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!

A common logical fallacy they teach in pro-abortion debating school is the ad populum technique.  (That means appeal to popularity, for all you people in Rio Linda.)  It is often combined with the ad hominem attack, like this:

1. Most people disagree with you. (ad populum)
2. Therefore, you are an extremist. (ad hominem)
3. Therefore, you must be wrong.

Rejoice when they try that.  Without exeption, the pro-abortion debater will be so extreme in his/her views as to be an embarrassment to the typical pro-abortion citizen.  A recent Gallup poll found several points on which pro-choice people actually agree with us:

• Third trimester abortions should be illegal.  (79% of pro-choicers agree)
• Informed consent should be required.  (86% of pro-choicers agree)
• Partial-birth abortions should be banned.  (63% of pro-choicers agree)
• 24-hour waiting period should be required.  (60% of pro-choicers agree)
• Perental consent should be required for minors.  (60% of pro-choicers agree)
• Second trimester abortions should be illegal.  (52% of pro-choicers agree)

Compare these results to the typical pro-abortion activist who agrees with none of these statements.

Gallup concludes:

Abortion politics have been quite contentious in the United States; however, self-described “pro-life” and “pro-choice” Americans broadly agree on more than half of 16 major abortion policy matters Gallup tested in June and July.  These policies generally have to do with protections for women’s vital health, preventing late-term abortions, and ensuring that abortion patients and parents are fully informed before an abortion.

FAB will accept these results as largely accurate, because they are within the range of other polling data we have seen.  However, a word of caution is in order.

Always be wary of abortion statistics, whether they be trumpeted by pro-lifers or by pro-aborts.  Unlike many people on both sides of the issue, FAB tries to avoid the two most common errors we see:  (1) dismissing the results we don’t like and (2) taking the results we like as the final word.  It’s almost comical to watch both sides hold up the same poll and claim final victory.

We approach statistics with a certain amount of skepticism.  In that spirit, we found some major curiosities in the results of this poll:

1. Only 97% of pro-choicers agreed that abortion should be legal when a woman’s life is in danger.  What is the other 3% thinking?  How can they claim to be pro-choice?
2. Only 91% of pro-choicers agree that abortion should be legal when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest.  What are the other 9% thinking?
3. On the flip-side, 35% of “pro-lifers” want abortion to be legal in the first trimester.  How could such people claim to be pro-life?  Could it be that 35% of pro-life people simply don’t pay a bit of attention to what they are doing when answering a poll?
4. Gallup says 9% of “pro-lifers” want abortion to be legal when when the woman/family can’t afford a child.  Again, how could such people claim to be pro-life?
5. Only 90% of “pro-lifers” want abortion to be illegal in the 2nd trimester and only 94% want it to be illegal in the third trimester.
6. Bottom line:  Somewhere between 6% and 35% of pro-life respondents aren’t paying attention.  Same is true for between 3% and 9% of pro-choice respondents.

The "Art" of Abortion display at Artscape 2011 was visible to thousands.

This report from CBR Maryland Directors Kurt and Samantha Linnemann:

Artscape is the largest art festival in the country, bringing 350,000 people to Baltimore over a 3-day weekend.  We were strategically located in the center of the festival, where thousands upon thousands of people walked past our display.  In addition to 4 GAP signs and 3 hand-held “Choice” signs, we also displayed a banner that said, “The Art of Abortion, The Slaughter of The Innocent.”  All of the signs featured graphic pictures of abortion.  CBR volunteers handed out pro-life literature to passersby.

When we showed the signs, the Baltimore City Police threatened to arrest us.  We simply asked what we were going to be arrested for.  Knowing they had nothing to charge us with, they backed down.  Fifteen police officers stood by and watched our display go up and stay up for the following 3 hours.

Our photos precipitated many meaningful conversations.  But more importantly, thousands of young people, many of whom said they support abortion, were faced with the reality of what abortion does to an innocent human being.   Many were challenged to re-evaluate their pro-“choice” position.

