I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.
—Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood—
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [persons] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
—United States Declaration of Independence—
Key points: In this last article in our series on exposing the extremism of pro-abortion activists, we consider several aspects of the national debate over abortion we’ve not yet discussed and elaborate on a several we already have talked about. All of them highlight the need to expose pro-abortion activists for the radicals they are. This is especially true in states where abortion referendums will be on the ballot in November, because advocates of “a woman’s right to choose” will paint opponents of abortion rights as right-wing fanatics.
You can access all of the articles in this series on this page.
In this series of articles, we’ve been seeking to expose the real extremists in the abortion debate. Our goal has been to inform and equip people with the truth, especially in states where abortion referendums will be considered this November. Misinformation and lies will abound, so it’s important to be able to recognize the manipulative tactics that are certain to be used by abortion advocates. They claim to be “pro-choice.” They accuse advocates of the preborn of bringing the government into people’s bedrooms and shoving their morality down the country’s throat. They couldn’t be more wrong.
First, the government has a legitimate role in protecting the unalienable rights of its citizens, including the preborn, who are emphatically not “a part of a woman’s body” in the way her arm, hand, and the big toe on her left foot are. Governments have a responsibility to limit and even prohibit certain choices people otherwise would make. Randy Alcorn explains,
When I present the profile position on school campuses, I often begin by saying, “I’ve been introduced as being pro-life, but I want to make it clear that I’m really prochoice. I believe that a person has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body. It’s none of our business what choice she makes, and we have no right to impose our morals on others. Whether I like someone’s choices or not is irrelevant. She should have the freedom to make her own choices.”
I’m normally greeted by surprised looks and audible affirmation, including smiles, nods, and even applause. I have used the sacred buzzwords of the prochoice movement — rights, freedom, and choice. I have sounded tolerant, open-minded, and fair. Then I say this:
“Yes, I’m prochoice. That’s why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it’s his body, and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He’s free to choose, and it’s none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he would have the freedom to make his own choices.”
After I let the shock settle in a bit, I explain that I am not really prochoice when it comes to rape. I ask them to point out the fallacy of the “it’s his body and he can choose what he wants” argument. They realize that in emphasizing the man’s right to choose, I have completely ignored the rights of the innocent woman. My hope is that they also realize it is not always a virtue to be prochoice.
All laws impose a moral viewpoint and restrict the individual’s behavior. This is true of laws against drunk driving and child abuse. Laws against false advertising restrict a businessman’s right to free speech. Laws against discrimination infringe on the freedom of choice of those who would treat minorities unfairly. When others’ rights are at stake — and particularly when their very lives are at stake — any decent society must restrict the individual’s freedom of choice. Is an innocent person being damaged by a woman’s choice to have an abortion? If not, no problem. If so, it is a major problem that society cannot afford to ignore. Any law that prohibits the fatal victimization of another person is by nature a just law.1
When others’ rights are at stake — and particularly when their very lives are at stake — any decent society must restrict the individual’s freedom of choice.
—Randy Alcorn—
Well, is the preborn baby a distinct person, and if distinct, also an innocent person, in his or her own right? We’ve noted in a previous Word Foundations post that, yes, the baby is indeed distinct, and indeed, a person in the truest sense of the word. As a distinct person and as a preborn baby, he or she also is, undeniably, innocent.
Pro-life advocates note that there are just four characteristics that distinguish an unborn baby, or a fetus, from other human beings: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (SLED).
-
-
- Size: Unborn babies are the smallest among us, but does their size determine their worth? It shouldn’t! We don’t deem those who are physically smaller or shorter as less worthy of life than those of us who are larger or taller. Neither should we say an unborn child is less worthy of life because he or she is smaller.
- Level of development: One’s level of development shouldn’t make him or her less worthy of life, either. A newborn isn’t a child; a child isn’t a teenager; and a teenager isn’t an adult. All have a right to life. An unborn baby ought to have a right to life as well; we never use level of development as a reason to kill a person who’s already been born.
