The Joy of the Truth » Abortion

Pro-choice is the Death of Love

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:51:27 +0000

In a previous blog post, I pointed out that abortion advocates have problems even if they call themselves pro-choice. The overemphasis of the individual’s choice tends to isolate the mother from the support of the community. Our culture is pretty much telling unwed mothers, “It’s your choice, so it’s your problem.” Whether a mother decides to kill her baby or give her baby life, the pro-choice movement makes the decision and all its consequences hers and hers alone. Her right to choose removes society’s responsibility and compassion.

Wesley Smith, an outstanding opponent of Euthanasia, teaches that the same thing happens with the “right to die.” The individual’s choice to end his or her life in the face of suffering or despair removes our responsibility to reach out to them in love.

“But I know people and you know people who became suicidal,” he continued. “They might not be alive today if it had not been for the mental health professionals and friends and loved ones who stood in the gap and said, ‘No, we love you, there’s another way’.”

“We are disengaging from each other,” Smith said. “We are losing love for each other, and that is reflected in how we treat people who are in despair and darkness.” ¹

One interesting thing about Smith was that he said he did not understand why euthanasia is a progressive issue. Apparently Wisconsin is being targeted by pro-death advocates and Wisconsin is known as a blue state. I wonder if Wesley Smith falls into the same misunderstanding of modern liberalism as many Catholics. Liberalism is no longer founded on progressive ideals, but instead on philosophical Modernism, the belief that truth cannot be known except through personal experience. Modernism emphasizes personal choice as the most important value, since it sees truth as a personal thing (“What’s true for you may not be true for me”). Pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion advocates call themselves pro-choice because the personalized choice is what matters most to them. However, their over-emphasis of personal choice means a neglect of community responsibility and love.

Klein, Franz. “Wisconsin is a ‘major target’ for pro-euthanasia groups, speaker says” Catholic Times. October 1, 2009. 12. ↩

Standard Medical Practice and International Rights

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:08:15 +0000

Our culture now considers shutting down the healthy fertility system and killing babies to be basic woman’s health. Long ago the abortion movement abandoned their slogan “safe, legal, and rare.” They are now successfully pushing to make abortion everyday, commonplace, and accepted medical practice. The practice of medicine used to be considered the practice of making a sick person whole and healthy. It is now becoming a commodity business that offers whatever the customer thinks he or she wants. Even while the morally reprehensible act of abortion is constantly under fire and is increasingly unpopular, activists are moving to make abortion a basic human right on the international stage.

Top Abortion Law Firm Says Government Funded Abortion is a Human Right
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A top abortion-rights law firm recently released its conclusion that the last decade of international legal trends indicate that abortion is not only an international human right, but that government funding is part of that right. They claim that the “vicious” health care debate in the United States over abortion funding shows that the U.S. is flouting international law.

In “Reproductive Rights at the Start of the 21st Century: Global Progress, Yet Backpedaling on Gains in U.S.,” the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) argues that “funding for abortion services has increasingly been recognized as a necessary tool for ensuring access to a fundamental human right.”

C-fam.org

We need to shout from the rooftops! True woman’s health is making sure her body, including her fertility system, does what it is designed to do. True woman’s freedom is the ability to choose to enjoy her sexuality within the context of marriage and family love so that she is not used as an object of pleasure and so that her sexuality fulfills the purpose of its power: to create family love.

The Problem of Choice

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:49:24 +0000

I have commented before that while there is value in calling abortion advocates on the “pro-choice” bluff is important and fruitful, we also need to understand how it is possible for them to consider themselves pro-choice (especially because many errant Catholics actually consider themselves so), and to meet their arguments at face value. This is, after all, St. Thomas Aquinas’ approach.

Richard Stith seems to agree. His article, Her Choice, Her Problem in First Things Magazine presents an excellent argument that seriously needs to be considered in the public square.

He argues (among other things) that choice removes compassionate support and replaces it with the attitude, “You chose to have the baby when you could have gotten an abortion, now you can live with your choice.”

But once continuing a pregnancy to birth is the result neither of passion nor of luck but only of her deliberate choice, sympathy weakens. After all, the pregnant woman can avoid all her problems by choosing abortion. So if she decides to take those difficulties on, she must think she can handle them.

Birth itself may be followed by blame rather than support. Since only the mother has the right to decide whether to let the child be born, the father may easily conclude that she bears sole responsibility for caring for the child. The baby is her fault.

It could certainly be argued that society was not so compassionate to pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade. If this is true, is the answer to turn to a solution that is at least as uncaring? Furthermore, it must be understood that there is a difference between compassion for the woman and accepting the sin. Today we are expected to say to a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, “Oh, that’s OK. Your sexual choices are your own. We’ll help you and not judge you.” Before Roe vs. Wade, the attitude was, “This is the consequence of your sin, and you need to come to terms with it. However, we will help you even though we do not condone your sin.” How is this kind of compassion shown?

The father of the child may man-up and marry the woman and become a true father to the child
A family may take the young mother away from the community, school, etc. so as not to cause scandal, but would support her through her pregnancy and even through the adoption process or even in motherhood
Pregnancy crisis centers help women without other sources of support
Churches and communities step in to help single parents who are struggling
All the while the family, Church and society make it clear that the consequences of the sinful, selfish use of sexuality affect her, the baby, and everyone around them

The personal experience of a friend of mine has shown me exactly what “choice” does to us as a society. When she got pregnant and went to the father of her new baby, his response was, “I’ll give you some money for an abortion, but if you choose to have this baby then you’re on your own.” No longer is the point of choice and consequence the decision to have sex. Now the point of choice and consequence is the decision to have an abortion or not. The man was let off the hood because keeping the child was the woman’s choice.

It’s time for a more compassionate response to unwed pregnancy than “choice.”

Pro-life means anti-murder

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:35:22 +0000

The murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller has pro-life groups scrambling to defend the pro-life movement from accusations that we support murder,

see Pro-Lifers Say Abortionist’s Murder Undermines the Right-to-Life Movement

and for good reason. Almost immediately, pro-abortion commentaries began declaring that the pro-life movement is hypocritical, violent and “extreme.” Of course, such political diatribe was sadly predictable and frankly pathetic. That pro-abortion activists would use the death of one of their own as an opportunity for such propaganda is pretty much unconscionable, especially considering that the comments came out long before all of the facts are even known. We don’t even know the motivation behind the murder.

In stark contrast to this shameless propaganda, the defenses launched by pro-life groups is not mere political expediency. Murder of any human being, even of a human being who is committing murder, is morally evil and would be fundamentally and philosophically opposed to a true pro-life advocate. Reports on Tiller’s murder have mentioned some possible justifications for such a murder that a morality blog should examine.

Justification #1: the murder of an abortion provider is justified because the use of lethal force is morally justified in defense of innocent human life.

Using lethal force in defense of innocent life (or in self-defense) is only justified under very specific circumstances. Most germane to this discussion, the use of lethal force must be the only means possible for saving the innocent life. While pro-lifers may become frustrated at the continued death of the unborn, we cannot honestly make the claim that lethal force is our only remaining option. In fact, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life and others have pointed out that converting the hearts of abortion providers is actually a greater asset to the pro-life cause, as these doctors then become powerful witnesses to the evils of abortion.

Justification #2: killing one abortion provider saves the lives of hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of children.

First of all, Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League points out that this claim is simply not true. Getting rid of one abortion provider simply opens the door for other providers to step into the gap. Indeed, another abortion provider, a close of friend of Tiller’s, immediately went to Tiller’s clinic to make sure it kept running. More importantly, even if this were true the proportionate good brought about by the evil does not justify the evil of murder. The principle of “the ends do not justify the means” clearly states that no evil may be done so that good may come from it. If killing an abortion provider saves the lives of thousands of babies, those thousands of lives are purchased at too dear a cost. This principle makes the most sense to those who believe in life beyond this world. The babies who are killed by abortion will be take care of by God. Our faith in God’s love and mercy for the unborn victims of murder does not keep us from fighting the evil of abortion, because the battle against abortion is actually the battle for immortal human souls – of the mothers, abortion providers, and leaders who support such evil. So, we fight abortion out of love for these evil doers and a desire for their conversion. Their murder is antithetical to the cause of life for Catholics and for any other Christian.

Justification 3: As a late-term abortion provider, George Tiller deserved to die.

If this is true of George Tiller, it is true of all of us. Yes, George Tiller committed murder, and as a result may be put to death if the conditions for capital punishment are met. However, vigilante justice is never morally justified, and even capital punishment would probably not be justified in America.

In the end, pro-lifers must declare that the murder of George Tiller was philosophically and morally opposed to what the pro-life movement stands for. I join many Catholics today in praying for the soul of George Tiller and for his family. I also pray for the conversion of the person responsible for this heinous crime, whatever his motivations were.

Counting the Cost: Lines Drawn in the Sand

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:34:58 +0000

When Barak Obama was elected president of the United States, thanks in large part to liberal Catholics, I stated that I hoped God would turn the evil of empowering a pro-death party into good for the Catholic Church by purifying our intellect and forcing us to stand up for the Truth more strongly. President Obama’s recent commencement address at Notre Dame University provided a clear sign that God is indeed at work.

How many times have pro-death speakers been invited to speak at Catholic universities in recent years? How much protest did you hear? Last May, Catholic Answers and other groups published long lists of Catholic universities that opened the door for commencement speakers who did not represent Catholic teachings. Protest was fairly limited to these groups and one or two bishops. Suddenly Notre Dame’s invitation to the president draws lay people and bishops out of the woodwork to protest and to stand up for the truth about the sanctity of life.

Archbishop Chaput out of the Archdiocese of Denver offered a statement that beautifully articulates exactly why Catholics are rising up. Is the sleeping giant (the Church, not the bishop) awakening in America? What wonders will God work when His saints finally arise?

Alarmism & Propaganda in the Prolife Movement Revisited

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:08:15 +0000

There are inherent dangers in criticizing certain causes such as the prolife movement when one is a Catholic educator. People will often assume that such criticism reveals leanings toward the culture of death. In the case of my last blog article, Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement. I honestly didn’t get much reaction at all, but some of the reactions I did receive on the John 654 Catholic Social Network seemed at first a bit defensive. Margie provided a wonderfully thoughtful response. She also provided a link to the actual document in question.

I am willing to admit that I may be ignorant of the total ramifications of this issue. Margie made the point that some prolife groups are filing lawsuits over this document, which shows that the “accusations” are not routine and are serious. I hope that she is right, and that these lawsuits do not prove to be frivolous.

However, after reading the entire document I continue to be convinced that prolife reactions were more alarmist and propaganda than legitimate self-defense. The document was a “lexicon” – a glossary to help law enforcement agents understand the lingo used in documents from the Department of Homeland Security. One of the definitions in this glossary was

antiabortion extremism – (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities.

Margie reflected reactions that I have heard from prolife groups – that this definition amounts to an accusation that prolife groups are violent. What I see is a very narrow definition of people who are willing to commit violence in the name of anti-abortion activism. This definition does not even pertain to prolife groups, but only to the few violent whackos who have placed bombs at abortion centers or shot at abortion providers.

Secondly, I have heard prolife leaders ask why prolife extremists were singled out. While it is true that pro-abortion extremists were not mentioned in the lexicon, other “liberal” causes were. The lexicon included terms such as leftwing extremist and environmental extremist. All of these “extremism” terms are used in the same way as the term “Muslim extremism,” specifying a subgroup of a population who are willing to use violence in the name of their cause.

Whether or not I am correct in my read of this situation, my warnings remain true. Alarmism and propaganda have no place in the prolife movement. These are the tools of the enemy because the enemy does not have the weapon of Truth. Truth is stronger in the end than emotional deception. We weaken our own cause when we react with only emotion rather than with reasoned passion.

Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:11:54 +0000

Many pro-life groups have been abuzz about the memo issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI that seemed to indicate that pro-lifers were considered potential terrorists by the government. I first heard this complaint from Janet Parcell’s America. Mrs. Parcell tends to be a little alarmist, even though she does a great job of making Christians aware of issues happening in Washington long before those issues become common knowledge through other media outlets. I am disappointed to hear the same alarmism coming from Life Issues, an organization I truly admire.

Tagging Pro-Lifers as Rightwing Terrorists

There’s been much talk about the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI warning America about potential rightwing terrorists. One of the sources of these terrorists they predict will be veterans returning from war. I always thought of them as heroes. A second group they pointed their finger at was those who are “dedicated to [an] opposition to abortion.” Another of their concerns was people who believe government has taken control away from state or local authorities—exactly what Roe versus Wade did. I never thought working to protect innocent unborn babies was remotely an act of terrorism. But I guess we’re in good company with the veterans. Kidding aside, this new document could be used as a platform for a pro-abortion president to try to silence his opposition.

From Life Issues Radio Transcript 05/04/09

I think we need to exercise a little bit of prudential caution here. I have noticed that pro-life reports are becoming ever more alarmist and hypersensitive since President Obama took office. We do ourselves no favors by playing this game. This “document” was actually an alert memo – something that is by its very nature temporary. It was intended to give law enforcement a profile of potential for violence so that they could catch early signs. It was not intended as a permanent profile of criminal populations.

The memo’s mention of veterans was not an indication that all veterans are violent threats. Rather, it was an indication that veterans are more likely to be disgruntled or even angry at the current administration (especially given their strong support for Bush & McCain), and that anger could potentially lead to violence because any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

Likewise, can any pro-lifer claim that our stress levels have not risen since President Obama took office? Isn’t it possible that some of the less emotionally stable members of the vast pro-life movement could express their increased frustration in violent ways? The memo was not stating that all or even most who are opposed to abortion are likely to be violent, but simply that the current political situation has increased the ire of pro-lifers, and any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

My guess is that under the Bush administration, similar memos were issued about homosexual activists and ardent abortion supporters. Just because we didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean the memo wasn’t there. These memos are routine.

A more legitimate target for concern is the press that chose to make this memo public while ignoring similar memos that could have been interpreted to call homosexual activists terrorists.

Pro-life groups really need to exercise more prudence. It does us no good to use propaganda and “political speak” that have no truth behind them. When we do this, we turn the fight against abortion into just another political wrangle. We have the Truth behind us. We should use it.

The Real Victims of Abortion: Those Who Reject Love

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:00:01 +0000

While reviewing a case of used books, I stumbled on one from the 1980s that reminded me of a very important point. The injustice of abortion is definitely done to the baby, but from the Christian perspective we do not work to end abortion primarily for the sake of the unborn. The book I was reviewing reminded me that God takes care of the unborn. He would not leave victims of abortion without His mercy and love.

No, the people in real danger from abortion are those who reject love. The mothers who put their own needs, desires and convenience before the life of their children. The doctors who are willing to turn a blind eye to what they are really doing because of the great profits to be made. The politicians who refuse to see the truth about the death of babies because being champions of “choice” keeps them in power. These people have rejected love. These are the people who need our help.

And as Christians we believe that this rejection of love is not simple sentiment. Marital love is sacramental. It is a sign of God’s love for humanity, and as a sacramental sign is also effects what it signifies. Marital love brings God’s love to humanity. A husband and wife become one flesh in the marital embrace and conceive new life. They bring this life into the world and they nurture and love this life, bringing their children to the love of God through their own love. To reject new life is to reject God’s love. This is not just a crime. It is a tragedy. People who reject love are the most in need of our help.

Counting the Cost of Electing a Pro-Abortion Candidate

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:40:26 +0000

Despite our acknowledgment that electing the first African-American president of the United States is a great victory for justice, love and human dignity, advocates of the Culture of Life have approached Barak Obama with trepidation. His voting record as a senator has been unrelentingly pro-abortion. His campaign promises to Planned Parenthood to pass FOCA and make “abortion rights” a primary issue of his presidency reinforced the perception that Obama would be the most pro-choice president yet elected to office.Even so, many Catholics voted for the Democrat candidate, claiming that their choice was more pro-life than a Republican vote (voting for a third party was rarely, if ever, mentioned as an option). Their claim was that Obama would stop the war and promote social changes that would make abortions less necessary. As I watched listened to the inauguration of our new president, observing the great celebration of “change” and “hope,” I couldn’t help but wonder. At what cost had my fellow Catholics caused our country to pay for this moment of euphoria?

The first installment of that payment has already come due. As fully expected of a Democrat president, Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy by executive order, despite his promise to govern from the center and to listen to opposing voices. This policy prohibited tax dollars from being used to fund abortions in other countries (especially to fund the United Nations Population Control Fund). Our tax money may now be used to kill unborn babies in the name of fighting poverty. This move is a strong statement that the way to fight poverty is to keep poor people from reproducing. It is also a sign that President Obama is going to be more of the same as far as Democrat government goes. President Obama claimed that rescinding the Mexico City Policy would “settle” a “divisive issue” and bring unity. What nonsense. All he has done is to tip the argument toward death and to enrage advocates of life.

In all fairness, we have to admit that most of the buzz about Obama advancing the Culture of Death has been based on what he might do in the future. Rescinding the Mexico City Policy is the only concrete action he has taken so far. However, this action seems to be an indication of things to come.

Also in fairness, we must admit that the news about President Obama is not all bad. He has made at least three decisions that I think show some wisdom. First, he has overturned President Bush’s order that prohibited the states from enacting stricter vehicle emission standards than the federal standards. This action by President Obama returns control of clean air standards to the states, showing perhaps an understanding of subsidiarity (though it could just be typical Democrat environmentalism). It will also force automobile manufacturers to make some necessary changes that market forces have been unable to bring about.

Secondly, President Obama called for the removal of the contraception funding that Nancy Pelosi added to the economic stimulus package. He did so in response to pressure form Republicans and form pro-life advocates, perhaps showing that he is willing to listen to opposing voices after all. There is hope here. However, I am suspicious that his decision was to fight this battle later. If I am right, we haven’t seen the end of the contraception funding issue. For now, though, we can count this decision in the president’s favor.

Thirdly, President Obama has built on President Bush’s idea of “Faith-based initiatives,” except that he has expanded it to include nonreligious social organizations. As long as he does not include faith-based groups, I fully support the change. Supporting community organizations is an effective way to care for people’s needs. Local organizations know the needs of their people better than the removed federal government. Once again it is a sign that President Obama understands the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, these good decisions pale in scope and weight compared to the funding of abortion abroad. Lives of innocent babies are not a cost I am willing to pay for two small good actions.

What about the lives saved by not electing the war-mongering Republicans? I argued during the presidential race that I did not think that any president could simply withdraw us from the war. So far, indications point to my judgment being correct. Obama made a largely symbolic gesture of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison (some would say more than symbolic, since those prisoners may now be brought to speedy trial and finally receive justice), but early indications are that the war is business as usual – as it almost has to be for the sake of strength in the war against terror and justice for the Iraqi people who would greatly suffer in a power vacuum.

My purpose in this analysis is not to promote a partisan criticism of President Obama. To narrowly focused conservatives, Obama can do no right. Just as President Bush could do no right to narrowly focused liberals (the claims that Bush ranks among the worst presidents in history are utterly ridiculous). I want to be sure to point out what our government does right as well as what it does wrong. However, where innocent human lives are concerned, it is important to keep careful watch. An otherwise good president who advocates the killing of innocent lives is not a good president.I have to wonder if pro-Obama Catholics are keeping track. In the end, what cost will they pay for their choice? Only time will tell.

