Jonathon van Maren

From the front lines of the culture wars

The abortion of JFK’s children was evil – but it’s also a tragic loss

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Did you know that John F. Kennedy had more than four children? That writers Christopher and Peter Hitchens had two other siblings? That Marilyn Monroe actually had a large number of children?

I’m not particularly fond of the argument that I’ve heard many pro-lifers use: “Abortion is wrong because of all the amazing people we’ve aborted. One of them could have had the cure to cancer!” Abortion is fundamentally wrong because it ends the life of a developing human being, whether that human being would turn out to be a drug addict or the president of the United States. However, it is an interesting thought experiment—not least of all because so many people considered heroes by the Left have aborted their children or had their children aborted.

For example, I think of liberal icon President John F. Kennedy. The Kennedy Family is probably the closest thing America had to a royal family, although revelations over the last several decades have rather firmly repudiated the idea of an impossibly happy Camelot, as historians reveal anecdote after sordid anecdote of relentless philandering. Anecdotes of President Kennedy’s devastation at the 1963 death of his two-day old son, Patrick, are well-documented. The Kennedys also lost a daughter in 1956—Arabella, as her parents intended to name her, was stillborn.

Revolutions famously do not discriminate in their grim reaping of human life. The Sexual Revolution is no different.

But stories abound of JFK’s affairs ending in abortions. Mimi Alford, a White House intern that JFK had a relationship with for over a year, reported that when she told the president she believed she was pregnant, he “took the news in his stride.” Shortly afterward, she was contacted by a White House staffer named Dave Powers, often assigned to protect the president’s reputation.

“An hour later,” Alford recalls, “Dave called the dorm and told me to call a woman who could put me in touch with a doctor in New Jersey. The intermediary was a necessary precaution, because abortion was illegal. That was pure Dave Powers: he handled the problem immediately, and with brute practicality. There was no talk about what I wanted, or how I felt, or what the medical risks might be.”

Another of JFK’s famous mistresses, Judith Campbell Exner, reported having an abortion in 1963 after becoming pregnant by the president. Not all Kennedys, it seems, end up in Washington, D.C. Some of them end up in trash cans behind seedy clinics, victims of their parents’ sexual ideology.

Another icon of the Left that comes to mind when I think of the human cost of abortion is the late author and columnist Christopher Hitchens. Fans of the Hitch are fierce in their devotion, with his brother Peter, a well-known conservative author, noting that his brother’s fans often burn with fanatical hatred against him, furious that a conservative Christian (who wrote his brilliant book The Rage Against God partially in response to his brother’s philosophically feeble atheist tome God Is Not Great) could bear the same last name as their hero. Both brothers are extraordinary writers and journalists, having collectively written dozens of books and published essays and columns in the most prestigious publications.

What many people don’t realize is that there were originally four Hitchens siblings, not two. As Christopher relates in his Vanity Fair essay “Fetal Distraction”:

I was in my early teens when my mother told me that a predecessor fetus and a successor fetus had been surgically removed, thus making me an older brother rather than a forgotten whoosh.

Christopher noted further that at least two children of his own had their lives ended by abortion, recalling sombrely that, “at least once I found myself in a clinic while ‘products of conception’ were efficiently vacuumed away. I can distinctly remember thinking, on the last such occasion, that under no persuasion of any kind would I ever allow myself to be present at such a moment again.”

Perhaps this was because Christopher Hitchens allowed himself no illusion, writing that, “Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and, whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs.”

Although to my knowledge Peter Hitchens has never addressed the fact of his aborted siblings in print, on abortion he has much to say. “Those who wonder what they would have done had they lived at the time of some terrible injustice now know the answer,” he has said. “We do live in such a time. And we do nothing.”

When considering the lives and careers of the Hitchens brothers we know, we cannot help but wonder what the lives of the two that we do not would have been like.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The list of politicians, writers, and cultural figures who have discarded their own children are myriad. Comedian Chelsea Handler has talked openly about having an abortion. Sharon Osbourne calls having an abortion at seventeen the mistake of her life. According to author Norman Mailer, the tragic Marilyn Monroe had twelve abortions by her late-twenties. Whoopi Goldberg of The View, Lucille Ball of I Love Lucy, Judy Garland of The Wizard of Oz all aborted children. Ava Gardner reportedly aborted two of Frank Sinatra’s children, while the smut-peddling rapper ‘Lil Kim aborted the Notorious B.I.G’s child, which they conceived during an affair. Famed singer Sinead O’Connor had an abortion while on tour in Minneapolis.

It’s especially bizarre, I think, when those on the Left turn out to enthusiastically celebrate any new revelation of a cultural figure having an abortion. The more they admire the person, it seems the happier they are at the “courage” of said person having had an abortion. A bit unintentionally insulting, don’t you think? I admire you so much! I’m so glad you terminated a child that might have had your talent or been a lot like you!

Revolutions, however, famously do not discriminate in their grim reaping of human life. The Sexual Revolution is no different, even though we’ve replaced guillotines with Planned Parenthood clinics. The crowds cheered both, and the similarity between a howling mob and a pro-choice rally is striking to say the least. Perhaps it is Peter Hitchens who has the best explanation: “I think that abortion is much beloved by revolutionaries,” he noted gravely, “because they always like the mob to get their hands in blood and commit some sort of crime of their own.”

Abortion is evil because it violently destroys a human being. But one of the reasons abortion is tragic is that it has robbed us of so many who might have given so much to humanity.

Help us expose Planned Parenthood

$5 helps us reach 1,000 more people with the truth!

Share this article

Featured Image

The abortion debate turns smart people into idiots. Here’s one way to overcome that.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

“The problem,” people often tell me, “is not that people don’t know what abortion is. It’s that they don’t understand the beauty of the pre-born child. They don’t know that the baby in the womb is a baby.”

I understand what they’re trying to say. The dehumanizing rhetoric of the pro-choice movement has been staggeringly effective. Clump of cells, parasite, sub-human—as with every injustice, insidious propaganda must be applied to the victim in order to ease the consciences of those involved in the killing.

But on a different level, I disagree. Everyone, I think, knows both instinctively if not intellectually that the pre-born child in the womb is in fact a human being. It’s why when someone announces that they’re “expecting,” no one asks them what they’re expecting. Or when someone goes to the hospital to give birth, no one feels the need to check and see what they gave birth to—because they all know. Everyone has seen a sonogram, or an ultrasound. Almost everyone has seen a photo of a child in the womb, whether it be a photo essay in TIME or LIFE, or a documentary from National Geographic, or simply a video of their friend’s checkup.

No, the problem is that our culture is suffering from a cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the state of holding two contradictory or competing ideas at the same time, without reconciling those beliefs. This is precisely what has happened with abortion: What we instinctively and intellectually know about the pre-born child in the womb does not line up with what we culturally believe about abortion.

Any pro-life activist can tell you that when you’re discussing the abortion issue with a pro-choice person, they become suddenly and mysteriously amnesiac when you start asking them questions like, “So what is it that’s developing in the mother’s womb?” If a friend had just excitedly announced a pregnancy to them, there would be no confusion about the baby in the womb. But in the cultural context of abortion, suddenly intelligent people turn into idiots, and begin stuttering about “partly human” or “potential human” or “maybe possibly will become human.”

That’s why so many pro-life strategies often prove ineffective. Showing them a picture of a born child, for example, doesn’t force them to confront any hard truth or even make them re-examine their worldview. So it is often with pictures of pre-born children in the womb, too—they see the picture, the register it, and it confirms what they already know—that the baby in the womb is, in fact, a baby. What we need is information, is evidence, that directly targets their cognitive dissonance—that attacks the mental wall between what they know about the baby in the womb and what they believe about abortion.

That is why I think abortion victim photography is so essential: Because in one, often horrifying image, the viewer is forced to reconcile what they knew all along about the child in the womb—that it was a tiny human being—with what abortion actually is, a brutal act of violence that physically destroys that tiny human being. Pictures of abortion victims bring down that mental wall, and the controversy surrounding the use of abortion victim photography exists precisely because of the reaction that often results from people struggling to reconcile two separate ideas which, for the first time, they are realizing are horrifyingly incompatible.

After all, when someone is in a dark room for a very long time and you flick the light on, they will recoil. Their eyes will hurt. Light does that.

We see the stunned realization that abortion is a brutal act of violence even in what some people say. “That’s a picture of a slain baby!” one stunned woman told a TV anchor after receiving one of our anti-abortion postcards. One reporter I spoke with asked how we felt about younger people seeing the images, and as I was pointing that even in Grade 6 and 7 graphic imagery is used to dissuade drug use, smoking, and drinking and driving, the reporter interrupted me by saying, “Yes—but your images show dead infants, and that hits people harder.”

It does—and for precisely the reason the reporter, however inadvertently, pointed out: It is impossible not to recognize that these images are, in fact, of dead children. Worse, they are killed children. That is never going to be a popular thing to point out. But it does cut to the heart of the issue like nothing else does—and it makes the truth about abortion unavoidable.

The truth is a hard one, especially in a culture that has sealed its covenant with the abortion industry with the blood of millions. Pro-lifers who seek a way to change the culture without confrontation or by self-censoring our best evidence of the truth about abortion have to realize that the guilt of our culture runs wide and deep—for every one of those million lives snuffed out, there was—is—two parents of a dead child. Four grandparents. Friends who applauded or suggested the idea that the life be ended. The medical staff who performed the procedure. The boyfriend, husband, partner who may have pressured or coerced, or even simply driven his partner and his child to a clinic where that child would be shredded and discarded.

But only a recognition of what abortion actually is will heal our culture, because only with recognition, only with truth, can there be repentance, without which there can be no healing. We know the truth. Millions don’t. It’s up to us to confront them with the evidence that will destroy the deadly cognitive dissonance that is resulting in so much death.

Share this article

Featured Image

The media is pro-abortion. Here’s how to make them spread the pro-life message.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

Aug. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Never has there been a time when people have access to so much information, but only seem to receive or peruse information that confirms their own worldview. Almost every politicized event, from Ferguson to the Planned Parenthood exposé videos to everything Donald Trump says is viewed through the lens of one’s pre-existing ideology. Cops are either vicious, trigger-happy racists or upstanding guardians of the good and the just. The Planned Parenthood videos are either heavily edited fakes and manifestly a smear job, or incontrovertible evidence that we are butchering children and pillaging their corpses. Donald Trump is either a loud-mouthed racist clown or the greatest conservative since Ronald Reagan.

I started to notice this more when I began to write commentary some years ago. I use my Facebook newsfeed as a very quick way of seeing what’s going on and what people are saying about it, and so I have news sources and blogs of every stripe—Slate, Mother Jones, Jezebel, Breitbart, FOX, National Review, Maclean’s, the National Post, the Toronto Star, you name it—showing up in my feed.

In an era where people often hear, whether by accident or by design, only what they want to, it is the task of pro-life activists to bring the truth directly to the people. We have to expect shock, disbelief, and even anger—because many people realize, for the first time, what abortion really is.

Often, I’ll see two diametrically opposed versions of the exact same story. This week, for example, Donald Trump apparently kicked journalist Jorge Ramos out of one of his campaign events. Mother Jones, Slate, and every other left-wing news source apoplectically insinuated or outright accused Trump of doing this because he was either afraid of Ramos’s questions or because he is a racist who hates Hispanic people. Breitbart and a swarm of other conservative blogs triumphantly highlighted the incident as evidence that Trump won’t take any guff from anyone, and noted that Ramos was later allowed in to ask Trump several other questions once he waited his turn to speak.

This is significant for those of us who seek to reach the culture with the truth about abortion, because it highlights something we often forget: People rarely have their views challenged. They interact only with media sources that give them one side of the story, or even a completely fictitious version of that story. Even when they haven’t selected the information they want to expose themselves to, Facebook and other algorithms that monitor users’ behavior serve the information they think people most want to see. Each side of the debate gets fed custom-made outrage that plays with perfect precision to their sensibilities. This is why so many of our political debates resemble two drunks yelling at each other—because each side is operating with a completely different set of facts, and each is outraged that the other cannot see the obvious truth about it all.

The media is enormously complicit in covering up what actually takes place during the abortion procedure, and does everything possible to obscure the facts and twist the narrative. Thus, when I attended the Kermit Gosnell trial, there were only a handful of reporters on hand when the verdict was passed down—despite this being a sensational story of gruesome wickedness, replete with a serial killer of infants and dismembered limbs being used as trophies. The story much of the media chose to pursue? Not a tale of justice for murdered children, but of pro-life activists forcing women to attend clinics where shabby killers snuffed out the lives of their babies, rather than clean Planned Parenthood facilities where feticide is an industry.

So it is with the Planned Parenthood videos produced by the brilliant investigative journalists of the Center for Medical Progress. While it is obvious to those of us who have seen the videos that they are evidence of unfathomable cruelty and stunning disregard for human life, millions of Americans are hearing from their media sources that these videos are fake, heavily edited, or fictitious smear jobs. They are told they can rest easy, because the story here is simply the angels of Planned Parenthood once again under attack by the anti-choice Neanderthals of the Religious Right, and that the goal here is not to expose injustice, but to make sure that no women enjoy sex, ever, and that anti-abortion people are opposed to finding cures to cancer and Alzheimer’s. That’s why sixteen journalists from publications like Salon and The Nation received awards from Planned Parenthood for their coverage of the abortion debate last week.

That is why pro-life activism is so essential: our role is to bring into the public square hard truths that much of the media is determined to keep hidden. This year, my comrades and I at the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform reached well over a million Canadians with the truth about abortion: That it is an act of violence that destroys a developing human being. The media, which almost invariably chooses to blur out photos of abortion victims in their coverage of the postcards we distribute, is often almost irrationally angry about the work that we do. And one of the reasons they are angry is that we are smashing their monopoly on the dissemination of information.

For decades, the media on both sides of the border has assisted the abortion industry and the abortion rights movement. The media in Canada championed the cause of Henry Morgentaler, the Father of Abortion Rights. We know that we cannot just bring the truth about abortion forward and reasonably hope that the media will convey that information to their millions of readers and viewers. And so we pursue a very simple solution: We disseminate that information ourselves, from driving Truth Trucks into traffic jams, to setting up anti-abortion displays on sidewalks and university campuses, to delivering hundreds of thousands of postcards showing and telling the truth about abortion to mailboxes, street by street.

The media then often becomes what veteran pro-life strategist Gregg Cunningham calls a “force multiplier”—drawn to the controversy that inevitably surrounds pro-life activism, they show up with their cameras, film our projects, record our conversations, and ask us why we do what we do. And then they pass that information on—often in a twisted and biased form, true, but still, glimmers of truth shine through. This year alone, almost every major media outlet in Canada has covered our activism exposing abortion across the country. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians were again exposed to an abortion debate that is only just beginning to heat up.

In an era where people often hear, whether by accident or by design, only what they want to, it is the task of pro-life activists to bring the truth directly to the people. We have to expect shock, disbelief, and even anger—because many people realize, for the first time, what abortion really is. There is no one else providing them with this information. But time after time, we see them process this information, and realign their worldview. And when they do, lives are saved.

The media won’t do our job for us. It isn’t an easy job. But with creativity, strategy, and determination, it is a job that can be done. 

Share this article

Featured Image
Calling people a string of adolescent names and refusing to avail yourself of basic manners is not 'truth telling,' it’s buffoonery.

This is what Donald Trump’s popularity says about us. And it ain’t pretty.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

Arguably the single most disturbing incident during the recent Republican primary debate went unnoticed by most. Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked reality show star and business tycoon Donald Trump about his habit of consistently denigrating women who disagree with him by calling them names, including calling one woman a “dog.” “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump replied. And to the shame of the audience, a roar of applause went up that lasted painfully long.

I originally thought that Trump could be ignored. Surely, no one could tolerate that type of behavior from someone who wanted to be president of the United States for long. But his numbers keep going up, and conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are climbing into the Trump clown car. After Trump released his immigration plan, conservative media darling Ann Coulter even tweeted, “I don’t care if Donald Trump wants to perform abortions in the White House after this immigration policy paper.”

I’m as frustrated by political correctness as anyone else. As a full-time pro-life activist, I’m faced with it and bogged down by it on a daily basis. But are we actually at a point where our principles allow us to cheer wildly at the sight of a rude and ungallant businessman referring to a woman as a “dog” just because that woman has said vile and repulsive things herself? As anti-porn activist Matt Fradd has noted, it is a manly thing to treat a woman with dignity, even if she has forgotten hers.

But the comments went virtually unnoticed—except for the enormous backlash against Megyn Kelly for having the audacity to ask a man who regularly swaps out his wives for younger women and has a habit of calling women names a very legitimate question. Not to mention his other statements that are as creepy as they are indicative, like his comment, “I don’t think my daughter Ivanka would pose for Playboy, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her.”

I wrote a number of these things in another column recently, and was unsurprised to find that plenty of conservatives disagreed with my analysis of Trump. For some reason, some conservatives think they can talk about how dignity, honesty, and integrity belong in the White House, and then in the same breath support The Donald.

But he’s a “truth teller”! insist his supporters. No, he’s not. Calling people a string of adolescent names and refusing to avail yourself of basic manners is not “truth telling,” it’s buffoonery. Being rude and crude isn’t “defying political correctness,” it’s just being rude and crude. You can tell the truth without sounding like a drunk teenager. And being a misogynist isn’t anti-feminist, it’s anti-feminine.

In short: Donald Trump is to presidential politics what Family Guy is to animated cartoons.

It seems that the radical feminists and secular leftists have done such a good job of stigmatizing concepts like chivalry and the idea that men should treat women gallantly that even some conservatives have bought into it. We should be engaging in a real discussion about their worldview versus ours, rather than ceding defeat by descending into a bare-knuckle brawl where they call us misogynist pigs, and we prove them right.

Does Rosie O’Donnell say disgusting things? Absolutely. Does that give us an excuse to call her a “dog,” or any other name for that matter? I would hope that the worldview we’re trying to hold up contrasts with the crude behavior of modern feminists. Trump is inviting us all to climb down into the gutter and fire back. It makes me feel a bit nauseated that so many conservatives seem to be taking him up on his invitation.

As I was discussing this with one of my friends, she pointed me towards some Facebook comments the brilliant historian Eric Metaxas wrote on Facebook regarding Trump. His comments are a wonderful blast of fresh air amid all of the Trump apologists:

Donald Trump's despicable comments about Megyn Kelly are God's mercy toward the U.S. We've been allowed to see the madness of Saul in time to reject him. If anything has ever illustrated our debased view of manhood…Donald Trump is it. He is not gentlemanly or chivalrous or heroic. He is a win-at-all-costs Saul who would mesmerize us for a time and lift our hopes, only to destroy us in the end. His viciously nasty comments toward Rosie O'Donnell were not what a gentleman says about a woman, no matter who she is or what awful things SHE has said. A gentleman would never have stooped to that level. Would George Washington or Abraham Lincoln speak about a woman that way? We've fallen very far that we would tolerate this behavior.

That, I think, is how a Christian and a real conservative responds to a man who takes the national stage and says horrible things about women. Those who are defending Trump by saying that those on the left (where Trump himself oh-so-recently resided) say things about us that are much worse are missing the point, not to mention ignoring the “turn the other cheek” admonishment.

When we respond to vulgarity with vulgarity, our opponents win the argument. And when we howl our approval at a billionaire calling a woman a “dog,” we cannot claim, in any sane or rational way, to be consistent with any principles.

Share this article

Featured Image
We hide the truth at our peril, and at the peril of unborn children in risk of abortion. The non-pixellated version of this photo is below. Be warned: it just might change your views on abortion.

The Planned Parenthood videos have ended the debate over graphic abortion images

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren
In the US, we see the national media for the first time broadcasting evidence of abortion’s inhumanity to huge numbers—and we see the impact on Planned Parenthood unfolding week after week.

When General George S. Patton began to discover barb-wire camps full of dead, dying, skeletal people in 1945, it moved him like nothing in years of blood-stained warfare had.

Patton began rounding up German civilians—not to execute them in revenge, but to walk them through the camps, so that they could lay their eyes on precisely what it was that had happened on their watch. Patton knew that the German populace wouldn’t voluntarily visit the camps. He knew they wouldn’t want to see the emaciated corpses and barely-living neighbors they had abandoned. He knew that to see them would be upsetting, if not life-changing.

But it had to happen.

And so it is today with David Daleidan of the Center for Medical Progress, who is walking us step by painful step through the corridors of sterile Planned Parenthood clinics where severed human limbs are removed from freezers and coldly poked while price-haggling begins. The all-too-familiar rhetoric of dehumanization — “parasite,” “clump of cells,” “sub-human” — makes way for a chilling silence as we see pathetic piles of human arms, legs, livers, and tiny, twisted faces that demand our attention and assault our consciences.

