A crowd gathers in front of GAP and CBR "Choice" signs at Johns Hopkins University.

On Tuesday, CBR brought the Genocide Awareness Project to Johns Hopkins University (JHU).  This is a private school, and we had no student sponsorship, so we actually set up our display in a grass strip at the front entrance.

About mid-day, a handful of pro-abortion students showed up to provide a stark contrast between reasoned debate and juvenile buffoonery.  Fortunately, we were able to bring the truth about abortion to a steady stream of students entering the JHU front gate.

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.

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.

GAP turns heads at the University of Kentucky.

We always love our time at the University of Kentucky.  It is a very diverse student body, with many students representing every position on abortion.  Students are generally respectful and willing to listen.

Our free speech board was a huge draw, as was our poll table.  I don’t have exact numbers, but the list of students who identified themselves as pro-life was several pages long.

Media coverage already!

Jay Watts shows the audience how to deal with pro-choice atheists like ... well ... his former self.

Our Pro Life Training Academy in Richmond, Kentucky on Saturday was a home run.  More than 30 attended, including students from Eastern Kentucky U (EKU)  and the U of Kentucky (UK), members of Central Kentucky Right to Life and Madison County Right to Life, and women from Silent No More.

We are thrilled that post-abortive women from Silent No More have volunteered to participate in our GAP events at EKU and UK this coming week!  The compassion of post-abortive women alongside the difficult photos of abortion are a powerful combination.  Silent No More and Deeper Still are an answer to prayer.

Jay Watts of the Life Training Institute was our featured speaker.  As a former pro-choice atheist, Jay showed us all how to deal with people like … well … his former self!  Jay demonstrated the Columbo technique for assessing and responding to pro-choice questions and arguments.  He also taught the students how to use SLED and trot out the toddler.

I spoke about the need to use abortion pictures to show people the truth about abortion and demonstrated how to use the various apologetics techniques in front of our GAP display.  Here’s an Pro Life Training Academy course outline.  We spent about 20 minutes doing role-playing.

Next stop for the Academy is Baltimore, MD (April 30) and the University of Deleware (May 1).  Contact us to bring the Pro Life Training Academy to your city.

Fr. Frank Pavone and Tom Monaghan

I’m in Ave Maria, Florida today representing CBR at the 2nd annual pro-life leader’s summit, spearheaded by Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life.

Jill Stanek is also blogging from the table.  Her blog has been ranked among the top 100 conservative websites in the nation.  That’s impressive, but FletcherArmstrongBlog is the #1 pro-life blog in all of Karns.

From here, it’s on to Richmond, Kentucky, for our Pro Life Training Academy tomorrow morning.

Pro Life on Campus at University of West Florida

On February 14-15, CBR took the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) to the University of West Florida.  The video below features students talking about the project.

Media coverage was extensive:

• Genocide on Display
• Abortion will always exit
• Free speech zones brought into question
• CBR responds

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IscsEjw11E

GAP at Florida Atlantic University

CBR’s Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) tour of Florida concluded at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) on February 23-24.  Media coverage:

• On-line photo gallery
• Letter to the student paper

Pro Life on Campus at University of West Florida

Monday and Tuesday of this week, we had our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at the University of West Florida.  This is part of a tour of 4 Florida universities being sponsored by CBR Southeast, CBR Midwest, and CBR Florida.

Media:

1. The Voyager (story)
2. The Voyager (editorial)

Gov. Mike Huckabee at Knoxville Convention Center

Great event Monday night at the Knoxville Convention Center with Gov. Mike Huckabee.  We had more than 700 in attendance, and we’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback about the event.  More about Gov. Huckabee’s remarks later.

Media coverage:

• WATE TV
• WBIR TV
• WVLT TV
• Knoxville News Sentinel
• Knoxville News Sentinel – Greg Johnson column
• UTK Daily Beacon
• Tennessee Journalist
• Politico
• WSMV TV
• Metro Pulse
• The Weekly Standard
• LifeNews.com
• CNN Political Ticker

A good crowd of 40 or so protested outside.  The importance of this should not be underestimated.  First, how fortunate we are to live in America, where the right of every person speak his or her mind is protected. The public debate and dialogue is a healthy process that shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Second, the presence of protesters is another affirmation that our strategy is working. If the abortion photos had no effect, the pro-abortion folks would just ignore us as irrelevant. In fact, showing abortion pictures is the one thing that pro-aborts fear most, because the pictures make it impossible for people to ignore or trivialize abortion. The images raise awareness and force the other side to defend an obviously horrifying act of violence against a defenseless human being.

BTW, our new video was very well received:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Rk44gn824

On my way to Pensacola.  Sunday, we are doing our Pro Life Training Academy in preparation for GAP at the University of West Florida Monday and Tuesday.  I’ll won’t be able to stay for the GAP, however, because of our big Celebrating Life event in Knoxville Monday night.

Speaking of Celebrating Life, we’re sold out!  How about that!  Hope to see you there!

GAP at 2011 March for Life

People always want to know if the pictures work.  Here’s a message left on our AbortionNo.org website:

Yesterday I went to the March for Life 2011 in Washington DC.  I live about 20 minutes outside of DC.  I went with my high school.  People told us we were crazy to go out for 5 hours in 20 degree weather, but I told them I wouldn’t miss it.  At the March, I saw the abortionNO.com billboards and had to stop and look.  My friends and I were aghast.  … [Later, at home that night,] I remembered the posters from this website.  I decided to take a look.  That was about 2 and half hours ago.  I looked at the pictures and watched the videos and read the mothers’ accounts of regret after the abortion.  I am crying.  In the past couple hours, I also started researching about President Obama’s views on abortion, about Planned Parenthood, and about the actual process of abortion.  I have been reading many abortion articles by Michelle Malkin, and I just learned about the Philadelphia Horror.  I JUST HEARD ABOUT IT.  Something that awful and horrific, how could that not be top story on the news???  Reality TV stars get more airtime on the news than actual murder of babies.  I am crying right now, at the injustice of it all!  I watched the news last night to see if there would be coverage of the March.  It got a one minute spot 40 minutes after the program started, after local news, some report about a reality TV star, and 2 weather reports.  Where are our PRIORITIES??

I have spent a good deal of time on this website, at least 2 and half hours.  I am reading all of the reports and looking at all of the pictures because right after I send this, I am writing a letter to my Congressman.  I have never felt more inspired to take action after looking at this website.

I have always been ProLife, having been raised in a strong Catholic family, and having received a Catholic education.  But ever since I began reading all this information and seeing all the pictures online today,  I have never truly understood the injustice.  I promise not to just be a prolife supporter now, I promise to be a prolife advocate.  I will be a voice to those who cannot be heard.  I may only be 15, but I will not stand for the absolute crap that is going on here.  Thank you, THANK YOU, for opening my eyes to the reality of how bad abortion was.