[ad#seasonal]

Is Abortion a Public Health Issue or a Political Issue?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:33:41 +0000

In a recent issue of our local newspaper, Daniel J. McCarty, PhD, wrote an opinion piece entitled Abortion is a public health issue. He makes the following argument:

To make any headway in the abortion debate it is essential that we move away from the “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” name-calling. In truth, both sides want to prevent abortions. Therefore, the central questions in the debate should be: a) why do women decide to have abortions in the first place? and b) what can we as a society do to prevent abortions? I believe we can better address these issues by treating unwanted pregnancy and abortion as a public health issue.

Dr. McCarty is an epidemiologist working in disease prevention and his arguments approach abortion as a public health concern. His solution is to get to the root of the problem, the causes of abortion, and address those as a society. He argues that countries that have done this, specifically those in Western Europe, have low abortion rates whether or not abortion is legal.

To this end, Henshaw et al. provide a very useful study of the “incidence of abortion worldwide” (International Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 25(Supplement):S30-S38 link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html).

This study clearly shows abortion is lowest in Western European countries and it is just as prevalent in countries where it is illegal as where it is legal. Just as the prohibition of alcohol in the early 1900s failed to prevent alcohol consumption, the Henshaw data suggest that making abortions illegal will fail to prevent the termination of unwanted pregnancies. The belief that abortion will end with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade is a fallacy and it should be exposed as such. Removing the right to safe, legal abortions will simply make them unsafe and illegal — doing little to reduce the actual numbers of pregnancy terminations. Efforts would be better spent addressing the underlying reasons why women choose to terminate pregnancies.

What underlying causes of abortion does McCarty identify? The usual suspects are rounded up:

poor health education
inadequate access to contraceptives and family planning
social stigma against being an unwed mother
unaffordable childcare services
lack of a livable minimum wage

Dr. McCarty makes a very good point in saying that refocusing the debate on these social issues and treating abortion as a public health issue can provide common ground for those on both sides of the abortion “debate.” However, his arguments are also based on a bad assumption – that the social/medical perspective makes the political fight obsolete.

People who consider themselves “pro-choice” believe that abortion is a valid solution to social problems. Those of us who are “pro-life” do not. That is a political question, and a very important one at that.

Can we work with our political adversaries to reduce the number of abortions through social action even as we go to war with them in the political arena? In some areas of social action, we certainly could. However, and I don’t mean to be a war-monger here, one must wonder if the worldviews of the two sides of the abortion “debate” are too divergent to expect such cooperation.

For example, one major cause of abortion omitted by the article is is the acceptance of “sexual freedom.” We can blame poverty, stigmas, and poor health education all we want – and surely these must be addressed. But abortions will not go down as long as we as a culture promote the myth of sex for pleasure and self-fulfillment without consequences. The purpose of sex is to generate life and love in the context of family. Abortion is one consequence of seeking pleasure before family. Do you think that pro-choice and pro-life activists will agree on this cause and address it together? Evidence to the contrary abounds – including outright attacks on abstinence education.

What kinds of answers for poverty, health care and childcare can we agree on? I truly hope there are some possible areas of cooperation. Perhaps working together on social causes would create inroads for some honest discussion and debate about abortion rather than the hostile diatribes that pass for political discussion today. However, such social cooperation does not erase the political question, nor the worldview question. Is abortion an acceptable solution to social problems? If we answer this question wrong, social action to address the causes of abortion will do little to change the heart of America.

End Note

“Abortion is a public health issue.” Marshfield News Herald. 21 October 2008. 6A.

[ad#seasonal]

The Joy of the Truth » Abortion

Pro-choice is the Death of Love

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Standard Medical Practice and International Rights

Related Links:

Related Posts:

The Problem of Choice

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Pro-life means anti-murder

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Counting the Cost: Lines Drawn in the Sand

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Alarmism & Propaganda in the Prolife Movement Revisited

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement

Related Links:

Related Posts:

The Real Victims of Abortion: Those Who Reject Love

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Counting the Cost of Electing a Pro-Abortion Candidate

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Is Abortion a Public Health Issue or a Political Issue?

End Note

Related Links:

Related Posts: