Survivors Pro-Life Training Camp
— Posted by John (May 14, 2010 at 1:09 pm)
Our friends at Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust are asking us to spread the word about their 2010 ProLife Training Camp, and we’re glad to help.
Here’s their promo video:
Here are the details:
The Survivors ProLife Training Camp takes place every summer in Southern California, a location that provides endless opportunities for exciting and effective activism.However, before you begin any activism, you will participate in four days of workshops and training sessions taught by experienced pro-life leaders. These workshops are designed to equip you to confidently present the pro-life message on the streets, in schools, and to your peers. Whether you’ve been in the pro-life fight for years, or are new to the cause, you will come away with a fresh perspective and better equipped to intercede for the pre-born.
Training topics include:
- Why Pro-Life? The Basics, The Woman, The Child: A full-day introduction to the abortion debate.
- The Abortion Industry: Because no one can fight an effective battle without first knowing the opposition. From abortion methods to abortion providers and promoters, the dark history and current status of the abortion industry in America is exhaustively examined.
- Persuasively Defending Life: In-depth apologetics and ambassadorship. Preparing you to represent the plight of the pre-born in any situation, teaching you to engage in effectively dialogue with the ultimate goal of impacting hearts and minds.
- Activating Your Community: Taking the initiative, starting pro-life groups, engaging and activating your peers in their hometowns.
- Media: From online resources to traditional print, television and radio, utilizing the power of the media to consistently present the message of life to the American people.
- Sidewalk Counseling: Because the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic is the last line of defense for a pre-born child and his mother, experienced sidewalk counselors will equip you to lovingly reach out to women with hope and alternatives to abortion.
Activism
Not only will the Survivors ProLife Training Camp train and equip you to be an effective voice for the voiceless, but also gives you an opportunity to try out a wide variety of pro-life events and activities during the last 8 days of camp. Whatever your style, you will be able to find the pro-life outreach that works for you!
I have great respect for the hard-core pro-life activists at Survivors, and I can’t recommend their camp highly enough.
The dates of the camp are June 21 – July 2. For more information or to sign up, see here.
This entry is filed under Abortion, Club News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Rhoda says:
I have never been so offended as when I came across this ‘abortion holocaust’ title.
To relate the free and legal choice of what women can do with their bodies (whether you agree with the concept or not), with one of the greatest genocidal atrocities in history is appalling.
Equating an act perpetrated on the grounds of peoples’ religion with something that you just happen to disagree with displays an extraordinary level of insensitivity.
Especially given that you are a supposedly religious group.
Comment posted May 14th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Elaine says:
Rhoda – Abortion is not about what women to to their bodies, but about the 1.3 MILLION lives that are taken by abortion. I feel that most people would agree that that many deaths would easily make up a holocaust.
Comment posted May 15th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
fragile-tree says:
Rhoda- Look at the pictures from the Holocaust and look at pictures of aborted babies…….What’s the Difference?
The main point is that both are totally unjustified…and also abortion HURTS women, I have personally heard women share thier stories of the pain they felt after abortion (and still feel today).
Comment posted May 15th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Rhoda says:
The circumstances are completely different. The Nazi holocaust was aimed at the eradication of one specific group for no justifiable reason.
Virtually EVERY person on the earth is and was horrified at the events which took place.
How can you compare that with a legal medical practice which a relatively small number of people on earth see as an horrific atrocity.
Yes, you people do. But that falls a long way short of the scenario which took place 70 years ago.
Fragile-tree, the difference is vast. One is people who have been born, grown, lived, loved and learned. The other takes place before that state is reached.
Comment posted May 15th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Elaine says:
Okay, so the circumstances are different (disapproved of/approved of by some, born/pre-born) but the morality of the action remains the same. Murder is murder. Period. End of story.
Also, you say that abortion is disapproved of by “a relatively small number of people on earth”… the most recent poll by Gallup shows that the majority of Americans are Pro-Life. Our world is beginning to see abortion for what it really is. Killing a child, and harmful to women.
Comment posted May 16th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Rhoda says:
During the years that The Holocaust was perpetrated, there was a relatively small number of people who truly knew what was going on. Once people found out, towards the end of the war and afterward, vast numbers across the world were horrified. It was seen as the genocidal crime that it was.
In America, everyone knows that abortion occurs. A relatively small number of people are actively against it. A large number of people support womens’ right to choose. The large pool in the middle are either ambivalent or, while they would not choose abortion, do not wish to see that right removed from others.
This is a completely different set of circumstances to the persecution of a targeted group. The scale, per head of population and over time, is also of manifold difference. To use the language which reminds the whole world of what took place to promote your point of view is wrong.
Comment posted May 16th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Kelli says:
Rhoda- unfortunately too many Americans are apathetic or indifferent to what’s going on with abortion. Once they start to see what abortion does to a person, and how is hurts the mother (and even father) then a lot of them start to change. Our country is in the process of awakening to this information through events such as the above, or campaigns such as “silent no more” or “abortionchangesyou.com”. Elaine is right, the Gallop poll shows that there are more pro-lifers and that number should continue to rise. If you still don’t believe us, then go to the March for Life in Washington D.C. every year. There were more than 350,000 participants this year, many of them college and high school students.
Comment posted May 17th, 2010 at 9:01 am
fragile-tree says:
Rhoda- “Fragile-tree, the difference is vast. One is people who have been born, grown, lived, loved and learned. The other takes place before that state is reached.”
Actually unborn babies grown in the womb, are living human beings, learn things such as how to kick or suck thier thumbs, and are loved by someone whether that is the mother, father, aunt, freinds, or even God. To judge the worth of a person on these things is trivial. What if a little orphan boy in India has no education, and has not been “loved” by his parents….is it okay to kill him? What if a girl has Blount’s disease and she stops growing at a young age, she still has all the human rights that everyone else has. babies in the womb should have same human rights, but abortion strips them of those rights just like the holocaust stipped the jews of thier rights and caused them to be treated like property.
Comment posted May 17th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Rhoda says:
I’m not arguing with you about your little cake stall convictions. My argument is about your misappropriation of the term holocaust.
If I described the road death toll in Texas as a holocaust or the cutting down of a forest somewhere as a holocaust, I would quite rightly be criticized for doing so.
For you to compare your campaign against womens’ right to choose the least worse option for them with a massive genocidal extermination caused by one person or a very very small group of people, is tantamount to blasphemy!
Comment posted May 17th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
RSD says:
“For you to compare your campaign against womens’ right to choose the least worse option for them with a massive genocidal extermination caused by one person or a very very small group of people, is tantamount to blasphemy!”
============================
Rhoda,
I’m assuming you are familiar with Margaret Sanger…founder of the Largest Abortion Provider in the US (and probably the world): Planned Parenthood?
…Google “The Negro Project” if you are not familiar with her work.
She stated:” “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro Population”
Add to that the fact that 30% of women who avail of abortion “services” every year are African-Americans…amounting to more than 10 MILLION (and counting) unborn killed since 1973.
*the Holocaust ‘only’ took 6 million Jews…if you recall….
Now, tell me who’s statement and information is tantamount to “Blasphemy” here?
Comment posted May 18th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
fragile-tree says:
Rhoda-
Definition of “Holocaust” from online dictionaries:
“a mass slaughter of people”, “a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life”, “large-scale destruction by violent means” “any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.”
I think abortion fits the “holocaust” term and those are some good points RSD!
Comment posted May 18th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Rhoda says:
RSD, how about a per capita over time comparison.
And again, the entire framework within which the events took place are incomparable.
Have you examined why African-Americans have double the abortion rate? How about circumstances, financial impacts, lack of education? Did you know that the states with the least sex-education and the highest ‘virginity commitments’ also have the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies and STD’s?
Margaret Sanger is one person who is alleged to have supported eugenics in a very different time and social atmosphere. I also note that she was a devout catholic.
fragile-tree, just because you believe what you do doesn’t make it right. Many disagree with you. On what basis do you claim the right to attempt to prevent others from making the choices they feel necessary and which best suit their circumstances?
Comment posted May 18th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
fragile-tree says:
Alright Rhoda, I believe that it is wrong for people to make the “choice” to have an abortion because murder is wrong, the general public can agree to that. When you are pregnant there is human life growing inside of you and to get an abortion results in killing the baby. It also scars the women physically and mentally.
Also you said : “Did you know that the states with the least sex-education and the highest ‘virginity commitments’ also have the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies and STD’s?”, but that is not necessarily true. Take Uganda refusing condom use for example:
In the late 1980s Uganda was viewed as the worst nation in the world in terms of HIV/AIDS infections.[5] In 1991, 22 percent of people in the country were infected with HIV. By 1999 the number had dropped to 6 percent.[6] Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni insists that their unique success among African countries is due to their behavioral approach. He said, “In comparison with other countries per capita expenditure on condoms, we spend far below other developed countries, which emphasize use of condoms in their fight against the disease.”[7] Instead of placing the primary emphasis on condoms, they emphasized abstinence and faithfulness first. As a result, they have experienced the greatest decline in HIV in the world.[8] According to the Journal of International Development, it was “the lack of condom promotion during the 1980s and early 1990s [that] contributed to the relative success of behavior change strategies in Uganda.”[9]
[5.]Tim Allen and Suzette Heald, “HIV/AIDS Policy in Africa: What Has Worked in Uganda and What Has Failed in Botswana?,” Journal of International Development 16:8 (November 8, 2004), 1141
[6]. Edward Green, et al., Evidence That Demands Action (Austin, Tex.: Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 2005), ii.
[7]. Yoweri Museveni, 11th International Conference of People Living with HIV, as reported by Panafrican News Agency Daily Newswire (October 29, 2003).
[8]. Joseph Loconte, “The White House Initiative to Combat AIDS: Learning from Uganda,” The Heritage Foundation: Backgrounder 1692 (September 29, 2003).
[9]. Allen and Heald, 1141, emphasis added.
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Rhoda says:
Hi fragile-tree, I would totally support your choice to not have an abortion, absolutely. Likewise, you have no right to prevent or interfere with those that feel the need to make the choice to have an abortion.
There is more and more statistical data emerging that show increased rates of STD’s and teen pregnancy closely map the states with the lowest rates of sex education and the greater number of abstinence programs.
The Ugandan story you refer to has been shown to be misleading both statistically and empirically. The articles you cite have been superseded.
And what do you think of the current activities against homosexuality in Uganda which have been driven and supported by American evangelists?
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Kelli says:
Just butting in here, but Rhoda, you seem to think that it should be everyone’s personal choice about having an abortion as if it is a trivial matter. Would you say to someone “I’m against slavery, but I shouldn’t tell you what to do” or “In my opinion child abuse is wrong, but I can’t go and tell that father to stop beating his daughter every night” Of course not! There are right and wrongs in this world and everyone should not be allowed to do whatever they want if it injures people.
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Rhoda says:
Hi Kelli, as society advanced, it and the encompassing legislative framework stopped slavery. Advancing society and the encompassing legislative framework said abusing children is wrong. Advancing society and the encompassing legislative framework said women have a right to choose.
Only a numerically dirty little speck of the population would support slavery. Only a numerically dirty little speck of the population would support child abuse. In regards to womens’ right to choose…..
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
fragile-tree says:
First off, thanks for sticking around and listening to what I have to say!
I really believe that widespread available birth control and “sex ed” increase the problems. A law in Maryland mandated contraceptive use, and the number of abortions in the state rose by 1,226 in the following year. Today they have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.
Teens will be more willing to have pre-marital sex because technology has supposedly “reduced” the risks of sex through contraceptives. I know teens that planned on not having sex because of the risks of getting pregnant and STDs, but when condoms were available they decided to have sex….and actually one of them got pregnant even though they used “protection”. We can see that this actually leads to more abortions, STDs, and unplanned pregnancies just by the fact that the number of STDs and abortions has grown since birth control was introduced.
This is similar to the fact that people who wear sunscreen will sunbathe for longer than those who don’t use sunscreen thus leading to an increase of melanoma in sunscreen users. (British Medical Journal 2006; 332:605-607)
Comment posted May 20th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Rhoda says:
Thanks fragile-tree, and thanks to our hosts for allowing me to post my thoughts on these matters.
You will have heard the saying ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’. I have seen statistical representations supporting my case. You have obviously found some supporting yours. But that’s getting us off-track anyway.
My argument is that the misappropriation of the term ‘holocaust’ for a campaign by a small group in an attempt to raise the profile of their beliefs is just plain wrong.
Comment posted May 20th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
RSD says:
Rhoda,
What you term as “small group” (Pro-lifers) are now the majority of people in the US as per the recent Gallup poll numbers.
And just to reiterate fragile-tree:
Definition of “Holocaust” from online dictionaries:
“a mass slaughter of people”, “a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life”, “large-scale destruction by violent means” “any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.”
It doesn’t matter where abortion happens, mass murder of the unborn is still murder.
What, to me, is wrong is the pro-abortion folks hiding behind the word CHOICE…when all the choice they support is one that ends in abortion.
Comment posted May 21st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Rhoda says:
RSD – I suggest you check the numbers http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
and while you’re at it, check the results in regards to birth control.
Yes, there is a majority who personally believe it to be morally wrong, but they still believe in people having a choice.
Very nice definition of ‘holocaust’. Abortion doesn’t fit into it though. People being marched into trains and gas showers and dumped into ovens in vast numbers is significantly different to one person at a time making a choice which they believe best meets their circumstances.
You believe abortion to be murder, I don’t, neither does the law. I believe churches shouldn’t receive tax benefits, you probably do, as does the law. So shall I stand outside churches with a placard and shout words of protest?
Pro-choice clinics provide more choice and support than pro-life clinics. Your assertion that they only support abortion is disingenuous.
Comment posted May 21st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
John says:
Rhoda said: “Pro-choice clinics provide more choice and support than pro-life clinics. Your assertion that they only support abortion is disingenuous.”
Really?
Comment posted May 21st, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Rhoda says:
Photos and an opinion piece? That’s evidence?
At a pro-choice clinic you can choose: keep the baby, adopt out the baby, or terminate the pregnancy.
At a pro-life clinic you can choose: keep the baby, adopt out the baby or …..?
Just because pro-choice clinics provide abortions does not mean that’s all they do.
Comment posted May 21st, 2010 at 7:48 pm
RSD says:
“Just because pro-choice clinics provide abortions does not mean that’s all they do.-Rhoda”
——————————————
Remove ALL the abortion procedures from these so-called “clinics” and tell me, honestly, if they would survive on dispensing BC pills and doing pap smears…
It’s all about money….
Comment posted May 24th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Rhoda says:
Just like supermarkets, car dealerships, hairdressers and restaurants.
Even 99% of doctors wouldn’t practice medicine if it didn’t pay.
Pro-life clinics are funded by churches and such. Pro-choice clinics are funded by providing services that customers request.
Money is not the cause.
Comment posted May 24th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
RSD says:
Yeah, Rhoda…Abortion clinics provide their services at such a low, low price because they care about women. Yeah, right.
Comment posted May 25th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Rhoda says:
RSD, a one-sided cynical, snide remark is not an argument.
Comment posted May 25th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
matt says:
You should see how much money abortions bring in for the clinics… it is thier main source of income. Rhoda, if you don’t believe that PP targets abortions then google Abbey Johnson and watch or read about why she left PP (esp. about how they were really pushing abortions, esp. repeat abortions)
Comment posted May 26th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Rhoda says:
That would make sense Matt. Where else can people obtain what they need? A pro-life clinic?
A coffee shop’s main source of income is coffee. A clothing store’s main source of income is clothing. A church’s main source of income is people in pews. An abortion clinic’s main source of income is….abortions.
Many people leave their employment and then make all sorts of negative comments. Maybe they are being defensive or maybe they suffered from cognitive dissonance. In Abby’s case, she didn’t like what she saw and changed her position.
If women didn’t decide abortion as the least worse choice for them, the clinics would go out of business. They haven’t.
Comment posted May 26th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
RSD says:
Unfortunaly, the killing and murdering of the innocent unborn is NOT and will never be a NEED…
It is a need only in the pro-aborts twisted mind.
Comment posted May 27th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Rhoda says:
RSD, it is your opinion that it is murder. It is not the opinion of myself, many other people, or the law. To some it is a need, you can’t claim otherwise.
Pro-choice people are the ones whose minds aren’t twisted by outside influences.
Comment posted May 27th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
matt says:
Rhoda, if you don’t think that abortion kills, or takes the life of a child then what exactly does the abortion procedure do? And don’t say “removes a fetus” because it is a human fetus, and therefore a person.
Comment posted May 28th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Rhoda says:
Matt, that’s just more opinion.
Abortion does not kill or take the life of a child.
It removes a biological growth with the potential to become a life.
A fetus is a fetus, not a person.
But you do not need to agree.
Comment posted May 28th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
RSD says:
Matt,
She just replaced the term fetus, zygote, embryo, baby, unborn child with “biological growth”…you know, something like…like a “clump of cells”.
Rhoda…when does life begin, then?
(or are you also afraid to define that like our fearless president…ie..i’ts above my pay-grade?)
Comment posted June 1st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Rhoda says:
RSD, I’ve said it more than once. Life begins when it can breath on it’s own. I’m happy to call it a fetus or similar term, the reality is that it is a potential life. I have no fear, that’s the domain of the religious.
The president is not afraid, he’s being blocked, undermined, hunted and haunted just like in the Salem witch trials by so many people who believe theirs is the only way and that it is a disgrace that the white house has not only a democrat in it but a black one at that.
Comment posted June 1st, 2010 at 4:30 pm
matt says:
when it can breathe on its own??? if you look in biology and medical text books, you can find out that life begins at the moment of conception.
Logically the first breath doesn’t make someone a life or a person…so here is this baby being delievered and even though its head hasn’t “come out” yet, it still can’t be called a life or a person because it can’t take it’s first breath?? Are you kidding me?
Comment posted June 1st, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Rhoda says:
Matt, my stance obviously upsets quite a few people. Allow me to try to ‘accommodate’ you somewhat in an attempt to assuage your horror.
‘Life’ begins at conception. Actually we could say ‘life’ begins at the formation of eggs and sperm as they have potential. A cancer has a ‘life’ of it’s own in some respects, it is not a replication of our normal formative structure.
Once a ‘person’ is born, that ‘person’ is ‘a life’. Until then it is ‘life’ but not ‘a life’. Can you see the distinction I’m trying to make?
The point is rather moot anyway, as abortion is well supported, has been through the eons of history and is also legal.
Anyway, my argument is that the use of the term holocaust is unjustified and an insult to those who suffered.
Comment posted June 1st, 2010 at 8:09 pm
RSD says:
“my stance obviously upsets quite a few people”
————————————————————-
Hmm..gee..I wonder why? Let me use one of your answers:
” we could say ‘life’ begins at the formation of eggs and sperm as they have potential” –
Umm..nope, scientifically speaking, the formation of sperm and eggs do not create life. It is the UNION of a sperm and an an egg that creates life. Read any Biology book. It is a scientific fact. You do not need to accommodate anybody to get this right.
If this is the way you handle your basic arguments..well, good luck to you.
Comment posted June 2nd, 2010 at 11:12 am
Rhoda says:
Yeah well, it was probably foolish of me to try to accommodate you.
Your stance actually upsets more people because certain groups of your ilk get in peoples’ faces and shout their point of view. On the other hand, pro-choice groups quietly go about ensuring that women have a full range of choices whilst attempting to lower the need for abortion through sex education and provision of contraception.
Everything that is organic and capable of growth and/or regeneration can be said to have ‘life’.
And the fact remains, abortion has always taken place, always will take place, and is legal.
Comment posted June 2nd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
matt says:
Rhoda you say that pro-choice groups make sure that “women have a full range of choices”, well how come pro-”choice” organizations got so upset about that Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad? It was Mrs. Tebow’s “choice” not to abort Tim Tebow, but there was such an uproar about the whole thing. Americans got to see pro-choicers for who they really are: pro-abortion advocates…anything else upsets them. It’s the sad truth.
Comment posted June 3rd, 2010 at 9:09 am
Rhoda says:
Hm, now why would pro-choice groups get upset about this?
Maybe because the chances of a pro-choice ad being run would be nil because of the conservative powers behind the media? As in not allowing an ad for a gay dating service?
Surely it couldn’t be because the ad featured an evangelical family claiming to have rejected an offer of abortion at a hospital in a country where abortion is actually illegal?
Unlike in this case – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171656/ns/health-health_care/
And just for a bit of added entertainment regarding hypocrisy, try this – http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/police-girl-raped-then-relocated
‘…anything upsets them’? Would you care to demonstrate ‘anything’ beyond seeing womens’ right to choose being attacked and threatened? Let’s look at the majority of anti-choice advocates, what upsets them – abortion, contraception, sex education, extra-marital sex, homosexuality – shall I go on? So what is the sad truth?
Comment posted June 3rd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Jayson says:
there was nothing offensive about the ad, and the majority of Americans supported it. pro-choicers are just looking for ways to rub dirt on pro-lifers. (and we cannot control what ads are rejected etc..) Pro-choicers should applaud Mrs. Tebow for carrying her baby to term dispite difficult circumstances (and she could have crossed borders for an abortion if necessary)
Seriously, anything/group/person that does not support abortion as the only way out for a women in an unplanned pregnancy is scoffed at. When women are handed brochures about Crisis Pregnancy Centers they are striped of them by the clinic escorts, so much for choice!
Comment posted June 5th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Rhoda says:
Hi Jayson, I wasn’t going to respond to your post but since this whole site is ‘quiet’ at the moment I may as well try to inject something of interest.
I didn’t say the ad was offensive. What I actually said was that pro-choice groups were upset, because of the reasons I cited. And yes you can control what ads are rejected because it is the conservatives who control the major media formats and therefore ads such as gay dating services get rejected. Because they cater to those who scream the loudest. How do you know that the majority of Americans supported it?
Why ‘should’ I applaud Mrs Tebow? I’m ‘happy’ for her to have made the CHOICE she did, FREELY, quite happy. And with all due respect to her son, would the world have missed him if he hadn’t been born? Did anyone have a crystal ball showing how his life would turn out? What if he had become a drug-addled rapist, robber and murderer? Would they have run Mrs Tebow’s ad then?
The only thing/group/person who gets scoffed at is those that attempt to prevent people having free choice. Your claim in regard to this is emotive, biased and untrue. I do not see a problem with replacing propaganda containing limited choices with information containing all choices. Would you buy a new car from a dealership who only advised you of some of the options that were actually available? If they told you about air-conditioning or leather seating but not that you could get extra airbags or an upgraded sound system? Or would you go to the one down the road?
Comment posted June 7th, 2010 at 12:12 am