OpinionMon Aug 12, 2013 - 11:48 am EST
Pro-choice people who have become pro-life: three stories
August 12, 2013 (LifeIssues) - Let’s be honest. To truly be successful advocates for life, we can’t just spend our time “preaching to the choir.” We must step outside our comfort zone to reach those who are on the other side. This is no easy task when you’re faced with individuals who hurl obscenities, act combative or are willfully defiant. But if we’re to change hearts and minds, we must first try to understand the motives of those who are for abortion.
Not all pro-abortion advocates are the same, but I believe there are five general traits that exist among this group. They are:
- Disconnected: They resort to a narrow viewpoint that this is only an issue of women’s rights, rather than facing the reality that there is another life at hand.
- Deceived: Through misguided intentions, they believe that they’re truly helping women.
- Disassociated: This represents those who say, “I wouldn’t do it, but it’s not my place to make the decision for someone else.”
- Denial: Out of selfishness, some deny responsibility and believe in sex without consequences, including pregnancy.
- Dehumanizing: This is an attempt to reject the humanity of the unborn child by not considering him or her to be a person.
What’s common throughout these characteristics is that the perspective is narrow—they lack the vision to see the entire picture. And that’s the key. Advocates of abortion want to stay focused only on their limited talking points. When a person’s eyes are opened to the full reality of what abortion means, viewpoints can and will change. To learn how this transition succeeds, let’s take a look at some true stories of individuals who were once in favor of abortion.
Jennifer Fulwiler was a self-proclaimed “pro-choice atheist.” It was a comment from her husband that first caused Jennifer to start examining her views on abortion. He said, “It just occurred to me that being pro-life is being ‘pro-other-people’s-life.’ Everyone is ‘pro-their-own-life.’” That single statement made Jennifer realize that by supporting abortion she was essentially deciding whose lives were worth living. As she investigated the issue further, she was faced with technological advancements like 4D ultrasounds. Not wanting to face the overwhelming evidence, she found herself changing and moving her definition of “human.” A turning point occurred when she researched partial-birth abortion and discovered that there were people in professional positions justifying infanticide by calling the victims fetuses instead of babies. She said, “My views were motivated by loving concern: I just did not want women to have to suffer. But I recognized that I had told myself lies in order to maintain my support for abortion. Good, well-meaning people—people like me—can support gravely evil things because of the power of lies.”
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!
Yet, the truth breaks through those lies. An example of that occurred at the recent trial of Kermit Gosnell. Reporter JD Mullane relayed, “There was a journalist who told me that he is very liberal, very pro-choice. But after sitting through the testimony in the Gosnell trial, he’s reconsidered. He’s changed his mind.” In a court of law, faced with profoundly shocking evidence and the gruesome testimony of witnesses, the grisly truth of abortion was revealed. No amount of ideological arguments could counter those facts.
For most of her life, Ronnie Koenig remained, in her words, “a Feminist with a capital ‘F,’” strongly advocating for a woman’s right to abortion. Then last year, she listened as vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan explained why he was pro-life by talking about seeing his daughter on an early sonogram and how he and his wife nicknamed her “Bean.” Ronnie was shocked to realize that she agreed with him! She reflected on her own pregnancy, after suffering years of infertility. She recalls, “There they were on the monitor in front of me—my two little beans. Ba-bump-ba-bump-ba-bump went their heartbeats. From that moment on, life never felt the same.” She’s now a believer that life begins at conception. Although she only considers herself “sort-of pro-life,” she comes to a thought-provoking conclusion. “We are kidding ourselves if we don’t acknowledge that it does stop a beating heart—however defective, weak or unwanted that heart is. And that’s because the heartbeats I heard that day in the doctor’s office were so rhythmic and insistent, already so full of life.”
The truth will always be on the side of life. That’s the reason abortionists don’t want mothers to hear their baby’s heartbeat. It’s why abortion advocates fight against ultrasounds, because women would see a baby, not a clump of cells. They continue to attack common-sense regulations and abortion alternatives in order to embrace their lies and hide from the truth. It’s an ongoing challenge to overcome deceit so a person is open to receiving the truth. And this is the reason why we must remain vigilant in pro-life education and being a voice for the voiceless. Because we never know how something we say or do could change a person’s heart and mind toward embracing life.
Brad Mattes is the Executive Director of the Life Issues Institute, where this article first appeared.
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.