Vlog 9: Abortion is a Woman's Choice like Rape is a Man's Choice

Does choice have anything to do with the morality of an action (abortion for instance)? In this video I discuss a common misconception about abortion; that it is justified for simply being a choice... It's complicated stuff, but hang on with me!

This is a vlog of my 10 March 2010 blog-post entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice"

In upcoming vlogs I'll be building upon this aspect of the abortion debate, in particular:

Pro-Abortion vs. Pro-Choice: Which is the correct term to use?

Abortion and Rape

Hatred & Water-Balloon-Condoms Thrown at March For Lifers in Berlin

Bryan Kemper writes on his blog of his experience at the March for Life in Berlin on September 18. Unless you read this post, you're really not going to be able to comprehend the nature of the pro-abortion lobby in Germany, and the kind of thing we're going to be up against here in New Zealand if we continue to attempt to "take away women's reproductive rights"...

Bryan writes,

Besides the 1,800 pro-lifers in attendance; there were hundreds of riot police to protect us from the over 500 pro-abortion protesters who came to interrupt and attempt to attack us.

Our team went early to the site of the march to witness to the pro-abortion protestors and share the Gospel with them. We stood right in the middle of their gathering and just began talking to many of the young people there who seemed to hate us so much.

As the time for the march came closer we made our way to the stage to get prepared for Michel and me to give our talks. I was getting so excited as I was meeting young people from all over the world gathered there to jump start a youth pro-life revolution in Europe.

I was so impressed by the resolve of the pro-lifers as the pro-abortion protesters started to mix into our crowd and begin screaming vulgarities at us. Two lesbians walked to the front of the stage and began to make out in an attempt to shock us; they were just ignored as we kept on with the program.

Police hold the counter-protesters at bay

When I got up to speak the pro-abortion protesters were enraged as they announced an American coming up to speak. When they saw that I looked more like them then the rest of the pro-lifers I think it made them angrier. I shared my testimony about coming to Christ and then an encouraging pro-life message. I fired up the young people, challenging them to make sure that we always have the courage to stand up for Christ and for life.

As the organizers began to pass out white crosses to the pro-life marchers, many on the other side began to steal crosses so they could hold them upside down. As we took formation in the street, the pro-aborts were lining up beside us screaming the most foul and sexual things at the pro-lifers. They were holding the crosses upside down, waving rubber sexual organs and throwing condoms filled with water at us...

Read the full article here.

Vlog 8: Aborting New Zealand

New Zealand's over-65 population is spiraling out of control. By 2026 the number of over-65s will have doubled, leaving the Government and the economy struggling to care for them. But the Government - and New Zealand itself have brought this upon themselves with abortion which has killed 400,000 pre-born Kiwis since 1974.

NZ Herald Article: "Urgent plan needed for over-65s - report", 8 Sept, 2010

The Kiwi Party and Abortion

The Kiwi Party has made itself known as a "Judeo-Christian Values Party" - although upon a cursory glance of their website I couldn't find any reference to this. The party's leader is ex-United Future List MP, Larry Baldock. He is backed up with fellow ex-United Future List MP, Gordon Copeland now serving as Party President, and More FM Radio celebrity, Simon Barnett. The party is strongly pro-life, and I have huge respect for their opposition to abortion. The Kiwi Party has just recently adopted Gordon Copeland's "Abortion (Informed Consent) Amendment" bill.

I am absolutely in favour of what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to take an incremental step forward through the provision of information through counselling before the mother makes a final request to be considered for an abortion in accordance with the current Abortion Law. Below is a diagram of the change the amendment would make.

It's a great bill, and you can read an excellent short summary of it here. However, it is not going to go anywhere. In another document entitled "Abortion Law Reform in New Zealand; a Political Strategy", the Kiwi Party outlines its strategy for reforming New Zealand's abortion law for the better by passing the informed consent bill. Coincidentally, the strategy involves getting the Kiwi Party into Parliament. However neither the Kiwi Party, nor any of its candidates will ever enter Parliament again. This is because they are incompetent and unprofessional.

Baldock's referendum to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act (subsequently adopted by the Kiwi Party) was a thinly veiled bid to build the platform necessary to get Larry Baldock back into Parliament in 2008 with the newly formed Kiwi Party. It failed in this objective. Baldock's 2011 Election Bid was to run a referendum seeking to amend New Zealand's law on referendums so that they would be binding. The question read: “Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?” Confusing, huh. Anyway, this referendum also failed in building a strong platform to get Baldock back into Parliament. Last I heard it was 280,000 signatures short of completion, and with only a few months remaining. So what new strategy from the desk of the Kiwi Party? A policy to make a significant improvement in New Zealand's abortion law.

Let's be clear. The law would not restrict any abortions. However through the improved system of counselling, it is strongly likely that the number of abortions in New Zealand would drop significantly. (over 10% I think).

Earlier this year I wrote Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy and Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?, outlining a critical lack of wisdom and integrity in the Kiwi Party. I will be writing further "Referendum Files" shortly. One of the party's key policies embodies the Socialist ideal of wealth-redistribution through an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. There are also major issues with the party's Law and Order policy which I have written about here.

In their political strategy document, they write:

Therefore progress can not be made unless the Kiwi Party or some other Party which is prepared to commit to this issue, is elected to Parliament. The Kiwi Party already has a high recognition factor in New Zealand with an independent poll indicating that 8.7% of voters would “likely” vote for the party if they were confident that it could achieve either 5% of the party vote or one electorate seat, thus ensuring its presence in the next parliament.

This 8.7% figure, obtained through "independent polling" is old news. The Kiwi Party used it at the last election... and I have no idea who the independent pollsters were, but they didn't quite get it right did they... In the 2005 election Baldock received 3.67% of the vote in his electorate of Tauranga. However you have to get roughly over 40% to win in this electorate. In 2008 he received 5.11% of the vote. That election, the Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the party vote, even with their platform, repealing the Anti-Smacking Law being one of the key election issues. How well are they going to do at the 2011 election where neither abortion nor smacking will be key election issues?

I will be writing more shortly about The Kiwi Party; why they should not run at the next election, and why you shouldn't waste your vote on them.

Republicans to Campaign on Federal Abortion Funding?

Just heard from the Manhattan Declaration project that,

So many of you emailed the Republican House leader's office last week urging the party not to backtrack on its commitment to life, liberty and marriage that you brought the email servers down. We have just been informed that the Republican leadership WILL now include references to marriage and federal funding of abortion in their election agenda.

This is excellent news. However it will remain to be seen if the Grand Old Party will run with a decent pro-life platform, or if they'll make either promises they intend not to keep, or make promises that offer no genuine improvement to the problem of abortion in the United States.

Vlog 5 - It's a Silent Issue

The sponsor of New Zealand's latest "Abortion on Demand" bill, Steve Chadwick believes that there aren't enough abortions in New Zealand. What's going on behind the scenes here?

Vlog 4 - "If You Don't Like Abortion, Don't Have One"

"If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one!" This is a statement which is made frequently by those in the pro-abortion movement. In this video I discuss what an absolute pathetic excuse for an argument that it is.

Vlog 3 - "Men Shouldn't Force Their Opinion About Abortion on Women"

Some in the pro-abortion movement make the statement - "what right do men think they have to force their views about abortion on women?" In this video I discuss the two major reasons why men are justified in speaking against abortion.

Abortion – why it needs to be legal” Article Makes Leaps in Logic

Cross-posted from the Exposing ALRANZ blog, below is a fisking of a recent article making the rounds in the pro-abortion blogosphere.

On 13 August 2010, Julie Fairey of The Hand Mirror Blog and Mothers For Choice wrote an article summarising the talk she gave that day on campus at Auckland University, entitled "Abortion: Why it Needs to be Legal". The talk was organised by Kristy Kearny, Alana Marie Chang and Soraiya Daud, leaders of the group, Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland and the Campus Feminist Collective. Steph of the LadyNews blog states that the article is "a beautifully structured argument for why abortion needs to be legal", however this is incorrect as I will demonstrate below.

Fairey sums up her talk as follows:

1. We don’t yet live in a world where we have full control of our fertility
She argues that "A world without abortion will only be possible when we can have full control of our fertility." I could equally state that "A world without car crashes will only be possible when we can have full control of our driving skills." This in no way backs up the claim that therefore, car crashes are ok since they're going to happen anyway. The same can be applied to abortion. The fact that women don't have full control of fertility (Fairey cites rape as one example, and I completely agree with her on this), in no way lends itself to justifying abortion.

Fairey goes on to state that women can only have full control of their fertility if contraceptives (i.e. condoms) are 1) Free, 2) Easy to get, 3) Comfortable to request and use, and 4) effective. Again, this is poor reasoning. I could state that drivers are only going to have full control of their cars once cars are free, easy to get, comfortable to request, and safe... It doesn't make sense at all.

She also states that women will only have control over their fertility once we live in a world with positive empowering attitudes to sex, and a world that has support and respect for parents. Fairey is absolutely entitled to her opinion - but this is absolutely unsubstantiated - women can choose whether reproduction takes place, regardless of attitudes to sex or parenting.

"I’m talking about being able to be sure, when that little stick shows you you’re pregnant, that any child that arises could have a safe, healthy home to live in, would have more than enough food and clothing and books and love, and so much more, from the people and the society around it."

And if not... just kill the foetus. The "every child a wanted child" argument falls down because it is based purely on the subjective value of life that adults project onto the as yet unborn child.

The only time that a woman loses control of her fertility, is when she loses her reproductive rights (in the case of rape), where conception takes place against her will...

Continue Reading

Vlog 2: Ultrasound and the Abortion Industry

In Wairarapa, New Zealand, mothers seeking an abortion must be offered to see the ultrasound scan of their pre-born baby. But 98% are saying "no thanks" - what's going on here?

The article on this issue is here.

For my last vlog on "Aborting Cows", click here. For previous vlogs, click here.

House Minority Leader John Boehner at NRLC

Republican Minority House Leader John Boehner speaking at NRLC.

"Americans love life and we love freedom - they're both intertwined in the American character - without respect for life, freedom is in jeopardy. When we confirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom. There's nothing more defenceless, more innocent - than an unborn baby. If you believe in a right to life, then being quiet isn't good enough - we don't have luxury of being quiet.

...Barack Obama spoke at a PP convention promising support of the Freedom of Choice Act - during his first week in office, 36 Republican Congressman including Boehner wrote to Obama asking him to use his presidency to use initiatives that bring Americans together, not drive them apart - they asked him to withdraw his support from FOCA. They got no response. ...In the 18 months since the letter was sent, we've got our answer - the legislation has been implemented, step by tragic step."

During the presentation of the National Right to Life Legislative Leadership Award to Boehner, an old man stood up and started yelling, trying to ask the Minority Leader a question - he shouted "God strike you dead!" at Darla St. Martin who was emceeing the session. Officials got him seated. However after the applause as he was walking out he started screaming again about how the Republican party lets down the pro-life movement, "See with your eyes..." He also claimed that when Darla asked him to speak to Boehner later that she was breaking the First Amendment. I am fairly confident that he is a strongly anti-incrementalist pro-lifer, possibly associated with American Right to Life and the Personhood movement.

However a very good session over all. You can read Boehner's full speech here.

2,000 Pages of Really Bad Stuff

General Session on Day 3, "2,000 Pages Plus of Really Bad Stuff” of the National Right to Life Convention featuring Douglas Johnson speaking on abortion coverage and Burke Balch, J.D. speaking on rationing in the Health Care Act.

Douglas Johnson is speaking on abortion coverage in the Health Care Act.

One of the ways the pro-abortion lobby has always sought to increase the number of abortions is to have government subsidies for abortion. It is estimated that there are over one million people alive today because of the Hyde amendment. They think that's a bad thing; we think that's a good thing. Within 3yrs of Roe v. Wade (1973), the Govt. was paying for 300,000 abortions/yr - the Courts found that this was a just application of the law. In 1976, Hyde amendment came in prohibiting Federal money going towards abortions. This amendment expires every year and so comes under attack but needs to be renewed every year.

In 2007 Barack Obama was asked how "reproductive healthcare" would be covered in the Health Care Bill. “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. It is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose… It will be a plan that will provide ALL essential services, including reproductive services."

The Executive Order which is claimed to prevent abortion funding. USA Today reported that both sides of the debate agree that the order was meaningless. National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson referred to the order as "a transparent political fig leaf," and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood called it a "symbolic gesture".

Burke Balch, J.D. is speaking on rationing in the new Health Care Act. Federal law now limits what individuals are allowed to spend out of their own funds for their health care insurance. "We should not have a two tier health care system." Do you even things out by helping those who can't afford adequate health care by limiting the health care available to those who can afford it? "This is what the Act does."

Rationing Procedure:

1. Independent Payment Advisory Commission. It's aim is to push private healthcare spending down, so that it does not keep up with the rate of medical inflation. Recommednations every two years. Department of Health and Human Services is going to impose "quality and efficiency" standards... "under what circumstances is it efficient/appropriate for someone to receive a kidney transplant?". HC providers must comply with these guidelines (caps on private spending on healthcare), or else they will lose insurance contracts. This limits and micro-manages the healthcare you can get.
2. Medicare Limits - $529 cut from Medicare. Will the govt. allow senior citizens to make up the difference from their own private funds? Currently older Americans are allowed to add their own money if they choose, in order to get insurance plans less likely to ration - these are known as Medicare Private Advantage Plans. However under the Obama health law, HHS given standardless discretion to reject any Medicare advantage plan.
3. Exchange Limits on What People Can Pay for Insurance. First state-based insurance exchanges. Govt. officials will exclude health insurers whose plans inside or outside the exchange allow private citizens to spend whatever govt. officials think is "excessive or unjustified" amount on their own health care insurance.
4. Shared Decisionmaking. Funding to non govt. groups to develop "patient decision-making aids" to help patients, caregivers or authorised representatives to decided with their health care provider, what plans are best for them. They're going to "establish regional shared decision making resource centers to provide technical assistance to providers to develop and disseminate best practices". In other words, re-education...

Govt. website box states: "about 25% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in their last 60 days of life" - but we don't know when people are going to die, we're trying to save them. "Toward the end of life, too many people receive ineffective, expensive medical treatments" - California Health Care Foundation

Health care spending as a percentage of personal consumption expenditures has been rising steadily since 1940. Also, private food, clothing and shelter expenses have been steadily dropping. The reason that we've been able to put more money into healthcare to date, is that we've put less resources into other things. America could ensure decent health care for all. Currently we have private sector cost-shifting - it imperfectly covers people who are uninsured. "We could achieve good healthcare for all without rationing." The fundamental, worst elements are not going to come into affect until 2014. Need a pro-repeal president and senate and 60 senators to beat a filibuster (41 Senators). "We are not hopeless. What we have to do now is educate Americans about the grave danger this law poses to our family members."

Live-Blogging from the National Right to Life Convention

Alex and I at the Future of Planned Parenthood: Building the Abortion Empire session

Currently in Communications 201: "Putting Communication Skills Into Action Through Events and Advertising" with Derrick Jones and Cheryl Ciamarra. Picking up on many tips and tricks for handling media and public relations - will be useful to take back to New Zealand to benefit Prolife NZ. Caught up with Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com today which was great. Hoping to catch up with some more pro-lifers tonight in town.

Confronting the Abortion of Children with Down Syndrome

Eileen Haupt is speaking on "Confronting the Abortion of Children with Down Syndrome" at the 2010 National Right to Life Convention.

Chances of conceiving a DS baby increases with maternal age. All chromosomes are normal.  DS was named after John Langdon Down who in 1866 gave a name to the characteristics associated with DS people. 1930s, researches suspected DS might be caused by a chormosomal abnormality. 1959, the "extra chromosome" discovered by Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a French geneticist. This opened up a whole new field known as cytogenics. Modern treatment of DS: institutions, involuntary sterilisations, disabled were rounded up, experimented on and killed during Nazi Germany. In 60s and 70s in America, DS began to be raised at home. Routine use of amniocentesis for the purpose of aborting them. We have a schizophrenic treatment of people who are DS. Lejeune's discovery was meant for good, but now it is used to seek and destroy pre-born DS babies. He was ostrasised from the medical community for his pro-life views.

Mothers are put under incredible pressure to abort their preborn babies with DS.

Prenatal testing: Screening tests (show the "risk" of baby having DS) and Diagnostic tests (can tell you definitively if baby has DS).

Ramifications of "Improved" Testing: this will result in more mothers choosing abortion. Accurate and non-invasive tests; it's much easier now to discover DS much earlier in the pregnancy... "before they've even felt their baby kick".

"A simple blood test that could save the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year." - a comment on the new DS testing. They're happy because with the old kind of testing there was a risk of the pre-born baby dying from amniocentesis - no consideration is given to the pre-born babies who are diagnosed as DS and subsequently killed by abortion.

Where do the DS Advocates stand? Sadly, the National Down Syndrome Society and National Down Syndrome Congress take a neutral stand on the abortiong of DS babies. They also partner with American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others. However parents with DS children, shocked at the figure that approx. 90% of DS diagnosed babies are aborted, start blogs and are active in their communities. The International Down Syndrome (IDS for Life) and Keep Infants with Down Syndrome (KIDS) were established.

Methods used to abort DS babies. Because DS cannot be definitively diagnosed til 2nd Trimester, they are aborted in 2nd trimester, usually between 16 - 20wks.

In Italy a mother had a selective abortion to abort the twin that was diagnosed with DS. However the babies switched positions and the non DS baby was aborted - the mother then went back to have her DS baby aborted as well. A U.S. case, a doctor lost his license for accidently aborting the wrong twin baby - the non DS baby.

The missing factor in this prenatal testing is love. "The one thing that prenatal testing can't tell you, is how much joy your special child will bring" - Eileen Haupt

Why the heck are Down Syndrome babies being aborted? There is a waiting list to adopt children with DS.

The Future of Planned Parenthood: Building the Abortion Empire

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. is speaking on "The Future of Planned Parenthood: Building the Abortion Empire Through Mega-Clinics and Chemical Abortion".

How Planned Parenthood and the Family Planning Association Make More Money on Chemical Abortions
Mifepristone pills cost $90 each. Initially, abortion mills committing chemical abortions would give the woman three misoprostol pills and then give them one Misoprostol pill (prostaglandin @ $1 each) afterwards to expel the dead child. This made the cost approximately $270. However to raise their profit margin, Planned Parenthood gave women just one Mifepristone pill, and two Misoprostol pills afterwards which achieved essentially the same result - it would kill the child and cause it to be expelled from its mothers uterus - but making Planned Parenthood a higher profit margin.

Planned Parenthood says "It's not about abortion"
Cecile Richards has stated that 97% of PP's activities are focused on reducing pregnancies.
In 1990: 129,155 out of 1608,600 (8%)
In 2007: 305,310 out of 1206200 (25.3%)

Planned Parenthood has many profits connected to abortion - add-on expenses.

Abortion sales contributes over a third of Planned Parenthood's income.

Standard prices:
pregnancy test: $10 - $20
packet of pills: $15 - $25
abortion: $413

Break-down of PP's patients:
abortions: 305,310
prenatal patients: 10,914
infertility clients: 318
adoption referrals: 4,912

Planned Parenthood is very politically active...
There's two Planned Parenthoods: Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Cecile Richards heads up both of these organisations. She has no medical background. In 2006 she said,

"Planned Parenthood has 860 health centers around the country in 50 states. We have more members, more employees and staff, than the 50 state Democratic parties combined. We have the potential to swing the vote in 2006, 2008 and 2010, and that’s a lot of power. So the question is what are we going to do with it? The answer is: We’re gonna use it. We’re gonna marry our current reality as the largest reproductive health-care provider in this country with our opportunity to be the largest kickass advocacy organization in this country.

We’re gonna channel our strength, our outreach, our power; work with our pro-choice allies to help progressive voices win in America. We’re revving up online; we’re putting volunteers on the phone and on the doors. We’re taking on the opponents of choice in the states and the districts where they live. Planned Parenthood has gotta become more political so that health care can become less politicized."

Questions & Comments from the Audience...
"Birth control pills are Planned Parenthood's bread and butter. Even on the days they don't do abortions, they're still selling the pills."

"How is it that Planned Parenthood that receives 330 million from the Govt. each year, then allowed to lobby?"... "Truth is, it's because they're Planned Parenthood." They're just playing the books carefully.

This was another darned good session. Very useful information for us Kiwis as the Family Planning Association is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood.

Gearing Up for the Mid-Terms

Karen Cross, political director for NRLC, David N. O'Steen Ph.D., executive director of NRLC and Daria St. Martin, assistant executive director of NRLC are speaking in a session on "Preparing for the Next Round - 2010", the midterm elections in the U.S.

4.5% voted for McCain and 0.5% voted for Obama on the issue of abortion in the 2008 election. 10% voted Republican on economy compared with 24% who voted Democrat for economy.

In 2006, 22% said Iraq was the most important consideration in voting, compared with 3% for abortion.

2008 Election polling:
Those who had pro-life beliefs: 53%
Those for whom abortion was the "most important" issue and they voted for candidates who oppose abortion: 4.5%

58% would like to repeal the Health Care Act as opposed to 35% who do not.

O'Steen says, If you see three children drowning, and they're in three separate directions and you can only save one, you jump in the water and swim as fast as you can to the closest one. This same principle should be applied to where we direct our efforts in fighting abortion. Do we wait until we can save all babies from abortion at one go, or do we save them as we go?

Planned Parenthood’s War Against Children

Angela Franks, Ph.D. is speaking on “Planned Parenthood’s War Against Children”.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger believed that children oppressed women - she called this "sex servitude" - women are oppressed by their fertility. She said, "The most far-reaching social development of modern times is the revolt of woman against sex-servitude." She believed that women have a eugenic duty: "Within her is wrapped up the future of the race - it is hers to make or mar."

Sanger had a naive belief in the promiscuous lifestyle - everyone will be more happy if they have more sex. This would result in a need to reduce population. New York City Planned Parenthood ran a fundraiser entitled "Summer, Sex and Spirits" at which free pole-dancing lessons were given out.

"For Planned Parenthood, pregnancy is the ultimate sexually transmitted disease

"Planned Parenthood thinks that by teaching young girls to use birth control pills, they will become 33-year old women who will reliably take the pills on a regular basis... We know that this is not a good job to be giving young girls - especially when their parents are not even aware this is going on."

The United States' Largest Abortion Chain: In 1991, Planned Parenthood had 99 clinics compared with 911 other clinics. By 2009, Planned Parenthood had 817 clinics, compared with 304 other clinics. This was largely due to PP's introduction of chemical abortions.

RU486 (Chemical) Abortion: Faking the Body Out

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. is speaking

The process of an RU486 abortion is:

• Anti-progestin or anti progesterone is taken
• Shuts down baby's life support system
• Baby shovels and dies
• Menstrual process initiated
• Prostaglandin (PG) forces baby out

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol states that the woman must be no more than 49 days since her last menstrual period, as effectiveness drops at this point. However Planned Parenthood commits chemical abortions up to 63 days (9 weeks). PP's NZ affiliate, the Family Planning Association is currently seeking a license from the pro-abortion Abortion Supervisory Committee to commit these abortions. RU486 abortions are already being committed in a handful of abortion mills in New Zealand.

Still a baby, still an abortion:

• 3wks - 5wks: nervous system forming, heart beginning first beats
• 5wks - 7wks: baby's face, arms and legs are distinguishable
• 7wks - 9wks: child's ears, fingers, toes formed; nearly an inch tall

"Downsides" of RU486 abortions:

• bloodier and more painful than advertised - "you lose more blood from a RU486 abortion than from a surgical abortion". Chemical abortion wounds are larger than those of surgical abortions, and they stay open for longer.
• takes longer than a surgical abortion
• short window of time within which to kill the child

O'Bannon is reading through the specific details of the deaths of a large number of young women who underwent a RU486 abortion.

Mothers who have had RU486 abortions have reported seeing tiny fists, eyes, aborted babies lying in toilets or on the floor of the shower - this is because mothers are given the misopristol at the abortion mill, and then go home and wait for the drugs to kill their pre-born child. Once this has taken place, the prostaglandin pill is taken (this costs about $1), which brings about the expulsion.

RU486 was approved for use in the U.S. in September 2000. Guttmacher states that chemical abortions were at 6% of all abortions in 2000, 70,500 in 2001 and 161,100 in 2005. O'Bannon states that the numbers will be much higher now in 2010, however we are unsure as to a close estimate. Back in New Zealand, ALRANZ is bemoaning the lack of chemical abortions, and are strongly backing the FPA's bid to become a Chemical abortion provider.

Below is an account of an RU486 abortion written by an abortive mother on 29/4/2001:

I am 23 years old and I would say, very careless about protection. I am the mother of three children although I've been pregnant more times than that. I would be a hypocrite to deny that I've been pro-choice. I thought the "abortion pill" was a more humane way to terminate and so I used that method. I remember going over paper work that told me that because the pregnancy was very early, there wouldn't be a visible embryo and it would "seem" like a normal period. That information was then confirmed by the ultrasound technician as well as the counselor. The pregnancy was in the seventh week.
After receiving the drink of methotrexate, I left for home with a prescription for pain medication and a packet of misoprostol tablets. Five days later as instructed, I inserted the tablets and waited. A few hours later severe cramping began as well as a gush of "pregnancy tissue" . While cleaning myself up, I noticed something silvery attached to the tissue. I looked closer only to realize that I was staring at my aborted child. I could see the protrusion on it's chest where just six days ago, a heart had beat. The eyes were beginning to form already. No one told me that this might happen, in fact, I was guaranteed that it wouldn't . I'll never be the same again.

p.s. this is an actual photo, taken by me.

This was a great session on a disgusting and disturbing subject.

Pro-Life Conversion - On Love and Incrementalism

J. David Franks, Ph.D is a Catholic theologian who is speaking on "Pro-Life Conversion: Cultivating Serious and Intelligent Solidarity with the Most Powerless".

Part 1: Love and our Duty

Franks states that libertarianism cares only about "my choice" and puts it above everything else. This is patently incorrect, as libertarianism limits the choice of the individual with the freedom and choices of every other individual. He states, "Libertarianism is a pro-choice ideology," and then speaking about love, "We resent love because it means we can't remain in our libertarian cocoon." Libertarians for Life would disagree with this claim.

"The weaker the person, the greater their claim on us"

This is a very good point, and a brilliant principle to help us prioritise our campaigns for social justice. Perhaps his quote could be rephrased, "The weaker the person, and the greater the crime being committed against them, the greater their claim on us." Abortion fits this definition perfectly.

"Abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are intrinsically evil and are linked by the same objective - the killing of an innocent person. Whereas the death penalty, war and climate change are issues which it is acceptable to disagree on."


"We can't outlaw every crime. We don't outlaw a crime if it would create greater social disorder... but we can't apply this to abortion."

This is a confusing and unprincipled approach to the reasoning for legislation on abortion. Abortion should be outlawed because it takes away the life of an innocent and helpless human-being - let alone the fact that this takes place without their consent.

Franks stated that if given the choice of voting for one of two pro-abortion candidates, an individual should vote for the one which will be either best for the pro-life side, or most detrimental for the pro-abortion side. In choosing between a pro-life and a pro-abortion candidate, he stated that it is only very rarely that it would be acceptable to vote for the pro-abortion candidate - for instance if such a vote would give a more pro-life party the majority in parliament.

Franks holds that refraining to vote is not an acceptable option, stating that citizens have a duty to vote for the best of the options presented to them. He backs this up with the idea that man is a social creature, and that it is therefore his responsibility to participate in society. I disagree, because if society is unappealing to an individual, they should not be under any obligation to participate in it - let alone express their support for something they do not believe in.

Part 2: Pro-Life Incrementalism

Pro-life purists refuse to support any law or politician that seeks to reduce the number of abortions taking place, and will only support a policy that will ban 100% of abortions. Pro-life incrimentalists on the other hand are prepared to support a great number of small advances in the cause of defending the pre-born. Pro-life incrementalists are achieving results:

• Parental involvement laws correlated with a 16% decline in the minor abortion rate.
• Partial-birth abortion ban
• Legislating against abortions in which foetuses feel pain. Pro-abortion advocates may think that we want for foetueses to be anesthetised before they are aborted... In Arkansas, Kansas, a foetal pain awareness act was passed requiring that women seeking an abortion on a foetus at 20 weeks and over should be asked if they wished for their child to be injected with pain killers. In the year following the passing of this act, 600 women were offered the pain relief for the murder of their pre-born children. Upon hearing of this option, 300 of the women decided not to go ahead with their abortion.

We're putting abortion "in the course of ultimate extinction". However the American Life League for instance, claims that incrementalist groups such as National Right to Life or Prolife NZ are for regulating child-killing because we don't really want it to stop. Franks stated that ALL and the pro-life purists have rebranded themselves as the Personhood Movement, but has retained much of its revolutionary fervour - something by which young people are easily deceived.

To get the votes we need to protect the unborn will require a seismic shift in public sentiment. This can be achieved through ongoing incrementalist legislation which keeps the debate alive and grants increasing rights to pre-born people.

"I want to use as many bridges as I can"

National Right to Life Convention 2010

I am at the 2010 National Right to Life Convention from today through to Saturday. I will be live blogging and live tweeting from within the sessions. Looking forward to hearing Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com, Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, and House Republican Leader, John Boehner. Good also to catch up with Kelsey Hazard of Secular Prolife.