Imposing One's Morality on Others

Abortion advocates often argue against legal restrictions on abortion because they say it is imposing someone’s morals on other people. Furthermore, they argue, the law shouldn’t impose moral or religious beliefs.

But in making that argument they have made their moral belief clear: According to them, it is wrong to impose one’s values on others. Moreover, since they insist that this imposition is wrong for everyone, they are actually forcing that moral belief on others. They are doing exactly what they say is wrong to do.

Furthermore, they have no qualms using the law to impose their beliefs on others. This is why Canadians pay for legal abortions through our taxes. In fact, we even pay for abortions performed in the US on Canadians. In some cases, these trips to the US are even paid for by taxpayers. Clearly abortion advocates have no problems forcing their morality on pro-lifers. 

And, governments "impose" morality on society every day by outlawing such acts as kidnapping, rape, and theft. These laws are based on a morality that respects all human beings and that seek to protect vulnerable people from those who would choose to harm them. These kinds of laws were created and imposed by the government, even on those who disagree with them. Abortion advocates, however, don’t seem to mind the law imposing this morality on others. 

The most important question then is not, "May governments impose laws on others?" They already do that. The question we need to ask is this: "At which point can and should the government act?" 

If the pre-born are human beings with inherent value like us, and we believe that human beings should be protected under the law, then isn’t it legitimate for the law to protect the pre-born, even if it imposes that morality on others? 

Just as we protect the lives of the born, shouldn’t we protect the lives of the pre-born? If we can impose our morality on men by making it illegal for them to rape women, what’s wrong with imposing our morality on women by making it illegal for them to kill their pre-born offspring?

Dealing With Common Assumptions

Here are some common examples of how abortion advocates make unproven assumptions1 and how pro-lifers can reveal these assumptions:

Assumption: Abortion Advocates are Neutral

Abortion Advocate:

"Unlike anti-choice groups, the pro-choice movement also promotes sexual health education, contraception and services for mothers, such as public accessible childcare. Because of this, pro-choice and anti-choice are not two opposite sides of the abortion debate; anti-choice promotes forced pregnancy, the opposite of which is forced abortion. The pro-choice movement opposes both extremes, instead it holds the position that women should have the right to choose what is best for them." 

Pro-Life Response:
When the debate is about whether or not abortion should be legal, is your position "neutral" if it advocates for legal abortion? If abortion kills a human child, is it neutral to say that women should have a right to choose to kill children?

Assumption: The Number of Unsafe Illegal Abortions and the Safety of Legal Abortions

Abortion Advocate:

"According to the WHO, tens of thousands of women around the world suffer long-term health consequences resulting from unsafe abortions. With the legal right to choose safe abortion, women can better ensure their ability to have a healthy pregnancy in the future."

Pro-Life Response:
That’s interesting. Tell me, how do you accurately count a procedure that is illegal? How do they know these numbers?

Furthermore, when you refer to illegal abortions as being unsafe, thus implying legal ones are safe, you’re assuming a pre-born child isn't human. After all, if she is human, and abortion kills her, then there's no such thing as a safe abortion for her.

Also, did you know that pro-life groups work in those countries too? Wouldn't it be fair to say that pro-lifers oppose abortions whether they are performed legally or illegally because both kill pre-born children? And if abortion does kill pre-born children, then should we make it legal so that others can kill them safer?

Finally, if illegal abortions are unsafe and dangerous, would you agree with me, then, that we should punish people who perform illegal abortions? For example, did you know that Henry Morgentaler performed thousands of illegal abortions—should we then arrest him?

Assumption: Pro-lifers are Religious and Therefore Cannot be Accurate

Abortion Advocate:

"Anti-choice groups advocate for the legal restriction and criminalisation of abortion and other sexual and reproductive rights. This political agenda is often based on subjective moral or religious beliefs held by its proponents."

Pro-Life Response:
You're assuming that the pre-born aren't human. After all, just as we have legal restrictions for killing born people, it would make sense to have legal restrictions for killing pre-born people, right? Since religious people are against killing toddlers, will you dismiss that legitimate view of theirs simply because they happen to be religious?

Furthermore, are you saying that it is wrong to be anti-choice on abortion? But isn't that your moral belief? Aren't you insisting that all Canadians adopt your moral point of view on abortion? If it is wrong to impose subjective moral beliefs on Canadians, then why do you have a right to impose your subjective moral ideas on Canadians while pro-lifers don’t have that right?

Isn't it fair to say that all law forces someone's morals on someone else? Then shouldn't the question be which morals should make the law, not that we should make laws based on morals?

• 1. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, "10 Lies that Anti-choice Groups are Telling About Abortion", accessed May 11, 2010.

When the "Pro-Choice" Are "Anti-Choice"

Abortion advocates have no qualms about being anti-choice when it comes to pro-lifers and, frankly, all Canadians if it furthers their agenda. They don’t mind limiting what pro-lifers, including pro-life women, can do with their bodies.

For example, Canadians are not allowed to exercise their free speech in front of abortion clinics.1 Pro-lifers, including pro-life women, cannot choose to put their bodies in front of clinics to provide information that would protect pre-born children from being aborted. Abortion advocates not only supported removing this choice, but helped make these anti-choice laws possible.2

Canadians also have no choice when it comes to funding abortions in Canada. They are forced to cover costs for abortions.3 If certain late-term abortions are not available in Canada, Canadians can get abortions in the US and their trips and their abortions are covered by provincial health care programs.4

Abortion advocates are even upset if the federal government does not fund abortions in developing countries. Yet, nothing prevents these advocates from personally donating to abortion providers in these mostly pro-life nations.

They also do not respect the choice of these pro-life countries to ban abortion. Abortion advocates argue that their anti-choice stance is justifiable because women’s lives are endangered through illegal abortions. Click here to see our response to this claim. In other words, choice is justifiably limited if someone’s life is in danger.

By making this argument of course, they don’t realize that they are making the same point pro-lifers have always made: that when someone’s choice endangers someone’s life, then we should all be anti-choice.

• 1. Health Law Institute, "Barriers to access to abortion through a legal lens," Health Law Journal Annual Report, 2007, p21; Access to Abortion Services Act, , accessed May 11, 2010; Also check out Wikipedia’s page on "bubble zone" legislation.
• 2. Joyce Arthur, "Protecting Abortion Rights in BC,", accessed on May 11, 2010; Vancouver Sun, "Bubble zones around abortion clinics upheld by court", Sept. 4, 2008.
• 3. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, "Abortion Access and Funding", , accessed May 11 2010.
• 4. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, "Late Term Abortions After 20 Weeks", accessed May 11, 2010.

Rape

We must provide great empathy and care to those who are victims of sexual assault. No one denies that they require both emotional and physical treatment.

When such a victim becomes pregnant from rape, is abortion an ethical response? In order to answer that question, we need to answer another essential one: Does abortion kill an innocent human being? If, indeed, it does then we may not do it just because a crime has been inflicted upon another innocent human being (the woman).

Researcher, Dr. David Reardon says it best when he points out, "Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence."1

Abortion won't erase the trauma of rape. Regardless of getting pregnant, the rape victim will be reminded of the assault in the months and years to come. She needs special care and counseling to address that trauma, something abortion does not do.

And so, we must ask: May we harm an innocent human being because of a crime that human being’s father committed?

Consider this scenario: Imagine a woman is raped a day after having sex with her husband. When she later discovers that she is pregnant, she doesn’t know whether the child is her husband’s or the rapist’s. Imagine she chooses to continue with the pregnancy and has a paternity test done after the child is born. If the test results reveal the baby’s father to be the rapist, may the child be killed at this point? If a rapist’s child may not be killed after birth, then why before birth? Ultimately, the question is this: When does life begin? After all, if we protect life after birth, we must protect it from the point it begins.

This is not a far-fetched scenario. Consider a New York Times article published in November 2007, interviewing an abortionist who said,

Dr. Wicklund describes her horror when she aborted the pregnancy of a woman who had been raped, only to discover, by examining the removed tissue, that the pregnancy was further along than she or the woman had thought—and that she had destroyed an embryo the woman and her husband had conceived together.2

Dr. Wicklund was horrified. But if a child conceived in love is human and it’s wrong to kill her, is not a child conceived in violence also human? If she is, we must protect her life—as challenging as that may certainly be.

External Link: Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths

This article by Dr. David C. Reardon of the Elliot Institute examines the studies and experiences of rape and incest victims regarding pregnancy and abortion. 

• 1. David Reardon, "Rape, Incest, and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths," viewed online at http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/rape_incest_and_abortion.asp, on August 8, 2005.
• 2. "Telling the Stories Behind the Abortions," by Cornelia Dean, The New York Times, November 6, 2007, viewed online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/health/06abor.html, on April 24, 2010.

Disability

Certainly physical and mental disabilities bring with them great challenges for those with such conditions. Though we should certainly aim to alleviate their suffering, we should not eliminate the sufferers.

What kind of a society would we create by killing off sick or disabled human beings? We just need to look at the Nazi euthanasia program for our answer, as sick and disabled children and adults were deemed lives unworthy of life.1 That lead to a world where the inherent dignity of each individual was disregarded; instead, individuals were valued based on what they looked like, what they could do, or how those in power felt about them. The result? The widespread discrimination, rejection, and killing of the weak and vulnerable.

Today we have hospitals instead of killing centres because we believe in killing the pain, not the person. Those with limitations have a right to life just like so-called "normal" or healthy people.

In other words, we recognize that those of us who may die later do not have a right to kill those who may die sooner.

This should also be true for the abortion debate. Certainly, being told one's pre-born child will die shortly after birth is a very tragic reality (but not always accurate). There is, however, a world of difference between a death through natural causes (and no fault of ours) versus a death that results from a direct, intentional act we commit.

Parents may not kill their children simply because of disability or disease after birth, so they should not kill their pre-born children before birth.

External Link: Choosing Thomas

This is a news story about a couple whose pre-born son, Thomas, was diagnosed with Trisomy 13, a rare and fatal DNA abnormality, at 20 weeks pregnancy. They nonetheless embraced his short life, carrying him to term and enjoying his presence for 5 days after birth. Thomas’ mother said, "I think sometimes when you make the toughest decisions you can get the greatest joy out of those. We didn’t terminate because we were hanging on to some sort of hope that there was a medical mistake, or that there was going to be some sort of medical miracle. "We didn’t terminate because he’s our son."

External Link: Perinatal Hospice

This is a life-affirming alternative to abortion for pre-born children and infants with fatal or serious defects.

• 1. Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, p. 46.

Life in Danger

The situation of a pregnant woman’s life being in danger is extremely rare, but of course serious. Since both the woman and her child are human beings, they are equal in value and we must strive to protect both.

When deciding how to ethically intervene in a pregnancy where there is a life-threatening medical problem, one should be guided by this basic moral principle: One may not commit a wrong action in order to bring about some good effect. One can only commit good actions, or neutral actions, in order to bring about a good effect. This concept is better known as "the ends do not justify the means."

To give an example, one may not kill a 5-year-old (a wrong action) in order to obtain his heart for an ill 6-year-old, thus saving the older child’s life (a good effect).

Applying that principle to a situation where a pregnant woman’s life is in danger, one may not directly and intentionally kill the innocent child because to do so would be to commit a wrong action. One may, however, commit good or neutral actions. For example, removing a cancerous uterus is a good action as it addresses a pathology within the woman’s body. Although it has the effect of saving the mother’s life, it may also have the effect of the child dying (e.g., if it’s prior to viability). The bad effect, the child’s death, is foreseen but unintended. If the child could be saved, efforts should be made to do so.

Whether or not it is moral to perform an action that can have both a good and bad effect is governed by "the principle of double effect" outlined by Hayes et al., in their medical ethics book:

Under the principle of the two-fold or double effect, the science of ethics lays down certain conditions which must be fulfilled to justify performing an action that has both a good and bad effect. These are the conditions:

1. The action to be performed must be morally good in itself or at least morally indifferent or neutral.
2. The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.
3. The good must be willed, and the evil merely allowed or tolerated.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the evil effect. In other words, there must be sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to occur.

Although the conditions may sound complicated, all of us apply them frequently. A little boy cuts his hand, and his mother puts an antiseptic on the cut. This action has two effects: it causes the boy pain and it wards off infection. Although the mother did not realize it, she actually used the four principles above. She performed an action that was good in itself, namely, putting antiseptic on the boy’s hand. The good effect did not come from the pain but rather from the use of the antiseptic.

The mother did not will to giver her child pain, but only desired to help him. Finally, the good effect of preventing infection far outweighed the evil effect of the antiseptic’s sting.

When the Principle Does Not Apply

Now let us look at a situation which would not be permitted under this principle. A pregnant woman is suffering from pernicious vomiting, a condition that can easily be solved by aborting the child. However, such a solution is not morally permissible and violates the double-effect principle in the following ways: 

1. The action is not morally good or even neutral; it is evil, it is an attack on innocent human life.
2. The good effect, namely, the health of the mother, follows from the evil effect. The mother is cured by the death of her child.
3. The evil effect is willed and not merely tolerated.
4. The death of the baby is not equivalent in importance to stopping the mother's vomiting.

It should be noted that such a condition can be treated with hospitalization, bed rest, the use of IV fluids, and antiemetic medications. There is no need for abortion, although this is still recommended in some circles. It is not morally permissible, however, because a good end never justifies an evil means. We may not do evil in order that good may come from it.

***

Case 2: A married woman discovers that her pregnancy is not developing normally, that it is occurring in the fallopian tube instead of in the uterus. If the doctor does nothing, the tube will swell further and finally rupture, possibly causing the death of the mother. The only cure is to remove the tube promptly, which will save the mother’s life and result in the death of the baby. Is it moral for the doctor to operate? The answer is yes.

