Posts Tagged ‘abortion photos’
Random stories from Appalachian State University.
“I was in a crisis pregnancy and my parents and the father of my baby wanted me to abort. I did not. I have a 2-year-old. It is hard but…..” Her voice trailed off.
“And I bet your parents are glad they have a grandchild, aren’t they?” CBR Staffer Jane Bullington replied.
With tears in her eyes, she smiled and said, “Yes”
[Jane makes us all cry sometimes. … but maybe for different reasons. But we don’t want to get into that. Anyway, …]
“It is not alive until it comes out the vagina,” a woman told Jane.
Jane responded with a question, “Have you ever seen an ultrasound of a baby in the womb?”
“Yes, and it is not alive.”
“Maybe you missed your high school biology class,” Jane suggested, trying not to laugh.
“I am a biology major and you are stupid!”
Consumer alert: This wannabe scholar should demand a refund from ASU’s Biology Department. Just sayin’!
More educational malpractice?
“It is an inanimate object only,” a young man said. Riiiiight. If this genius ever took a biology class, he too is entitled to a refund.
A functioning conscience.
“This is so awful; I don’t know how people can do this to a child,” a young woman said in tears.
Are you edible?
Some young men in preppy clothing walked by, laughing and goofing off. “Is that edible?” one of the young men hyucked.
CBR’s Jackie Hawkins replied simply, “No more than you are.” The goofiness calmed down after that.
GAP under the microscope.
GAP is frequently the subject of classroom discussion. The teacher of a persuasive writing class reported that his students spent the entire class talking about GAP as an example of persuasive speech. They discussed not only the display itself, but also the brochure that we hand out. Even students who would not yet admit to a changed mind had to agree that GAP was an effective use of persuasive argument to communicate its message. We knew that!
Law and Order
As Jeanette Schultz offered a pamphlet to a professor who was hoofing it passed the display. Instead of politely declining, the woman snarled in Jeanette’s face, “Get the F*** away from me!”
Although this kind of aggressive behavior is common, but what happened next was not. Two police officers who were standing nearby seized the woman by her arm and pulled her away from Jeanette, firmly telling her to stop her aggressive behavior and public use of expletives. That was not how she was to act in public, they said. The woman calmed down. When she realized that the police were serious, she made the absurd claim that she “felt threatened” by Jeanette. The police who had seen the whole thing rejected her claim. With a stern warning the woman walked away chastened.
GAP at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) is always a special treat for me, having lived there briefly about 30 years ago. Both UNCC and the city have grown tremendously; the change is really something to behold.
Like many urban universities, UNCC seems to have a lot of students who actually work as well as go to school. People with productive jobs are not as susceptible to left-wing kookery. We had many pleasant encounters with thoughtful students.
On the other hand, one man jumped the barricades to vandalize one of our signs. He was arrested and is currently facing charges in criminal court. We got some awesome video.
More to come.
We headed into the mountains of North Carolina to bring GAP to Appalachian State University (ASU).
It was refreshing to be around people who know how to pronounce “Appalachian.” A few damnyankees want to call it a-puh-LAY-chuhn or, even worse, a-puh-LAY-shuhn. These mispronunciations have been advanced by the mass media since the mid 1970s … and we all know how evil the mass media are.
Phonics. You would never call our western mountains the “ro-SHEE” mountains. It’s ROCK-ee, just like it’s spelled.
The correct way to say my home is a-puh-LATCH-uhn. The ASU folks told us it took three national championships (Div I FCS) to get ESPN to finally say it correctly. Come to think of it, if you can shame ESPN into doing the right thing, maybe we do have hope. Anyway, …
On Day 1, we set up GAP on Sanford Mall, right in the middle of campus. The epicenter of action was the free speech board and poll table, both right next to the GAP display, where large crowds of students gathered. Volunteer Laurice Baddour took the lead and became the star of the show (see really bad photo). Although many were pro-abort (for now), they calmly listened as we made our case, like truly civilized adults. We love it when that happens.
On Day 2, heavy rains and thunderstorms were forecast, so we set up a smaller display at the eastern end of Sanford Mall. With the smaller configuration, we could deconstruct and get off the site on short notice, before lightning would become a hazard.
On Day 3, the weather was better and we followed up with a Choice Chain for a few hours in the middle of the day.
by Jacqueline Hawkins
Adam Lovejoy is an all-star pro-lifer at the University of Tennessee (UT). In December, we had encouraged Adam to join the Pro-Life Collegians at UT. A few weeks later, he was made co-president! His first priority was to invite CBR to bring GAP back to UT.
GAP at UT is always fun. By that we mean froth with protest. This time, they set up just on the other side of the sidewalk, which actually pushed the passersby over toward our display as they walked to and from class.
Pro-life students came out of the woodwork to thank us and even help. Pro-life senior Federico Di Luzio was so impressed by our work that he signed up for the PLC, attended the meeting that night, and showed up the next morning to help set up. Brandon Hambrick was there from the start, with his gentle but strong presence. Solid as a rock in his Christian faith, he was an example to all his male peers.
- Pro-life display sparks controversy with UT students
- U.T. Students protest abortion display on campus
You have to laugh as WVLT-TV falls all over themselves to say abortion is too horrific even to see. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. Abortion is so insidious because it actually hides behind its own horror.
Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.
In recent years, CBR has encouraged students at Christian universities to display abortion victim photos, in spite of demands by university administrators that these images be covered up. This has included Biola University and Liberty University, but CBR is committed to growing this list.
As Christians, we are commanded to obey those in authority over us (Hebrews 13:17, Romans 13:1), presumably even if, in our opinion, the authorities are in the wrong. So, therefore, we must ask the question: Is it permissible for Christians to break rules in order to save lives?
In the case of rules which prohibit students from saving the lives of children on Christian university campuses, the answer has to be an emphatic “Yes!”
We can start with Mark 3:4. Jesus asked the religious authorities, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” When babies are dying all around us, when Liberty University parking stickers are seen at nearby abortion mill parking lots on a regular basis, when 1 in 5 women who aborts her child identifies her as a born-again or evangelical Christian, and when the Church leaders are trained to believe that abortion is somebody else’s problem, then we think it’s fair to ask the question, “Which is lawful at Liberty University (or Biola, or wherever), to do good or evil, to save life or to kill?”
And no student has any Biblical obligation to obey school rules which conflict with God’s laws. God’s law regarding injustice mandates that we intervene in defense of its victims (Isaiah 59:15-16, Proverbs 24:11-12). Ephesians 5:11 proscribes intervention by “exposing” the deeds of darkness, not covering up those deeds.
CBR has seen countless pregnant students change their minds about killing their children after seeing abortion photos on public university campuses. Christian university administrations, however, have spent more time and energy stopping the display of abortion imagery than they have ever spent trying to stop abortion. Publicly, these universities profess to be pro-life. Christians are scandalized to learn that the unwritten rules at these Christian universities actually censor pro-life speech on their own campuses. That is an inconsistency that deserves to be exposed and resolved.
Our experience at Biola has been very instructive. Biola’s treatment of Diana Jimenez can only be described as abusive, even after she had graduated. Biola has since apologized to Diana, but Biola’s claims that CBR’s video was “edited” and had “given a false impression” can rightly be compared with Planned Parenthood’s response to the CMP videos released in 2015.
In the face of all of this, God has actually used Diana’s courage to save at least one baby’s life. The following message was posted online:
There are a lot of people bashing Diana right now but first hand I can tell you she did what she was told to do. I am 20. A student of Biola and always claimed to be pro-life. I thought that until I got a positive pregnancy test. This came after a night of partying just outside the campus and had a one night stand with a youth pastor in training. I was going to go to Planned Parenthood that day and as I walked through campus her signs made me realize there is a human life in my womb …. In that moment I went to my dorm room got on my knees and asked that I would have the strength to be my baby’s mom. STOP saying she didn’t follow her stupid rules. God came through for me because of her. (emphasis added)
Matthew 23:23 says, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices – mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness.” We don’t want to make that mistake.
by Jacqueline Hawkins
It may seem counter-intuitive to display abortion victim photos at Liberty University (LU), the world’s largest evangelical university. But these students need the truth, just like everyone else.
Eye-witnesses confirm that cars with LU parking stickers are often seen in nearby abortion mill parking lots. Obviously, LU people are having abortions. That doesn’t surprise us, because 1 in 5 women who aborts her child identifies herself as a born again or evangelical Christian.
But when Christians see abortion, they are much less likely to abort their own children.
They are also more likely to understand God’s commandment to be a witness against evil in their own communities. God’s law mandates that we intervene in defense of its victims (Isaiah 59:15-16, Proverbs 24:11-12). Ephesians 5:11 proscribes intervention by “exposing” the deeds of darkness, not covering up those deeds.
Despite all this, abortion victim photo (AVP) displays are prohibited on the LU campus.
However, courageous students at LU are displaying them anyway. At the encouragement of CBR, they have displayed AVPs on several occasions over the past 2 years, most recently during the Fall 2015 semester. All of these events have been peaceful and quiet. Compared to their public university counterparts, LU students are less inclined to curse and carry on. However the students’ most recent display provoked more than one visit from unhappy administrators.
Near the end of the event, the students were approached by the LU police and asked to meet with administrators to discuss their pro-life activism.
In a future post, Lord willing, FAB will examine the question of whether it is permissible to break rules in order to save lives.
Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.
by Jacqueline Hawkins
The University of Missouri (Mizzou) was recently the epicenter of campus unrest nationally, primarily among the African American student population, but also including others who have felt offended for whatever reason. The protests at Mizzou were an extension of the “Black Lives Matter” campaign that erupted after a law enforcement officer in Ferguson, Missouri was not indicted for defending his own life against a violent criminal.
At Mizzou, there were unproven allegations of racial slurs. There were complaints about so-called “microagressions,” which may be loosely defined as any statement whatsoever that could somehow be twisted as potentially offensive to anybody. Campus administrators were excoriated for failing to respond quickly and decisively enough to these offenses. They failed, for example, to set up “safe places” for blacks only (a policy once known as segregation). As a result, the Mizzou President and Chancellor were both forced to step down.
Many conservatives tried to keep a low profile, for fear of being accused of who-knows-what, but not CBR. We teamed with the Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN), an African American pro-life ministry, to remind students at Mizzou that ALL black lives matter, not just the particular black lives that fit a certain leftist narrative.
Our “ALL Black Lives Matter” campaign, a derivative of our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), shows students that while they have been standing against injustices that may or may not exist, a huge, can’t-deny-it’s-there injustice has been going on right under their noses — most of the time, with their explicit approval.
On the third day, a sizable protest took place, with students displaying “I stand with Planned Parenthood” posters and engaging in clownish behavior typical of college pro-abort protesters.
- Mizzou students asked to fill out Bias Reports because of ‘offensive’ pro-life display
- MU anti-abortion group disagrees with Genocide Awareness Project’s tactics
- Student organizations speak out against anti-abortion graphic images outside Student Center
Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.
by Jacqueline Hawkins
Here are an assortment of reactions and comments in response to GAP at UNC Wilmington, ranging from the heartwarming, to the disturbing, to the downright ridiculous.
Tolerant and loving. Three students walked by and one said, “This is so embarrassing — to call abortion genocide.” Jane Bullington chimed in and asked, “What would you call one million deaths a year?” To that, the tolerant, loving student embraced diversity by saying, “Don’t talk to me, or you might get assaulted.”
Determined father. A 19-year-old father of a pre-born child had his resolve strengthened by the pictures. “My girlfriend is pregnant,” he told Jane. “It will be hard but we will not do this.” Jane spent a long time speaking with the young man. While both have supportive families, they didn’t plan on being parents so early. He was very nervous but also very grateful that Jane just listened to him and gave him encouragement.
Informed voter. A young Republican told us after a long conversation, “I am asking a lot of questions because I need to vote appropriately.” Music to our ears! That is one of our goals. We save babies in the here and now, but we also work to prevent future killing by helping Americans ask questions and “vote appropriately.”
Paradoxical or hypocritical? A young woman made the standard battle cry, “It’s my body!” But then she followed up with the paradoxical, “You should be ashamed of yourself!” Not sure how that works. Weren’t we displaying abortion photos with our own bodies?
Where have the gentlemen gone? A male student started cussing Jane Bullington out, calling her a piece of you-know-what over and over. He left after about ten minutes and Jane kept her cool the entire time. Half an hour later, he came back and told her that while he didn’t agree with Jane, he respected how she willingly took his abuse. He decided to consider what Jane told him. Nice.
Forming personal convictions. A young woman was starting to formulate her own opinions instead of relying on her parents. She told volunteer Christy McKinney that during a recent sorority meeting, the co-eds were asked to raise their hands if they had an abortion. She was surprised by the number of hands that went up. We gave her more abortion information so that the facts, along with the pictures, could properly inform her opinions.