While the use of abortion victim photography has been debated for years — in spite of the fact that no social reform movement in human history has ever ended an injustice without the graphic exposure of what happened to the victims — David Daleidan has put an end to that debate. While many churches and pro-life groups dither over whether or not to use the best evidence of what abortion does to human beings, FOX News aired photos of tiny dismembered baby parts on national television, exposing to one of the largest audiences ever the “graphic evidence” that, they noted, “shocked even hard-core abortion foes.”

These videos are turning into this generation’s version of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, or today’s Lewis Hine child-labor photos. Some pro-lifers are referring to the aborted babies featured in these videos as “Emmett.” Emmet Till, of course, was the fourteen-year-old African American boy savagely murdered in 1955 in Money, Mississippi. Photographs of his open casket funeral set the stage for the Civil Rights Movement, and inspired Rosa Parks’ famous act of defiance. The weight of gory evidence must press down on the conscience of a nation before they can understand the barbarism they inflict and tolerate.

Too often, we are persuaded by ahistorical arguments that we must hide the evidence of what abortion does. In a culture that relentlessly pursues the end of “feeling good,” we are told that abortion victim photos make people “feel bad,” and thus are counter-productive. Instead, our movement must fight a battle with no enemy and no victim, and one in which the baby is only discussed in the most abstract of terms—exclusively discussing women’s health is considered more palatable. You can explain how horrible abortion is, just so long as you don’t attempt to prove it in the most decisive and compelling way.

We can no longer deny as a movement that it is evidence of what abortion does that illustrates to people why it is unsupportable. David Daleidan is like so many other pro-life leaders, who was himself convicted by photos of abortion victims. He has illustrated by his exposés of Planned Parenthood that only exposing the truth is sufficient to bring about change. The chilling images of butchered humans, now seen by millions, have even long-term pro-choicers admitting, “I don’t know if I’m pro-choice after Planned Parenthood videos.”

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

We hear often that abortion victim photography doesn’t work because “the pro-life movement has been trying it for years, and it hasn’t worked.” Actually, the pro-life movement has never used them on a wide enough scale to determine their impact—here in Canada, the No2Trudeau Campaign’s one million postcards of abortion victims will be the biggest distribution of abortion photos anywhere.

Additionally, those who have used abortion victim photos have hundreds of stories of people changing their minds—and if one thing has surprised me consistently, it is how many people have been in the pro-life movement for years without ever having seen someone change their mind on the issue. In the U.S., we see the national media for the first time broadcasting evidence of abortion’s inhumanity to huge numbers—and we see the impact on Planned Parenthood unfolding week after week.

Watch the reaction of politicians and leaders, journalists and activists describing how they felt when seeing the Planned Parenthood videos. They describe it as horrifying, gut-wrenching, gruesome, and difficult to watch. And yet, in spite of the fact that no one wants to see such things, when David Daleidan made it impossible to ignore, they did. And that is having a huge, if not unprecedented impact on the American abortion debate.

Watch Cecile Richards and the other Planned Parenthood minions scramble desperately to suppress the evidence through whatever means possible, and ask yourself why they are terrified that the American public will see these images.

Every movement that seeks to expose injustice faces criticism, much of it from within. Many people have bought into the idea that in this culture of feelings, only by making people feel good will we begin to achieve a new cultural consciousness on abortion. This is nothing new. Every group that has sought to bring the plight of victims to light by using the best evidence available has faced the same criticism.

I would respond in the same way that Lewis Hine, the photographer who took the photographs that awakened America to the abuses happening within the factories, coal mines, and lumber yards, responded. When people complained about the photographs he bombarded the public with, he said, “Perhaps you are weary of child labour pictures. Well, so are the rest of us, but we propose to make you and the whole country so sick and tired of the whole business that when the time for action comes, child labour pictures will be records of the past."

Because that, history tells us, is the way injustices become history.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Jonathon van Maren

Follow Jonathon...

Jonathon Van Maren is a writer and pro-life speaker who has given presentations across North America on abortion and pro-life strategy.

Jonathon first got involved in the pro-life movement after viewing a graphic abortion video in 2007, which convicted him to get active. He ran Simon Fraser University Students for Life as president from 2009-2010, while speaking in both the United States and Canada on pro-life issues.

Jonathon graduated from Simon Fraser University in 2010 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History. He is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook