AbortionReason.com
                  Bringing Reason to the Atrocity of Abortion!

Home Directories Human Rights Campaign Essays & Blog Facts & Figures Songs Contact Me

Abortion Reason Blog

This is my "blog" about abortion. I am not sure how accurately the word "blog" describes this page, but I will be posting here from time to time some of my observations, experiences, insights, etc. regarding the issue of abortion.

November 30, 2015

Terminating What?

I was listening to the news on public radio (NPR News?) and, in talking about abortion, the announcer said that it was illegal to terminate a pregnancy in Northern Ireland in most circumstances. That is incorrect! It is not, nor can it be, illegal to terminate pregnancies in Northern Ireland or any other country. Indeed, in Northern Ireland, like any other country on earth, 100% of pregnancies are terminated. No pregnancy lasts forever! Every pregnancy is terminated - normally by the process of birth. Sometimes they are terminated by a C-section. Sometimes, unfortunately, by either spontaneous or induced abortion. At any rate, would it be possible to pass a law to prevent termination of pregnancies? Of course not, or, at any rate, such a law would be meaningless. It is simply not possible to prevent termination of pregnancies.

This is not splitting hairs. This is a most important point, because it points out the insidious use of language that biases news and other information concerning abortion. Pro-abortion spokespeople have long championed using this phrase, rather than a more accurate or descriptive one, to refer to abortion. By equating abortion with "terminating a pregnancy" they are begging the question about abortion and effectively telling people, without giving them the chance to think and reason for themselves, that abortion is nothing more than terminating a pregnancy. Nothing wrong with not being pregnant, right?

As I have pointed out previously at this site, abortion is not the termination of a pregnancy. In case you do not wish to follow that link, this is because pregnancies are terminated by means other than abortion -- as mentioned above, by birth or by C-section -- and there are abortions performed which do not terminate pregnancies, known as "selective reduction" abortions, in which one or more fetuses or embryos of a multiple pregnancy are removed (and thereby killed), and one or more left in place to continue developing. Abortion usually terminates a pregnancy, but that is not what abortion is, and it isn't even the main reason an abortion is usually performed.

If one wishes to argue that it is fair to refer to abortion as "terminating a pregnancy" then just ask oneself if it would suit the purposes of the person having the abortion if, instead, the developing human were removed from her body and put in an environment where it was allowed to continue to develop into a fully developed human being (assuming, of course, that we had the technology to do that). The pregnancy would thereby be terminated, but that would clearly not serve her purposes. Why not? Because the purpose, at least the main purpose, of an abortion is not to "terminate a pregnancy", but rather to get rid of that child that is resulting from the pregnancy. It is the child that she is going to have to raise for 18 years that is of concern to her much more than the fact that she is currently in a pregnant condition.

The use of the phrase "terminating a pregnancy", therefore, confuses the issue and prevents understanding. To be accurate, the writer should say "terminating the life of a preborn human being". That is what abortion is. So why will reporters and writers not use this language, insisting on incorrectly calling it "terminating a pregnancy"? If someone thinks this is splitting hairs, then why not simply go ahead and use the more accurate terminology? What harm would be done? What would be the problem?

Because it doesn't suit their agenda.

October 7, 2015

Inherently Religious?

Adam Lee says that "opposition to abortion is inherently a religious position" and makes it sound like any non-believer worth his or her salt will support "choice". My response:

"Opposition to abortion is inherently a religious position"? No. Opposition to killing little human beings is inherently a human rights position.

"Anti-choice ideology is founded on the belief that a single-celled zygote possesses a supernatural appendage called a soul that makes it the moral equal of an adult human"? I don't know about "anti-choice ideology," but this non-theist's viewpoint has nothing to do with any such concept as a "soul" or any other "supernatural appendage". The "entity" inside the womb is ... well, what is it? We know what it is because it comes out. What comes out is what is inside. You don't get Coke out of a Pepsi bottle. Pepsi is inside, so Pepsi is what come out. If you put Mountain Dew inside a Pepsi bottle, then Mountain Dew is what will come out. Are you honestly stupid enough (insult intended) to think that some sudden transformation takes place at the point of birth that suddenly "transforms" a mass of inert cells into a human being?

When will we who profess to believe in "science and reason" actually start to do so, even when it may conflict with what we might wish to believe? If you want to know what is inside a pregnant woman (and the forgoing argument isn't enough) just pick up any textbook on embryology and see for yourself. Accept the science for what it is, and apply your reason, along with compassion, to what you find out.

"Abortion" is the act of aborting. To "abort" is to terminate or end something. In our context an abortion is the termination or ending of the life of that being inside the womb (not the terminating of a pregnancy, in case that is what you thought it was). Terminating the life of a being, in this case a human being, is called "killing". If you approve of abortion than you approve of killing young little human beings, based solely on the fact that they are living in a certain place and in a certain way. If you are going to support such a violent and reprehensible practice, at least have the courage to be honest and say that you do, rather than hiding behind ambiguous and misleading labels such as "choice" or "reproductive rights".

The history of humankind has been one of progression in terms of getting along with each other nonviolently and respecting human rights (you know, those rights that belong to ALL human beings). The day will come when people will look back in horror and disbelief that we intentionally and knowingly ripped to pieces little human beings. Who will they learn opposed such violence and who supported it? Will we who stand for rational investigation and acceptance of scientifically supported beliefs take the lead and stand up against the biggest human rights horror on earth, or will we let those who believe in superstition hold the high ground?

August 29, 2015

Communication

I meant to write about this a week ago when it occurred, but it is good that I waited, for now I have some additional insight. I attended the Protest Planned Parenthood demonstration in my city last Saturday. Arriving at the scene I discovered not only a fairly large group of protesters against Planned Parenthood, but also a group of Planned Parenthood counter-protesters holding a large "Health Care Happens Here" banner and other signs. After being there for a short while I approached the counter-protesters to ask them why they were doing what they were doing. I was unable to get a response, or even acknowledgement that I was there. I spoke to several counter-protesters, asking one question or another, and they would simply stare straight ahead and act like I wasn't even there. In one case I spoke to a young lady who immediately turned to a friend beside her, starting up a conversation, as if I was not there. I have a hard time grasping the rudeness of someone who would treat someone with such disrespect as to essentially act like they are even there! (Actually, one young lady did come up and speak to me as I was trying to talk to one of her cohorts and asked me if I would "respect" their space. Yes, my friend. They are the ones who intentionally ignored me, but I was the one who was not being "respectful"!) I also wondered why they would be out there declaring their message if they did not want to actually talk to anyone about it. They just seemed to want to declare their message, as if it was "the word of God", and not even entertain any discussion of it -- not help anyone understand why they say what they say. Of course, I realize that they have no basis for the position that they take, and I am sure that is part of the reason for the silence.

As I stood there speaking to these unresponsive creatures, one thing that I pointed out was that if any of them wished to go up to any of the protesters protesting against Planned Parenthood and ask them why they were doing so or otherwise try to understand their actions or position, that any of the protesters would be happy to respond and explain why they were there. I asked why the difference, but still got no response.

I kept thinking back upon this event throughout the subsequent week, wondering what it takes to simply break through and try to have a conversation with such people. This was not the first such occasion that this has happened. This has been a consistent pattern whenever I have encountered Planned Parenthood people. As soon as they get any hint that you disagree with their viewpoint on abortion the conversation is ended. They simply throw up their wall and will not permit any conversation or understanding to happen, to the point of utter rudeness.

However, as I said, I had another experience which has given me some additional insight, although I wish I could say that it isn't true. I made a sketch on a piece of old scrap paper the other day of something that I wanted to build. After I made the sketch I just happened to turn over the paper and glance at what was on the other side to discover that it was a copy of the "Code of Conduct" that was passed out at last January's Walk for Life in San Francisco that I attended. I remember being somewhat surprised and disappointed back in January when I had read that code, and now I looked at it again and was reminded why. It had a lot to do with interactions with counter-protesters that were, of course, also at that event. Basically it said to have nothing to do with them. "Do not speak to protestors." [Apparently the organizers of the event did not realize or wish to acknowledge that is was we who were the protesters, but the instructions were, of course, referring to pro-abortion protesters. But that is an aside.] "Do not look at or stare at protesters." "Do NOT get close to protesters." "Do not reply to protesters - EVER."

Now I am having to reassess my previous comment. Was I wrong when I told the Planned Parenthood counter-protesters that they could walk up to any of us and we would be happy to talk to them and answer their questions? If we were to follow the Walk for Life guidelines I would be. I thought we maintained the "high ground" on the matter of communication on the issue of abortion. I thought that anti-abortion advocates welcomed communication, whereas pro-abortion advocates undermined it. Was I wrong?

Why would people on either side of any important issue simply refuse to communicate? We need to talk to each other. We need to communicate and try to understand each other. We cannot solve this problem by ostracizing those who disagree with us and refusing to even try to communicate with them. How does any important problem get resolved that way? If the pro-abortionists wish to act that way and refuse to even try to engage in any kind of understanding, that is bad enough, that is sad enough. But it is shameful for us to act that way. Need I remind us that all the facts are on our side? The pro-abortionists have no facts, no arguments. All they have are empty slogans with nothing to back them up. We cannot be hurt by open, honest communication, and we need to pursue it. We need to invite communication, not recoil from it.

August 28, 2015

So Right, and Yet So Wrong.

A couple of articles in the news today illustrate how far lost we are.

"After 40 years of rosaries prayed in front of abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices, annual marches, and millions upon millions of dollars raised to fund the anti-abortion lobby and the related jobs program for the anti-abortion lobbyists, what is the end result? Eh." So right!

So what does this writer want to do? The title tells us: "The Catholic church should partner with Planned Parenthood to reduce abortions." Partner with the greatest murderer in our country! How is that for an answer? So wrong! (Shall we partner with the KKK to reduce racial violence?)

This comes a whole lot closer to the truth: "But the reactions we have so far are indicative of a culture where talking about abortion doesn’t come naturally because it simply isn’t as passionate about the subject as its official line claims to be. If someone truly feels it in their bones that this really is a human rights atrocity, their discussion of it doesn’t sound indistinguishable from how they talk about banking regulations or environmental mandates. They take every mention of it as an opportunity to hammer home how it’s a barbaric artifact of humanity’s worst impulses that should have no place in any post-Enlightenment western democracy."

That's right, at least as far as it goes. If this is a human rights atrocity (and far, far greater than any other on earth, with 27 times as many being killed by abortion than all other forms of violence on earth combined!) then why do we talk about it like any other "issue"? Why don't we act like it is an atrocity? Why don't we get upset enough to do something about it? Why aren't we horrified enough to demand an end to it?

My friends, partnering with the killers won't stop the killing! Trying to regulate it won't stop the killing! Sending money to "pro-life" groups won't stop the killing! Praying for it to end won't stop the killing! Encouraging people to "Choose Life" won't stop the killing! Indeed, there is nothing that we can "do" that will stop the killing. It will stop when, and only when, you and I are so horrified by the horrendous violence that is taking place that we will not tolerate it. It's not what we do, it's what we are that matters. When we are indeed so horrified that we can't hold down our food, we are sick to our stomach, we can't think of anything else, we can't even sleep at night because of the horror that is taking place - then we will end it. Until then we will remain complicit.

July 15, 2015

Barbaric Actions

There is a loud cry over the selling of parts of aborted children by Planned Parenthood. "Disgusting"! "Horrific"! "Unimaginable"! "Barbaric"!

Really?

What is more barbaric, selling body parts or killing the kids in the first place? If abortion is okay, then what is wrong with making use of the resultant material if it can be useful or beneficial for someone? I can't think of any reason why not. But if abortion is not okay, then there must be a reason why not. What is that reason? It's because we are killing innocent young children, is it not? Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong in selling the parts. If we are killing innocent children is that not "barbaric"? Is that not "horrific"? Is that not "unimaginable"?