Idiocy gets folks killed. One student insisted that abortion was perfectly okay because sex wasn’t enjoyable after pregnancy and birth. Well I guess that’s the logical conclusion when you are willing to kill your children to preserve your sex life.
Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.
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 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.
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.
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?
Occasionally, we encounter the pro-lifer who supports the use of abortion victim photos (AVPs) on college campuses (in an academic setting), but not outside abortion clinics (where they might be seen by pre-abortive or post-abortive women).
To support their position, they cite the observations of former abortion clinic workers who say that such violent photos often frighten and upset women rather than lead them to change their minds. Abby Johnson’s has stated that women who came into her Planned Parenthood clinic for abortions were not dissuaded by pro-lifers displaying AVPs.
We love Abby Johnson, but these former clinic workers miss the main point. First of all, we have heard from countless women who did not abort because they saw AVIs (www.AbortionNo.org). The babies saved by AVPs are very real.
Second, we should bear in mind that clinic workers inside these clinics spoke only to the mothers who decided to go through with their abortions. Yes, these mothers did decide to walk past the pictures and come in anyway. That is obvious. But these former clinic workers fail to consider the mothers they did not talk to, the mothers who did not say to these clinic workers, “I decided to save my child,” because they turned around and left before they had a chance to say anything at all to the clinic workers.
And yes, mothers who went ahead with their abortions might have been “frightened” and “upset” by the truth, but so what? They were having their own children decapitated and dismembered, perhaps even tortured to death. The problem isn’t that they were upset; the problem is that they were not upset enough.
Thankfully, we know that some women were upset enough, and their babies are alive today.
Although East Carolina University (ECU) has an undergraduate enrollment of >21,000, this was our first-ever GAP at ECU. By God’s grace and with your support, it won’t be our last.
ECU has no pro-life student group—we are taking steps to fix that problem—but their policies allow outside groups to reserve space on campus, so we did! Although our location was a good one (outside the Student Center), ECU is a huge campus and there is no one collection point for all of the pedestrian traffic. That made our Truth Truck all the more important, allowing us to reach many thousands of students who may not have seen GAP in person.
The campus newspaper coverage was excellent, and included a photo of our best GAP signs on page 1, above the fold! Items in the campus paper:
The second article was factually incorrect about one point. We did not pay a service fee to use the space. First, ECU did not set up the display nor clean up afterward, as implied by the article. Second, ECU officials asked us to move our event from the designated public forum (near the Cupola) to the location outside the Student Center. Since the designated public forum space is available free of charge, we incurred no additional fee by agreeing to ECU’s request. Finally, we would never agree to pay any security fee (to cover the cost of policing violent pro-abortion protesters), because that is a violation of the Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement decision of the US Supreme Court.
by Ruby Nicdao
We overlook flippant comments, because it is critical to engage people with opposing or dismissive views and help them reason.
As one couple walked hand-in-hand past our display, I offered a brochure and asked what they thought. The guy answered, “I’m an art student, so I’m indifferent to this.” His girlfriend smiled at the retort.
Ignoring his dismissive attitude, I asked, “Okay, so what do you think of our artistic layout? Do you agree with our comparisons?”
He responded, “Yes, I would agree with the comparison.” He pointed to the dismembered baby’s hands and feet wrapped around the top of a quarter (an obvious national symbol) and remarked, “That looks like America stands behind abortion.” Even though he was saying it in jest, there was truth in what he was saying.
I pressed further, “Okay, I know you are being facetious, but do you think the the pre-born is a human life?” He said he did, but that he is not a female and this was not his choice to make.
I pushed further, “If this were a toddler and her mother tried to kill this toddler, would you stand up for this child?” He said he would. [This is a variant of the trot out the toddler argument.]
I continued, “Okay. So if your girlfriend became pregnant and she wanted an abortion—and you just admitted that the pre-born is a human life—would you stand up and speak up for your child?”
He then said, “Yes, yes. I guess I would.”
This one man’s shift of attitude won’t change the world tomorrow, but he did begin to think of abortion as a serious human injustice. He saw the need to stand up for one child about to be killed, especially if it were his own.
Ruby Nicdao is a CBR Project Director in Virginia and is a frequent FAB contributor.