by Philip Hamilton
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) recently displayed photos of aborted fetuses in downtown Knoxville, reminding passersby on Market Square that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings. CBR’s display, known as the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), exposes the devastating effects of a “woman’s right to choose” by focusing attention on what is actually being chosen.
The Market Square GAP was my first one as a new staffer for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. During the course of the day, I encountered many people on both sides of the debate.
I spoke with a homeless couple who had lost custody of their children due to drug issues; they were staunchly pro-life. They said that while their children did not have an ideal childhood, there is always the option of adoption.
Later, I got a pro-choice progressive to admit that late term abortions were morally wrong. I told her about Planned Parenthood’s sale of fetal organs. We discussed Virginia’s ultrasound law, which she supported because a woman should at least be able to see an ultrasound of the child before being able to kill him. I told her that there should be at least a 24-hour waiting period after the ultrasound is done, so that women can have more time to make and informed choices between life or death for their children. [The more time women have to think about their decision, the more likely they are to choose life.] She supported a waiting period after I discussed the reasons why the a waiting period is actually “pro-woman.” After seeing GAP, this progressive woman rejected some of the most extreme pro-abortion positions. Not a complete conversion, but it’s a start, and not a bad one in only 15 minutes.
At the end of the day, I spoke with a woman with two young women in tow. She supported our message, but ordered her children to look away from the pictures as we talked. In spite of her belief that children should not look at aborted fetuses in a public square, she believed that teenagers and adults must see them before they can make an informed decision on the effects of “choice.”
We have a choice, too. We have a choice whether to spend our time and treasure on winning hearts, changing minds, and saving lives. Will you devote your time and treasure to stand for the right to life?
Check out my new piece over at Townhall.com, Bias Crimes and Science Denial at the Academy.
There is a place to rate the article, so please let Townhall know what you think. Look for the graphic just below the Townhall article and sound off! Share on Facebook, too.
The piece describes how a single statement of scientific fact was turned into a police investigation at Grand Valley State University (GVSU). It was bizarre.
CBR volunteer John Dillinger (not his real name) was eventually allowed to leave campus. (He is still required to report his whereabouts daily to his wife, but that’s something else and we don’t want to get into that.) Anyway, …
Check it out, rate it, and share it!
by Gregg Cunningham
Some in the media have falsely claimed that the intact abortion shown in CBR’s video is actually a miscarriage, not an abortion.
Medical malpractice lawsuits have become so common that OB/GYNs practice defensive medicine. They protect themselves by over-diagnosing, over-treating and over-prescribing. No doctor delivering this baby as a preemie in a hospital would fail to provide neonatal intensive care. Even if he had no compassion for the baby or his parents, the doctor would provide care to avoid being sued for negligence. Warren Hern, in his book “Abortion Practice,” warns of the difficulty in estimating fetal ages. A baby moving as vigorously as this one is presumptively entitled to care and would receive it — unless the attending physician is an abortionist, which is the case here.
Miscarried embryos and fetuses are virtually all still births involving a baby who expired in the uterus and was later born dead. A preemie in a hospital is born alive and given intensive care — not slapped around in a pan as happened here with a baby who survived the abortion depicted at the beginning of the video.
Gregg Cunningham is the Executive Director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR).
WARNING: THE VIDEO LINKED IN THIS PIECE CONTAINS GYNECOLOGICAL IMAGERY WHICH MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR SOME VIEWERS
by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
Carly Fiorina, CNN Republican presidential debate, September 16, 2015:
“Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ This is about the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this [Planned Parenthood defunding] bill, shame on us.”
Ms. Fiorina was referring to a Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) video depicting a few seconds of a 17-½ week fetus, still alive and moving, following an intact-delivery abortion. In the link below we post the entire unedited video. The total running time is approximately 13 minutes and the video is in five segments as the camera operator turns the camera on and off.
CBR and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), in whose undercover Planned Parenthood investigative video the CBR abortion footage appears, have been falsely accused of misrepresenting a miscarriage as an abortion. The first segment of the unedited video depicts the abortion itself, with the baby delivered alive and struggling in the abortionist’s gloved hand. Segments 2 and 3 depict the baby still moving in a stainless steel pan after repeatedly being handled abusively by the abortionist. Segments 4 and 5 are static gynecological shots of the baby’s mother.
