The status of the unborn child is the central point around which the entire abortion debate revolves. Pro-lifers must stress that science determines the point at which the preborn child is a human person, not religion.
The most powerful pro-life tools are the full-color clear ultrasounds of preborn babies peacefully floating in their mother’s womb, illustrating fetal development. Our prenatal histories are a fascinating timeline that stand as a compelling case that fetal development is too beautiful to be interrupted.
Throughout a woman’s pregnancy, her baby undergoes many stages of development in the womb before being born, and among these milestones which indicate life is the fetal heartbeat.
“Woman’s body, woman’s choice” is the most common slogan pro-abortionists use. We must ask in response, “Why do you consider the unborn child to be part of the woman’s body?” Logic and biology demonstrate that the unborn child is not part of the woman’s body, and no one has the right to destroy another person’s body.
The propaganda of the pro-abortion movement ranges from characterizing abortion as an agonizing decision, a trivial choice, and an accomplishment to be celebrated. Regardless of the state of mind of the woman considering abortion, we must continue to focus on the primary victim of the procedure, the preborn child.
One of the tactics pro-abortionists use to keep potential pro-lifers out of the movement is the allegation that men should not interfere with the decisions women make about their own bodies. But this is based on several illogical assumptions, starting with the notion that the validity and truth of an argument has to do with a persons sex.
If we look at the number of women who have visited crisis pregnancy centers over the past four decades, and compare them to the abortion rate for women who don’t, we can estimate that these lifesaving centers have saved an incredible 12 million babies from abortion since Roe v. Wade. This means that 1 out of every 25 people you see on the street, at work, in church or at a sporting event would not exist except for the faithful labors of the tens of thousands of CPC workers.
The “pro-choice” label allowed pro-abortionists to completely bypass the bloody reality of abortion and focus on freedom, a value that we all cherish.
The central message of the “No unwanted child” slogan is that the only value that children have is assigned to them by others. If they are not “wanted,” they are worthless and can be discarded like a worn-out shirt. Pro-abortionists do not understand that, when you label some children “unwanted,” it inevitably leads to a coarsened collective national conscience that devalues children generally.
Pro-abortionists tend to become (to put it mildly) rather displeased when pro-lifers refer to an American “abortion Holocaust.” Yet the similarities between the Nazi and abortion Holocausts go far deeper than a high body count.
It is common knowledge that some vaccines were developed using aborted fetal tissue. This fact has given rise to much controversy among pro-lifers: is it immoral to take advantage of these vaccines? And if so, are there morally acceptable alternatives?
Political Aspects of Abortion
The illicit “freedom of choice” is the perfect cover for conscience-impaired individuals. While appealing to the freedom‑lover in all of us, it simultaneously attacks opponents by implying that they are somehow anti‑freedom and anti‑American; thus the epithet “anti‑choice.”
What exactly is “feminism?” The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests.” So our question becomes: do pro-lifers really have the best interests of women in mind? Pro-abortionists certainly don’t think so.
Beginning in the 60s and culminating with Roe v. Wade in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court manufacture a pernicious “right to privacy” based on bad-faith constitutional arguments that continue to have a destructive effect on the moral compass and social fabric of American society.
The United Nations Population Fund exists to suppress the population growth of developing nations, and at that it is uniquely influential. Having spent more than twenty billion dollars since its founding, it has supported population control programs such as the one in China, has funded both legal and illegal abortions, and has supplied abortion equipment all over the world. It is the greatest destroyer of cultures, customs and faith of developing nations in existence today.
Abortion advocates would have us believe that pro-lifers are somehow less credible if they choose to work on only the one issue of abortion rather than all life issues such as war, famine and poverty. But this argument is really an attempt to see abortion less effectively opposed. In order to make a meaningful contribution, an activist is best to become an expert in a relatively narrow area of the pro-life movement.
Pro-abortion advocates often claim that when the State pays for a poor woman’s abortion it saves a considerable amount of money by avoiding the costs of delivery and another child added to the welfare system. However, this claim overstates the average cost the State saves. In any event, it does not take into account the economic output and the taxes that will be paid over the course of a life by a person who was not aborted.
Eugenicists have long promoted abortion as a way to reduce crime by killing off a section of the underclass. This position was bolstered by a popular contemporary study that attributed fifty percent of the reduction in crime since 1991 to Roe v. Wade in 1973. Many fundamental errors with this study have been found, and the opposite conclusion has cogently been drawn, that legalized abortion has increased crime.
If anyone tells you that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, the best way to reply is to ask the simple and direct question “Why do you personally oppose abortion?” If they say that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” ask “Why do you want abortion to be rare?”
Although the media takes a liberal stand on all of the social issues, its corruption is most evident on the issue of abortion. Numerous studies on media attitudes over the decades have found that between 90 and 97 percent of news media professionals identified themselves as “pro-choice” and a large majority support third-trimester partial-birth abortions for any reason.
Pro-abortionists often argue that call abortion “murder” or “baby-killing” should be prohibited because it inspires violence. Yet other prominent pro-abortionists plainly admit that abortion is just that. In truth, prohibiting pro-life rhetoric is a slippery slope to prohibiting all pro-life activity.
We pro-lifers know from experience that we are greatly outspent by pro-abortionists, but we have not been able to prove our assertions ― until now. This article summarizes the results of a study of 21,155 IRS Forms 990 done to determine just how much comparative income is generated annually by groups that support the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death.
Why Don’t Pro-Life Groups Merge?
There are several reasons why pro-life groups do not merge into one colossal organization. Differences of opinion exist on the question of exceptions for abortion in so-called “hard cases,” on the use of abortifacients and contraceptives, on the question of being single issue or multi-issue, on being “nice” or being direct, and on the question of sanctions against women who abort. Even if these differences could be resolved, a single organization would be one big conspicuous target especially vulnerable to attack.
From its beginning, leading elements of the so-called “pro-choice” movement have vocally supported imposing abortion and contraception, especially on the non-white and poor populations.
One of the misperceptions deliberately spread by promoters of the Culture of Death is that pro-life activists are hypocrites who don’t care about the welfare of babies after they are born. This charge does not hardly fit the facts, which show that socially conservative Americans give an order of magnitude more to charities of all stripes than liberals.
Moral Aspects of Abortion
Many women who abort actually believe that they are doing their babies a favor. They may have an abusive boyfriend or husband, or perhaps they are very poor. In such situations, it is comforting to think that the child has “gone on to a better place.” But does this reasoning make abortion justifiable?
Almost everyone knows that the Catholic Church opposes abortion. However, few are aware of the long and rich history of the Church’s reverence and respect for human life, and fewer still can explain exactly why the Church cannot change her teachings on abortion.
Claiming that priests have no right to speak about abortion because they are male celibates has nothing to do with the truth of the pro-life argument. This is merely an attempt of the pro-abortion side to keep the Church out of the abortion debate.
Probabilism is the idea that if a definitive judgment has not yet been rendered by the Magisterium on a moral or doctrinal question, then there is freedom to decide what to believe and what course of action to take after carefully examining the evidence. Does this apply to abortion decisions?
The Catholic Church bans abortion in all cases. However, the mothers life may be saved by surgery that does not directly attack the preborn baby’s life, even if the child may die as an indirect result of the procedure. This is called the principle of the Double Effect.
Abortion and the “Hard Cases”
Most people believe access to abortion should be limited. But how limited? Is abortion permissible to save the life of the mother, or after rape or incest, or in cases of severe fetal deformities?
Abortion for incest wreaks more violence upon the victim, rarely leads to genuine healing, and may lead others to believe that the “problem” caused by the crime has been solved. Moreover, a child conceived by incest is himself innocent and created in the image of God. Abortion for hard cases such as incest is always used by pro-abortionists as a wedge to obtain abortion on demand.
Pro-lifers must never condone a single abortion, and must never apologize for fighting exception for rape abortions. If we allow that preborn lives are disposable for any reason, we set the life of the preborn below that of other human beings, which is the reasoning that started society on the road to abortion on demand in the first place.
Genetic testing is leading to more and more eugenic abortions for smaller and less important disabilities, such as deafness or cleft palate. Catholics believe that a disability—even a serious one—does not make a person any less human, and this means that abortion for birth defects can never be justified.
Abortion and Women’s Health
In their efforts to legitimize a procedure that most people find unpalatable at best, pro-abortionists often claim that abortion is safer for the mother than childbirth. However, this claim can be shown to be based on fundamentally flawed studies that would otherwise show abortion and childbirth to be equally dangerous. Even still, the chances of dying from either abortion or childbirth are so small that no informed woman would make a decision for or against abortion based on them.
The claim that many thousands of women died of illegal, unsanitary abortions each year before the procedure was legalized is a fiction, and the people who made it up have since admitted that.
Abortionists now see an unwanted pregnancy as medically, legally, and ethically equivalent to a “grave and permanent threat to the health of the mother.” They assert that an unwanted pregnancy is, by definition, a threat to the woman’s health. The “mother’s health” exception has been the primary wedge to spread abortion on demand all over the developing world.
As with the “physical health” exception, it does no good whatsoever for pro-life legislators to attempt to strictly define a “mental health” exception in the law, because abortionists will simply manipulate it to cover all abortions.
Pro-abortion advocates can easily justify all abortions under the “life of the mother” exception by falsely claiming that abortion is safer than childbirth. Once this exception gets people accustomed to the concept of abortion, it becomes rapidly expanded to include the physical and mental health of the mother, whence the law in effect permits abortion on demand.
The simple answer to this question is zero. Killing the baby is never necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Should the mother or child be sick, they should be treated, and every effort should be made to save both people, mother and child.
Abortion Throughout the World
Ninety-four percent of the total population of Europe live in nations with abortion on demand through at least 12 weeks of pregnancy, and about 4.1 million abortions are performed annually. Every one of Europe’s 48 nations is currently under replacement fertility levels. The pro-life effort in Europe is a project that requires thinking in terms of generations, not years.
Africa is the number one target of population control efforts in the world for two primary reasons. One is that Africa’s largess of natural resources are needed by the developed nations, who reason that if African nations remain small they will consume less of their own resources. The other reason for controlling the population growth of Africa is that the continent has by far the highest fertility rate in the world at about 4 children per woman.
Major pro-abortion groups work tirelessly to bypass the wills of both the people of the Caribbean and their leadership in their drive to legalize abortion by any means. The Culture of Death has been imposed on the island nations by holding aid and development hostage, and the Caribbean people have learned by bitter experience that the developed nations never do them a favor unless there are thick strings attached.
South America has a strong Catholic heritage and is relatively friendly toward perborn children. Because abortion is anathema in the eyes of most South Americans, pro-abortion and population control groups, largely funded by American foundations, barrage their society with propaganda and pornographic sex education. Much of this work is carried out by subversive groups that claim to be Catholic.
Over 60 million abortions have been performed in the United States since 1967. The greatest loss we have suffered because of legalized abortion is millions of talented people. The Social Security system, the racial distribution of the population, and the number of priests are all adversely effected by legalized abortion.