- Environment: Moreover, one’s environment does not make him or her less of a human being. Sometimes you’re outside, sometimes you’re inside—but you’re just as much of a person in both locations. It’s the same with an unborn baby before he or she exits the womb.
- Degree of dependency: Finally, we see a difference in degree of dependency. Yes, a fetus depends heavily on its mother for life, but a newborn baby also is heavily dependent on responsible adults to meet his or her needs. This is true for children as well. It’s true even for some adults, depending on their circumstances and physical health. Are those who are more dependent less deserving of life? Of course not!
-
Who Is Forcing Their Morality on Whom?
Yes, as Randy Alcorn notes, to protect individuals’ rights, there are legitimate legal restraints on the choices citizens make — but militant abortion activists want to take away the choices of those who oppose abortion and force them to support it. As we noted in Part 1, the pro-choice mantra that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” is out the window. it
“not only must be legal, but…it must be celebrated, commonplace, and taxpayer-funded as well. No longer is it permitted [in leftist and Democrat circles] for politicians to just call for abortion’s legality; they must be proudly, vociferously, shouting about it from the rooftops at all times.”
The extremism of abortion activists must be exposed.
Again, the theme of this series rises to the surface: The extremism of abortion activists must be exposed. It isn’t those who advocate placing reasonable restrictions on abortion2 who are the radicals, but the abortion activists. They want the procedure to be available anywhere and everywhere so women can end the lives of their preborn children for any reason or no reason, during all nine months of pregnancy. Moreover, as we also have noted, they want it available to women at taxpayer expense (also go here). There’s more! They increasingly are advocating legal infanticide (also go here). This is no middle-of-the-road position!
Propaganda and the Manipulative Power of the Prevailing Narrative: Roe vs. Wade Is Sacred
One statesman who has been particularly effective at exposing the extremism of pro-abortion activists is Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana. Abortion supporters are pushing a narrative that upholds Roe vs. Wade as something sacred, and that says that its demise is an assault on women. Yet even Roe allowed states to place restrictions on abortion during the third trimester. This notwithstanding, speaking out in favor of Roe has become tantamount to giving women the “right” to dispose of their children at will. As we have said, abortion activists want abortion anytime, anywhere, without restrictions; and they are misrepresenting Roe to promote their cherished agenda. Don’t be fooled by noble-sounding rhetoric, especially if you live in a state where a referendum on abortion will be voted on in November.
Don’t be fooled by noble-sounding rhetoric, especially if you live in a state where a referendum on abortion will be voted on in November. Supporting Roe has come to mean in practical terms supporting abortion anytime, anywhere, without restrictions.
Apparently every leftist has gotten the memo on this. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra certainly did. Read between the lines as you listen to his responses to Senator Kennedy’s questions.
Why doesn’t Secretary Becerra give a straight answer? He’s hiding under the myth — and the manipulative lie — that the demise of Roe is an attack on women. He apparently knows that a straight, honest answer would make it obvious that abortion isn’t really about women’s rights, but about the taking of innocent lives. Can we blame anyone for concluding that Secretary Becerra would approve of a third-trimester abortion, even up to the moment of birth? It’s a lot more acceptable to say one supports Roe vs. Wade than to confess he or she believes it’s OK to kill a child in the womb, even right before the baby is scheduled to be born!
Can we blame anyone for concluding that Secretary Becerra would approve of a third-trimester abortion, even up to the moment of birth? It’s a lot more acceptable to say one supports Roe vs. Wade than to confess he or she believes it’s OK to kill a child in the womb, even right before the baby is scheduled to be born!
Consider also this series of questions from Senator Kennedy, and the answers he receives from various witnesses, named here. Folks, we can be grateful to Senator Kennedy for exposing the extremism of the pro-abortion activists. Against the backdrop of the testimony given, who holds an extremist position — the one supporting abortion “rights” or the one seeking to protect the preborn baby?
In the series of testimonies given, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D) cut Kennedy off when he was explaining the final step in a particular type of abortion called “dilation and evacuation” — crushing the baby’s skull and pulling the head out. Senator Whitehouse interrupted, and do we need to receive an explanation as to why? Here’s how it went down.
“Senator Kennedy, your time has expired here,” Whitehouse said. Kennedy argued that others were given more time than him, but Whitehouse wasn’t hearing it. “I’m sorry you don’t want to hear about what happens in an actual abortion, but [I thought] that was what we were here to talk about,” Kennedy argued.
Can you imagine how uncomfortable Senator Whitehouse was over how much of the truth did get out? Don’t be fooled by misleading terms like “reproductive rights” or the claim that “I support Roe vs. Wade.” These and other terms, phrases, and statements are code language for “abortion should be legal and totally unregulated.”
Mothers’ and Fathers’ Regret Over Abortion Further Validate the Fact that Abortion Isn’t Just About a Woman’s Body
Another point to consider is that abortion advocates — especially militant ones — are totally insensitive to the pain and regret of mothers and fathers who’ve lost their children to abortion. Instead, it’s the advocates for the unborn who are sensitive to and responsive to the pain and regret parents feel. Consider this article, which highlights the regret the many post-abortive women feel and exposes a study often used to downplay such emotions. Also consider the following video, where a dad speaks out.
The baby is a person, as we have affirmed, but she is a person without a voice to articulate her desires. If the baby had a voice she could use to assert her rights, what do you think she would say?
As we have seen, this issue profoundly affects fathers as well as mothers. Only extremists of the worst kind would ignore these realities and claim that “a woman has a right to abortion because she can do whatever she wishes with here own body.” Some say men ought to remain silent on abortion because they can’t get pregnant. How foolish — and extreme!
In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
We noted earlier that a preborn child is human but differs from other human beings in terms of his or her
-
-
- size,
- level of development,
- environment, and
- degree of dependency.
-
All of these things are true even of the youngest of preborns — those who have just been conceived and would typically be described as embryos.
This consideration compels us to evaluate carefully in-vitro fertilization (IVF), a process by which eggs are extracted from the mother, artificially inseminated, and then released again into the mother to hopefully achieve pregnancy. This procedure is widely misunderstood. Many believe it is all about creating life; they haven’t heard that there are serious ethical questions involved with the process. In the following video, Lila Rose of Live Action and her guest, Dr. Lauren Tubal, talk about a significant number of the problems and potential problems with IVF.
I bring this matter up because, as I’ll soon explain, pro-choice radicals want to use IVF and its “pro-life” reputation to advance their cherished, evil cause. If you think I’m overstating or misrepresenting the case, think again.
Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana during their annual meeting on June11-12 of 2024, Southern Baptists passed a resolution affirming “the dignity of the human embryo” and raising ethical concerns about IVF as it is commonly practiced. The resolution upholds the biblical principle that all life is sacred from conception to natural death because God makes people in His image. In a BreakPoint Commentary that aired June 19, 2024, John Stonestreet, President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, observed,
Media outlets quickly reported that the move indicated how abortion opponents were intruding into even more areas of women’s reproductive health. In reality, the resolution better aligns Southern Baptists with a core theological conviction, namely that “the dignity and value of every human being … necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.”
When Southern Baptists passed their resolution addressing the ethics of IVF, “Media outlets quickly reported that the move indicated how abortion opponents were intruding into even more areas of women’s reproductive health.”
—John Stonestreet—
An earlier “BreakPoint Commentary on the ethics of IVF was released on March 15, 2022 and titled ‘We Need to Talk About Assisted Reproduction: It’s not easy or comfortable to talk about the ethics of assisted reproduction. But too much is at stake not to.’ ” In this commentary, John Stonestreet expresses compassion for those experiencing infertility but lovingly upholds biblical ethical standards important to all sincere believers.
You may remember that in part 4 we discussed the relationship between abortion and eugenics, an ideology the fueled Adolf Hitler’s quest for world domination. Abortion and eugenics are inseparable. Hear again the words of Shawn Carney, President and CEO of 40 Days for Life as he talked about this hard and fast connection.
Again, we must realize that IVF is widely misunderstood. Many who consider themselves pro-life support it wholeheartedly. In fact, an article dated June 14, 2024 states, “Every Senate Republican Signs Letter Supporting IVF.” We have a lot of educating to do!
