Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma

Why I Must Write About Abortion Even Though I Do Not Want To.

2012-02-21T14:22:00.000-06:00

Last month marked the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which has served to legally sanction the nearly 54 million abortions performed since 1973.

The president released a statement lauding the historic decision as protecting not only women’s rights, but promoting a broader principle that government should not intervene in private, family matters.

In this post, I do not raise eyebrows at any specific, tragic ironies entailed by his statement. Furthermore, I do not want to struggle in polemics against the Roe decision and the ideologies that perpetuate it. There are times and places for those things, but for the moment they are neither here nor now.

Instead, I want to engage in a different struggle – one of my own, personal fights against myself.

Namely, I do not want to write about abortion, but I must.

I am not alone in this struggle, so I do not think I can rightly be called narcissistic or egotistical for sharing about it. I do not share because I believe myself to be important, but rather because I think the issue is. Also, I hope by weighing this confession you understand better the dynamics of the abortion dialogue around you, since understanding is a part of loving.

Now on to it, and please bear with me patiently, as I have to give a bit of background first.

I am a Christian, which means that I have given up my life to follow Jesus, whom I trust in as the loving Son of God who was crucified and rose again for us all.

One of the things he commands his followers is that they teach others to follow him. “Others” includes you; which means I want you to come to know him and be known by him if that is not the case already.

But, as Dallas Willard writes, in our world today “presumed familiarity [with Jesus] has led to unfamiliarity, unfamiliarity has led to contempt, and contempt has led to profound ignorance.”

So one of my concerns in writing and talking to others is to eliminate contempt they might have toward Jesus. A problem arises, though, when I attempt to do this by pandering to people’s particular tastes. I forget about presenting him as he is, and instead try to present myself as a likeable, cool, smart (even philosophical!) guy.

I become leery of stepping on anyone’s toes and try to distance myself from the mocked and mulish stereotyped fundamentalist.

Because of this, I really do not want to write about abortion; it makes Jesus and Christianity even less palatable to many of my peers than they already are. Why not just write about the milieu of other social ills that we can all agree need to be rectified, like human trafficking, genocide in Darfur, racism, or dirty campaigns?

If I only focus on those issues (and they DO need to be addressed) I can keep my gaze straight ahead and not glimpse the burden behind me, a looming mountain of silent screams. After all, Jesus said not to look back once the hand is on the plow. And many of us remember what happened to Lot’s wife. I begin to justify not “looking back.”

Could it be better to avoid mention of that dark mountain?

But there… I’ve already acknowledged it. The screams have reached my ears, the voice of my unborn brothers’ blood cries out from the ground. And I’m a pillar of salt.

For now I know, and knowing demands response. As Jesus’ brother James wrote “whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

The same Christianity which prompts me to love and understand those around me, and therefore identify with them in a meaningful way, also stands in unequivocal opposition to the practice of human abortion, and demands that I do something about it.

And writing is not enough. This is another reason I don’t want to write about abortion: because I am consciously aware even while typing that writing can only be a beginning, a first step toward the mountain whose gravity increases the nearer I get, demanding more contrition and action.

Since I’ve written, I must pray, speak, preach if I can, maybe picket, adopt, support, get arrested, and God knows what else short of violence.

All these things rub against my desire to appeal to my peers, but I think it is better that way. That desire, after all, grows from a conviction that I must introduce people to Jesus, but in presenting him, I need to show him as he is without censoring unpopular parts of the Bible’s teaching.

So, even though I don’t want to write about abortion, I know that I have to, and I trust that this will work out, that honesty is better than improvising, that loving people means more than appealing to them, and that loving Jesus is shown – at least in part – by actually obeying him.

Correcting false views of the Oklahoma Personhood Act

2012-02-18T22:27:00.004-06:00

Through a friend's Facebook feed, I came across a hysterically livid article attempting to explain the implications of the recent Oklahoma Personhood Act: Oklahoma Senate Passes Personhood Act, Effectively Banning All Abortions

This article will serve to review it and to give an abolitionist response to the charges made.

The bill would define life as beginning at conception, effectively banning all abortions and many forms of contraception.

Already, Foster is off to a poor start. Yes, it would define life that way, and yes, it would effectively ban all abortions. However, it has nothing to do with contraception.
Contra = against
-ception = the suffix relating to conception of a child

No abolitionist has any problem with contraception, and contraception is very different than abortion for one simple reason - human life begins at conception, from the fertilisation of the egg by the sperm. Contraception, properly defined, prevents that fertilisation from occurring.

Any agent that ends the life and development of a preborn human child is an abortion. RU-486/the "morning-after pill" causes abortions.
So this law will ban abortions, yes, and we're very glad about that. But to say that the bill bans contraception is wrongheaded, false, and unfair.

The bill would also ban women from getting an abortion if they are raped because there are no exceptions in it.

Quite so. We have already written extensively on why this is important, but let me review a few reasons why this exception, while popular, is not justified.
1) The baby is not responsible for the sins of his father. We must punish the rapist, not his son or daughter, for his crime.

2) Please stop speaking about human beings conceived in rape as though they have no purpose and ought to have been murdered in the womb.

3) God can and does bring good out of evil of all kinds. Murdering the baby short-circuits this good process and deprives many people of blessing.

4) We must of course be concerned with helping the rape victim to heal and recover, as fully as possible. Shall we propose that one who has been so violated, so violently treated, then engage in her own act of violation and violence toward the baby God placed in her womb? The answer to the evil in the world is never more evil.

5) Do any of us know what kind of person the child will end up being, if left to grow and develop as all pro-choice activists were left to grow and develop?
Who knows whether she would become a great world leader, whose activities culminated in the elimination of rape altogether? Would not her exploits and the gladness of heart she would bring become that much greater, the blessing more magnanimous, when contrasted with her painful origin?

6) Love and grace are most keenly felt when suffering is deepest, when the contrast is widest between the nadir of anguish and the apex of glory. Compassion shown to the victim and to her child, an adoption of a "rape baby", care from surrounding community - all of these things shine that much brighter when they are focused on overcoming a deep darkness.

7) Of course, there is more to be said on this issue, and it's been said here.

In other words, Oklahoma Republicans are granting rapists more power over their victims. Not only will a woman have to deal with the pain and trauma of being raped...

Basically, the rapist wins.

Here, Foster engages in shameful and bizarre sensationalism. Does Foster really believe that one of rapists' primary motivators is to impregnate their victims and "force" them to bear their children? What is his evidence of this? Does he have some sort of rapist opinion poll to which he is appealing and of whose results he can be reasonably confident? In what way, precisely, does the rapist win? It certainly seems more compelling to think that the rapist wins if he escapes punishment for his crimes.

Isn't it far better, rather, to suffer evil when the alternative is DOING evil? Doesn't a refusal to stoop to the level of the rapist constitute a victory over him, that he was unable to compel or influence his victim's life for the much worse?

It is also difficult to see how the rapist wins if his child is dismembered in the womb. Foster did not bother explaining himself, but it's also difficult to imagine how he could reasonably do so and make sense.
And how does the woman win if she inflicts not merely pain and trauma, but indeed death, upon her own child?

...she’ll be forced by state government to remain pregnant for nine agonizing months, only to endure more pain while giving birth.

I pause here to note that Foster is a man, not a woman. Moving on...
1) Foster is greatly overstating his case, again. I'm neither doubting nor denying that pregnancy includes difficulties and a varying amount of pain and discomfort. Childbirth itself is also frequently difficult.
However:
a. In no way is it true to say that all nine months are "agonizing". I'd need to see some evidence that it is "agonizing" for even a significant minority of women for even a significant minority of the time. I've known and listened to many pregnant women, myself, and not one, not even those who have had to spend months in bed rest for the good of their baby, have ever used the word "agonizing" or any word that means anything even close to it, to describe their pregnancies.
b. In fact, many women report that during a few of the months of their pregnancies, often starting around 20 weeks and stretching into the 8th month, they feel pretty darn good most or all of the time.
c. And of course there is the joy set before them, as it were - many women greatly anticipate the day when they will finally hold her son or daughter in her arms for the first time and be able to kiss and show him or her off to her family and friends.

2) Childbirth does not have to entail much or any discomfort, not anymore. Epidurals, advances in anesthesia, C-sections, etc - these mean that many women I know have not even experienced any pain whatsoever during childbirth.

3) It's strictly correct to say that the state government will "force" the woman not to murder her baby, yes. Foster's tendentious language implies that this is morally reprehensible, but think about it. The state "forces" us all to do or not do all sorts of things, such as:
--not rape, even if someone really really wants to
--drive at or under the speed limit
--refrain from firebombing legal places of business
--pay taxes
etc.
Unless Foster is a consistent and total anarchist (which is unlikely), he doesn't have a problem with the state "forcing" its will on its citizens in some cases. The question is not whether morality will be imposed, but which morality will be imposed.

The bill would also prohibit women from obtaining life saving abortions from their doctors if the pregnancy threatens their lives.

1) This is highly doubtful. It would seem that Foster is operating off emotion, perhaps second- or third-hand information, and rigid sectarian attitude. Let's take a closer look at the language of the bill, specifically:

The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.

That's really what this issue is about. Contrary to irresponsible accusations I sometimes see from pro-choicers, abolitionists have no interest in placing the rights of the preborn child above the rights of the mother, any more than the original abolitionists wanted to replace the royal family of England and Parliament with an all-black oligarchy. Rather, we, like they, want to see equal rights, equally respected, no matter what age. We want a system that recognises that human rights are based on essence, not on level of development, such that the system can consistently refuse to allow an 80 year old to put me (who am younger than 80 years of age) to death if I inconvenience him, just as it consistently refuses to allow a 21 year old to put to death a 21 day old if he inconveniences her.

2) Further, the bill states:

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

This is very clear. Further comment is unnecessary.

3) There is a significant and easily recognisable difference between saving the life of a woman by necessarily removing an ectopic pregnancy or something similar and intentionally seeking the end the life of the preborn child through an unnecessary abortion. The motivation matters, and the motivation is easily ascertainable, given how much time is devoted to attempting to save both lives and how much danger the mother's life (not merely her "health", which is a highly fungible term) is in. If to save one life, one must be lost (thus avoiding the loss of both lives), to what precisely in the language of the bill is Foster referring in his shrill criticism?

4) Compared to the total number of abortions performed in the USA, 'therapeutic abortions' performed to save the life of the mother comprise an infinitesimally small %. Why is it that Foster and fellow pro-aborts so often argue for laws that accommodate the tiny minority at the expense of the vast majority?

under this language, it’s possible that even a natural miscarriage could be defined as involuntary manslaughter.

To what verbiage, precisely, is Foster alluding? He didn't say. Read it yourself, come to your own conclusion. Do police generally investigate when 90 year olds, sick with pneumonia, die of natural causes? Miscarriages are the death of a preborn child, usually by natural causes including fatal developmental defects.
And in a legal system like the USA's, where one is innocent until proven guilty, does Foster believe it would be easy for police to gather incriminating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in these cases?
Would police officers who spent all their time investigating miscarriages last very long in the force when they could be investigating robberies, gang violence, and drug offenses?

In-vitro fertilization could be defined as mass murder since the process involves placing many fertilized eggs into a woman to increase the chances of her getting pregnant, because some, or all, of the zygotes could die.

Finally Foster strings together a coherent thought that is 100% correct.
Imagine with me: If preborn children at whatever age are indeed human beings with rights fully equal to yours or mine, would not freezing 10 of them to death constitute "mass murder"? How else would you define it? Is it better if they don't look like you, are smaller than you, don't have a voice, or are out of your line of sight? How far are you willing to carry that thought?
Is it OK for a WASP to stick 10 African-American children in a freezer until they died, insert earplugs so as not to hear their screams, and lock the door so he wouldn't see them?

This will essentially prevent doctors from performing the procedure altogether, meaning many women will lose their last hope of having a child.

1) Actually, doctors will merely have to alter their methods. Instead of fertilising several dozen eggs at one time (thus creating several dozen human beings) and freezing them (only to discard many of them later, as is common practice), doctors can instead freeze eggs (to which no one objects), and when the time comes to implant, fertilise, say, only two of them and implant both, thus not wasting human beings and also still giving each embryo a chance at life.

2) Even if IVF were entirely proscribed (which, again, it's not), has Foster never heard of adoption? What is this talk of "last hope of having a child"?

Republicans across the country are declaring war on women

1) If only more Republicans were pro-life, if only more pro-lifers did anything more than vote occasionally, and if only more voting pro-lifers actually lived out their convictions and became abolitionists.

2) The Republican Party has shown itself to be perfectly willing to accept pro-choice candidates, even for President. George W Bush was far from consistently pro-life. Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice, was the leader in the GOP primary race for a significant period of time in the 2008 race.

3) Foster probably doesn't know this, but American women have, for a long time, consistently and repeatedly polled, in the majority, pro-life.

4) Our own Facebook page is overwhelmingly 'Liked' by women. 67%, at the last count, are women.

5) Insisting that it be illegal for anyone to take part in murder is no more a war on women than freeing slaves is a war on specifically Southern white men.

6) Foster hasn't been paying attention.

in an effort to control what they do with their bodies and enslave them to the will of men under a twisted interpretation of the Christian Bible.

1) As explained above, the government does instruct its citizens about many actions they may and may not use their bodies to perform. Rape is an action a rapist undertakes with his own body. In the act, the rapist infringes upon another's body.
Abortion is an action a woman undertakes with her own body. In the act, the mother infringes upon another's body.

2) The baby is not part of the woman's body, but rather is simply housed therein for a time. The baby has different brainwaves, DNA, (often) blood type, organs, limbs, heartbeat, personality, etc. Our goal is not to tell women what to do with their bodies, but rather to make sure that everyone's rights are equally respected, and to correct serious violations.

3) What is Foster's argument that valuing preborn children's lives is a "twisted" interpretation of the Bible? I'd love to invite him to lay out his biblical argument in detail so that we may see where we've gone wrong in our understanding of what the sacred text is communicating.

4) Foster is a man, himself. Is he "enslaving" women to his will?

5) More women than men in the USA are pro-life.

6) Ensuring that everyone's rights are equally respected hardly equates to enslaving a particular class of people. Where is Foster's argument?

Anti-abortion advocates and Republicans are no longer content with the American people deciding on personhood amendments via the vote.

1) Are we supposed to apologise for this? Does Foster believe that a duly-elected state legislature cannot legitimately pass laws? Or is it only laws with which he disagrees that are illegitimate?

2) Mr. Foster shouldn't worry. We are also planning a person-by-person ballot initiative to get the Personhood Amendment on the ballot for the November 2012 election, which will make it that much harder for activist judges to circumvent the will of the people on this matter.

3) Does Foster believe that Proposition 8 should stand in California? That was a straight democratic vote.
Somehow I doubt he thinks it should stand, so what is his problem again?

So, there you have it - a wild, mostly irrational opinion piece by a biased individual. However, based on the fact that "Unlike other sites, like The Huffington Post, we pay our writers, based on article views", perhaps we know why Stephen D. Foster Jr. chose to write his article as he did, full of sensation, irrelevancy, and spasm-inducing lefist-base-pandering. It's far more interesting and gets the blood flowing far better than a sober, rational review of the new Oklahoma law would have been.

What are these "Personhood" people up to?

2012-02-17T14:29:00.002-06:00

WHAT IS PERSONHOOD?

Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings.

When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as the right to life.

This terrifies the pro-abortion foes! They know that if we clearly define the preborn baby as a person, they will have the same right to life as all Americans do!

This then also raises the question: is every human being a person? There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity.

If you look up the word "person" in your average dictionary (we'll use Webster's), you'll find something like this: "Person n. A human being."

A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons, and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law.

Personhood holds the key to filling the “Blackmun Hole,” a startling admission in the Roe v. Wade majority opinion:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” - Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe v. Wade

In 1973, the science of fetology was not able to prove, as it can now, that a living, fully human, and unique individual exists at the moment of fertilization and continues to grow through various stages of development in a continuum until death.

However, pick up any embryology book today and you will find that your life and every person’s life began at fertilization.

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." - Keith L. Moore in The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition.

If the Court considers the humanity of the preborn child, it could end this age-based discrimination and restore the legal protections of personhood to the preborn.

For nearly forty years, however, this has not been the case. The situation we are left with is that, in America, there is a group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. It is truly astounding, but not wholly unprecedented.

"In the eyes of the law...the slave is not a person." - Virginia Supreme Court, 1858

Throughout history, certain people groups have felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood, and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such horrors possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for preborn Americans.

There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the United States today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in this shameful injustice.

What is a person? A person is a human being at every age.

-Keith Ashley
Petition Drive Coordinator, Personhood OK
Contact us today to get started: PersonhoodOK@gmail.com

Just one more woman to ignore

2012-02-14T08:46:00.000-06:00

See here and here more of the same.

A late night conversation with a thoughtful Abortionist.

2012-02-09T12:34:00.010-06:00

In the small hours of the night on Jan. 31st/ Feb. 1st, a pro-choice person posting under a clever psuedonym on our Facebook Community page made the following standard anti-abolitionist comment:

“You claim to be like the abolitionists who fought against slavery, moral evils etc. Yet have no problem in forcing women to give birth against their wills, that is slavery not to mention cruel to remove their rights simply because they are pregnant, which will result in immense suffering and disastrous outcomes for the pregnant women. Hypocrisy is amazing. You are so full of it.”

In response to this post, an interesting back and forth occurred between one of our page's administrators and this person, who, as you will find out below, is an actively employed gynecologist who performs abortions.

The following day, this person removed the thread from Facebook after other people got on it and took the conversation in a different direction. This person and the admin have since become friends on FB and are continuing their conversation through other means and ways of messaging. Before the thread was removed however, this particular admin cut and pasted the dialogue between him and this abortionist into a Word file, knowing that such things are often deleted from the page.

We have chosen to repost the dialogue here as it is both a model for how one can share the Gospel in the midst of discussing abortion (with even the most stalwart proponents of the practice) in truth with love, and for the purpose of asking many of you to lift this particular abortionist up in prayer. As you will read, she has engaged in the great evil that we seek to abolish, but she has also had great evil done against her. And though she is not a follower of Christ, she is created in the Image of God and a creature of inestimable value, and Christ Himself became a human to save sinners, like all abolitionists and all pro-choice people are.

No part of this dialogue has been modified or left out excepting one series of spelling corrections (the admin who was engaging in this dialogue apparently cannot remember the old school rhyme, "i before e, except after c," when spelling the word conceived), and the name of the abortionist has been changed to "Jane" and modified throughout the conversation.

Please read prayerfully:

Jane: “You claim to be like the abolitionists who fought against slavery, moral evils etc. Yet have no problem in forcing women to give birth against their wills, that is slavery not to mention cruel to remove their rights simply because they are pregnant, which will result in immense suffering and disastrous outcomes for the pregnant women. Hypocrisy is amazing. You are so full of it.”

AHA: "[Jane], the so-called "right" that was granted to women (and by proxy the men who manipulate and betray them) to kill their unborn children was never right. Slavery and Women not being allowed to kill their developing babies during a nine month period are not the same thing. The abolitionists of slavery were called hypocrites by people like you. They were assailed for taking peoples rights away."

Jane: "Actually it is. Forcing them to do something against their will, such as childbirth, is slavery. Slaver is defined as " a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune""

Also, it not being right is in the eye of the beholder. I find it wrong to remove a womans reproductive rights.

As for the abolish abortion commenter, what do you mean people like me? People who want to preserve a womans rights over her own life and reproduction? Or someone who can point out your hypocrisy?

AHA: "Rape is wrong because it is forcing women to do something against their will. Women who choose to have sex are not being forced to be pregnant."

Jane: "They would be forced to carry the pregnancy."

[At this time the AHA admin began to pray for this person and decided to ask a question and show a particular video [warning: this video is not of an abortion, but it is difficult to watch. It is from a documentary where a number of women performing abortions and recieving abortions in Russia are interviewed about what is going on in the "clinics" in that country.]

AHA: "Is this what you are arguing for/ seeking to justify? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jTVZdDdhuU "

Jane: "Yes it is. It is more justified than removing a pregnant womans rights, just because you deem it immoral."

[When "Jane" boldly declared that the content in that video was what she was advocating for, the AHA admin decided to take a look at her FB page and discovered that they were indeed employed as an abortionist and had been long working at a women's clinic which helps poor women with various medical services, including abortions.]

Jane: "I love how you believe removing a womans rights over her own reproduction is ok, simply because you want to force her to give birth. No one should be forced to do that. If childbirth is beautiful, why stain it by having it be forced?"

[Knowing the answer to the following question, the admin asked it anyways to see what she would say.]

AHA: "Do you make money off of helping women get abortions? DO you make money off of assisting doctors who get rich off of killing human beings?"

Jane: "Actually, I do it for free. I do it to help women, unlike you who wish to turn them into breeding machines. :)"

AHA: "So how wealthy are you?"
AHA: "And do you ever feel bad about it? I mean, when you count up the parts and make sure you got all of his or her pieces out of there, do you even whince?"

Jane: "I make about $45,000 a year at best. Hardly wealthy. I know plumbers that make more than me."
Jane: "No I don't. I help women, unlike you. If they don't want an abortion, fine. If they do, I will help them. Simple as that. "

AHA: "Also (and this shouldn't offend you because you think it is a morally good thing to do), did you get an abortion yourself before you went into the profession?"

Jane: "No need, thanks to rape I am now sterile. :) I was pregnant once though."

AHA: "And what do you really think about those of us who would want to save and help all the women you help in ways that would not put them through the Hell that you have put yourself through?"

Jane: "I believe that if you really wanted to help women, you wouldn't limit their choices.

AHA: "So your abortion was so traumatic that you chose to be sterile? BTW, I hate it that you were raped."

[A long pause in the back and forth occured at this time, and the admin added.]

AHA: "If some sick government in the future legalizes rape, I am going to be a part of that law's abolition.

Jane: "Actually, I became sterile from the rape itself."

AHA: "That sucks. How does that work? And please tell me the guy was caught and severely punished."

Jane: "I am unable to produce vaginal lubrication, so when he went in he tore me up causing excessive internal scarring, even as deep as my womb. So now my womb cannot expand, making me miscarry by the second month."

AHA: "We think Rape is wrong because it is one person violating another person's body. Somehow the rapist thinks they are justified in doing this evil act because they are bigger or stronger than their victim. Some rapist might think they have some sick sort of right to rape women because they are men. That is, they dehumanize or less-humanize their victims to carry out their evil deed."

[Jane clicked "like" on this comment, there was another brief pause in the back and forth and the admin posted again.]

AHA: "We think Abortion is wrong because it is one person violating another person's body. Somehow the Abortionist thinks they are justified in doing this evil act because they are bigger or stronger than their victim. Some Abortionsists might think they have some sick sort of right to abort developing human beings because they are more fully developed than them. That is, they dehumanize or less-humanize their victims to carry out their evil deed."

Jane: "I have seen many rape victims, as such I have become hostile to any."
Jane: "Oh I forgot to mention, he died in the hospital that same night. :)"

[At this point, the admin took a break from the back and forth and prayed to God for help in discerning whether this person was for real or not, and to give him strength to continue the conversation and find a way to share the love of Christ with her regardless of whether she was telling the truth or just messing around on the AHA page.]

Jane: "I agree, some abortionists are like that. I even reported one colleague of mine and had another arrested because of their actions. I do it to help the women, I give them all the information I have on the subject and even an ultrasound if they want one. I want them to be fully informed."

[Admin is still praying]

Jane: "By hostile to any, I mean rapists. Sorry for not being clear."

AHA: "So, why do you go by the name [psuedonym that she uses is deleted for privacy reasons]?

Jane: "Haha it is my nickname lately. ^^; I have alot of scars, so they tend to compare me to an anime character."

AHA: "That's pretty cool I guess. You're kind of owning the scars and poking fun at them."

Jane: "Yeah haha. :) Humans are what they are, there is no shame in it. Be it fat, skinny, tall short, pretty or ugly. We are all human. :)"

AHA: "So do you only perform abortions for women who have been raped?"

AHA: "And we are Human from conception right?"

Jane: "No I do it for any woman, but thanks to the area I live in the vast majority of them are either rape or molestation pregnancies."

Jane: "Yes from conception we are indeed human."

AHA: "fat, skinny, tall short, pretty, ugly, born, unborn ...all human?"

Jane: "Yeah we are all human, even a fetus is a human. I don't deny that. :)"

AHA: "I hate to bring you any emotional harm, and I know that this is hard and that many "pro-lifers" want to end all abortions except for in the case of rape, but do you really think that human beings conceived in rape are different from human beings conceived in consensual sex?"

Jane: "No I don't believe there is a difference. That whole "well they are predisposed to it!" argument is a load of bull. However, I know many women dread the thought of it."

AHA: "Well, I guess the reason I ask is that it is mind boggling why some people are okay with aborting one human conceived in rape and not another human who was conceived in consensual sex. I think it is wrong to punish the new human for the way he or she was produced."

Jane: "I agree, it isn't right to punish the fetus. The way I see it, is that it is wrong to punish the mother as well."

AHA: "There are also plenty of people out there who have been conceived in rape and they are happy to be alive. And there are many women who have carried and raised the babies in their wombs that were conceived in rape. Beautiful stories there... "

[Here there was another short pause and then "Jane" wrote.]

Jane: I was a rape baby, so I happen to agree.

[Admin is back to praying, and his wife, wakeing to see that it is now 1:30am, kindly requests that he come to bed, "Facebook will be there in the morning." Admin explains to his wife a thing she is pretty used to hearing, and she goes back to bed praying herself for this woman and what is going on in the conversation].

AHA: "Well. I am going to have to turn in soon but I want you to know that we are not "full of it" for wanting to care for the weakest members of the human race and we do not think that abolishing abortion will lead to the enslavement of women. There is evil in this world and we hate it. It is unnatural, and a result of our choosing to live in a world of our own making as we rejected the world intended by our Maker. We are unashamed about our theological beliefs and one of those beliefs, the most significant one, is that God himself came to this earth in the womb of a young unmarried woman who did not choose to be with child. He was conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit and was born into this fallen world to redeem it. He grew up just like all of us, but he grew up poor and in a land occupied by foreign powers who eventually killed him at the behest of his own people. But the whole thing was God's plan and Jesus was meant to be punished on behalf of all of humanity's sin. He took God's wrath against sin upon himself and died for it. He died for you, me, all the other non-abortionists and abortionists alike. He did this to reconcile us to God. You see, God is holy and the wickedness of sin cannot be in his presence. In order that we might return to his presence, sin had to be destroyed. This was carried out on the cross. And because Jesus rose from the grave, he conquered the death that would separate humanity from its maker forever as well. Jesus did this for you, and he did it for your rapist. But, he does not force you to believe it or accept it. He just lets you know that He loves you, by keeping his people up late into the small hours of the morning on facebook to tell you about it. He loves you. And he longs to forgive you and restore you. To redeem the evil that was done to you and forgive the evil that you have done. Consider crying out to God and asking him to show you his Love. The fancy word for all this is Repent. Turn from your participation in evil deeds and live a new life in HIM."

[Here there is another brief pause in the back and forth, and I think I may have lost her with all of that, so I just add.]

AHA: "I will just be praying for you. Thanks for talking."

Jane: "Protecting is fine, so long as it does not remove the rights of the one carrying the fetus. Removing those rights do make women slaves, as the moment they become pregnant they have no say in the matter."

Jane: "Also, I am not christian but I do appreciate the sentimentality you shared. Thanks for your time, have a pleasant evening comrade."

AHA: sleep well ["Jane"]. I love you.

Jane: "Sleep well my brother/sister. (Sorry I do not know your gender.)"

AHA: "Oh yeah. Sorry about that. I am a male and I am 31 years old. I am a happily married philosopher and historian of science. I am an evangelical Christian and have not always been a good person or great Christian. Christ has forgiven me and made me a new man and I walk in that newness of life everyday and have for some time. I pray God reveals himself to you my friend. Contact me through this page if you ever need anything or have any questions about the crazy stuff I shared with ya. PEACE"

Jane: "Ah same age. :)"
Jane: "Well it is nice to meet you brother, and I shall."

Please pray for "Jane" and pray for all of the different people that God brings into her life to draw her to Himself. Pray the Holy Spirit keeps her up late at night and chases her through the day reminding her of Christ's great love for her in that while she was a great sinner, He died for sinners, and has made a way to reconcile her to God.

http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com/2011/12/abolition-and-use-of-theology.html

An Attack on the Reproductive Rights of Women?

2012-02-06T16:46:00.001-06:00

Deception, Ignorance, Inconsistent Logic…

Those are a few of the possibilities that crossed my mind, but I’ll leave the labels up to you – decide after considering the following:

What is reproduction (specifically in the context of abortion – or wait should we define words differently in various contexts…hmmm)?

As most know that are in any way, Pro-life/Pro-abort/Apathetic-aka-Pro-Abort, connected to the current events of the abortion industry, Susan G. Komen recently decided to reduce/remove/limit (nobody seems to really know the exact intentions) funding to Planned Parenthood. The reason given by SGK was that they had put in place rules not to grant funds to any institution under any type of investigation. Thus, never taking a legitimate stand against abortion specifically in the first place. A short time later, to the surprise of very few, SGK decided to backtrack after being pounded by PP, Pro-aborts, and the liberal media. In the midst of all of this “flip-flopping” I decided to visit SGK’s Facebook page and read some of the reactions. An overwhelming amount of reactions went something like… This is an attack on the reproductive rights of women.

Initially I didn’t think much of what I had read other than “big surprise, the same ol’ women’s reproductive rights argument”. As I was driving home the next day I got to thinking about that argument and something just sort of “clicked” or at least I knew something wasn’t quite right.

I wondered – just to be sure – were the people on SGK’s Facebook page the only people who use this type of rhetoric. I didn’t think so, but I had to make sure so here are a few examples from pretty prominent sources saying things quite similar:

“The ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project protects everyone's right to make informed decisions free from government interference about whether and when to become a parent. The ability to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is essential to women’s equality…” http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom

See the link attached to the quote above (reproductive-freedom) and you will realize that this quote is ACLU’s attempt to describe reproductive freedom and how they must protect it.

President Obama said in regard to Roe v. Wade, “We must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

That one is from the president and is pretty clear.

Now, let’s look at a few definitions of reproduction:

process by which organisms replicate themselves. In a general sense reproduction is one of the most important concepts in biology: it means making a copy, a likeness, and thereby providing for the continued existence of species. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/498542/reproduction

sexual reproduction by the fusion of a female gamete and a male gamete. http://medicaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+reproduction

So… before going any further I must disclose the fact that I am not a doctor, or a biologist, or involved in any type of scientific field. Heck, I can barely remember a few symbols on the Periodic Table. With that said, it seems pretty obvious to me that what the President and ACLU are saying simply does not jive with the definitions of reproduction.

Bottom line – based on the definitions above along with the ordinary sense of most people it is clear that once the “sperm meets the egg” or in less visual terms “the woman has become pregnant” REPRODUCTION HAS OCCURRED.

Thus, the question is - how can the President and ACLU say abortion is an attack on the reproductive freedom of women when abortion has absolutely nothing to do with reproductive freedom?

Reproductive freedom according to the definition is the freedom to reproduce, the freedom to get pregnant. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not to give birth.

So, the truth is that women have reproductive freedom and it is not under attack by anyone (with one possible exception – a rapist). Pro-lifers are all for reproduction – get pregnant all you want – whenever you want.

The freedom that the President, ACLU, and Pro-aborts are asking for is the right to Murder/Kill/Destroy a baby that exists because of women’s reproductive freedom.

Let’s vow to no longer allow pro-aborts or anyone else to use the term reproductive freedom without “calling them to the carpet”. This is just another attempt to victimize the mother and criminalize those of us who want to protect those who cannot speak for themselves.

So, is the use of this rhetoric an attempt to deceive, simple ignorance, or continued inconsistent logic? Thoughts?

Side note – and I don’t meant to be humorous or insensitive, but if we define reproductive freedom as the President and ACLU want us to: the right to end a pregnancy… what does that mean for the reproductive freedom of men?

-Nick Baker

The Abortion Gang doesn't like our comparisons

2012-02-02T23:13:00.001-06:00

The Abortion Gang has come out with another round of poorly thought out rhetoric. It misses the central point in the abortion/abolition debate so badly that one wonders what the author (Kaitlyn) was trying to accomplish. Could it simply be an exercise in conscience-assuaging? So that women who don't want to be inconvenienced by a baby or a scumbag boyfriend can come to the comfort of a pro-abortion website, drink in the insistence and the authoritative tone of someone who seems like she's done the difficult legwork of supporting her assertions, and be soothed back into apathy?

Here is the link to the source article. Be forewarned: Profane language.

Kaitlyn says:
Abortion is not like the Jews and the Nazis, and it’s not like genocide, and it’s not like slavery.

The central question that Kaitlyn has not dealt with, but whose answer she has merely assumed, is whether the unborn child is a human being.
If the unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception, then consider what abortion is.
Very young humans are called "children". Your 2 year old toddler is a very young human being, and we call him a "child".
Thus abortion is at least 53 million children dead since 1973.
These 53 million children committed no crime.
These 53 million children received no due process of law before their summary execution.
These 53 million children received no anesthesia before their violent death.
These 53 million childrens' violent deaths were far more brutal than the death to which the US legal system subjects convicted capital criminals. Timothy McVeigh got a last meal, read a blasphemous poem, got a needle stuck in his arm (just like I did the last time I went to the hospital), and drifted away into unconsciousness. McVeigh was buried. Unborn children get burned in garbage bags and left outside.
These 53 million children were either subjected to weaponised pharmaceuticals in the form of a drug that caused their host environment to expel them to death, were dismembered by the application of bladed weapons, or were scalded to death on the outside of their bodies and the inside of their bodies by a "saline solution", otherwise known as a chemical weapon.

If the unborn child is a human being, every time you drop your cash or insurance card at the abortician's "clinic", you are contributing to the comfortable existence of a professional child-murderer.

If the unborn child is a human being, 53 million deaths far exceeds the Holocaust's least sympathetic body-count estimates. It is comparable to the Holocaust because it singles out one people group and decides it is unworthy of protection.
If is comparable to slavery because it singles out one people group and decides it is unworthy of freedom and the proper rule of law.

Of course, if the unborn child is not a human being, abortion is comparable to an appendectomy. It means nothing.

1) Whether you think the fetus is a person with a soul or a collection of tissues, the vast majority of abortions occur at a time when the fetus could not survive outside the womb

Does Kaitlyn believe that women can be eternally pregnant? Does she think that the right to life depends on the level of development? If so, what is her argument? If I am more developed than she, am I justified in forcefully dismembering her? Would the US military be justified in using advanced chemical weaponry against Afghani civilians? After all, they are better developed.
No, rather, the unborn child is always growing and developing, and after 9 months will be born and will be able to survive outside the womb.

In the case of the holocaust and genocide, those being killed were human beings surviving without physical dependence on another person’s body.

The Nazis did not ask whether they were or not. Their arbitrary, made-up definition for humanity was "not Jewish, gypsy, handicapped, etc". Just like Kaitlyn's is apparently "not young, up to the point when I say so".

2) Those killed in the Holocaust, and in various world-wide genocides, were fully developed human beings with histories, families, and relationships. Abortion does not end relationships in this way, it prevents them from occurring.

1) Kaitlyn has no idea whether unborn children have emotions and feel relationship with their mother.
2) In fact, fetal studies often indicate that the child responds to his mother's and father's voices in utero.
3) Notice that Kaitlyn apparently thinks that the right to life depends on whether one has relationships. Am I justified in strangling a homeless bum who's told me that he has no friends and no family, just because he somehow inconvenienced me?

Slavery is the ownership and exploitation of a person’s life. Abortion is preventing a life that does not yet exist from becoming one that does.

Does Kaitlyn believe that unborn children are not even alive?
It should be clear to any thinking person that the unborn child is most definitely alive. Can Kaitlyn inform us of just one example of inorganic entities, like rocks, that result from the sexual union of two mammals?

Whatever you think of abortion, it is not like anything else. It is unique

We abolitionists beg to differ. It is a lot like murder.

objections to it generally rely on values and morals that, despite their claims to universality, are actually in the minority, and belong to a small, select group of people

Even though polls in the USA have consistently been showing for some time now that the majority of Americans are pro-life, with the possible exception of the usual rape/incest/life of mother caveats.

would judge black women for having abortions because abortion is like slavery.

We are far more interested in judging those who exploit women and push them into thinking abortion is their best or only option.

We are not anti-women or anti-women’s rights. We are pro-life, pro-women, pro-family, pro-adoption, anti-death, anti-destitution, anti-dissolution, anti-abortion. We desire to abolish the legal practice of human abortion, not punish the women already abused by its legality. We desire to confront and destroy the entire system of female subjugation and objectification which slyly encourages and often attends abortion’s unbridled occurrence (Ephesians 4:14).

they feel so unjustly entitled to their incredible amount of privilege

This is a very ironic statement, coming from someone who wants to defend the ability of fat cat aborticians to preserve their comfy lifestyle.

(Rwanda) is a country where, as a result of the estimated one million deaths that occurred

That's less than 2% of the deaths due to abortion in the US.

Many of the women who bore children after the genocide did so because they had no access to abortion in the chaos and aftermath.

1) Did Kaitlyn stop to consider whether these children should be killed because their fathers were evil?
2) As Kaitlyn bemoans the fact that 50% of the Rwandan population is younger than 18 and that there are too few men, did she ever reflect on the fact that if abortion had been widely available, there'd be a lot fewer young people and a lot fewer men? Perhaps she would do well to educate herself on the law of unintended consequences.

You do not forget it. You would not compare it to abortion.

That's because the most direct victims of abortion are all dead.
Does Kaitlyn judge the moral value of a given action by how many people remember it?
To be fair, that may well be her position. It may be the best her position can yield. However, God has indeed spoken into this broken and harsh world, and He has made it clear that He will mete out full justice for all crimes, all violations of His law.

We must all confront the question whether He will mete out that punishment on us, the criminal, or Jesus Christ, the innocent atoning sacrifice.

As for the relationships between these women and their children who are the product of rape, I can say anecdotally that those relationships vary, like other relationships between parents and children

And if these mothers had aborted their children when much younger, there would be no further relationship at all. The child would trust his mother and love the sound of her voice, up until his violent death to which his mother acquiesced. It turns the mother into an accomplice to oppression rather than a nourishing lover, guide, and helper.

we knew children who had never known love because of it

Did Kaitlyn offer to put those children out of their misery with a quick bullet to the head because she knew their quality of life was insufficiently elevated? Would any of these children have accepted the offer?

Life is a crapshoot. An abortion means someone never plays.

Not quite, but more importantly, the person in question doesn't make the decision. Someone else makes it for them.
A Nazi could just as easily say the same about a Jew he just shoved into an oven - Life is a crapshoot. This Jew pig doesn't get to play anymore, because I say so.

Birth control and miscarriages also means someone never plays.

Those are not equivalent, to each other or to abortion. Birth control prevents conception. Miscarriage is spontaneous and unprovoked. Only abortion ends the child's life through human intervention.

If you must fight it, if you must insist that you know better than the women and the many, many mothers who make the decision that abortion is best for them

What about the many, many mothers who decide with joy to keep their children? They far outnumber abortive mothers!
What of those who considered abortion and rejected it?
Did Kaitlyn stop to ask herself how we can know whose reasoning is better?
If she couldn't be troubled to consider the most fundamental question, which led her to write a poorly-reasoned article, why would we think she considered this latter question?

One step toward the total abolition of human abortion is to call pro-choice people to a higher level of thought, reason, analysis, and discourse.

We have reflected on the question of the personhood of the unborn child at great length. We have destroyed the typical pro-choice arguments. Where are their rebuttals?
Here, here, here, and here are some good places to start interacting with our arguments.

The answer is: There are no rebuttals. The God Who created the universe and all living things has given us His law, and no mere creature can correct the very Creator Himself. All pro-abortion arguments have been and will be shown as what they are - empty rebellion against God and the image of God in human beings.

Pondering Psalm 139

2012-01-31T18:48:00.000-06:00

January always provokes me to ponder life: my life, the lives of those surrounding me, and the sanctity of it all. By the world’s standards, I am disabled. Contrary to the stories I have told, I am not the victim of a shark attack or a vicious anaconda. I am not, in fact, a victim at all. I was formed this way. I was born before the days where ultrasounds were a part of standard care. My disability was a complete surprise to my parents, to the doctors, and to the entire small town where I was born.

I talked with my mom just recently about that day. She told me a story I have heard many times, and I still react with the same sense of wonder when I hear it. I am the third child of five. This was not my parents first trip to the hospital for a baby. They knew the process. This time, though, the outcome was different. They did not give a young mother her baby. Everyone moved in quiet panic around the room, each focused on their designated job. When the doctor finally approached her bed, she spoke words that still resonate in my mother’s mind today….”Before I let you see your baby, I have to tell you that there’s something wrong with her”. I cannot even begin to imagine the sorrow of hearing such words. You see, I have four children of my own now; and, truly, the only thing I wished for them was health. I just wanted my babies to be healthy. They could be bald, look like an alien, have a cone head that never went away, but please Lord let them be healthy. Just imagine what it must have been like to have no idea that there was anything amiss, sitting in a hospital bed with open, waiting, empty arms…..”there’s something wrong with her”. How do you even begin to filter through the rush of emotions that accompany such a phrase? From utter joy to utter despair with a few spoken words.

Of course, as many of you already know, the something wrong is a partial limb on my right side. Nothing major to me or anyone who truly knows me, but that is a lesson learned through years of exposure. No one could be certain that there was not more involved. It is an easy assumption to make. If she is missing an arm, what else may be wrong that we can’t see? The truth is, they didn’t know. No one could predict what I would be capable of doing or whether or not whatever I could do would be accepted by any one. My parents went to the hospital ready to welcome their third “normal” child into the world, and what they got was me.

A whole new world of concerns and fears went home with me from the hospital. There was nothing to be done but wait and wonder and pray and strive to not worry. And so they did. They let out a long awaited sigh of relief when I learned to crawl. They praised God when I learned to tie my shoes, and write, and use a fork and knife at the same time. My mom stood in our driveway, weeping tears of joy in her heart when she realized it was me at my Meemaw’s house at the end of the road jumping rope. Each little thing I conquered was a big deal until everyone grew so accustomed to my adaptations that they ceased to be noticeable. I was just one of those “ol’ Istre kids” like my siblings. Life was wonderful.

There’s that word again: life. It is something we all take for granted. We get older, things get busy and complicated, bills pile up, jobs become stressful, laundry accumulates like snow in a blizzard, cars need repairs….life. We forget that it is a gift. We forget we have a Maker. We forget we have a purpose. We forget to dwell on His good words. We forget that we were knit together by knowing hands. Did you know that you were woven together? I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to knit before, but I have and, let me tell you, it is not for the faint of heart….or the short on fingers! You have to know what you are making before you ever start a knitting project. You choose what you want to make and what stitch to use, you make sure you have the correct needles, and you decide on a color scheme. Then, you plan out what color will go where and how big each section will be to ensure you have enough of each color of yarn you have chosen. Finally, after all of your preparation, you start to knit. You have to pay attention to what you are doing, being careful not to drop any of your yarn. If you do notice a flaw in your pattern, you go back and fix it. Like I said, it is not a thoughtless process. It is significant, then, that we are described as having been “knit together” in our mother’s wombs.

I believe with every fiber of my being that I was no accident. God did not look away, drop a thread, and fail to go back and fix a flaw as he was forming me. “Wonderful are [His] works and my soul knows it very well.” God labored over my creation. He had a plan before he started the process. My difference was deliberate. I rest in the knowledge that God created me exactly as I am for His purposes. We don’t always, or even usually, know why things are the way they are, but there is such hope and peace in knowing the care with which we were created.

So, what is the point of this rambling, you ask? It is this. A simple question. If you had been my parents and you knew that you carried a baby with a deformity, a baby who may have other unseen disabilities, and the doctor muttered the words to you “there’s something wrong with her”…….would you have aborted me?

I am a wife. I am a mother. I am a daughter, a sister, a friend. I am human. I am different, but aren’t we all. And I would not be here had I been conceived to different people in a different time who wanted a child without flaw. When you stop and connect a real, living, breathing human being to abortion, things become more complicated. If you think people don’t still opt to abort babies with differences like mine, you are wrong. It happens every day. People look at what they have been given and decide it is not good enough. ‘It’s no big deal. We’ll try again later for a perfect baby. It’s not like it’s a human yet anyway. It’ll never amount to much. Society would reject such a child. Who would marry a person like that? We have to think of our future. We’re really protecting it from a lifetime of struggle. It’s for the best…Isn’t it?’

A disability like mine means certain death to many unborn babies. This is a thought I cannot escape. We were exactly who we are before our hearts ever made a thump, before our mother ever felt us move inside of her womb, before the world knew if we were he or she. We were nameless to our parents, but our Father had already adorned us with the name “wonderful”. We were unknown, but the Lord’s eyes “saw [our] unformed substance”. I am no mistake. My heart grieves for the little ones gone and the mothers and fathers who never held their tiny bodies or kissed their sweet new skin. No earthly thing can fill a chasm so deep as a child lost. The grace of the cross, though, is a greater thing than the weight of our sin, and redeeming love awaits us all. All have fallen short and all can receive salvation and redemption through Jesus Christ. There is hope and restoration in Him, this I know. His promises are good. His words are true. His thoughts of us “outnumber the sand” and they are precious. He makes no divisions of race or ability. He chose life for you.

Think about life, ponder it….Do you take it for granted so much that you would choose to rob another of such an ability? Would you choose life? Would you choose me?

-Ashley McMillan

“For you formed my inward parts; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. How precious also are you thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand.” Psalm 139:13-18

(Originally written by Ashley McMillan and posted at The Narrow Path. Re-posted by permission.)

Who we are and what drives us onward to Abolition

2012-01-30T17:40:00.001-06:00

When great evils arise in the course of human history and become legally sanctioned, socially normalized, and morally justified, the Spirit of God working within his Body and Bride will move people to stand up and speak out against them.

Following in the footsteps of former abolitionist movements, we aim to end one of the greatest human miseries and moral evils to ever be entrenched in our world. To this end we seek to encourage informed, rigorous, and consistent thought and action in response to the rampant occurrence of abortion within our community. We seek to instigate discussion centered on whether or not the legally sanctioned system of human abortion-on-demand is just (and we think it is not...), to inspire pro-life individuals to become more assertive and actively involved in the adherence to and expression of a way of life that is truly in favor of life.

Bringing about a Clash of Absolutes

Abolitionists embrace a certain bold posture in the face of evil and utterly reject the widely accepted, largely ignored, or complacently permitted injustices that most people want choose to ignore. Abolitionists make a point of bringing darkness out into the light of day, or rather, of shining light in the darkness that is already there.

We seek to contrast two visions of reality and morality and demonstrate how one vision, the Christian view, centered on God, leads to the Humane and dignified treatment of human beings, while the other view, centered on man, leads to the inhumane and undignified treatment of human beings.

We strive to provoke a clash of absolutes between the Gospel of Christ and the worldly wisdom of man. The goal of all abolitionist movements is the redemption of man from the dominion of man. At the root of all abolitionist movements you will find the presence and power of two interrelated propositions. The first is that human beings are created in the image of God and created to reflect that image. The second is that the Creator Himself became a man in order to rescue mankind from self-destruction, death, and eternal separation from God, from himself, and from his own kind.

As a society we are a gospel centered. This is a gospel driven movement. We are committed to an unfettered, untainted, uncompromising adherence to the Good news that Jesus Christ is Lord of heaven and earth and stepped down into space-time-history to redeem a lost, wandering, and wicked people from sin, certain death, and eternal separation from God. We are abolitionists because we have been adopted by God. Our work is biblically mandated and sovereignly ordained. We are called to be salt and light in a darkened, and defiled world; we are commanded to care for the fatherless and bring justice to the oppressed and preyed-upon. We have been exhorted to expose deeds of darkness, and destroy all speculations raised up against the knowledge of God. We are exhorted to rescue the weak from death, snatch the falling from flames, and hold back the stumbling from the slaughter.

What drives abolitionism is a desire to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). We seek to bring justice to the fatherless and help to the helpless (Isaiah 1: 16-17). Our desire is to consistently practice what the New Testament calls pure and undefiled religion: to look after the orphaned and widows in their affliction, and to keep ourselves unstained by the world (James 1:27).

Two Theological Propositions

At the root of all abolitionist movements you will find the presence and power of two interrelated theological propositions.

Human beings are created in the image of God and created to reflect that image.
The Creator himself became a man in order to rescue mankind from self-destruction, death, and eternal separation from his Maker, himself, and his own kind.

Historically, these two propositions have laid the foundations for all human rights movements and campaigns for human equality. They have been a bulwark standing between humanity and the monstrous inhumanities of human history. As the abolitionist of slavery William Lloyd Garrison said, the belief that God created man in his own image is “a death-blow to all claims of superiority, to all charges of inferiority, to all usurpation, to all oppressive dominion.”

Five principle tenets of Evangelical Abolitionism

1. The work of abolition is Biblically Rooted and Theologically Orthodox. (We are theological)
2. Abolition is work of the Body and Bride of Christ; it proceeds out from the Church. (We are a work of the Church)
3. Abolitionism is “Salt and Light”: It is the visible expression of Truth, Love, and Justice in a darkened and depraved culture. (We are evangelical)
4. Abolition is Urgent and Consistent: We reject Incremental Abolition and the gradual regulation of social evils. (We are immediatist)
5. Abolition Relies upon the Providence and Sovereignty God: All we must seek to do is be faithful and follow Him as we leave the results in His hands. (We walk in line with Providence)

We are a Gospel-Centered Society

We are a gospel centered society. A gospel driven movement. We are committed to an unfettered, untainted, uncompromising adherence to the Good news that Jesus Christ is Lord of heaven and earth and has stepped down into space-time-history to redeem a lost, wandering, and wicked people from sin, certain death, and eternal separation from God. We are abolitionists because we have been adopted by God. Our work is biblically mandated and sovereignly ordained. We are called to be salt and light in a darkened, and defiled world; we are commanded to care for the fatherless and bring justice to the oppressed and preyed-upon. We have been exhorted to expose deeds of darkness, and destroy speculations raised up against the knowledge of God. We are exhorted to rescue the weak from death, snatch the falling from flames, and hold back the stumbling from the slaughter. We are against the world, for the world. And we can only do any of this through Christ who strengthens us. It is because of his finished work on the cross that we are able to be more than conquerors. True Social Justice begins and ends with the Gospel of God.

Supreme above all philosophies, all isms and ideologies, is the fullness of the Gospel of God; (that God himself stepped down into human history as Jesus Christ, conceived in the womb of a young unmarried woman who did not choose to be with child or plan on being a mother, to live a sinless life before wicked man whom he came to die for, and redeem from the just wrath of God against sinners. It is the will of God that all men might come to know Him, and in the fullness of time, Christ Jesus has made this possible). The Gospel above all else possesses the capacity to mobilize human action, motivate moral behavior, and mandate consistent compassionate social justice. It is the answer to all of societies ills and injustices. It is the bulwark against an ever increasing inhumanity of man against man. It is the Gospel alone that will end human oppression and redeem mankind from the dominion of evil powers and sinful man. It is the wellspring of love, hope, and joy. The actual foundation for justice. And the real answer to abortion.

This is no mere adoption of the rhetorical power of Christian ideology. We are not trying to gain the ear of church people with our religious appeals or use biblical language to attract fellow believers. We actually believe this is true, and we have put all our hope in it.

Pro-choice delusions: "What fetuses really look like."

2012-01-26T19:48:00.001-06:00

There seems to be some sort of mass delusion or prevalent stream of miseducation out there in the pro-choice community concerning what a 7-9 week old developing human being looks like. Yesterday, I ran into a university professor who was very kind and very intelligent (though she was entirely OK with abortion) who informed me that the aborted babies and prenatal pictures that "pro-lifers" usually show on our websites or put in our propaganda inaccurately portray the reality of what most human fetuses look like when they are aborted. As I asked her what they "really looked like," I turned to my computer where I just so happened to have an Abolitionist poster on my screen that included the following prenatal photograph:

This little fella is between 9 and 10 weeks old and we use his photograph in a number of our abolitionist posters and images. The reason we use him is not simply because this is a great photograph (it is) but because it is an entirely accurate visual representation of what most aborted human beings look like before they are dismembered and evicted from their mothers' wombs. (Note: This human being did not die from an abortion but perished as a result of a an unintended miscarriage during the ninth week of his development. He was photographed in a small container of water with a black felt bottom for scientific purposes.)

You see, the vast majority of abortions taking place in the United States of America right now as you read this blog post are ending the lives of human beings developing at this stage of life. That is, the vast majority of aborted unborn children are killed at 9-10 weeks. So... we are not exactly showing anybody anything inaccurate when we use an image such as this in our anti-abortion propaganda. (That's right; we don't mind calling it propaganda. Some propaganda is truthful and we always aim for truth.)

However, don't take our word for this. We rely upon the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute for all of our stats and you can check out their numbers for yourself. Here is a nifty little pie graph that the Guttmacher Institute made, depicting "When Women have Abortions"

(Note: Notice the overt bias towards one person [the mother] over the other person [the child]. The pie chart records the prenatal age of the child and the percentages of childrens' ages when they are aborted. Their age is denoted by how long it has been since their mother's last menstrual period).

Back to the pro-choice professor.

When I showed her the image of what I was attempting to inform her about - the average age of the aborted unborn - she kindly remarked that she didn't think the image I was showing her was accurate. "For all I know, that could be a chimpanzee fetus," she said. This was the image:

Well, I admit that this little guy looks a little fuzzy... but come on, this is either a Photoshopped human or a picture of a real human. (Note: I have never actually seen any of the purported Photoshopped pictures that pro-choicers bring up in debates with pro-lifers). When I specifically pointed at the fetus on the left of this poster and said, "This unborn human is nine weeks old" my professor interlocutor's face went full of doubt and she kindly replied, "I really don't think that is the case."
"Well, the scale isn't right," I said as I took my cursor and shrunk the baby down to about 2cm or so before she said that there was no way that that baby was nine weeks old.

Good thing I knew of a great website, The Endowment for Human Development, which contained a great prenatal embryological development chart packed full of scientifically accurate images and videos. It took about thirty seconds to find the following picture of an even younger human fetus.

Well... the conversation quickly shifted to other concerns like "What about women who get pregnant who absolutely do not want to carry a child nine months or ever have children?"

Good question.

But I suppose that no matter what the answer to that question is, it won't change the fact that to kill the average unborn child ought to be understood as taking the life of a little human who is certainly no mere "blob of cells."

Abortion was not the answer... Christ was!

2012-01-24T10:56:00.000-06:00

I sat in church the other day beside my husband, listening to the yearly "Sanctity of Life" message. It is a very familiar message for me. I have heard it many times, and even delivered it myself, both privately to individuals and publicly to large groups. Then the video. It's message, too, is very familiar to me. Yet today, I was overcome with emotion. Nearly uncontrolled emotion...as I sat there and soaked in, yet again, the images on the screen. I cried in complete humility of the Truth portrayed in the images. I wretched as I tried to contain the sobs coming out of a complete and utter brokenness over the lies that we buy every day....I bought them too...once.

You see...Our 2 babies were not "blobs of tissue." Abortion was not the answer to "fix my problem." Yes, there was an immediate sense of relief that I didn't have to worry about the shame of being pregnant outside of marriage...or my parents..."O god...what would they say?"

Then the guilt. The overwhelming guilt that I really couldn't even put a finger on...because, after all...abortion is okay, right? It's legal. Many women have had abortions. It must be okay, right?

Wrong...and Oh how wrong I was. Years of battling depression, self-hatred that led to dangerous behaviors, and the inability to form solid relationships...even with my other children...consumed me.

SILENTLY. No one knew of my "choice"...except one friend, and the father (the man I leaned on today for support in church).

I suffered in SILENCE. Out of guilt, I suppressed my abortions so much so, that I didn't even make a connection between my slow death, and my babies quick one....because... abortion is okay, right? It drug me to the point of attempting suicide.

And that is where I met HOPE. Hope in the forgiveness of Jesus, who covered the sin of my "choice" with His precious blood on the cross. When I could no longer carry the weight of who I was...a "good person"...who could never seem to get to the point of being good enough...I fell to my feet as my brain screamed "I want to die!"...Praise God, as I cried out, it became not a head cry for death...but a heart cry for life! Forgiveness was immediate...complete healing from the scars of my "choice" would come 7 years later. I can no longer be SILENT...I am a VOICE for truth.

Friends, I know the statistics. 1 in 3 women exercise their "free choice" to abort...and are then in bondage from their decision. If you are one of them, and have not been HEALED & SET FREE...I beg you, please, seek help to recover. Contact me...you will find nothing but compassion here.

Call 336-753-HOPE. You will find nothing but compassion there, either.

My heart is breaking for all who have bought the same lie I did...because, NO...abortion is not right....it's just legal. But forgiveness is a beautiful thing :)

Love to all of you!

Lisa Gordon Loos

The Pawn who became Pro-Life

2012-01-22T17:39:00.001-06:00

Today (January 22nd) is the 39th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court ruling, but Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. Jane Roe of the case) is certainly not joyously celebrating. Dallas News Station, CW 33, reports she plans to mark the anniversary by attending a pro-life rally [1]. McCorvey herself testifies she was used as a pawn in this case, but as it turns out, lawyers may have ultimately picked the wrong pawn; she turned pro-life in 1995 and actively seeks to overturn the ruling made in her name’s honor.

Today, we want to let Norma McCorvey’s speak for herself exactly as she did on 23 June 2005 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The transcript of her testimony can be found on the Senate’s government website [2], but we have provided the unedited transcript below (numbers denote page numbers of original transcript).

TESTIMONY OF NORMA MCCORVEY, THE FORMER ROE OF ROE v. WADE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
JUNE 23, 2005

I am the woman once known as the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. But I dislike the name Jane Roe and all that it stands for. I am a real person named Norma McCorvey and I want you to know the horrible and evil things that Roe v. Wade did to me and others. I never got the opportunity to speak for myself in my own court case. I am not a trained spokesperson, nor a judge, but I am a real person - a living human being who was supposed to be helped by my lawyers and the courts in Roe v. Wade. But instead, I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation. In 1970, I was pregnant for the third time. I was not married and I truly did not know what to do with this pregnancy. I had already put one child up for adoption and it was difficult to place a child for adoption because of the natural bond that occurs between a woman and her child. And after all, a woman becomes a mother as soon as she is pregnant, not when the child is born. And women are now speaking out about their harmful experiences from legal abortion.
1
Instead of getting me financial or vocational help, instead of helping me to get off of drugs and alcohol, instead of working for open adoption or giving me other help, my lawyers wanted to eliminate the right of society to protect women and children from abortionists. My lawyers were looking for a young, white woman to be a guinea pig for a great new social experiment, somewhat like Adolf Hitler did. I wanted an abortion at the time, but my lawyers did not tell me that I would be killing a human being. My lawyers did not inform me about the life-changing consequences of this decision. I was living on the streets. And while I was confused and conflicted about the decision for many years, and while I was once an advocate for abortion, like many women who choose to participate in abortion, my lawyers did not tell me that I would later come to deeply regret that I was partially responsible for killing 40-50 million human beings. Do you have any idea how much emotional grief I have experienced? It is like a living hell knowing that you have had a part to play, though in some sense I was just a pawn of the legal system. But I have had to accept my role in the deaths of millions of babies and the destruction of women's lives. I will tell you later how I have tried to cope with that. How did I come to the position where I am today?
2
Abortion is a shameful and secret thing. I wanted to justify my desire for an abortion in my own mind, as almost every woman who participates in the killing of her own child must also do. I made up the story that I had been raped to help justify my abortion. Why would I make up a lie to justify my conduct? Abortion itself is a lie and it is based on lies. My lawyers didn't tell me that abortion would be used for sex selection, but later when I was a pro-choice advocate and worked in abortion clinics, I found women who were using abortion as a means of gender selection. My lawyers didn't tell me that future children would be getting abortions and losing their innocence. Yet I saw young girls getting abortions who were never the same. In 1973, when I learned about the Roe v. Wade decision from the newspapers, not my lawyers, I didn't feel real elated. After all, the decision didn't help me at all. I never had an abortion. I gave my baby up for adoption since the baby was born before the legal case was over. I am glad today that that child is alive and that I did not elect to abort. I was actually silent about my role in abortion for many years and did not speak out at all. Then, in the 1980's, in order to justify my own conduct, with many conflicting emotions, I did come forward publicly to support Roe v. Wade. Keep in mind that I had not had an abortion and did not know much about it at the time.
3
Then around 1992, I began to work in abortion clinics. Like most Americans, including many of you Senators, I had no actual experience with abortion until that point. When I began to work in the abortion clinics, I became even more emotionally confused and conflicted between what my conscience knew to be evil, and what the judges, my mind and my need for money were telling me was OK. I saw women crying in the recovery rooms. If abortion is so right, why were the women crying? Even Senator Hillary Clinton on January 25, 2005 was reported by the New York Times to finally admit "that abortion is a sad, even tragic choice for many, many women." Actually it is a tragic choice for every child that is killed and every woman and man who participates in killing their own child, whether they know it at the time or not. Many women will be in denial and even pro-choice for years like I was. But participating in the murder of your own child will eat away at your conscience forever if you do not take steps to cleanse your conscience, which I will discuss later. I saw the baby parts, which are a horrible sight to see, but I urge everyone who supports abortion to look at the bodies to face the truth of what they support. I saw filthy conditions in abortions clinics even when "Roe" was supposed to clean up "back alley" abortions. I saw the low regard for women from abortion doctors. My conscience was bothering me more and more, causing me to drink more and more and more. If you are trapped in
4
wrongdoing then all you can do is justify and defend your actions, but the pain gets worse and worse, so I drank a lot to kill the pain. Finally, in 1995, a pro-life organization moved its offices right next door to the abortion clinic where I was working. I acted hatefully towards those people. But those people acted lovingly to me most of the time. One man did angrily accuse me at one point of being responsible for killing 40 million babies, but he later came to me and apologized for his words and said they were not motivated by love. The answer to the abortion problem is forgiveness, repentance, and love. Many of the women who abort their babies ask the little babies to forgive them. Even some abortionists encourage women to write cards explaining their behavior and asking the child's forgiveness. This is an old Japanese custom also. The web is filled with post-abortion recovery and grief sites. According to an amicus brief filed in my case, 100,000 women a year enter abortion recovery counseling programs. Abortion is not a simple medical procedure that is safer than childbirth, it is the killing of a human being. It produces severe psychological and emotional consequences. We can ask the children to forgive us, but the children are dead. They say - Alone, I was born. Alone, I shall die. We must also ask Almighty God to forgive us for what we have done. We must repent of our action as a nation in allowing this holocaust to come to our shores. We have to turn from our wicked ways. Senators, I urge you to examine your own conscience before
5
Almighty God. God is willing and able to forgive you. He sent His own son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for my sins as Roe of Roe v. Wade, and for our sins in failing to act to end abortion and to truly help women in crisis pregnancies. I finally asked the Lord Jesus to forgive me in 1995 and immediately dedicated my life to saving children's and women's lives. In the year 2000, I met the lawyers from The Justice Foundation, Allan Parker and Clayton Trotter who are here behind me. I asked them to help me to reverse Roe v. Wade legally. We began collecting evidence from women about the devastating consequences of abortion in their lives. Women are very reluctant to speak about this horrible act which is a crime against humanity. In many cases the denial goes on for decades before they break. Women who have had an abortion often can't even tell their husbands, parents, family, friends or even their physicians or clergy. It is like a time bomb in the heart of every woman who's had an abortion. Eventually we collected almost 1,500 affidavits and filed a motion to reverse Roe v. Wade. As part of my statement to you today, I am enclosing summaries of those women's affidavits along with pictures of some of the women so you can see what abortion does to real women. I am also going to file copies of all the affidavits collected. Also behind me today are some of those witnesses whose affidavits were before the Supreme Court and I would like to ask them to stand at this time.
6
These women hurt by abortion have formed a movement they call Operation Outcry to cry out to you, to the courts and to God Almighty to end this scourge of abortion in our nation. The Rev. Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference helped lead America non-violently to end the scourge of segregation. When slavery was constitutional, we treated one class of humans as property. We are treating the humans in the mother's womb as property and less than human when we say it is OK to kill them. How can we have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when we have death by abortion? I have also included an essay on the Scott Peterson double-murder conviction which asks how one baby is a person that can be murdered but not another. On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court declined to take my case. I was good enough for the courts when they wanted to impose abortion on America, but I wasn't good enough when I asked them to look at the hard evidence of what they have done to America. The Supreme Court of the United States should be ashamed of itself. It has taken this matter of abortion away from the states, the people, and the legislatures, but it refuses to look at the evidence of what it has done. How shameful is that? How can we have liberty without life? Every member of the Supreme Court who supports Roe should be impeached and I believe we should to limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 8 years. The
7
Supreme Court has hurt me and millions of women and children. I urge you to do everything in your power to reverse Roe v. Wade. Since the Supreme Court did not reject our arguments, we are continuing to bring those arguments before the court in case after case after case, including Sandra Cano's case which is in the courts now. Please do not ask a judicial nominee to pledge to maintain Roe v. Wade. If new evidence comes before the court, then the court should be willing change its old precedent, as it has many times. Roe v. Wade is not in the Constitution. It is just a bad Supreme Court decision with bad effects and needs to be reversed. I also support a constitutional amendment to protect all human life. I am also attaching a copy of my 13-page affidavit which was filed in our lawsuit to reverse Roe v. Wade. Some things should never be allowed, even if we want to do them. Murder is one, child abuse is another and allowing abortionists to harm women is another. Thank you, Senators.

[1] http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-norma-mccorvey-roe-v-wade-to-star-in-pro-life-movie-story,0,7462200.story

[2] http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da107c92d&wit_id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da107c92d-1-2

The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr Gisella Perl (Part 2)

2012-01-20T09:19:00.006-06:00

Having set the stage and described the context of Dr Gisella Perl's controversial actions in Part 1 of this series, let us proceed to their multifaceted analysis.

The Nazi butchers bear the most blame

Abolitionists of human abortion have made it clear from the beginning that the principal reason to oppose human abortion is that it is nothing less than an assault on the image of God in human beings. It is murder. It is a refusal to submit to God's commandments with respect to how we are to treat other humans; namely, to love them as we love ourselves. Murder is in fact the exact opposite of loving others as we love ourselves.

This is what makes the Nazis' actions so horribly detestable, and this is why modern abortionists' attitudes toward very young humans mirror so closely the Nazis' attitudes toward humans of Jewish ethnicity. (We are oversimplifying the scope of the "Final Solution" for the sake of argument. We are fully aware that other people-designations were singled out for elimination.)

The Nazis arbitrarily ruled out of full humanity a specific segment of human beings. Simply by virtue of their being Jewish, they were no longer to be considered human. Similarly, modern pro-choicers arbitrarily rule out of full humanity a specific segment of human beings. Simply by virtue of being very young and not looking like you and I do, they are not to be considered human. They are "clumps of cells", "products of conception", "uterus contents" etc.

The Nazis carried out an organised assault on the image of God in Jewish people on a scale and with a pointed ferocity that had never before been seen in human history. While modern abortionists have killed ten times that many human beings in the USA alone, it has also required a larger population and geographical area (and thus less population density) and around ten times as much time.

And even aside from the direct murders for which the Nazis are responsible, to reduce human beings made in the image of God to the point of basic survival mode, to withhold from them even the most basic decencies of human treatment, to surround them with death, decrepitude, and violent indifference, is to shoulder a great deal of the responsibility for whatever desperate measures those oppressed people might take. To oppress them for no other reason than their ethnicity is that much worse, in terms of the Nazis' own guilt as well as the provocation of what more "civilised" people (ie, people who have never been in that situation) might call sub-human behavior.

Dr Perl bears some blame

Step inside Dr Perl's shoes, living in Auschwitz, among squalor and death, having seen a terrible and nearly-infallible pattern emerge - pregnant women either burn to death or endure vivisection.
Perl's motivation is defensible - she knew with high probability that the babies and mothers would be experimented upon and the final outcome would be much worse than otherwise.
It was once rightly said of Perl and the situation: "Everyone did things that in normal situations they would never do."

Perl's nearly uniform experience was that pregnant women got especially brutal attention, such that their pregnant status meant their deaths were nearly certain. If they were not pregnant, their death probabilities returned to around the same level as the other death camp prisoners.
Thus, average death camp prisoner's probability of death = elevated.
Average pregnant death camp prisoner's probability of death = extremely high.

Balance that, however, against the fact that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil. The moral dilemma thus arises from the conflict of two prima facie moral duties:
D1: One ought to help those who are very likely to be killed in the near future, and take measures to prevent their death.
D2: One ought not to purposefully kill innocent human beings.

The dilemma in this context arises from the problem that to fulfill D1, Dr Perl had to purposefully kill innocent human beings, which violates D2. In order to fulfill D2, Dr Perl would have had to stand by and watch pregnant women be tortured and killed at the hands of Josef Mengele, which violates D1. Obviously, this is not an easy choice. This raises the question of whether or not a solution can be found to the dilemma, on the abolitionist position.

It is important to note that both D1 and D2 are predicated upon the value of human life, and the importance of preserving it. This is especially true in the context of Judeo-Christian ethics, which was a part of Perl's ethnic and cultural heritage. Thus, D1 and D2 are expressions of a more fundamental duty, D0.

D0: One ought to preserve innocent life.

However, it is a violation of D0 to attempt to fulfill D1 by purposefully taking an innocent life. Thus, the scope of D1, as stated, is too broad for D1 to be coherent with D0. If D1 is to be kept consistent with its fundamental life-honoring purpose, then it should be reformulated in a manner such as D1', to eliminate these kinds of self-defeating scenarios:

D1': One ought to help those who are very likely to be killed in the near future, and take measures to prevent their death, short of purposefully killing innocent human beings.

D1' and D2 are not in conflict in the Perl scenario, as D1' does not mandate an action that violates D2, and neither does D2 mandate an action that violates D1'. As holding D1' and D2 together would have resulted in Dr. Perl refusing to perform abortions, the combination of holding D1' and D2 as an expression of D0 is consistent with the abolitionist position.

One might complain, however, that this is unsatisfactory in the context of Auschwitz. After all, if Dr Perl had refused to perform abortions, what else could she have done? The answer is that she probably could not have done much. She certainly could have refused to tell the camp doctors that the women were pregnant, and perhaps tried to hide the signs of their pregnancy. But in an environment such as Auschwitz, there was not much that could be done to escape Nazi brutality.

This brings us back to the question of moral responsibility: would Dr Perl have been morally responsible (or culpable) in any sense, if she had refused to perform the abortions? If there had been no other means available to her (or to her knowledge), short of performing abortions, for sparing the pregnant women of Auschwitz horrific torture and death at the hands of Mengele, would she have been morally culpable to have refused to act (by performing abortions)? The answer is no. The moral responsibility of the deaths of both the mother and child lay solely at the hands of the Nazis. They were the ones seeking the deaths of these innocent Jews. They were the ones who had no respect for innocent life. To put it more generally:

C1: It is not a morally culpable act to refuse to purposefully kill an innocent person in order to try to prevent a murderer from murdering another innocent person.

The moral culpability for the deaths lies with the murderer intent on killing both, not the person who could try to foil the murderer's plans by killing one of them ahead of time. Thus, we conclude that Dr Perl was not morally obligated to perform the abortions.

This brings us to the other side of the issue: was Dr Perl morally culpable for performing the abortions? Was there any sense in which her actions were morally justified? To answer these questions, one must consider the intent of Dr Perl's actions, and then the actions themselves. Dr Perl is to be commended for her desire to save life and prevent the pregnant women of Auschwitz from experiencing further pain and suffering. While there is something in the intent of Dr Perl's actions that is commendable, that does not mean that the actions themselves are commendable. A particular type of act may be morally unjustified, but that does not mean that all instances of that type of act bear equal moral culpability.

For example, the legal system distinguishes between acts causing the death of human beings that are intentional and unintentional. In the case of unintentional deaths, the degree of negligence on the part of the defendant determines the degree of his culpability, and sentences are meted out accordingly. In the case of intentional deaths, the intent of the defendant determines his culpability, and sentences are meted out accordingly. Murder committed in the passion of the moment is considered a lesser offense than a premeditated murder committed in cold blood. So also would we consider that purposefully killing another human being out of a desire to save life (especially in an environment of such death and suffering, where thinking straight would have been practically impossible) bears less moral culpability than purposefully killing another human being out of a rage, or in cold blood.

Thus, there are strong mitigating circumstances that reduce Perl's culpability in performing these abortions, but that does not mean that the abortions themselves are morally justified. Inasmuch as D2 holds, then there is no circumstance in which abortion is justified. More generally:

C2: By D2, it is a morally unjustified and culpable act to purposefully kill innocent human beings.

In summary, C1 and C2 state the abolitionist position on the moral culpability of abortion in different contexts, and this is grounded on the combination of moral duties D0, D1', and D2. To recap:

1) There is no situation where abortion is morally obligatory, including Dr Perl’s situation in Auschwitz.
2) There is no situation where abortion is morally permissible, though there may be mitigating circumstances that reduce moral culpability in rare, extreme situations.

Principle (2) is especially applicable, as we observed in Part 1, when the surrounding environment is as bad as it was for Dr Perl. We balance the clarity of God's command not to murder against the unimaginable difficulty she must have undergone to think straight even about the most basic of issues when encircled by death and horror on every side.

Two analogies to consider

1) The example of a pregnancy that is extremely hazardous and is days from killing both the mother and the baby. In that case the surgery to save the mother's life is not an abortion; rather, it is a lifesaving procedure with the motivation of saving life. Cf Stand to Reason's excellent analysis.

2) A man hands you a loaded handgun and brings a person with a black bag over their head into the room. He instructs you to shoot this person. If you refuse, he informs you that he will kill not only that person but also that person's mother, and not quickly with a round to the head, but slowly with a knife and a blowtorch.

Some things to note:

-What if some of these babies were aborted mere days before the liberation of the death camp by Allied forces and the relief of these women's suffering? The problem with the business of predicting the future is that we humans cannot do so. How does the doctor know that the high-risk pregnancy will kill the mother and the child? And how did Dr Perl know that any individual pregnant woman would without question be put to death by the Nazis? She did not, and modern doctors do not know until much later than many would like to admit.

-One major difference between the two scenarios is the potential reaction time. In a high-risk pregnancy, a woman who is determined to do all she can to carry her baby to term and give him the best chance at life may put herself under close medical supervision. If the situation becomes unsustainably dangerous to the point that the mother's life will be lost within a matter of hours (or less) and an operation must be performed to save the mother's life, yet the life of the child cannot be preserved, then we would say it is justifiable to save the mother's life, and we mourn the loss of the child as a de facto miscarriage.

On the other hand, taking it upon oneself to commit the murder that another was going to carry out does not excuse the deed. Someone in Dr Perl's position must balance on the one hand:

the culpability of killing an innocent person to prevent the probable, more painful death of that person and another, versus, on the other hand:
the culpability of obeying God's command not to murder and thus doing nothing to prevent the probable two murders by someone else's hand and leaving the consequences to God.

-In #1 the motivation is the same as Dr Perl's - to save one life rather than seeing two lost. We must remember, however, that such a surgical procedure is not designed to purposefully kill the unborn baby (whose death is an undesired consequence), while the act of abortion is purposefully designed to kill the unborn child. Purposefully killing an innocent human being, even for such a noble end as saving human life, is something that is not morally justifiable (per the previous analysis).

Thus we conclude our analysis of the morality of Dr Perl’s actions. Yes, it is very complicated, and that’s part of the point. We have the benefit of the Internet, advanced education, email, cell phones, and freedom of movement and association with which to analyse in depth such questions as these. Dr Perl had some dirty towels and her bare hands.

Dr Perl's idea of God was faulty

That said, Dr Perl did not trust God to be sovereign, as He has revealed Himself to be.
One of the Ten Commandments is: Thou shalt not murder. No mitigating circumstances are named. No "...unless someone pushes you really, really hard".

Let's be honest - we here in the modern West, we modern Christians fail all the time. The tests and trials we experience are nothing like Dr Perl's trials. We fail to trust God.

Dr Perl also failed to trust God. Ultimately, we can trust God to do what brings Him glory, above anything else. Along the way, He will do and let happen many things that are difficult for us to understand. God knows everything. Even such evil as the Holocaust occurred for God's purposes, and will result in His glory. If we are inclined to argue, when we stop and soberly consider, what % of all knowledge do we possess? Can we hope to achieve 0.1% of all that there is to know?

Further, God is perfectly good and knows best what is perfectly good. We trust Him to define good for us. With what moral standard will we judge God? Can we talk back to Him, inform Him that He really didn't know how bad a situation we were in when we decided to violate the commandment not to murder (cf Job 38:1-7 and Job 40:7-14)?

God owes nothing to any of His creation. Yet in her post-Holocaust obstetrics career, Dr Perl made a habit of saying, as she prepared to deliver another baby: "God, you owe me a life - a living baby."

This is understandable, but it is wrong. The Bible clearly describes human beings as guilty, rebel sinners, who routinely spit in God's face and refuse to obey His law. Every second we live, every breath we draw, all is because of God's grace.

Rather, let us give thanks in all things to God for any blessing. What we fallen sinners actually deserve, outside of God's grace, is an eternity of Holocausts.

Dr Perl regretted the necessity of her actions, whereas most modern pro-choicers do not

The statements we have highlighted from her interviews illustrate the vast difference between her attitude toward what she thought she had to do and the general attitude of modern Western people toward abortion. Some are radically supportive of a "woman's right to choose" and celebrate it to a sickening degree. Some set their jaws and harden their gaze when the issue is brought up, ready to defend women from what they consider the oppression of carrying out one of their bodies' God-given, God-designed, and frankly quite amazing functions - that of assembling a new human inside their own bodies. Some shrug away the responsibility, figuring that women are going to have sex, and that it's probably better to go ahead and trim off some societal dead weight rather than allow everyone the chance to be born.

Dr Perl knew and confessed that the Nazis were ending two lives when they sent those pregnant women to the crematorium, and added:

No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered.

1) Dr Perl was aborting these babies before their mothers' pregnancies became visible, which means that Dr Perl believed that what some call "fetuses" or "products of conception" - very young babies at a very early stage of development - were babies, which she was destroying.
2) One does not murder an appendix, a part of the mother's body. Nor does one murder a non-person or a non-human.

65 years later, busy professionals earn $6-7 figures per year from women who, for the most part, don't want to alter their lifestyles just because they've gotten pregnant. Compare the environment of these women by looking around yourself right now. Is any element of your surrounding context comparable to Auschwitz?

The consistent abortionist's response

This question, while horrible to consider and yet important for a test for consistency, is quite answerable from within the abolitionist framework. The proponent of legalised baby murder, however, if s/he is to be consistent, should respond to this with a shrug. If the modern abortionist gets to arbitrarily choose to remove humanity from a given class of people (the very young), then so do the Nazis. What was so bad about the Holocaust, again? Those weren't humans in those death camps. Their society decided they weren't, so they weren't, just like those aren't humans inside the womb. Aborted babies' society has decided they aren't.

Nobody on the pro-choice side will accept this conclusion, but remember that this subsection is entitled "the consistent abortionist's response". The pro-choice position is fundamentally internally inconsistent.

The consistent abolitionist's response

When pushed to the extreme in probably the most awful, terrible situation into which humanity has ever put itself outside the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, what would any of us do? We'd like to think we would fulfill in our actions what we know to be right, but our own failings given far fewer challenges must give us pause and make us beg for God's mercy.

Yet we must not make hard and fast moral standards out of the most extreme cases. At most we can subject our moral compunctions to the scrutiny of an extreme situation and see if we are able to act our morality out consistently.

And the abolitionist position can do that, even in this case, which is thankfully exceedingly rare and extreme. We do not know how much suffering any life will hold in the future. We trust God to take care of that; we hold to and obey His command not to murder as well as His commands to love our neighbor as ourselves and to protect the weak and helpless.

What else can we learn?

That the exigencies of the 0.0001% of most extreme cases are not well-suited for creating normative ethics for the remaining 99.999% of cases.
That abortion is unjustifiable even if committed by someone many regard as a hero or angel. This is at its base nothing more than an argument from authority.
That the dissimilarities between Dr Perl's situation, motivations, and moral assessment of her actions versus that of the modern pro-abortion movement are so vast as to make her case far more powerful a defense of the abolitionist position than of modern abortioneering.
That a robust abolitionist position can deal consistently with the worst horrors of human existence and emerge with its moral authority and prophetic admonition intact.

The Human Rights Salute

2012-01-16T17:20:00.000-06:00

Today we honor Martin Luther King Jr. for his steadfast commitment to civil rights, but we would also like to draw your attention to a few lesser known activists who stood boldly against the injustices of their day simply by doing great things and making themselves visible. Model abolitionist types, if you will.

Many of you are probably familiar with the "Black Power Salute": A single fist clutched and held up in defiance of injustice and solidarity with the oppressed.

The most visible expression of this salute took place on October 16th, 1968, during the Summer Olympics in Mexico City, just a few months after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. It was then that two African American athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, stood before the watching world with their heads bowed low and their fists held high as they recieved Gold and Bronze medals in the 200 meter race.

While the gesture was taken up by the Black Panthers (and thus negatively associated with militant violence), it was originally a cry for civil rights and meant to be taken up by all those in the fight for human rights. As gold medal winner Tommie Smith noted in his autobiography “Silent Gesture,” the salute was never intended to be a "black power" salute alone, but had always been intended to be used as "human rights salute" in general.

The reason these men stood before the world in this way had little to do with pride in the color of their skin, or the acheivement of African American athleticism. It was a defiant display of men standing up against the misinformation spread by racist demagogues who thought and declared that "people like them" ought not to be allowed to represent the United States of America. They stood in defiance of the erroneous belief that black men were not equal to white men, and stood in defiance of all other injustices towards mankind rooted in the same dehumanizing logic.

“I didn’t like the way the world WAS, and I believe that there need to be some changes about the way the world IS,” Smith wrote, concerning his display of the Human Rights Salute. When questioned why he and Carlos chose to make their display in this way, he remarked that they did so because so many individuals in positions of power had chosen "to just lay back.”

Both Smith and Carlos were members of “The Olympic Project for Human Rights” – which Smith described as “a non-violent platform used in the athletic arena as a cry for freedom... I was one athlete who chose to involve myself for the human rights issues.”

It is also worth noting that Smith, who won the gold, and Carlos, who took the bronze, stood along side silver medal winner Peter Norman, who, though his hands were to his side, wore a Human Rights Badge in unity with his fellow man. He knew full well what his fellow runners had decided to do. Afterwards, Norman was majorly criticized by the media and citizens of his country (Australia) for supporting Smith and Carlos and approving what they did.

Of course these men were booed from the podium and harrassed and persecuted by the media and a majority of American citizens. Indeed, "good respectable people" who were not themselves racist, or anything like that, disapprove of their display to this day. But this is what must be done if we are going to wake people up to the injustices of our world. We must make ourselves visible when we can, in whatever ways that we can, and purposefully draw attention to unjust laws, unequal treatement, inhumane practice, and all other institutions that dehumanize and degrade both the dignity and sanctity of human life. We have therefore decided to adopt and employ this salute on behalf of those who cannot make it themselves.

What if MLK had kept his religious beliefs to himself?

2012-01-16T13:29:00.000-06:00

I don’t know much about the faith of Martin Luther King Jr. but after reading his book, Why We Can’t Wait, there is no doubt his views on segregation were religiously motivated. He explicitly expressed this several times in the book.

As I was reading I couldn’t help but wonder why history textbooks hardly said anything about his faith. I just took American History Post Civil War at Oklahoma City Community College and it was only a side note that he was a pastor. Nothing more was said. The textbook authors saw fit to gloss over the deep motivations of one of the most highly praised civil rights activists in American history.

The Letter From Birmingham Jail is a well known letter written that is considered to have great influence on the Civil Rights movement. King wrote it while in jail after he was arrested during the Birmingham demonstrations. It addressed the criticisms from other clergymen for his use of non-violent protests and his timing with the protests.

Wait- did you catch that? It was a letter from a pastor to other pastors. They definitely did not teach me that in my history class, neither did we read the letter. If we had read the letter I am sure many of the students would have been shocked to hear what King called segregation: a sin. “Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful” (82). If someone said that today in front of a crowd I wonder how long it would take someone to shout ‘keep your religion to yourself’.

‘But,’ someone could object, ‘that was a letter to other pastors, other people of the same faith. Perhaps King wasn’t so brazen about his views when speaking to others. Perhaps when he spoke at rallies, demonstrations, organizations or training seminars he kept God out of it.’ But that’s simply not true.

To volunteer with King at Birmingham (even if you were only going fix food for the other volunteers) you had to sign your name to a Commitment Card. This card consisted of the following ten commandments of the nonviolent movement:

MEDITATE daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.
REMEMBER always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation- not victory.
WALK and TALK in a manner of love, for God is love.
PRAY daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.
SACRIFICE personal wishes so that all men might be free.
OBSERVE with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.
SEEK to perform regular services for other and for the world.
REFRAIN from violence of the fist, tongue, or heart.
STRIVE to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
FOLLOW the directions of the moment and of the captain on a demonstration.

Would you have stood with Martin Luther King Jr. as he fought against segregation? Would you have signed your name to that card? Or would you have shouted in his face that he can have his religion but keep it out of politics?

‘Keep your religion to yourself’ is a common objection I hear within the abortion debate. People tell me it’s fine for me to believe whatever I want as long as my religious beliefs don’t effect my political beliefs. But that is impossible. If I truly believe in the Bible and the Bible gives a view on something, how can I refuse to hold that same view?

They are asking me to be a hypocrite in the political arena. They are telling me that my actions and opinions in the political arena cannot reflect what I believe. And then they turn around mock my faith because there are hypocrites who claim Christianity. If you are asking me to separate my faith from my opinions, you are asking me to be a hypocrite.

If you would tell me to keep my religion to myself because of my opinion on abortion, you would also tell Marin Luther King Jr. to keep his religion to himself because of his opinion on segregation. What a person believes and the opinions they hold (political or otherwise) simply cannot be divorced.

*King, Martin Luther. Why We Can't Wait. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Print.

How I became a pro-life Abolitionist

2012-01-10T10:38:00.001-06:00

I have always been pro-life as far as I can remember. My feelings about abortion were pro-life unless it was a medically necessary procedure to save the life of the mother or in the cases of incest or rape. Since having my own unwanted and coerced abortion, my thoughts on this changed.

After my abortion, I knew I was 100% against abortion for any reason. When I met my OB/Gyn in 2005, my thoughts about any type of contraception changed, too. It's funny attending a non-denominational church with a Southern Baptist upbringing and a Catholic viewpoint on contraception.

During the time of my separation from my husband in 2011, I planned a prayer vigil at the Norman abortion clinic during coerced abortion awareness week. What irony is that the day of the vigil fell on my birthday. I met an amazing group of people from the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma, and soon discovered what the passion the Lord gave me was - abolitionism. While my friends from the ASO had already begun their group, I joined them as the Lord had me going in another direction with my passion. In May 2011, I became the Oklahoma City Regional Coordinator for the Silent No More Awareness Campaign.

From September to November 2011, I took a sabbatical from the ministry to focus on my health. I spent September and October in the VA Hospital in Temple, TX to focus on healing from a trauma I experienced while I was on active duty in the Air Force. There was an incident that occurred during my program that caused me to re-evaluate how I'd been living my life, and after returning from the program at the VA Hospital, I recommitted my life to the Lord and to my ministry on October 22nd, 2011. I made this public on November 19th, 2011 by being baptized.

I am honored to be able to say that I am now against abortion in ALL situations, and I am also against any type of contraception that interrupts the natural rhythm of our bodies as God made them.

I am Melissa Wheeler, and this is my story on becoming a pro-life abolitionist.

The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr Gisella Perl (Part 1)

2012-01-04T12:15:00.003-06:00

Having been asked about a very difficult topic by a commenter, we at the Abolitionist Society would like to offer our thoughts. Specifically, that which follows is a collaborative effort of Matthew Martellus, Ian John Philoponus, and Rhology.

We invite you to steel yourself and read the heart-rending and amazingly horrible story of Dr Gisella Perl, the "Angel of Auschwitz".

When Dr. Perl first arrived in Auschwitz, the fate of all pregnant women entering the camp was the same - an immediate trip to the gas chambers. Later, the fate of some became even more horrific: the women were subjected to gruesome medical experiments before being killed, or worse, burned alive without being murdered first.

In an interview with Nadine Brozan for the New York Times in 1982, Dr. Perl recalled her initial experiences with Dr. Mengele's "cure" for pregnancy in Auschwitz. "Dr. Mengele told me that it was my duty to report every pregnant woman to him," Dr. Perl said. "He said that they would go to another camp for better nutrition, even for milk. So women began to run directly to him, telling him, 'I am pregnant.' I learned that they were all taken to the research block to be used as guinea pigs, and then two lives would be thrown into the crematorium. I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz."

After Dr. Perl's startling realization of the fates of the pregnant women discovered by Dr. Mengele, she began to perform surgeries that before the war she would have believed herself incapable of - abortions.

The most important factor in this story is the surrounding context - Dr Perl was living and working in a Nazi death camp. This is perhaps the single most terrible environment in which anyone has ever found him/herself, perhaps the single darkest page of human history. This is as bad as it gets, and Dr Perl lived and worked there from March 1944 until she was transferred to Bergen-Belsen (an even worse death camp than Auschwitz, if that were possible) and was kept there until its liberation in late 1945.

We invite you to consider the worst experience you have ever undergone. How long did it last? One of the authors of this article has had food poisoning and been in agony a few days, has lost a child, has been betrayed by a loved one. In the days following, would he have been entirely within his rational faculties' powers, such that he would be assured of making close to fully reasonable decisions? That is doubtful.

Dr Perl lived in a far worse situation than you have ever even glimpsed, for far longer than you have lived it. Our inquirer may be wondering to what extent we abolitionists will be willing to judge Dr Perl or criticise her, and the answer is: To a very small extent.

The question here surrounds the justifiable actions that someone in Dr Perl's situation could have taken. Let's consider the environment for the pregnant women Dr Perl encountered.

Extremely unhealthy, dirty, dangerous conditions
Perl and her fellow doctors were given virtually no medical instruments, no bandages, no clean water or any disinfectants, no medicine apart from a few aspirin, no clean linens or sheets.
One public latrine for 30,000+ women meant that one either had to wade through knee-deep sewage to add to the pile or to soil oneself and remain that way.
Death was an everyday occurrence, disease a constant reality. Beyond that, there were injuries to deal with and to try to keep from getting infected - from fights over food, from guards' whips, boots, and fists, from falls or other accidents sustained during manual labor, from debris on the ground, etc.
Here in the modern West, we're a bit put out if we cut our finger cooking and don't have a Band-Aid handy.

Insufficient caloric intake

The exact daily caloric intake of prisoners ranges between sources, with some estimating as low as 700 calories per day, while others estimate closer to 1,300-1,700 calories (1,300 for prisoners doing light labor and 1,700 calories for prisoners doing heavy labor).

Given this factor alone, these pregnant women's hopes of carrying their babies to term were dim. Their babies' hopes of surviving on so little nourishment were perhaps dimmer still.

Born babies' destiny

In Auschwitz, infants were immediately killed through a variety of methods, both by Nazi and Jewish medical staff by 'pinch(ing) and clos(ing)' the newborn's nostrils and when it opened its mouth to breathe... gave it a dose of lethal product, or drowning it in a pail of whatever liquid was available. The staff preferred this death to watching the child starve to death, according to Mengele's orders.

This is, in fact, the modern abortician.

(Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams) alleged (abortician Kermit) Gosnell would induce labour in his patients and the babies would be born ‘squirming and crying’ before having their spines cut. Some of the filthy operation rooms had litter boxes and animals present at the times of the operations, according to court documents. (Source)

Gosnell "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord," Williams said. (Source)

Prosecutors estimated Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies by cutting the spinal cords, but they said they couldn't prosecute more cases because he destroyed files...Gosnell sometimes joked about the babies, saying one was so large he could 'walk me to the bus stop,' according to the report." (Source)

Compare this carnage to Perl's statement:

I learned that they were all taken to the research block to be used as guinea pigs, and then two lives would be thrown into the crematorium. I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz.
(Emphasis ours)

Perl believed that the unborn baby, even a very young one, was a human life: "No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered."

Are these the words of someone who gleefully engaged in "upholding a woman's right to choose"?

Dr Perl's example during the Holocaust and her stated motivations are far closer to that of a modern abolitionist than that of a modern pro-choicer, for she respected the life of the baby as worthy of protection.

See Part 2 for the rundown of blame, the abolitionist's response, and the solution to this seeming no-win situation.

We live in a sick society.

2012-01-03T21:13:00.000-06:00

A Testimony from the Final Front

2011-12-30T12:33:00.000-06:00

As abolitionists of abortion we attempt to combine rigorous philosophical, scientific, and theological thought regarding the practice of human abortion and its abolition with the most down to earth acts of daily compassion and assistance. We support the writing of books, the writing of letters, the making of arguments and the construction of truthful propaganda while we also support the immediate and incredibly important work and counselling being carried out at crisis pregnancy centers and abortion “clinics” across the country. Because of this all-encompassing approach, our blog features posts from seemingly disparate angles and people working across the “pro-life” spectrum. Our sole emphasis is the abolition of abortion and it takes all kinds to carry that out.

Today we are excited to run a guest post written by abortion abolitionist Ashley Marie, a member of the online AHA community, who works as a sidewalk counselor in Michigan with Bound for Life Detroit/Metro. We praise God for her work and her desire to share this awesome testimony with us.

"It was a warm summer morning and I was sidewalk counseling in Detroit. It was only within my first month of experience... I didn't think I had any clue what I was doing. I noticed a girl walking up to the clinic, her face full of anguish, heartache, and desperation. I offered her a Guadalupe Partners brochure (the organization I sidewalk counsel with) and she was a little hesitant to accept it... but she took it. As she continued to walk to the door I walked with her and talked to her with love from the bottom of my heart. I explained to her that I understand that she is here out of desperation and that no mother really wants to be in a place like this with their unborn child. At that point I had her attention, she stopped and talked to me. She looked me in the eyes, it was as if I could feel her heartache in my own heart and soul. It was true... she really did not want to be there.

I explained to her that Guadalupe Partners isn't there just to get her to keep her baby and then never see her again. I explained to her that we were there for long term support, even after her child is born... that we would be in her life as long as she needs us and she will not be alone through her pregnancy. She agreed to give me her phone number but she still entered the clinic.

At that point my flesh and my own human understanding was in total disappointment. I felt like I was feeling pain for these mothers and babies for nothing... I wasn't going to change her mind and my effort was useless.

Although this was my own worldly understanding, I knew that with God all things are possible and that he can never ignore our prayers and I was crying out for that baby's soul from the bottom of my heart.

Immediately leaving Sidewalk Counseling that Friday morning I was heading to a Christian Conference in Detroit that lasted all day Friday and the entire day the Saturday following. I felt led by the Holy Spirit to pray and fast for the lives and souls of this precious mother and unborn baby... so I fasted with faith beyond my own belief that God would somehow be with this mother and I sent her a text with scriptures about how God recognizes the unborn and has a relationship with the unborn, he knew us even before we were brought into the world and he loved us, he planned us and although her pregnancy was not planned.... JESUS CHRIST was the result of an unplanned pregnancy and who is she to make the decision to take away God's wonderful creation.

For those two days I never received any response from her and for all I knew her baby was aborted that Friday when she walked into the clinic... but my spirit did not agree with my flesh and I continued praying and fasting.

Two days after my encounter with the 19 year old mother, Mr. Miller, the president of Guadalupe Partners called me to tell me that she called the number on the brochure we gave her and wanted our help with the baby she decided to keep.

God never fails us and he has taught me so much through this single story... and there are many more.

The most precious part of the story is that I went to the girls house about a week after so we could take down a list of her needs and help her out. She already had a 4 year old son Zion who I ended up staying and playing with for at least a couple of hours. We had an instant connection. When I left she asked me to be the God Mother of her daughter... I couldn't have been more joyful or thankful to accept this offer.

Most people look at this story and feel like I have helped this girl... but the reality to me is that her, Zion, and my God daughter Bella (Born December 9th) have helped me more than I could ever imagine. I have learned patience, unconditional love, true understanding and compassion, and how to trust in God beyond anything I can see, hear, or feel. I think of this story and I think to myself, "I can not touch my brain, or see it... but just as it is there God is always there even when I can not touch him, see him, or feel him and God will never EVER fail me"."

-Ashley Marie

God's "Planned Pregnancy"

2011-12-25T22:47:00.001-06:00

Ever consider the fact that God's plan to redeem the lost and reconcile sinful humanity to Himself included what most people, humanly speaking, call an "unplanned pregnancy"?

For, Christ began his time among us within the womb of a young unmarried woman, whose very carrying of a child as an unwed woman betrothed to a man who was not her baby's daddy was cause for great social shame, financial hardship and much emotional, physical, and mental distress. The women who carried Christ in her womb and bore Him in faith, faced an incredible situation not unlike many of the situations that women seeking abortions today face. Yet, despite her situation, she trusted God and believed in his Word.

Difficult as it was and would be, the young Mary carried her baby for nine months, gave birth to him in a stable and along with her husband had him blessed and circumcised at the temple in fulfillment of prophecy and cultural custom.

Well, as we all know, Mary kept Jesus, and Joseph chose to adopt and raise him as his own son.

When the governing authorities (namely the jealous "king" Herod) stepped in and tried to have the infant Jesus killed, Mary and Joseph fled their hometown to protect their child from governmentally sanctioned infanticide. (This is another part of the Christmas story that often gets left out.) But, Herod didn't manage to kill the baby Jesus, and Christ died in the exact time, manner, and place that God the Father had planned before the foundation of the world.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” -Ephesians 1:3-14

Because Christ lived and gave his life as a sacrifice for us, He is now making us and everything else in his good creation new. The reason he appeared among us was, as the scripture tells us, "to destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8). Because of Christ's divine conception, subsequent birth, sinless life, willful death, glorious resurrection, and redeeming grace, we have been transformed.

"See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.
Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:1-10)

.....And in case you haven't gathered it, the new life we now have in Christ has also caused us to be Aboltionists.

We are against the world, for the world. And we will not rest until we have effected its abolition.

And the Word became flesh...

2011-12-23T19:18:00.011-06:00

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1: 1-5; 14)

At Christmas time we are reminded to consider the truth of this passage: The Word of God, Maker of heaven and earth became man, and Divinity appeared in our midst. This is why we triumphantly sing, “Joy to the World!,” reverently sing “O Holy Night,” and sweetly sing, “O Little town of Bethlehem.”

During the Christmas season we tenderly speak of the Christ child who came to earth as a baby boy, born in Bethlehem, wrapped in swaddling clothes, laid in a lowly manger, surrounded by choirs of angels, who was visited by both shepherds and kings.

This is all good and true, and it is fitting that we have made a holiday in celebration of this Holy day in history, but the Word became flesh nine months before all that.

For there are nine months of space between the statement, “the word became flesh” and the declaration, “dwelt among us.” Let us not forget that the Incarnation began in the womb. “Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,” the angel Gabriel told the devout young Mary (Luke 1:31).

It was at Christ’s divine conception, not his birth, that the “Word became flesh,” and God the Son became Incarnate in the world he had made. We know this to be true, for when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth, the baby in Elizabeth’s womb, who would become John the Baptist, “leaped for joy” (Luke 1:41-44). The true light had come into the world!

Nine or so months later he would indeed be born in a stable and cradled in a manger, and the shepherds would bow down before him, but long before his blessed birth, the unborn Jesus Christ had to develop in His mother’s womb just as you and I had.

That’s right. The Messiah who came to earth to set sin’s captives free, began his earthly existence at conception, little larger than a single human cell. Just as all human beings, he had to be anchored and sustained in the comfort of his mother's womb; and he had to undergo every stage of embryological and fetal development.

Like us, he was alive before he had a heart beat and existed long before he had the capacity to feel pain. Like us, he took on the recognizable form of a man in the first trimester of his life. Like us, he discovered his fingers and toes within the second trimester. And just as we did, he kicked and shifted within his mother’s womb until he was ready to be born at the end of the third.

Yes! At Christmas time we should celebrate his birth!

As the prophet Isaiah said, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6), and as the gospel Luke records, the angels sang at his birth, “Glory to God in the Highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” (Luke 2:14). This is the joy of Christmas!

However, let us not forget the beginning of the story and the rest of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the coming of our Lord. In Isaiah 7:14 we read, “Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Isaiah also wrote that he would be known and named “from the womb” (Isaiah 49:1). This is just as the angel told the virgin Mary in Luke 1:31-33; that the child she would conceive by the Holy Spirit would be named Jesus, and that He would be “the Son of the Most High” (See also, Luke 2: 21).

Yes. He was a giggling, dribbling baby boy to whom wise-men brought their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, but even before that, he was the pre-born recipient of his mother’s gift of warmth, shelter, and prenatal nourishment.

Please stop and consider the magnitude of what we are saying.

God became man in Jesus Christ and he underwent the same biological development as all other human beings, save for his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. Following conception, his development was no different from yours. As the Bible tells us, Jesus experienced every experience common to man and therefore sympathizes with us in all our human weaknesses (Hebrews 4:14-16).

Yes, Christ sympathizes with us. Even those who are in the womb, and never make it out of the womb alive. Though it is strange to think about, and even more strange to speak about, the Incarnation of Christ began in the womb of a young unmarried virgin, who did not choose to be with child.

The Incarnation of Christ began in the womb of Mary, not in the stable of Bethlehem. And it was his Divine conception that fulfilled the promise of God to man that the womb of woman would bring forth a Child who would destroy the curse of death brought forth by the disobedience of humanity and that twisted serpent of old (Genesis chapter 3:15).

Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. He is both God and man; a bridge between Divinity and death. He came to earth to face down every temptation, triumph over every trial, conquer all corruption, destroy the works of the devil, and abolish death’s hold over all creation. He came to set captives free, give sight to the blind, and enable the lame to walk. Most incredibly, He came to forgive sinners and suffer our punishment and separation from God. He came to die on our behalf to reconcile us to a Holy and Just God. In all of this he brought his Father great glory.

When Christ said “Bring the little children to me,” He did so as one who had been a little child himself. When he said, “whatever you do to the least of these you have done to me,” he did so as one who had been among the least. When he says to the multitudes of unborn children who are murdered by abortion every day “Sit here on my lap,” he does so as one who has been in the place where they last lived on earth.

He was born in a stable and cradled in a manger so that one day he might be crucified on a cross. But just as that cross would have mattered little if he never left the tomb, so also would the manger have mattered little if he was never in the womb.

As Christmas draws near we continue to present our views on abortion and its abolition. But we always do so in the light of what occurred on that first Christmas, or rather, as we have been arguing here, in the light of what occurred nine months before that blessed birth.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

2011-12-22T22:44:00.000-06:00

Adoption Not Abortion

2011-12-20T13:53:00.001-06:00

It might sound drastic, unbelievable or entirely too radical, but we abolitionists envision a world where abortion is abolished and adoption is just one more characteristic of being a Christian.

Adoption: The Obvious Choice

2011-12-19T09:02:00.002-06:00

In 2004, Luther and Marcy Lee got a call that a baby girl had been prematurely born in a hospital in Miami. After medical complications had prevented the Lees from having children, they felt that adoption was the obvious choice. Luther vividly recalls meeting his daughter, Laura Mae, for the first time. Quarantined from other children, Laura Mae’s hospital bed was a tangled mess of tubes and wires. Luther and Marcy later discovered that none of the hospital staff expected Laura Mae to survive.

Laura Mae was born only 25 weeks into pregnancy. She weighed 1 lb 8 oz. Luther and Marcy visited Laura Mae constantly for the four and a half months she had to spend in the hospital. Marcy remembers one day seeing a billboard on her way to visit her daughter, advertising a clinic where an abortion could be procured and paid for, up to 28 weeks into pregnancy.

This is the world we live in. Luther and Marcy were adopting someone else’s child and making her their own daughter, taking on all of her risks and medical complications. Meanwhile, another set of parents were on their way to kill their own child, who was nearly a month older than Laure Mae.

“It’s not that complicated or mysterious. There is value in what God has made.”

-Marcy Lee

After carrying out the closed adoption process, the Lees had a daughter. Laura Mae, being born so prematurely, required constant care and attention from her new parents. She remained on oxygen for the first year of her life, 24 hours a day. She underwent physical therapy while on oxygen, feeding therapy to help her digest food properly (never having developed certain bacteria), and couldn’t walk until she was almost two.

“The medications, treatments, and testing have effects, but in the big picture, those things can be overcome with the right family environment and sacrifice.” –Luther Lee

Today, Laura Mae is allergic to gluten, sugar, and eggs, and has persistent but mild asthma. She also loves dancing, martial arts, puzzles and playing games like ‘Pop-Up Pirate’ with her younger brother James.

Laure Mae’s life has been complicated. A prevailing attitude in our culture would argue that her quality of life has not been sufficient to justify the amount of time, money, and care that the Lees and various physicians have put into Laura Mae’s life, but you’d be hard pressed to convince her that. She knows that her family loves her. She knows that God loves her. She knows that she is precious. In her own words to her younger brother:

“If Mama’s tummy would have worked, we would have been biological, but it doesn’t. That’s why we’re adopted.”

-Laure Mae Lee

She does not view herself or her life as one of misfortune. She relishes family time, expresses both the silliness and fits of shyness characteristic of any other 7 year old girl, and keeps up with her school curriculum (a mix of home schooling and private school classes).

James was adopted as well. In 2006, the Lees received news of another opportunity for closed adoption, and another premature baby. James was born at 28 weeks at 2lb 8oz in New Orleans. Then living in Hattiesburg, Luther and Marcy made the trip to visit him.

“I was in graduate school, working as a GA, living in an apartment with Laura Mae, and Marcy would go down to New Orleans to visit our son.” –Luther Lee

After 3 months of being in the hospital, James was allowed to come home. Now 5 years old, James can read at a 3^rd grade level and is more coordinated than most adults I know. (He can also follow the current NCAA conference confusion better than most sports analysts.) Everything is a game to him, he is super expressive and grateful, and he loves ketchup. Luther and Marcy can infer certain things about James parents due to his inherited health conditions, but all they really know is that the parents were natives of New Orleans and that couldn’t care for the boy.

“Both Laura Mae and James’ parents made the right choice. Adoption occurs when a birth mother cares enough about her child to honestly recognize that someone else should raise them.” –Marcy Lee

This is radically different from the prevalent view that if you are not ready or equipped to raise a child, abortion should be the default solution.

“The choice to adopt is an easy one. We all know we’re adopted by God,” says Luther as he motions to his family in the next room.

“I don’t like it when people say ‘oh how noble you are for adopting’”, Marcy chimes in. “This is not the exceptional or outrageous thing. This should be what we, as Christians, are about. We are not noble. We wanted to be parents.”

Unlikely Teachers

2011-12-15T19:47:00.001-06:00

William Wilkes, Ana Gourley, Farrah Herndon . . .

These are names of teachers I’ve had the last twenty years of my life. They have impacted me greatly and have taught me many things. These teachers carry the label “special needs,” given to them by the world. In reality, I too have special needs and these students have taught me well.

William can read college level books, but with little or no comprehension. He knows computers well, but is greatly lacking in social and hygiene skills. He is in his own world a lot; laughing at things I can’t see. I have taught Will to brush his teeth, to say please and thank you, instead of screaming and grabbing things he wants. However, Will has taught me how to laugh, a thing or two about computers, and he has filled my heart with joy.

Ana has been my best knitting student, learning to knit in 10 minutes flat. Fifteen scarves and two afghans later and she hardly makes a mistake and knowing how to fix it when she does. In high school she has finished her second year of sewing and has made garments to model in the annual fashion show. Her portfolio of fashion design is exceptional. Ana though, cannot carry on a conversation, yet understands anything she is shown how to do. Ana smiles and laughs a lot and helps us in the classroom with other students. She doesn’t ever complain when she is tired or not feeling well. It has been rather difficult for Ana the last few years. Through all her struggles she has taught me contentment and gratitude; Ana has taught me the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

Farrah has been out of school 6 years now. She was a shy, sweet girl, bound to a wheelchair. She encounters many people who look at her strangely and won’t speak to her; because she was bound to this chair; many assumed her mind and voice were as well. Farrah attended mostly regular ed. classes. She was very intelligent but slow at processing. During her senior year, I got up the nerve to ask her if she ever had dreams of walking or running. I shared a dream I had one night, of her running with her hair blowing in the wind. She said, yes, I’ve had those dreams, but they don’t upset me. I was born this way and have known nothing else. It would be harder for someone like you, who has been able to walk all their life, to end up in a wheelchair. Farrah always told me she wanted to be a lawyer. Five years after entering college and graduating with a B.A., she just finished her first year of law school. Farrah taught me so many things; humility, patience, gentleness and perseverance.

I’ve had many say to me, “Why are these kids in public school? It’s just babysitting!” Oh, it’s so much more . . .

Every student and staff member that has been with these people has been influenced greatly in a positive way. They teach us so much and bring out the very best in us all. “But Jesus called the little children to Himself and said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these,’” (Luke 18:16). “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God,” (Matthew 5:8). “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away,” (Revelation 21:4).

I long for that day when all will be made new, for Ana and Will and me and so many others. Permit me to paraphrase part of Hebrews 11; “And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about James, Jessica, Matthew, Woody, Noel, Christopher . . . of whom the world is not worthy.”

Some of the happiest, most contented, and joyful people I have ever known belong to a special group. Most who are pro-abortion believe these individuals should never be born into this world because they are maimed, marred, suffering, handicapped and mentally disabled. “What purpose have they, except to be a burden to the rest of us?” Bear with me as I tell of one more student.

Sabrina was in a wheelchair and could not move. She had to have her mouth suctioned often to stop her from drooling because she could not swallow. She was fed through a tube in her stomach and wore diapers, which I had to change often. She was put in a stander once a day and we had to exercise her legs and arms often to keep her muscles from atrophying. Her mother was a single mom. She told us once, with tears in her eyes, that these problems were discovered early on in the womb. Her obstetrician suggested abortion as an option. Her mother instead chose life. Sabrina has blessed all who know her, especially her mother. Her mom said, “She is the light of my life!” Sabrina responds to touch and lets us know with her eyes, how she is feeling. Sabrina, along with other more severe cases is loved and they love. They do suffer and have pain, as we all do throughout our lives in this fallen world. However since they were born this way, they have known nothing else, and are much happier and content than much of the “normal” population. I am thankful for each of their parents who love them and are their fiercest advocates. I am also thankful for the countless people working for the needs of these special people; tirelessly and selflessly giving of themselves to care for these kids physical and emotional needs.

May the Lord richly bless each of these children, parents, and caring people who love them enough to fight for them. The special needs children and adults; blessed and a blessing from God.

-Elizabeth Cochrane

Abolition and the Use of Theology

2011-12-14T11:48:00.003-06:00

The only thing that will actually help our culture is the gospel, and the only thing that will bring about the abolition of human abortion is the providence of God. Now that that’s on the table, let’s address how Christians and non-Christians can both work to bring an end to this slaughter.

You may have heard the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” While I think that’s garbage, I do think there is something to two parties who have a common foe working together with each other. I advocate what Francis Schaeffer called co-belligerency. Because the gospel and theology is involved, I cannot simply join with parties opposed to Christianity or teaching another gospel. But I can work with them to fight a common enemy so long as clear and strong distinctions are made so that the gospel is clearly articulated and not compromised.

So how does that work itself out?

First and foremost, it means that we clearly articulate the gospel and the theological motivations and reasons for abolishing human abortion. At the forefront of this is the idea that we are created in the image of God. That might sound ambiguous at first; what does that even mean? Doesn’t the Bible simply state that a couple of times without explaining what it entails?

Actually, the whole Bible is about the image of God. For Christ is the “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and all of the Scriptures are about Jesus (Luke 24:27). You may think that I am cheating – after all, does it mean the same thing to say that Christ is the image of God as it does to say that we were made in the image of God? Paul tells us that Christians were “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29) and that just as we have borne the ”image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:49).

Man was made in the image of God, but he fell. The image isn’t gone, but it is distorted. In fact, the reason we are not to murder (Genesis 9:5-6) or curse one another (James 3:9-10) is because we are made in God’s image. The image is marred from sin; we don’t accurately represent God. Instead of glorifying God as we ought, we produce a horrifying lie. So it is that when we sin and “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), we sin against God alone (Psalm 51:4) when we ought to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

This is where the gospel comes into play. We are by nature children of wrath, enemies of God (Ephesians 2:1-4) and are the objects of God’s wrath (Romans 2:6-11). But we cannot please God (Romans 8:7; 14:23) or be in right standing before God by our own doing, for ”by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:17). So how can anyone be saved? “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:16-30). God showed his love for us by giving his son (Romans 5:8), who bore our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) and took the Father’s wrath so that we would be redeemed (Isaiah 53:10; Romans 3:21-26; 5:9). The gospel and our redemption is not limited to our being declared righteous in the courtroom of God, but also to make us holy (Titus 2:11-14) - restoring the fallen image!

And so it is that through the gospel, when men are given new hearts they have a concern for the glory of God, which is the purpose of their redemption (Ezekiel 36:22-32). Entailed in their new affections for Christ is the pursuit of the knowledge of God (Titus 1:1-3); that is, knowing the content of the image, revealed chiefly through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4). There is also a concern for the image bearers (Matthew 5:43-48; James 1:27), especially for those who are afflicted and receiving injustice (Psalm 82:3-4). And, on top of all of this, God has adopted us (Romans 8:14-17) and so it is that as imitators of God, we are ardent supporters of adoption.

Secondly, after the gospel and theology is articulated, there needs to be a consistency maintained among those who profess to be redeemed by Christ. This means that doctrine is not compromised, but it also means that the motivation, methodology, and the standard to which we hold ourselves must be maintained.

Our motivation is the glory of God. Secondary motivations that are derived from our primary one includes the concern for the welfare of the father, mother, and child. Don’t be fooled into thinking that because I called them secondary or derivative motivations that they are somehow not real or unimportant. Nor is there reason to think of it as a cold and calculated duty. Revisiting the gospel for a moment, God gives the redeemed more than just commands; he gives them a new heart, his Spirit (Joel 2:28-29; John 14:15-17; Romans 8:1-17; Ephesians 1:11-14), and “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). So it is God who commands us, and God who is in us, providing us with the desires and abilities to carry out his commands (Philippians 2:12-13). So it is not merely out of a distanced sense of duty, but actually out of desire and concern that we set about this work.

We care for all of the people involved. The baby is the most at risk physically, but that does not mean that he/she is the only one affected. We believe that it is better to suffer evil than to commit evil and are concerned about the parents as well as the child. And in the unfortunate situation where a mother must raise a child alone, we know there are difficulties and challenges with that and want to help in those situations. The abolitionist view is not a reductionist view, nor is it just the condemnation of evil without the promotion of good.

Our methodology is based on Scripture. In our efforts of seeking to abhor what is evil and hold fast to what is good (Romans 12:9), we must recognize what evil is and what good is.

We know that God is good, that there is no evil in him, and that all good things come from him (James 1:17). In Christ is life, and all there is nothing that exists apart from his that does not exists because of him (John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:8-12). God depends on nothing outside of himself and he is the source of life (Acts 17:22-31). He exists as the triune God, independent, self-sufficient, subject to nothing outside of himself – the very fountains of goodness and life, the person of the Godhead have communion with each other independent of creation.

It is this God who chose to create and to give life, goodness, and even meaning itself to us. He is the one who designed and governs creation. His creation is dependent on him, even for meaning (Ecclesiastes). And so when we talk about what is good, we must not imagine that we can find some other source of goodness besides God. If we place our standard of goodness somewhere other than God, we will be exchanging the creator with creation, wrongly placing the source of goodness in the finite and derivative good and no longer have an absolute standard. In short, we can’t make this compromise, but must make God and his word the final reference authority of what is right and good.

And if people object, or propose an alternative? Then we interact with those arguments the way that Scripture tells us to – according to Christ (Colossians 2:1-10). We interact wisely, which begins with the fear of the lord (Psalm 111:10) and learn and rely on Scripture, which is sufficient to train us for our task (2 Timothy 3:10-16). When someone objects, we remain faithful to God’s word rather than joining their foolishness (Proverbs 26:4), and we show them the folly of what they have proposed (Proverbs 26:5).

We recognize that there is a difference between the wisdom of God and the so-called wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 2). And so, we make both the content of the answer and the way we answer follow what we are instructed from Scripture. We don’t resort to the practice of, nor do we argue for secular ethics. But it also means that we do not rely on “natural law.” It isn’t that we don’t think there is such a thing, per se. But we recognize that it is not a product of nature itself, but the general revelation of God, and we know that the natural man will suppress this truth (Romans 1:18-32) and will cast it into a non-Christian context that results in his favor. Special revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (the knowledge of God given to all) should be used in unison, not separately.

We act according to righteousness, repenting when we sin (Matthew 3:8,10). We know that God is sovereign and so we pray and rely on his providence (1 Peter 3:12). If we truly believe that God is sovereign and that prayer isn’t some therapeutic exercise – that is, if we believe the Bible – then we will pray and rely on God to work. But you ought not swim in an ocean of sin and be deluded into thinking that God will rush to the aid of your cause. For your prayers can be hindered (1 Peter 3:7), but God will attend to the prayers of the righteous (Proverbs 15:29).

We do not advocate a gradual, incremental approach. We believe the methods by which sin and righteousness work are fundamentally different. While sin may ensnare and eat away at righteousness gradually, the call to repentance and righteousness is sharp and immediate. Just as a sickness does not need to affect all parts of the body in order to cause illness, or destroy all organs to cause death, so sin is content with entering in gradually. And yet health requires sickness to be removed or cured in all areas at once. We do not see the Prophets or Christ calling for incremental change, but for immediate repentance, turning from sin to God. So we too will call for immediate and complete change, knowing that a compromise between righteousness and wickedness is not in favor of righteousness, and also knowing that God judges not only individuals but nations as well.

Finally, what do we say of the non-Christian who seeks to end abortion? It is a fine and good thing for him or her to oppose this evil. We will welcome the help. However, do not be surprised if our arguments part ways at certain points. We have an entirely different ethical framework.

Do we say that you cannot oppose abortion unless you are a Christian? No. Non-Christian can and do know right from wrong. This isn’t to say that non-Christians have a perfect or exhaustive knowledge of right and wrong or that they will always acknowledge what is right and wrong. They may know right from wrong and they may argue vehemently on the correct side of things. What we would maintain, however, is that they cannot give an account of right and wrong. That is, when asked why a thing is right or wrong, they will come up short, giving an arbitrary or self-defeating answer.

We welcome their help, but with an understanding that we have separate and distinct worldviews. We aren’t going to compromise our beliefs in order to develop a common set of beliefs among us; our commonality is primarily in our opposition to abortion. And if you have not understood the previous paragraphs, let me state it plainly: we have different motivations and reasons for opposing abortion than non-Christians.

Can non-Christians and Christians both oppose abortion? Yes. Can both hold signs opposing abortion? Yes. Can they both distribute fliers? Yes. Can they both do creative things to influence the culture? Yes. Can they both convince others to oppose abortion? Yes. Can they both vote? Yes. Can they both honor God and confront people with the person of Christ? No. Can they both give an account for why abortion is evil? No.

If you aren’t Christian, but oppose abortion, then by all means oppose abortion! We too will oppose it! We can both do things to oppose it. Just don’t be surprised if we don’t share the same presuppositions or if we present the gospel to you.

The Insults of the World

2011-12-12T23:28:00.000-06:00

When interacting with unbelievers in an apologetic fashion, it is not uncommon to encounter insults, especially when the unbeliever’s arguments have been refuted. This is to be expected, however, and the Christian worldview is not without a response.

THE SOURCE OF HOSTILITY

The source of hostility against the Christian comes from the unbeliever’s hostility towards God. Jesus said:

18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’
(John 15:18-25)

This hostility becomes particularly evident when the unbeliever’s arguments are refuted. The unbeliever suppresses his knowledge of the Truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-21), and deceives himself into believing that God does not exist. In doing this, the unbeliever often uses arguments against God’s existence, arguments against Christianity, and so on, as a smokescreen to shield himself from the God whose existence he denies. When these arguments are refuted, the smokescreen is done away with, and the unbeliever is reminded of his guilt before God. The unbeliever cannot bear to submit to God in faith and repentance (Rom. 8:7), and so reacts with hostility. And since God is using the believer to convict the unbeliever of sin, the believer is the one who receives the brunt of the unbeliever’s ire.

THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

So what is the Christian to do in the face of such insults? First, one should remember that such animosity is ultimately directed at God. If one has sought to interact Biblically with the unbeliever, and has been met with hostility, then such hostility is usually a confirmation that one has been faithful to Christ. One should not forget the words of Jesus, when he said:

11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt. 5:11-12)

But, most importantly, we should not take insults to heart, or return spite for spite. Rather, we should turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39). In addition, we should do good to those who are hostile towards us, and in so doing overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:17-21). Now, this is a tall order for most of us, and anyone who has sought to make a practice of apologetics for any length of time (myself included) has succumbed to the temptation to return spite for spite. With our weaknesses in mind, we should pray for God’s grace in these situations, that He would enable us to respond in a way that honors and glorifies Him.

On the other hand, it is important to realize that the insult itself could very well provide another point of apologetic contact. After all, an insult, like any other assertion, follows from certain presuppositions, and inasmuch as these are unbelieving presuppositions, they can be shown to be untenable and self-defeating. Thus, if one looks past the personal aspect of the insult, one will find yet another assertion that can be demonstrated to be self-defeating on a position of unbelief. If we are charged with the task of taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), then there is no reason why we should not seek to include insults in this task as well. Thus, insults provide yet another opportunity to press the antithesis between belief and unbelief, and demonstrate the self-defeating nature of unbelief in God.

In so doing, we can also note that the Christian worldview expects that unbelievers will find the wisdom of God to be foolishness, and the people of God to be objects of disdain. This only serves to further glorify God in the exaltation of His Truth through the weakness of His servants. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

…the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:25-31).

CONCLUSION

Anyone who seeks to be faithful to Christ should expect to be derided at the hands of the world. Yet, such derision is not without explanation, purpose, or response. May we never tire of seeking to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and may God grant us grace to glorify Him in so doing.

Soli Deo Gloria!

-Matthew Martellus

Originally posted at MM's blog Vox Veritatis

Abolitionism and the Evangelical Heritage

2011-12-10T19:33:00.001-06:00

Discovering an Evangelical Heritage.

Donald W. Dayton produced a remarkable historical summary of America’s evangelical legacy in his work entitled, “Discovering an Evangelical Heritage.” This book provides compelling evidence that confirms “the Christian witness” has a powerful impact upon society when the gospel is put into action. Unlike contemporary evangelicalism, which by and large evades questions of social responsibility, Dayton sets out to prove that the evangelical heritage left by nineteenth century evangelicals such as Catherine Booth and Charles G. Finney demonstrated that the gospel and social responsibility were once intimately integrated. He provides thrilling accounts of how the nineteenth century evangelical “abolitionists” understood that to right societal wrongs, social injustice demanded a radical and Christian response. The abolitionist movement was chiefly political and religious; abolitionists believed that slavery was a sin. Through moral suasion, they set out to change laws in an effort to permanently abolish it.
Dayton revealed how many of the nineteenth century evangelicals joined in on the abolitionist movement and subsequently set the stage for the feminist movement; these activists rejected the governmental laws that legitimized slavery and oppressed women; they instead chose to submit a higher moral authority—God as opposed to government. Evangelicals were among the first to reject segregation in worship and ordain women in the ministry; their revivals bore a significant influence on social reform in America.
Political Activism and Abolitionism in the American Evangelical Movement

Donald Dayton was successful in establishing that the marriage of politics to social responsibility was lived out in the lives of many evangelicals in the past and is a huge part of the American evangelical heritage. Although the new trend in American evangelicalism, the “religious right,” or the Christian conservative movement, shares much of the same vision for morality in government and society as did the nineteenth century evangelical abolitionists, I have observed that the religious right seems predominantly idealist and less reformist; some have taken to political activism. Modern social concerns of the Christian conservatives include abortion, same-sex marriage, poverty, and socialism, but most evangelicals by and large avoid direct confrontation of the issues choosing rather to emphasize piety and personal conversion. Modern evangelicals by and large place an emphasis on the authority of Scripture and ascertain that preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ supersedes the calls for social reform; their convictions are not determined by their social milieu but in the expression of faith that is uniquely connected to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Nineteenth century evangelicals’ “liberal” theology, according to its critics, tended to ground its theology in human experience;’ they held a unique concern for social justice and civil rights in their plight against racism and slavery in America. On the contrary, the nineteenth century Christian social reformists would say that to not stand against the sin of slavery was unquestionably un-Christian. These Christians submerged themselves into politics, joining themselves to the Republican Party, the anti-slavery party, to bring about morality in government, to change unjust civil laws, and ultimately abolish slavery.

Evangelicals were labeled radicals because they opposed the establishment, the Democratic Party, and liberals because they sought to change laws that denied freedom and equality for blacks and women; they demanded justice for all Americans. However, after the civil-rights era, the evangelical descendants of the nineteenth century failed to show the same concern for social reform as their ancestors, believing as Evangelist Billy Graham, “While some may interpret an evangelist to be primarily a social reformer or political activist, I do not! . . . My primary goal is to proclaim the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” During the post-civil rights era, liberalism in America took on various new meanings, more secular in nature.

Social Responsibility and Revivalism in the Evangelical Movement

Early on in the nineteenth century, Oberlin College, “a hotbed of radicalism,” was a major contributor and advocate in the fight against slavery. The school was founded on the principles of evangelist and revivalist Charles Grandison Finney, the “father of modern revivalism.” He suggested that the gospel had given men and women a social responsibility to shape society. Finney believed that resistance to reform hindered revival and that he proclaimed:

“Revivals are hindered when ministers and churches take wrong ground in regard to any question involving human rights . . . the church cannot turn away from (the slavery) question . . . Silence of Christians upon the subject is virtually saying that they do not consider slavery a sin.”

Finney further believed that the Church is perjured and the Spirit of God departs from her if she refuses to speak out on the slavery issue.

Oberlin College, its students, and professors, became politically and socially committed to the cause of abolitionism. Members of the Oberlin Colony left the conservative Whig party and joined in the Republican ideology to help push the antislavery agenda forward. In most elections, “the Oberlin College voted solidly Republican.” Although these abolitionists used politics as a tool, the Oberlin members did not see abolitionism as a political plight but a moral obligation. Rich businessmen Arthur and Lewis Tappan, as a moral obligation and “evidences of piety,” spent their lives and fortunes to support initiatives such the “Underground Railroad,” free churches, and anti-slavery societies. The Oberlin colony rejected fugitive slave laws and saw civil disobedience as a necessary Christian response to laws that upheld slavery. Many were persecuted and imprisoned for their beliefs. One Oberlin prisoner was quoted as saying, “We belong to no modern school of politics or theology . . . but we belong to the school of the Fathers, who having been driven from their native land by the persecution of their government, taught their children that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

Preaching the Gospel to the Poor in American Evangelicalism

Many conservatives during the nineteenth century believed that the Church should be less concerned with social issues and should “preach the Bible not politics.” Nonetheless, the evidence presented by Dayton suggested that social injustices such as slavery proved to be the most divisive issues in the nineteenth century Church. The Methodist branch of Protestantism, for example, experienced a split; those with antislavery sentiments formed new branches. Under the leadership of bishop Orange Scott, the Wesleyan Methodist Connection was born. Combining “piety and radicalism” these Methodists attacked the sins of the Church, insisted that Christians side with God and stop neglecting the poor, and called Christians to discontinue the corporate guilt of being silent on the issue of slavery—they set out on a mission to spread the gospel of abolitionism.

Evangelicalism Today

Dayton has noted that during the period after the Civil War, evangelicalism experienced a drastic decline in social reform—the sin of slavery had been abolished. Since then, time has not faired favorably for evangelicalism. Urbanization and industrialization complicated the revivalist reform vision and the emergence of biblical criticism, Darwinism, and new geological discoveries caused the troubled movement to lose its great vision for America that once led its fervor for social reform. Furthermore, the rise a premillennialist eschatology has “undercut the social reform of earlier years.” The reversal in social reform is demonstrated in prominent and influential seminary schools who insist that Christianity was never designed to dismantle social institutions—their focus has shifted from reform and ethics to doctrine.

The poor response and sometimes outright opposition of the twentieth century evangelicals to the civil rights struggles of the 1950’s and 60’s are a clear indication of the detachment to the spiritual heritage once held of the evangelical to transform the world through reform. Many evangelicals have seemingly forgotten its legacy and lost its appetite for social justice as they had when they stood firmly against slavery.

Moving Forward in the Twenty-First Century

One issue, even one as large as slavery, does not and should not define a Christian’s theology. Jesus is the focus of the gospel message, not any one social evil or concern. Nonetheless, the nineteenth century evangelicals' immense opposition to the cruel and inhumane treatment of enslaved blacks was certainly biblical. They believed that all men were created in the image of God; no man should be permanently subjugated to another. They agreed with the founders of this great nation in their declared independence from England that “all men were created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator.” Their care and concern for the poor and oppressed was consistent with the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, social activism in America is now largely a secular sport and the American government, not the Church, by and large provides free food, shelter, and clothing to the indigent: free legal counsel and work among prisoners, public schools and hospitals (none of which are really free); these were all ministries developed and voluntarily performed primarily by the Church. In modern times, the government has taken to the business of providing a “gospel to the poor” and has perverted God’s message of justice. Under the pretense of “equality” and “fairness,” the government has extorted its citizens through heavy taxation and burdensome legislation to fund “charitable” programs for the poor. They have usurped the blessings associated with freewill giving and charity.

In reality, both the Church and the American government have done a great disservice to the poor. Concerning the government, the political powers that be have convinced the poor that they don’t need God and they don’t need the Church, but they need the government to survive and to meet their needs. The American government has failed the poor because they have done nothing in advising them towards godly and purposeful living, and many of their policies have done permanent damage by enabling the indolent poor to become dependent, lazy, and forego personal responsibility. The government has also failed the people because they have ignored the power of community and voluntary giving. The result has been increased class-warfare, strife, and covetousness among the people, and dependency of the perpetually poor upon the government. Concerning the Church, she has failed the poor because she has not defended them against ungodly and oppressive governments; and she has willingly surrendered her ministry of helps for the sick, the elderly, the orphan, and the widow to a secular state who is more concerned with maintaining their dependency and allegiance through political manipulation than seeing their souls saved.

Although the notion of social reform in and of itself is a good thing, the gospel of Jesus Christ should not be replaced by the social gospel. There have been causes and movements throughout all times, there are many sins to confront (namely all of them), and there are many souls to be converted. Christians should not dwell so much on social issues that they, as Justo Gonzalez has asserted, “become preoccupied with the existing social conditions” and forsake Christian evangelism and discipleship. The Church’s mandate is to both preach the gospel AND stand against sin in the world. Christians are both proclaimers of the good news to the lost and defenders of the poor and oppressed.

Evangelicals have a responsibility to stand against sin and stand on the authority of Scripture as a framework in which to critique modern concerns. When the Church fails to do both, Satan, the god of this world, will step in with his own “gospel” and distort God’s truth. For example, when the Church fails to speak out against the sin of abortion, it ceases to be a moral authority on the subject. By their inaction and silence; by not proclaiming God’s truth and standing against it, the Church becomes irrelevant. Satan is then given ample opportunity to persuade many souls to his cause.

Trusting in God’s moral framework, or standard, in which to “judge” good from evil will prove to help Christians avoid the pitfalls of conforming to cultural norms that are counterintuitive to the gospel; this the abolitionists did when they opposed slavery although it was “legal” and acceptable to most of society at the time. The twenty-first century looks bright for Christianity. Today’s Christians should examine modern issues through the lens of Scripture and avoid worshipping the ideological gods of our modern day; Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, Marxism, etc. We are the voice of truth and we are called to action, radical action; proclaiming the good news and standing against sin in the world.

-Providence Crowder

Originally Posted on the Frederick Douglass Foundation of NY
Reposted here by permission of the author

Adoption: A Glimpse of God’s Heart

2011-12-08T00:31:00.000-06:00

Adoption is something that is very near and dear to my heart. And for some time now, I’ve been itching to share my story and my unique family with you. Today I get the chance!

I have been blessed to be part of an amazing and unique body of Believers that is passionate about adoption. There are many, many adoptive and foster families at our church that have been a great encouragement through our journey of adoption.

But I understand that this is very unique and that adoption may be something completely new or even mysterious to you. While I don’t intend to run through the process of adoption today, I would definitely like to answer your questions if you want to know more about that aspect of adoption. If there is something you would like to know more about, feel free to leave a comment.

Our Family’s Story

Our First Adoption

In 2006, after trying unsuccessfully to get pregnant, we decided to pursue infant adoption. Sadly, I think adoption to many is kind of a last resort, but thanks to the example of our amazing church friends, adoption seemed quite normal to us. So we got our homestudy done and applied to an adoption agency. Our little Isabella was born in May 2007 and we got to bring her home from the hospital. The joy that came from that adoption was so intense, and I am so proud of Bella’s courageous birthmom who chose life for her baby in a culture of death.

In February of 2008, when Bella was just 9 months old, we dedicated her at our church. Our pastor preached and challenged our church to not just say that we are pro-life, but to actually do something about it. We left that day from church burdened to do something, and less than a week later, we felt strongly that the Lord was calling us to adopt again—but this time, to adopt older children.

A Journey Into Older Child Adoption

We got our homestudy again, and after waiting for a reply from DHS for several months, we decided to try a private adoption agency in our state. Although they primarily facilitate infant adoptions, we knew that they had done some older child adoptions before. So, we sent our paperwork and family scrapbook to them in October of 2008.

On November 4, I was teaching Bible study at church, and someone anonymously left $100 for our adoption on the podium where I was teaching. I was overwhelmed, especially since we hadn’t let anyone know that because we were choosing a private adoption rather than DHS, we would need a lot more money. That afternoon, an anonymous check came in the mail. It was for $4,000 and it said, “for your adoption” in the memo line. All I can remember is just lying on the floor and weeping, thanking God for His overwhelming goodness to provide for us.

The very next day, I got a call from the adoption agency, asking us if we would be willing to adopt 3 older children, who were 4, 5, and 6 years old at the time. Concerned about how much adopting 3 children would cost, I asked. They told me that they would waive the fees, and all we would have to pay is the attorney fees. Which would total about $4,000. God had provided us the exact amount we needed, and had also confirmed in our hearts that these children were to be part of our family.

Two days later, we welcomed Micah, Malachi and Liliana into our family. To say that this adoption changed things for us is an understatement. It totally rocked our world. We were quite unaware of the myriad issues that come along with older child adoptions—behavioral, emotional, physical, etc. But the Lord has always been faithful to walk us through everything. God has shown us that even kids with major baggage are of great worth to Him. No life is insignificant. Now, just over 3 years later, things still aren’t completely “normal,” but what is “normal” anyway?!

Becoming a Foster Family

In late 2009, we heard a story on the news about how there aren’t enough foster families in our area, so babies will leave the hospital and go straight to a state run shelter. This broke our hearts. We were reminded of Proverbs 3:27 which says,

“Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it.”

So, we felt the Lord was calling us to become foster parents to babies. We did all the training and in April 2010, we got our first foster baby. That placement lasted only one week. After that, we stopped getting calls asking us to take babies. Instead, we kept getting calls asking us to take older children. Wanting to meet the need, we took two little boys, who were ages 2 and 4 at the time.

We fostered these boys for nearly a year and a half. It was a wild journey with more behavior issues and other issues unique to fostering. But during that time, when we were taking care of children that weren’t our own and trying to advocate for them in the legal system, and when we were frustrated with all the red tape, God just kept quietly reminding us of Proverbs 31:8:

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”

I am now happy to announce that after 18 months of fostering these boys, Joshua and Abe are now officially part of our family. We finalized their adoption in September.

Now we have moved on to the next stop in our journey. We feel that God is calling our family to adopt again, and we have submitted all the paperwork. Now we are just waiting to be matched with a loving and courageous birthmom who picks us to parent her baby.

Why Adopt?

I love to talk about why adoption is so wonderful! It excites me every time! There are many great reasons to adopt—besides the fact that you will have a new child!

A Glimpse of God’s Heart

Adoption has done more to help me to understand God’s heart more than anything else. I have grown so much spiritually as a result of adoption. You see, the very act of adoption mirrors what God has done for us through salvation.

“For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “ Abba! Father!” Romans 8:15

I remember looking on tiny baby Isabella and feeling such love for her, even though she hadn’t grown in my womb. Isn’t that how God is towards us?!

Older child adoption has given us a further glimpse into God’s immeasurable love for us. It’s easy enough to love a tiny (and adorable, I might add!) baby, but it is a completely different thing to love and care for a child who returns your love with hatred and is bent on destroying everything in sight because of his anger. But God has given us a heart to love our children despite those things. And when I get really frustrated with the latest unimaginable thing one of my kids has done, God gently reminds me that He loves us even when we are in disobedience, and He aches for us to return to Him. He still calls us back into a loving relationship with him. It’s been very convicting and humbling to see God’s heart through adoption.

Bringing an End to Abortion

My husband and I are very involved with trying to end abortion in our country. Just as our pastor challenged us a few years ago, I’d like to extend that challenge to you as well. If you believe abortion should be ended, is it in word only, or is it in deed as well? There are certainly many ways to stand for life, but one very basic way is to adopt.

We all have different roles to play in abolishing abortion, and for our family, adopting is our primary role.

By providing a safe, loving and warm home for a child, we are providing very courageous birthmoms with the support and assurance that they made a good choice for their children. We also want to stand up and show the world that there truly is no such thing as an unwanted child.

A Biblical Mandate

No, adoption is not mandated in the Bible, and you won’t hear me proclaiming that you need to go out and adopt in order to be obedient to the Bible. However, throughout the Bible are many commands to Believers to defend the cause of the fatherless and the orphan. Our family’s verse is James 1:27:

"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

One great way to visit orphans in their distress is to adopt. There are so many hurting kids out there that so desperately want a loving home.

How to Get Involved

For some of you reading this, you may know immediately that God has called you to adopt.

But, perhaps your children are grown and out of the house, and you don't want to adopt more. Or perhaps you have 10 kids already. Let's face it, not everyone is called by God to adopt. And that's fine. But we are all called, as Christians, to take care of orphans--however that looks. For me, it undoubtedly is through adoption. But maybe for you, it is through giving money so others can adopt. Our adoption was made possible because someone obeyed God's calling of helping orphans by giving us money. Maybe you are supposed to start an orphanage. Maybe you're supposed to start a ministry at your church. Maybe you’re the birthmom who choses an adoption plan for an unexpected baby.

Who knows....it's different for everybody. But we're all supposed to be involved.

-Beth Corcoran

Facilitating the Aborticide of Down Syndrome "Undesirables"?

2011-12-05T13:49:00.000-06:00

The New York Post recently ran an article with the headline “The end of Down syndrome”.

In it, reporter Mayrav Saar tells readers that “a new, simple way to detect Down syndrome in a fetus means the condition will be virtually extinct -- but not without a great deal of controversy…”

Until recently, the only ways to detect Down syndrome at an early stage in the womb were also liable to produce miscarriage, as they require removing a small piece of the placenta or a sample of amniotic fluid for testing.

With the introduction of MaterniT21, a San Diego-based company was able to detect 98.6% of Down syndrome cases, according to the article.*

This is excellent insofar as mothers and fathers would be able to prepare for raising a child with Down, giving them time to seek counsel from professionals, support from friends and family, and investigate opportunities for special-needs financial (and other) assistance. Furthermore, there is great cause to rejoice in the fact that parents would no longer be putting their valuable children at risk through potentially fatal means of testing.

The article goes on, though, to introduce statistics that are sobering and sad.

The Link to Abortion

Surveys show that today, 92% of mothers whose unborn children test positive for the condition choose to abort.

With the introduction of MaterniT21, Saar writes, “it’s likely to make testing for Down syndrome common for almost all expectant mothers,” and “experts” project that along with that wider knowledge base there will also be a greater demand to abort Down-afflicted (or gifted) unborn children.

Paul Root Wolpe, director of the center for ethics at Emory University, reflects on the matter, “What you end up having is a world without people with Down syndrome… And the question becomes is that a good thing or bad thing?”

His conclusion: “It’s a tough call.”

The argument of this post is that weighing that scenario is not actually a tough call. Not only is the scenario illusory at best (Down would not be removed from our gene pool, rather babies with the disease would continue to be conceived; they would only be eliminated before birth), such eugenic practice is wrong, regardless of whether it is possible or not.

When engaging people about the issue of human abortion, you may have frequently encountered people citing (or, if for the practice’s continued existence, perhaps have made the argument yourself) that illnesses like Down syndrome are one justification for permitting the life-ending practice.

In response to this assertion, some take a pragmatic approach. Louise Borke, mother of a Down child herself, falls into this vein when she states that “people with Down syndrome are not charity cases.”

Borke and others also argue that although Down syndrome testing has advanced into modernity, public understanding of the condition has not. Society does a poor job understanding the disease, and many doctors even admit to “purposefully over-emphasizing the negative information about Down syndrome or outright encouraging women to terminate their pregnancies.”

The Link to Abolition

Pragmatic arguments such as Borke’s above are often true, and should be used in a battle against misinformation and the Father of lies. Still, there is a very real sense in which such arguments are insufficient to protect those unborn humans whose lives we are accountable for.

For instance, sometimes people with Down syndrome really are charity cases, and this is certainly true for people having certain other debilitating conditions.

If we gauge a person’s value in a humanistic manner with sole regards to their perceived social utility, then we fall victim to the sin of so many before us (not only the Nazi’s) and turn a blind eye to a great number of those who cannot speak for themselves.

In light of this, we must either reexamine what truly constitutes a human’s utility, or we must recognize that human worth is based on something far more intrinsic (recognizing that there may indeed be some overlap between the two). Either way demands a theological approach to the issue of abortion, and only a biblically informed worldview will ultimately prove successful. This is one of the reasons a theological approach is a key facet of Abolition.

In accordance with that approach, we recognize that human worth is inherent and undeserved, a quality of being created in the image of God (see Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6, and James 3:9).

As such, we acknowledge all humans as possessing this value, all humans are worth protecting.

That being said, there is a sense in which Christians are especially called to care for those in our world that are the least well off. This is how our God has interacted with us. Although we were entirely undeserving and dead in trespasses and sins, He has called us and forgiven us and given us new life.

Entering into the Kingdom of God is entering into an Upside-Down Kingdom. This is a lesson impressed on me by valued personal friends, themselves with children who have autism and Down. It is, more importantly, a concept evidenced in both the words and example of Jesus: “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

The Holy Spirit continues this testimony in the writings of Paul: “But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose… The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable” (1 Corinthians 12:18, 21-22).

These verses (and others like them) may be talking specifically about life within the body of the church, but it is no leap to recognize them as laws of the King who reigns over the rest of creation as well.

Two of the least privileged members in our society – the unborn and the ill – find their marriage in the issue at hand, the abortion of babies with various debilitating illnesses.

We cannot stand for this great stain of injustice against the least valued of our society. Christ will not stand for it, and if we watch idly or encourage such eugenic movements, we will be judged for it.

As the director of the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma recently noted:

“Christ called us to care for the weakest members of our society, not abandon or destroy them for the purpose of producing a so-called better society. We Christians are to care for the fatherless and the infirm, not abandon them to destruction. In opposition to the way of life (Christianity), is the way of death; the way of the world. The way of the world seems right to man, but its end is death. The world teaches that humanity ought to enact the "compassionate" extermination of the weak and unwanted to make room for the fit, healthy, useful, and happy. As Abolitionists, we are to bring these two ways of life into conflict with one another, and demonstrate before the watching world how our view, centered on Christ, leads to the humane treatment of all people, and their view, centered on man, leads to the abolition of mankind itself.”

-Trevor Clark

* Please note that this post takes no issue with MaterniT21, but rather celebrates it inasmuch as it seems to be a way to lovingly gain knowledge of the unborn without putting them at risk. Abolitionists do unapologetically denounce the use of a good tool to advance the silent genocide of valuable humans. This is both an affront to God and a threat to humankind.

2011-12-02T15:43:00.000-06:00

You may think us too immoderate or extremist. You may think us too impolitic or radical. You may think our methods foolish or ineffective. You can brand us as fundamentalists or label us as fools. You can hate us. You can spit at us. You can tear down our posters and flag our posts. But do not expect that any of this will make us silent.

We will not rest until we have effected its Abolition.

New Student Union Abolition Handbills

2011-12-01T12:39:00.006-06:00

A group of female abolitionist college students handed out these AHA handbills in the University of Oklahoma student union today. Pray the Lord uses these fliers to create fruitful conversations and future contacts with people we can later help.

Here is the front and back of the Handbill:

The text on the Handbill reads:

Yes... we live in a society that accepts Abortion as a woman’s right and approves it as an option for dealing with unwanted children. But the promise of peace, comfort, and liberation that abortion offers to women is just an illusion. Abortion does not help, but harms women. Choosing DEATH for your child does not equal choosing LIFE for yourself. Abortion is destructive physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Please consider the truth that choices have consequences and that there is a better choice to be made.

Also know that YOU ARE NOT ALONE. We desire to help you in your time of need. We follow a God who cares and a God who helps, and we believe that His love holds the answer to any difficult situation you may find yourself facing. Yes, we believe abortion is sin and ought to be abolished, but we also believe that we are to speak the truth about abortion in love, and show compassion to all those who are in need of our assistance. And though you may not share our religious beliefs, we will help you nonetheless. Please keep this flier and contact us if you ever need help of any kind (whether it is financial, physical, emotional, or spiritual).

If you need help or even just want to talk to someone in our organization, pleace contact:

abolitionistsocietyok@gmail.com

"I argue from science, not religion…"

2011-11-28T13:13:00.003-06:00

...so say many from the Pro-Life position.

We definitely understand why many thoughtful pro-life individuals and organizations embrace a secular starting point in their engagements with pro-choicers, but we abolitionists actually question the wisdom of adopting such a reductionist approach to fighting abortion.

Please, just hear us out.

If the pro-lifer who bases their entire argument in "science" is actually engaging others on behalf of those not yet born, we certainly commend them for their willingness to do so, and pray their engagements change minds and save lives. But we do wonder why a Christian would ever purposefully avoid theological arguments in favor of voicing a solely scientific/secular claim? (Indeed, we are baffled as to why any Christian would ever leave the Gospel out of their engagements with the issue of abortion or conversations with the practice's defenders.)

We understand that some may want to argue on grounds that the other side will readily accept. After all, you want to be persuasive, right? But are you ready to abandon the Christian worldview to embrace a seemingly more pragmatic or easy approach to speaking the truth with love to people who ultimately need to know God more than anything else?

When you pit science against religion, or when you insist on arguing without any reference to God, you deny at least one of three important theological truths: God’s aseity, his act of creation, or his sovereignty.

God’s aseity is his self-existence. He is self-sufficient and not dependent or subject to anything outside of himself. When God created the world, he designed the physical and moral laws that govern the world, and he created man in his own image. However, he didn’t just create the world and let it be, like some wind-up toy. No, God is sovereign over the world; not only does God sustain the world’s existence, but he remains in control of its proceedings, and he certainly maintains authority over the world.

What does that mean for the field of ethics? It means that ethics are derived from God. If God is not the standard of goodness, then when we say that God is good we must mean that God is subject to some law or ideal of goodness outside of himself. But, what if we were to accept that God is the ultimate standard of goodness, but that we can derive our ethics from some sort of created standard of goodness? In other words, rather than make reference to God, we make reference to something in this universe to construct our ethical standards. But, notice that creation has a context and purpose – both derived from God.

Consider for a moment the context of ethical discussion. Is ethics personal or impersonal? Are impersonal things, such as rocks, trees, etc. subject to ethical obligations? Persons, on the other hand are to account for their thoughts, motives, actions, etc. If there is a self-existand God, from whom everything else derives its existence and purpose, then we have an ultimate reality that is personal and we make sense of ethics. Not only that, but we must look to God in order to understand ethics and morality.

So, how does this tie back into science? Why would you avoid theological arguments, in favor of secular ones? I’m not suggesting that you just blithely throw Bible verses in people’s faces and tell them they’re wrong. But what does it say if you refuse to make Bible references or bring theology into the discussion? It severs your message from the Gospel and undercuts your Christian worldview.

But why would a non-Christian listen to you when you talk about God? Maybe they won’t. But consider also that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. There will be those who not change their mind in the face of proof. Nevertheless, the goal is persuasion, right? Yes. However, not persuasion by false or deceptive means. So, it first must be established that we have an obligation to be honest and to reason rightly. Secondly, it must be acknowledged that man is depraved and in rebellion to God (which is ultimately why proof and persuasion are not one and the same) and that only God can change a society. He restrains evil by his grace, but also transforms hearts through the gospel – something that won’t happen if the gospel is not preached.

Abortion is a result of man’s depravity and must be righted by confronting it with the person of Christ. Otherwise, if we abolish human abortion, there will simply be a different and potentially worse expression of rebellion against God. We must also remember that this isn’t just about saving children. Everyone involved in abortion is affected by its evil. Ultimately this is about the glory of God. Those involved in abortion bear the image of God, are the recipients of God’s grace, and we are given the task of loving them and pleading with them to be reconciled to God. Part of loving them is confronting their sin. Committing evil may harm others, but it most directly affects the person committing the evil.

You can’t confront sin without reference to God. Human abortion is sin. If you want to view it as something other than sin, you aren’t going to address the real issue. And if you get mocked for talking about God, so what? Better to be faithful and loving, calling a spade a spade, and getting mocked for it than trying to please the pride of those who massacre children by relying on secular methods. By the way, how well have secular methods worked over the past several decades? Just sayin’.

Present the theological arguments. If you don’t know them… there are plenty of Abolitionists who will gladly help you learn about theology! If people object to your using theology, ask them why? Why is it off-limits? Question their world-view right back! Ask them for their justifications and examine their presuppositions! To accept that references to God are off-limits is to buy into the idea that conversations with non-Christians must be ruled by non-Christian standards.

Ultimately we are arguing for consistency, which coincides with loyalty to Christ and the renewal of our minds and results in the presentation of the Gospel in the confrontation with real evil.

-Brian Biggs

Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-25T17:09:00.002-06:00

I'm adopted. Its not a secret, but I know some people may not know that... Today while thinking about what I'm thankful for, while sitting in the midst of my loud crazy family making a mental list of all I'm grateful for, one thing that came to mind is that I am THANKFUL for my adoption. The following poem is one I read in a book as a junior high girl. Two lines from it have been forever burned into my memory. They came to the surface of my memory today as I wait to enjoy all the crazy good food thats filling up the kitchen. This amazing open home where the food is never lacking and the grace is free flowing. A place where your blood relations, last name or ethnicity have no bearing on you being called "family".

So today I hope you are enjoying your family, whether there is chaos or calm. And I hope you find yourself feeling loved by the God of the Universe, who has ADOPTED you into His family, by the blood of Jesus.

Once there were two women who never knew each other,

One – you do not remember, the other you call mother.

Two different lives shaped to make your one -

One became your guiding star, the other became your sun.

The first gave you life, and the second taught you to live in it.

The first gave you a need for love and the second was there to give it.

One gave you a nationality; the other gave you a name.

One gave you the seed of talent; the other gave you an aim.

One gave you emotions; the other calmed your fears.

One saw your first sweet smile; the other dried your tears.

One gave you up – that was all she could do.

The other prayed for a child and God led her straight to you.

Now you ask through all your tears the age-old question through the years;

Heredity or environment – which are you a product of?

Neither, my darling – neither – just two different kinds of love.

-Author Unknown

You can choose to look away...

2011-11-22T11:00:00.000-06:00

As the great abolitionist William Wilberforce said before the British House of Commons in 1789 after boldly stating his case against the monstrous inhumanity of the African Slave Trade, ‎"You may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know."

Let the world know about the monstrosity that

is legalized human abortion.

Avoiding the Bill of Blame

2011-11-21T12:01:00.002-06:00

In my classes we talk a lot about very real human injustices. It seems very frequent. These seem very unnerving. Very "barbaric." How is it that we, members of the human family, can justify mistreating, demeaning, devaluing, destroying, and annihilating members of our own? Living bodies with the same image. People with feelings. Human beings with their own families.

Men, women, children, and babies all created in the image of God.

Yet we all desire to have value, to be shown worth. life. liberty. the pursuit of happiness.

As if the offenses were not baffling and outrageous enough, I find myself disenchanted in the midst of our truly bigoted class discussions. It is always "they." "Those horrible Spaniards," those "immoral slave owners," the "hellacious Adolf Hitler," those "racist nazis," and so on. We resent the historical monstrous crimes of genocide and ethnic cleansing while 3,700 babies per day are murdered in the United States before given the chance to see the light of day (1). And what are the reasons for this? Is it health? Sometimes, yes. But most of the time, no.

The reasons are most related to lifestyle: the desire to finish school, the desire to maintain or achieve a career, or simply an inconvenience. To reiterate, "over 99% of all pregnancies are the result of sexual relations in which both partners have willingly participated"(2). Only just over 1% of all abortions are due to incest or rape (3).
Yet it is never us. Because it is always "them," it is never us who massacre "lesser" members of our society. Because we are past that now. Past the dark ages of violating human rights because we have learned from our mistakes. But have we?

A friend of mine (while talking about something else) asked me the other day what the definition of an idiot was. To which she answered her own question, "someone who attempts the same failure over and over again with the same results."

Not to be unnecessarily and overly offensive but it seems to me that history is repeating and we are making the same mistakes over and over.

Here is my point: In my classes we continually talk about these atrocities as though they don't persist like a cancer within our own borders. We are completely oblivious. The same arguments are being made and though the afflicted people group has changed, and though the details are different, we are committing the same monstrosities.

Furthermore, and perhaps a task for another day, the justification for this is in the name of "women rights." But here is the thing, Fellow Woman, motherhood is the most basic and beautiful of all your "women rights." Motherhood is where the glory of being woman is. Biblically speaking, "Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self control"(4). (This is not to be confused with spiritual salvation, which is only by grace through faith alone)

There is practically nothing more honorable than taking up the task of motherhood with joy. I am not a mother yet, so I know my credibility about this topic may not be the strongest but I implore you to consider its truth. Though I have never mothered my own child, I have witnessed the beauty of motherhood from my own mother and I am so grateful for her. Moreover, if asked, I know for a fact that she would say mothering has been more rewarding than any lifestyle alternative that school or a career could ever be.

Nevertheless, some women will not embrace it. Other women will remain single (which is beautiful as well if used rightly). But even if you have no means to support a child financially, spiritually, or emotionally, abortion is not the best option for you. I would argue that abortion hurts the mother far more than it hurts the infant (5). However, time is fleeting and this post is long. So I will offer two final things: one, there is likely an unplanned pregnancy center near your area that can help and two, the abolitionist society is here to help in whatever way we can and we do care about women.

Finally, as a reminder, "Jane Roe" (legally Norma McCorvey) bore her baby, put her up for adoption, and is now an activist for unborn rights to life. You can visit her website here.

Lord, move your people and the people of this nation to do some serious introspection on how we treat the weakest members of society. Forgive us and have mercy on us, for none of us are above the system. Finally Lord, change hearts and save souls by opening their eyes that they may come to a knowledge of the truth. Make us doers of the Word and not simply hearers so that this atrocity of abortion may be abolished and You may receive such glory and honor as due Your great name. In the name of Jesus, Amen.

"The Bible insists that the best test of a nation's righteousness is how it treats the poorest and most vulnerable in its midst." - Jim Wallis

-Brit Marlowe

Notes:

1. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html see also Abort73.com.

2. Randy Alcorn. Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated. (Oregon 2000), p. 108
3. Ibid. p. 231
4. 1 Tim. 2:15 (English Standard Version)
5. This argument has been made elsewhere on the blog that you can read if you scroll around.

Dillon Chase, Hip Hop Artist and Abortion Abolitionist

2011-11-18T13:03:00.001-06:00

Dillon Chase initially came on the scene out of Denton, TX. To summarize the driving force behind making music, Dillon says: "I desire that my music glorifies God, builds up believers, and evangelizes the lost." He started rapping at the age of 14 in 1999, making every effort to grow in his craft. Originally a product of a home ridden with parents who struggled with alcohol and drug addiction, Dillon was destined for a life of struggling. But in 2004, by God's grace, Dillon recognized the importance of the redeeming blood of Christ to pay the price for his sin. He turned from serving his own selfish ambitions and submitted to the will of God. Six years later, the grace of God showed evidence in his parents' life as well.

Overtime, Dillon began to use his gifts as a way to create a platform to proclaim the gospel. In early 2007, Dillon's life of servitude was seen and acknowledged through fellow Christian artists Lecrae and Sho Baraka, who invited him to be a part of the 116 Clique project 13 Letters. Dillon continues to produce holy lyrics with a style and flare all his own, emphasizing being a walking testimony off the stage as well as on the stage, of God's glory and redemptive power.

Dillon Chase is currently touring with Stand Out Ministries in various cities along with ministering in his local body and prisons in the state of Oklahoma. Although he receives accolades and applause for his music, he fights to remain humble, resting in the shadow of Jesus Christ's perfect work on the cross.

However, Dillon doesn't have a major label behind him and relies on fans, friends, and family who work together to get his music out to the world. One song in paticular has surprised us all with its impact: Strong. Strong is partly inspired by his wife's story of being a pregnant teenager who made the choice not to get an abortion. She was sixteen, pregnant, scared, and looking for a way out. With everything in line to go to an abortion clinic and murder this life within her, something amazing happened. God intervened and she didn't go through with it. She went on to graduate high school and nursing school, all while raising a child. Recently after performing Strong, testimony was received that a young lady was going to have an abortion, but after hearing the song decided to choose life instead!

Today Dillon has taken up the call to be a 21st century abolitionist and work to bring an end to the legalized killing of unborn human beings. After linking up with a few abolitionists last August at a performance he did with Tedashii at Norman High School, Dillon has since made plans to devote his musical talent to carrying out the work of Abolition! We feel strongly about helping him produce an industry standard, high-quality music video for the song Strong and hope to see it played on major networks and impact many lives. This is a hard thing to accomplish with very limited funding, so we are reaching out to those who support Dillon's music and those who support the message of Abolition. We need 300 people to donate $10.00 (or more) to cover a portion of the expense in producing a music video. Please consider tossing ten bucks in the pile to help Dillon to reach many more people with the pro-life thoroughly Gospel-driven message of Strong. You can listen to Strong on YouTube here, and purchase Dillon's albums here.

To link up with Dillon Chase and the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma and help us produce this life changing video, please visit the Indie GoGo fundraising page for Be Strong. There is more information to be seen there, a clip from the song's original video recording that you can view, and information on how your donation works, and you can even gain a little perk for giving, such as a free CD, DVD, concert for your church youth or outreach event, and even the opportunity to spend the weekend with Dillon Chase in Atlanta, GA and appear in the video directed by Sho Baraka!

Please share this campaign on Facebook and Twitter, and get the word out to your local church and let them know how they can help contribute!

A Reply to a Rape Victim

2011-11-17T08:21:00.000-06:00

A woman and rape victim left a heartbreaking comment in one of our older posts. I would like to post a reply here:

My heart breaks to hear about the horror you have undergone, and yet I am thankful to hear that your child lives, that you chose life when you were not legally required to, and that you are not writing from a position of regret about a choice to abort that can never be undone.

I know that these may just seem to be words on a page, but I hate what has happened to you. At the same time, I stand in horror of the darkness that lives inside of me. I have been rescued from that darkness by someone who hates it far more than even you hate it. That someone is Jesus. He hates sin so much that He was willing to leave the glory of Heaven, walk streets crusted with dust, thorns, and camel manure in order to share a message that most people would reject, show great love to people who hated Him, and then be put to death in a horrible way on the cross by those very same people He came to save. He did all this so that we all could have forgiveness for the dark things we have done, and so we could have eternal life with Him in Heaven.

Yet because of His great generosity and love, He offers us as this forgiveness and eternal life as a free gift. I urge you to examine your life in light of God's law. Have you ever lied to someone? If you have, are you not a liar? Have you ever been greedy or selfish, wanted something that doesn't belong to you? Then you are a thief at heart, malcontent with the many blessings God has given you. We have all broken God's law. I have broken God's law. We are all guilty. You are guilty. I would like to ask you to consider that you can not live a good enough life to please God. Fall on Jesus, beg Him to forgive you and give you eternal life, turn from your lawbreaking. He will give you a new heart with new desires. Then read the Bible and obey what you read.

The day is coming when Jesus will redeem everything and will wipe away every tear from the eye of every one of His people. I pray you will be among His people, because then you will experience full healing and redemption of the horror you have undergone. You will even be given vision to see how even the worst of experiences was woven seamlessly into His plan, and you will rejoice. Imagine rejoicing!

If you are not among His people, you will experience total loss. It doesn't matter whether you are rapist or victim, in that case. Nothing will be redeemed for you. No comfort will you know. No joy, no peace, no love.

Please, consider the two options. Choose life.

As for the issue of abortion after rape, we have discussed that at length already, and I would like to ask you to read what has been written with consideration and open-mindedness.
Let me reply to a few specifics in your comment (which I thank you for posting):

You all speak. About this topic with such passion, as if you really know what you are talking about.

I'd like to ask you not to generalise. You think no abolitionist has ever been raped? Think again.
There are also among us those who are survivors of abortion.
There are among us those who adopt previously-unwanted children.
Many of us have given money and dozens of man-hours toward helping pregnant women in difficult circumstances.
Also, whether any of us have ever experienced difficulty in this life or whether we have all had silver spoons in our mouths our whole lives, this is irrelevant to whether we are correct in our arguments and position, that human abortion must be abolished.
Please reconsider.

the emotionally hell that comes with looking back and wondering if it would've been better for your child if they had been aborted.

Could I ask you to consider this?
The way it went, your child has life, opportunity, breath. Yes, there is struggle. Yes, there is difficulty. Yes, there is pain in this life, but that is life.
You don't get to make the decision "yes, this person should live" or "no, this person should not live". That's not your prerogative. Of course it is better to live!

I am now struggling...financially

We are willing and perhaps able to help you.
Please contact me. Click on my profile page and email me.
Also, Jesus taught us that sometimes we undergo financial hardship and difficulty so that we may learn to depend fully on Him, and not on ourselves, our earning power, or our savings accounts. Life comes from Him, in all aspects.

You have no right to tell a woman that she HAS to watch her belly grow and cry every night knowing how she got in that position

It may surprise you to learn that I agree. I do not have the right to tell anyone what to do.
I am, however, commanded and responsible to tell you that Jesus does have the right to tell you what to do. He created you. He is your Master. He is far more intelligent and far wiser than any of us. We must listen to Him and obey Him, for He knows what is best.

