men who prey on these girls. (For information on this subject go online to ChildPredators.com or contact Life Dynamics for a free report.)

Let’s set aside our differences and look for common ground. We should look for ways to end the need for abortion.

From the day this battle began, the abortion lobby has understood two realities. First, they do not have to convince the public that their position is morally superior to ours, only that it is morally defensible. Second, that goal is much easier to accomplish when it is perceived that abortions are done out of need rather than out of want. Every time we take the “common ground” bait, we help them sell both of those lies to the American people.

When we join them to look for ways to reduce the need for abortion, by definition we are agreeing there is sometimes a need for abortion. After all, people don’t go looking for ways to reduce the need for something unless they believe that such a need exists.

The truth is, even studies conducted by hardcore abortion advocates prove that almost every abortion performed in America is for non-medical reasons and involves a healthy baby who was not conceived by rape or incest, and a healthy woman whose pregnancy does not threaten either her life or health. In short, abortions are done for want, not need.

Whenever we do or say anything that suggests otherwise, we support the abortion lobby’s position. The fact is, for these baby killers to say that we should help them reduce the need for abortion, is like some pimp telling the vice squad that they should help him reduce the need for prostitution.

The other problem is, we cannot look for common ground with these people without giving the impression that even we believe their position has some moral validity. It is no different than if the Jewish people would have agreed to look for common ground with the Nazis while the ovens at Auschwitz were burning day and night. To do so would have simply given credibility to the Nazi position.

When people are threatening to do evil, discussions with them may be reasonable. But once they have begun doing that evil, there is nothing more to talk about. At that point, the only goal is to stop them. Remember, prior to World War II we had intense discussions with the Japanese trying to avert the war. But at Pearl Harbor, the talking ended.

Another thing about “common ground” is that it always requires an acceptance of the fundamental premise of the abortion lobby. In all such discussions, the opening statement is something like, “Everyone has agreed to set aside any discussion about whether abortion should be legal or not and simply look for areas of common ground and for ways to reduce the need for abortions.”

If the real goal is common ground, it would be equally legitimate to say, “Everyone has agreed that abortion should be made illegal, so our goal today is to look for ways to reduce the incidence of illegal abortions once that happens.” Of course, that is never the basis upon which we look for this elusive common ground because the abortion lobby would never agree to discuss their position on their opponent’s terms. We seem to be the only ones who fall for that trick.

The fact is, pro-lifers need to stop being so easily manipulated. Our job is not to sit around the campfire and sing Kumbayah with people who torture and slaughter helpless babies for money. Our job is to stop them.

How can people call themselves pro-life and support every war that comes along?

It is simply a lie to imply that pro-lifers always support our government’s decision to go to war. There are tens of millions of pro-lifers in America and when war is contemplated they always express many opinions on both sides of the issue. In fact, in recent years some of the most powerful arguments against America’s involvement in war have come from people with unassailable pro-life credentials.

Also, while the decision to go to war is carried out in public with often heated debate, with abortion there is no discussion. If for any reason whatsoever, or no reason whatsoever, the mother unilaterally decides to kill her baby, no one – not even the child’s father – can intervene. If abortion apologists want to make an analogy between war and abortion, then let’s require the same standards for having an abortion that we require for going to war. Until we do that, the analogy is a fraud. Right now, the only legitimate comparison is the fact that, every day, more people are killed in the womb than on every battlefield in the world.

Pro-lifers talk about the sanctity of human life but most support the death penalty.

To begin with, there are many pro-life people – including the author of this book – who strongly oppose the death penalty.

However, those who support it are not disqualified from legitimately claiming to be pro-life. It is not inconsistent to contend that convicted murderers should be executed but innocent babies should not be. The interesting thing is, the pro-choice crowd thinks opposing abortion while supporting the death penalty is inconsistent, but supporting abortion for the innocent while opposing the death penalty for the guilty is “enlightened.”

An example of this kind of pro-choice hypocrisy was seen in January of 2000 when the governor of Illinois issued a moratorium on the death penalty citing concerns that the state could be executing innocent people.

Politicians all across America – many of them fellow abortion apologists – lauded his action and called for other governors to follow suit. The question is, where is the moratorium on abortion? Why are these people, correctly, unwilling to take the smallest chance of executing even one innocent human being on death row, but so unwilling to consider the possibility that America may be executing millions of innocent human beings in the womb? How can they justify being so eager to defend those who may be innocent, while completely ignoring the wholesale slaughter of those who are undeniably innocent?

Why do you oppose fetal tissue research and embryonic stem cell research when so many lives could be saved?

The pro-life movement has never been opposed to responsible medical research. But we also know that there is no more evil or dangerous force on earth than science without morality. Whether fetal tissue research or embryonic stem cell research is morally defensible or not is dependent on how the tissue and cells are obtained. If the material comes from umbilical cords, or placenta, or from babies who died in some natural manner (miscarriage, stillbirth, accident, etc.) few people would raise a moral objection.

However, America crossed the line when it began using parts taken from babies who were intentionally killed by abortion, and we obliterated the line when we began creating human life for the stated purpose of destroying it and using it in medical experiments.

Imagine that a team of researchers developed a drug that would cure cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. This miracle drug is produced from a chemical found in healthy people between 15 and 55 years old and the amount needed to treat the entire country would require only about 500 donors per year. Additionally, clinical trials proved that the drug was 100% effective and perfectly safe.

The only downside is that harvesting this chemical always kills the donor. So the issue becomes, given that millions of people could be saved, should we create a national lottery to select 500 people a year to be killed to make the drug? Out of a population of millions, each individual’s chances of being selected are tiny and some would have died from accidents or illness anyway. Besides, a certain number of them would not have led productive lives.

So why not sacrifice a handful of these people every year in order to save millions from the horror of cancer, heart disease and diabetes? All we have to do is be willing to say that where the chemical comes from is irrelevant, which is precisely what some people are currently saying about fetal tissue research and embryonic stem cell research.

Don’t for a moment think that the hypothetical situation above is far-fetched. If we could go back 50 years and tell people what’s happening right now in the field of medical research and bio-technology, they would call us insane. They would never believe that the things we see happening every day all around us would ever be tolerated in this country. And only a fool would think this is anything other than the tip of the iceberg.

Some people try to rationalize embryonic stem cell research by suggesting that it is a way to “make something good” come from abortion. They argue that these children are already dead and are going to be discarded whether we exploit them or not. The moment we buy into that philosophy, we become no different than the Nazi thugs who stole the gold fillings from the teeth of Jews they killed in their concentration camps.

The fact is, it is morally repugnant that we intentionally slaughter these innocent unborn children in the first place, and when we rob their graves trying to make our lives better, we disgrace ourselves even further. So, if the question is whether we should “discard” these dead babies instead of using them in medical experiments designed to benefit us, the answer is an unqualified yes. We have no right to profit from our own evil.

When a pro-lifer’s daughter gets pregnant, they quickly become pro-choice converts.

To imply that it is common for pro-lifers to get abortions is an outright lie, but when it does happen it simply reinforces the pro-life position. If even people who know abortion is murder will, if given the right pressure, submit to it, then it becomes even more obvious that unborn children must have their lives protected by law. Further, to suggest that the pro-choice position is justified because a few pro-lifers have taken their daughters for abortions, is as illogical as saying rape is justified because some police officers have committed rape.

How can you call yourselves pro-life when your movement is so violent?

The abortion lobby’s depiction of besieged clinic workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire just to get from their car to the clinic door is pure fiction.

In more than 30 years, three abortionists and four other abortion clinic employees have been killed. When the Department of Justice or the FBI publish studies on workplace violence, the rate of violence at abortion clinics is so statistically insignificant that it doesn’t even make it into the final reports. In fact, even if the statistics are limited to only include health care professionals, abortionists are still not on the radar screen.

Even if you just focus on the time period during which the most pro-life violence occurred, it is clear how overblown this issue has been. Of the seven total murders that have occurred at America’s abortion mills, five occurred in 1993 and 1994 alone. According to government statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, during those two years there were 2,154 other people killed in work-related homicides in the United States including seven school teachers, four members of the clergy, 10 lawyers, nine newspaper vendors, seven writers, six realtors, 22 waiters or waitresses, four groundskeepers, five architects, 40 garage or service station attendants, 23 auto mechanics, 21 janitors, 10 hairdressers, four carpenters, and six farmers.

In other words, during the worst period of pro-life violence in American history, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job than abortion clinic workers and abortionists combined.

And remember, the five abortion clinic killings during 1993 and 1994 account for all but two of the killings that have happened in the entire history of the pro-life movement. During the other 30-plus years, only two abortion workers were murdered.

Compared to the thousands of taxi drivers, convenience store employees, police officers, firefighters, and other workers who were killed during that time, it is obvious that all of this arm-flapping and hand-wringing about pro-life violence against abortionists is complete nonsense.

Of course, when some convenience store employee is gunned down, the story gets buried in the Metro section of the paper. But when an abortionist gets shot, it is the lead story on every national and local newscast in America. Then, at least one of the national “news magazine” shows will rush out a Special Report cataloguing pro-life violence. That will be soon followed by several Justice Department news conferences, a roundup of pro-lifers, Congressional hearings, some new legislation, and hundreds of federal marshals stationed at the nation’s death camps.

Then, the abortion industry’s legion of media stooges will make sure the issue stays in front of the public for years. Every article about abortion will mention this shooting and every report on terrorism anywhere in the world will include references to “domestic terrorists like those who target legal abortion clinics.” That is a tactic which has been used extensively since the 9/11 attacks. When the media is forced to report that an act of terrorism is linked to Muslims, they seldom pass up the opportunity to draw comparisons to “pro-life Christians who shoot doctors for providing legal abortions.”

The scenario describe here is precisely how the pro-life movement’s reputation for violence was manufactured. Overlooked in all this, is the fact that the media is only able to make such a big deal about pro-life violence because it is so rare. If it were even remotely common, they could not give it so much press. Also lost in this discussion is the fact that if abortion clinic shootings, assaults, bombings, arson, and other acts of violence were anywhere near as common as the abortion lobby claims, there would not be an insurance company in America that would sell them coverage.

Any objective analysis of this issue will show that the level of violence committed by people opposed to abortion has been grossly exaggerated, and that the pro-life movement is the most peaceful socio-political movement of its size and tenure in American history. To see the truth of that, study the other causes which are most similar: the anti-slavery, civil rights, and labor struggles. The cumulative total of the violence which has occurred in the more than 30 year history of the pro-life movement, does not compare to many single instances of violence occurring in those movements.

It is also interesting to note that not one of the murders of abortionists or abortion clinic employees occurred prior to the inauguration of Bill Clinton. Immediately after taking office, Clinton and his Attorney General, Janet Reno, began paying off their campaign debts to the abortion lobby. While Clinton got legislation passed to sweep the streets clean of peaceful non-violent picketers, Reno literally turned the Attorney General’s office and the FBI into a private police force for the abortion industry. When rumors about Reno’s witch-hunts first surfaced, she denied their existence. But documents were eventually discovered that proved she had been lying. The project even had a name: VAAPCON.

Given this environment, it is hardly surprising that less than three months after Clinton and Reno began cracking skulls, the first shooting occurred. This is not to suggest that this atmosphere justified the violence. However, we cannot pretend that it occurred in a vacuum. If a woman kills her abusive husband, even those who would argue that the abuse did not justify the killing, would at least recognize that it may have been a motivating factor. In this case, it would be illogical to ignore the fact that no shootings occurred until after the Clinton/Reno inquisition began.

How can conservatives justify the government taking away a citizen’s rights?

Freedom from government intervention does not mean that the government should be willing to look the other way while one human being slaughters another. In fact, a basic tenet of conservatism is that if there is only one reason for government to exist, it is to protect the lives of those being governed.

This is the rhetoric of a coward who knows that abortion is murder but lacks the character and courage to stand up against it. Hardcore pro-choice politicians often resort to this nonsense in an effort to not appear so extreme in front of an American public they know is queasy about abortion.

The fact is, if abortion is the intentional killing of a child there is no defense for it being legal, and if it is not the intentional killing of a child there is no need for it to be rare. Besides, if legalized abortion is such an empowering thing for women, why would we want it to be rare? If abortion is not the intentional killing of a child, why should its use – even in extremely high numbers – be a problem? And if it really is a constitutional right, America should be celebrating it not trying to make it rare. No one says free speech or freedom of religion should be rare. So why apply this irrational standard to abortion?

To appreciate how abysmally stupid statements like this are, imagine that the Klan announced that they oppose adultery. Should we then conclude that anyone who opposes adultery is a racist?

Actually, what these abortion apologists need to be thinking about is the fact that even Klansmen have enough morals to be against the slaughter of children. While that may not say much about the Klan, it certainly speaks volumes about the pro-choice crowd.

