BASIC QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 

Is an unborn child a person?

Defining 'personhood' is an attempt to quantify a METAPHYSICAL concept, not a scientific one. Anyone - even a civil judge - who defines 'personhood' is merely expressing their own personal moral, philosophical, or religious point of view. Any such definitions of personhood are subjective, arbitrary, and scientifically UNPROVABLE. Thus, defining 'personhood' requires a co-mingling of religion and state rather than the separation of religion and state. Since pro-choice groups prefer the 'separation of religion and state', any definition of 'personhood' should be considered inappropriate for use in defining civil law if we are to honor this pro-choice preference and remain truly consistent with the 'separation of religion and state'.

 

Apart from humans who are unborn, and ONLY those unborn, all other legal questions regarding the charge of murder pertain to whether human beings are involved; the question of personhood is irrelevant in that “human beings” and “persons” are never considered separable.  If you are human, you are a person.  Past cases of murder all asked the question "Was a human being intentionally killed?"; not "Was the human being killed also a person?" So why are courts now tasked with answering the question "In abortion, is the human being killed also a person?"

 

Answer: Pro-choice advocates know the field of science has spoken on this matter - that the unborn child is, in fact, a human being - from conception. So rather than admit abortion is the murdering of a human being – a contradiction to their claim to advocate for civil rights - they have decided to 'move the goalpost' away from the definition of 'human being' and toward the ambiguous definition of 'personhood' in order to bring confusion to the legal system, gain the legal advantage, and continue the lucrative business of killing unborn human beings in the meantime.

 

To their murderous glee, our society has been duped into making this false distinction between humans and personhood. This is nothing more than a disingenuous and unethical legal tactic by pro-choice advocates and has nothing to do with the civil rights of human beings whatsoever. Although pro-choice groups want to place an artificial change in legal status of the unborn child due to their location inside the womb (vs. outside the womb), there is no such precedent for this anywhere else in society.

 

Does an unborn child have a soul, and if so, when?

Defining 'soul' or the timing of the 'infusion of a soul' into the body at a particular point in the unborn child's development is also an attempt to quantify a METAPHYSICAL or RELIGIOUS concept. Any viewpoint which includes the incorporeal 'soul' is arbitrary and incapable of scientific proof and, hence, inappropriate for use in defining civil law. Any pro-choice group promoting the 'separation of religion and state' as a part of their pro-choice argument should themselves honor the 'separation of religion and state' by avoiding the claim "the unborn have no soul" which is a RELIGIOUS statement, not a scientific one. For any pro-choice group to use such a religious claim - when it suits them - is to employ a double standard for the sake of their own convenience.

 

Why do pro-choice groups consistently label an unborn child as 'less' than a human being?

Dehumanizing the victim is a common coping mechanism and justification used among perpetrators of injustice. Human history abounds with such examples. Hutu perpetrators involved in the Rwanda genocide called their Tutsi victims "cockroaches". The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a black slave, Dred Scott, to be nothing more than the "private property" of his master. When the Nazis labeled their Jewish victims as Untermenschen, or subhuman, they meant it - literally.

 

David Livingstone Smith, director of the Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology at the University of New England, and author of “Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others”, described the Nazis' labeling of Jews as follows: "They didn't mean they were like sub humans. They meant they were literally subhuman."

 

Smith argues for the need to define and describe dehumanization, because that is precisely what opens the door for cruelty and genocide. He continues, "We all know, despite what we see in the movies, that it's very difficult, psychologically, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities on them." So, it’s important to understand how some human beings are able to, "...overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin...."

 

Another recent example of this was an article on Britain's child-sex rings which reported how the perpetrators viewed the young girls as "lesser beings" and "something less valuable" (“Britain's child-sex rings”, Orange County Register, May 20, 2012)

 

The pro-choice community is in denial regarding: the humanity of the unborn; the life of the unborn; and death by abortion. Pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf addressed this and stated: "Clinging to rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life." (Naomi Wolf, "Our Bodies, Our Souls," The New Republic, October 16, 1995, 26-35).

 

Jewish Rabbi Yehuda Levin put it this way: "Each form of genocide, whether Holocaust, lynching, abortion, etc., differs from all the others in the motives and methods of its perpetrators. But each form of genocide is identical to all the others in that it involves the systematic slaughter, as state sanctioned "choice," of innocent, defenseless victims -- while denying their 'personhood.'"

 

Why should a tiny unborn child be given the same right to life as a grown adult?

Body size is irrelevant regarding the right to life in any other situation. A newborn is smaller than a toddler but the newborn has the same right to life. A toddler is smaller than an adult, but the toddler is given an equal right to life. The unborn are smaller than a newborn, but that doesn't mean they have any less right to life.

 

Why should an unborn child be given the same right to life as a grown adult?

Level of development is irrelevant regarding the right to life in any other situation. The unborn are less developed than newborns, but newborns are less developed than children, and children are less developed than adults. Children do not possess fully developed reproductive systems, yet we would not attempt to make the case that they are not fully worthy to live because of it. We certainly would not make the case that we should be able to kill children because they are less developed, nor should we make such a case regarding the unborn.

 

"There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It's all the same human being in different stages of development. I finally got to the point I couldn't look at those little bodies anymore."  (Dr. Arnold Halpern, former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic)

 

Why should an unborn child inside the womb be given the same right to life as a child outside of the womb?

Location is irrelevant regarding the right to life in any other situation. Why does being inside or outside the womb make a morally relevant difference? Does anyone gain or lose their right to life by walking from the parking lot into their workplace? Or living in their parents' house or living outside?

 

And similarly, traveling down the birth canal is morally irrelevant and makes no difference regarding the child's right to life. Explaining this truth, pro-choice advocate Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (a pro-choice organization) said, "There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person."

 

This is precisely why we should not kill our children either before or after they travel down the birth canal. Although pro-choice groups may want to place an artificial change in legal status of the unborn child due to a change in location (inside vs. outside the womb), there is no such precedent for this anywhere else in society. It is convoluted to believe that a premature baby can be delivered and given to the mother, but if that baby was just a few inches away inside the mother, it could be killed.

 

Commenting on the contradiction between killing an unborn child while simultaneously saving a premature child, both of the same age, abortionist John Szenes said:  "You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular....she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby.”

Why should an underdeveloped unborn child who is incapable of surviving outside of the womb ('nonviable') have the same right to life as a more developed ('viable') child capable of surviving outside of the womb?

Degree of dependency on the mother is irrelevant regarding the right to life in any other situation. Should a nonviable premature infant already-born be intentionally killed?

Whatever rationale used for an unborn child ought to apply to those already born and vice versa. There is no morally relevant difference between those inside and outside the womb. Passing through a woman's birth canal makes no morally-relevant difference. There are fully grown adults who depend on caregivers, life support equipment, or medications to survive. It would be unthinkable to advocate killing those who are dependent upon another person or machine to survive, and the same courtesy should be extended to the unborn. Such inconsistencies in our laws must be corrected to protect and uphold civil rights for all.

 

It is important to think of human life from conception until death as a continuum. The unborn rely on their mother and have a level of dependency appropriate for that stage in life. Certainly, many pro-choice advocates depend on people, medications, and medical equipment to survive - at levels of dependency appropriate for their stage of life. Are they blind to the double standard by which they view and treat the unborn?

 

Viability is also dependent on the medical equipment available to assist the child. This varies from country to country and from one hospital to another. Should a preborn child be considered viable in one hospital and nonviable in another?

 

Unborn animals on the endangered list have greater protection under the law than unborn human beings.  Therefore, why should we take the opposing view; that unborn human beings have greater intrinsic value than unborn animals?

For the same reason adult human beings have more intrinsic value than animals of any age - and on the endangered list or not. Although our laws place a high legal value on unborn animals on the endangered species list by legally protecting them from being killed - a very basic courtesy not afforded to human beings at this time - civilizations throughout history have consistently placed a higher value on human life, regardless of age. If we believe an unborn child is inherently less valuable than an unborn animal on the endangered species list, we should also consider our own lives, as adults, to be less valuable than that of an adult eagle, dolphin, or whale on the endangered list.

 

"It's not a frog or a ferret that's being killed. It's a baby… I am fully aware of that. I am fully aware of that."  (Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton on the Phil Donahue Show, Donahue Transcript # 3288, 1991)

 

What if the mother would suffer emotionally, physically, financially, etc. by carrying the baby to term?

Such burdens do not warrant killing a child outside the womb, nor do they warrant killing a child inside the womb. Teenagers are especially known for causing emotional and financial burdens on their parents, but this does not justify killing them.

 

But this question completely ignores the emotional, physical, and financial cost and burden we all caused our own parents. This easily violates the ethic of reciprocity known as the Golden Rule: "Do not treat others in ways you would not want to be treated." The answer to the question, "Are we thankful our parents didn't abort us?" would promptly reveal the unjust double-standard which desires less for others than ourselves. Furthermore, no civilized society would suggest killing such a 'burdensome' child after birth because that would be murder - regardless of whether the child is wanted or not.

