Sex makes babies, but it shouldn't

[Today's guest post is by Sean Cahill, a recent graduate of the University of Arizona College of Law. She says: "Because it changes the way my voice is heard when it comes to life issues, I feel compelled to state that I'm a woman, despite what my name suggests."]

Pro-choicers claim that a woman has a “right” to an abortion. To be clear, this is not merely an argument that to obtain an abortion or allow abortion would be morally permissible, but a claim that the absence of legal abortion on-demand is morally impermissible. Where does this “right” come from?

When claiming this “right,” people cry “My body, my choice!” A person’s body has an inherent dignity and we should have a right to choose what happens to ours. To which pro-lifers reply: in the vast majority of abortions, didn't the woman choose to have sex? Didn't she exercise a choice, regarding her own body, a choice that could result in a pregnancy and in this case, did?

Abortion advocates respond to these inquiries often with an all-knowing head shake and an eye roll, leaving the questioner waiting for the earth-shattering retort, that somehow we have all been wrong, that our parents lied to us during that sex talk in grade school, that we were right in preschool: sex doesn't make babies, a stork brings them. Instead, the answer is some variation of: “A woman consents to sex, not to the resulting pregnancy.”

All of us, pro-life and pro-choice, know that sex makes babies. But many of us wish it didn't. We know that in every pregnancy, a brand new human being has been created, with a unique DNA sequence that is distinct from any that has existed before. We know this to be true, but we wish it wasn't. The phrase that ten year olds taunt each other with on the playground while giggling, confounds many adults: “Sex makes babies.”

We know that women's bodies have the amazing ability to carry life, to give this brand new person sustenance and a place to grow. We know this is to be expected, but we wish it wasn't. Ultimately, we wish that women's bodies didn't work the way they do. We wish we could completely divorce sex from babies. When we can't, this makes us angry, indignant even. So angry that when a healthy woman's body acts as women's bodies have for millions of years, and a new life comes into existence within her womb, a common reaction is to ask: What went wrong? What can we do to fix this? We want to fix one of the defining features of the female sex, as if a woman getting pregnant is equivalent to a car breaking down.

We scratch our heads and ask: How could this be? In this day and age, with all our technology: sex still makes babies? We can put a man on the moon but sex still makes babies? There must be something we can do about this. We can make it less likely through contraception and education, but what can we do to stop it all together? Nothing? That can't be! We have a “right” to stop this! Sex is always going to make babies?

Then there's only one thing left to do: kill the babies.

Registration open for Vita et Veritas conference at Yale October 2-3

Join Secular Pro-Life on the evening of Friday, October 2 and all day Saturday, October 3 for the third annual Vita et Veritas conference at Yale University. Registration is now open, and very affordable at $20 for students and $35 for adults. And if you just want to stop by for the Saturday talks without getting food, it's free!

As she has done for the past two years, SPL president Kelsey Hazzard will contribute to a pro-life interfaith panel, which will also include a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim. They might even walk into a bar. (You can watch last year's video here.)

Go to LifeAndTruthAtYale.com for the full conference lineup. The interfaith panel will be on the Saturday at 10:45 a.m.

Registration is available up until the day of the event. However, they're also doing an essay contest this year, and those submissions are due by September 18 (three weeks from today). The contest is open to current students and those who have graduated in the last five years.

Hope to see you there!

One or Many

Much has been said about bodily rights arguments, the arguments that state a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with anything inside her body, or that no woman should be forced to remain as life support for an unborn human being. I have responded to these arguments elsewhere. However, a similar argument used by some is that it's the dependency on her body that justifies the mother's right to kill the child. Usually one of the responses to this idea is that even born children are completely dependent on their mother for survival. An infant cannot feed himself, change himself, drive to the store to pick up necessities, etc. And the response to this is usually before birth, the child is dependent upon only one person, the mother, for survival, whereas after birth many people can take care of the child. Therefore, before birth the mother can kill the child (since no one else can take care of him), but after birth it's wrong because someone else can take care of him.

This is one of those arguments that just makes you scratch your head about how anyone can find it compelling. Why is it that the fewer people you burden, the more right someone has to kill you? And at any rate, this idea seems to be backward. The more dependent you are on somebody, the more of an obligation they have to help you, not less.