Others in the pro-life camp are calling for IVF to be regulated, and some are calling for an outright ban, whether explicitly or implicitly. I reiterate: We who believe in the sacredness of life from conception to natural death must realize the ways IVF, especially as it is typically practiced, threatens and even takes human life arbitrarily or for selfish reasons.
Here’s the bottom line on the matter of IVF for this post: Those who wish to regulate or ban IVF are emphatically not extremists! While there’re are a lot of Republicans who need to be educated on this issue (and others who should know better already), we still must not overlook the way the left is using IVF to promote their cherished cause — unregulated abortion on demand. Eying the largely unregulated IVF industry and its “pro-life” reputation of helping couples have children when they otherwise might not be able to, militant pro-abortion activists want to argue in favor of IVF to paint advocates of the preborn as extremists and to further their goal of unregulated abortion on demand.
Eying the largely unregulated IVF industry and its “pro-life” reputation of helping couples have children when they otherwise might not be able to, militant pro-abortion activists want to argue in favor of IVF to paint advocates of the preborn as extremists and to further their goal of unregulated abortion on demand.
Their extremism on this important aspect of the abortion debate also must be exposed and refuted, even as we seek to educate uninformed and under-informed pro-life individuals on this issue.
Don’t for a New York minute allow yourself to be duped by leftists who are accusing conservatives of being extremists for wanting to regulate IVF so unborn children are protected from experimentation and harm. The leftists are the extremists. First, they don’t give a rat’s rear end about infertile couples. In fact, given their belief the world already has too many people in it, most of them probably hope infertile couples remain that way. Second, if they really wanted couples longing to become parents to be able to become parents, they wouldn’t be promoting abortion during all nine months of pregnancy for any reason or no reason. They instead would be recommending adoption to those with unwanted pregnancies and to couples desperately wanting children.
What About the Life or Health of the Mother?
There is yet one more item we need to consider. Some abortion regulations — and proposals — are worded so as to allow for abortion to protect or save “the life or health of the mother.” As this article, which includes an informative video, points out,
“saving a mother’s life” is very different than justifying abortion for the “mother’s health.” Justifying “mother’s health” as a rationale for abortion is vague and leaves room for abuse…The Supreme Court ruling in Doe v. Bolton [which, by the way, has not been overturned] defined maternal health so broadly that abortions are permitted in the U.S. for virtually any reason. The mother’s “health” can then be defined as her physical, emotional health, financial health, etc.
Is abortion ever necessary to save the mother’s life? OBGYN Dr. Anthony Levatino explains in the article’s embedded video that the answer is no. We’re talking, here, about late-term abortions. Women whose lives are in danger in such situations are saved when the doctor delivers the baby! In fact, when the mother’s life is threatened, the preparation necessary to perform a late-term abortion would take so much time it would put the mother’s life at even greater risk.
These facts, like so many others we’ve cited, demonstrate the manipulative tactics of militant pro-abortion extremists. Don’t fall for them!
The Truth Will Set People Free
Well, we’ve covered a great many aspects of the abortion debate in this series in this, the post-Roe era in which we live. Hopefully the series has equipped you with information that has informed you, and that can help you explain to others, about why the militant “pro-choice” position is so radical and extreme. People living in states deciding on abortion policies this November are going to be bombarded relentlessly with claims that advocates for the unborn are extreme. They’re not. They’re thoughtful, reasonable, and rational.
Don’t fall for all the talk about rights, freedom, and choice. It isn’t about these things. Moreover, warn others not to fall for it.
Jesus said the truth sets people free. As Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25 declare, “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.”
You can access all of the articles in this series on this page.
Copyright © 2024 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture passages in this article have been taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
Notes:
1Randy Alcorn, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments: Expanded and Updated (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2000), 110-111.
2The phrase “reasonable restrictions on abortion” should not be understood to imply that abortion is reasonable in any context. The point here is the reasonableness of legal limits on abortion vs. abortion that is totally and completely unregulated.
Be First to Comment