Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

It’s Time To Demand Intellectual Honesty About Abortion

We’ve all seen the video of “Doctor” Nucatola of Planned Parenthood, discussing with revolting dispassion — over lunch and a glass of wine — the methods by which babies are dissected alive, “crushed” in certain strategic places, and have their their organs surgically removed for resale.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards took the opportunity to stare earnestly into a camera and tell anyone who would listen that Planned Parenthood does not profit in any way from “tissue donation”.

Miss Richards’ denials notwithstanding, additional videos were released showing more of the same. In one, we see Planned Parenthood’s Medical Directors’ Council President, “Doctor” Mary Gatter, negotiating the price of unborn baby parts over yet another meal. (These discussions apparently have no effect on appetite for those accustomed to the horrors they describe.) She indicates that she is very interested in reaching out to other clinics are charging so she can set an appropriate “specimen” price, which is itself a tacit acknowledgement that this is a common practice.

In perhaps the hardest one to watch, we see the following:

They go to look at “fresh specimens” to see their quality and “intactness.” I can’t recommend watching this part of the video unless you have the stomach for it. And maybe not even then. I moved beyond nausea into horror, and then just deep sadness. As they picked through a tray of eviscerated human remains, identifying each organ and part, I found that I had to stop the video when I saw them pull out a perfect little hand with the tweezers, a leg clearly visible in the bloody mess behind it. To be honest, I broke down for a moment and just started to cry. How could they? How could they?

When Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors was on display during his trial, many wanted to believe that the savagery revealed there was isolated, the product of a perverse mind. That he was a “bad apple” in an otherwise medically professional industry. But the Mengelian practices that even some in the abortion-supporting public have, by God’s grace, recognized as abominable are not limited to a handful of sick individuals. By necessity, those who kill unborn children for a living have given themselves over to unimaginable evil. And collaboration with evil always exacts a price.

As the hardened hearts and sin-dimmed intellects of so many in our civilization — which, through endless indulgence and brutality, now lies gasping on death’s doorstep — continue to find ways to justify, defend, and obfuscate what abortion is and what it does, we must press the case. We must continue to push forward with the truth. It is an interesting data point that many who have no ethical problem with abortion eschew religion, and instead worship at the altar of science.

But science is on our side.

As medical technology advances, we become every year more aware of the full humanity of the child in utero. We see in the ultrasound scan of her face the features of her mother, we notice the fine details in his tiny fingers and toes, we recognize the response to external stimuli, we are confronted with the inexorable reality that these are children, not “choices.”

It is for those who advocate their dismemberment and disposal to explain away these horrors. It is for them to be confronted with the science of embryology and fetal development and be forced to admit: “Yes, we know that abortion is the taking of a human life, and we are willing to stand by it.” Abortion proponents stand shoulder to shoulder not just with Margaret Sanger and George Bernard Shaw, but Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, and their more modern progeny. Estimates are that Communism and Nazism alone are responsible for the death of over 100 million people in the 20th century.

But since 1980, the global abortion toll is over ONE BILLION LIVES.


In the interest of continuing to press our case, to make my small contribution towards forcing intellectual honesty on this issue, I am re-printing, with permission, an essay I wrote for Catholic Vote in 2013 on this topic. It is perhaps more relevant than ever today. The truth matters, even if they try to deny it.

Kermit Gosnell
Kermit Gosnell

Though the media blackout on Kermit Gosnell was well-maintained until the verdict was announced, the dam finally broke at the end. Bit by bit, an increasing percentage of the population became aware. By necessity, once the horror of the Gosnell’s atrocities were in plain view, it was time for damage control. Forced to cover his crimes, the pro-abortion members of the media dutifully informed us that Gosnell was an anomaly, not representative of the fine, upstanding abortion doctors serving American women for decades in their need for “health services”. In perhaps the most glaringly obvious attempt to discredit the connection between Gosnell and the larger abortion industry, William Saletan at Slate wrote a piece entitled, “Kermit the Rogue“. Says Saletan:

Kermit Gosnell, the notorious Philadelphia late-term abortionist, has been convicted. A jury found him guilty of murder for killing three babies after failed abortions, and of involuntary manslaughter for causing a woman’s death.

Now comes the smear campaign. “Gosnell is not alone,” says Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue. “Gosnell is not an outlier,” says Lila Rose, president of Live Action. Gosnell is “not the aberration,” says Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. Yoest points to investigations of other clinics for “dangerous and unsanitary practices that exposed women to injuries and infections, and infants born alive following attempted abortions.” The bad news for pro-lifers—and the good news for everybody else—is that Gosnell really is an outlier. Other abortion clinics don’t do what he did to patients or live-born babies. Few have even come close. Late-term abortions and patient deaths are relatively rare. Part of the exonerating evidence comes from government data. The rest comes, inadvertently, from pro-lifers themselves.

Saletan goes on to attempt to discredit the “myth” that there are over 1,000 live-births after failed abortions in America every year. He ignores entirely the fact that what Gosnell did to babies outside the womb, abortion doctors across the nation are doing to babies inside the womb every day. The cognitive dissonance displayed here is staggering.

So instead of focusing on the simple truth of what abortion is, many of its proponents sidetrack us instead with the arguments about whether or not a fetus is, in fact, human at all. This is a distraction from the debate we should be having, and it is waged under a banner of false language, of euphemisms like “choice” and “reproductive rights” but never the specificity of scientific fact.

I’ve had enough. I propose that in the wake of Gosnell (and in light of the other butchers like him whose crimes are now coming to light) that we dispense with excessive diplomacy and go on the offensive. We must stop giving cover to those who would obfuscate and confuse the issue and challenge them instead. The simple fact is this: no honest, informed person can possibly believe that an abortion does not take a human life.

Science makes no provision for this idea. From the startlingly clear imagery provided by ultrasound technology to the detailed information provided by genetic testing to the continued advances in embryology, science is on our side. It always has been, but the evidence is mounting. We should not be afraid to stand on its findings.

In 1989, world-renowned French geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune was called to testify as an expert witness at a trial in Blount County, Tennessee. A divorced couple was fighting over what at the time must have seemed like a scenario out of a science fiction novel: custody of their seven cryogenically frozen embryos. After establishing his remarkable credentials, Dr. Lejeune provided the court with a lengthy explanation of embryonic development and genetic makeup. When it came time to ask his opinion on the central issue — the humanity of the embryos — his response left no room for doubt about his scientific opinion.

Q.: … I will ask you directly, Dr. Lejeune: You have referred to the zygote and the embryo as quote early human beings.’

A.: Yeah.

Q.: Do you regard an early human being as having the same moral rights as a later human being such as myself?

A.: You have to excuse me, I’m very, very direct. As far as your nature is concerned, I cannot see any difference between the early human being you were and the late human being you are, because in both case, you were and you are a member of our species. What defines a human being is: He belongs to our species. So an early one or a late one has not changed from its species to another species. It belongs to our kin. That is a definition. And I would say very precisely that I have the same respect, no matter the amount of kilograms and no matter the amount of differentiation of tissues.

Q.: Dr. Lejeune, let me make sure I understand what you are telling us, that the zygote should be treated with the same respect as an adult human being?

A.: I’m not telling you that because I’m not in a position of knowing that. I’m telling you, he is a human being, and then it is a Justice who will tell whether this human being has the same rights as the others. If you make difference between human beings, that is, on your own to prove the reasons why you make that difference. But as a geneticist you ask me whether this human being is a human, and I would tell you that because he is a being and being human, he is a human being.

He is not alone in his certitude. A 1981 Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing solicited testimony from a number of doctors and experts. Their statements were unequivocal:

“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

The physicians are not alone.  Faye Wattleton, Planned Parenthood’s longest-serving president, told Ms. Magazine in 1997:

I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.

Other pro-abortion voices have similarly expressed this belief. It is too obviously true to credibly deny.

This should empower us. Many who are supportive of abortion do not, for obvious reasons, share our religious views. And far too often, those who are pro-life make the mistake of basing their arguments on faith or scripture, thus entangling ourselves in debates over metaphysical things in which the larger point we are making is lost. We do not need to make a religious argument about personhood or the existence of human life in the womb. We have the facts on our side, and we can fight like empiricists. We have the benefit of logic and reason, and we are opposed by little more than emotion and misdirection.

We need to be the ones framing this debate. We mustn’t allow ourselves to be sidetracked by spurious arguments.

Originally published on July 21, 2015. This post has been updated.

62 thoughts on “It’s Time To Demand Intellectual Honesty About Abortion”

  1. Thank you Steve, great articles. The momentum, and hopefully public opinion, seems to be in favor of the pro-life position more than I’ve ever seen it following the release of these videos. Now is a great time to push our case. Maybe it will become ‘in season’. Thanks to the people who were willing to preach on this topic ‘out of season’. But let’s not forget that only God can change people’s hearts. And prayer & penance are probably the most important and effective weapons we have to reach people whose hearts have been hardened. It is very clear that logic and scientific reasoning will not convince someone whose will is corrupted that children in the womb or even outside the womb deserve to live. Those people will twist themselves into a pretzel in order to rationalize what they do. So along with presenting the empirical facts (which I think can convince only someone of good will and who honestly pursues the truth), we must use prayer and penance to convert those who have had abortions, who work in the abortion industry and others who agree with them.
    And even if abortion was made illegal today all over the world, there would still be many, many years needed to heal the wounds this horrific plague has brought us.

    • Don’t hold your breath, it took armed US Soldiers and a murderous war to herd the Good Germans into the Death Camps to show them the crimes they were complicit in and had knowledge of and compel them at bayonet tip to bury the dead and care for the survivors.

      The Soviets didn’t even have that confrontation with their evil.

      • Excuse me, but what about the gulags that the Soviets ran? And what about the 7-14 million Ukrainians who died through deliberate starvation by the order of Stalin?

        Yes, what the Nazis did was and is despicable, but don’t let the Soviets off the hook either.

        • True but you entirely missed the point. I never let Socialists off the hook. The point I was making is the Bolsheviks murdered 68 million but were never required to face their crimes or have their Leaders hung for crimes against humanity. The US treated them with kid gloves to protect the illusion of our war time alliance.

          • Thank you for the clarification. A lot of people rightly despise the Nazis but they know little or nothing about the millions who died in the Gulags. Harvest of Despair by Robert Conquest, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Solzhenitsyn and Witness by Josyp Terelya are a good place to start.

  2. Very good article.
    I witnessed something the other day that broke my heart and made me think.
    I watched a mother cat trying to protect her newborn kittens from a male cat
    who was intent on killing them. Two other female cats tried to rescue one of the
    kittens from him even though she was not one of their own, a very rare thing in animals.
    They had given birth before, so they knew it was a baby cat, and yet they tried and have no
    knowledge of good and evil.
    Today in our world, human beings, who do have the God-given gifts of reason and freewill and do actually know the difference between good and evil, make the very evil choice to murder their own or someone else’s child for the sake of money or convenience.They are, by their own free will, now lowering themselves lower than an animal.
    And now I will say this…”I knew you before I formed you in the womb; I set you apart for me before you were born…” Jer. 1:5
    “Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be”. Psalms 139
    I can not begin to imagine what these monsters will say to God’s Face when they face Him at the time of their own death.
    Lord have Mercy on the poor children they have literally butchered.

  3. CASH


    “A less
    crunchy technique”

    Oh, how

    Like the
    Germans who gassed

    So no one
    felt pain.



    A little
    blood spilled?

    Sew her up
    with some sutures

    And make
    sure you give her

    honeymoon stitch

    To fulfill a
    man’s dream

    As he uses
    her niche.

    Then we’ll
    take her back

    Clean her
    out before lunch

    Harvest her

    And our cow’s
    cache we won’t crunch.

  4. No kidding. The abortion and birth control crisis in the West has never been about honesty, integrity or any human and humane virtue but about the normalization of a satanic leftist world view that see all human beings are insignificant grist for the great mills of progress to be controlled, manipulated and extirpated by the will of a self described sophisticated caste.

    One example is the clearly sociopathic character type that embraces the idea that billions of years of human evolution and divine will that created the maternal instinct in the woman’s begin can be effaced with the claim of a choice when every bad action up to the act of conception was a choice and pregnancy is merely a consequence.

    Sure these people are evil but actually they no more evil than the man and women who practice artificial birth control just messier because the actions are grounded in the same fallacies of choice.

  5. When I saw the PP videos and the casualness in which they traffic fetal body parts, I’m reminded of who the Nazi spoke so inhumanely about the Jews. Here is a clip from the HBO movie “Conspiracy” which I can only imagine the secret meetings PP is having now to put a happy face on their human trafficking business. I can also see in the not so distance future the trafficking of adult body parts as euthanasia becomes more widespread and “legal”.

  6. Great article, Steve. Most every abortion proponent I’ve debated at any length does eventually concede the fact that a baby is being killed. Few, if pressed with clear language, actually believe that a “mass of tissues” suddenly transforms into a “human being” (*cue magical puff of smoke) at the moment the umbilical cord is cut.

    The thing is, they are alright with that. Typically, they assume that the child is destined for an unhappy life. The abortion is thus seen as a preemptive “mercy killing.” Some talk as if they’re genuinely doing the child a favor, with the added bonus of fighting overpopulation…

  7. They can be seen driving away to get coffee while girlfriend is inside. Grandmothers and grandfathers driving their own seed to execution. Sometimes even reluctant boyfriends in tears over their failures to protect the one that they want to live, but she won’t have it. These are the faces that know full well what they’re doing and simply want the sex and the money more. Lock them in a room and show them the video. Explain the science. For some, the baby will still have to go.These are the reprobate who can be likened to a soul being shown first the adorable face of the Divine Savior; and then the intolerable repellence of Lucifer, and desire hell instead of heaven. Reason doesn’t matter. They’ve gone so deep into self-worship that they no longer desire the good.

    This is a front in spiritual warfare, which only the Queen of Sciences, theology, is equipped to win. So when the scientistic pro-life movement (NOT referring to this blog’s author, by the way, but others) says that they don’t want to associate with men praying the Rosary on the sidewalk, or the calling for the repentance of all comers; we know that they’re throwing the fight just to crawl in the sack with Protestants and limp-wristed Catholics who contracept, but claim to be against murder.

    War is hell. Wage war against hell, once and for all!

  8. What everyone must do who reads this essay, what all who claim to be prolife must do, is:

    1)Find the abortion mill in your area 2)Make some kind of sign 3)Research where the public sidewalk abuts the abort mill property (this will be your Maginot Line) 4)choose a time that fits with your schedule, either daily, a few days a week, once a week, whatever you can arrange 5)If you’re a guy, you can handle it alone – a woman has to decide whether or not she needs a partner (of course, do what you can to recruit others, but don’t let their absence prevent you from making your stand 6)Don’t fight with people, don’t antagonize – let them talk, and have clear, cooly delivered, prayerfully thought-over responses. Show the people who will see you on your now-regular routine that you are serious, committed, and loving. Many will be won over by this.

    Unless we do this, we aren’t doing “works”, although we might be doing prayers. Sending money to proxies, regardless of the good work they might be doing, is not “works.” To be active for prolife is really nothing more, nor nothing less, than this. LifeChain, March for Life etal are well and good, but in no way take the place of standing guard at the Maginot Line for Christ.

      • Standing witness is beneficial in two ways: for those needing to hear the message, and for the one delivering the message. While sending money to a proxy will get the message out, it may not do so in your community, at the abortuary near your house. I believe we all need to take responsibility for our own locales, like a neighborhood watch. And there simply is no substitute, no proxy experience, that equates with standing and praying oneself, for one’s own spiritual development.

      • Just replying to a your post in a (related) closed thread:

        8 days ago
        Ok, that’s a good partial explanation, but lots of women can and do have 3 or 4 children after 30. I did.”

        That’s wonderful, and I’m glad it worked out for you, but not every woman can count on that. The plural of anecdote is still not data. Peak fertility is in the early 20s, and declines thereafter. Not trying to pick on you, it’s just that there’s a lot of denial (or alternatively, the “I’ll just freeze my eggs” sort of faith in SCIENCE! to fix things) around this issue.

        • I didn’t deliberately leave having children ‘late’. I had two children in my twenties also. It’s just that I know a lot of women with large families, so many years of fertility are fairly common. I forget my original point, but I agree it’s silly about freezing eggs etc, and I think it’s evil as well.

    • “If you’re a guy, you can handle it alone.”

      I know it sounds macho to say that, but be careful. First of all, be sure to film yourself to prove you’re doing nothing wrong. Abortion providers kill children. You can rest assured they are not above making false accusations against someone who is out to talk would-be customers out of giving them business. It helps to have video evidence to protect you, plus at least one other person there who is on your side. Second, guys really aren’t that tough. If they were, one man could have ended abortion in this country overnight. Guys like to talk like they are tough enough to go it alone if need be, but it’s usually just an act as they very rarely actually go it alone.

      • Not sure why you focus in on this. It is a commonplace to regard the streets as less safe for women, partially because they are not as good fighters as men, and also that they are targets of rape. Am I missing something?

        • People- guys included- should be cautious about doing it alone. Many of those abortion advocates would love nothing better than to “get” a white male on some false accusation in which he has no way to prove his innocence, so being a man doesn’t make him less vulnerable in this case. “Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t mean a group can’t cause a lot of problems for a person as they try to find a way to prove their guilt.

          • I agree, all that you say is a potential danger. But this will depend on the locations where such incidents are more likely. Is standing athwart the amoral village square with a sign that says: STOP! a prudent thing to do? In terms of physical safety, perhaps not (more or less, again, depending on locale). In terms of spiritual warfare, absolutely crucial.

  9. Steve, Steve, Steve
    Do you not understand that these abortionists must be accompanied? If these baby killers have good will, who are we to judge.?

      • I was thinking that we could really broaden it:
        1) There is no this or that but both, and. Abortion is both good and bad.
        2) The teaching about “Go and sin no more” is for the future. So keep doing what you are doing. God is happy with you killing those babies but maybe later on you will have a change of mind
        3) We must apologize to – nay beg the pardon of – abortionists and those who procured abortion for the way we have hurt their feelings and “offended” them when we label what they do as murder.
        4) Killing babies is merely an “irregular” activity of doctors and the mothers who decided to snuff out the life of their babies simply made an “irregular” choice.

  10. Nice echo chamber you’ve built for yourself, Skojec.

    Since you can’t get pregnant (neither can I), we can conveniently discuss the pros and cons of abortion in the abstract. It is not a choice we will ever have to face.

    You say “The simple fact is this: no honest, informed person can possibly believe that an abortion does not take a human life.” By your logic, then, anything that takes human life is unequivocally wrong. I can think of many things that take human lives: war, botched surgeries, refugee crises, car accidents, suicides, capital punishment, to name just a few.

    So I guess you will go on the offensive against botched surgeries, right? And automobiles? And you are out there mending the rifts in the human condition so that there will be no more wars, right? I look forward to that. Meanwhile, perhaps consider that harassment of pregnant women is a bad idea.

    • What a facile argument. Let’s knock down your house of cards, piece by piece:

      1) Start with an insult. “Nice echo chamber”. LULZ. I argue this in hostile forums too. Science is science. But good job setting the mood.

      2) The old, “Since you can’t experience X, you have no right to talk about X.” It should be a logical fallacy, but maybe it’s just dumb. If this were true, the predominately male legislators of this country have no right to legislate for or against abortion, or anything pregnancy related, or anything female-reproduction related, including various forms of rape and sexual assault.

      But since those who lead civilizations generally understand that experiential knowledge is not the sine qua non of insight into the nature of a thing, that’s never been an issue. Except for in arguments about abortion, because the only way to justify slaughtering an innocent child is to throw rationality out the window and emote as loudly as you can until people stop talking to you.

      3) “By your logic, then, anything that takes human life is unequivocally wrong.” That’s clearly not my argument. And if you want to engage the other side of it, I’ve written about that too:

      However, I would posit — and please feel free to offer your stunningly astute ethical rebuttal — that it is always wrong to intentionally take an innocent human life.

      4) Nope. There’s nothing else here. You just started giving more examples of your already flawed premise in #3.

      If you want to have a discussion that doesn’t give rise to contempt, bring your A game. That wasn’t it.

      • Thanks Skojec for showing your true character, trading insult (‘facile” “just dumb” “contempt”) for insult.

        Yes, I would say predominantly male legislators are out of touch with the populace. I would also say that those who are pro-choice have never, ever advocated the “slaughtering of an innocent child” as you say. Facts not in evidence, so don’t bring it up.

        I agree that it is always wrong to intentionally take an innocent human life. But I go further to say that even guilty lives are worth saving (I will check you link later). In fact I go so far to believe that every life created on this planet is sacred to some degree, including those who the self-righteous say have made bad choices.

        So this laser-beam focus on abortion avoids seeing the larger picture of human misery, poverty, and lives lost to preventable illness and injury. Science backs that up too. Real evidence, I mean, not just the cherry-picked anti-abortion websites that you used.

        As for my A-game, you’re right. I’m only getting warmed up.

        • Thanks Skojec for showing your true character, trading insult (‘facile” “just dumb” “contempt”) for insult.

          Oh, I see. So it’s only OK when you do it? I know people on your side of the argument like to pick on Christians and pro-lifers because you see us as willing victims of abuse. I’m not one of them. I fight back.

          Yes, I would say predominantly male legislators are out of touch with the populace.

          That isn’t what I asked, is it. I wanted to know if you believed they should not be allowed to legislate, for or against, crimes against women (or crimes perpetrated by them) that they cannot understand because they are men.

          I would also say that those who are pro-choice have never, ever advocated the “slaughtering of an innocent child” as you say. Facts not in evidence, so don’t bring it up.

          Oh really? Hmm. There’s one quote in the article above, which you apparently didn’t read:

          “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.” – Faye Wattleton, Planned Parenthood’s longest-serving president

          But I can give you more.

          we don’t have to lie to ourselves about what we are doing at such a moment. Let us at least look with clarity at what that means and not whitewash self-interest with the language of self-sacrifice. [snip]

          War is legal: it is sometimes even necessary. Letting the dying die in peace is often legal and sometimes even necessary. Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die. – Feminist icon Naomi Wolfe

          Camille Paglia:

          Let’s take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body.


          But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive. Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.

          Many of the doctors and counselors who work at abortion clinics admit the same. Here’s a sampling of their quotes:

          Again, no honest person can claim that abortion is not the killing of a human being. Those who attempt to make such claims are merely deflecting or rationalizing poor decisions they’ve made in this regard. And those who have no personal connection to the issue but argue for it? Well, “ignorance”, except in the cases of those who have never bothered to look into the issue at all, is too kind. Most people who take it upon themselves to argue publicly in favor of abortion with no personal reason are, frankly, willfully blind on this issue, which is itself a form of cultivated stupidity.

          I agree that it is always wrong to intentionally take an innocent human life. But I go further to say that even guilty lives are worth saving (I will check you link later). In fact I go so far to believe that every life created on this planet is sacred to some degree, including those who the self-righteous say have made bad choices.

          I mostly agree with you here, and that’s a nice surprise. I think there can be reasons to be merciful to the guilty, but that should be taken on a case-by-case basis. As I’ve argued elsewhere, none of us are really innocent. We all sin in a way that is, in the grand scheme of things, deserving of death. It’s not a matter of self-righteousness. It’s a matter of honesty.

          So this laser-beam focus on abortion avoids seeing the larger picture of human misery, poverty, and lives lost to preventable illness and injury. Science backs that up too. Real evidence, I mean, not just the cherry-picked anti-abortion websites that you used.

          See, there you go slipping back into cultivated stupidity and malice again. You can put sentences together, so that means you’re capable of rising above both of those things.

          The “laser-beam focus” on abortion is because it is the single-largest ongoing massacre of human life in world history, and it is perpetrated against the most defenseless among us – the very ones we should be doing all that we can to protect. It is the most terrifying indictment of the human race. Beyond poverty, beyond illness, beyond unnecessary wars and inhumane practices – we are literally wiping out our own children for the sake of our personal convenience, and we can’t even be honest enough to admit to ourselves that we’re doing it.

          Even if you don’t believe in God (and if you do, you must recognize the wrath He holds toward those who destroy the innocent) you must recognize that this is a humanitarian disaster. It is the surest sign of our descent into barbarism. How can we hope to treat each other with love and mercy and justice if we don’t even believe that the little children who we bring into the world by our own behavioral choices deserve to live? We don’t care what we do to them or how they suffer, because we can’t see or hear it from within the womb.

          You want to know how people can turn a blind eye to disease and famine and poverty and the rest? Because they can walk into a clinic and have a doctor crush the head of their own child, or burn them alive with chemicals, or tear them limb from limb – all in the place that should be the safest in the world: the womb.

          How is it that you think I’m cherry-picking when I am citing congressional testimony and undeniable medical and genetic facts? Do you have only a 3rd grade education in science? Have you never even dissected a fetal pig, the physiology of which is demonstrative of what “doctors” are butchering in human wombs every day across the world? The photo at the top of this article is of 16 weeks gestation. I can show that picture to a two-year old and ask what it is, and they’ll say, “Baby!”

          You’re going to be warming up for a long time. You haven’t even hit Z game. You’re way out of your league. Arguing against reality has a tendency to put people at a disadvantage.

