Choice sign exhibiting “1st Trimester (10-week) Aborted Fetus”

We often hear from pro-lifers who question our use of the word “fetus” on our GAP signs, Choice signs, and RCC truth trucks.  “Fetus” is the word used by pro-aborts to dehumanize the preborn child, so why would we want to use their word?

First, it is critical to restore meaning to the words that pro-aborts are fond of using, so that when they use their words in public, our side gets the benefit.   The other side is quite fond of the word “fetus,” because it conjures up something subhuman in the minds of so many people.  They will never agree to use our word, so we must restore meaning to their word.  When pro-aborts say the word “fetus,” people who have seen our signs won’t think of a formless lump of cells; they will remember the picture of a human being with arms and legs and fingers and toes.  If we restore meaning to the word, the other side can’t use it to confuse people.

Second, we only have a few seconds with people as we pass them with our trucks.  When they see the truck, we want them to say something like, “Wow, I didn’t know killing a fetus meant killing a being with arms and legs and fingers and toes.”  If we flash the word “child” instead, people might think of infanticide, not abortion.  It won’t make sense to them.  By using the word that they are most familiar with, we reduce the amount of time necessary to convey the message.

Third, we want to reinforce in people that the word “fetus” is just another stage of life … as in embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, young adult, middle aged adult, senior citizen, geezer, etc.

Fourth, we can’t force them to use our word, so perhaps a form of jujutsu might be more effective.  The other side has all the worldly power behind it (the media, the education system, the news media, the entertainment industry, etc.).   Jujutsu is a martial art in which one seeks to manipulate the opponent’s force against himself rather than confronting him with one’s own force.  We want to take over their words so that when pro-aborts try to use them, it turns to our benefit.

Bottom line:  The other side dehumanized the word “fetus;” we are restoring its humanity.

Can we ever use the word, “child?”  Yes, of course!  Suppose  I am talking to a pro-abort who asserts that abortion may be justified based on poverty, personal choice, etc.  I would first show him a photo of a 1st-trimester abortion.  We have to define that word “abortion.”   Then I would trot out the toddler, i.e., ask if it would be OK to kill a 2-year old child for the same reason.   That way, I can focus his attention on the real issue, which is not poverty, choice, etc.  The real issue is “What is the unborn?”

But later in the conversation, when he goes back to “choice” and “rights,” I might force him back to the main point by saying something like, “A parent does not have a right to kill his own child.”  When I use the word “child,” he cannot dispute the statement, so he has to dispute the notion that the fetus is a child.  But our signs use the word “fetus” because this word, juxstaposed with the photos, helps us make our case that the fetus is, in fact, a human child.

In this way, I am using the word “child” in conversation to do the same thing that we used the word “fetus” to do on our signs.  In both cases, we are refocusing our audience on the key point, “What is the unborn?”

RCC truth truck sign exhibiting “1st Trimester (10-week) Aborted Fetus”

.

In the comments appended to the WBIR story on our Urban GAP at Market Square, Canna asserted that nobody thinks abortion is a great thing:

OMG- NO ONE thinks abortion is a great thing- what an IDIOTIC thing to say. No one I know, including myself, is pro-abortion. However, I AM pro-choice. … The points that others are making here are:
1. that no one (few) are pro-abortion, they are PRO-CHOICE and believe the right to bear an embryo to full term is the choice and a matter of the family alone. not your matter.
2. that nearly everyone is a proponent of life and prosperity, but since we haven’t gotten it right yet, why don’t we help those in need of food and health before we force others to bear life. Rights to the unborn are valid but DO NOT PRE-EMPT the rights of the born.
3. regardless of ANYONE’S stance on abortion, your photos are unnecessarily graphic and DO NOT belong on public dislplay, especially in the presence of children. Not only is this rude, it is not an effective tool. ALSO- MOST abortions occur early trimester, when the fetus looks like a tiny lump of cells- not like in your graphics. Would you display graphic images of dead people in front of a DUI offender’s home for all-including children- to see? Of course NOT! Besides, where is the dignity of the deceased you post so proudly on public display??

Child (at right) looks at abortion photos on Market Square.

The  WBIR story on our Urban GAP at Market Square created a flurry of online comments.  A common theme was the fear that small children would see the abortion photos.  In fact, many did.  We saw a few parents who prevented their children from seeing the photos, but most took it all in stride.  One commenter on the WBIR story wrote:

I would never subject a young child to the images of abortion no matter what. Yes, the images are reprehensible and beyond belief, but to show a child these images borders on being reprehensible as a parent and as a human being it would be deplorable. This is not the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s where abortion was considered against the law. Today, it is a woman’s choice. There are medical reasons that abortion is needed. Also, its one thing to protest but Dr. Armstrong and the rest need to keep it decent and clean when in a public place with children around. If you choose to show these images to your children then go ahead but give the parents of other children the right to do the same and show those images to their children if they so choose. You took away the parents right to decide if they wanted to show their children or not.

He actually confirmed, again, whey we show the pictures when he wrote that they were  “reprehensible and beyond belief.”  People don’t believe how bad abortion really is until we show them.

I responded:

On February 23, 1997, Schindler’s List was broadcast by NBC during the family viewing hour. A mini-controversy arose when Congressman Tom Coburn complained that large numbers of unsupervised children would undoubtedly see the very violent video sequences contained in that movie, including the violence of multiple gunshot head wounds.

NBC West Coast President Don Olhmeyer defended their decision, “I just wonder if Congressman Coburn is aware that there was a Holocaust, that millions of people died and it’s not something anybody should ever forget. . . . NBC is extremely proud of its presentation of this unique award-winning film. We think that Congressman Coburn’s statement should send a chill through every intelligent and fair-minded person in America.”

The overwhelming consensus was that NBC was right to show the movie, including all the scenes of violence, so that people could know the truth about what happened in the death camps, and so that people would commit to preventing such a human catastrophe from ever happening again.

We agree. That is why we show pictures of abortion.

We will not submit to a double standard that says (1) it is OK to show violent images that expose an injustice that happened in another place, at another time, perpetrated by other people, even though children might see those images, but (2) it is not OK to show violent images that expose injustice happening here, and now, and perpetrated by our own people, because children might see them.

CBR United Kingdom Director Andy Stephenson was on The Big Question, a program on BBC One, the flagship TV station of the British Broadcasting Company (BBC).   The Big Question on this day was, “Should abortion be a private matter?”

Andy’s answer was “Yes … if …”   Great sound bites you can use:

• There should be unrestricted access to abortion, if the unborn child is not a human being.
• All we’re doing is showing people what they do.
• Why would the truth be intimidating?
• If abortion is such a good idea, why to pictures of it make people so angry?
• It is not a controversial issue that life begins at conception.  If they want to get rid of us, we will leave tomorrow if they can prove to us, with science, that the preborn child being killed is not a human being.
• On filming:  That’s why we film [our own work]; we knew there would be false allegations.  We knew we had to document our displays.  We invite the police to attend every display we do.

Pro-life activists all over the planet are employing CBR-developed methods of legally educating the public about two key facts:  (1) Who this the preborn? and (2) What does abortion do to him or her?

Check out Andy Stephenson on British TV, saying it like it outta to be said:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2NRXWLoA_4

CBR Maine Director Leslie Sneddon opens the PLTA at the University of Rhode Island. More than 25 people participated in this training program.

The Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA) trains you to articulate and respectfully defend the pro-life position.  Today, we were at the University of Rhode Island (URI).  Tomorrow and Tuesday, we’ll display our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at URI, Lord willing.

Featured PLTA speaker was Jay Watts, the VP of Communications at the Life Training Institute (LTI).  As a former pro-choice atheist, Jay is uniquely prepared to show you how to deal with people like … well … his former self.

Let us know when you want to bring the PLTA to your city!

Planned Parenthood’s lying would be comical if it weren’t so deadly.  Here they go again.  This is from our good friends at LiveAction.org.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ

Pro Life Training Academy in Knoxville

The Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA) trains you to articulate and respectfully defend the pro-life position.  Here we are in Knoxville today.

Pro Life Training Academy at Lynchburg, Va.

Here we are in Lynchburg, Virginia.  Thankfully, we are well west of Hurricane Irene.  We have students here from Liberty U, Central Virginia Community Collge, James Madison U, the U of Virginia, the U of Richmond.  Pro-life activits from Lynchburg and Roanoke have also joined us.

This is a critical place for us to be.  The pro-life Liberty University students are telling us that there are many pro-choice students on their campus.

We don’t charge students to attend this Academy.  We depend on you to cover our costs, which are about $75 per person (mostly speaker travel).  Please click here, and please be generous, so that we can do this again for more students in Virginia and across the country.

Our featured speaker is Jay Watts of the Life Training Institute (LTI).  As a former pro-choice atheist, Jay is uniquely prepared to train students how to deal with people like … well … his former self!

We’re glad this young lady is on our side!

We first became aware of Lia Mills about a year ago (link to previous story/video).  Here’s another one of her gems.  These are all very good arguments that we incorporate in our own Pro Life Training Academy.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJGFPdspOrY

.

Got up early this morning.  Read the paper.  More nonsense from Ina Hughs.  It’s the same old stuff she normally writes.  But I did post a response you might find interesting.

Comment responding to Ina Hughs op-ed piece in Knoxville News Sentinel:

Ms. Hughs raises a good point. In fact, I’m going to agree with many of the points she made.

First of all, perhaps we should include fathers in these sessions. The Elliot Institute reports that as many as 64% of abortions are coerced, many of them by irresponsible men, family members, employers, etc. Anything that will reduce the pressure on women to abort would be a step in the right direction. More people need to know about the development of the baby inside, the physical and emotional hazards of abortion, etc. But as Ms. Hughs noted, finding some of the more corrupt miscreants who impregnate women would be difficult. And, according to existing law, it is the mother only who has the final say whether the baby lives or dies, so that might explain some of the limitations of the North Carolina law.

Ms. Hughs is also correct when she says that compared to men, women do bear the greater burden for the consequences of sexual “freedom.” By any measure (pregnancy, the health effects of STDs, and abortion, just to name a few), women pay a heavy, heavy price so that irresponsible and predatory men can have whatever they want. People who buy into the lie of “sexual freedom” find out later it ain’t quite so “free.” That’s why we work so hard to keep the sex merchants like Planned Parenthood out of the schools our children attend.

Ms Hughs says, “no woman should be told by her government that she must have a child anymore than she should ever be told she cannot have a child.” No disagreement here. I don’t think anybody favors forced sex nor forced birth control. But in a civilized society, every human being deserves respect. No person should have the right to unjustly kill another.

Ms. Hughs says that pro-lifers should help women in crisis. Right again! That’s why the overwhelming majority of pro-life resources (money, volunteer time, etc.) go to support pregnancy resource centers like the one across the street from one of the abortion clinics here in Knoxville. The Hope Resource Center (www.hoperesourcecenterknoxville.com) arranges for medical care, housing, adoption, help with parenting, and more. In addition to that, we pay federal, state, and local taxes to create a safety net for people who need it. It’s unfortunate that so much of the money we pay goes to bureaucrats and people who don’t need it, but we still pay.

I’ll grant you that we should have more pregnancy centers, maybe one for each abortion clinic. But is it productive, Ms. Hughs, to ignore most of what we do and belittle the rest?

And the failure of pro-lifers to do enough (in Ms. Hughs’ estimation) for moms and babies in crisis does not make it OK to kill a baby … any more than our failure to do enough for battered women makes it OK to beat your wife.

Ms. Hughs falls victim to one of the most common logical fallacies when she implies that our only two choices are to either (a) provide cradle-to-grave welfare or (b) keep it legal to kill children before they are born. It’s called a “false dilemma.” In a civilized society, we protect the weak from the strong. That’s why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, etc. That does not obligate us to create Ms. Hughs’ version of a utopian welfare state.