This unedited version of the disputed footage proves incontestably that this termination is an abortion. Mothers at risk of miscarriage present at hospitals, not abortion clinics. Hospitals are in the business of sustaining pregnancies and saving babies. Abortion clinics are in the business of terminating pregnancies and killing babies. This video depicts a termination and the subsequent abuse and neglect of a preemie obviously delivered alive. No attempt is made to provide the neonatal intensive care a hospital would extend to a wanted baby. It is possible that the abortionists performing this termination violated both state and federal law by withholding care from a baby who survived an abortion.
Ms. Fiorina made reference to a baby’s heart still beating while its brain was being harvested (a process which Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services calls “digging”) and a former StemExpress “procurement technician” says, “I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think” (National Review, August 19, 2015). The article adds that “… her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain.”
The unedited version of the abortion linked below depicts an intact-delivery termination and Planned Parenthood partner StemExpress admits through its CEO (Cate Dyer), “Oh yeah, if you had intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety …” (The Daily Signal, August 21, 2015).
A World Magazine article, August 19, 2015, describes “… an aborted baby’s beating heart, a post-abortion occurrence that’s not uncommon, according to Ben Van Handel, executive director of Novogenix Laboratories.”
Ms. Fiorina’s characterizations are not hyperbole.
The terms of our abortion clinic access agreements explicitly forbid us from disclosing any information which could identify the abortion providers from whose clinics we obtain imagery. Dates, locations, affiliations and staff and patient information are confidential. Violating these prohibitions could subject CBR to legal liability and jeopardize clinic access for current and future projects. We are even obligated to delete the audio track on all of our videos.
The Grantham Collection is a component of the CBR abortion imagery archive. Questions related to this very disturbing video below should be directed to Gregg Cunningham, firstname.lastname@example.org, 949-206-0600.
WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GYNECOLOGICAL IMAGERY WHICH MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR SOME VIEWERS
Check out my article at Townhall.com, In the Abortion Debate, the Facts Matter.
There is a place to rate the article, so please let Townhall know what you think. Look for the graphic just below the Townhall article and sound off! Leave comments, too.
The column answers the standard arguments against abortion victim photos (AVPs).
To see what I mean by the MM-50, see the graphic at upper right. As a movement, we give way too much weight to the opinions of (a) our friends, e.g., the pro-lifers who like our stuff on Facebook, and (b) our opponents, i.e., the people who hate us no matter what we do or say.
We should pay more attention to the MM-50, because they ultimately decide who wins and who loses. They don’t come to our debates, watch our videos, read our essays, or anything else. For these millions of ignorant and apathetic people, we have only 3 seconds to tell our story and prove it, before they figure out who we are and look away. Only pictures can prove our case in 3 seconds or less.
Don’t forget to rate the article! Also, please share it on social media.
from the National Abstinence Education Association (link):
New Survey: Taxpayer Dollars Funding Programs that Pressure Teens to Have Sex
Congress must correct sex education policy in upcoming budget debate
The results of a new nationally representative survey of teens reports that they think their “comprehensive sex education” classes pressured them to have sex. This troubling news comes just as Congress takes up the FY 2016 spending bill, which funds sex education.
Nearly 4 in 10 teens report that programs, like those currently funded under the President’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, are actually encouraging teens to have sex. In fact, teens reported that their sex education classes exerted pressure to have sex more than their dating partners. One in five teens also said that demonstrating contraception sends the message that teen sex is expected. Male teens are twice as likely to feel this pressure than their female classmates.
Valerie Huber, President of Ascend/NAEA remarks: “The fact that youth are hearing from their sex education classes that sex as a teen is okay, and even expected is very troubling. And just as troubling, is the fact that the federal sex education budget currently sends 95% of funding to the very programs that teens say make sex feel like an expectation. Don’t our teens deserve a healthier alternative? They certainly do!”
The House and Senate FY 2016 appropriations drafts combine to give healthier information to teens. Specifically, the following changes to sex education policy are proposed:
- Parity. Parity in funding and policy for the Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) approach. Currently 95% of all sex ed. funding goes to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which normalizes sex for teens.