 

With this in mind, any justifications for making abortions allowable for such cases seem disingenuous in light of the fact that any similar suggestion pertaining to a child already born, even a newborn, would be considered outrageous. Given the huge waiting list of adoptive parents in the U.S. who don't view childrearing as 'burdensome', why isn't adoption a reasonable alternative?

 

"There is usually a heartbeat (when the skull is crushed).”  (Ref: Abortionist Carolyn Westhoff describing a partial birth abortion while testifying in court, “Forum: Abortion Trials and Tribulations”, Washington Times, 4/25/2004)

 

Isn't abortion justified in cases of heinous crimes like rape?

In cases of rape - a heinous crime - a heinous act NEVER produces a heinous child. Any implication by pro-choice groups designating a pregnancy resulting from rape - INCLUDING THE CHILD - as altogether heinous - is overly simplistic and lacking any differentiation between a heinous act and the child. It is a broad generalization and shows insensitivity toward the rape victim at best and is extremely prejudicial toward the unborn child at worst.

 

We must rephrase the question: Is it justified to kill a child conceived in rape who is already born? Of course not. Whatever rationale used for an unborn child ought to apply to those already born and vice versa. There is no morally relevant difference between those born and unborn.

 

A child should never be punished for the crime of their biological father. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the rapist who should be punished. Why should the revolting crime of rape against a woman be answered by taking the child's life?

 

Furthermore, no civilized society would suggest killing such a child after birth, because that would be murder - regardless of whether they were conceived by rape or not. With this in mind, any suggestion of making abortions allowable for cases of rape seem disingenuous in light of the fact that any similar suggestion pertaining to a child already born, even a newborn, would be outrageous.

 

Pro-choice advocates might falsely suggest the abortion would make the rape victim 'feel better'. But even if she felt 'better' after the abortion, is that a good reason to take the life of an innocent human being?

Our society doesn't even allow the mother to kill the rapist - the one who did the crime - to make herself ‘feel better'. Or should we allow that too? Why aren't pro-choice groups advocating the 'right' for victims of rape to kill their rapist? If we allow an abortion under those circumstances - that is, to make us 'feel better' - we are sending a terrible message, that when someone reminds us of something extremely painful, we can eliminate them. But we can't kill another human being just because their existence makes our life physically or emotionally burdensome.

 

Honor-killing of a raped woman vs. killing an unborn child conceived by rape:

In many paternalistic Muslim and Hindu cultures, a woman who is raped is perceived as "unclean" and "guilty of bringing shame" to the family for not having prevented the rape. She may be murdered by a male member of the family - an "honor killing" - to preserve the family's honor, to rid the family of the "uncleanliness" of the rape, and to reclaim the family's dignity. In doing so, they punish the innocent victim of the crime.

 

In our country we do the same thing. When a woman is a victim of rape and becomes pregnant, she is encouraged to kill her unborn child conceived by rape to prevent further dishonor and to reclaim her dignity. This is also an honor-killing. We are attempting to rid ourselves of the "embarrassment" and "uncleanliness" of the rape by killing an innocent human being - the unborn child. Where is the honor? Where is the justice? Honor killings actually INCREASE the trauma, injustice, and suffering to victims of an unjust and horrendous crime like rape.

 

All too commonly, we are critical of other cultures while being blind to our own shortcomings and… our own form of honor-killings.

 

“The level of moral hypocrisy that we have required ourselves to live with in order to make abortion legal is much more evident to me now, as it must be to anyone who is genuinely willing to look at it.”  (Cynthia Gorney, Oakland pro-choice journalist and author of Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars, in a July 17, 1998 interview with the East Bay Express)

 

Does abortion in cases of rape help the rape victim or add to the trauma?

Many assume an abortion will help a rape victim put the assault behind her and get on with her life. But studies shows an abortion does not 'turn the clock back' and make a rape victim 'un-pregnant'. Instead, abortion - like the rape - is a real life event which is very traumatic. Evidence suggests an abortion doesn’t bring healing to the rape victim and only causes further injury to an already bruised psyche.

 

In a survey of women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, many women who underwent abortions stated they felt pressured and/or coerced by family members or health care workers to have abortions. The abortion came about not because of the woman’s desire to abort but as a response to the demands of others. In many cases, health workers, counselors and others - who are normally there to help women after sexual assault - pushed for abortion.

 

The threat of having support withheld by the family/boyfriend, including the resources needed by the rape victim to continue the pregnancy, in addition to manipulative and inadequate counseling, all played a role in pushing women into abortions, although abortion was most often not what the woman really wanted. As the personal testimonies of many post-rape women confirm, both the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence through abortion.

 

In the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the false presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.

 

Several reasons were given for not aborting: Many rape victims stated not believing in abortion as it would be a further act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Also, many believe that their children’s lives may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Many also believe if she can carry the baby to term, she will have conquered the rape and reclaimed some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength, and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture (see http://afterabortion.org, David Reardon, 'Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths').

 

What about real-life cases of pregnancy by rape in which the victim had an abortion? What happened in those cases?

Abortion does not solve rape. It simply transforms the victim into a victimizer. Testimonials of rape victims can be found on http://afterabortion.org:

 

Jackie B. had an abortion after a rape and said: "I soon discovered that the aftermath of the abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the emptiness and pain I would feel deep within, causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I would continue on with my life as if nothing had happened. ... I found that though I could forgive the man who raped me, I couldn't forgive myself for having the abortion."

 

Debbie "N." wrote: "I still feel that I probably couldn't have loved that child conceived of rape, but there are so many people who would have loved that baby dearly. The man who raped me took a few moments of my life, but I took that innocent baby's entire life."

As another young victim of rape said, "The solution to rape is not abortion. The solution to rape is stopping rape."

 

What about real-life cases of pregnancy by rape in which the victim carried the pregnancy to term? What happened in those cases?

Instead of adding even more trauma with an abortion - which is a senseless and callous approach for the victim of rape, why not opt for adoption?

 

Pam Stenzel's mother is an example. In 1964, her biological mother - a fifteen-year-old girl - was raped, became pregnant, and decided to carry her unborn child to term. Five months after the baby girl was born - in an act of courage and love - the young mother provided her child a better environment by giving her to an adoptive family (see http://pamstenzel.com). Rebecca

 

Wasser-Kiessling, who was also conceived in a rape, is rightfully proud of her mother’s courage and generosity and reminds us of a fundamental truth that transcends biological paternity: “I believe that God rewarded my birth mother for the suffering she endured, and that I am a gift to her. The serial rapist is not my creator; God is.” (See http://www.lifenews.com/2010/04/05/nat-6223/#sthash.XAJFumDe.dpuf).

 

Similarly, Julie Makimaa, also conceived in a rape, now works against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault. She said, “It doesn’t matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.” (See http://haileysthreelittleangels.blogspot.com/2006/08/julie-makimaa-is-woman-pictured-to.html).

 

James Robison, Founder of Water for Life, a non-profit organization which has saved countless lives in Third World nations by supplying fresh, clean water wells, was not only conceived in a rape but also saved from an abortion. (See http://abortionandadoption.blogspot.com/).

 

How can we deny an abortion to a teenage girl who is the victim of incest?
This question blindly assumes the circumstances of the pregnancy - incest in this case - justifies killing the child. However, since incest does not justify killing a child already born, why should it justify killing an unborn child? Whatever rationale used for an unborn child ought to apply to those already born and vice versa. There is no morally relevant difference between those outside the womb and those inside the womb. Passing through the birth canal of a woman makes no morally relevant difference.

 

This question also blindly presumes the incest victim actually wants an abortion, and the reason for wanting one - also blindly presumed - is because the abortion will help them to put the assault behind them and avoid the additional trauma of carrying and giving birth to a 'rapist’s child'. But studies show the welfare of a mother and her unborn child are never at odds, even in sexual assault incest cases.

 

Studies show most incest victims rarely voluntarily agreed to abortion. It is almost always the perpetrator/abuser or the parents who made the decision for the abortion, not the incest victim. In some cases, the abortion was carried out over the objections of the girl, who clearly told others she wanted to continue the pregnancy.

 

In other cases, the young victim was not even clearly aware that she was pregnant or that the abortion was being carried out. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see her pregnancy as a sign of hope in bearing a child with whom she can establish a truly loving relationship - far different from the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

 

But while the girl may see her pregnancy as a possible way of release from her abusive situation, it poses a threat to her abuser. It poses a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge the abuse. Because of this dual threat, the victim is often coerced or forced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.

 

Testimonials of incest victims can be found on http://afterabortion.org:

 

Edith, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child: "Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss . . . The abortion which was to “be in my best interest” just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only ‘saved their reputations,’ ‘solved their problems,’ and ‘allowed their lives to go merrily on.’ . . . My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."
 