If it is so barbaric and horrific then why do we put up with it? Why aren't we out there yelling and screaming in horror and demanding an end to it! Why are we willing to go about our lives each day and just let it continue on? If we were truly outraged by this horrendous violence then we would act like we were outraged by it. We would yell and scream. We would make nuisances of ourselves. If they were grabbing kids off the street and hauling them into a warehouse and chopping off their heads what would we not do in order to stop it? I can't think of anything that we wouldn't do to stop such brutality. But we just let the kids continue to be killed in the womb with little more than a whimper.

So what if they sell baby parts? They're already dead! What difference does it make once they're dead already? Having said that, am I angered? Am I appalled by the "disgusting", "barbaric", "horrific", "unimaginable" selling of baby parts. Yes! Of course I am. But I am even more angered and appalled by those who try to claim that abortion kills babies but aren't willing to stand up and demand that it end. If you won't stand up and put an end to the killing then it is you who are the problem and it is you that I am appalled by! Yes, go ahead and be offended. You can hate me, revile me, call me whatever names you wish, but just stop and realize that people don't believe us when we say that abortion kills babies because we don’t ACT like we mean what we say. Every day that we go about our daily business without complaint is another day that we confirm the message in peoples' minds that there just isn't anything horrible enough going on to get upset about. "Just look at those 'pro-lifers'! They aren't upset! No need for me to be!"

Instead of complaining that selling body parts is barbaric or horrific, when will we start ACTING like the killing of little children in the womb is barbaric and horrific? When we stop focusing on "side issues" -- parental consent, abortionist misconduct (as if killing kids doesn't already qualify), whether they are selling fetal organs, which "kinds" of abortions we don't want, how our foreign aid is spent, whether abortion clinics meet "health" standards -- and we start focusing on the real problem and demanding an end to killing children, then it will happen. But we have to demand it. And we have to mean it. We have to be willing to not be "nice". We have to be willing to cause trouble. We have to be willing to not be liked. We have to ACT LIKE there is a horror going on that we simply WILL NOT TOLERATE!

June 6, 2015

Rights of the Child

The UN blasts the U.S., among other things, for not ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Truly this is sad situation. The U.S. should be the leader in standing up for the rights of children. Do you suppose, though, that our reluctance to ratify this important treaty could be because we recognize the hypocrisy of signing a treaty upholding children's rights while we are killing over 3,000 of them every day?

June 23, 2015

Executing the Unwanted

A proposed ballot initiative to execute gays in California is thrown out. "This proposed act is the product of bigotry, seeks to promote violence, is patently unconstitutional and has no place in a civil society," Attorney General Kamala Harris says. Yet we continue to execute both gay and straight alike while they are still living in the womb. Does killing little children have a place in civil society?

June 19, 2015

American Theocracy

I just finished reading American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century by Kevin Phillips (Penguin Group, New York, 2006). As the title suggests, the author focuses on three specific issues that he feels imperil the future of the United States: our reliance on oil, the influence of religion, and our debt. The book in general is probably worth reading, but if one is already familiar with the topics involved, he or she would probably find it to be pretty much "old hat".

I was particularly concerned as I read the book on what it might have to say, if anything, regarding abortion. What it did say on the subject was included in the section that dealt with the influence of religion. (Hint!) As seems to be typical, the author effectively equated opposition to abortion with the influence of religion in our society. Essentially, he makes opposition to abortion out to be a religious standpoint (taken by those in the large but fringe group, which could be referred to generally as "fundamentalist", rather than mainstream Christianity) which it is not. And this is our problem.

Unfortunately, we have given him plenty of reason to take that position, since it seems that the great majority of those who are speaking out against abortion are, at the same time, making pronouncements about God, Jesus Christ, salvation, etc. As long as those who care more about pushing their religious beliefs than they do about the lives of those were being killed continue to hold the lives of preborn children hostage to their religious viewpoints, the children will continue to die.

I can only hope that we can separate the human rights horror that we refer to as abortion from religious concerns. Otherwise, we will continue to give fuel to authors such as this one who wish to make out that opposing abortion is a viewpoint taken only by religious radicals.

June 7, 2015

Need for Abortions

"More restrictive abortion laws do not reduce the need for abortions," according to president of Planned Parenthood. Would he say "More restrictive laws against stealing do not reduce the need for stealing," or, "More restrictive rape laws do not reduce the need for rape"? No, we do not "need" to kill children! We need to challenge statements such as this. If we don't, people will just accept that there is a "need" for abortion.

April 24, 2015

Universally Agreed Human Rights

An attempt to arrive at a resolution at the 48th session of the UN Commission on Population and Development was not successful, due to, among other things, differences regarding abortion. The writer says that Ambassador Usman Sarki of Nigeria "urged countries not to deviate from 'universally agreed human rights' - a phrase that excludes homosexual rights and abortion which are not established in international law." Well, thank the writer first for pointing out that abortion is not established in international law. Indeed, the Covenant on the Rights of the Child clearly states, "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, before, as well as after, birth." The right to life is broadly stated in many human rights instruments, and applies to everyone. Abortion is clearly a violation of human rights.

However, there is a problem here. It is this seemingly incessant practice of lumping together abortion and "homosexual rights". Why do people want to lump the two together. "Homosexuals" are people. That is, they are the subjects (along with all other people) of the rights stated in human rights instruments. "Abortion" is not people. It is a procedure. It happens to be a very deadly one, with a 100 percent fatality rate. Abortions are not protected by human rights. People are. Indeed, people need to be protected against abortion in order for their human rights to be upheld.

This is not just mincing words. There is a most important principle here. If we want people to recognize the rights of those in the womb, then we need to stand for the rights of those outside the womb, including those who have different sexual inclinations than us. Let's operate with an attitude of love and acceptance of all who may be different from us.

March 27, 2014

Help From Star Trek

I just happened to watch an old rerun of a Star Trek, The Next Generation, episode, Up The Long Ladder. This is the episode, if you happen to be familiar with Star Trek, where they encounter a civilization of human clones who ask that the crew of the starship Enterprise share their DNA with them, otherwise the people on the planet are going to degrade over time and die out. The starship crew refuses, so the people on the planet steal some tissue from the bodies of the commander and the doctor and create clones. When the two officers discover this they transport to the planet and proceed to kill the incubating organisms that have been created with their DNA, stating (afterwards) "I have the right to control my own body".

The parallel with abortion is clear, and this is really the only time that the series has had the boldness to deal with it. (On one other episode the ship's counselor became unwillingly pregnant by an alien entity, but refused the suggestion to have an abortion, so it never really dealt with the issue other than to possibly depict the Enterprise crew members as pro-abortion.) When I did a search and found the site linked to above I found out that anti-abortion/pro-life groups did indeed respond to the episode. The thing that I find puzzling, however, is that they complained about it! The writer of the episode said, "I got enormous flack from the right to life coalition because they destroyed the clones…. I did put a line in Riker's mouth that was very pro-choice and the right to life coalition went crazy."

This seems absurd to me. The episode took the act of destroying a developing organism outside of the context of human reproduction and a woman's pregnancy and showed it for what it was – the cold-blooded killing of a developing human being. (The clones that were killed were represented as having adult size and a general human shape, but were not yet completely developed.) The commander's statement that he has a right to control his own body is shown for what it is – an empty platitude that covers up for murder! The pro-abortionists must have fidgeted in their seats watching this one! Right?

The media has done just exactly what we have been trying to do all these years, right? They have done what I have been trying to do for years. I have been trying to write a novel that removes the reproductive process from the human pregnancy scenario and get people to see that a human being develops along a continuum that has little to do with the birth process. My lack of creative ability has prevented me from finishing, but Star Trek has done it for me. Thank you! It seems to me that we should be taking this episode of Star Trek and showing to everyone we can in order to show the obvious absurdity of killing to "control my own body". Instead of complaining, why didn't we do this?

The entertainment media bestows upon us a gift and, instead of using it, we complain about it. What has gone wrong here?

March 25, 2015

Killing Gays

I hear that there is an effort in California to put a measure on the ballot to execute everyone who is gay or lesbian. California Attorney General Kamala Harris is asking the courts to block the measure, saying that, "In this case, we are talking about a proposal that literally is calling for violence". However, there is no need for Ms. Harris or any of the rest of us to worry -- this is simply too ridiculous and abhorrent to have any chance of passage. To simply kill people because we do not approve of them -- that could never pass in a society such as ours. Right?

Or is it? We allow people every day to kill other people in our society simply because they do not want them around. We just limit it currently to killing them before they are born and, instead of "murder" or "killing", we refer to it as "abortion". (Sounds nicer!) But why limit it there? If we can kill a little child simply on the basis that its mother doesn't want it, then why can we not kill others that we don't want? After all, like preborn children, gays and lesbians aren't "complete", right? Their sexual characteristics didn't develop the way they "should" have, so they are still "underdeveloped" human beings. Right? Then, of course, if we can do that, we can kill off any who are born without an arm or a leg, or are blind or deaf or mentally impaired. They are also incomplete and therefore "underdeveloped" like those in the womb. You know, not "completely" human. Mr. McLaughlin, who proposed the measure, is simply taking the next step in a process we have already started.

We could ease the concerns for gays and any others who are worried that society might deny their rights, and commit to absolutely upholding the rights of every person, no matter his or her age, state of development, sexual orientation, or any other factor. Or we can continue to say that there are some who are not "fully" or "truly" humans and deny their rights, and keep on inflicting violence on so many innocent, helpless children and see how far that policy takes us.

Okay, let's not worry about all that for now. Today, the preborn. Tomorrow the gays. After that we'll just see what happens.

March 21, 2015

Unimaginable!

Unimaginable! Seven children killed in a fire. If you think that's unimaginable, how about 3000 children killed the same day in abortion facilities in the U.S. Unimaginable indeed, but true! What is even more unimaginable is that we do not stand up and demand an end to it!

January 16, 2015

Ending Abortion

I have two essays at this website: How can we end abortion?, and, Why I believe we haven't succeeded in ending abortion. I did a web search, in part to see if my website would come up if I asked these questions in Google. I entered "how can we end abortion", and was somewhat disappointed that my site did not come up in the first 100 results. It is good, however, that there are lots of other sites that are talking about ending abortion. Sometimes I wonder if the pro-life/anti-abortion community has lost site of trying to end this violence and is learning to "live with it" and regulate it. So I am encouraged that there is still a strong emphasis on ending this horror.

When I entered "why haven't we ended abortion" into Google, on the other hand, my web page was at the very top of the list! While I was somewhat excited to see my site at the very top, I am also rather concerned. If we want to end abortion, isn't it necessary to look back and see what it is that we have been doing and try to understand why we haven't succeeded? It doesn't seem that many people are taking a long, hard look at reality and trying to learn from it so that we can start doing what will actually be effective. If we are not willing to consider what we might be doing wrong or how we can do better, we will not succeed in our efforts. Let us remember Einstein's definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

January 14, 2015

Human Rights Support

I have done over 200 surveys for the Human Rights For All Ages Campaign, mostly in the overwhelmingly pro-abortion Eugene, Oregon. (Over 85% of respondents have agreed with the statement that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if she wants one.) One thing I have noticed is that when I tell people at the end of the survey that the survey is being done by the Human Rights For All Ages Campaign, I have never gotten anything but positive feedback. Of course, the pro-abortionists who respond this way don't quite understand the meaning that the campaign title conveys and would undoubtedly respond differently if they did, but there is nevertheless an important point to be made: people support human rights -- overwhelmingly! No matter what they might think about ideology, religion, animal rights, environmental issues, or any other issue, everyone supports human rights. Is it not then clear how we should focus our efforts if we wish to convince people that we need to end this atrocity?

January 4, 2015

Differences

I spoke with a woman who is heading up one of the efforts listed in my directory of organizations that are working to end abortion. I was hoping that she might be a bit better connected than I and would be able to use those connections to garner some support for the Human Rights For All Ages Campaign. As it turns out, she does not have much support from other anti-abortion organizations. For one thing, she says that they each have their own priorities, and they are focused on their own efforts, with little time, ambition or interest to get involved with the activities of other groups. However, she also pointed out that she is Catholic, and that she has a hard time getting support from Protestant groups. Even though her organization and effort are not done under the "banner" of Catholicism, it is clear to most that she is Catholic, and thus the divide. Protestants are not quick to want to work with Catholics, or vice-versa.