- Healthy Relationship Provisions. Key provisions of the Healthy Relationships Act, a bicameral bill that assures that SRA funding actually goes to programs that give youth the skills to wait for sex.
- Accurately Naming the Program. Referring to SRA programs as “SRA programs,” rather than the less precise – and often mischaracterized term – “abstinence education.”
Soon, Congress must decide how to continue funding the government. This is their opportunity to right a wrong clearly revealed in the recent teen survey.
Huber concludes: “Now is the time to send a healthier message to America’s youth. We urge Congress to ratify the sex education funding and policy changes proposed in the FY 2016 spending bill. It’s not too late to improve the information and messages that teens receive, but we cannot delay: Congress can assure teens are empowered with great expectations for their future rather than the risky expectation of sex as a teen.
Note: The survey was conducted by the Barna Group with 533 U.S. Teens ages 18 and 19 from an online consumer research panel, July 9 – 17, 2015. This data is representative of “adult” teens (no consent needed for participation) who have access to the internet in some form.
The more the leftists try to pretend that this video isn’t there, the more they discredit themselves.
Yes, the baby in the video isn’t the same exact baby whose face was cut open to harvest the brain, but so what? Planned Parenthood still cut through a baby’s face to harvest the brain. And their only defense is to say, “No, the baby in that video isn’t the same one we killed; we cut open the face to get the brain of a different baby!” Do they really think people will buy that?
by Jane Bullington
Although words may say that abortion is evil, photos actually show just how evil abortion really is. Big difference.
Made them look. At our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at East Carolina University, a female student said it best, “I didn’t want to look but I had to look.” She was pro-life but had never seen the evil on display. Now, when a friend says, “I am pregnant,” she will be more likely to step forward to offer counsel and assistance.
“It (GAP) opened my eyes … ”
I have just changed my mind! Another student started by saying abortion might be a viable choice for other women, “They are little human beings; I wouldn’t do it, but…” A few minutes later, after seeing how slavery was a “choice” in the 1800’s, she exclaimed, “Well, when you put it like that, I have just changed my mind! I understand what you are saying.”
I had no idea. A male student expressed the sentiments of most college students when he said, “I had no idea this is what abortion was. They are so tiny, and that is a hand!”
College students are a microcosm of Americans in general. The vast majority have never seen and do not want to see the gruesome reality of abortion. We must confront that ignorance with real abortion pictures.
The need to see. Another student said “It’s gruesome. I didn’t know how developed it is so early.” She went on to say, “People do need to see this; maybe they will make different decisions.”
Opened my eyes. A communications major was quoted in the school paper, “It (GAP) opened my eyes to the situation; it gave viewers a different way to see it. The pictures were graphic but sometimes it may take that to get a point across, especially for something as big as life.” Common sense from a college student!
The smoking gun. Do you see a common thread? Disturbing photos of abortion victims pierce through the lies and deception to inform common sense and conscience.
Victim images have been the smoking gun for every successful social reform movement in our history. We must continue to put them in front of Americans, over and over and over.
Jane Bullington is a CBR project director and a first-time FAB contributor.
by Maggie Egger
During GAP at Oakland University (OU) in March, a young man approached our display, then quickly became very emotional. He stepped back from the crowd and started yelling that women should have the choice to abort, because they could be in really terrible situations, and we can’t judge their particular circumstances.
Then it became personal. He said when his mom was in college, with a promising career ahead of her, she became pregnant by a man who was not much more than a casual hook-up. She dropped out of school and sacrificed her career to care for him, the unplanned pregnancy. He said she was miserable because of it. She married his father, but they went on to have an abusive and dysfunctional marriage and family. By this point, the young man was crying and his voice started to shake. He said that he wished that his mom had aborted him, because then maybe she would have had a chance at a better, happier life.
Then Mirna Awrow, co-president of OU Students for Life, stepped forward. She said, “I’m sorry that you had to go through that as a kid, and that your mom had to go through that. But I’m so glad she didn’t abort you. I am so glad that you’re here today. We value your life, no matter how it came to be. You are valuable and you are loved.” They continued talking quietly for a little while. He calmed down significantly, and before he left I heard Mirna say, “Can I give you a hug?” He accepted.