It is her choice which decision is right for her

Let's think about this on your terms. I'm sure you would also argue that it is my choice to do with my body more or less what I want, unless and until I decide to do something that injures someone else, right?
That is precisely what you are proposing here. Just saying for the sake of argument that the woman does have the right to do with her own body what she wants, if she chooses abortion, she is infringing on the most fundamental right of her child - the right to life. The mother's rights stop at the baby's body. The baby's life must be respected, because just as I would not act to stop or infringe upon, for example, the rights of a group of Muslims or Satanists to assemble peaceably (for their right to assemble is my right to assemble), so is the baby's right to life identical to your right to life.

Jesus has commanded us not to murder, and to take care of the weakest and most neglected members of society. How great a sin we commit if we ignore the very weakest! Shall we walk around and kick beggars in the face too?
Abortion is a violent act of murder in which the abortive woman generally participates at some level. The solution to victimhood is healing and redemption in Jesus, not becoming complicit in violence herself.
The rapist is the guilty party in rape. The baby is innocent. Please consider - we must not apply the death penalty to the innocent child of a criminal!

unless you are going to help us raise these children

We are. We are abolitionists.
We are not anti-women or anti-women’s rights. We are pro-life, pro-women, pro-family, pro-adoption, anti-death, anti-destitution, anti-dissolution, anti-abortion. We desire to abolish the legal practice of human abortion, not punish the women already abused by its legality. We desire to confront and destroy the entire system of female subjugation and objectification which slyly encourages and often attends abortion's unbridled occurrence (Eph 4:14).

You are obviously hurting, and my heart goes out to you, as do the hearts of my fellow abolitionists. I am posting this publicly, but I invite you to talk to us privately. Let us seek the Lord Jesus together and let us wait patiently for His healing, both in the now and in eternity.

Reflections on the Mississippi Personhood Vote

2011-11-12T17:07:00.000-06:00

Voters in Mississippi decided Tuesday not to pass a State amendment that would have legally recognized personhood as beginning at conception.

The news coverage surrounding the vote contains a number of recurrent themes: the role of women in the vote, the nature of Initiative 26, and what this means for the personhood movement in the future number among them.

These events and the ensuing commentary have thrust Personhood USA, for at least a moment, into the limelight.

The Personhood movement deserves a thorough analysis, and some AHA patrons have asked if we have a formulated stance on the movement. I don’t think it would be wrong to recognize Personhood USA as falling under the Abolition banner, though there are some distinguishing characteristics (but that’s for another post).

Although a more formal analysis of Personhood USA remains to be made, this post takes a brief look at the essence and urgency of the Personhood campaign and the ramifications those things entail for us who witness them.

The Personhood movement derives its name from the essence of its objective, which is the legal recognition of the “personhood” of the unborn from the moment of fertilization. I think by “personhood” the organization means that the unborn have a legitimate claim to the value inherent to all human beings.

As such, the group does not sway from the most fundamental aspect of past Pro-life initiatives, or Pro-Life ideology in general.

This ideology has historically (and rightly) been connected to Christian theology and piety. This is one reason detractors of the movement paint it as an attempt to foist religious moral convictions (which they view as private matters) into the public sphere. In light of this criticism, some Pro-Life organizations have distanced themselves from a theological foundation.

Personhood USA does not follow the pattern established by those organizations. Rather, the arguments they advance have explicitly religious roots. Granted, it seems that the depth of theological reflection on the matter is somewhat lacking on Personhood’s behalf, which is not to say anything about the individuals who comprise the organization. This is probably due to the role Personhood USA sees itself as playing – a primarily political one. Even with such an emphasis, it is encouraging that the religious foundation of the group is not eclipsed.

This theological commitment is good. America as a democracy ought to maintain a marketplace of ideas – including religious ones. There is also a historical precedent for theologically-motivated social justice; as any viewer of this blog can attest, the abolitionist movement against slavery in Britain and America are incredible parallels.

To disallow religious influence is essentially to undermine what religion – especially Christian religion – really is. Francis Schaeffer observed well that “Biblical Christianity is Truth concerning total reality.” Attempting to wrench theology’s hands off of cultural decisions is not merely stifling the expression of religion, but stifling religion itself.

Another defining feature of the Personhood movement is its urgency, both of scope and timeframe. The movement wants to protect all of the unborn, and they want to protect them now.

Both facets of this urgency are probably among the reasons that initiative 26 failed in Mississippi – being too radical even for people who call themselves pro-life. (You may remember here a post written not long ago entitled “You are Not Pro-Life”.)

One commenter asserted that “efforts to ban abortions in ‘hard’ cases… are doomed to fail, because they lack popular support.”

Again, a historical parallel can be drawn.

In the fight to abolish human slavery in the United States, many abolitionists were criticized for being “immediatists.” They advocated a total, sudden condemnation of the institution of slavery. They stood in contrast with those who promoted a more gradual reduction of slavery.

Many “pro-life” people would feel more comfortable taking incremental steps toward a gradual reduction of abortion.

It is interesting to note that in the case of slavery the immediatists are those we laud today, and I can’t help but speculate that comments like the one above were said of those abolitionists of old.

The two characteristics of Personhood USA that we’ve looked at – an essentially religious argument and a call for the immediate abolition of human abortion – have consequences for those who encounter them.

Essentially, the movement is calling everyone to take sides. To Christians in particular the movement calls for a full-orbed spirituality and demands a radical attitude.

As evidenced in Mississippi, the dividing line is no longer republican vs. democratic, liberal vs. conservative, or nominal Christianity vs. secularism (as if dividing lines have ever been that neat). The arguments of abortion abolitionists are not vague enough to permit such broad dichotomies.

Instead, the explicitly religious essence and radical urgency of their cause requires witnesses either to board ship or steer clear. They must make a conscious choice as individuals because the various demographic groups people belong to are no longer unified on one side of the issue or another. There is less room for wiggling than before.

All this is reminiscent of an excerpt from C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength, a fairy-tale for grown-ups. In it, Professor Dimble talks with his wife about the current state of the struggle in which they have found themselves. The quote is not a perfect parallel to the issue at hand, but it is close to it:

“‘I mean,’ said Dimble… ‘if you dip into any college, or school, or parish—anything you like—at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow-room and contrasts weren’t so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad getting worse: the possibilities of neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.’”

It's not just about the Babies.

2011-11-07T12:49:00.002-06:00

Our lastest poster is meant to let the world know that our desire to bring about the abolition of human abortion does not proceed solely from a desire to save babies or protect the right to life of all human beings. We also believe that abortion is a soul destructive practice that ravages the emotional, mental, physical, psychological, and spiritual condition of the women who embrace it as solution to their unwanted pregnancies.

As abolitionists we oppose abortion not only because it is the legalized killing of children, but because it also abuses women who have been betrayed and misled by a culture that encourages them to value their own personal peace and comfort over the lives of their unborn children. We are dedicated to destorying the entire system which undergirds and propells the continued practice of human abortion. Abortion is not only ending the physical lives of millions of human beings every year, it has also destroyed the spiritual lives of millions upon millions of women (and men).

We believe that the babies who lose their lives in the violent act of abortion are adopted into heaven to live eternally with there blessed creator and redeemer. Though their mothers left on earth in this time and place, may reject God's love and spurn His forgiveness out of shame for what they have done, He is faithful and righteouss to forgive them of their sins; even the sin of abortion.

The Father has not abandoned us, we should not abandon them. The work of abolition includes destroying all wicked aspects of the system. Abortion is not just killing babies, it is destroying women.

We will not rest until we have effected its abolition.

Before you go get an Abortion...

2011-11-05T20:35:00.001-05:00

Learn just a little bit more about what it is you will be doing.

For more information, please visit The Human Development Resource Council

Abortion, Sin, Salvation, and Pain

2011-11-03T10:19:00.000-05:00

The following conversation occurred yesterday on the Abolish Human Abortion community page on Facebook. There is much to be pondered in this brief little back and forth; much to be learned from both our FB page moderator and the young lady who struck up the conversation.

The dialogue begins when, Jasmine, a kind and concerned visitor to the AHA community page made the following comment:

Jasmine: “Okay so you guys have a right to speak your opinion just as much as I do. I understand there are other choices out there to make other then abortion. But all the shit that people say is hurtful. I have not had an abortion but I know a couple of people that did. I am pro-choice. Hate me all you want but thats me and some page isnt gonna change my mind. All the hurtful pictures and sayings isnt gonna change ones mind. You guys can keep thinking it will. But it wont. Its what they think is right at heart.”

Abolish Human Abortion: “Jasmine, I appreciate your fortitude in coming to a page you know you disagree with and posting your thoughts. Much of what you have said is true. I have a bit of an argument for you. I'm not going to focus on why abortion should be allowed or not. I'm going to focus on two sentences in your comment that I think sum up your complaint:

1) But all the shit that people say is hurtful.

2) Its what they think is right at heart.

And before I get into my reply I would just like to say that we do not hate you. Jasmine it takes the ability to feel another's pain to stand up for friends and loved ones you feel are hurt by pro-life slogans and accusations about women who have had abortions. I want to appeal to you as a fellow human who is made in the image of God. I'll begin my reply in the next comment.”

Jasmine: “K”

AHA: “Jasmine, I will grant you that it is hurtful. I agree that some of these things can cause post-abortive women to have feelings of shame and guilt. It is not our goal to bring about feelings of shame and guilt. Our goal is to call sin sin so that these women will recognize their need for redemption.

Would you shy away from telling a loved one that they had cancer if you thought it would hurt their feelings? Of course not! You would tell them so that they could have a chance at saving their own life.

Sin is essentially a cancer that all of mankind is afflicted with. The Gospel is the only remedy. People do not think they need a remedy if they aren't aware they are afflicted by a dreadful malady.

You may say, "I don't think they have a malady and neither do they." But that is betrayed by the two sentences I have chosen to focus on. You say that pro-life slogans and statements about how wrong abortion is are hurtful to post abortive women who think abortion is "right at heart".

The point is that you and these women know that abortion is a heinous crime. You and these women are hurt by these slogans because you know them to be true. If you thought they were horribly wrong they wouldn't bother you a bit. This is evidence that you and these women are made in the image of God and that they know this is wrong.

Please consider the savior of the world, Jesus Christ. He died for sinners while they were sinners. He comes to us when we deserve condemnation and whispers to us "I love you." But why? God is glorified in saving sinners. God loves to save sinners. Christ took the real wrath we deserve and boar our real guilt that we feel. If you would trust Christ for salvation you would be declared loved and no longer condemned. The offer is love and the condition required of you is trust in Him. Call out to Christ for mercy, He is so mighty to save.”

Jasmine: “So you're calling me a sinner?”

AHA: “Jasmine, I am not really saying you are unique in being a sinner. I am sinner. I deserve the wrath of God where I stand for my own sin and rebellion, but Christ died for me. He took away my sin, my guilt, my shame. He can do the same for you and your friends, if you all would look to the Christ who loves to save sinners. But yes, you are a sinner in need of a savior. Just like me.

Jasmine: So basically all i am saying is that ask me these questions 2 years ago i woulda been on your side. But now that someone close to me had an abortion the shit hurts. Okay I know it is a sin. And when you ask God for forgiveness for your "sin" he'll forgive you. Call me a sinner all you want..call them all sinners all you want. They did what was best for them. The shit the people who are against abortion is rude. How would you like it if I came at you and found hurtful ass things to say about what you believe in.”

AHA: “Jasmine, you are saying yourself that abortion is wrong. But then you are saying that it is something that you believe in.
Christ's forgiveness is so much more than fire insurance. You can know you are forgiven. You can no that you are no longer under condemnation. You can know that great sins can be forgiven by an even greater savior.

"The shit the people who are against abortion is rude. How would you like it if I came at you and found hurtful ass things to say about what you believe in."
Jasmine please try and see that this is not merely about saying hurtful things. This is about pointing women in pain to a savior who is able to heal and forgive. It is pointing patients with terminal cancer to a cure. It is a desperate plea to help someone in pain, not merely to point out their pain.

Jasmine: All I am saying is if me, as a senior in high school, was to get pregnant i would keep my child. All that I really "ask" for is to keep the negative stuff calmed down. Its already bad enough they got to go through the depression stage afterwards, but on top of that you got the mean pictures and the rude sayings like "god hates you." Not cool.”

AHA: “Jasmine, perhaps women shouldn't be allowed to make a decision that causes them to go through depression. No one here has repeated a slogan like "god hates you," to a post-abortive woman. We call abortion what it is because we care about the truth. We want women to turn to the savior and the great physician who is able to save them. We don't do anything particularly rude. If we have please point it out and we can discuss it.

If I had one thing I could tell your friends here is what it is:

The pain you feel is real. It is not all pro-life people's fault, although some probably don't help much. You feel depressed because you have sinned against a Holy God. Fortunately, God sent His only Son Jesus Christ to die a criminal's death in your law place so that you can be forgiven. God loves to save sinners. He is glorified by it. You feel hurt because you are a great sinner just like me and you need a great savior. That great savior is Jesus Christ. If you call out to him for mercy he will save you.”

AHA: "All that I really "ask" for is to keep the negative stuff calmed down."
We will not back down in calling abortion sin. We will also not stop presenting the savior to women who are in pain. To not call abortion a sin and plead with women to repent of this sin would be equivalent to discovering a loved one had cancer, while possessing a cure, and refusing to tell them because it may hurt their feelings or ruin their day/week/year. We want these women to be saved. We want them to live!”

Jasmine: I'm not asking you to not call it a sin. I'm asking for the people who are, not saying you are, to stop being so freaking rude.

AHA: Amen.

Abolitionists Represent

2011-11-01T18:28:00.003-05:00

One of the primary difficulties in raising awareness about the atrocity of abortion in our culture is the fact that most people are simply too concerned with their own personal peace and comfort to make discussion of abortion part of their daily life. Most people, even "prolife" people, are far too socially insecure, sensitive, and afraid of confrontation, to speak their mind about abortion except for when they're safe within the confines of their church, family, and fellow "pro-life" friends. Such bashfullness is a subtle compromise with the continued occurence of legalized child killing that continues in this country.

The world out there is perfectly happy with the fact that you are prolife so long as you keep it to yourself. As they like to say, "You do not have to be pro-abortion so long as you do not seek to take away somebody else's right to an abortion." Of course, the pro-choice lobby and abortion industry hates the fact that prolifers seek to defund their commercial killing centers and replace pro-choice politicians with elected officials who desire the repeal of Roe v. Wade or put restrictions on the practice of abortion, but, the prochoice lobby knows full well that they have been winning this political battle for the past 38 years and every day that abortion remains legal is a day that some 3,500 women make their way to so-called clinics and end the lives of the children developing within their wombs. Millions of dollars are made and millions of lives are destroyed.

The pro-abortion culture that we live in is perfectly happy with the fact that you are pro-life so long as all you ever do is check a box from time to time and leave them to influence the culture with their so-called "prochoice." What they do not want you to do is destroy the steady stream of misinformation about abortion which they produce in order to encourage the continued prevalence of abortion in this country while it remains legal. They do not want you to educate the people around you about abortion. They do not want you to influence others to becomen opposed to abortion. They do not want you to inform women of the dire emotional, physical, and spiritual consequences which follow the procurement of an abortion. They do not want you to transform the so-called right to abortion on demand from a womens' rights issue to a human rights violation.

Pro-choicers just want you to keep your pro-life opinions to yourself and leave them alone. This is not good for anybody.We must make ourselves visible. We must point ourselves out.

We desire to more boldly identify ourselves and our position on abortion as a thoughtful, expressive, and engaging presence within our so-called modern society. One of the principal reasons we want to do this is simply to increase the occurrence of meaningful conversations about abortions. Identifying oneself as aligned with a controversial opinion on a controversial topic might be seen by some people as unhelpful or even too radical, but we simply must end the mutual assured silence about abortion in our day to day world and arrest the apathy of many pro-lifers who have chosen to quietly agree to disagree on this issue.

As the abolitionists of earlier times stood up and declared themselves emphatically opposed to the blindly overlooked and sometimes willfully ignored evil that undergirded much of the self-proclaimed superiority of their whitewashed society, we also desire to stand up and be clearly counted in opposition to the legally sanctioned practice of exterminating developing human beings in the name of another person's right. We do not want to create chaos, but we do want to be seen and heard. To this end, we have developed a modern abolitionist symbol that we can put on our persons, our blogs, our products, and our businesses (among a plethora of other items). In doing so, we are following earlier abolitionists throughout history. The abolitionists of slavery created and employed a well-known image of a slave on bended knee lifting up his chained arms to heaven with the slogan "Am I not a man and a brother?" Perhaps you have seen this in history books, museums, or documentaries on the abolition of slavery.

The abolitionists of slavery disseminated this image widely and used it to identify themselves as those living in a world of legalized human slavery to which they actively expressed their dissent. They employed this symbol widely, engraving it on everything from fashion accessories to domestic objects which they used in their homes and businesses. The symbol adorned gentlemen's' snuffboxes and pocket watches and ladies' brooches, bracelets, and ornamental hair pins. This symbol and its accompanying slogan was packed full of expression and argument. The statement, "Am I not a man?" argued that the slave's bondage was unjust because, as a man, the slave was a fellow human being created in the image of God and possessed of the sanctity and dignity afforded human beings as God's image-bearing divine creations. The second half of the slogan, "and a brother," signaled another theological truth which the abolitionists espoused. The African slave was a brother of the European because he had the same Savior and Redeemer, Christ Jesus. Yes, the appeal to end slavery embedded in this symbol was deeply theological and religiously motivated.

These abolitionists created a way for people to make their views on the "slavery issue" clear. All one had to do to let their neighbors no where they stood on slavery was place this symbol on their person or property. The net result was a culture of expressed dissent, public debate, and fruitful discussion. We have created a symbol to be used today for the very same purpose. Like slavery abolitionists who used the “am I not a man and a brother” image to identify themselves and the organizations and societies to which they belonged, we are choosing to identify ourselves with a modern Abolitionist Symbol.

Our symbol is admittedly far more logo driven than the abolitionist symbol of old. We live in a much more text driven, graphic design, and logotype culture; and we like to leave the onus on the person wearing the symbol or signing the symbol at the bottom of a receipt to take the opportunity to explain what the AHA means and why they are an abolitionist. We must label ourselves and designate ourselves as a people unified against the legally sanctioned system of death and politically approved practice of human abortion. By having a recognizable symbol, and wearing it proudly and boldly, we can make ourselves clearly visible in the city in which we live. When we're out there in the world going to and fro, from work or class, grabbing a cup of coffee or getting the grocery shopping done, we "pro-lifers"just blend in with the apathetic culture of death that we are supposively opposing. I imagine that many of us do not wear our pro-life opinions on our sleeves for the sake of social cohesion and comfort, but this is crazy. We should be far more concerned with abolishing abortion than we are with sustaining a culture of apatheic indiffence.

While some disagreements are not worth rocking the boat over, others most definitely are. And sometimes, all one needs to do to rock the boat is express their adherence of a controversial position publicly.

If your an abolitionist: Represent.

To snag an abolitionist T-shirt today, visit our store.

The True Horror taking place in our Country

2011-10-31T15:14:00.004-05:00

“Abortion” is not just some social, political, or intellectual debate to be carried out by philosophers, pastors, and politicians. Abortion is a legally sanctioned social and cultural genocide. It is a constantly occurring crime against humanity and humanity’s maker which goes on every minute of every hour in nearly every community of our world. It is a malignant blight which permeates our entire way of life, and it is balefully ignored by a vast majority of Americans who value above all else, their own personal peace and affluence (this goes for believing Christians and unbelievers alike).

Our society has been putting to death its offspring by the millions every year since 1973 when the supreme court of the United States legalized abortion-on-demand in Roe v. Wade.

While it is the general policy of this blog to refrain from posting gratuitously violent and offensively graphic images of aborted human beings in our posts, we are in no way opposed to those who use images of the monstrous evil that is abortion in their work as abolitionists. Our society usually focuses on making philosophical, theological, historical, political, and ethical arguments against abortion while at the same time seeking to explain and promote the culture of life that drives us in our work to replace abortion with adoption and death with life. We devout most of our posts to laying out the theological motivations behind why we do what we do, and believe what we believe.

But we do believe there is a time and a place for displaying the horror of what we are seeking to abolish. Sometimes the inhumanity of man must be put on display and the dark and horrible things going on in our world must be brought into the light. This has long been one of the task of abolitionists.

As abolitionists our primary job is to expose evils, effect their removal, and work towards their alleviation. Sometimes this requires more than just words. We do not want anyone to be unaware of what abortion is.

But most people are incredibly unaware of the horrors attending the legalized practice of human abortion. They have fallen for the lie that Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion laws and regulations have somehow made the practice of abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” But the truth of the matter is that abortion is not rare--it occurs 3,500 times a day--and that every successful abortion violently ends the life of a defenseless human being. There are no safe abortions.

The most common and preferred procedure used in a first trimester abortion is called a Dilation and Curretage (D&C). In this procedure the women’s cervix is dilated and the abortionist inserts an instrument to scrape the wall of the uterus, removing the placenta from the uterine wall dismembering the baby’s small fragile body and extracting it from her womb. Suction is often used in conjunction with a D&C. After the cervix is dilated, a suction tube is inserted into the womb which tears the developing human apart, ripping him or her from the uterine wall along with their placenta, sucking them into a jar. Violent as both of these methods are. They yield identifiable human arms, hand, and legs. Indeed these little parts must be identified and accounted for in order to insure that no part of the babies body remains in the womb of his or her mother to cause an infection.

Second Trimester abortions are even more violent. At this point, fetal bone and cartilage have calcified and suction devices can no longer be counted upon. One commonly used method for aborting human beings at this point employs the use of a Saline Injection. Here a long needle is inserted into the mothers abdomen to puncture the sac in which the unborn human being is developing within his or her mothers womb, removing the fluid around them and replacing it with a solution of highly concentrated salt. The developing human being is then poisoned by breathing in this salt solution and dies of an induced brain hemorrhage accompanied by violent osmotic changes in pressure. It takes about an hour for this process to successfully end the baby’s life, and during the process, his or hers outer layer of skin is painfully burned off. The following day, the mother’s body goes into labor expelling the shriveled remains of her burned and asphyxiated unborn child.

If the unborn child being aborted has managed to live into the sixth month of his or her development (the third trimester) a "Dilation and Evacuation" (D&E) or "Dilation and extraction" (D&X) will be used to exterminate their unwanted life. These processes boil down simply to dismemberment by instrument within the womb. Here the cervix is dilated and forceps are inserted into the woman’s womb which grasp the fetus and remove it part by part. At some point in the process the skull must be punctured and crushed, for it has grown too big for simple removal. After a “D&E” you not only have to account for all the destroyed human fetus’s body parts, you also have to reassemble them.

This is abortion.

But perhaps you are among those people who think we are just being alarmist and inflamatory. Perhaps you believe the “prochoice” misinformation circulated in our culture that argues that the aborted unborn are just clumps of cells and that these images are doctored on photoshop and the products of unstable minds. Perhaps you have been led by prochoice propagandists to believe that the aftermath of an abortion looks like this:

Wake up! You are the ones with the false images. You are the ones choosing to ignore the truth, and covering up the horrible reality of abortion. You are the ones propping abortion up and encouraging its continuation. For the truth of the matter is this, all people, materially considered, are clumps of cells and when we are aborted we look like this:

The victims of abortion must be seen and recognized. The true horror taking place in our country and all around the world must be acknowledged. As abolitionists we must do everything within our power to peaceably bring about an end to this monstrous evil.

For those of you who oppose us; oppose Abolition; we just wanted you to see what it is you are defending and approving.