Former director of Justice for All, David Lee, uses the following analogy to respond to this idea. Suppose you're at a public pool, and you're the last one out. You're drying off but you hear a splash. You look in the pool and a child has fallen into the deep end, drowning. Assuming you can swim, do you have an obligation to save this child? It would seem that yes, you do. You can't just walk away, because you're the only one this child is now dependent on to save his life.

This is one of those arguments that won't seem to ever die. Nevertheless, it can be pretty easily dispatched.

Edit: a few people pointed out that I wasn't very clear in what argument I was responding to. I'll chalk it up to fatigue of spending a few hours trying to write something, then rejecting it, and eventually writing this at 12:00 midnight, which is way past my bedtime (I'm an early to bed, early to rise kind of guy). :) I've edited this to make it clearer.

Recap: SPL at #ProtestPP San Jose

Last Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters converged on Planned Parenthood abortion centers across the country to denounce the organization's brutality toward unborn children, unethical organ harvesting practices, and constant lies.

Secular Pro-Life's very own Terrisa Bukovinac Lopez delivered the following remarks to a crowd of 500+ people in San Jose, CA:

This morning, pro-lifers are gathering at over 300 protest sites across the United States. For many of you, this is a time of prayer. Not for me.

My name is Terrisa Bukovinac Lopez, and I am a pro-life atheist. I’m here representing the organization Secular Pro-Life. There are more non-religious pro-lifers out there than you might think. I am here because I feel I have an ethical duty to speak out. And I thank Karen of 40 Days for Life for giving me this opportunity.

This morning, the pro-life movement is united. Because whatever your religion, whatever your race, whatever your gender, whatever your age, we all feel the same emotions when we watch those videos. Horror. Shock. Anger. And above all, grief for those who have lost their lives.

We must never allow our desire for scientific knowledge to eclipse out consciences. Planned Parenthood crossed that line a long time ago. Women deserve better, and Planned Parenthood deserves zero taxpayer funding.

Terrisa reports that her speech was well received. A question and answer session followed, in which she explained how she came to hold the pro-life view and how religious allies can make the pro-life movement more inclusive. Afterward, pro-lifers thanked her and she even received an invitation to speak at a local Catholic gathering.

Planned Parenthood staff stood at the facility entrance and listened silently.

Terrisa addresses the crowd gathered on the sidewalk outside of Planned Parenthood San Jose.

A portion of the attendees. Good thing Terrisa had a microphone!

Media coverage of the Planned Parenthood protests

On Saturday, pro-lifers across the country peacefully protested outside hundreds of Planned Parenthoods, calling for the industrial purveyor of abortion to be defunded in the wake of damning videos from the Center for Medical Progress. (Watch the videos or, if that’s too gruesome, read the transcripts at centerformedicalprogress.org.) Here's how the media reacted:

LifeNews: Thousands of Pro-Life People Protest at Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics in Over 350 Cities

Live Action News: Pro-life advocates line sidewalks nationwide outside 300+ Planned Parenthood centers

Breitbart: National Day of Protest Against Planned Parenthood to Be Held in Over 320 Cities, 5 Other Nations

Washington Post: Thousands protest outside Planned Parenthood clinics around the country

Reuters: Anti-abortion protesters rally at Planned Parenthood sites

ThinkProgress: Thousands Rallied to Defund Planned Parenthood. This is What They Look Like.

Jezebel: Thousands Rally Across the Country to Protest Planned Parenthood


Despite coming from sources that tend to have very different perspectives, these headlines are pretty consistent. But a look at the first lines of each article shows a little more variety: "tens of thousands"/"thousands"/[no number given] "pro-life advocates"/"anti-abortion protesters" against Planned Parenthood "abortion clinics"/"facilities"/"clinics," also described as "the controversial health-care organization" or "one of the country's largest health providers."

LifeNews: "Tens of thousands of pro-life advocates across the country — perhaps as many as 50-75,000 people in all — protested at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics..."

Live Action News: "Almost half of the 668 Planned Parenthood facilities in the nation were flooded with pro-life protesters Saturday in a nationwide effort."

Breitbart: "#ProtestPP, is a coalition headed by Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, Created Equal, 40 Days for Life, and the Pro-Life Action League, and is co-sponsored by more than 50 state and national pro-life organizations, states a press release."

Washington Post: "Thousands of antiabortion activists descended upon Planned Parenthood clinics on Saturday to participate in a nationwide protest aimed at cutting off federal funding for the controversial health-care organization."

Reuters: "Thousands of anti-abortion protesters on Saturday demonstrated at Planned Parenthood sites around the United States where they called for the federal government to end funding for the health organization."

ThinkProgress: "On Saturday, thousands of anti-abortion protestors demonstrated in front of Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the nation, calling for the defunding of one of the country’s largest health providers."

Jezebel: "Anti-abortion activists held protests in front of Planned Parenthood clinics across the country on Saturday."

What other media coverage did you see?

Why Personhood Ultimately Doesn't Matter in the Abortion Debate

Today, Dennis Prager released an excellent video presenting five non-religious moral arguments against abortion. Please give it a watch. I'd like to focus on the first of Prager's five arguments, which is that even if the unborn are not persons, it doesn't mean, ipso facto, that abortion is moral.

Now, I've argued elsewhere that the unborn certainly count as persons. Being a person is about the kind of thing you are (an individual substance of a rational nature), not about the kinds of things you can do. However, let's look at it the opposite way. What if the unborn really aren't persons?

In a compilation of essays, philosophers Frank Beckwith (pro-life) and Louis Pojman (pro-choice) wrote the following: "Another popular prolife argument goes something like this: Because the unborn entity is a human being from the moment of conception, and because it is morally wrong in almost all circumstances to kill human beings, therefore, abortion in almost all circumstances is morally wrong. Although the prolifer is certainly correct that the unborn entity is a human being in the genetic sense from the moment of conception, it is not clear from the biological facts alone, without philosophical reflection, that the fetus is a human person and possesses the rights that go with such a status." [1]

Other philosophers argue that the question of personhood is meaningless because all people mean by "person" is "an entity with rights and value," which is exactly what is at stake in the abortion debate. So from this perspective, arguing the unborn are persons is just redundant because the debate is about whether or not the unborn have rights and value. Plus, I am certainly identical to the embryo that was in my mother's womb, even the zygote that was conceived from my mother and father. That biological entity was me, so if I have a right to life now, I had a right to life then. So even if I didn't qualify as a "person," it is by no means certain that I did not have the right to live.

So contra Beckwith and Pojman, two intellectuals I respect, I don't think it's true at all that "it is not clear from the biological facts alone" that a fetus is a human person and has rights. Our forefathers certainly didn't agree with Beckwith and Pojman. In the Declaration of Independence, they wrote that they considered it self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A fact that is self-evident is one that is evident even without philosophical reflection. These are human rights because these are rights we all have by virtue of being human, whether or not we are persons. The term "person" has been used in the past to justify all sorts of atrocities. The unborn are just the most recent group of human beings to be denied their basic rights.

So again, while I think it can be argued very persuasively that the unborn are persons too, it ultimately doesn't matter in the abortion debate. What does matter is that the unborn are human beings and all human beings have rights by virtue of their nature as human beings.

[1] Introduction, from The Abortion Controversy, 2nd Ed., ed. Louis Pojman and Frank J. Beckwith (Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998), p. xiv.

SPL to speak at San Jose Planned Parenthood protest this Saturday

This article has been updated with a MAJOR CORRECTION: They want us to speak at the San Jose location, not the Fresno location. Sorry for the confusion!

This Saturday, August 22, beginning at 9:00 a.m., pro-life advocates will protest at Planned Parenthood offices across the country. So far there are well over 200 protest locations.

Terrisa Bukonivac Lopez, the most recent addition to the Secular Pro-Life speaker team, will address the crowd at the San Jose, CA protest. She will share a message of secular opposition to Planned Parenthood's brutality, and encourage unity across religious lines in the pro-life fight for justice.

The address is 3131 Alum Rock Avenue, in front of the Planned Parenthood.

We hope to see you there! We'll do our best to make video footage available for those who can't make it.

Once again, abortion advocates are enemies of free speech

In response to the Planned Parenthood undercover investigation, abortion advocates have once again shown themselves to be enemies of free speech.

Shortly after the first video made headlines, the National Abortion Federation, an abortionist trade group, and Stem Express, a buyer of fetal remains, each sued the Center for Medical Progress in an attempt to block the release of videos involving meetings with their members/employees. In each case, the judge imposed a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until a hearing can take place. (In the meantime, the Center for Medical Progress has been releasing footage involving other abortion workers.)

In the long run, I have no doubt that the Center for Medical Progress will prevail. This is a delay tactic, pure and simple. The judge in the Stem Express case recognized that last week, when she denied Stem Express' request for access to the footage. In her opinion, she noted that, among other things, Stem Express' case falls afoul of "the First Amendment and the parallel protections under the California Constitution."

Stem Express and the National Abortion Federation can surely afford to hire lawyers who know how the First Amendment works. So why do they bother?

Simply put, they are doing it because they don't support freedom of speech, the key value underlying the First Amendment. And they figure that with a little luck, they could find a judge who feels the same way. Their optimism isn't entirely unfounded. In Hill v. Colorado, the pro-abortion members of the Supreme Court upheld what amounted to a ban on sidewalk counseling, First Amendment be damned. Although Hill was undermined somewhat by the Court's subsequent decision in McCullen v. Oakley, pro-life advocates continue to be a frequent target for First Amendment violations. As I wrote in June:

The pro-life movement historically has been on the receiving end of censorship, not dishing it out. (In compiling those links, I've limited myself to the past year.)

The courts usually intervene, but not always.

As a lawyer, I take my ethical responsibilities seriously. As a result, I do not engage in meritless litigation, and I certainly wouldn't advocate a position that violates the First Amendment rights of the opposing party. 

But I have yet to hear a single abortion advocate condemn Stem Express and the National Abortion Federation's lawsuits. RH Reality Check openly encouraged it, without even mentioning free speech concerns.

And why would they? Free speech simply isn't a concern for them. 

In-depth interview: Kristi Burkhart, Executive Director, Pregnancy Care Center

Kristi Burkhart is Director of Pregnancy Care Center, a locally organized and funded organization that has been helping women and their babies in Fresno, California since 1984. Here she talks to us about how she got involved with a pregnancy center, what kind of help the center offers, how the center navigates working with people of diverse backgrounds, and how others who are interested can get involved.

Personal Background:

How did you get started working at PCC? What draws you to pregnancy care compared to other types of pro-life work?

I had recently left a position as a full-time teacher and was looking to volunteer in the community. I responded to an announcement in the church bulletin regarding an orientation for volunteers at a pregnancy center. I was drawn to pregnancy care because I am adopted (my birthmother had an unplanned pregnancy in the mid 60’s) and also because I have many friends who are post-abortive and have been deeply wounded by the decision to abort; they thought they had no other choice at the time.

I remember my volunteer interview. I was thinking, “You think you are interviewing me, but really I am interviewing you.” I was not familiar with pregnancy care organizations and was leery that they would be very political and stereotypical in their approach to women, in which case I would have to gracefully say “no thanks.” I was pleasantly surprised!

What is your least favorite part of your job? What do you enjoy the most?  

Being in administration, my least favorite part of my job is staffing and staff management. It is very difficult to keep all positions filled with trained, competent (and preferably bilingual) people. It’s also difficult to make sure the staff are working to their strengths, and to work with them through their individual personal needs. There’s vacation time, sick time, broken down cars, pets dying, children getting sick, etc. We have to work through all of that just like many organizations do.

I really enjoy being able to teach and encourage people through my job. I love training volunteers and watching the lights go on as they explore what they think they know about our clients and who our clients really are. I love teaching youth about healthy sexual integrity (and shocking them with my perspectives, which aren’t too far from their own!) I can help them realize they truly are responsible for their own boundaries and need to decide for themselves what is best, but only after understanding the potential consequences of sexual intimacy. I love when I can encourage those who are struggling, letting them know that they are not alone and that there are good answers available. My job allows me to help clients, volunteers, staff, or donors, whether the issue is unexpected pregnancy or something entirely different.

General Questions:

What services does PCC offer? Are there any costs to the clients? If not, how does PCC get funding?

As a fully licensed medical facility we offer free pregnancy tests, limited OB ultrasound exams, pregnancy options counseling, pregnancy and child-birth classes, and community referrals. We also offer sexual integrity seminars, post-abortive support, miscarriage support, and a Just 4 Guys group.

There are never costs to our clients. All services are free and confidential. We do not bill any insurance provider either, so our services are also free to the tax payer. We are 100% funded by this community and for this community through one-time and monthly donations from individuals, organizations, and churches. We have four PCC annual fundraisers: a banquet, a “Change 4 Babies” campaign, a Men’s BBQ, and a Ladies’ High Tea.

What are some of the more common circumstances your clients have that lead to crisis pregnancy?

I would call them “unplanned” or “unexpected,” rather than “crisis.” “Crisis” sounds like an emergency, trauma, or something dangerous—even a tragedy. “Unexpected” or “unplanned” sounds more realistic: they are caught off guard and unsure what to do because the pregnancy was an accident.

I think the more common circumstances are that the girls are young, unmarried, and still in school (high school or college). 59% of our clients are between ages 15 to 24 (10 year age range), whereas only 40% are between ages 25 to 50 (26 year age range). Less than 1% of our clients are under age 15. We also often have single moms come in who are separated or divorced and who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.

What qualities do you look for when hiring staff or selecting volunteers?

We look for people who are pro-life, compassionate, humble, kind, and open. They need to be good listeners and non-judgmental. They can’t be pushy; we look for people who are eager to serve a woman with an unexpected pregnancy regardless of her decision (that is, even if she chooses to abort, or has chosen to abort before). We look for people with a certain level of personal sexual integrity; after all, we can’t ask others to practice a lifestyle we don’t practice ourselves. And we are a faith-based organization, so we do look for people with faith in Jesus. However, it’s essential that our staff can lay aside any agenda they hold and serve each woman with compassion and integrity.

Your clinic is located across the street from an abortion clinic. Tell us what that is like.

We are in front of the abortion clinic and share a parking lot. It’s interesting. There’s no open hostility, but there is a very real tension. We see their staff outside, and as much as I try to smile or wave they just ignore me. No offense taken on my part. If mail or boxes are delivered to the wrong address, we are very congenial with each other when we walk the packages over.

Our center and the clinic have some shared clients. Sometimes a woman comes through our door for her “appointment” and we can tell that she probably meant to go to the clinic instead (most of the time she won’t say the word “abortion” and she’ll have a hard time looking at the receptionist). Even if we are pretty sure she has an appointment with the clinic, we still have to ask what the appointment is for, in case she actually does have an appointment with us for a pregnancy test or an ultrasound. If she is looking for the clinic instead, we tell her she doesn’t have an appointment with us and ask if she is sure she is pregnant. We offer her our services. These conversations sometimes lead to an appointment with us instead of an abortion. Other times, she walks out the door and we don’t see her again. Our job is to be here and available in either case.  Sometimes she leaves, but returns again.

Religion and Politics:

Does PCC have a religious affiliation? How does this affect your day-to-day work?

We are non-denominational but faith-based, and we ask all staff and volunteers to sign a basic statement of faith. You and I had a conversation about asking our clients one simple question when we are discussing their options with them, “Where does God fit into this for you?” A vast majority (80-90%) of Americans believe in God, so it’s an important question to ask. In many cases her faith is part of her decision making process and part of how she deals with the decision she makes. So we ask “Where does God fit into this for you?” and then it’s our job to respect her response. If she wants to discuss it, we are happy to have spiritual discussions with her and even share the gospel. But again, only if she wants to go down that road; her needs supersede any religious agenda.

How do you make your center a comfortable place for your non-religious clients?

There are no religious pictures or icons around. There are no scriptures written on the walls or over the doorposts, haha. We do not force a spiritual discussion or biblical resources onto our clients. We respect her wishes and ask permission to share anything having to do with religion.

Does your center provide adoption referrals? If so, does your center have a policy regarding adoption agencies that work with LGBT parents?

Yes, we provide adoption agency referrals. There are four local agencies on our list so that clients have choices. We do not have a policy about agencies that work with LGBT parents. Also, the quality of care provided to each person seeking services at PCC is consistent regardless of socioeconomic status. 

Many people believe that pregnancy centers give their clients incomplete information or pressure their clients into making a specific decision. How do you respond to that idea?

It is against everything that I stand for to give incomplete information or to emotionally or spiritually manipulate people. I also believe that abortion hurts women first—it isn’t just about the life of the unborn. These two beliefs, which I hold dear, are precisely why I was interviewing PCC before becoming a volunteer 14 years ago. I would not have gotten involved in the first place had PCC been contrary to my stand on these two personal issues. PCC is very careful to use only researched and medically accurate information and to train, train, and retrain our staff and volunteers. We have had volunteers-in-training who were too forceful or zealous in the their approach, and we asked them to step down.

PCC is also affiliated with two national organizations that provide training materials, conferences, policy suggestions and so forth. I find these organizations to be those of integrity that I can personally align with. As Executive Director for PCC, it is important for me to understand the organizations PCC is directly associated with and their leadership.

With that said, there are a few pregnancy resources centers and pregnancy medical centers that do not follow all the guidelines set before them by the national organizations to which they are affiliated. This is a travesty and misrepresentation of the rest of us, and it greatly angers me.

I understand that everyone comes into this type of pro-life work to serve with a genuine heart for women and babies. We are sincere but we also usually come with an agenda without even realizing it. If our service to our clients is not based on love, truth, and integrity then we should step aside. It takes good training and more good training to be ready to serve women with unexpected pregnancies.

Perspectives:

What advice would you give to someone looking to start a pregnancy center?

First, make sure you have the support of your family and best friends—people who believe you are called to this. Second, visit at least 3-5 centers in communities with demographics similar to your own. Third, contact the national organizations and align yourself with at least one for support, training, and resources. Finally, make sure you have adequate support from your community—a portion of the community that you can draw on for volunteers, vision, cheerleading, and, yes, financial support too.

What advice do you have for people who don’t work at pregnancy centers but still want to help women with crisis pregnancy?

Listen well. Educate yourself and give only accurate information that you know to be true (don’t believe everything you hear and read either….research for yourself!) Remember, you could be her if you had her background, knowledge, and experiences. Love her. Really see her, as a person—it’s not just about the life of the child she may be carrying, it’s about her too. Understand the difficulties she faces: in her relationships, in her schooling or career, in her ability to provide basic necessities, etc. Don’t shoot from the hip. You are dealing with at least two lives here. Set aside your own agenda, and remember: love, truth, and integrity.

Valuing the lives of the elderly

Above: Not Dead Yet display protesting assisted suicide

Fun fact: in addition to being a lawyer and a pro-life activist, I'm also a bit of a karaoke nut. I go out and sing on a weekly basis. I'm part of a regular crowd that follows the same "K.J." to different bars and restaurants. And because I happen to live in a popular area for retirees, most of my fellow regulars are older folks.

By older folks, I don't just mean old enough to be my parents, or my grandparents. No, I'm proud to say we have two 92-year-old WWII veterans: George and Frank. The latter speaks several languages and served as a translator at the Nuremberg trials. Today, he is always called up to the stage as "Sexy Frank Senior!"

Both use canes. A while ago, Frank had a nasty fall that kept him out of commission for months. I'm sure they have other health issues I'm not privy to. George finds the internet bewildering, and he has trouble keeping tempo when he sings. (We applaud anyway.) I consider them both friends, and respect them greatly. Their zest for life colors my perception of elderly people in general.

Tragically, that perception was not shared by 75-year-old British woman Gill Pharaoh. She killed herself to avoid, in her words, living past her "ideal shelf life." The suicide took place in Switzerland, which allowed Pharaoh to access lethal medication despite the fact that she had no terminal health condition.

In an interview before her death, she complained that her life was in decline as she was no longer enthusiastic about gardening, did not enjoy late dinner parties, and she had issues with tinnitus.

While acknowledging that these were ‘comparatively trivial’ complaints she said she wasn’t prepared to go further ‘downhill’. 

‘I do not think old age is fun. I have gone just over the hill now. It is not going to start getting better,’ she said. ‘I have looked after people who are old, on and off, all my life. I have always said, “I am not getting old. I do not think old age is fun.” I know that I have just gone over the hill now. It is not going to start to get better.’ 

I don't want to sound snide, but I hate gardening and late dinner parties, and I'm 27 years old.

It breaks my heart that she robbed herself and her loved ones of who knows how many years, because she assumed that old age wouldn't be "fun." I wish she had received life-affirming counseling. I wish she had given herself a chance.

I wish she could have come out to sing with us.

A few weeks ago, tragedy struck my karaoke family. When I heard that someone had died suddenly, my first thought was that Frank or George must have passed. I was wrong; shockingly, it was a healthy middle-aged singer, and the cause was suicide. He was always the life of the party. No one saw it coming.

I am used to thinking about the pro-life cause in terms of a helpless victim whose life is violently ended by the "crushing" force of an abortionist. But sometimes, the greatest threat to human life comes from within.

WARNING SIGNS OF SUICIDE

Suicide hotline:1-800-273-8255