I observed several interesting things in this encounter. First, Mirna’s demeanor was so calm and loving, it completely diffused a very emotionally charged situation. Second, she didn’t try to debate abortion. That’s not what this young man needed to hear at that moment. Third, the reaction of the pro-abortion protesters was perhaps the most depressing and disturbing thing that I’ve seen on campus in a while.
The young man started off with the slogan of “personal choice” and of course the pro-abortion protesters cheered this. However, when he said he wished his mother had aborted him, most of them took their reasoning to its logical conclusion and continued to agree with him. In essence they were saying to him, “We wouldn’t care if you were dead.” That’s the mindset that we encounter in people who have, for decades, reduced the preborn to mere clumps of cells, instead of whole, distinct, living, valuable, human persons. And while that mindset is depressing, when it is juxtaposed with the pro-life view, the result can be encouraging. After all, if everyone always valued all life from fertilization to natural death, it would be no big deal for Mirna to tell that young man that she values his life, not only in that moment, but from the very first moment of his existence.
Maggie Egger is a CBR Project Director in Virginia and a regular FAB(ulous) contributor.
More than 70,000 pro-lifers attended one of the 352 Protest PP rallies held across the nation on Saturday. Yours truly had the honor of addressing the crowd of about 200-300 who attended the rally in Knoxville; a transcript of my remarks are given below.
Many thanks to rally organizers Pastor Cecil Clark of True Vine Baptist Church and Paul Simoneau and Lisa Morris of the Diocese of Knoxville. This was a truly unifying event for pro-lifers in Knoxville.
FWIW, here is what I had to say:
The Planned Parenthood videos are changing us
Thank you for coming out this morning.
And thank you, Center for Medical Progress! You caught Planned Parenthood selling baby parts! You caught ’em red-handed! You made their barbarity undeniable. You created video reports that are having a great impact all over this country. Thank you!
Like all of you here today, I’ve been watching these videos with great interest, and I can tell you that more are coming. But more important, I’ve been watching the response. Not just the response of the media and the public, but the way people in our own pro-life movement have reacted. A couple of observations, if I may.
First, I’m happy to say that we are more unified now than ever before. In the past, yes, we have disagreed on strategy. That’s OK; we will some more. But frankly, we haven’t supported each other like we should. We haven’t collaborated like we should. We haven’t shared resources. Sometimes, we work so hard fighting each other, there was little time to fight the enemy.
Perhaps these videos are galvanizing and unifying us, in the same way that the photos of Emmett Till galvanized and unified a generation of civil rights activists some 60 years ago.
Second, we are unifying behind the only strategy that can work — exposing the evil for all the world to see. For decades, we tried to win the argument without proving the facts. We kept our best evidence hidden. We hogtied ourselves. We failed to make people see that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings. We may have talked about it with our words, but we did not force people to see it with their eyes. We allowed abortion to hide behind it’s own horror.
But that’s all changing, now. All over the country, pro-lifers have unified behind the distribution of these videos. Earlier this week, Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana and a serious candidate for President, played the Planned Parenthood videos, several of which feature abortion victim images, on a huge outdoor screen at the governor’s mansion.
Think of that, a governor put abortion victim images on the lawn in front of the governor’s mansion, for all the world to see.
The times, they are a’changin.
Or are they?
My friend Kristan Hawkins at Students for Life of America wrote, “Game changed.”
But is she right? Has the game changed?
I hope so.
But frankly, it’s too early to tell. The answer to that question won’t be found in Washington or in the pro-abortion media. The answer will come from you … and what you do.
Because, you see, a whopping 70% of Americans have heard little or nothing about the videos. The story is being covered up by the media. They’ve distracted the low-information crowd with story after story about some dentist who shot a lion in Africa. They know that eventually, the videos will play out and, they hope, will be forgotten. And they are just waiting.
But it does no good to complain about them. We don’t control what they do; we only control what we do.
The game won’t change until we force-feed the ugly facts into the hearts and minds of that other 70% who haven’t seen it yet.
But that will take hard work. They don’t see our Facebook posts. They don’t click on our videos. Too many of them get their news from the Comedy Channel … or maybe MSNBC … which is just a dumbed down version of the Comedy Channel. They don’t come to us; we have to go to them. That will take a long-term commitment on our part.
