Trevin Wax

Five signs the pro-life cause is winning

Trevin Wax
By Trevin Wax
Image

May 20, 2011 (Patheos.com) - The pro-life cause is winning. In state legislatures, in the media, and in grassroots efforts to reduce the number of abortions, pro-life activists have put abortion rights advocates on defense. The pro-life movement certainly has hurdles to overcome before the United States can become a place where all human life is legally protected. Yet the eventual outcome is certain. Here are five reasons I believe we have reached a tipping point in favor of the pro-life cause.

1) Public Opinion

A majority of Americans surveyed in a recent Rasmussen poll, including a large percentage of those who identified themselves “pro-choice,” said they believe abortion is “morally wrong most of the time.” Last year, for the third consecutive time, Gallup found that more Americans accept the pro-life label, a result that led the polling firm to acknowledge “a real change in public opinion.”

One reason for this shift is the high-tech ultrasound machine that reaffirms what embryology textbooks have told us all along—that the unborn child is truly a human being. In a recent Washington Post editorial, Frances Kissling, former President of Catholics for Choice, advised abortion-rights advocates to shift strategies: “We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible.” Yet few pro-choice activists seem to be listening to Kissling’s advice. They continue to cast themselves as the defenders of “women’s reproductive rights.” This worn-out strategy fails to resonate with a large number of Americans because it ignores the point of tension. The debate has moved on from “reproductive rights” to the more perplexing question: “What are the unborn?”

Meanwhile, many people—including some you would not expect—are openly registering their unease with the procedure. Take the recently released autobiography of Steven Tyler, the “screamin’ demon” lead singer of rock band Aerosmith. When he impregnated a teenaged girl in the mid-1970s, friends convinced them they could not raise the child and should seek an abortion. “They put the needle in her belly and squeeze the stuff in and you watch,” Tyler recounted. “And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I’m going, Jesus, what have I done?”

Twenty years ago, many of those who considered themselves “pro-life” were a little hesitant to say so publicly. Today, the reverse is true. Even those who advocate a woman’s right to abortion don’t want to fight for that position too passionately.

2) The Media

In 1972, an episode of Maude concluded with the central character choosing to have an abortion. One would think that nearly forty years later, we would be past this debate. Not so. In fact, filmmakers and television writers have discovered that fictional abortion not only kills a fetus, but kills a story as well. Movie and television characters who wrestle with the decision (Dr. Abby Lockhart on ER, for example) almost always choose life.

That’s why even pro-choice filmmakers choose life in the end. Juno is a good example. The pregnant teenage girl approaches an abortion clinic and meets a pro-life friend who informs her that the baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and already has fingernails. Juno chooses “to appreciate her miracle.”

Similarly, in a 2009 episode of Law and Order (“Dignity”), a female attorney seeking justice for a murdered abortion doctor is shaken by a description of partial-birth abortion. “I grew up thinking Roe v. Wade was gospel,” she says. Now, “I don’t know where my freedom ends and the dignity of another being begins.”

The media is not leading the way when it comes to the pro-life cause. It’s only catching up to the sweeping pro-life sentiments of the majority of Americans. Yet the shift in popular culture reflects the progress the pro-life argument has made.

3) Young People

Sixteen-year-old singing sensation, Justin Bieber, was recently asked by Rolling Stone for his position on abortion: “I really don’t believe in abortion,” he said, since abortion is “like killing a baby.” Bieber is not alone. The sea of young faces at this year’s annual “March for Life” in Washington prompted NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) President Nancy Keenan to worry: “There are so many of them, and they are so young.”

Bieber, ironically enough, was castigated by Barbara Walters for answering questions inappropriate for a person of his age—even though girls can actually receive abortions, and not merely opine on them, at ages younger than 16. That a veteran journalist like Walters fails to see the inconsistency in her position is a testament to how entrenched are the ideas among the older generation of abortion advocates.

4) The Third Wave

John Ensor of Heartbeat International writes: “In the first wave, Catholics took the lead is declaring the inherent evil of abortion. Evangelicals then flooded in to help advance the pregnancy help movement. The Third Wave points to the victory of our movement and the downfall of abortion as a business, when Black and Hispanic Christians not only join this movement, but lead it.”

A few months ago, a billboard in New York City featured a picture of an African-American girl with the message “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.” Many found the ad “racist” and thought it condemned black women for having abortions. Lost in the controversy was the actual point of the advertisement: abortion clinics target poor minorities in the inner city. Although the billboard was taken down, it pointed to the troubling racial history of abortion. When YouTube videos began making the rounds, showing the overtly racist agenda of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, some pro-choice advocates were forced to reconsider their assumptions.

5) Abortion Advocates on the Defensive

While Roe still stands, legislators in numerous states have begun chipping away at the implications of that decision. Supporting their efforts is increasing evidence of corruption at abortion clinics.

Planned Parenthood’s advocates have sought to redirect the discussion by pointing to all the other health care services their clinics provide for low-income women. But implicit in Planned Parenthood’s downplaying of abortion and emphasizing of other services is a stunning admission: abortion is a problem. Planned Parenthood’s talking points indicate that fewer and fewer Americans can stomach the idea of “abortion as health care.”

And then there is the admission that abortion is a “tragic choice.” On a recent episode of The View, Whoopi Goldberg explained her reason for being pro-choice: the low-income woman who already has too many children. When confronted about women who simply get abortions out of convenience, she called them “idiots.” Why does Whoopi have such a visceral reaction to abortion-for-convenience? Because she’s an inconsistent advocate of abortion rights: she recognizes that the fetus is a human being and that abortion snuffs out this life. The fact that she (and others like her) sees abortion as a “tragic choice” implicitly speaks to the immorality of the procedure.

Conclusion

The tipping point in favor of the pro-life cause is not evident to all. Time magazine recently chose Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards for their 100 Most Influential List (a decision akin to choosing segregationist George Wallace over crusader Martin Luther King, Jr.). There is much work to be done.

The abortion debate will not go away. The fundamental issue at stake is not reproductive freedom but the desire to extend human rights to all—even the smallest and most vulnerable human beings among us. Those who continue to ignore or deny the humanity of the unborn are increasingly on the defensive because new technologies are opening the window into the womb. What we find there are not tissues to be discarded, but human lives worth protecting.

Trevin WaxTrevin Wax is an editor at LifeWay Christian resources and a blogger at Kingdom People. He is also the author of Holy Subversion and Counterfeit Gospels. This article first appeared on Patheos.com. It is reprinted here with the permission of the author.


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook