Pro-life Pioneer Who Produced “Window to the Womb” Releases New 4D Video

No Virginia, it’s not a “blob of tissue.” Sorry, poor-choicers, that lie is on its last legs.

Order the video here.

**********

Pro-life Pioneer Announces New Ultrasound DVD

MEDIA ADVISORY, Jan. 16 /Christian Newswire/ -- The first time Shari Richard put together a video presentation of life in the womb, called Window to the Womb, her powerful presentation brought her before the U.S. Congress. Within months, she was sharing her experience and footage with legislators on Capitol Hill. Richard's newest video continues her legacy, now utilizing the latest in medical imaging to demonstrate the life of the child in the womb.

Eyewitness 2 - The Next Generation is a sequel to another of Richard's ground-breaking videos, Eyewitness to the Earliest Days of Life. Eyewitness 2 shows 3D and 4D images from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester set to music. Fetal development is described using subtitles, making the video ready for use for any language and country.

A Woman’s Right to Choose: Fact or Fraud?

It has been reported that Confucius was once asked what he would do to set the world right. His reply was, "I would insist on the exact definition of words." What a wise response!

To conform to Confucius’ standard, and to adopt a phrase promoted by Dr. David Reardon of AfterAbortion.org, we will henceforth refer to abortion advocates as “poor-choicers,” rather than “pro-choicers.”

Let the average citizen examine with us the reasons for this.

“But women should have the freedom to choose.”

"Abortion is acceptable because a woman has a right to choose what is right for her and her baby."

"Who are you to say what choices I can and can’t make with my body?"

“It is a woman’s right to choose because women, not men, are the ones who have abortions.”

“Those who oppose a woman’s right to choose must be exposed for who they are… anti-choicers.”

These examples of rhetorical strategy have been very successful in convincing Canadians to believe that abortion is an undeniable right that accompanies a woman’s sexuality and the ownership of her own body. Furthermore, any call for a law banning abortion on moral grounds is considered extreme, restrictive and even a challenge to Canadian freedom.

In reality, these kinds of conclusions pose great dangers to our future, to our human rights and to our freedoms. The general public needs to be reminded that no individual has an unrestricted freedom or right to choose. Consider that the most basic moral premise behind government is to protect human life. The government’s duty to do so is neither subjective nor conditional. When our privacy and our choice bring harm to another individual, our laws quickly bring an end to our right to privacy and our right to choose. Is an innocent human being damaged by a woman's choice to have an abortion? If not, no problem. If so, it is a major problem which government has a moral duty to address.

All laws impose a moral viewpoint and restrict the individual's behavior, as illustrated by laws against murder, rape, child abuse and drunk driving. When the rights of fellow human beings, “significant others,” are at stake and particularly when their very lives are at stake, every just society restricts the individual's freedom of choice. The moral basis for our law is that our personal freedom must never deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

So let us return to the original poor-choice claim and finish the statement: Women should have the right to choose…….what? Poor-choicers would reply: “…the right to choose what is best for her and her baby.” This is a wonderful sounding statement but it craftily avoids the central reality of the choice. In its simplicity the slogan implies that there is no “significant other” in the equation. Its unsubstantiated assumption is that the Unborn is undeserving of such status and can be disregarded—even omitted from the conversation. The “right to choose” slogan muddies the waters and hides from view what’s really there. And presto! The issue is now switched from “Doesn’t abortion take the life of an innocent human being?” to “Can’t a woman choose?”

The tragic, but carefully crafted, result of this distortion is that the general public is unwittingly left to imagine that the Unborn in the womb, if anything, is somehow an entirely different class of being from you or me, and as long as no further discussion or details are forthcoming, the average citizen is too pre-occupied with their own affairs to inquire further.

To further illustrate the point, what would happen if pollsters asked, "Do you favor killing unborn children?" instead of "Do you believe a woman has a right to choose?" The polls would certainly report fewer poor-choicers. Again, how many would support “a woman’s choice or right to hire an abortionist to dismember the Unborn she carries in her womb?"

But poor-choicers know that by using the right words, and using them consistently, the majority of people quickly lose the mental connection between a woman’s “right to choose” and the death of a fellow human being. By consistently labeling themselves as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion” they suggest their opposition (!!!) to abortion and their dedication to defending a woman’s right to choose (…to kill her unborn). But in the end, what's the difference? Pro-choice or pro-abortion, the result is the same—dead human beings.