I thought how unfortunate that religion seems to be so divisive among those who claim to be working on behalf of the preborn, even among those who claim to be worshipping the same God. As we continued our conversation she said something to the effect that I should rely on God's power to do my work. I figured at that point that I had better clarify my position and not lead her under any false pretenses, so I pointed out to her that I am not a religious person of any kind.

"Well, no wonder you are having a hard time!" she exclaimed. If it is hard enough for people of different branches of Christianity to work together, she realized that it must be much more difficult to try to work with either if you are not a "believer" at all. (Of course, everybody has some sort of belief system, even if it is not religious, but this is the term often used.)

We all have differences in the way we believe about things, whether it be the origins of the universe, the meaning or nature of life, the existence of supernatural beings or powers, and many other important questions that we wonder about and may like to think that we know the answers to. This is the way it should be. None of us wants to live in a society where everyone is required to believe one way, particularly if that way is not to one's personal preference. We all want to believe the way that we believe about these important questions, and we are going to continue to do so. But that should not impede us from the work of saving the lives of those who are being unjustly killed.

Little human beings are dying. They are not just dying, they are being brutally killed day in and day out. This is a horrendous situation, and one that is important enough, and should be horrifying enough, that we should put aside our differences of opinions, ideologies, religious thought or any other differences that might divide us, and let our love for the children transcend any such divisions.

Let's stop the fussing and worrying about how others believe. When the children are safe, then people can go back to bickering about their religious differences, if they so choose.

January 1, 2015

Time to Wake Up

76,000 killed in Syria last year. That's 23 days worth of killing by abortion in the U.S. Let's wake up, people!

December 27, 2014

The Place To Be

Following up on the previous blog entry, I have been thinking about how to deal with the strong pro-abortion attitude typical here in Eugene, Oregon. On one hand, it seems prettty discouraging. How can one walk around among people who think killing little children is just fine and good without losing one's sanity? It could be pretty depressing if you let it.

On the other hand, I could be living in some area of the country where people by and large oppose abortion. I might feel more "at home" under such circumstances (or maybe not, for other reasons). But then what would I be doing? We don't need to reach the people who already agree with us. We need to reach those who don't -- and here I am right in the middle of them! This is a good thing. Of course, it isn't good that these people condone killing children. That is bad, of course. But if there are people out there who think that this killing is okay, and that is the reason that it continues, then where else would I want to be other than out there among them trying to change this? I am glad I moved to Eugene. This is where the work needs to be done!

Eugene seems to be a stronghold of pro-abortionism - about as strong as you are likely to find. I believe, though, that Eugene can be turned around. Eugene can become a bastion of support for those who live in the womb. Yes, I believe that! I will say it again: Pro-abortion Eugene, Oregon can become a bastion of support for the lives of those in the womb! And the encouraging thing about that is that if Eugene can be turned around, then any place can be turned around. What it requires is that we roll up our sleeves and get out there and do what needs to be done to change this (and, of course, I have written up my ideas on what is required to do it). If we want to make it happen, we can do it! Do we care enough to do what it takes?

December 22, 2014

Eugene Challenge

I have started surveying people on the streets of Eugene about human rights issues, including abortion. One question on the survey asks people if they agree or disagree with the statement, "A woman should be allowed to have an abortion if she wants one." I did twenty-four surveys today. Twenty-three of the respondents agreed with that statement! The other one didn't answer that question.

Eugene is a challenge!

December 17, 2014

Attacking Children

The Taliban attacks a school and kills over a hundred students! Could there be a more despicable, low-down, cowardly move than to slaughter helpless, innocent children?

Abortionists…?

December 10, 2014

Working Together

International Human Rights Day has come to a close again this year, and I wish I could tell you that we stood up strongly for those who are the victims of the biggest human rights abuse of all. Unfortunately, that is not the way it turned out. Here in my town of Eugene, for instance, we are in the sad, sad situation of having an organization (Oregon Right to Life) that likes to bill itself as "pro-life" actually attacking and undermining efforts to fight abortion. I speak of my own efforts, Human Rights For All Ages Campaign and otherwise, and I'm sure the reader will not consider me an unbiased reporter in this situation, so I will not burden you with details. It is just sad when an organization that calls itself "pro-life" tries to tear down the work that others are doing to try to save the unborn. Apparently they do not want people to work to save the children.

In my assessment of why I believe we haven't ended abortion, the first reason that I list for our lack of success is that "we don't work together very well". I am beginning to see that as an understatement. If this episode is an example of what goes on between people and organizations involved in this movement, then we are truly in a sad state.

We cannot save the children by fighting among ourselves. We need to support and encourage each other and not let our petty differences or desires get in the way of trying to stop this incessant slaughter of little children. The children come first. One would think that the horror of thousands of children being brutally ripped to pieces every day would be enough for us to put our differences aside and eagerly support the work to end this unconscionable slaughter. We should not hold the children who are dying hostage to our own egos, desires, ambitions and prejudices.

November 28, 2014

Uprising

"This is no longer a protest, it's an uprising," it is declared as protesters continue to march against the police killing of one black man. Where is our uprising against the killing of 3000 children every single day in this country?

November 9, 2014

Abolitionism

I am furious! I just read "The Difference Between Pro-Lifers and Abolitionists" at the website of one of the organizations that is working to end abortion. First, to their credit, I wish to express great appreciation for their first paragraph: "When you call yourself 'pro-life' you are letting people know what you think about abortion. When you call yourself an abolitionist, you are telling them what you aim to do about it." Well put, indeed! We need people who are doing something about the problem, not talking about it.

However, as they go on they claim, "You cannot be a secular abolitionist." WRONG!! ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVICABLY WRONG! What's more, they are doing an immense amount of damage by saying this! First of all, in case you haven't already guessed, I am a secular person. I don't believe in God or religious beliefs. I am, however, an abolitionist with respect to abortion. It is my determination to put an end to this horrible and ghastly atrocity. That is, I fully intend to do, and am doing, whatever is in my power, to abolish it (in spite of the immense hurdles often thrown in the way by those who feel that they cannot work to save the unborn without bringing Jesus into it). They claim that you need a "binding moral law that has its reference point outside of humanity" (even though there is no such thing). WRONG! We have laws against homicide in every state of our union. They do not require the Bible, religion, God, or any "reference point outside of humanity". If we would simply follow those laws that we have we would end abortion -- all based on a secular Constitution which makes no reference to a God or gods. One may have to believe in God or the Bible to be their kind of abolitionist, but I have no intention of being their kind of abolitionist. I am an abolitionist based solely on the basis of the realization of the horror of killing young children. I will work to abolish abortion not because it is some kind of offense toward a perceived God, but because it is a violent, human-rights horror.

Why is it so damaging for them to make such a statement? There are two reasons (at least). First, it convinces everyone listening that the only basis for abolishing abortion is that it is an offense against God -- that is, their God, or their perception of a God. They just said that there is no basis to end abortion outside of that "reference point outside of humanity", and people will believe them! The vast majority of the people who hear their message will not believe in the same God, or believe in God the same way, that they do. They will simply reject their message because they reject their religious beliefs (even though probably most will have their own religious beliefs).

Secondly, they alienate the people we need in this movement. The insistence of religious people on bringing God and religion into this arena has driven away the people that we need to have working to end this atrocity -- which is everybody: atheist, Christian, Hindu, gay, straight, white, black, liberal, conservative -- everyone! I understand this dynamic because I have been the victim of it. For years I tried to get involved with those who opposed abortion, but every time I did so I ran head first into their superstitions and prejudices. How does a person like me feel when I am holding a sign to stop killing babies and the person next to me is holding a sign saying Jesus saves! It is enough to drive away anyone who is truly sincere because of his or her concerns about the killing of children. If you don't think so, just imagine how, if you are of the same religious beliefs as these folks, you would feel if, the next time you are standing and protesting the killing of children, the people in your group start pulling out signs proclaiming devotion to Krishna, or claiming that the stars guide your life, or perhaps some pagan philosophy. Would you just smile and be content? I doubt very much that the people at in this particular organization would. When they inject their religious beliefs into the effort of saving children, they drive away all those who don't agree with their religious beliefs, and that is most everyone-- even most of those who call themselves Christians! We need every soldier in this fight. Don't let us drive them away with superstitions.

I will add, and I'm sure this will offend many religious folks, but I believe it must be pointed out, that the God that they purport to uphold as being central to the abolitionist message is the God who killed every single baby, born or unborn, in a huge flood in the days of Noah -- if the Bible is to be believed. This same God burned to death every baby, born or unborn, in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. This same God commanded his armies to march in and kill every baby, born and unborn, in all the cities of Canaan that he "gave to them". Perhaps they have come up with some way to justify or rationalize all this violence in their minds, but this is not lost on the people upon whose ears their message falls. There is virtually not a child in this whole country who doesn't know the story of Noah and the Ark. Most also know the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how God sent the Israelites in to kill and destroy baby and adult alike and take over their land. When they hold up this violent and capricious "God" as their guide and leader in this fight to save the lives of those in the womb, they make a mockery of the cause. We need to remove God and religion from the effort to abolish abortion, and no longer let them hinder us in our efforts to end it. We cannot continue to let these superstitions and violent traditions undermine the cause of the unborn.

And I will not tolerate such lies about me, either! I do not need their religious laws and superstitious misconceptions in order to work to abolish abortion! I am an abolitionist. I am a true abolitionist -- one who will not let anything such as superstition and prejudice stand in the way of getting the job done. Can a person who claims to believe in the God of the Bible be an abolitionist? Apparently so. In spite of the horrors committed, condoned and commanded by their God, it seems that somehow people such as these have managed to turn things around in their minds enough to somehow see the need to abolish this horrific violence. I don't understand how they can do so, but if they have, then congratulations to them. I will not try to dissuade them from their religious beliefs as long as they can manage to somehow not let them interfere with their love and concern for those helpless ones who are dying. I applaud the fact that they have somehow come through and accepted the ways of peace, justice and human rights. But they need to remove this barrier to our goal that they have in their minds and at their website that requires a delusionary view of reality in order to be an abolitionist.

November 7, 2014

Lake of Fire

I just watched what was purported to be "unquestionably the definitive word on abortion", Lake of Fire (Tony Kaye, ThinkFilm, 2008, 152 minutes). Three things struck me in particular. The first was the incredible association made between anti-abortionists and religion. From the very first interview at the very beginning and onward through the whole movie, the anti-abortion viewpoint was almost always (with the exception of a couple brief segments with anti-abortion atheist Nat Hentoff) expressed in conjunction with often radical Christian viewpoints. They interviewed one "pro-lifer" expressing that the death penalty should be meted out against anyone disobeying God's laws, including homosexuality and even anyone uttering the words "God damn". They spent a large amount of time interviewing a man describing how Christian reconstructionists want to turn the United States into a theocracy. True, yes. There are those out there, but what does it have to do with abortion? The filmmaker makes it obvious that he wants you to associate abortion opposition with such radical religious zealots. (And, of course, the filmmaker contrasts them rather starkly with more thoughtful and caring manners exhibited by those in the movie who support abortion.)

The second thing was the rather large amount of time devoted to talking about the killing of abortionists. Much more time was devoted to this than to showing what abortion actually does. They even included pictures of the bodies of dead abortionists who had been killed by the very few who have taken their zealousness to that extent. They didn't stop to mention that there have been only eight abortionists or clinic workers killed in over 40 years of activism against the killing of over 50 million children. The anti-abortion movement may be the most peaceful human rights movement in world history with numbers like that, but that was apparently lost on the filmmaker. There was also no mention whatsoever of violence by pro-abortionists against anti-abortionists. Funny, they should just skip that part!