          • Steve, I hoped to reply to your response, but you took the words right out of my mouth;)

        • “So this laser-beam focus on abortion avoids seeing the larger picture of human misery, poverty, and lives lost to preventable illness and injury. Science backs that up too. Real evidence, I mean, not just the cherry-picked anti-abortion websites that you used.”

          Over 1 billion dead babies world wide through abortion since 1980 and you don’t see the larger picture of human misery? You are totally Blind!

          “As for my A-game,” You don’t have an A-game, you don’t even have a Clown game!

        • Only human life is sacred. Plant and animal life is not sacred. If you are going to call out Steve for failing to put the word innocent before human life, I insist on putting the word human in front of life, when you say life is sacred, unless you actually want to argue that plant and animal life is sacred along with human life.

      • @Steve Skojek

        Speaking of intellectual honesty when it comes to abortion, I wrote this article on Trump’s comments regarding women who procure abortions and how the pro life movement capitulated after Trump made those comments. I discuss why Trump was right about women who get abortion and justice even if Trump said it for the wrong reasons. If you would like, you are free to republish it with my blessing. I wrote it using my degree in philosophy and training in theology. I think it would be good for your readers to know the truth about flimsy arguments that undermine being authentically pro-life.

  11. You claim to believe a developing fetus is “fully human” — I guess the humanity of the woman bearing the fetus in your view should become subordinate to the developing fetus. You demand extraordinary measures of a woman, but at birth that developing fetus you are so ardently concerned about, appears to fall off your radar and fade from your consciousness. Strong advocacy for the “pre born” but little or nothing after birth is intellectually and morally dishonest. We do not, at present, offer comprehensive, publicly funded medical care to everyone. Poorer nations than us have this — we do not. Why not? Wouldn’t your “pro life” beliefs demand that you activey and aggressively demand our lawmakers enact the necessary legislation and funding to provide this basic necessity? We put men on the moon and send trucks to Mars and spend more of our public wealth on our military than any other nation in history. Why is the “pro life” movement so quiet about this issue? Why aren’t there “marches on Washington” demanding universal medical coverage or paid maternity leave or excellent day care? Intellectual honesty?

    • The pro-life movement is very much on the side of protecting the born, be they mothers, babies or any adult. You make a false hypothesis, that the people who are prolife are against the availability of health care. This is false, no matter how many times you repeat the lies.
      The Catholic Church, for example, has been on the front lines of providing health care and all care for thousands of years, regardless of ability to pay, in fact, especially for those impoverished.
      The Prolife movement is also on the front lines of protecting the disabled and the weak and all those who can not speak for themselves. There are many who, by the same logic as abortion proponents, would euthanize or encourage assisted suicide for those who have a quality of life (or even a cost of life) that does not fit their views of worthwhile.

      Those who are prolife do not place the life of the preborn ahead of the already born, they place them on equal ground. The life of the mother is not subordinate to the unborn child, but equal to it. (Another false hypothesis on your part)

      Is your answer to the absence guaranteed health care for someone to kill them instead, or do you reserve this solution only to those who are invisible because they are still in the womb?

    • Medical coverage and care is an issue to address and discuss, but first shouldn’t we stop murdering babies? Let’s end the millions of deaths and murders of babies. Babies can’t have medical care and coverage when they are dead.

    • 1) You lie when you say pro-life people care nothing and do nothing about your litany of evils and problems in the world;

      2) Even if your lie were true, it would be totally irrelevant, because murdering babies would still be a monstrous crime, and allowing it to continue as a “legal” activity would still be an additional monstrous crime.

    • We demand extraordinary measures and reject the humanity of women? I see.
      Given the number of laws that already hold men accountable for rape, sexual assault, and other crimes, …and given the number of women I’ve met who seem to have little care for the human dignity of themselves or the men they meet, that’s a rather difficult charge to substantiate.

    • I have had two miscarriages. One 9 years ago, the other 4 years ago, the anniversary of which was early this month. Both early. I saw them on the ultrasound screen. They were not recognisably human, but I saw that they were there. I wanted so desperately for them to live. I remember for the first baby that miscarried thinking that if I kept really still, maybe they wouldn’t go. But they did.

      I gave birth to my eighth living child in November last year. As I looked upon her for the first time it flashed into my mind, ‘this is what they would have looked like’.