Insisting on the exact, and consistent, definition of the word “pro-choice,” as Confucius indicated, reveals that many pro-lifers are actually and vigorously pro-choice, in the proper sense of the word. We support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. But just as importantly, we support a pregnant woman’s right to make informed choices about the true nature of abortion. She should know of the unrelenting heartache, clinical depression, substance abuse, marriage difficulties, increased risk of breast cancer, infertility, and future birth complications commonly linked to abortion. To help her make the best choice, she ought to also know basic facts about fetal development and fetal pain studies.

Poor-choicers object to helping women make these kinds of informed choices about their pregnancy, which disqualifies them from being truly pro-choice. Their zeal has little to do with choice or women’s heath. Since most women are pressured into abortions by other persons (especially by poor-choice “friends” and “professionals”) and circumstances, how could anyone describe it as a healthy choice which sets women free? The woman’s predicament seems to offer "no choice" but the poor choice of abortion.

A woman’s right to choose is a fraud that must be exposed for the poor-choice reality it truly is.

Yes Mary Smith It Is All About Babies

In Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate, Mary Smith poses a question today, “Is it all about babies?”

She asks,

Is the opposition to abortion simply about saving babies? Or, are there other motives behind the graphic images of advanced fetuses?

From there she launches her attack on pro-lifers, accusing them of being disingenuous because they focus on late term abortions when, in fact, she notes these are rare. She seems to think that abortions up to 20 weeks or so are perfectly fine and therefore that pro-lifers ought to admit that because women “act swiftly” [in killing their offspring], at least 90% of “terminations” shouldn’t be an issue.

She moves on to accuse pro-lifers, and particularly the Catholic versions, of having an agenda to eliminate all of society’s hard earned rights to abortion, contraception and sex education. She challenges the claims that emergency contraception can cause abortions and mocks the possibility that “A group of eight cells held together by the egg membrane is now a child!”

Her diatribe is full of disinformation and prejudice against the unborn child, never once raising the most important question of all. She seems incapable of grasping the simple truth: Yes! It IS all about the babies—and babies who are babies from the point of conception through to the day of birth, and beyond.

As usual, these types of “poor-choice” opinion pieces are poorly constructed in terms of reason and argument but they do pass the test with too many who are already fooled by the shallow slogans and rhetoric. A look into the comments box for these kinds of columns usually corroborates such superficiality and, unfortunately, not only that of poor-choicers.

Take a look at Mary Smith's article [reproduced below] and see if you can locate some of the distortions, generalizations, sloganeering, etc. Why not post a comment to this blog with your observations.

**********

Is It All About The Babies?

Is the opposition to abortion simply about saving babies? Or, are there other motives behind the graphic images of advanced fetuses?

Many anti abortionists, or pro-life activists as they prefer to be called, focus on the issue of late abortions even though the vast majority of abortions, about 90 per cent, are performed during the first trimester.

Most women facing unwanted pregnancy act swiftly, I cannot imagine that a woman would deliberately wait until the fetus reaches 20 weeks before having an abortion. Late abortions occur in cases of fetal abnormality and complications affecting the health of the woman. Other pro-lifers adopt a feminist facade and spread misinformation about the safety of legal abortion while conveniently ignoring the dangers of illegal, unsafe abortions which affect millions of women, mostly in developing countries.

By focusing on the few late abortions, the pro-life lobby hopes to harness public support in chipping away abortion rights. Indeed, not only do they want ALL abortions banned, they also want to ban contraception.

In El Salvadore and Nicaragua the Catholic Church pro-lifers succeeded in banning ALL abortions, including those necessary to save a woman's life, doctors are reluctant to provide emergency treatment to any woman with pregnancy-related complications and even fear to treat women with ectopic pregnancies. Their fears are not unfounded, any doctor accused of performing abortion, even to save a woman's life can spend up to 30 years in jail.

In the Philippines (PDF 114KB), it is estimated that about 400.000 illegal abortions take place every year, yet contraception is banned from public hospitals and clinics. The government endorses Catholic-approved Natural Family Planning only. But Natural Family Planning or abstinence does not work if women are forced by their husbands to have sex.

You need not take my word for this; check out what pro-lifers have to say about contraception:

"By outlawing contraception, you're closer to outlawing surgical abortion," says Matt Sande, director of legislative affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin.

“Sande says the 1992 Supreme Court ruling that narrowly upheld Roe v. Wade - the court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion - forces the hand of abortion opponents because it reasoned that abortion was the legal fallback for contraceptive failure.

"So if, as the pro-life community, you're trying to outlaw surgical abortion but the court has told us its legal basis is founded on the necessity of abortion, shouldn't the pro-life community begin to take a look at contraception?" Sande says.

"We're trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the court is pointing us over here," he adds. Those who don't turn their attention to trying to outlaw contraception at this point, Sande says, hurt the anti-abortion cause.

And closer to home Nicholas Tonti-Filippini says:

The pro-life concern is that the effect of mini-pills such as Micronor, because they are unlikely to suppress ovulation, are much more likely to be abortifacient. The lining of the uterus is altered so that if the effect on cervical mucus fails to prevent the passage of sperm, then embryos created are likely to be unable to embed and develop in the lining of the uterus. The mini-pills do carry a significant risk of loss of human lives at an early stage.

Even if one of the modes of action of the pill is preventing the fertilised egg from attaching to the uterine lining, it would still not constitute an abortifacient action, the pill would not be acting to kill the fertilised egg but merely to prevent its implantation in the uterine lining. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, when the fertilised egg attaches itself to the uterine lining.

In the US, 86 anti-abortion groups have committed to opposing all forms of contraception. Pro-life organisations in Australia also oppose contraception, even though they are not as vocal about it as their American allies.

Many pro-life websites are full of propaganda about how the pill and the IUD are abortifacients and that the Emergency Contraception pill is a form of early abortion similar to the actual abortion pill, RU486. The pro-life gospel goes something like this: "The pill/IUD alters the lining of the uterus and the six-day-old child cannot implant on the uterine lining and is sloughed off." Or, "Pills and IUDs kill people".

A group of eight cells held together by the egg membrane is now a child!

Pro-life organisations oppose not only abortion and contraception but sex education and even condoms for disease prevention. And it doesn't end here, the recently introduced Human Papilloma Virus vaccine is also under fire. As far as we know, the HPV vaccine does not have any abortive or contraceptive properties and it can help prevent cervical cancer, so why oppose it? If pro-lifers insist that women be told that having an abortion can lead to a great risk of developing breast cancer, why oppose a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer?

The plight of women in the Philippines, Nicaragua and El Salvador, illustrates what can happen when the Catholic Church-pro-life lobby dictates public health policy.

Interview With Stephanie Gray By CKNW 980’s “Nightline BC” Was A Bust

It just had so little punch to it.

Stephanie was strong and on target with all her commentary, so that part was effective, but the interviewer failed to really facilitate a good discussion with points raised, rebuffed, etc. I don’t think he really knew enough about the issue to do any better.

But I do think he did the best he could under the circumstances.

And then of course they had problems with the phone line [apparently] and so no callers were actually able to get through to offer their comments.

And then of course Vicki Saporta, Executive Director of the National Abortion Federation, was not featured in the same interview, as expected. Instead, the host Michael Smyth introduced Dawn Fowler, Canadian director of the NAF. She put up a really weak and hopeless front when questioned, insisting that the pictures were one-sided and misleading because abortion is a “complex issue.” And she asks, “How can a photograph be a good representation of a complex issue?”

Perhaps the interviewer should have asked how a picture of a starving Third World child can give so much information for a “complex issue” and result in such keen interest and support, but as I said, the interviewer was just in over his head.

Ms. Fowler tried hard in other ways to direct attention away from the actual act of abortion. She claimed the CCBR’s website was untruthful because the claim was made there that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Her most outrageous comments though were centred on her incredulity regarding how such graphic pictures were obtained, as though it was all some kind of hoax because pictures like that are far removed from the actual results of abortion!!! After all, she noted, in as close to a quote as I can produce, most abortions take place when the fetus is only a mass of cells.

Truly blind, deceptive and utterly pitiful!

But let’s face it: Poor-choicers have no case except a manufactured one.

The interview was at least a start. CCBR has accomplished their initial goal…to reignite the debate in Canada over the legalized killing of unborn children.

Unborn Humans Are Victims of Size Discrimination

Size is all about physics isn’t it? According to Merriam-Webster, physics is the physical properties and composition of something. That would obviously include appearance factors as well.

Imagine then that the physics of your "being" was used as a reason to eliminate you. For example, suppose you were seriously overweight, a not so uncommon occurrence these days. Now further imagine that a movement of people advocated for your death because of your abnormal or unusual size. Take it a step further and imagine if these people insisted that the only argument they needed for your death was your size and that your death would certainly contribute to the future well-being of the world. Suppose this movement was gaining a strong following and that in some places in the world overweight people were already paying with their lives.

Stupid and unbelievable! you might say. There’s no way something like that could happen.

Here’s news for you. Something like that is already happening.

To the unborn.

The following offers some proof for my claim.

According to the SLED test developed by Stephen Schwarz in "The Moral Question of Abortion", size is one of four determinants that are used against the unborn as an excuse to kill them. Each one of these determinants is used as grounds to discriminate against the unborn and treat them in any way that suits the purposes of the rest of humankind.

These purposes range from the simple inconvenience of abortion to the profit motives of the abortion business to the “ethics” of embryonic stem cell research, etc. etc.

Just last week a remarkable story impacted people’s attention worldwide. In some countries it has made a real splash and caused a stir. I blogged about the story in a rather facetious manner. In Canada, the story didn’t really seem to stick.

And now here's ABC News with the admission that the birth of a very tiny baby creates a very big problem for pro-abortion folks. Very interesting reading.

Why should that be a problem?

Seems like many in our culture can’t seem to see past the size factor, even in life and death scenarios. How shallow is that? Until a little baby appears before their eyes, miraculously converted into a child from the mere unknown and uncertain status of a fetus, they can’t envision the unborn as anything more than a “dot” or a “clump of cells.”

The report says

The fact that she has survived and grown to more than four pounds, and is about to go home, is a miracle, yes, but a miracle that may have an effect on the debate over abortion. And it may change what people think about life.

Also included is the comment from one reporter:

Bio-ethicists we spoke with today argue that Amillia is a miracle baby, and that it's unwise to change public policy based on miracles.

Right. I guess now all those doctors and bio-ethicists believe in miracles. Not.

Ok, so we won't be fooled into thinking little Amillia is going to revolutionize the way Canadians [or others] view the issue of abortion, but she has helped to focus attention and generate discussion. That in itself is a good thing for the unborn, because truth is always on the side of justice and that means justice is one step closer for these who are discriminated against and killed because of their size.

And in case you think my earlier analogy [of the overweight being killed on the basis only of their size with no other argument advanced] is silly, you need to read this story, about the Des Moines Register Editorial Board who recently issued a disastrous editorial on legislation to legalize human cloning for research in Iowa.

If you can believe it [more silliness], here’s their best argument for killing human beings when they are at their smallest and in their earliest stage of development:

There are some lawmakers who believe destroying a clump of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is analogous to taking a human life. We have no argument to persuade the people who believe that.

Seems like their best argument is no argument at all! ProLifeBlogs notes the following about the newspaper’s empty and insistent discrimination:

They have no arguments to disprove that human embryos are living human beings.

Exactly.

Why not? Because it's true, perhaps? Because embryology clearly shows that human embryos are human beings at the earliest stage of development?

At least the editorial staff of the Des Moines Register can acknowledge they are entirely bereft of anything resembling an argument. What's amazing is their arrogance to continue to assert their completely untenable and unargued for position.

Not satisfied with "amazing" arrogance, the Register astounds with their insistent bigotry,

We can only remind Iowans that what we're talking about here are microscopic masses of cells. Destroying them isn't the same as destroying a human life. Holding back this research, though, could prevent saving and improving lives.

They can only point out that human embryos are small and then assert that somehow because human embryos are small they are not human life.

Same old argument that’s been used literally millions of times to kill innocent unborn humans in Canada. We feel much better about killing them the smaller they are. When they are as small as the dots on a page we don’t even need an argument. Simply insisting on it is sufficient for the social and moral engineers, while the rest of the population nods and says, “It must be so.”

Is the truth no longer important to Canadians?

Who then will stand up for the truth?