Ms. Hughs wants to know what are the pro-lifers going to do about all these children if they are allowed to live and not be killed. It’s the same silly argument used to justify the continuation of slavery 150 years ago, “If we turn all these slaves loose, who is going to take care of them?”

Ms. Hughs says she is not pro-abortion, she is pro-choice. That’s essentially what Stephen Douglas said about slavery. He said that he was not in favor of slavery, but he believed that the Southern states should have the right to choose whether to be slave states or free states. I would argue that by the same token we say Mr. Douglas was pro-slavery, we can assert that Ms Hughs is pro-abortion.

And finally, Ms. Hughs engages in the most glaring ad hominem attack when she asserts that because some pro-lifers happen to be men, it is OK to kill a preborn child. How silly. Either (a) the preborn child is a living human being whose life must be respected, or (b) the preborn child may be killed at will. My gender has nothing to do with it. But if you have some kind of hangup about that, there are many, many women who will make the same arguments I make. Would Ms. Hughs listen to them? No. It’s just a cheap way of changing the subject and avoiding the issue, “Who is the unborn child and may we kill her?”

PLTA facilitator Fletcher Armstrong---hey, that's me!---helps students answer the hard questions.

The Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA) has inspired and equipped yet another group of pro-life students and activists, this time at the University of Delaware.  PLTA students of all ages learned how to articulate and respectfully defend the pro-life position.

To bring the PLTA to your city, click here and let us know!

Jay Watts of the Life Training Institute is our featured speaker.

We’re doing the Pro Life Training Adademy in Baltimore today. Each student will learn how to articulate and respectfully defend the pro-life position. We’d love to bring the Academy to your town!

Tomorrow, it’s on to the University of Delaware!

In her opening remarks, Dr. McLean asserted that the fetus is not a human. She made several other assertions and arguments that I rebutted, but this was the most glaring error of the debate. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

My introductory comments were posted yesterday. In them, I challenged Dr. McLean to prove her assertion that the fetus was not human. I would accept almost all of her points. I would agree that abortion should be legal, that abortion should be covered by insurance, that I would even quit my job and find another career. I would do all of this, if and only if she could present conclusive scientific and/or philosophic evidence to show that the preborn child is not human. As you may be aware, no such evidence exists.

To rebut the myth that the unborn child is not human (or that life doesn’t begin at conception), I quoted both medical textbooks and pro-abortion sources:

Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). … [The zygote] marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed., Philadelphia: Saunders, 2003, pp 2,16)

It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material … that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual. (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, p 43)

We of today know that man is born of sexual union; that he starts life as an embryo within the body of the female; and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells, the ovum and the sperm. This all seems so simple and evident to us that it is difficult to picture a time when it was not part of the common knowledge. (Alan F. Guttmacher. Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation. New York: Viking Press, 1933. p 3.) [Alan Guttmacher is a former president of Planned Parenthood.]

Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus from conception onward on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus, after all, is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. (David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p 20)

In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point. (David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p xiv)

Case closed, but if you want more proof, check out this article: When does life begin?

More coverage to follow in Part 4.

More on my debate at EKU.  See Part 1 here.

These are my opening remarks, sort of. In the interest of continuous improvement, I’m revising them as I go. But this is mostly what I said.

Opening Statement

Thank you for coming to participate in this debate.

I’m going to take it for granted that all of us here tonight want to live justly with respect to our fellow man. We disagree about who constitutes our fellow man and who does not.

I want to caution you not to believe anything I tell you. I’m an advocate, and so is my opponent in this debate. You can’t know if either of us is telling the truth or not, unless you check it out for yourself. You can’t know if I’ve left out important facts. My conclusions might be flawed. Even if I have plausible arguments, perhaps my opponent has decisive ones. You must do your own research and ask hard questions of both sides.

In America today, preborn humans have the right to life if and only if their mothers want them. This is true through all 9 months of pregnancy. That’s the status quo. And I’m willing to support it. I’m willing to concede that Dr. McLean is entirely correct in almost everything she will say. I’m willing to say there should be no restrictions on abortion. It should be treated just like any other medical procedure. I’m willing to say that abortion is certainly nothing like genocide. I’m willing to concede all of this, quit my job at CBR, and go into another line of work. I’ll do all of that … if. I’ll do all of that if and only if Dr. McLean can present good scientific and philosophic evidence to show that the preborn child is not human. I look forward to hearing that evidence.

The difference between us is not that she is pro-choice and I am anti-choice. I am vigorously pro-choice, as much as any person here, and probably more than most. I believe that every woman (and every man) should be free to choice her own health care provider, her own school, her own religion, her own career, etc.

Unlike many on the political left, I believe people should have the right to choose whether or not they join a union. They should not be forced to pay dues that will be diverted to political campaigns. Washington leftists disagree. I believe doctors and nurses should be free to choose whether they will perform abortions, according to the dictates of their own consciences. Washington leftists say no. I believe people should choose the charitable causes they wish to support, rather than the government choosing for them. Leftists even demand to decide what light bulb you buy, whether you can use a voucher to send your child to the school of your choice, and whether you buy health insurance under ObamaCare.

Yes, we are all pro-choice about some things, but nobody here is pro-choice about everything. Most choices are really matters of personal morality. Even though I may disagree with your choices, I have to respect your right to make them and vice versa. It’s your life. But some choices can be harmful, even deadly, to others. We don’t allow anyone the right to kill another human being simply because she is in the way and cannot defend herself. We don’t allow people to commit rape or child abuse. In a civilized society, no person has the right to unjustly take the life of another.

To put it simple, if the preborn child is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is needed. But if the preborn child is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate (except when the mother’s life is in danger).

To open our discussion about abortion, we need to define what it is. And to know what abortion is and does, we need to see it. I’m alerting you up front that some of you will not want to watch the video I’m about to show.  Feel free to close your eyes or look away from the screen.

Some may object to images of abortion because they somehow substitute emotion for reason, but that really misses the point. The question is not whether the pictures are emotional—they are—but whether the pictures are true. If the pictures are true, then they must be admitted as evidence.

Naomi Wolf is a pro-choice author who agrees with us on that point. She wrote,

How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. (Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995, p 32)

But Ms. Wolf is a bit off target.  With the pictures, our intended audience is not just women, but both women and men, because everybody needs to know.  The Elliot Institute says that as many as 64% of abortions are coerced, and it doesn’t take a genius to know who is doing the coercing.  Men need to know that irresponsibility comes with a heavy price that others will often have to pay.

I’ll show the video now.

[I then showed the Choice Blues video.]

I yeild back the rest of my time.

End of Opening Statement

In Part 3, I’ll describe the unanswered challenge.

I was on George Korda’s State Your Case radio show earlier today. During a break, Mr. Korda forced himself to watch the video at the CBR website.  In the hour we had, we hit many of the standard questions.

One issue that Mr. Korda brought up was the “unfairness” to the father of the child. If the mother decides to abort the child, the father has no say. If the mother decides to keep the child, the father is legally required to provide financial support. In the fog of give-and-take that is live radio, I didn’t get to respond to that comment. I had fielded a similar question in my debate at Eastern Kentucky University—more on that later—a couple of weeks ago.

Fairness to the father is not the issue. If the preborn child is less than human, then the father has no rights to the “blob of tissue” that the mother carries within her own body. Since she is the one carrying the “blob,” it would be her right to decide whether to keep it or not. She has more skin in the game, if I can say it that way. But if she decides to carry, then the father is absolutely liable to support the child financially, not because of her decision to carry, but because of his decision to have sex in the first place.

But if the preborn child is a human being—science tells us he/she is a living human being from the moment of fertilization—then it is the baby’s rights which are at stake, not the father’s. If we treat every human being with equal value and dignity, fairness demands that the baby’s life be protected, regardless of whether or not the child is wanted by the father. If both father and mother freely chose to engage in the reproductive act, then they both share the responsibility to support the child.

Either way, fairness to the father is not an issue.  Fairness to the unborn child (and her mother) are of paramount concern.  Having your life stolen from you because you are “unwanted” is the ultimate unfairness.