The final point, and one for which I have to give them some credit, is that the film did actually display abortions – not just someone undergoing the procedure, but the actual results of the procedure, even showing a doctor "putting the pieces together" after the abortion. You could clearly see the dismembered body parts. It even showed a doctor measuring the length of a dismembered foot. It also showed graphic segments from "Hard Truth". As short as these segments were, one would think that these shots would horrify any viewer enough to override any feelings of sympathy for "choice".

One would think!

November 5, 2014

Equality of Rights

I am sad to report that measure 89, guaranteeing that equality of rights will not be denied on account of sex, passed in Oregon. I wish I could report being happy that it passed. We should have laws enshrined in the constitution guarenteeing equality of rights for all people, women included. But when NARAL and Planned Parenthood endorsed the measure, saying that it was "to protect every woman's right to choose", it became clear that this measure is designed to guarantee inequality of rights for those living in the womb. I wonder if NARAL and Planned Parenthood would have supported such a measure if it guaranteed not only that equality of rights not be denied on the basis of sex, but also not on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and disability, as well as age, stage of development or state of dependency.

Unfortunately this bill was snuck in without much pubic discussion of what it would actually do. I didn't hear about it until I saw it in the voter's guide that the state puts out. In that guide there was not a single argument in opposition to the measure, despite its endorsement by those who kill children.

We need protection of rights for all women at all stages of their lives. Let's hope that, in spite of NARAL's and Planned Parenthood's desire to enshrine their right to kill, this measure will end up doing that.

November 5, 2014

Lower Than Animals

I just listened to a public radio broadcast interviewing the author of a book about the Nazi holocaust. He makes two points in particular, that many Nazi's easily emigrated and found "safe haven" in the United States after the war, and that the prisoners were not immediately released from the prison camps by the Allies, but were kept for months or even years in continuing subhuman conditions.

Shocking that Nazi war criminals could find safety in America where they wouldn't have to face up to their crimes. No more shocking, though, that America is currently a "safe haven" for those who kill children in the womb.

As the author described the treatment of the prisoners by the Allies after our victory, he told about the anti-Semitism of General Patton, who was in charge of rehabilitating the prisoners. Patton is recorded as describing Jews as the lowest of human beings, even "lower than the animals". It almost seems unthinkable that such prejudice and hatred could exist in a man we think of as a war hero, but, then again, does it not bring to mind what people who support abortion say today about those living in the womb?

November 3, 2014

Can a Christian Be Pro-Life?

I just found an article at LifeNews web site titled, Can Someone Who Is an Atheist Be Pro-Life on Abortion?". I was immediately taken back by such a ludicrous (and even insulting) title, that I thought I would write my own little article -- "Can Someone Who Is a Christian Be Pro-Life on Abortion?"

Can Someone Who Is a Christian Be Pro-Life on Abortion?

Christians are distinguished from other people by their belief in the Bible, and, perhaps more specifically, the God of the Bible. If that Bible is to be believed, this is the God who killed every single unborn baby in a world-wide flood in the days of Noah (along with all the already-born babies, and, of course, everyone else, except for eight people in the ark). This is the same God who burned to death every baby, born or unborn, (again, along with everyone else) in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is the same God who "hardened the heart" of Pharaoh so that he could then have an excuse to kill the firstborn son in every Egyptian household. This is the same God who killed 70 people for the horrible deed of looking into the Ark of the Covenant, and killed another one for trying to prevent it from falling over. This is also the same God who commanded his armies to eradicate everyone in the promised areas of Canaan (again, including babies, born and unborn). (Note: In some cases the soldiers were allowed to keep the virgin young women alive for "their own use", if you know what I mean.) This is the same God who called bears out of the woods to tear up young children for the horrible act of making fun of a bald man's head. This is the same God who commanded that people be killed for the horrendous deeds of cursing one's parents, adultry, blasphemy, homosexuality, having sex with an animal or picking up sticks on the Sabbath Day. This is the same God who commanded that, when a man who took some loot that he wasn't entitled to from the people that God commanded the Israelites to murder in Jericho, not only was the man to be killed, but also his innocent children. This is the same God who killed 70,000 Israelites (but not their king) because of their king's "sin" of taking a census.

Can someone who is a Christian be pro-life on abortion? Absolutely!

October 29, 2014

Biased Journalism

I just listened to a public radio news story about proposed Amendment 1 in Tennessee that would constitutionalize the state's right to control abortion. I don't wish to comment on the measure itself. I'm not even sure I would vote for it. We shouldn't be controlling abortion; we should be ending it.

Two things, however, stood out to me about the way the story was presented. First, at least the first half of the news story was continuously punctuated with the word "Christian". They talked about churches and pastors and interviewed a pastor saying that as a pastor he would wish to do away with abortion altogether. They interviewed a man claiming that the United States is a "Christian country" (which, of course, it is not, and never should be), and therefore we should hold to "Christian" ideals and oppose abortion. Hence, the media continues its insistence on portraying abortion as a religious issue. Abortion, though, is not a religious or Christian issue. It is a matter of life and death. It is a horrendous violence that everyone should abhor regardless of his or her religious beliefs, or lack thereof. We are civilized human beings (or are we?), and therefore the killing of little human beings is repugnant to us. What does religion have to do with it?

Secondly, they constantly referred to abortion as a "procedure", talking, for instance, about places in the state where this "procedure" could be performed. Well, yes, I suppose abortion is a "procedure". On the other hand, if a man were to lure little children into his car with candy, take them to a secret hideaway and torture them to death, that would be his "procedure" for killing them. Right? Somehow, though, I don't think the news story about this hypothetical situation would describe what the man does as a "procedure". I think it would portray it as a gross act of violence and horror. By describing abortion as a "procedure" they make it sound as if it is as innocent as a mammogram or a tonsillectomy -- just another medical "procedure", like any other. This, of course, fits perfectly with what the pro-abortionists wish people to believe, that abortion is simply a "procedure" to terminate a pregnancy, which it is not. It is just like their emphasis on the "right to choose", in which they fail to state the right to choose what -- to kill a developing human being. Even so, they fail to say "procedure to kill a developing human being". By talking about it as simply a "procedure" and focusing on religious objections to this "procedure", they are siding with those who wish to have us believe that this is a religious issue and that it is nothing more than a "procedure" to end a pregnancy. This is biased journalism at its worst.

October 24, 2014

Wrapped in the Flag

I just finished reading "Wrapped in the Flag: A Personal History of America's Radical Right," by Claire Connor. In it she describes growing up in an ultraconservative family, and talks about how she gradually moved away from the radical conservative views of her family.

After becoming disgusted with their involvement with the ultraconservative John Birch Society, she tells how she took up the anti-abortion cause. At first she was very enthusiastic about ending abortion and saving the lives of preborn human beings. When Roe v. Wade was passed she explains, "While feminists celebrated, I girded for war. It would take a national movement to overturn Roe, and I intended to be part of it."

As time went on, however, she found it difficult to accept the policies that those who call themselves "pro-life" commonly promoted. "No one cared about candidates' positions on other issues -- abortion was the litmus test. It didn't matter if candidates believed in closing day-care centers or cutting food stamps, as long as they supported the Human Life Constitutional Amendment. No one blinked if candidates supported war at the expense of domestic programs to help the needy, as long as they supported the Hyde amendment. It didn't matter if candidates wanted to cut Medicaid for poor children, as long as they believed that a zygote was a human being." She describes the attempt to create a "Christian nation", and the hateful attitudes displayed by "pro-lifers" toward those who are gay or lesbian. She quotes people such as Jerry Falwell who lumped abortionists in with "pagans… and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians", whose "sins" brought about the 9/11 catastrophe. She eventually gave up trying to save the unborn and turned to the other side, saying, "Realizing that politicians were using the 'pro-life' label to advance a right-wing agenda broke my heart, but I had to face the truth. I could no longer fit in the movement I helped build."

We can, of course, criticize Ms. Connor for focusing on the faults and shortcomings of human beings rather than the needs of those who are dying. Yes, her compassion for those who are being killed should outweigh all the foibles that people display. But we have to live in the real world and realize that, yes, people do look at us and base their decision about abortion, not on the facts, but on what they see in us. Instead of blaming people like her for letting such things get in the way, we should look at ourselves and ask why we let these things get in the way of saving the children.

I wonder how many other goodhearted people have been turned away from trying to save the dying children because of the insistence of those who wish to combine it with religion, bigotry and an attitude that shows they don't care about those who are already born.

October 22, 2014

Benign Measure?

We are voting on Measure 89 here in Oregon this November, the "Oregon ERA" ammendment. It would ammend the state constitution to read, "Equality of rights under the law shall not denied or abridged by the State of Oregon or by any political subdivision of this state on account of sex." A noble and seemingly harmless addition. I was inclined to vote for this piece of legislation. Of course, women should enjoy equal rights! Who could possibly argue against that?

Then I read the voters' guide that the state sends out. Interestingly, it has a number of arguments in favor of this ammendment included in the guide, but, unlike the other amendments which have both pro and con, there is not a single argument against this measure! It must be benign, right?

Well, so I thought until I read the voters' guide, in which the directors of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon state, "Please join us in voting yes on Measure 89 to protect every woman's right to choose." (As always, they leave off the rest of the phrase, choose "to kill her child.") I guess it's not so benign, after all.

October 12, 2014

Saving or Killing?

40 Days for Life likes to claim that it saves lives. According to this article, 9001 so far! However, do they ever ask how many they have allowed to be killed while they saved those 9001 lives? If you look at the pictures in the article you will see one of the prime reasons that we still kill children in our society - people who are making a religious issue out of abortion. When will they open their eyes and see that for every baby they save they condemn a thousand to death by convincing the public that abortion is a religious issue. Everyone in America, even we atheists, believe deeply in religious freedom. No one is going to let you push your religious ideals upon them. This is a free society. When you stand and make a show of praying and hold signs with religious messages, you make the case for them that abortion is a religious issue and we cannot allow religious zealots come in and desroy our religious freedom by trying to impose religous ideals upon the rest of us. You convince them passionately that we therefore absolutely cannot outlaw abortion! It is time for those who do this to stand up and admit to the millions of lives they have helped destroy!

September 27, 2014

Catching Up.

"Ebola Deaths Pass 3,000". Wow! They have almost caught up with the number of preborns killed every day in the U.S.!

September 19, 2014

Heterosexuals in the Pro-Life Movement?

Here is a great article about gays and lesbians in the pro-life movement. The only problem I have is with the title itself, "Do Gays and Lesbians Have a Place in the Prolife Movement?" Why do we even need to ask? Should gays and lesbians ask, "Do heterosexuals have a place in the prolife movement?"

September 19, 2014

Let's Be Accurate!

I just read an interesting article at Live Action News titled What If It Doesn't Look Human. It is generally a good article and makes an important point. We cannot say that it is okay to kill someone just because he or she doesn't "look human". It is a grave fallacy. In order to say whether or not something looks human you have to first define what is human, so that you know what you are comparing to. If indeed a 7-day old embryo is a human being, then, yes, it looks like a human being because that is just what a human being looks like 7 days after conception! Neither can we say that it is not human because it does not yet possess some particular ability or characteristic, such as being able to breath air, open its eyes, or (the favorite of the pro-abortionists) survive "on its own" outside of the womb. All such arguments are equally fallacious.

However, there are two details in this article's argument that are not correct, and I just wish to point them out here because they are often repeated, and it is important that we be accurate and completely truthful in everything that we do, or else the pro-abortionists will seize upon it and tear it apart. First, is the often repeated cliché, "Life begins at conception." Life does not begin at conception! Life does not begin at all! The sperm is alive. The ovum if alive. They join together and are still alive. Nothing either dies or comes to life at any point in the process. Indeed, technically, the only time life ever began was 3.8 billion years ago (or 6000 years ago if that is the authority that you accept)! You may think that I'm splitting hairs, but this truly is important. We cannot answer the question that needs to be answered here by trying to figure out when life starts. Trying to answer that question simply doesn't work.

We have to put the question correctly if we are going to answer it. The question is not "When does life begin?", but rather (I believe), "When does an individual human being come into existence?" If we state the question correctly then we at least have a chance of answering it correctly. We should state that "An individual human being comes into existence at conception," if that is what we mean to say, but to state that "Life begins at conception" is simply not correct and not meaningful. We have to be precise and say just what it is that we mean if people are going to hear us.

The other point then follows, and this one is a bit more difficult. The article states that "We know that a newly conceived human is a unique individual." This is also incorrect. This is demonstrated by the phenomenon of twinning (monozygotic, or "identical", twins). If a newly conceived human is a unique individual then let's give her a name – "Jane". If "Jane" is a unique human being then what happens when the embryo splits in two to form monozygotic twins? Which one of the resultant embryos is "Jane"? Neither one is any more "Jane" than the other one! But we now have two individual human beings, right? Let's assume that one is "Jane", and now let us call the second one (whichever one that is) "Joan". As it turns out, it is not only possible for an embryo to split into two embryos, it is also possible for those two embryos to recombine into a single embryo again! So now that we have "Jane" and "Joan", let's have them recombine into one embryo. What has taken place? Is the resultant embryo "Jane" or "Joan" or some other being? If it is "Jane", then what has happened to "Joan"? Did she die? But neither anyone nor anything has died!

This is a difficult conundrum to explain, and I do not have an adequate explanation. But the one thing that is clear is that, at conception, the zygote/embryo is not a distinct, individual human being. I don't know where this leads us as anti-abortionists, but we need to accept the facts as they are and not make claims that the embryo/zygote at the time of conception is a "unique individual". It has the potential of being either one or more than one individual. To be accurate the essay at least needs to recognize this reality.

Once again, the theme of the article in general is sound. We cannot justify killing human beings simply because they don't look like human beings, breathe like human beings, walk like human beings, or any other such criteria. A human being is not a human being because he or she has attained a certain degree of function or has a certain look. A human being is a human being simply because he or she is the offspring of two other human beings. However, in the future I hope that all of us will avoid using non-substantiatable claims in the process of making our point.

September 7, 2014

Deceptive "Anti-choicers"

People who support abortion are always writing misleading or "deceptive" articles to prop up their support for killing innocent children, bur Clare Howard's "Deceptive or Informative: Pro-choice and antic-choice people go toe-to-toe on North University" struck me as going even beyond the usual one-sidedness and deception. The question is whether Ms. Howard's article is "Deceptive or informative"!

To start with, I would take exception to her describing the two sides in this debate as having "two philosophically opposing agendas," as she states in her first sentence. Perhaps it is true that they do, but it seems to somehow miss the point when we are talking about whether to kill people or not. Isn't it somehow missing the point (or perhaps deceptive) to talk about killing children as a matter of philosophy?

The writer goes on to talk about the "anti-choice" crisis pregnancy center next to the abortion clinic that she is championing which she claims opened in order to "confuse and misinform the patients" and claimed that they are "steeped in dishonesty". I cannot however, find anything in Ms. Howard's article that points out any way in which the center is misinforming patients. They hold signs "Pregnant?" "Need Help?" "Free". I see nothing dishonest here. The women going in are indeed pregnant and in need of help, and the services offered are indeed free (which those at the abortion clinic probably are not). Perhaps it is confusing to some degree when patients are looking for the abortion clinic and happen upon both places together, but does Ms. Howard wish to avoid any confusion so that her clinic can mislead women into making a horrible "choice" without anyone to offer any alternatives to what they offer? Is this what she champions as "choice"? She refers to the center as "anti-choice", but who is truly being "anti-choice" when she complains because someone is trying to offer these women an alternative to what could be a decision that they will end up spending their lives regretting? Is it not she who does not want the women to have a choice by receiving information that might cause them to make a "choice" that does not agree with the one that she wishes them to make? Who is really trying to restrict "choice" in this situation?

The article quotes one of the escort organizers as saying that "Abortion is legal and safe. Access to abortion is being threatened," three consecutive deceptive statements. For whom is abortion safe? It is most certainly not safe for the child that is being aborted. It may or may not be safe for the woman (compared to continuing on to give birth), but when one person involved in the procedure is going to die, then the procedure can hardly be called "safe". If she had said "safe for the mother", then at least the statement would be arguable, but when one person is sure to die the procedure most certainly cannot be called "safe". Abortion is also not legal; it is only effectively legal. There are laws in every state of the union against homicide (would you live here if there weren't?). It is not legal to kill people. The only problem is that because of the opinion of seven justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, our legal system does not recognize this nor extend legal protection to these young children. However, the Constitution of the United States affirms the right to life for everyone in the country, and the Supreme Court does not have the authority to override the Constitution. (Nor does it have the authority to legislate laws, which is what it did, and we allowed it to get away with, in the 1973 decision that effectively legalized abortion in the U.S.) And in what way is access to abortion being threatened? Is it being threatened simply by offering an alternative to what the clinic is providing? How can this be threatening access? Are these people blocking the entrance to the clinic? Are they grabbing these woman and forcibly restraining them so that they cannot enter? To say that access is being threatened is only to say that those who wish to promote abortion feel that their own interests in getting women to have abortions are being threatened.

The article goes on to say that "we should all be trying to end the circumstances that make abortion necessary." While there may be an element of truth to this statement, and we should be doing far more to actually help women in desperate circumstances, rather than just ushering them in and killing their children, it must be stated clearly that abortion is not necessary. Just think if someone were to say, after the shooting of the children at the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut, "we need to do something to make shooting school children unnecessary"! Would we not all look at that person as if he or she was mad (and incredibly insensitive) for making such a ludicrous statement? No. It is not "necessary" for a woman to kill her child. Yes, she is often facing very trying circumstances. Yes, she may feel desperate. Yes, she may be facing seeming insuperable obstacles. But to say that it is necessary for her to kill her child in order to address these difficulties is just a ludicrous as the statement in the case of a school shooting. It is not necessary for a mother to kill her child, except in the extremely, extremely, extremely rare, to the point of being essentially non-exsistent (at least in modern, advanced societies with decent medical systems), circumstances.

The article then continues to say that "History tells us abortion is an age-old practice. It won't stop." Yes, it is an age old practice, just like murder, rape, slavery, war, genocide and just about every other human rights abuse that we have made great efforts to stop. Will we stop it entirely? Probably no more than we have stopped murder, rape, slavery, war genocide and all the other human rights abuses that abound on planet earth. Does that mean that abortion should be allowed, and that we should then allow murder, rape, slavery, war, and genocide? In reality, though, if we would simply educate people to make them aware of the reality of what is happening, we could end abortion to the extent of relegating it to those same sorts of people who engage in these other crimes and human rights abuses. If we would just educate women about the reality of what abortion truly is, they will choose not to kill their children! This author, however, complains when attempt at such education is made next door.

The article says that the director of the abortion clinic claims that their goal is to "inform and educate women about all their options". I would like to know how many of the women who go into her clinic are truly educated about what it is they are going to do. How many of these women have been shown what the being inside them looks like? Have they been shown the results of what abortion does to that being? Are they informed of all the women who are spending their lives trying to deal with the guilt of having killed their own children? I suspect that the clinic's attempts to "educate women" are very limited. (Perhaps they don't trust women with this information.)

The article quotes Jimena Lopez as saying, "We're not about killing babies." But that is exactly what the clinic is doing. She also says that "over 70 percent of Americans believe that women should have a legal right to abortion." If this is correct, does this make it okay? If 70 percent of Americans say it is alright to enslave black people, does that make it okay to do? However, just to give a little clarity to her statement, for all of the years that Gallup has polled the fact is that the majority of Americans have opposed the majority of abortions.

Lopez also says that "the best way to end abortion is through universal access to comprehensive sex education and an end to violence against women." I would agree at least in part. But will she truly advocate for comprehensive sex education? I am constantly amazed that it seems to be the pro-abortion people who call for comprehensive sex education, rather than the anti-abortion folks. True comprehensive sex education would go a long way toward ending abortion. Comprehensive sex education would, of course, have to deal with the results of "successful" sexual relations, that is, the creation of a developing human being in the womb. Let's truly teach our youth about fetal development, including also a realistic look at the results of "terminating a pregnancy", ie, terminating the life of the developing human being (which is what an abortion is, not the termination of a pregnancy).

The day will come when people will look back on abortion as they now look back on things such as slavery and witch burnings, and will shake their heads in disbelief. They will gape in utter incredulity when reading articles such as Ms. Howard's.

September 2, 2014

Humanizing Killers

I just watched the documentary After Tiller, which showed yesterday, September 1, on PBS. It is described on PBS's web site as "a deeply humanizing and probing portrait of the only four doctors in the United States still openly performing third-trimester abortions in the wake of the 2009 assassination of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas."

Humanizing, yes, toward the doctors. Probing, no so much.

It is very humanizing of the four doctors. If you didn't realize what they are actually doing, you couldn't help but see them as warmly human, caring immensely for their patients, listening attentively to their concerns, pondering their situations, even hugging them. Unfortunately, it isn't so humanizing of the doctors' victims. There is one exception, though, where Dr. Sella, who kills late-term preborn children in Albuquerque admits, "That's not tissue. That's a baby." The film also depicts Dr. Robinson (also in Albuquerque) actually refusing an abortion to a woman. A doctor with a conscience! She won't kill babies in all circumstances!

It "probes" the doctors just enough to give the impression of them as already described: thoughtful, kind, and concerned about their patients. Unfortunately the film fails to continue probing as to how these doctors can justify killing little infants. Of course, it depicts the "hard cases", where the mother is going to give birth to a child that (she is being told) will only suffer with horribly and lead a short life. (You would kill your child if she suddenly came down with an incapacitating, terminal illness, right?) It probes only what the script writers want to probe. Never mind the reality of what is taking place. I wonder if they would "probe" similarly if they were doing a documentary about any other situation where some people were killing off helpless, innocent people in order to provide some benefit to more powerful people. Would the killers be depicted as warm and caring because they were "helping" people?

Of course, the film also made much of the fact that Dr. Tiller was "murdered" (or "assassinated"…) and implied clearly how courageous these wonderful doctors are to take up his work and follow in his footsteps. They never used the word murder to refer to what Dr. Tiller or these four doctors are doing, though. Which is more worthy of the label "murder", I would like to ask them, killing to stop someone who is killing others, or the killing of innocent children who have not yet had a chance to do any harm? This film continues to portray the myth that abortion opponents are violent and that abortion providers are peaceful, loving people who only wish to help others.

Do you suppose PBS will have the courage to truly "probe" what is actually taking place at the hands of such doctors, and ask people to "probe" how it is that ripping little bodies apart or poisoning them so that they are born dead has become acceptable practice?

August 26, 2014

Which is Worse?

This article reports on the abuse of 1400 girls in the U.K. between 1997 and 2013: Betrayed by the PC cowards: Damning report reveals 1,400 girls were abused by sex gangs because social workers and police feared racism claims - so did nothing. This is a horrible crime. But compare it with over twice that many children who are killed every day in United States. If the abuse of these girls is a horrible crime, then what is the killing of so many innocents on a vastly bigger scale? Why aren't we raising holy hell over it?

August 26, 2014

To Arrest or Not to Arrest

Why arrest the girl? Mother of Newborn Baby Found in Trash Arrested. This is just an "after-birth abortion", is it not?

August 18, 2014

Swerving to the Right

I just happened across an article that made reference to Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), stating that, "A 1990 supporter of abortion rights, he soon swerved to the right, becoming a pro-life candidate a decade later." These assumptions continue to infuriate me. What does standing against killing people have to do with being "to the right" or "to the left"? To oppose killing people is just to be "human", or perhaps "humane". It has nothing to do with whether one is liberal or conservative.

Indeed, if one's stand on abortion were either liberal or conservative, it would have to be the opposite of this person's statement. As Michael Aston has said, "I can't believe the pro-choicers attitude toward unborn children - to me it's the ultimate liberal cause, to defend those without a voice."

August 11, 2014

Interview With an Abortionist

I heard an interview today on my public radio station with abortionist Willie Parker, who performs abortions in the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. Mr. Parker was being interviewed, in particular, because "he is a Christian."

I am not sure whether to be angry or glad for the main theme of the interview, that it is surprising that a man who calls himself a "Christian" would be doing abortions. On the one hand, they are drawing on this absurd concept that being opposed to abortion is somehow a "Christian" position and that, therefore, this is a hard thing to understand. It is not hard at all to understand. There is nothing Christian about being against abortion, and nothing anti-abortion about being a Christian. There are many Christian sects that say nothing about the killing of preborn children. Indeed, if one is Christian in the sense that he or she accepts the Bible as the final authority on all matters that it discusses, one cannot help but realize that God himself is the greatest abortionist of all, having, if you accept that these pages are literally true, killed every baby, born or unborn, on the entire earth with a great flood, and burning to death every baby, born or unborn, in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Christians reading this post will undoubtedly be appalled by this statement, but it is entirely true (that the Bible says this, not that it actually happened). Killing, whether it be by abortion or otherwise, is very "Christian". As a person who does not believe in God or gods, but who realizes the horror of ripping little human beings to pieces, I can assure you that this is not a religious issue. Perhaps, however, the interview did help to break down this absurd connection that people make.

Mr. Parker says he wants women to "hear their own thoughts. I trust women to make good decisions for themselves." The interviewer did not ask him, however, whether he was providing the women with the information they needed so that they could make good decisions -- so that they could make sense of their thoughts. Does he inform them of just what it is that they are destroying in the abortion process so that they can intelligently and compassionately decide whether it is something that they can live with for the rest of their lives after they leave the abortion clinic? That question remained unanswered.

An overriding theme in this discussion is those awful protestors who "shame women". Dr. Parker speaks of the "protesters who have basically told [women that come for abortions] that they are worthless, they should be ashamed, that they are morally bankrupt "and the "dignity that people outside have done everything they could to shame them and take away from them." Clearly these people who oppose abortion are just vile, hateful creatures who thrive on making these women feel miserable! Right? The interviewer herself spoke of the "Jesus didn't shame women", and, "Judge not lest you be judged" signs in front of the clinic, without any questioning of the accuracy of the implications of these signs. Did she ask him what, specifically, any protester has done to "shame a woman"? No. I have been in front of abortion clinics and dealt with those in the anti-abortion movement, and I have no idea where he gets this idea of protestors "shaming" women. Perhaps the protestors down in Mississippi are different than the ones that I have met, but all of those I have dealt with have only compassion and respect for women who are in a difficult situation, and want them to understand what it is that they are doing so that they won't have to deal with the shame and regret that women (some of whom are among those protestors/counselors) so often have to deal with after they recognize the reality of what they have done. It is unfortunate that trying to help people to understand just what it is that they are doing so that they can make a choice that they won't have to spend the rest of their lives feeling remorse and guilt over is seen as an attempt to "shame" them. But, then again, people who support abortion are always trying to point their fingers at those "bad people" on the other side, rather than talking about the reality of abortion itself.

And I can only shake my head in disbelief as someone talks, as Dr. Parker did, unchallenged, about safe or unsafe abortions, as if abortion can ever be "safe" for the one being aborted, or about "unnecessary suffering and unnecessary deaths" by one who is engaged in killing people.

I will give the interviewer credit for a couple of points. She talked about how some people talk about abortion being "a secret plot to kill black babies". While this is not quite accurate, a great deal is made of the imbalance in numbers of abortions among blacks and Hispanics. I can understand how Dr. Parker might be offended by this, but, more importantly I believe, it also detracts from the reality of what is actually taking place – the killing of little human beings, regardless of their race or ethnicity. Also, Mr. Parker is right to a fairly large degree when he talks about people who are "absolutely certain that they are right and they can never think of a way that they might be wrong." Yes, there are too many of those in the ranks of those who oppose abortion. However, to be fair, I believe that those on the other side are equally as guilty of this "sin". We all need to be able to talk openly and honestly about the reality of the situation and be willing to accept the truth, even when it might not agree with our preconceived notions.

The one place in the whole discussion where the interviewer actually stated the issue as it should be, she stated that there are those who would say that Mr. Parker's "compassion should be for the unborn child". The one opportunity to actually get him to deal with the reality of what he is doing, and she allowed him to twist it around so that instead of a child it is a "developing pregnancy" that he could not "weigh equally" with the "life of the woman sitting in front of me". For the one who is in no danger of dying it's her "life", but for the one who is being killed it is only a "developing pregnancy". At the end of the interview she once again allowed him to twist his way out of dealing with reality by asking if he ever looks at the results of an abortion and says, "My God! What have I done?" She allowed him to lapse into platitudes about how he always reassesses his life but never questions "helping" people, rather than force him to look back onto that light table and actually talk about (the brutality of) what he has actually done.

I would like to know, for once in my life, how a man (or woman, Christian or non-Christian) who calls himself a doctor, a healer, who talks about having compassion for others, can simply go in and tear a little human body to pieces. Once again, I have been deprived of that opportunity.

August 9, 2014

God's Own Party

Okay, let's do two days in a row! I just finished reading God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right, by Daniel K Williams. Disturbingly, it talks a lot about abortion! I say "disturbingly", of course, because of the indelible connection that has been made between religion and abortion, illustrated by reference in the book to a statement by Terry Randall (founder of Operation Rescue) that "killing babies is more wicked before God" than even homosexuality. This connection between religion and abortion causes so many people to see abortion as a religious issue, and therefore not one subject to legal restriction in a society that values separation of church and state. That is, of course, only one of many reasons why we need to separate the two. I "grit my teeth" all the way through the book as it essentially equated antiabortionism with religious conservatism. And I "grit my teeth" not so much because the book says this, but because the connection is so real. When I visited the Right to Life booth this year at my local County fair I was disturbed to see not only Bibles being given away, but also balloons saying "Smile -- Jesus loves you". (For now I won't get onto the issue of why we would be smiling while over 3000 innocent children are being killed every day.) Abortion is not a matter of religion, nor is it a matter of being conservative or liberal, nor is it merely a "social issue" -- it is an issue of life and death, a horrifying violence and continuing human rights catastrophe, and we must deal with it as such.

Another very disturbing aspect of reading this book has already been alluded to above – the seemingly constant lumping together of antiabortionism and an anti-gay-rights agenda. The two seem to go hand in hand in the book, and, I am sad to say, in reality. The book referred to Texas preacher James Robison's comparison of homosexuals to rapists, bank robbers, and murderers and proclamation that homosexuals routinely recruited and murdered young boys! This is disturbing enough that anyone who stands up for the rights of the preborn would utter such hateful and vile accusations, but it might have been okay if we had seen the antiabortion movement distance itself from such arrogance and hatefulness. Instead, Robison was invited to speak at the March for Life in Washington, D.C.! How will we ever convince people of what we say when we embrace such erroneous and hateful speech? We will never convince people that we love children, born or preborn, when we cannot even love those who are already born. When we can embrace gays and lesbians (and atheists and astrologists and humanists and...) and invite them to work with us side-by-side, with mutual honor and respect, then we will have a chance of ending this great horror.

We are killing over 3000 innocent children every single day in the United States -- several times that many worldwide. This is not some abstract concept or philosophy -- it is an ever present, and ever horrifying, reality. If you think that your religion is more important than saving the lives of those children, then you, my friend, share the guilt in those deaths. If your anti-gay-rights agenda is more important than saving the lives of those children, then you, my friend, share the guilt in those deaths. There is nothing more important than to save the lives of innocent children -- not one's religion, not one's "moral" views, and certainly not one's prejudices. When we can put all those other things aside and agree that we will put an end to the killing, then it will happen.

August 8, 2014

Abortion and Breast Cancer

Well, in spite of continuing effort on the Human Rights For All Ages Campaign, I am going to try to put up more articles here than just one per year! Today, I have some thoughts sparked by an article that I just read: No, Abortion Does Not Cause Breast Cancer. There has been quite an effort in recent times to convince women that abortion raises the risk of contracting breast cancer. The thought of cancer, of course, puts a scare into any of us, and it is hoped that this will dissuade some women from obtaining abortions. Other than the fact that I doubt that this type of propoganda is actually going to achieve its purpose, I believe that our use of this kind of information is ill-guided.

First of all, there is hardly any clear-cut evidence to prove that the claim is correct. The American Cancer Society says that "scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer". We should not be handing out dubious information. It only undermines our credibility when we try to tell people the real facts about abortion.

Also, even if abortion did increase the chances of cancer, a woman still has a right to make that choice. If she feels that an increased chance of cancer is worth it to be rid of a serious problem or to be able to achieve what she wants in life, than she has every right to make that decision for herself. Right? By telling her that she is choosing between better health or having an abortion, we are reinforcing the concept that this is a "choice" that she is morally free to make, which is not the message we wish to get across, and which leads to my final point.

There is an underlying, implied message here. If we say that abortion causes cancer, then we are implying that that is the reason that women shouldn't do it. Therefore, whether the message is true or not, or whether she thinks the risk is worth it or not, we are effectively telling her that she should make this decision on the basis of how it is going to affect her. However, that is not the reason that a woman should not have an abortion. There is one reason that a woman should not choose to have an abortion: to have one is to kill her child. By giving her this mesage about cancer we are taking the emphasis away from where it needs to be - on the child that is being killed - and effectively telling the woman that she should make this decision on the basis of her own needs.

Even if this type of propoganda is successful in convincing a few women to forego having an abortion, it does nothing to help end the atrocity that is taking place. There is a horror taking place constantly, with over 3000 little human beings killed every day in the U.S. alone. Anything that we do to distract from the reality of that horror is only undermining the cause of the unborn. Let's stick to truly verifiable information that demonstrates what is really important in this matter - abortion kills innocent little human beings.

March 13, 2014

Radical Hardcore Pathologicals

I received two emails today in my inbox from "pro-life" organizations. One was about Massachusetts "radical" revision to their anti-bullying laws which would require teachers to identify and deal with bullying of gay youth in the schools. It claims that these groups are trying to "force their agenda" on the schools. The article includes a letter from pro-gay organizations that "summarizes their true goal", which is to "change the overall climate and culture by addressing bigotry and discrimination". How horrible! They want to change bigotry and discrimination! How can they be so unreasonable?

The other article bemoans the fact that the Boston St. Patrick Day parade is being pressured to allow a "hardcore" gay rights group, also known as "pathological anti-Catholic homosexual activists", to participate. I am not sure what makes a gay rights group either "hardcore" or "pathological", but I do see how much this is hurting those who really need our help – preborn human beings. When we stand up and say we care about little children in the womb and at the same time express our hatred and contempt for those who are already born who are following a lifestyle that is different from that of our own, how are people going to believe that we really care about those tiny little ones that can't be seen? Furthermore, we need those "hardcore" and "pathological" gays and lesbians to help us in our fight to save those who are being brutally murdered. Why do we wish to antagonize and alienate them? Do we want to drive them to the other side so that they will join with the pro-abortionists and fight against us?

And these, of course, are only the latest in a long string of such articles I have received in my email from groups that wish to call themselves "pro-life". The bigotry and the hatred must end! We need to love and embrace all people and show that our hearts are full of love to all. When they see that we care and accept those who are already born, then perhaps people will start believing us when we say that we care about those still in the womb. And when we stop demanding that everyone be "like us", then they will start coming over to our side and help us win this fight.

March 11, 2014

A Great Pandemic

Listening to Garrison Keillor on the radio on the way home this evening, I heard him talking about the outbreak of the Spanish flu in 1918, which he described as the worst pandemic in history, killing a half million people in the U.S. alone. (The only year since 1900 that the U.S. population decreased in number.) A major epidemic indeed! However, more than twice that many are killed today in abortion facilities across our country every year. Granted, the population of the U.S. was about a third of what it is now, so this was a little bit more than the number of abortions today proportion-wise, but the Spanish flu ran its course and was gone after a couple of years, and abortion continues year after year, having killed between 55 and 60 million tiny Americans since 1973. Abortion is a "pandemic" far worse than Spanish flu.

Keillor also said, "The newspapers barely commented on it". How history repeats itself!

January 8, 2013

Caring

I just saw a commercial on TV asking me to donate to help children who are suffering in Africa. My heart went out for a moment to these children who are suffering and need our help. Then I remembered how right here in my own country we don't just let children die, we simply kill them. How can I think about helping those who are living but in need, when we simply kill those children we don't want.

This is what abortion does. It undermines our capacity for caring. If we can kill an innocent child, how can we care about anyone?

December 9, 2013

Deranged Individual

Listening to a media commentator this morning on the radio talking about the Sandy Hook shooting a year ago, I heard him say, "This was a deranged individual killing innocent children." Yes, of course he was a deranged; what other kind of individual would kill innocent children? Mr. Abortionist...??

October 30, 2013

Angry Protests

Angry protests over the accidental killing of a 13-year-old boy by the police. Where were all the angry protests over the intentional killing of over 3000 young children in our country the same day?

June 19, 2013

Busy, Busy

Well, I am sorry that I haven't had much time recently to devote to "blogging". I have been busy at work on the Human Rights for All Ages Campaign. I believe this is the best way we have to bring protection to preborn human beings. Unfortunately, most "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" people and organizations have lost sight of the fact that they are fighting the greatest human rights battle on earth. Meanwhile, pro-abortionists have claimed the "human rights" ground and are even trying to claim that the right to kill one's preborn child is a "human right". We cannot win in this atmosphere. We have to stand up and challenge this dynamic, and remind people that the right to life is the most basic human right of all, that all human beings deserve it, and that we who are fighting for the preborn are indeed the human rights advocates of our day. If you want to end abortion please join the Human Rights for All Ages Campaign today!

April 18, 2013

The Real Terror

It has been four days and we have heard plenty about the bombing of the Boston Marathon which killed 3 and wounded another 176. We haven't heard so much about the killing of over 3000 children in abortion facilities across our country that same day!

February 10, 2013

Threats to Unborn Babies

I was listening to public radio on my way to the grocery store, and they aired a story on air pollution, introducing the story by saying that air pollution is not only bad for your lungs, but it is also bad for unborn babies. Another instance, of course, of using the term "unborn babies" without a second thought as long as the subject is not abortion.

The story was about the effects of air pollution on the health of developing babies, focusing in particular on the correlation between low birth weights and high pollution areas. One would think that the newscaster and those involved in the study he cited were concerned about the health of developing babies. Nothing was said, however, about the greatest threat of all to the lives and health of unborn babies. Indeed, one would wonder why anyone should be concerned at all about the health of unborn babies; we can kill them at will after all!

January 30, 2013

International Human Rights Movement

I just finished reading the book "The International Human Rights Movement: A History" by Aryeh Neier (Princeton University Press, 2012). It is a pretty good book -- packed with lots of information and is quite enlightening in some respects. It is worth reading. It does, however, have one glaring omission --it doesn't even mention the greatest human rights tragedy of all.

How a book can claim to be a treatise on the human rights movement and not even mention the slaughter of tens of millions of human beings annually across the world, or the efforts of those who are trying to stop this slaughter, I cannot understand. The book gives a chapter apiece to lauding the works of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - two organizations which acually promote killing preborn children! The following chapter mentions numerous other organizations in the human rights movement. Does it mention Right to Life, American Life League, or any other well-known oganization fighting the greatest human rights battle of all that kills tens of millions of children each year? I'm afraid not! Apparently the author forgot to mention those.

The author points out that "September 11 caused great loss of life and suffering", and I suppose none of us would disagree with that. What he failed to point out was that there was a greater number of human beings killed in abortion facilities in the United States on September 11, 2001 than died from the actions of terrorists.

January 27, 2013

Talking About the Issue

A friend of mine who supports abortion sent me the link to an article in the January 22 New York Times, "Leeches, Lye and Spanish Fly", an opinion piece that focuses on the deaths and suffering that women have gone through in the past using crude and/or illegal methods of abortion. The message, of course, is that we need to keep abortion "safe and legal" so it will be available or women will resort to these measures again and will suffer and die from them. I tend to disagree that women will go back to "back-alley" abortions, at least not in a major way like they did before Roe v. Wade, and I told him so. I didn't think to tell him that the grand total of women who died in the U.S. from illegal abortions in the year before Roe v. Wade was 39, but that is not the subject of my blog today anyway. I did point out to him that abortion is never "safe" for the one being aborted. But that also is not the subject of this blog.

What my friend said in the email was, "Ward, I know you will disagree with this, but one still hopes you are open to re-thinking the question." I told him that I am always open to rethinking any issue. I then followed up by stating that I felt the important question is whether he was willing to rethink the issue.

I also thanked my friend for sending me the email. I was glad that at least he was concerned about the issue. In the past he seemed to not really want to discuss the matter. As a matter of fact, I raised the subject just recently when we were talking on the phone after the school shooting in Connecticut. He just stated that we were "so far apart on that one" and found an excuse to hang up in short order. I told him this time that I was glad that he seemed to want to talk about the issue, so I suggested that he look at my web page on fetal development and numbers of abortions, something he has been unwilling to do in the past, and then we could talk about the subject. I read his article, so he will read mine, right?

Four days, and so far I have heard nothing.

It is so sad when people think that you just need to open your mind and listen, but they are unwilling to do the same.

January 26, 2013

Killing up until birth

I came across the following article Do All Conservative Arguments Lead to Abortion?, at a pro-abortion site. He is clearly holding forth that being in opposition to abortion is a conservative and religious position. I argued that they are not. But the main point I took him up on is the contention that no law would support killing preborn human beings the day before the baby would be born. How long will people remain ignorant on this point? I informed him of the truth. Here is my response:

There are a host of problems with this article. I will just briefly counter your main theme, that abortion is a conservative issue. Abortion involves (or doesn't) the killing of a young human being. Does this really have anything to do with being conservative or liberal?

Ditto for religion. Your article makes a great deal of religion, but abortion is not a religious issue. Abortion deals with the killing (or not) of a little human being. Who the hell cares what your religion is? I hope that people think killing people is unacceptable, regardless of their religion, or even if they have any religion. (As a matter of clarification, I don't have one. And if you insult me by calling me a "conservative" you had better be ready to fight!) So why are you talking about religion all the way through your article?

Abortion deals with whether or not we are killing a little human being. That is not a religious issue. It is not a liberal or conservative issue. I will also throw in that it is not a "social" issue either. It is a human rights issue – pure and simple. Either we are killing people (a horrendous human rights violation) or we are not (in which case there is no human rights violation and, therefore, no issue).

Having said that, and not wanting to delve into all the various aspects of your article, I would just like to clarify one thing. In your article you state, "I know of no one who claims that, just because a baby has not been born yet, it is OK to kill it the day before the anticipated delivery date….nor have I encountered a situation in which the law adopts this stance." The fact is that the law does adopt this stance - it is indeed "legal" to kill a preborn baby the day before it is born anywhere in the U.S. Please realize this! If you read the Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion "legal" in 1973, you will find that the decision barred states from prohibiting abortion anytime during the first two trimesters. (The trimester system is not in effect since the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case of 1992, but the Supreme Court upheld the "essential holdings" of Roe v. Wade and the basic principles remain essentially the same.) During the final trimester states were allowed to, but did not have to, place restrictions or prohibitions on abortion. If a state did prohibit abortions during the third trimester it had to allow exceptions for the life or health of the mother. The accompanying 1973 Doe v Bolton decision made it clear that the mother's health included "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age".

Who decides if a woman's emotional or psychological health will be hurt by continuing the pregnancy? I believe that would be her doctor. Who is a woman's doctor? Anyone who is licensed as such that she chooses to have as her doctor and is willing to have her as a patient. Get the picture? Yes, laws in states that choose to have laws prohibiting abortion may make things more difficult or expensive for the woman who might be seeking abortion, but, simply with the opinion of some doctor, it is "legal" in the U.S. to have an abortion right up to the day of delivery even in those states that choose to have laws "prohibiting" abortion. And, of course, in states that don't have such laws, she doesn't even need to get the doctor's opinion involved. So, contrary to your contention, the law does indeed adopt the stance that it is okay to kill a baby the day before it is born. This is a greatly misunderstood area, and I hope you will read the Supreme Court decisions and understand what it is that they actually say. The law in our country supports killing preborn human beings right up until the time of birth.

If you care about what is really happening in our society, take a look at the summary at my website: www.abortionreason.com/fetaldevabortions.pdf. Once you know what is actually taking place, then come back and discuss the situation.

January 26, 2013

Distorted Journalism

Thousands of people descended on Washington to protest the killing of preborn human beings, and the Detroit Times ran an article "Abortion Opponents March in Washington". What did they use as the picture to lead off the article? A throng of people in front of the capitol? No. People displaying signs with appropriate slogans? No. A speaker addressing a crowd of people? No. A dead aborted baby? Not a chance! A live 12-week-old human in the womb? Not that either. Some other picture that respresents what this issue is about? No. They published a picture of a young fellow holding rosarie beads. That really defines the issue, huh?

January 20, 2013

Rally

I attended my state's Right to Life rally today, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. While I was there I took notes. Not counting the music that preceded or followed the rally, the singing of "God Bless America" in the middle, or the prayers at the beginning and end of the rally, the name "God" was mentioned five times. The word "pray" or "prayer" was mentioned eight times, there were various references to Christians or Christianity, "faith", "people of faith", the Bible, and the "judge of all mankind", and twice Bible passages were read.

As I held my sign for the Human Rights for Born and Preborn campaign I noted that the term "right to life", other than as the name of the organization, was mentioned one time, when the speaker quoted from the Declaration of Independence. I was afraid that the term "human rights" would not get mentioned at all, but I was pleased that at least one of the speakers, a younger woman in her twenties, did once state that abortion was a human rights issue. I made sure to go up and thank her at the end of the rally.

One for the right to life, one for human rights in general, and probably many dozens of times for God, prayer and other religious references, if you were to add the content of the music and prayers. If I wanted to attend a church service it would have served quite well, but is this the way we're going to stop the human rights catastrophe known as "abortion"?

December 31, 2012

Academic Freedom

I received another response to an email that I sent out in the Human Rights for Born and Preborn campaign, this time from an organization that does not take a specific stance on the subject of abortion, but whose website records that they have taken a stand on behalf of an anthropologist and "bioethicist" who was fired from teaching at a university in Brazil because of her publications in support of abortion. Aside from the rather ironic idea of someone who supports killing little human beings being dubbed a bio-"ethicist", I am wondering if their organization would be so quick to stand up for an anthropologist or other scientist or academic who published views in support of slavery or in support of "ethnic cleansing". Would they still be so vocal to stand up for this person's academic freedom? If he or she were fired from his/her position because of these views, would they "deplore this blatant impairment of academic freedom", as they describe it at their website?

Of course, one would hope not, but abortion is worse than slavery. Abortion is worse than any "ethnic cleansing" that I have ever heard of. Even Hitler "only" managed to kill 6 million Jews – a horrendous crime against humanity, but a small fraction of the 50+ million innocent human beings that have been killed in abortion facilities in my country (U.S.A.) alone since the "legalization" of abortion in 1973. Rather than standing up for those who support killing, I would hope that this group would stand up for those who take a stand against it.

The person sending the email was requesting that I remove their organization from my list, since they don't take any position directly on abortion and are focused solely on defending the rights of scientists, physicians, academics, etc. I told her that I am undecided as to what to do in this regard. Let me know what you think. Should an organization that supports a person who calls for the killing of little human beings, against an organization that has taken a stand in opposition to killing human beings, be called to account for its actions?