Click here to view pictures from Artscape 2011 

The "Art" of Abortion at Artscape 2011 in Baltimore

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

A group of Virginia college students, banded together to form The Human Rights and Scientific Honesty Initiative asked me to pass this story along to you:

Abortion, Medical Honesty Battle Takes Shape at University of Virginia

A national treasure of a building, Thomas Jefferson’s Rotunda at the University of Virginia (UVA), has a leaking roof and crumbling columns.  The University and state government have begun the chess game over how much it will cost to repair, and who will be picking up the tab.  But right across the street in the UVA president’s office, they have much bigger worries about what they have been doing with state, federal, and student funds the last 20 years under the leadership of John Casteen .   New UVA President Theresa Sullivan has been handed a series of shocking allegations from our group, The Human Rights and Scientific Honesty Initiative.

Students for Life of America has already identified the University of Virginia as one of the institutions of higher learning that has been financing elective abortions with student health funds, and not even giving their students and their students’ parents the opportunity to opt out of that.  What most people at UVA and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) are totally unaware of is that these schools have both been secretly performing thousands of elective abortions right in their own teaching hospitals!  And, yes, these are both state taxpayer funded universities who also receive federal education grants to boot.

Elective abortions being performed secretly at taxpayer-funded universities are bad enough.  On top of that, UVA has been giving misleading information on a wide range of reproductive issues, neglecting the principle of informed consent.   Sadly, it seems one of America’s top universities allowed itself to be sucked into the Planned Parenthood template for misinforming women and keeping them in the dark about numerous threats to their health.  Somebody finally noticed.

The national pro life movement has been overlooking the universities for too long.  Sometimes we forget that it is not all about Planned Parenthood.  Pro-life activists have a lot to contend with in Charlottesville, a city of only 45,000 people that already has two other abortion facilities as it is, and a large pro-abortion cabal that includes City Council.  One of Live Action’s recent stings of Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child sex trafficking took place at their Charlottesville area facility.  But right there, in such a hostile environment, we have a whole new front opening in the battle for human rights in America.  And what better place to start than Mr. Jefferson’s University.

We are accepting additional endorsements for our document.  If you are a student, faculty, or alumnus of any Virginia college or university, you can add your name by sending an email to co-author Siobhan Casey at siobhan-casey@hotmail.com.  Thomas Jefferson, who founded UVA back in 1819 near his home at Monticello, once wrote that “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

Pro Life on Campus at the University of Delaware

Here is the media coverage from our recent GAP excursion to Maryland and Delaware.

GAP at Johns Hopkins University

Johns Hopkins News-Letter

• Pro-life activists stage protest (4-page item)
• Freedom of speech and expression (2-page item)

True Blue Conservative

• Pro-life activists stage protest

GAP at the University of Delaware

• Abortion protest to return to The Green
• Group’s comparison of abortion, genocide draws ire
• Pushing one’s ideas will never initiate logical debate
• Abortion display is misleading

GAP photo in the Eastern Progress

Check out the media coverage at Eastern Kentukcy and the Univesity of Kentucky.  You think they knew we were there?

The Eastern Progress at Eastern Kentucky University:

• Abortion murals met with mixed reactions
• Debate looks into legality of abortion
• Abortion debate is a stalemate

The Kentucky Kernel at the University of Kentucky:

• Abortion display fuels debate
• Letter: Signs present inaccurate information
• Abortion signs depict genocide, breast cancer in false light
• Letter: In response to ..
• Offending social justice with social justice
• GAP uses shock tactics to effectively achieve goal
• Letter from Daniel Sparks

Blue Coast Live:

• CBR brings graphic pictures to UK campus
• Planned Parenthood support group VOX combats graphic display at UK

Earlier today, Gallup published the results of their latest poll on abortion.  What does it all mean?

The Good

1. When given choices between none, few, most, and any circumstances, 61% said abortion should be legal only in a few or no circumstances, whereas 37% say it should be legal under any or most circumstances.  These numbers are very much opposed to the status quo (i.e., abortion legal under any and all circumstances).
2. Only 40% of younger people (18 – 34 years) believe that abortion should be legal under any/most circumstances, whereas 59% believe it should be legal under few/no circumstances.  This is almost identical to the opinions of those in the 35 – 54 age group and the population at large.  Again, a resounding defeat for the status quo.
3. Most people believe aborton to be morally wrong (51%) as opposed to morally acceptable (39%).  This is a 12% margin of victory for our side, but it is also puzzling.  Apparently, there are many people out there, maybe 10%, who won’t say abortion is morally wrong, but still believe it should be generally restricted (i.e., available only under a few or no circumstances).

The Bad

1. The numbers aren’t changing much.  On the main question (whether you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life), the results were 49% pro-choice and 45% pro-life.  This isn’t radically different from the 1998 results, which were 48% pro-choice to 45% pro-life.  Yes, the numbers bounce around, but it is hard to assert there are any consistent trends.
2. Despite a lot of conflicting data that others have touted, this poll shows that younger people (18 – 34 years) are pro-choice by a margin of 51% pro-choice to 42% pro-life, almost the same as the 35 – 54 age group, but more pro-choice than the overall population (49% pro-choice to 45% pro-life).  [Yet, as was detailed in item 2 under The Good, young people also believe abortion should be legal under only a few or no restrictions.]

The Ugly

1. The poll did not differentiate between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester abortions.  Attitudes change dramatically based on the age of the baby.
2. People’s attitudes are inconsistent because most people simply don’t know much about it.  You could see that in the 1998 Wirthlin poll, which found that 61% of the people said abortion should be legal in the 1st trimester, but also found that 58% oppose abortion after the onset of the heartbeat.
3. Since 1998, the numbers have bounced around, with both sides claiming “trends” that could be expected to continue into the future.  The latest data suggest no such trends, only sampling noise.
4. Not much difference between genders, except that women tend to be more polarized.  More women than men thought abortion should be illegal under all circumstances (24% of women vs 19% of men).  But the women’s strong views also are evident at the other end of the spectrum, where more women than men also thought abortion should be legal under any circumstance (29% of women vs 24% of men).  Looking at it another way, 53% of women held one of the two polar opposite opinions, whereas only 43% of men held one of them.

So, is this good news or bad news?  Please comment!

One of the most curious things said at the debate was Dr. McLean’s charge that pro-lifers are responsible for a network of “fake clinics.”  Dr. Mclean struck me as a fair-minded person, so I have to attribute this charge to spending too much time on uber-left websites in the hours leading up to our debate, because this charge clearly originates from radically pro-abortion groups who are committed to only one choice for women, and that’s abortion.  There is perhaps no charge that is more comcially hypocritical this that one.

I responded that when we are on campus, people routinely demand to know what we are doing to help women in crisis pregnancies.  I tell them we do quite a lot.  Pro-lifers run a network of centers where women and families can go to receive guidance, resources, referrals to doctors who will treat them for free, referrals to housing, etc.  In fact, pro-lifers spend many, many times more money on these activities than on educational projects like we do at CBR.  So, in response to all of this, we are to be condemned for running a network of “fake” clinics?  If that’s the game, we can’t win, because were damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Secular ProLife and Students for Life of America have published a flier, Fake Clinics: Myth vs Fact, to respond to this charge.  Some of the text:

Claim: CPCs are “fake clinics.”

Pregnancy centers come in two types. The first is a traditional crisis pregnancy center or pregnancy resource center. They are not clinics and do not pretend to be, although in most states they are able to offer pregnancy tests and prenatal vitamins. They provide numerous social services, including parenting classes, options counseling, baby supplies, and other financial aid. The second type is a Pregnancy Help Medical Clinic. These are licensed clinics working under the direction of an M.D. Medical services provided vary from clinic to clinic, but often include ultrasounds, on-site prenatal exams, and/or STD testing. In neither case can these be considered “fake clinics.”