    • Beautiful (and brilliant) – how could those images (and the message) not tug at your heartstrings – I’ll to send this to all my family, friends and colleagues. A friend sent me the picture below she’d found on the net this Christmas – it’s Jesus in The Manger. I printed it off in color and it’s now on the wall in my office – helps keep me well and truly grounded.

  12. There will be no intellectual honesty about abortion. Abortion advocates refuse to answer the question “when does a fetus become a person.” Whatever their answer, they know it isn’t the real answer. The answer few will dare to say out loud is “when it is wanted.” We have to end abortion first by changing the laws to protect the most vulnerable of us from the irrationality of some, and by educating the masses on the dignity of unborn life. 200 years ago, lots of Americans thought slavery was ok. 300 years ago, many of those slaves were Irish Catholics. If a professor proposed the enslavement of black people today, how long would they keep their job? I would bet that a student would tweet it, and by the end of the lecture the teacher would be fired and escorted off campus by the police. Well, abortion could be viewed in the same way in a few hundred years if people would fight hard enough.

  13. I think this a very poignant topic, especially today. After reading an article about how pro-abortion lawyers were having fits about Jeff Sessions having been appointed Attorney General, I wound up in a comment debate regarding why abortion should be illegal and whether science supported or rejected this practice. I had learned of the lengths that “pro-choice” advocates might go to, but I did not expect this.
    I conceded that the scientific method, defined as the act of drawing a hypothesis and creating an experiment to test the hypothesis, might be argued to be neutral, as these acts neither favor life nor detract from it. I felt that such a statement best described what I know of science.
    However, I emphasized how the practice of science in daily life, as witnessed by any number of research institutions, favors life. For example, scientists in Africa will study desertification with the idea toward preventing the Sahara Desert from spreading.
    Incredibly, my opponent insisted that this example did not represent science, but only reflected medicine!
    When asked to present his evidence from science that supported life, he could only refer to various social studies that declared that society benefits from abortion. He would not admit that the social sciences are some of the most subjective, therefore are the most easily distorted. Nor would he admit to the secular bias inherent within these studies.

    So far as I can tell, science is, at worst, neutral to life, but most practical applications of science definitely support life.
    Now we simply need to hammer that point home.

    I hope Our factions of the People will be pushy about that.

  14. Abortion/Freedom of Choice/ Roe vs. Wade==the right of mothers to kill their own children.

    Euthanasia/Death with Dignity===the right of children to kill their own parents.

    We need to spread these statements around.

  15. Watching the March for Life from the UK I was very much encouraged to see how the Pro-Life movement in the USA is really making progress. I am afraid we are far behind here but lets hope this will be one good import from America.

  16. How has it come to this? The power of the evil one is immense – but is it not only strong over us individually, and in our respectve societies, if we allow him to have his way? 1 BILLION? 1 BILLION? Lord, how long? How many more? Thank you, Steve for this fine article. It reminds me of the words of my first every Professor of Moral Theology, Fr. George Donaldson. I asked him a long time agon, in private, “Father, why do so many people not see what’s going on when the facts are obvious?” He replied in his deep Scottish accent: “It takes more than facts to convince, Robert. It takes more than facts.” It was then that I came to realise that with out grace the will of no man can choose the true good. God is giving the grace, but it is being rejected. How is any man converted away from any sin? Only by God’s grace. Are we called to pray and beg God to move the hearts of wicked men away from their evil deeds? Yes, and to suffer with Christ for them. This seems to be the road that God is offering to many in the Church is this Year of the Immaculate Heart. Some victim soul, somewhere in the Church, must be doing this to an incredible degree – taking the weight of God’s justice upon herself in order to win the grace of repentance for hardened sinners. Praise God for such love for Christ crucified.Praise God that sin has been defeated on the Cross – even the immense sins being committed today against Marriage and the Family (inside and outside the Church). The victory is Christ’s and His Immaculate Mother’s!

  17. And it’s time to confront prominent people directly with their intellectually dishonest arguments. Arguments that amount to nothing more than election strategy rhetoric and crafted language designed to manipulate. Sheryl Sandberg from Facebook has put out a message expressing her disappointment in reinstating the Mexico City policy writing that “Women’s rights are human rights,” and emphasizing “There is no more basic right than health care. Women around the world deserve our support.” Sandberg should be confronted directly with this intellectual dishonesty. She’s got a lot of money and a powerful position which results in her having an apparent moral authority. But the truth is she’s either not very bright or a very manipulative person.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...