We’ve all heard the argument that a human embryo/fetus/baby in the womb isn’t really a person.
So if someone showed you this graphic:
…what would you say?
Live Action has an excellent response here.
Two basic tenets of the pro-life position are: (1) abortion destroys the life of a genetically distinct, whole human being; and (2) abortion is psychologically harmful to women.
On the other hand, two basic tenets of the “pro-choice” position are: (1) abortion does not destroy the life of a genetically distinct, whole human being; and (2) abortion is not psychologically harmful to women.
With this in mind, I was interested to read this recent post by Jill Filipovic at the “pro-choice” blog Feministe, in which she starts off referring to some “fun facts” from Jena Pincott’s book Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies?, as highlighted in the popular mom blog Mommyish:
Well here are some fun facts: Pregnant women’s bodies are basically swimming with the cells of their fetuses. And even when they give birth, some cells remain. By the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, cells from the fetus account for one in every 50,000 cells in the woman’s body. Further along in the pregnancy, it increases to one in 1,000. Six percent of the DNA in her blood plasma also comes from the fetus. Which is interesting given some standard pro-life arguments like this:
Here is the “standard pro-life argument” Jill linked to: (more…)
Were you ever a fetus? How about an embryo? Or a zygote?
The answer to these questions are yes, yes, and yes. Now, one more question:
Were you ever a “fertilized egg”?
The answer to this question is no.
It’s no more accurate to say you were once an egg than to say you were once a sperm. Once an egg is fertilized — that is, once fertilization (also called conception) occurs — it’s no longer an egg.
At that point, a genetically distinct human being is created, and this new life is properly called a zygote — a fact that, for what it’s worth, even Wikipedia recognizes:
In other words, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. (more…)
There’s a heartwarming story this week in the Chicago Sun-Times about Amanda Schulten, a 21-year old woman from Marengo, Illinois, who is seven months pregnant with conjoined twin daughters, whom she has already named Faith and Hope.
In spite of her daughters’ very low chance of survival, Amanda’s Catholic faith guides her to believe that there is no other option but to let nature its course. In the article, she is quoted as saying, “He has a plan for me, and for them. We never know when our last day will be. We have to enjoy it, and appreciate health while we have it.”
(Reading these words of Amanda’s, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the beautiful video “99 Balloons” — which has received nearly 3.5 million views on YouTube) about a young couple who gave birth to a son with Edwards Syndrome.)
What struck me most about the article was the stunning contrast between, on the one hand, Amanda’s attitude of selflessness and unconditional love for her daughters, and, on the other, the absolutely cruel and heartless comments that she has had to endure from others who think she should just get an abortion instead. (more…)
There’s been a lot written on the Public Religion Research Institute’s recent poll [PDF] focusing on Millennial generation adults (ages 18-29) and their opinions on issues like abortion.
One analysis of the poll’s results that caught my attention was one written by the always insightful Dr. Michael New, who notes the following:
The General Social Survey has been collecting opinion data on abortion using the same battery of questions since the 1970s. In most years, respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 tend to be the least sympathetic toward the pro-life position. However, starting around the year 2000, those between the ages 18 and 29 were on average more pro-life than those from other age cohorts.
What is interesting is that one would not expect the current generation of young people to espouse pro-life views. Today’s young adults tend to be less religious and more secular, and have more liberal attitudes toward sex than previous generations. Furthermore, social scientists have not arrived at a consensus as to why this current generation of young people is more pro-life. Various theories include 1) the development of ultrasound technology, the 1990s debate over partial-birth abortion, and popular culture’s depiction of single motherhood as non-disruptive in television shows like Friends and Murphy Brown and movies like Juno.
All of these are definitely valid reasons why older teens and young adults have, over the past decade or so, been more pro-life than in prior years.
But I think this shift is due to at least one other important reason as well. (more…)
I love it:
I’ve often thought that one of the best things that could happen to the pro-life movement is for the “pro-choice” movement to get its own 24-hour cable channel.
Just give them a camera, give them a microphone, and let them talk. And talk. And talk some more.
The more they try to justify their position, the more bizarre their arguments become.
This is what went through my mind while I was watching video footage from a debate held October 20 at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado about Amendment 62, the state’s proposed Personhood Amendment.
After the pro-life case was presented, members of the campus group Advocates for Choice — which is sponsored by Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains — responded. You really have to hear for yourself some of the statements they made: (more…)
The highlights:
We recently got an e-mail from 16-year old Meredith Tan, who sent us a link to a great video she created that makes wonderful use of Scott Klusendorf’s SLED test (Size, Level of Development, Environment, & Degree of Dependency) to illustrate the only four differences between born and unborn human beings:
Watch 13-year old Lia Mills as she addresses the abortion debate by focusing like a laser beam on the one question that matters — What is the unborn? — using Scott Klusendorf’s SLED test (Size, Level of Development, Environment, & Degree of Dependency) to illustrate the non-essential differences between born and unborn human beings:
A few weeks ago I wrote about a 6th grade girl in California whose mother sued her public school after the administration told her she was not allowed to wear her pro-life T-shirt in school, supposedly because it violated the school’s dress code, which prohibits “inappropriate subject matter.”
This was the design on the girl’s shirt:
The mother of a 6th grade girl who was not allowed to wear a pro-life T-shirt at her public school in Merced, California filed a federal lawsuit this week against the school, claiming that the school violated her daughter’s First Amendment rights.
This was the design on the girl’s shirt:
An elementary school employee in Norfolk, VA who gave students models of a 12-week fetus accompanied by a card that says, “Some people think that my life began at birth; but my life’s journey began long before I was born…” was placed on administrative leave last week:
A news article about the matter quotes lots of people reacting with breathless outrage. (more…)
Tough Questions for the Opposition is the title of one of the articles in our Pro-Life Curriculum.
It’s taken from an article written by Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, in which he lays out 15 very specific questions pro-lifers can should use when we find ourselves in a debate with someone who is “pro-choice”.
One of these questions is:
Why don’t we each look at the downside of our respective positions? Have you ever thought about the ramifications if you are wrong?
He then explains that we’re “better off taking the risk of being pro-life and wrong than pro-abortion and wrong.”
I thought of Mark’s article when I saw this video:
HT: Jill Stanek
There are several things I’ve been wanting to post about for a while now, but I’m just getting around to it now.
Here are a few of those “several things”.
Bishop Paul Loverde of the Diocese of Arlington (Virginia) has a must-read column titled “Letters from Teens about Pornography”, in which he includes excerpts from dozens of letters he has received from teenagers in response to a pastoral letter he wrote last year titled, Bought With a Price: Pornography and the Attack on the Living Temple of God.
Bishop Loverde’s column begins:
Recently I have been hearing a lot about pornography.
The mail I have received on this issue from Catholics and others around the country gives me hope, even as it confirms the gravity of the threat this scourge poses to us all.
Here is what one high school senior wrote (more…)