Claim: CPCs only care about preventing abortions.

CPCs serve a variety of women; not only the abortion-minded, but also women who have chosen adoption or parenting parenting, women whose babies have already been born, and women struggling with a prior abortion.

Claim: CPCs use volunteers, who are unqualified.

CPCs do utilize volunteers– and so does Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider and one source of this claim! All CPC volunteers undergo training to ensure that they are qualified.

Claim: CPCs have religious affiliations.

Some do and some don’t. Many respectable non-profits have religious affiliations. People who make this claim are usually implying something further: religious discrimination. This is patently false. No CPC will refuse a client on the basis of her religion.

Continuing the coverage of my debate at Eastern Kentucky University.  Part 3 was here.

As you might imagine, Dr. McLean was big on “choice.” I said in my opening remarks that I was as pro-choice than just about anybody in the room. 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.

What I didn’t say (but should have) is that unlike many on the political left, I even believe people should decide whether or not they will join a union and whether or not they will have money taken out of their paychecks to support union-backed political candidates.

But some choices are wrong, even immoral, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.

She also objected to being called “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice.”  I admitted that I often use the more pejorative term, but it can certainly be justified.  Stephen Douglas was said to be personally opposed to slavery, but he argued that the states should have to “right to choose” whether to be free states or slave states.  We always refer to him as “pro-slavery,” not “pro-choice.”

Following our prepared remarks, we took questions. Lots of questions. At the scheduled ending, the moderator asked if we would be willing to stay longer. I asked when the Cracker Barrel closed. We ended up staying for an extra hour.

One student asked how many churches support our “hate-filled message.” His question was laden with additional pejoratives, but I can’t recall  his exact words. I had to restrain my laughter, because if the Christian church in America—I’m talking about the self-proclaimed “pro-life” church—had ever taken abortion seriously, this would have been over long ago.

People frequently ask about my religious views, as if abortion were a religious issue. I pointed out that although my religion demands that I care about others, you don’t have to share my Christian beliefs to know killing people is wrong. We’re not asking people to accept a new system of morality; we just want them to apply their own system of morality to all human beings.

More in Part 5

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.

On our recent GAP trip, I debated a pro-choice professor at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). In all of the GAPs we have done, this was only my third such debate. I’ll debate anybody, anyplace, anytime, but few will accept my offer. The Student Government Association at EKU recruited Dr. Meg McLean to answer the challenge.

Dr. McLean got on my good side right away. Early on, she made reference to the Appalachian region, and she said it correctly! Few people from outside Appalachia know how to say it, and Dr. McLean is from Wisconsin. The folks at Appalachian State finally taught ESPN how, but only after their second national championship. For getting it right, we make Dr. McLean an honorary member of the “I know the correct pronunciation of ‘Appalachian’” Facebook group!

Three groups of people show up for debates like this. Pro-lifers come to cheer for our side. Another group comes to cheer for the pro-abortion side. The third group shows up because a teacher is giving them extra credit to be there.  The debate was organized too late to attract many of that third group.  Of the first two groups, Dr. McLean’s cheering section was noticably bigger than mine. That’s cool, because each one of them got to see the Choice Blues video and hear me make the pro-life case!

My opening remarks (sort of) are in Part 2.

New video from Abort73.com.  See astounding images of 1st trimester baby.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-6VLUVglG8

Free speech board at Florida International University

CBR’s Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) tour of Florida universities continued at Florida International University (FIU) on February 21-22.  Media coverage was sparse and slow in coming, but here it is:

• Student newspaper.

Here’s a surprising comment by Oren Reich, an FIU law student:

I’m pro-choice, but think the exhibit was honest, compelling and non-offensive. Comparisons to genocide are appropriate considering their beliefs, and gory imagery is appropriate as well, just as I would use it for an anti-war demonstration.