December 29, 2012

"Nuanced" killing

The Human Rights for Born and Preborn campaign is off to a somewhat slow start, but progress is being made. I recently received a response from a so-called "human rights" organization which supports abortion. The person responding said, "The situation of the well-being and rights of women, unborn babies, children (both wanted and unwanted) is much more nuanced and complex than the dogmatic black and white picture that you paint." I thought that that was an interesting point of view. Whether of not we kill innocent little human beings is a "nuanced" situation and I am being "dogmatic" if I think we should stop killing people. I wonder if this person were one of the people in danger of being killed if he would still think that this was a "nuanced" situation or that I was being overly "dogmatic"!

I responded with a statement of my own at the top of the email: "The situation of the well-being of slave-owners, slaves and blacks in general is much more nuanced and complex than the dogmatic black and white picture that you paint." I then pointed out that the statement is something a person might well have said back in the early 1800’s in response to an abolitionist’s appeal against slavery, and then pointed out that that didn't change the fact that slavery was a great evil and had to end.

A week or two ago a man entered a school building in Connecticut and killed 20 children and six teachers/adults. What led to this tragic incident? How can we prevent such events in the future? These are "nuanced" questions that will require a great deal of thought to address. I have not met anyone, however, who thought that the killing of these children was okay or that we should permit people to go into schools and shoot people. There is nothing "nuanced" about the idea that what this man did was wrong – it is an unacceptable and intolerable act, and if the man were still alive would certainly be spending the rest of his life in prison (if not given the death penalty) for his violent actions.

When we held black people in slavery it was "wrong" – not "nuanced". When Hitler killed millions of Jews and other "undesirables" it was "wrong" – not "nuanced". When a man walks into a school and shoots children and teachers it is "wrong" – not "nuanced". And when we kill young human beings simply by virtue of the fact that they are still living in their mothers’ bodies it is "wrong" – not "nuanced".

There are many "nuanced" questions that we will need to deal with in regards to abortion. How best to prevent unwanted pregnancies. How to help women in trouble without turning them into killers. But we first of all have to call killing, killing, and call a human rights atrocity, a human rights atrocity. According to this organization's website they are committed to advancing the health, basic rights, social equality, and self-determination of the disadvantaged. But is there is any group more disadvantaged or whose health, equality, basic rights and self-determination are being threatened more than the preborn? And yet, in spite of their words this organization takes a stand in favor of killing these people. The "nuances" of the issue had not prevented this organization from taking a stand in support of abortion; it is time to not let "nuances" interfere with taking a stand in favor of human rights for all, including our youngest people.

You cannot stand for human rights for some people and stand up for violating the human rights of others. With all due respect to the nuances of complex and difficult situations, any organization that wishes to be recognized as a human rights organization has to stop supporting the killing of little human beings and has to take a stand opposed to killing people.

December 20, 2012

Bad Politics

I spoke with a friend who is pro-abortion today. When we touched upon the subject of abortion he said that he didn't like the politics of the people on the anti-abortion side. So, let me get this straight - if you don't like some people's politics, that makes it okay to kill the little children whose lives they are trying to protect. That makes sense, doesn't it?

December 18, 2012

Shock and Horror

Our nation is shocked and horrified over the killing of 20 innocent children in a school in Connecticut - as it should be. But why are we not shocked and horrified over the 3000 innocent children who were killed in abortion facilities across our country that same day?

October 25, 2012

Planned Parenthood Services

I picked up a Planned Parenthood brochure today. "Someone you know relies on Planned Parenthood." "We're here for everyone." Hmmm, like preborn babies huh? They list some of their services:
          Cancer screenings
          Birth control
          Annual exams
          STD testing & treatment
          Emergency contraception
          And other health services ... including killing your baby

Oh, I added those last few words - just for clarification.

October 21, 2012

Unborn Child

Another "unborn child" in the news: Pregnant NYC woman slashed stabbed to death

Why is it that people refer to an "unborn child" in any other context, but if we call it such when we talk about abortion we are wrong in doing so?

October 19, 2012

Syrian Violence

30,000 Syrians dead in all all the violence that has taken place over the last year and a half! Can you believe it?

Can you believe that that is the number of little Americans killed in the U.S. in abortion facilities in the last nine days?!

(1.25 million abortions per year equals 3,400 per day.)

October 16, 2012

Extremism

Well, now that Obama has cast Romney as even more extreme that George W. Bush because he would defund Planned Parenthood, I guess we had better be careful. We certainly don't want someone in power who is an extremist! Imagine, the idea of not wanting to give taxpayer money to an organization that kills 300,000 people every year. How extreme!

July 21, 2012

Massacre Brings Headlines

A madman shoots and kills 12 people and wounds 59 more in Colorado. A horrible tragedy. The news makes big headlines way out here in Oregon.

On the same day over 3000 preborn human beings were killed in abortion facilities across the nation.

No headlines.

January 5, 2012

Repeated Violence

A news story tells us that the Florida abortion clinic that was set on fire on New Years Day "has been the focal point of repeated violence over the years".

How true!

December 27, 2011

Humility

I am greatly saddened to have to make the following report. A young woman recently reported that she had been slighted by the leader of an antiabortion group. The group leader kicked her out of the (Facebook) group because the young woman is an atheist, and therefore does not adhere to the religious teachings of the group's leader, who is a Christian. When I learned of this I posted a notice on the group's page, encouraging the leader to be accepting of all who wish to see an end to abortion, regardless of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, rather than responding with an explanation or in any kind of thoughtful manner, this leader simply deleted my message similarly to the way she had done to the young woman, with a disdainful "Haha".

It is truly sad when prejudice and snobbery divide those of us who need to be united in working to end abortion. It is also sad when a person's attitude blinds her to seeking what is good and what is needed on behalf of those who are dying. Religious teachings will not end abortion. No one in our society, myself included, will tolerate having religious beliefs "shoved down our throats". And, of course, one person's religion is another person's heresy. Any person using religious arguments will have ninety percent of even those who consider themselves "Christians" rejecting their argument (unless, of course, they already agree) because it comes from a religious viewpoint different from their own. Rather than having a scornful attitude toward those who are different from us, we need to embrace those who come from different perspectives. It is only by respecting those different perspectives that we will be able to reach those whom we need to reach if we are going to end this catastrophe. Perhaps this leader, and any others who might read this who are similarly intolerant of those of different beliefs, might read an excellent article, What Drove Them Away?, just published in Life Matters Journal.

Even more disturbing was the attitude displayed by this leader. The leader in question was formerly a Planned Parenthood director who is now attempting to be an advocate for the preborn. One might think that a person who has been instrumental in the destruction of lives might exhibit a little bit of humility when dealing with others who are trying to prevent such destruction. One might think that she would be willing to listen and consider the wisdom that may come from other sources, including a young woman from a different belief system than her own. Instead, her attitude may do more harm to the preborn than all her activities previously in Planned Parenthood.

As you can see, I am not giving out specific names. It is not my purpose to embarrass or cause problems for anyone who is attempting, no matter how badly, to work for the good of the preborn. It is only my purpose to create awareness so that problems can be addressed. But I am putting this up for everyone, including those who might wish to use it against us, to see. Why? It hopes that it never has to be again. Let us welcome all those who wish to end abortion and work united together, and let us not exhibit actions or attitudes that will bring shame or discredit to our cause.

December 15, 2011

Health Care

Tonight I attended a presentation by representatives of the group in Vermont that is responsible for bringing about legislation to establish the first statewide single-payer universal health care. I believe, as they do, that health care should be provided to people who need it, regardless of ability to pay. Even as we provide free education through 12th grade to all, because it benefits society in general to have a well-educated populace, I believe we should provide free health care to all, because it also benefits society in general to have people as healthy and as able to contribute to the good of society as possible. (I speak as a person who is in the "Catch-22" of not being able to work because of my health problems, and not being able to pay for the medical attention that I need to deal with the health problems because I am not able to work.) Hence, I would like to help bring about universal health care here in my own state of Oregon, and in the entire country.

The problem, of course, is that in our society health care includes providing abortions for women who request them. Indeed, the Physicians for a National Health Program defines a single-payer national health program as including "reproductive health services", and we all know what that includes. This, of course, is one of the problems that has bedeviled "Obamacare" (which requires people to buy insurance, as opposed to a single-payer system which does not). So to have health care we must provide the means for some people to kill others. Not exactly "health care" for the one being aborted under "reproductive health services"!

So what is a person with a conscience supposed to do? Do I give up seeking for a better system of health care for the already-born people in our society, or do I work toward providing for those people when it means that my tax dollars will be used to kill the preborn? A distressing choice to have to make! As long as abortion is considered "legal" in our society, is there any way to support health care for all and, at the same time, respect the human rights of all of us?

I might also add that the theme, if you can believe this, of the Vermont group was "Health Care is a Human Right". I am not sure whether I would technically accept the proposition that health care is a human right, although I agree it is something that we should provide to all. It is, however, incredulous that we would provide a "human right" to people by denying the most basic of all human rights to a whole class of human beings. Human rights does not mean the right to kill others – the last time I checked, that was the opposite of human rights!

December 13, 2011

Social Issue?

The AP article, "Social Issues Bubbling Up in GOP Campaign", discusses the prominence of "social issues" for Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential campaign, including same-sex marriage, abortion and gays in the military. This is an interesting perspective, referring to abortion as a "social issue". Somehow I do not think that if armed men were running around the streets of our cities shooting children on sight we would refer to the problem as a "social issue"! We need to call things what they are. Killing innocent children is not a "social issue"; it is a flagrant violation of human rights. Even if some people do not agree that abortion kills little human beings, that is still the essence of the issue. The entire issue of abortion hinges on whether not we are killing human beings through this practice. That is the entire basis on which the claims of we who wish to end abortion rest. If there is no killing, then abortion is perfectly fine - we have no basis on which to try to stop it even if we wanted to.

To misconstrue the nature of the issue is to misinform. When you label violence a "social issue" rather than an issue of the most basic of human rights, then you have already decided for the reader. You are telling the reader that this is not a human rights issue, therefore it is not a matter of violence against the victims of this practice - it is but a "social issue". This is bias in its most insidious form. Until the matter is decided you need to refer to the matter as what it is: the debate over whether abortion kills human beings and whether such killing is justified. That is a human rights issue, and, with over a million abortions every year in our country alone, the most serious one by far than any other on the planet.

December 13, 2011

Saudi Killing

I am reading with horror about the beheading of a woman in Saudi Arabia for "witchcraft and sorcery", the second one this year. I am shocked! I am enraged! Here is a country that we consider an "ally", and they are carrying out such barbaric and murderous practices. How can we continue to support such a regime? We should be insisting that such hideous practices be stopped at once or we will take serious action!

On the other hand, if we say to the Saudis, "You must stop killing women who believe or practice differently from your established state religion!", are they going to take us seriously while we continue to allow the killing 3000 of our own children every single day? What hypocrites we make of ourselves if we do!

We can't have human rights for only some. If we want human rights, we need to stand for human rights for everyone.

December 6, 2011.

Human Rights Day

They had a celebration this evening here in Eugene, Oregon of International Human Rights Day. I went to see if I could find some groups who are concerned about human rights for all, including the pre-born. There were a number of tables representing various different organizations. Most of the organizations had a specific issue which they addressed, such as domestic violence, racial issues, gay rights, etc. None of these tables addressed abortion. There were only two tables/organizations which one might refer to as "general" human rights organizations – the ACLU and a local group, the Community Alliance of Lane County. I was already familiar with CALC – I had communicated with them in the past regarding my concern for the plight of the pre-born, but to no avail. They have no concern over the plight of the pre-born. Indeed, they have held events in which their keynote speaker was Eugene's mayor, Kitty Piercy, who was the head of the local Planned Parenthood before becoming mayor. So it is clear how little concern CALC has for the human rights of the pre-born. The ACLU, as the reader may already know, actually supports abortion.

So much for human rights in Eugene!