What can you do? Commit to a regular program of giving your time, your treasure, or both. To paraphrase Mother Teresa, “Live differently, so that others might live.”
And this is cool: your phone can help you.
Would the Lord lead you to help moms in crisis? What this: “OK Google now; locate Hope Resource Center.” See, number comes up right on your phone.
Post abortion healing? “OK Google now; locate Deeper Still.” There’s the number. Or maybe “Rachel’s Vineyard.”
Prayer ministry? “40 Days for Life.”
Political campaigning? “Tennessee Right to Life.”
Reaching that 70% who won’t come to us? Reaching college students, high school students, and even apathetic Christians? “Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.” “OK Google now; locate Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.”
Trust me; many Christians are among that 70%. But with your help, we can exhort them to repent of complacency and apathy.
Use your phone. Call today.
Some of you might consider a vocational commitment. The other side has made killing babies a full-time profession, but we have made saving them a part-time hobby. Of course we value our faithful volunteers, and everyone here can’t be a full-time missionary, but I bet there are 1 or 2 or 3 who can. Or maybe you could be a part-time missionary. Perhaps your kids are mostly grown or you need a part-time retirement job. I pray you will think about it. And everyone here can pray for God to raise up the army that will end the killing. And everyone here can pray for a willing heart.
People like to say, “Let’s make our voices heard!” And that’s great, but that’s not enough. The game will change only when we make the weight of our commitment felt, here in Knoxville, all over Tennessee, and across this Land.
I know you’ll be up to the challenge.
It’s a source of conflict and it won’t go away. What do you think? Please comment.
More and more, pro-life activists are showing up at political events, Tea Party functions, Christian assemblies, and even pro-life rallies to display abortion victim photos (AVPs). We at CBR do it, and so do others.
Event organizers routinely take exception to this, asserting that we are being disrespectful, divisive, disruptive, etc. They ask us to put away our signs. “This isn’t the time or place,” they say.
We do it anyway. It is our duty to expose injustice. Yet, over and over again, it is never the disaster that rally organizers fear. Maybe it’s because we always respect the rights of organizers to reserve space for their own exclusive use, and we never disrupt or interfere with any of their activities. Here is how we do it:
- We communicate our intent to display AVPs near the subject event.
- We assure the organizers that we will keep our signs out of whatever space they have reserved for their own exclusive use.
- We promise that we will not go near the podium nor interfere with the event in any way.
- We make it clear that we are not there to protest their event, but to deliver our message to an important audience. We come as friends and co-laborers, albeit determined to fulfill our own particular mission.
- We even let the event organizers tell us where they want us to stand, within reason. When they see that we are reasonable, then they are reasonable (most of the time).
- We send a letter or e-mail to the police notifying them of our intent to display AVPs; we offer to meet with them to discuss locations, rules of conduct, etc.
Why do we show up at pro-life events? Because the abortion industry is chopping up little babies and selling them for parts, and somebody needs make that point clearly visible and undeniable.
Pro-lifers are an important audience for our message. We want them to see how serious abortion is. Almost every full-time pro-life activist can trace his activism back to that day he first saw an abortion photo.
We want to demonstrate how AVPs can be displayed in a respectful way.
Finally, we want to invite pro-lifers to become more active in the movement, perhaps as a vocation. That’s vocation, not vacation! The other side has made killing babies a full-time profession, but we have made saving them a part-time hobby.
Yes, pro-lifers are often our most important audience, but there are others. For example, we want news reporters to know that abortion decapitates and dismembers its victims. Whether they decide to report that fact is another thing, but at least they will know.
Passersby will wonder what the rally is all about. We want them to see that the rally isn’t about the abstract notion of “choice,” but instead is about the decapitation and dismemberment of little human beings.
So what happens? Nothing bad. In the end, we have never caused a problem for event organizers, despite their initial fear and trepidation at our presence. They did their thing, we did ours, and we all sang Kumbaya at sunset. Well, maybe everyone didn’t sing Kumbaya, but nobody has ever claimed that we disrupted their event.
May we respectfully offer the following Rules for Rallies for your consideration:
- People who organize rallies have every right to set their own agendas.
- People who organize rallies have every right to control the space they reserve for their own exclusive use. They get to decide what signs get brought into that space and what signs don’t.
- People who organize rallies don’t get to control everything within visible sight, however. Spaces that are still available for general use (i.e., still available for use by the general public while the event is being held) may not be claimed by the organizers as off-limits to AVPs.
- People who display AVPs have every right to do so on the public sidewalk and in public spaces that are not being used by rally organizers.
- People who display AVPs have every right to target whatever audience they choose, including people who are going to or leaving a rally, with whatever message they choose. Just as the pro-life movement (PLM) is fighting against the status quo of abortion in society, some in the PLM are challenging the status quo of the PLM itself.
- People who display AVPs have as much right to engage people walking toward a rally as pro-lifers have a right to engage people walking toward an abortion facility.
- Nobody has the right to veto the proclamation of truth.
- Displaying AVPs near a rally does not disrupt a rally.
- People who display AVPs should, as a courtesy, notify the rally organizers of the plan to respectfully display AVPs on a nearby public space in a way that does not interfere with the rally itself.
- Under most circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the rally organizers to ask for a 5-foot buffer between their crowd and the people holding AVPs.
As a matter of course, we always notify the police that we intent to display AVPs. In our letter or e-mail, we normally offer to meet with them to answer questions and discuss specifics. This gives the police managers a chance to tell the street officers that we do indeed have the right to be there.
That’s what FAB thinks, but you might change our minds. What do you think?
At Georgia Southern, Bert had been speaking with CBR’s Maggie Egger for a while when he asked, “What if the woman is an addict, and she’s going to have a baby that’s really handicapped?”
Maggie trotted out the ever-present, imaginary, 2-year-old toddler. This particular toddler was handicapped, to match the circumstance that Burt described.
Maggie asked, “Would it be OK to kill this toddler because of his handicap?” Bert, of course, said not.
Then he revealed the reason he asked, “My sister is an addict and she’s pregnant right now.”
But now reflecting on what he had seen and heard, he said thoughtfully, “I think having this baby might help her. I bet when people in her situation have abortions instead, it’s very easy for them just to go back to their old bad habits, and they’ll eventually kill themselves, slowly.”
Maggie talked about her experiences helping women in New York City, how some of them had huge obstacles to overcome. But many of them were much more motivated to work once they realized that other people (to be specific, their own children) were counting on them.
[This all reminded us of the student at Middle Tennessee State whose mom was waiting tables when she got pregnant with him. She didn’t abort (obviously, since the child was now grown up and speaking with us). He said, “After she had me, she got serious about her life and went back to school. She got her nursing degree and now she’s the head nurse at a hospital, making about 80 or 90 grand a year.” He thought a minute and then said, “You know, I think if my mother had aborted me, she would still be back there waiting tables.”]
Bert thanked Maggie and walked on. GAP may have saved his little niece or nephew. He or she wouldn’t be the first one. Here is another (link).
At Georgia Southern University (GSU), Okie told our Jackie Hawkins that his father had aided (forced?) the abortion of two older siblings, before raising three successful boys.
Okie looked both shocked and confused as he studied the pictures. He was ambivalent about the concept of abortion … or at least he tried to be. His blasé statements were interrupted with curses, betraying his shock at seeing abortion for the first time:
Well it should be legal. … Oh, s***!!!
I mean it’s just a choice. … What the f***!!!
The images were forcing their way into his conscience.
Okie is a black student, so Jackie told him about the abortion industry’s racist history. He continued to look at the pictures with a confused and horrified expression. He finally said, “You’re really making me think about this.”
Amen! That’s what we came for!
by Kendra Wright
At Tennessee Tech, a Middle Eastern student told me that he is Muslim and in his country, killing the unborn is just like killing a born person. But he knew very little about abortion.
He was very shocked to hear that 1.2 million die every year in this country from abortion.
He asked why people get abortions and if “not wanting” the child is a frequent justification. I confirmed that this is often the case.
I started explaining the difference between a wanted child and an unwanted child. If a child is wanted, we call it a baby. If it is unwanted, we call it a clump of cells.
He was shocked. “A clump of cells?!”
He could see right away that a baby is not just a clump of cells and calling it such is ridiculous.
Kendra Wright is a CBR project director and a regular FAB contributor.