Abortion clinics routinely ignore evidence pointing to incest and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest. Not only are these clinics robbing the victim of her child (through abortion of her child), they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so the exploitation can continue.

 

For example, the parents of three teenaged Baltimore girls pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape and child sexual abuse. The father had repeatedly raped the three girls over a period of at least nine years, and the rapes were covered up by at least ten abortions. At least five of the abortions were performed by the same abortionist at the same clinic ("Family Horror Comes to Light in Story of Girls Raped by Father," Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1990).

 

In 2002 a judge found a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona negligent for failing to report a case in which a 13-year-old girl was impregnated and taken for an abortion by her 23-year-old foster brother. The abortion business did not notify authorities until the girl returned six months later for a second abortion (see http://afterabortion.org, David Reardon, 'Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths').

 

Abortionist Benjamin Graber excused himself for overlooking red flags in a case of abuse:  "It was not an obvious case of child abuse, she came in with her mother. It was legal. It was out front."  Two years after he failed to report the 10-year-old child's pregnancy to authorities for possible child abuse and after performing an abortion on her, the little girl's father was arrested for sexually abusing two of his daughters.  (Ref: DeathRoe.com, “Abortion Clinic Horrors”)

 

Why should a pregnant woman consider adoption rather than abortion?

Would you rather have the killing of an innocent child on your conscience or saving their life? Adoption is a loving, humane and viable alternative to abortion and saves the life of a human being. With 2 million Americans wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an 'unwanted' child.

 

There is no reason whatsoever to assume the child will not receive the love, care and resources necessary to live a full life through adoptive parents. Why do some pro-choice groups malign adoption as an acceptable alternative? Is it the potential loss of income due to a decline in performing abortions from which they profit? And we must remember, many prominent members of society were adopted as children.

 

Steve Jobs, Founder of Apple Computers, was given up for adoption by his young, single mother who was a graduate student. Without her strength and fortitude in keeping him until birth, we wouldn't have many technologies we enjoy today (See http://abortionandadoption.blogspot.com/).

 

Why should we bring unwanted children into the world? Every child a wanted child!

Is a child better off dead than "unwanted"? And better off for whom? Pro-choice advocates would have us believe they are taking the moral high ground by dismembering and killing an unwanted child, thus saving the child the pain and anguish of living as an "unwanted" child. Let's think about this for a moment. Does this unproven reasoning make any sense?

 

Whether a child is "wanted" or "unwanted" is a matter of personal opinion, but without moral relevance. Also, there is no morally relevant difference between those born and unborn. Therefore, killing an unwanted child in the womb is no more justified than killing an unwanted child outside the womb. Thankfully, at least our current laws protect the life and liberty of us outside the womb, regardless of the superficial opinions of others.

 

Also, every child IS a wanted child. With 2 million Americans wanting to adopt a child, even those with birth defects, there is no such thing as an "unwanted" child. Pro-choice advocates may not want children and abortion clinics profit financially from promoting the "unwanted child" message, but there will ALWAYS be someone who wants to adopt a child. Always.

 

But this "unwanted child" message also says our life as humans is only worth living if someone else "thinks" our life has worth. In other words, our lives can hang in the balance based on someone else's casual opinion. And that opinion can change from day to day. Is this the message we want to pass on to our children and to our future generations – the message that they're only living today, not because they have a natural inherent value as humans, but because we "decided" they were "worth keeping"? How would that make us feel if we were told this by our own parents? And what if our parents have since changed their minds? Then what? Should our self-worth be determined by the opinion of others rather than in our inherent natural self-worth as human beings? Should we kill all those who are counted among the "unwanted" elderly and homeless?

 

“Abortion is not a sign that women are free, but a sign that they are desperate.”  (Frederica Mathews-Green, contemporary writer and National Public Radio commentator)

 

Although I am against abortion myself, I would never take that right away or impose my views on others

This is like saying "I am against lynching African Americans but I would never impose my views on others" or just as hypocritically, " I don't encourage lynchings myself but I would never take that right away from others."

 

Really? Is there any practical difference between those who want the "freedom" to lynch others and those who don't want to take that "freedom" away?

 

Legislating morality on lynching (murder) is not just about what someone thinks, speaks, or does in private, but what someone DOES to another. So it is with abortion. Neither lynching nor abortion are neutral "choices". They infringe upon the very life of another. Allowing others to abort their children is neither neutral nor progressive but is turning a blind eye to a massive injustice.

 

"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants." (Mother Teresa)