Amy's Journey from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life

In 2005, I was pregnant with my first child. I was married to the love of my life, I was finished with college (a little later than most people), we had a modest home in Pittsburgh that we were in process of purchasing, and life couldn't have been more perfect.

Rewind back to my chaotic, sometimes abusive, neglectful and occasionally harmful, yet at the same time a-total-blast-childhood. I knew nothing about being a mother or becoming a mother or how a mother was even supposed to act. My mom died when I was five, so I was missing that certain something that only a mother can give. Not only was I missing it, I was always searching for it.

I was eight weeks pregnant with my first! EIGHT WEEKS! The midwife warned, "we don't always hear a heartbeat at this stage." The blood left my face. "But that won't mean something is wrong necessarily," she said reassuringly. Then she applied what I will officially name the "magic heart beat wand," and her heartbeat came through louder and stronger than any sound I had ever heard in my life! And in that moment, my missing connection as a mother, as a daughter, and as a sometimes flawed and damaged person was healed. I knew that I had a reason to be here; I knew that every bad and good moment that led up to this one was necessary because this little soul, this little person, wanted to be on this Earth at the very moment that we conceived her.

My first pregnancy progressed beautifully, and I was not high risk, therefore I had my first ultrasound at 18 weeks. They told me that sometimes babies will just sleep through an ultrasound. But, I decided to literally "juice up" my baby, so before the ultrasound we went to a little bakery and I had a bagel and an orange juice! During the ultrasound my daughter was playing with her umbilical cord, she was touching her face, sucking her thumb! I thought I had an especially genius child, of course, don’t we all?

Ultrasound of an 18-week-old child in the womb

I asked the technician, "They don't ALL do this, do they?"

She nonchalantly shrugged and said, "Yeah pretty much they do."

To which I answered, "Well she's so, so, HUMAN! At least at this age it would be illegal to abort her."

"Oh no." She looked at me like I was stupid. "We do abortions here many weeks past this stage."

I incredulously argued back, "BUT THIS IS CLEARLY A PERSON!" At this point my little baby is playing like Tarzan with the umbilical cord, like having literal fun in my uterus! I blocked it and thought that this was a special circumstance.

Before my pregnancy I was vehemently pro-choice. I had a degree in Women’s Studies from a well-regarded, left-leaning university. In return for my $50K in student loans, they had produced the most Marxist, group think, liberal, feminist, pro-choicer to walk the streets of America! I would become physically angry at pro-lifers. I didn't want to see their crazy signs, and I in no way identified with their religious persecutions. I am not proud to say that I was especially radically offended by the male pro-lifers.

During my first pregnancy and the young years of all of my children’s lives, I worked long hours as a caseworker for foster children; I first volunteered and then became employed by our local agency that advocated for rape victims; I worked tirelessly at all hours to empower and support victims of sexual assault, something that was all too dear to my heart. All the while I tucked that mental picture of my daughter in utero away. I put it in that little corner of my soul so that I could get angry, be fierce and "fight" for women's reproductive rights.

And then came a son, and then another daughter. I was a mother of three, browsing on Facebook during those fleeting moments on the toilet, mostly. And I saw all these people campaigning for Planned Parenthood and something struck me, and I felt the same anger that I felt for those men with their pro-life signs, only this time it was at pro-choicers. Friends of mine and family, educated women fighting like fiends for what? For the right to terminate a human life? For the right to damage and possibly do irreparable harm to their reproductive system? And I thought in that moment: “"Women, be careful what you fight for." Because this is not a fight I want my name attached to. This is no longer a fight I want to be a part of.

We had a heartfelt conversation the other night as a family. Of course my children are pro-life! What child wouldn't be? I admitted to my beautiful son that I was not only pro-choice at a time but that I specifically thought pro-life men were terrible. And we had a wonderful conversation about how as a boy now and a young man later that his opinion does matter, and that his choices on life and death matter too. Of course they do! Why wouldn't they? The minute you conceive it is no longer only your body; it is scientifically shared and both parents should have a say in the life they created together. Not just the woman. My husband is pro-life now too. Having shared my body with three really real lives I can say honestly that these three humans wanted to be here, were meant to be here and never, from day one, was it my "choice" to terminate any one of them.


[Today's guest post is by Amy McDonough. If you would like to contribute a guest post, email your submission to info@secularprolife.org for consideration.]

How I left the pro-choice movement and found true liberation

Above: pro-choice counter-protesters hold altered signs denying post-abortive parents' pain

[Today's guest author writes anonymously.]

I was atheist, feminist, left, libertarian and pro-choice since conception. My mother was an English woman who had a weekend affair with my African American father, and then raised me on her own. She was independent, liberal and proud. She had abortions before conceiving me, and several abortions after conceiving me. So I was her choice. I was the child she chose to keep.

I had my own abortions, for varying reasons. If I said I didn’t regret them, I would be lying, but liberated women aren’t allowed to feel regret over a clump of cells that would ruin their lifestyle. We couldn’t show other women our tears, because then they might not be able to kill their clump of cells, and then their lifestyle would be ruined.

My friends had abortions too. Some of their reasons were very similar to my own. I had a friend who was raped; she had an abortion, and went on to live a loveless life because the rape had scared her away from men indefinitely. I had a friend who lived in poverty; she had an abortion and went on to live a life of poverty. I had a friend who lived with domestic violence; she had an abortion and went on to be beaten by her partner for the next five years, until she met another partner who also beats her. I don’t know what would have happened if they kept the children. I guess we never know what happens with a life unless we let it live.

I also had friends who had abortions for reasons very different from mine. I had friends who didn’t like using condoms because it didn’t feel as good, and didn’t like the side effects of the other contraceptive methods, so they used abortion as their contraception. Although I didn’t really agree with their choices, who was I to judge? Just because it’s not something that I would do, why should I have an opinion? It was their body, they could do what they wanted with it; why should they give up their lifestyle for a clump of cells?

I had friends who didn’t have abortions too. I had one friend who was very young, living in poverty, had an abusive partner and was a drug user. When she told me she was pregnant, I immediately suggested abortion to her. I was such a supportive friend that I even offered to pay for the abortion and drive her there. I was even willing to help her hide the after abortion grief that she was not supposed to have.

She disappeared for a few months, returning with a pregnancy that was far too far along to terminate. She gave birth and kept her child. She loved that child so much that she got rid of the abusive boyfriend, stopped taking drugs, and is now an amazing mother with a reason not only to live, but to live a productive life. I don’t know what would have happened if she had an abortion. I guess we never know what happens with a life unless we let it live.

So as you can see I was very pro-choice; freedom, social justice, logic, women’s rights, it was all there in one neat little package.

Until it wasn’t…

The first little cracks started showing with my second pregnancy, but only the first pregnancy I considered keeping. My first scan was at 12 weeks. I thought I knew what I was going to see, because I had been 12 weeks pregnant before. And my doctors, teachers and mother had all told me the same thing; it was just a clump of cells. That’s why it had seemed perfectly logical to terminate it, because liberated women don’t let clumps of cells ruin their lifestyle.

I went in there expecting to see no more than a blob on the screen, but what I saw chilled me to the core. It wasn’t a clump of cells, it was a little human with a functioning heart and a functioning brain, arms and legs, and a little body, which was flipping around doing somersaults over and over again, just like a child playing in the park.

That should’ve been enough to make me change my pro-choice views, but it wasn’t. I thought maybe a fetus wasn’t a clump of cells, but an embryo pretty much was, and pro-choice rhetoric told me that abortions rarely happened after the embryonic stage anyway. Pro-choice rhetoric also told me it’s still okay if you do have an abortion after that time, because women who have abortions after that time only do it because it’s the best choice; because they don’t want to live in poverty, or with domestic violence, or have a reminder of rape, or to bring an unwanted child into the world. Even if it did kill little humans, it was for logical, leftist, libertarian, feminist reasons.

I was still pro-choice enough to go on and have a second abortion, suffering far less regret this time. It was an easy choice now. It was easy to hide your pain away. And I was doing it for all the right reasons; all those reasons the pro-choice movement had given me.

I got a double major in education and psychology, and pro-choice rhetoric told me this was because I chose when to have children. If I had have kept my children then there is no chance I could have gotten my double major. None at all.

I taught young people, I counselled young people. I did both paid and volunteer work at education centres, victims of crime centres, and also in child protection. I was a true humanitarian, and I thought all life deserved a chance to be great… at least, all born life. My pro-choice beliefs remained strong.

The second lot of much deeper cracks began to show some years later when my ability to hide the pain of my abortion wavered after a miscarriage, and I made an attempt on my life.

Once I had made a recovery, and managed to hide my pain once more, the humanitarian in me said I had to help other women hide their abortion pain too, because if they couldn’t hide it well enough, they might attempt suicide too, and life was precious to me. All born life, anyway.

I had two options: a pro-life Christian support group that I assumed would shame women and condemn them for their choice, or a pro-choice family planning group that would help women accept abortion as the right choice. Despite the pain abortion had caused me, I was still pro-choice, so of course, I chose the latter.

I participated in online support, talking to women I would never meet, and knew nothing about. Coaching them on how to hide their feelings like I did. Telling them to look to the future instead of the past—that’s what we were trained to say. We were trained to put all the focus on the woman, because she was important. We were trained to focus on all the positive things that come out of abortion, a child saved from poverty, a child saved from abuse, women given their liberty. We were trained to lie—no, avoid the truth. We had to avoid the truth, because if women knew the truth, they might not have abortions, and if women didn’t have abortions, they would be slaves to their clumps of cells. And hiding the truth would help them with their own pain, because it had helped me with my pain…

That was when the cracks grew so deep, I knew there would be no repair. Hiding the truth had not helped me with my pain. It had just made me bury it deep down inside, and take the risk that it might explode to the surface every now and then, and maybe one day be fatal. Obviously it wasn’t working at all. Yet the pro-choice movement had been hiding the truth for years now, for at least as long as I had been involved.

Why were we hiding the truth from women, if they were still being hurt anyway? Women should be able to make choices based on all the facts. We are not delicate little flowers that need to have the truth hidden from us. Even if the truth is hidden from us, we are smart enough to figure it out eventually.

This made me take pause and think; what other truths were the pro-choice movement hiding? It already seemed they thought women delicate and stupid, so was it a possibility they lied about being feminist? They did tell women that their own natural bodily functions would deprive them of liberty. This seemed to suggest that a woman’s body was abnormal and needed to be corrected. Women accepting that they were wrong, and society was right—that their bodies needed changing, not society—that didn’t seem very feminist. To add to this they were fighting against legislation that protected women, and supporting legislation that put women’s health at risk. It didn’t matter if the abortionists weren’t properly trained, or if the clinics didn’t meet safety and hygiene standards. They wanted abortion clinics to be open so women could fix their “abnormalities” at any cost. 

The pro-choice movement was beginning to sound more and more misogynistic, and if they were misogynistic, how could they be feminist?

I thought maybe they weren’t feminist, but they were still leftists, right? They still cared about social justice. They still wanted every child to be wanted and loved, fed and homed. They still cared about the weak and needy... except the weakest and neediest among us. They were okay with them not being loved or wanted. They were okay with them not being fed or homed. They were okay with them losing their lives, so that the strong and powerful could live their lifestyle.

So if the pro-choice movement was supporting the powerful, by denying services to the weak, how could they be Leftist?

Maybe they weren’t feminists, and they weren’t leftists, but they must be libertarians, right? That was what we were always told, a woman’s liberty to do as she chooses is more important than a clump of cells... except a woman is only more important than the clump of cells, because the clump of cells is undeveloped and non-sentient, and hasn’t given anything to society. But a newborn baby is also undeveloped, non-sentient, and hasn’t given anything to society, and we still value its life. We value it because it has potential. And if we value a baby because it has potential, then we must value a clump of cells because it has potential too. So if a clump of cells has the same value as a baby, shouldn’t it have the same rights? And if it should have the same rights, shouldn’t it have the right to life? And does its right to life trump the mother’s right to bodily autonomy? Did it even violate the mother’s bodily autonomy in the first place? It was forced inside her body by the actions of others, who did have freedom of choice. So that means killing it would be condemning it for the actions of others, and violating its personal liberty.

So if pro-choice said that the freedom of one group of people meant taking away the freedom of another group of people, how could they be libertarian?

It seemed obvious the pro-choice movement were not feminist, they were not leftists and they were not libertarians. But they were definitely logical and scientific, like atheists, and they did not rely on a fallible belief system to support their claims.. except they do hold the belief that personhood is judged by the law, even though history has shown us over and over again that the law can get personhood wrong. And they do hold the belief that a life in the womb isn’t valuable unless its mother says it is, and she can change her mind about its value at any time prior to 24 weeks gestation. And they do hold the belief that birth turns a clump of cells into a human, even if it has only gestated for 22 weeks, and can’t breathe on its own, but only if they want it, and it is born alive. If they don’t want it and its born dead, then it is still just a clump of cells. So if they hold beliefs that have no physical evidence and no scientific basis, and have been disproven before, then how can they be logical and scientific like atheists?

If the pro-choice movement uses fallible belief systems to justify the strong taking life from the weak, tell women their bodies need to be fixed, and do this all in the name of freedom, then it goes against everything I believe in. If it goes against everything I believe in, how could I possibly support them?

I am still an atheist, feminist, left, libertarian, but I am no longer pro-choice.

Gosnell and Abortion, Part 2 of 3

[Today's post by guest blogger Nathaniel is reprinted with permission from his blog, Difficult Run.]

Yesterday I wrote the first in a series of 3 posts discussing why the mainstream media has been reluctant to cover the Kermit Gosnell case. Rather than suggest that there’s some kind of conspiracy or willful deception, my belief is that journalists (who are overwhelmingly pro-choice) are simply unable to confront a case that threatens to upend the misconceptions and doublethink required to support the status quo of abortion in America. For example, most people do not realize how radical the current laws are. The vast majority of abortions are for birth control. They are elective. And, while late term abortions are rare, they are effectively unregulated. Only in the most extreme circumstances–where a doctor injures or kills a pregnant woman–is there any really legal danger to the abortionist.

But there’s a simpler and much more dangerous truth that the Gosnell case would threaten to drag into the limelight. Before I introduce it, however, I ought to include a warning that I will be quoting from some very graphic accounts of abortion. There are no photos or videos or audio, and my source is an abortion doctor who remains adamantly pro-choice to this day and was writing in defense of her career, but that doesn’t make it any easier to read. Having thus warned you, let’s get right to the simple reality:

2. Abortion is a violent way of killing human beings

The success of abortion rhetoric depends on focusing exclusively on the plight of pregnant women. Although committed pro-choicers will debate about why the rights of the women outweigh the rights of the fetus, rhetorically that’s not how the movement operates. Instead, the movement just pretends the unborn human being does not exist at all. Abortion terminates pregancies, not human beings. The “contents of the uterus” are evacuated, not the tiny broken arms and legs of a fetus, and so forth.

This was all fine and good in the 1970s, but the advent of ultrasound and in utero videography have put serious strain on the position and created a precarious doublethink in American society. If your child is wanted, then you go and pin the ultrasound on the fridge and use the term “baby”. But if abortion is the topic, then you absolutely, unequivoally oppose ultrasounds, or at least anyone seeing them. And you never use the term “baby”.

This strain is most acute on abortionists, as evidenced by the declining numbers of new doctors who are willing to take up the calling and also by this incredible article: Second Trimester Abortion Provision: Breaking the Silence and Changing the Discourse. In it, an abortionist describes in absolutely horrific detail performing a second-trimester abortion while she herself was pregnant. She writes, in part:

I went about doing the procedure as usual. I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier.

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain – even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life.

 At this point you might think that this is a conversion story. It’s not. She continues:

Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

So the author remains a committed and practicing abortionist. In fact, her purpose in writing this piece was (as the title indicates) to change the discourse for the purpose of generating comfort for the awful emotional toll she suffers in carrying out routine, legal homicide. The brutal violence of her work is so emotionally traumatic, that she feels the need to reach out to pro-choicers for support to help her carry on in her grisly task.

She must have been sorely disappointed by the reception. I discovered this piece from a pro-life blog called Real Choice which had in turn discovered the paper at a pro-choice blog for supporting abortionists called The Abortioneers. The interesting thing, however, is that by the time I found the pro-life blog, the link to the pro-choice blog was already dead. The Abortioneers had taken their fellow abortionist’s plea for support and scrubbed it completely from their website. At first I suspected a hoax, but after investigation I found enough evidence from the archives of The Abortioneers to conclude that the story was genuine. In case you have remaining doubts, you can still find the paper listed on SSRN. It’s for real.

It’s real, but pro-choicers want it buried. They don’t want to change the discourse by admitting the humanity of the unborn and the violence of abortion. Talking about dismembered arms and legs is the last thing that they want to do, but it’s exactly what the Gosnell story would bring into focus.

The reality is that as much as pro-choicers protest that Gosnell crossed some kind of bright, clear line: he didn’t. There’s no bright, clear line between killing a 24-week fetus in her mother’s womb and killing a 24-week fetus outside her mother’s womb. It’s the same damn thing, which is precisely why the abortionist author of that article was crying out for some kind of help. Taking human life is never easy, but doing so again and again and again, when that life is tiny and vulnerable? I can’t imagine how terrible that must be to live with, which explains why the only people left who do this kind of word are ultra-committed ideologues and sociopaths. And the line between the two can be quite blurry. As Melinda Henneberger writes:

Gosnell himself seemed confused, when he was charged with so many counts of murder, as to how that could be. Because even at that point, he didn’t appear to see the children he’s accused of beheading as people.

Buried deep beneath layers and layers of horror and repulsion, I have a kernel of sympathy for Gosnell. He is a monster, but he’s a monster created by the abortion movement, and he clearly doesn’t understand why he has suddenly been betrayed. After all, the National Abortion Federation refused him admittance, but they also let him work in their facility and use that work as a source for his own patients. The RealChoice blog notes that:

The Grand Jury in the Kermit Gosnell case found that at least six young women and girls, including the mother of Baby Boy A, had never intended to end up in the hands of Dr. Gosnell. They had sought out a member of the most reputable organization of abortion practitioners in the world: the National Abortion Federation (NAF).

What’s more, the basic moral blindness that led Gosnell to kill born babies is prevalent within the pro-choice movement. Quoting Henneberger again:

Planned Parenthood’s Snow was similarly obtuse, either willfully or out of habit, in testifying against a Florida bill that would have required medical care for babies who survive abortions. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion,” she was asked, “what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

Her answer was a familiar one: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.”

Though it pains me to say so, that’s the same stand Barack Obama effectively took when he voted against a similar Illinois bill — even after the addition of a “neutrality clause” spelling out that the bill would have no bearing on the legal status of the (you say fetus, I say unborn child) at any point prior to delivery, and thus could not be used to outlaw abortion.

 Whether it’s Planned Parenthood, the President of the United States, or pro-choice ethical philosopher Peter Singer, all of them admit publicly that infanticide is logically equivalent to and implied by their legal arguments for sweeping abortion freedoms. Let me reiterate: not all pro-choice positions lead down a slippery slope to this conclusion. But the actual laws and practices of the actual abortion industry and the lobby that supports it in this country right now? They don’t need to travel down a slippery slope because they are already at the bottom. There’s really no way to cover this case without risking the revelation that Gosnell practiced what the pro-choice (due to the precarious and extreme nature of the Roe and Doe rulings) lobby has been maneuvered into preaching.

Three SPL members featured in MORE magazine

In "Roe v. Wade: Still Controversial After All These Years," the women's magazine MORE features women who changed their positions on abortion. Reporter Melinda Dodd came to us looking for some diverse voices, and we delivered! Three of the ten stories come from Secular Pro-Life members. They're reprinted below, with emphasis added.

On page three, Angel Armstead, 32 (Muslim):

I’m from a predominantly liberal, Democratic area. Being pro-choice was the accepted belief in my household. I figured that since women are the ones who are stuck with the baby, we should be the ones to choose. I probably would have considered abortion if I had gotten pregnant as a teenager. I had my own dreams and goals that I didn’t want thwarted.

In college, people challenged my beliefs, especially during my second year—2008—when there was a presidential election. A lot of my friends were Catholic. Most were pro-life. I thought, I should be more open-minded and at least read up on the issue. In my biological-anthropology class, I held the skull of a fetus I’m guessing was three to five months old. I was shocked by how developed it was. It made me wonder what a fetus goes through when aborted. It made me sick to think of inflicting that on anyone.

I went through a hard, slow transition. I don’t like the idea of telling other people what to do. I’m black and Muslim. As a child, I thought the pro-life movement was mostly white and Christian. But on the Internet, I saw that all kinds of people were pro-life. If being pro-life were only about religion, I wouldn’t be so outspoken about it.

In some ways, my decision has made things harder. I know that some pro-life people are judgmental, but I’m annoyed if others see me that way. To me, a true pro-lifer is someone who cares not only about unborn babies but also about pregnant women who need better resources to choose life.

On pages four and five, Albany Rose, 21 (spiritual but not religious):

Abortion was never brought up in my family until I got pregnant at 15.My dad told me that if I did not get an abortion, I would be kicked out of the house. So I went into the clinic and had it done. For 15 days after that, I didn’t get out of bed. I felt numb and angry, and I didn’t know why, as abortion had seemed to be the best option. Rather than facing what happened, I decided to be pro-choice. I felt that being pro-life, after what I’d done, would have made me a hypocrite.

I became pregnant again at 19. And it was different from the very beginning. My boyfriend was ecstatic, thrilled. He said, “We’re going to make this work.” Then came the eight-week ultrasound. My expectation was that I was going to see a little fuzzy thing, but this was one of the clearest pictures I’ve ever seen. I could see the baby’s head, the stubs of its arms and feet, and the heart beating away, clear as day.

Seeing that not only made the pregnancy more real but also made everything else more terrifying. Because when you see a sonogram, you can’t deny there’s a life. Whether you think it’s human or not is a different story, but it’s obviously alive. Now all I could think was, What happened before? Did I kill something?

The next few months were the hardest of my life. At 16 weeks I felt my baby move for the first time, and at 20 I found out I was having a girl. I’m thinking, I’m going to meet my daughter, and then I’ll know what could have been. I lost a child that I chose to lose. Ultimately I became pro-life with no exceptions for rape or incest.

On pages five and six, Diane Geiger, 43 (atheist):

If you had told my 25-year-old self that I would end up identifying as pro-life, I would have said, “No way.” I’m an urban gal, well traveled, adventurous, secular  . . . People tend to assume I’m liberal when they meet me and are surprised by my views. But by way of two experiences, I stumbled upon what was inside my heart.

In 2008, I began taking care of my dad. He was diagnosed with lung cancer at 82 and beat it, but the stress on his body from the chemotherapy really wore him down. My maternal grandmother, who was 92 and frail, developed ovarian cancer two years later and also needed care. It brought out a lot of love in me, as well as a strong protective urge and a desire to ease their suffering. 

I was with them the moment each passed in February 2010. Except for having been present when my cat died five years earlier, I’d never experienced death so firsthand. I became conscious of the limited amount of time people have and of the finality of death. My father and grandmother had both been remarkable people with long lives full of love and significant relationships. The more I thought about it, the more I realized: A baby in utero has the same potential. Just because we have the ability to cause conception doesn’t mean it’s OK to cause a death. To end a life before it has an opportunity to draw a breath suddenly seemed unjust, unfair and uncivilized.

Thanks for your contributions, ladies!

Response to article in "The Humanist"

An article appears in the September/October 2012 issue of The Humanist, entitled "Are Atheist Pro-Life Groups Promoting Sound Science?" which quotes Secular Pro-Life leaders.  The article was written by Marco Rossi, a man who once worked for Planned Parenthood-- so it's no surprise that the article is unflattering.  He comes right out of the box with the baseless accusation that we have a secret religious agenda, akin to the intelligent design movement.  Nevertheless, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

What fascinated me most is that Rossi actually comes right out and states his adherence to the "magic birth canal" theory of rights, which most pro-choicers avoid:

There is in fact a major difference between human beings as fetuses and human beings as persons: human beings as persons are born. [. . .] Rights only exist within the context of a community where they have the potential to be realized and the possibility of being threatened. Birth is our universal entrance into any community. It is the point at which we are able to break away — literally — from the absolute dependency of our mothers. The fact of the matter is birth transforms us. It simultaneously makes us into individuals and members of a group, and thus embeds in us rights-bearing protections.

Why, exactly, does the right to life not have "the potential to be realized and the possibility of being threatened" in the womb?  (Certainly, abortion constitutes a threat!)  And why are we not "individuals" or "members of a group" before birth?  He never answers either question.  It's simply a case of saying it makes it so.

He goes on to make the fair point that human rights are "interdependent" with each other: "No right is absolute and can be used to justify canceling out another right."  Indeed, even the right to life, while fundamental, is not absolute; this is the basic premise behind the morality of lethal self-defense.  But Rossi errs when he argues that "The only way that this interdependence can exist between a child’s right to life and a woman’s right to her body is by demarcating the moment of right-bearing at birth as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states."  This is not interdependence at all.  It is simply declaring a winner, without considering which party has more at stake.

Rossi then addresses four topics on which he believes that secular right to life groups have been unscientific: abortion and breast cancer; post-abortion psychological problems; ultrasounds before abortion; and fetal pain.

Starting with breast cancer:

In an email exchange about the validity of this claim, Monica Lynn, SPL’s blog coordinator, responded that the group found the evidence conflicting, but that its president, Kelsey Hazzard — who has studied law, not medicine — believes that women should be informed of the “conflicting” nature of this evidence before an abortion.

Monica has written extensively about the debate on abortion and breast cancer.  In fact, Monica herself came out against such a link, but of course we acknowledge that conflicting evidence exists.  What is so radical about presenting all of the evidence for women to examine themselves?  (Of course, this is all a side issue; the risk or non-risk of breast cancer has absolutely no bearing on the morality of abortion.)

Rossi continues:

Similarly, the research on abortion and psychological stress has shown that the phenomenon of PASS — Post Abortion Stress Syndrome — doesn’t exist either. Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study from Danish researchers which confirmed that the majority of women who underwent an abortion in the first two trimesters were no more likely to seek out psychological counseling after their abortion than they were before. While Lynn says the PASS label is problematic, SPL believes women should be informed of the possible psychological repercussions and their risks before having an abortion.

One study does not a consensus make, particularly when that study relies on women overcoming the stigma of post-abortion stress to seek out counseling.  Many studies have shown an increase in negative emotions after an abortion, particularly where risk factors like youth or ambivalence are present.  (An extensive list can be found in the footnotes to this article.)

Frankly, Rossi has outdone himself here.  In general, the debate between pro-life and pro-choice is on how common it is for women to feel guilt or depression related to their abortions, and whether it's a significant enough risk to warrant a pre-abortion disclaimer; that's a legitimate debate.  But Rossi appears to be claiming that no woman has such an experience; it "doesn't exist."  Such a claim can be disproved with a single incidence of post-abortion depression.  I invite Rossi to attend a Silent No More event some time.

Then comes the discussion of ultrasound, which is truly baffling:

The new Virginia law requiring women to undergo an ultrasound prior to an abortion was designed by the organization Americans United for Life — another nonreligious pro-life group. According to Charmaine Yoest, CEO and president of Americans United for Life, the Virginia bill was necessary to protect women with ectopic pregnancies from the possibility of dying during a medication-induced abortion. Warnings like these are half-truths that only serve to whip up hysteria around the risks of abortion. An ultrasound before an abortion is a standard practice for most providers, and is an essential tool for helping determine gestational age, viability, and yes, the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy. However, doctors determine ultrasounds based on medical necessity — not ideology. In reality, the risk of a medication-induced abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is phenomenally rare, and the possibility of the mother dying is even more remote.

It's remote, so therefore we shouldn't mandate something that can easily prevent it, and which is already standard practice for most providers?  There is absolutely no risk of medical harm to the mother from an ultrasound.  But there is a risk to Rossi's former employer-- clients might change their minds.  That's what this is really about, and that explains Rossi's next sentence:

When asked about the ultrasound requirement, Secular Pro-Life responded that doctors should not only be required to offer women an ultrasound twenty-four hours prior to an abortion, but they should also be required to explain the stages of fetal development with the women [sic] before she agrees to an abortion.

Oh, the humanity.

Next, we get to fetal pain, where Rossi begins by stating that there is "no clear consensus from doctors or medical researchers as to when a fetus feels pain."  He then goes on to cite two studies suggesting that the ability to feel pain comes at the later end of pregnancy (29-30 weeks and 35-37 weeks, respectively), while citing none of the research suggesting an earlier stage of development.  Finally, he bashes Secular Pro-Life for failing to recognize the "medical consensus" on fetal pain.

Rossi concludes by celebrating the fact that 25% of Americans support his view that abortion should be legal in all circumstances.  He would also like to claim the 51% who support abortion in "certain" circumstances, to create a pro-choice majority.  That's highly problematic, since "certain circumstances" would include people who only support abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger (such as myself).  Rossi's abortion-until-birth position-- which, even accepting his favored studies, would allow for abortions on pain-capable unborn babies-- is extreme.  It will continue to fall out of favor as groups like Secular Pro-Life work to educate the public.

No one wants to give that impression.

Interesting piece by pro-choice author Jeannie explaining why mandated transvaginal ultrasounds should not be likened to rape.  I don't agree with her on every count--for example I don't see how anti-abortion folks are to blame for imagery purported by abortion rights activists--but I still think her overall message is valid, particularly her 3rd point.

Arguments that metaphorize—that symbolically associate—the ultrasounds to rape are dangerous in three ways. First, they demonize healthcare providers. This, I am sure, is a planned effect of the anti-abortion politicians’ strategy. Just days after the Virginia governor refused to sign the transvaginal ultrasound law, a prominent anti-abortion website ran a story about the percentage of abortion clinics that use transvaginal ultrasounds, suggesting that these providers are, indeed, rapists. I believe we have played right into their hands.

Second, the association of transvaginal ultrasound to rape serves to demoralize women who have these ultrasounds. Imagine that you are a pregnant woman in Virginia, at your doctor’s office (for either an abortion or prenatal care). Your doctor says to you, “Your abdominal ultrasound is inconclusive. We’re going to try a transvaginal ultrasound to see if we can get a better picture, OK?” You’ve heard the words “invasive” and “shove” and “rape” used to describe this procedure by everyone from the left to the right. How are you going to react, at this already-emotional moment? Are you going to think, my doctor is doing the best she can for me right now? I don’t think so. I think you will be scared and angry and possibly too overwhelmed to know what to say. This, too, is part of the anti-abortion politicians’ strategy: all women should be ashamed and afraid, unable to make our own decisions.

Third, the metaphorization of transvaginal ultrasound to rape euphemizes, or makes less awful, rape in a way that I personally find offensive. Seriously, I don't know anyone who describes her rape experience as clinical in any way—and that's the inverted implication of the metaphor. We must be very careful, when we make our arguments, that we do not invoke a message that hurts other women, even inadvertently. Now, I know that no feminist who has made this argument has intended to promote a message that rape is not so traumatic, but isn’t that where the argument ultimately goes? This metaphor says to women who have experienced rape, “Your experience is really no worse than what happens to other women at the doctor’s office.” I know no one wants to give that impression to anyone.

(Emphasis added.)

Pressure To Abort After Diagnosis

Instead of writing this week there are two stories I would like to share with you surrounding misdiagnosis of the child's health condition while in utero. These misdiagnosis that have lead to women being faced with a difficult choice.

What I would like to point out is that doctors are often wrong when diagnosing babies in the womb and many children are missing today because of this diagnosis followed by pressure to abort. Here are just two stories showing the struggle many parents face today:

A seven month pre-born baby in Vietnam was diagnosed by ultrasound as having a disability and was aborted. When family went to barry the aborted child she was still alive: story on Life News.

In 1994 a doctor told parents that their child was at high risk of having a blood disorder which both parents carried and advised them to abort. The little girl is now getting ready to graduate high school: Alyssa shares her story.

For the Dignity of the Born and Unborn,

Timmerie

www.Timmerie.com

Stay intouch on Facebook

Quick Pro-Life News Bites

Virginia - Legislation requiring an ultrasound before an abortion passed in Virginia, but was amended to allow for an opt-out if an internal ultrasound is required. This was partially stemming from pushback from pro-choice legislators, national news media, and eventually Governor Bob McDonnell (R) who said he opposed the inclusion of internal (transvaginal) ultrasounds.

Florida - A House committee just passed an omnibus set of anti-abortion legislation. What does this include? A 24 hour wait period, restrictions on who can own / operate an abortion clinic, and the requirement that doctors tell patients that the unborn child can feel pain after 20 weeks were included. If it makes it through both houses, Governor Scott (R) is expected to sign it. He signed a number of pro-life measures in 2011.

Quick News Update 1/25/12

Illinois - Abortion rate reached a 37 year low in Illinois in 2010. 41,859 abortions were reported in 2010; 32,760 were performed in 1973. This is also 9% lower than 2009 numbers. The reason? Differing groups in Illinois are unsure, but the bottom line - fewer abortions is a step in the right direction.

Virginia - While the Virginian legislature discusses the issue, it appears that 54% of Virginians support requiring an ultrasound to be viewed before performing an abortion. Women are more supportive than men of the measure (57% to 50%). State Senator Jill Vogel (R) is leading the charge to get this legislation passed in Virginia.

Washington, DC - Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) has proposed legislation to prohibit abortions in DC after 20 weeks. Franks cites the study showing that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks into the pregnancy. National Right to Life Committee plans to make this a top legislative priority in the coming year.

A New Understanding of Bodily Integrity

This post was sent to me by guest blogger Julie W. - M

It could be said the core belief of pro-lifers is that every human life is significant.  From this belief, we deduce that the right to life supersedes any discomforts, inconveniences, and difficulties (save a threat to her own life) a woman experiences during pregnancy.  However, pro-lifers - particularly those that have never been pregnant - should be careful not to belittle what a woman experiences and endures while gestating a fetus.  This was my own mistake: I had held the view that pregnancy is only nine months long and is that so much of a sacrifice for a human life to be spared?

And then I myself became pregnant, unexpectedly.  I had always pictured having children after my husband and I had finished our academic careers, maybe done some world traveling, and had settled down with a stronger source of income.  At the very least, I had promised myself I would finish my bachelor’s degree before having children.  And here I was, two semesters away from graduating, with a positive pregnancy test in hand.  The very next day I met with my school counselor and absorbed the harsh reality that I couldn’t possibly have a baby and complete two 16 credit semesters while my husband worked 40+ hour weeks.  I left the counselor’s office, went home, and promptly burst into tears as I relayed this new information to my husband.  Why did this have to happen now, when I was so close to finishing?  How could I possibly complete my program while trying to care for an infant?  How would we afford the medical expenses?  What about everything else we had planned for our lives before having children?  My husband, ever-the-awesome, calmed me down from hysterics and reassured me that although this was drastically different from what we had planned, we would get through it and everything would be ok.

As the weeks went by, I was still trying to cope, but things just worsened as I began to experience the effects of pregnancy.  The baby inside me changed everything: smells and tastes, what I could and couldn’t eat, how often and what kind of exercise I could perform.  My energy level plummeted and in addition to sleeping 9-10 hours a night, I took 2 hour naps each day, making  my days seem an endless cycle of class, studying, sleep, repeat.  My emotions would also fluctuate arbitrarily and I would start crying for no particular reason at all (which, in case you have never experienced it, is immensely frustrating – can you imagine having just a regular day and all the sudden you start crying and can’t stop?)  I was often nauseated for long periods of time before I threw up, regardless of whether or not there was anything in my stomach. 

On top of all of this, there were a select few people who knew I was pregnant and seemed bent on always showing their jubilance – “That’s wonderful!  Aren’t you SO excited?!?”  I struggled not to feel angry and bitter.  I did not want to admit it, not even to myself, but at times I resented what was inside me, feeling more like it was a parasitic blob of cells rather than a beautiful baby.  There were a small handful of dark moments when I secretly hoped I would miscarry – my life would be easier if this all just went away.  I felt ashamed of these thoughts and horrified at myself for thinking them.  I had always been strongly pro-life, how could I be so selfish as to imagine these things?  Ironically, the people I felt safest talking to about all this were my two very pro-choice friends.  Knowing how I felt about abortion, they did not at any point even mention the prospect of having one, but they were sympathetic to the fact that I did not want this baby.  I was afraid of what anyone else would think, should I reveal my feelings toward them.

As time passed, my feelings changed with the small milestones of my pregnancy.  The first time I really felt unconflicted joy was at my 10 week obgyn appointment when we got to see our baby on the ultrasound – such a tiny little being, but with a heart beating away!  With every new week, I would read about how the baby was slowly developing.  The ill-effects of pregnancy lessened and my excitement slowly started to build.   Not long ago, we finally found out the gender – my baby is a girl and her name is Zoey.  Now I am counting down the days until we get to meet her and I could hardly care less about putting off my graduation.

In hindsight, I am not ashamed of the feelings I had early on in my pregnancy.  However, they serve as a staunch reminder to me that it may not be possible to help how you feel; what really matters is what you do with those feelings.  Even when I felt most angry, bitter, and frustrated, I knew that none of this was the baby’s fault and she should not have to suffer for it.  But I have also learned to treat the concept of bodily integrity with much greater respect.  What a woman goes through during pregnancy, physically and psychologically, should not be belittled.  Furthermore, pro-lifers should be cautious not to underestimate the life-changing effects pregnancy can have even after the baby is born.  The better we understand and care about the mother’s circumstances, the more effective we will be at saving lives.

Judge Holds Up Texas Ultrasound Law

A U.S. District Judge has blocked recently passed legislation in Texas which would have required an ultrasound to be shown to the mother and have them hear the baby's heartbeat prior to performing an abortion. An injunction was filed regarding the bill preventing it from going into effect on September 1, 2011. You can review a copy of the injunction here. Here's an excerpt from LifeNews:

The new law in Texas allowing women considering an abortion a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child beforehand is supposed to go into effect any day now, but that may not happen thanks to an activist judge.

The law is slated to take effect on Thursday, but abortion advocates filed a lawsuit seeking to stop it and the case could take years to sort out in court.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks today issued an injunction in advance of the September 1 date the law is supposed to go into effect.

He ruled in a two-page order that parts of the state’s new sonogram law are unconstitutional and prevented Texas officials from issuing any fines or penalties against abortion practitioners who do not follow the law while the lawsuit continues. He claimed Texas has no right to tell abortion practitioners they should allow women a chance to see an ultrasound of an abortion — even though one is typically done to determine the age of the baby at the time of the abortion. Judge Sparks also claimed the law is supposedly vague and contradictory and makes it so abortion practitioners who think they are following the law could be running afoul of it.

Midweek News Item: 06/22/11

Domestic News: In New Hampshire, legislators overrode the Governors veto to implement a law requiring parental notification or notification of a Judge prior to an abortion being performed on a minor. The votes in the NH House was 266-102 to override the veto of Governor John Lynch (D). The Senate already voted to override it in a 17-7 vote. In North Carolina, legislation has made it to the desk of Governor Bev Perdue (D) which would require counseling before an abortion, a 24-hr waiting period, and an ultrasound performed ahead of time. It's unclear whether Perdue will sign or veto the legislation, and has until Monday to decide. Planned Parenthood in Indiana is already feeling the pinch of the State's cutting of all funding to the organization. LifeNews is reporting that Planned Parenthood is looking to cut jobs from their organization in Indiana. In California, pro-life groups have been putting up thought provoking billboards about minority abortion rates. For example, in Los Angeles a group put up billboards stating in both Spanish and English, read: "The Most Dangerous Place for a Latino Baby is in the Mother's Womb." Some residents are offended by the billboards, while others are intrigued by their messages.

Australian News: As I have two items of note from Australia this week, they have been given their own section. An abortionist in Australia has been charged with endangering the lives of 54 patients whom he infected with Hepatitis C. He is infected with the disease. The procedures listed at his clinic are fine according to local law, so it is unclear how he infected these women with Hepatitis C. In Western Australia, 22% of pregnancies end in abortion. That's the second highest rate in the country, according to the Western Australian. The highest rate is 24% in the state of New South Wales.

Personal News: This will be my last post for the next few weeks here at Secular ProLife. Why? Next week, our second child, a little girl, will be born. As such, my blogging both here and at my primary site will be severely diminished.

Midweek News Roundup: 06/15/11

Domestic News: In Pennsylvania, their State Senate just passed a bill by an overwhelming margin (38 to 12) to establish new, safety regulations for abortion clinics. In addition to inspection requirements, any clinic which offers abortions after the 9th week of pregnancy would be required to register as an "ambulatory" surgical facility much like an outpatient clinic which would perform other surgeries. An interesting part of the new District of Columbia spending bill in the House included a prohibition on DC spending their money on abortions. The bill will be up for debate on Thursday. On Monday a New York based group is suing Texas over their recent pro-life legislation. The bill, signed by Governor Rick Perry (R) would require an ultrasound to be performed before an abortion with the images of the ultrasound shown / described to the woman.

Opinion: So, the 2012 GOP Presidential debate was held on Monday evening. Those who watched it got to see a variety of men and one woman explain their views on the issues. Here is a transcript of the debate. On life issues? Each of them came across well, particularly Representative Bachmann. Here's the quote that really got to me during the debate:

I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, and I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general -- genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.

And that really sums up things quite well. In my opinion, any of these candidates will do a good job at articulating pro-life values, and a far better job than our incumbent. It will be interesting to see what they each have to say as the primary progresses.

Midweek News Roundup: 05/18/11

Domestic News: MTV is running ads for Planned Parenthood, but has rejected ads from a pro-life group, Heroic Media. Heroic Media has been allowed to advertise on MTV in the past, but without prior notice MTV pulled Heroic Media's ads. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) signed legislation on Monday providing numerous new abortion regulations. Specifically, according to LifeNews these new laws, "...allow for inspections of abortion centers, allow women a chance to see an ultrasound before an abortion, and ban the use of webcam, or telemed, abortions." Similar legislation was passed by the legislature in 2003 and 2005, but was vetoed by former Governor and current Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (D). With the Presidential election coming up in the United States, many are wondering where the potential Republican candidates stand on abortion. We've got a nice list that our leader posted here and this is another good resource. Additionally, regarding potential contender Mitch Daniels (R-IN), he signed some sweeping, pro-life legislation last week.

International News: In Russia, legislators are working to curb abortions. How? By prohibiting abortions from being covered by state sponsored medical care. It would also prohibit abortions performed after the second half of the pregnancy, i.e. 20 weeks. Schools in New Zealand are coming under fire for helping students get abortions without their parents knowledge. They did not violate any law, but many parents are upset about not being informed about the medical procedure being performed in secret on their children.

Did I miss any news in my roundup that you feel is important? Feel free to add links in the comments!

Midweek News on India

Normally I'd be providing a midweek news roundup, probably talking about the new abortion legislation in Kansas or the bill that just sent to committee regarding sonograms in Texas. Instead, today I leave you with an excerpt from a New York Times article entitled, "A Campaign Against Girls in India." Gender-selective abortion in becoming a bigger issue by the day in India specifically and the outcome may be devastating. Here's the excerpt, but read the whole article:

The figures tell an old and cruel story: the systematic elimination of girls in India. In the 2001 census, the sex ratio — the number of girls to every 1,000 boys — was 927 in the 0-6 age group. Preliminary data from the 2011 census show that the imbalance has worsened, to 914 girls for every 1,000 boys.

Women’s groups have been documenting this particular brand of gender violence for years. The demographer Ashish Bose and the economist Amartya Sen drew attention to India’s missing women more than a decade ago. The abortion of female fetuses has increased as medical technology has made it easier to detect the sex of an unborn child. If it is a girl, families often pressure the pregnant woman to abort. Sex determination tests are illegal in India, but ultrasound and in vitro fertilization centers often bypass the law, and medical terminations of pregnancy are easily obtained.

Some women, like 30-year-old Lakshmi Rani from Bhiwani district in Uttar Pradesh, have been pressured into multiple abortions. Ms. Rani’s first three pregnancies were terminated.

“My mother-in-law took me to the clinic herself,” she said, her voice matter-of-fact but barely audible. “It wasn’t my decision, but I didn’t have a choice. They didn’t want girls.”

Now her husband’s family is pushing her to get pregnant again, and she is hoping for a boy. Despite government campaigns against aborting female fetuses, she does not believe she will be allowed a choice.

Ms. Rani’s story is echoed across Uttar Pradesh, a state that has among the most skewed sex ratios in India. Census figures show the female-male ratio in the 0-6 year group slipping from 916 in 2001 to 899 in 2011.

In a 2007 Unicef report, Alka Gupta explained part of the problem: Discrimination against women, already entrenched in Indian society, has been bolstered by technological developments that now allow mobile sex selection clinics to drive into almost any village or neighborhood unchecked.

The 1994 Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act was amended in 2003 to deal with the medical profession — the “supply side” of the practice of sex selection. However, the act has been poorly enforced.

Midweek News Roundup: 04/06/11

Did someone order a midweek news roundup today? No? Well here's one anyway.

Domestic News: A bill in Montana which would have prevented federal / state money for the recent health care reform act's health care exchanges to be used for abortions was vetoed by Governor Brian Schweitzer (D). Schweitzer said that "...the measure violates Montana's constitutional guarantee of a right to privacy and access to reproductive health care." In Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell (R) offered an amendment to the State Budget which would do the same thing as the aforementioned Montana law. The amendment is facing opposition by "abortion rights" supporters. A law in Florida requiring the viewing of an ultrasound prior to the performance of an abortion just made its way out of a State Senate committee. A similar measure was vetoed last year by former Governor Charlie Crist (I).

International News: With the upcoming parliamentary elections in Canada, Prime Minister Harper (C) has said that his Government, if they receive the majority, would not propose legislation to change the current laws on abortion. Now, this does not prevent individual MPs from proposing the law, but it does show that Harper does not seem willing to rock the boat on this issue just yet. Harper has been on the record as being pro-life in the past. In one of the oddest stories I've reported on here, in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro state Governor Sergio Cabral said the following when arguing in support of legalizing abortion:

“Who hasn’t had a mistress that needed an abortion?”

Word's can not begin to describe how wrong that statement is on so many different levels.

Midweek News Roundup: 03/02/11

Welcome to March. Here's your midweek news roundup.

Domestic News: On Monday in Texas, the State Senate passed a bill requiring women to see an ultrasound of the baby prior to an abortion. The House will be reviewing a similar bill today. If passed, it will go to a conference committee to deal with the differences between the two bills. Last week, I discussed a controversial pro-life billboard in New York City. The billboard, paid for by the group Life Always, has come down this week. The billboard said, "The Most Dangerous Place for an African American is in the womb," a reference to the higher abortion rate among African American women.

International News: In the United Kingdom, new guidelines for doctors will not only require doctors to tell patients that there is no link between breast cancer and abortion, but also that abortion is a safer option than continuing a pregnancy to term. Not surprisingly, these new requirements are being slammed as unscientific and partisan. Chile received an international protector of life award from the International Protect Life Committee of the United Nations. Chile has the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin America.

Discussion Topic: Where do you feel pro-life activists are most effective, at a local or national government level?

Our Truths

Yesterday, instead of doing P-chem homework, I wandered around the internet. A friend had mentioned The Abortioneers blog, where people who perform abortions or help women get access to abortions write about their experiences and, I think, seek solidarity. Curious, I read a few posts. It’s a bit like staring through the Looking Glass into some parallel but opposite world. They’re passionate, unified, determined, they believe in their motivations, their cause…and they are diametrically opposed to us.

At the bottom of the page are links to “Abortion-Friendly Web Sites,” which I also perused. There was one for Men and Abortion where men who wanted to support their partner's choice could get practical questions answered and blog about their feelings regarding the whole thing. I skimmed. In one post a man said the abortion was right “most of all for our unborn child.” He had been divorced once before and didn’t want to risk the unborn child going through the pain his current 10-year-old endures due to divorce. I wonder: does the 10-year-old wish she’d never been born? I read another post in which a man asked his unborn child to forgive him, and said her grandmother was already waiting in heaven.

I didn’t feel much while reading that blog. First of all, men don’t really have a choice. They have influence: they can cajole or plead or manipulate or reason or demand that their women carry the pregnancies. Ultimately, though, it is up to the woman. Reading about men who call the fetus an unborn child, who feel they need forgiveness, who regret—it makes me sad, but it doesn’t bewilder me. He may not have wanted this, but he had no choice. It happens, and he regrets it, but he can’t stop it.

Secondly, the bits of the blog I skimmed didn’t seem to describe the fetus the way I see it. The fetus seemed like an abstract concept—an entity that, should it be allowed to live, would someday be a child, but wasn’t a person right now. Obviously I disagree with that view, but I can wrap my head around the idea that if you don’t consider the fetus a person, abortion is something you can live with.

My perusal continued through Exhale, The Coathanger Project (which seems to have been abandoned?) and landed with Our Truths – Nuestras Verdades. Edition No. 3 is “Feelings About the Fetus.” I read a piece called “My Fragile Fossil” in which a woman describes seeing her fetus on a sonogram and her visceral reaction to that moment.

“My fetus. At about two inches magnified, it looks like a picture of a fetus that I had seen in my high school health book: a bulbous head bigger than its body, tiny hands and feet, and a long curly tube—the umbilical cord—which looks like an intestine.”

“Leaning forward, I notice the fetus following my body’s rhythms like a buoy bobbing in the ocean, moving with the tide. I am not prepared for the emotions that hit me as I gaze at the image. In this moment, my fetus becomes more than a tiny gob of cells or a picture from an old textbook. The longer I stare at the screen, the more I begin to fantasize about how the fetus will change as it develops and becomes full-term. Will it grow to have dark skin like it’s father? Will it have short, stubby toes and wide feet like me? Will it later have my mother’s hair, black and sleek?

Tears fall like torrents down my cheek, reminding me of my difficult and complicated decision.”

The woman chooses to keep a picture of the sonogram. She goes through with the abortion a week later using Mifepristone. Immediately after taking the pill she is pretty distraught. A nurse takes her aside to see if she’d like to talk, and the office they enter has another copy of the picture of her fetus on the bulletin board, which of course makes the woman even more upset. The story ends with her walking out of the office while touching her notebook, which contains her own copy of the sonogram picture.

My first reaction: great sadness. The woman is miserable, the fetus is dead, what a stupid situation. Also anger. Why did she risk putting herself in this stupid situation? And once in the situation, why couldn’t she put the child up for adoption? Is it more upsetting to watch your kid raised by others then to be the mother of a dead fetus? I suppose it must be, or she may have chosen otherwise.

After arguing about one topic perhaps hundreds of times over the years, it’s hard to feel continuously upset. Sadness and anger will well up occasionally, but they don't persist. For me the final reactions, the lasting feelings, are simply bewilderment and defeat.

I find myself, by default, believing that many people are pro-choice because they don’t view the fetus as I do. They think of the fetus abstractly (blob of tissue, clump of cells, product of conception) or as an aggressor (parasite, tumor, invader). If I believed this is what a fetus amounted to, I would probably also be pro-choice. I don’t agree, but I can comprehend. This default mindset is also an outlook with hope. Convince people of the humanity, strengthen the pro-life side, and maybe someday (perhaps not the foreseeable future, but someday) the tide can turn. Maybe.

But there are pro-choice people who view the fetus more the way I do: alive. Not in some technical sense, not by a biological definition, like a virus or cells going through mitosis. Alive like I’m alive. A human being. A very small, underdeveloped human being, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless. I can comprehend choosing to “terminate a product of conception” or “remove a parasite.” But killing a human being?

Even then, I can imagine someone being “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice.” They are conflicted. They value fetal life, but abhor forced gestation. That place is a little harder for me to mentally stand in than the “product of conception” view, but I can get there.

But there are women who view the fetus the way I view the fetus, and personally choose abortion? That’s not a position I can reach. I don’t understand. You see what I see, yet you can stomach it. You can choose it. I don't understand.

What hope, then, can the pro-life movement possibly have? Even if we could convince the whole country, the whole world, that “person” begins at conception, it still may not change abortion law.

I participate, in my limited ways, in the Pro-life movement largely because I don’t believe it can do any harm. But often I’m not convinced it does much good, either. This isn’t all one big misunderstanding. It’s understanding and fierce disagreement. Irreconcilable disagreement. How can we overcome such an intractable position?

Quick News Roundup: 11/18/10

Domestic News: In Louisiana, five abortion clinics have filed a joint lawsuit against the state based on recent changes in abortion law. Effective November 10th, abortion clinics will be required to perform ultrasounds on patients and provide copies of the image to their patients prior to performing an abortion. Following in the footsteps of major cities like Baltimore, the City Council of New York City is debating legislation which would require crisis pregnancies to post that they do not perform abortions. Both City Council Speaker Quinn and Mayor Bloomberg support the legislation. In North Dakota, the abortion doctor who has been performing abortions without a license appears to be going off scott free. Unlicensed doctor Lori Thorndike won't be prosecuted for her actions; it's a Class B felony in North Dakota to perform an abortion without a valid medical license.

International News: In Bangkok, Thailand, the bodies of 350 aborted babies were found in a temple. The bodies came from illegal abortions performed in Thailand. Lanjakorn Jantamanas was paid to collect the bodies from abortion clinics to bring them to the temple. Local authorities are investigating the matter further. Since the enactment of looser restrictions on abortions in Spain, pro-life groups have fought back in the public sector. This article from Daily News and Economic Report has more on the topic. In Melbourne, Australia, an abortion clinic was raided under suspicion that the anaesthetist may have infected numerous patients with Hepatitis C.

Discussion Topic: Now that the elections are over, what are your hopes for our newly elected officials regarding pro-life values? Are there any specific politicians you are particularly interested in or specific proposals they have mentioned regarding abortion / pro-life values?

Going to Planned Parenthood!

Editor's note: As part of our new Secular Sidewalk program, Monday blog posts will be written by sidewalk counselors. This week, our guest blogger is Heather, an atheist from Virginia.

It's about 6:00 am, on a Saturday morning. I am packed with my lawn chair, pro-life literature, a diaper bag with everything from baby stuff to drinks and snacks. I load my 3 month old son in the car and off we go to the Planned Parenthood on Peters Creek Rd in Roanoke, VA. We arrive around 6:50 and I am pulling to a closed doctor's office nearby-who graciously let us park there for Saturday mornings. I have to walk across the street with baby, lawn chair and bag. We meet in front of the abortion facility in a grassy area. A drive way that comes up the hill leading to it is right next to us and so is the parking lot. At the top of the hill, which is very close to the building, I usually set up my chair and sit with my baby.

There are about 12 other people there, all of whom I know. We all have a sign with either a message on it or a picture of a baby in the womb. At 7:00 the cars start coming in. Now my heart is really excited: maybe we'll save a baby today?

Usually it plays like this- a car pulls up and sits there for awhile and then out comes a girl and most of the time her boyfriend. They walk head down towards the clinic, then a couple of pro-lifers will call out to them. "Can we help you?" "Don't go in there, they kill babies in there" or "God has a plan for your baby" "Please come talk to us". And it usually ends like this- the couple looks over at us (the guy is more likely to since the girl seems too upset), then they just walk in and another innocent baby is no more.

I have been going to this protest movement since my son has been about a month old. My son is the real reason I come on Saturday mornings. It was at this very clinic that I would have ended my little boy's short life on earth. It was back in October of 2008; I was going through a lot of difficult things with my baby's father. Long story short I was living in the local battered women's shelter there in Roanoke, and just got hired at a nursing home as an assistant going into a CNA class. The baby was really getting to be a burden in my eyes since I could not train while big and pregnant and also that I was really sick. After a big fight with his dad, I decided that the baby had to go! It was crippling my whole life it seemed at that time. So I went to Planned Parenthood with out anyone knowing and inquired about birth control and some other services they offered, but I could not bring myself to ask about abortion. It was a sore spot with me and I was also in my second trimester. But on an autumn Wednesday afternoon I drove to the clinic to schedule an appointment for an abortion.

As I was driving in, an older woman was sitting out there with a big pro-life sign which I could not look at! I ignored her and parked in front, got out slamming the door and arguing with my boyfriend. I started to walk in but was convinced by my boyfriend to just talk to her since she was begging us not to go in. Thank goodness I did! After seeing another sonogram of my baby, I could not go through with thinking about an abortion.

Well I had my baby April 9, 2009 and brought him home on Easter sunday. I have many more details to tell about that tough time back in October but that's for another time. I now go as much as I can to the clinic to save another girl from the mental torture I was going through; but there seems to be some things that need to change with the sidewalk counseling. I will keep blogging about my Saturday morning trips to Planned Parenthood every other Monday and share what happens and how some things need to improve in sidewalk counseling to be more effective. I go there to convince girls not to abort by showing scientific facts that abortion is not the best option. Now I'm the only one in the pro-life group thats not religious, and that causes some difficulty but I am hopeful I can change the situation and draw in other people who have similar thoughts and beliefs as I do.