What’s the big deal? Abortion is just a simple five-minute procedure.

So what? A criminal can hold up a convenience store and gun down everybody in the place in less than five minutes. A drunk driver can kill an entire family in a split second. In five minutes, a woman can be raped and murdered. These are just a few examples of “simple procedures” that only take a short time to accomplish. So what is the significance of how long an abortion takes?

Imagine that a baby girl is about to be aborted, but instead of doing it inside the womb she is taken out alive and placed on a table. Then, her arms are pulled off, her legs are pulled off, her chest is crushed, her skull is collapsed causing her brains to pour out, etc. There will also be a monitor hooked up to her so we can see her heart race as this simple procedure begins.

The only difference between this ex-utero abortion and the other 3,000 in-utero abortions happening today, is that this one is going to be shown live on national television. The question is, would the public’s reaction to what they saw be swayed by the fact it only took five minutes?

Outlawing abortion will not end it. Women will always have abortions.

Using this sort of mindless logic, nothing should be illegal. After all, outlawing rape, armed robbery, murder, and car theft has not stopped them either. So if we are only going to implement those laws that are 100% effective, by the pro-choice gang’s reasoning we should make these things legal as well.

The reality is, laws are enacted because society has determined that the behavior in question is abhorrent, not because society believes the law can completely eradicate it.

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

This sort of arrogance is typical of people who recognize that their pro-choice position cannot be defended on its own merits. Of course, it must be difficult trying to make the practice of turning mothers of live babies into mothers of dead babies seem appealing.

However, this “don’t like – don’t have” idea has possibilities. In fact, it’s a concept the pro-life movement could enthusiastically support. All we ask is that the same offer be extended to the unborn. That only seems fair given that every time a mom has an abortion her baby also has one. Since it seems unlikely that unborn children like abortion, under this “don’t like – don’t have” philosophy they should be given the option of not having one.

That brings up an interesting question. Would all these people who call themselves pro-choice still be pro-choice if they were the ones being chosen? If it were possible to place them back into their mom’s wombs, and then interview them there, would they still have this cynical “don’t-like-abortion-then-don’t-have-one” attitude? Would they still be making this sort of moronic statement if they were the ones who might be ripped apart alive, ground up in a garbage disposal and flushed down the city sewer system?

Those graphic abortion pictures are not real. They’re stillbirths and miscarriages.

To begin with, why would we need to use phony pictures when dead babies can be found in abortion clinic dumpsters?

More importantly, where would we get stillborn babies to photograph? Stillborn babies are legally required to be sent to either a funeral home for embalming and then burial or cremation. Also, if those dead babies were stillborn and not aborted, where did all the wounds and torn-off body parts come from? Does anyone seriously believe that hospitals provide us with baby corpses which we then beat to a pulp, dismember, and photograph?

As for miscarriages, when they occur the medical standard of care is that the material is sent out for a pathology report. So why would a physician give it to the pro-life movement to photograph? Perhaps the pro-choice mob is implying that these photos come from women who have miscarriages at home. That could be. After all, when a woman loses her baby the first thing she probably thinks about is alerting the pro-life movement so we can rush over with our lights and cameras.

Of course, the real question is why the abortion lobby becomes so hysterical over these pictures. If legal abortion is such a positive thing, not to mention a “fundamental constitutional right,” these photos should be found in every abortion clinic ad and on posters hanging in the offices of every pro-choice politician in America.

It is the ultimate in hypocrisy for these people to object when we show the bodies of the babies they killed, and we’re not the only ones who recognize this. In an article, Our Bodies, Our Souls, published in The New Republic magazine on October 16, 1995, the rabid pro-abort, Naomi Wolf, stated, “Those photographs are in fact photographs of actual D&Cs; those footprints are in fact the footprints of a 10-week-old fetus; the pro-life slogan, ‘Abortion stops a beating heart,’ is incontrovertibly true. While images of violent fetal death work magnificently for pro-lifers as political polemic, the pictures are not polemical in themselves: they are biological facts. …How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the height of hypocrisy.”

The pro-choice crowd throws a tantrum over these photographs for the same reason they panic over technology like 4-D and color ultrasound. Both expose realities which the abortion industry desperately needs to keep hidden. Ultrasound transforms the argument that unborn children are living human beings from a belief into an observable fact, and the graphic photos prove that abortion is the brutal murder of those children. For pro-aborts, that is a devastating one-two punch. They realize that when people see these images, the only way for them to support legalized abortion is to either deny what they are seeing with their own eyes, or harden their hearts to it.

Doctors don’t do abortions for the money. Abortions are about $300 but a doctor can make thousands for a delivery.

First, only the earliest abortions can be bought for $300. Later ones can reach $5,000 to $10,000. But even if an abortionist only kills the youngest babies, it doesn’t require a degree in economics to figure out that $300 for ten minutes work is more than $5,000 for nine months work.

Second, when you look at the history of most abortionists, what you find is that they are not only moral degenerates, but also the washouts and losers of medicine. When a person’s medical career has deteriorated to the point of working at an abortion clinic, the choice he or she has is not between doing abortions or delivering babies, but between doing abortions or being out of work. The fact is, without the abortion business, these people would be washing BMWs, not driving them.

Our abortion clinic routinely gets letters from women telling us how grateful they are for the service we provided them.

So what? The man who is having an affair is grateful to his neighbors who keep his wife in the dark. The hit-and-run driver who kills a pedestrian is grateful to his friends who were in the car and didn’t call the police. The alcoholic who is always late for work is grateful to the co-workers who cover up for him. Gratitude just means that someone did what someone else wanted them to do, not that what they did was right. The gratitude of a woman toward the remorseless serial killer she hired to slaughter her child, is a textbook example of that phenomenon.

I’ve known several women who had abortions and they didn’t regret it at all.

Adolf Eichmann went to his execution saying he did not regret his participation in the Nazi holocaust. That does not make what he did defensible. Lack of regret relates to the conscience of the person acting, not to the rightness of the act. If some pervert sexually assaults his neighbor’s five-year-old daughter, whether he regrets it or not is irrelevant.

Now if we really want to see what role regret plays in the abortion issue, let’s survey women who dealt with unplanned pregnancies in their past. Let’s ask those who aborted if they now wish that they had given birth, and ask those who gave birth if they now wish they had aborted. What we will find is that for every woman who says she regrets giving life to her child, thousands will say they regret killing theirs. That explains why there are now literally thousands of support groups across America to help women overcome the emotional train wreck of abortion, but no one has found it necessary to start even one support group to help women deal with the emotional toll of letting their children live.

The fact is, after more than 30 years of legal abortion, if there is one thing we know for certain, it is that regrets about an abortion decision are only experienced by women who have them – not by those who don’t.

Have you pro-lifers ever thought about the possibility that you may be wrong?

Any rational human being considers that possibility regarding any position they take. However, this question is better suited for our opponents. If the pro-life movement is wrong, then we are guilty of trying to deny women a constitutional right. But if the pro-choice side is wrong, then they are directly responsible for the mass murder of innocent children. So the question is, would it be better to be pro-life and wrong or pro-choice and wrong?

I’m pro-choice but I’m uncomfortable with the idea of women having multiple abortions.

Today, even the abortion industry’s own statistics show that almost half of all abortions are repeats, and that it is not uncommon for women to have several abortions. These revelations have forced the pro-choice crowd into “damage control” mode. They have always said that abortion would never be used as birth control, and that women would use it responsibly and only in the rarest of circumstances. For them to now defend repeat abortions would not only confirm the fact that they’ve been lying all these years, it would also be a public relations nightmare

So, their damage control strategy is to create the illusion that even they don’t support women having multiple abortions. The good news is, their new position is both illogical and easily exposed.

Imagine that five individual women had their first abortion today, and a sixth woman had her fifth abortion. According to the abortion lobby’s newly concocted standard, what the five women did is okay but the sixth woman’s behavior is unacceptable. The obvious flaw is that, in both cases, the same number of abortions happened. In short, by abortion industry reasoning, it is okay for five women to kill five children but wrong for one woman to kill five children.

The reality is that repeat abortions are a natural and logical progression of the pro-choice mentality. After all, if elective abortion is morally defensible, and if it is not the taking of an innocent human life, then there is no rational basis for saying that it is wrong for a woman to have 10 or 20 or a hundred of them.

In the final analysis, abortion is either right or it’s not, and how often it happens has no bearing on that question. Further, it is naked hypocrisy for the choice mafia to sell abortion as a constitutional right which protects women, and then turn around and criticize those women who freely – or even repeatedly – exercise that right.

Back To Top