1. The purpose of the operation is good, to remove a pathological organ which is a threat to the life of the mother.
2. The good effect of saving the mother’s life does not come from the evil effect of killing the baby.
3. The surgeon does not will to kill the baby; his death is an unintended side effect of the operation that is merely permitted.
4. The good effect of saving the mother’s life is at least equivalent to the evil effect of the baby’s death.1

If abortion became illegal, there would be no need to have a clause in the law providing an exception for "when the woman’s life is in danger." As has been described above, the measures taken to address such a crisis do not constitute abortion as we know it: directly and intentionally killing an innocent human being. That is always wrong.

• 1. Rev. Edward Hayes, Rev. Msgr. Paul Hayes, Dorothy Kelly, R.N, and James Drummey, Catholicism & Ethics: A Medical/Moral Handbook (Massachusetts: C.R. Publications Inc., 1997) 53-56.

Implantation

Implantation starts at the end of the first week after fertilization, and is complete at about two weeks.1 Some argue that this is where life begins. But implantation simply marks a change of location (from fallopian tube to uterus), rather than a change of nature. The human being prior to implantation is the same as the human being after implantation (just like before and after birth—another event marking a location change).

Admittedly, most pregnancy tests will only read positive after implantation; as a result, abortion advocates tend to argue that women only become pregnant after implantation. In fact, they’ve even redefined the word "conception" to mean implantation, arguing that’s when pregnancy begins. But the fact that a pregnancy test doesn’t come back positive pre-implantation doesn’t mean life isn’t there—it just means the test's ability to detect that life isn’t there.2

Take, for example, the commonly used hCG pregnancy test, one which looks for Human Chorionic Gonadotropin in a woman’s urine. hCG is a hormone that is secreted by the developing placenta, and this occurs at implantation.

The release of hCG indicates the presence of the pre-born child, but it doesn’t mean she didn’t exist prior to that. We know this intuitively, of course: Just imagine you enter your home and find a stray puppy hiding in your bedroom—but you only discover it after you’ve been home for 30 minutes. Clearly, the puppy did not enter your house when you first discovered it, but instead when it managed to crawl in.

Likewise, one’s offspring first exists at fertilization even if we don’t discover her existence until implantation.

• 1. "Prenatal Form and Function–The Making of an Earth Suit, Unit 1: The First Week," viewed online at www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php on May 8, 2010.
• 2. It’s worth noting that pregnancy can be detected by looking for Early Pregnancy Factor in the woman’s blood, which can confirm pregnancy 24 to 48 hours after fertilization; although the test is not widely available. Viewed online at www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php#epf on May 8, 2010.

Fetal Pain

Determining precisely when the pre-born feel pain is largely dependent on technology to detect this. While it is an interesting topic, it has no bearing on the morality of abortion. After all, is it wrong to kill someone because she feels pain or because she’s human?

Consider Gabby Gingras, an American girl with a rare condition called hereditary sensory autonomic neuropathy, Type 5.1 In short, she cannot feel pain. As a baby, she poked and scratched her eyes, causing significant damage—she never felt pain to tell her to stop. May we kill her because of her inability to feel pain? Why then may we kill the pre-born because they don't feel pain at certain points during pregnancy?

• 1. "Rare nerve disorder leaves girl pain-free: Condition results in numerous injuries," MSNBC, April 2004. Viewed online at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4788525 on May 8, 2010.

Acorns and Oak Trees

Abortion advocates may ask pro-lifers, "Do you sit under an acorn for shade?" Their point is that one does not do that because an acorn isn't an oak tree. Likewise, they argue, fetuses aren’t human beings.

But an acorn is of the oak family, it's just not as developed as an oak. Likewise a fetus (or an infant for that matter) is of the human family, but is not as developed as an adult. Indeed, one wouldn't sit under an acorn for shade, just as one wouldn't have an infant drive a car. But just because something—or someone—cannot function in a certain way due to a low level of development, that doesn’t mean that being doesn't exist within a particular species.

The fetus has the potential to become an adult. It does not, however, have the potential to become a human because it already is a human. In the same way, the acorn has the potential to become a large oak tree. But it does not have the potential to be an oak because it already is an oak.

Twinning

Identical twins form when an embryo splits into two. This rare phenomenon is often raised to dispute the idea that life begins at fertilization. Instead, some argue, it exists at the point of twinning, or after the point where twinning can occur.

Just because some humans have the ability to split into two, doesn’t mean that prior to the split one human didn’t exist. Take the case of the flatworm.1 If a flatworm is cut in half, each half will regenerate into two separate, fully-functioning flatworms. But prior to this separation a flatworm nonetheless existed. Likewise, even though in rare situations one human splits into two, one human existed before that split happened, and the beginning of that one human still was at fertilization.

• 1. "Flatworm," New World Encyclopedia, viewed online at http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Flatworm on May 8, 2010.

Personhood Throughout History

While today the term personhood is often used to describe someone as "self-aware" or "rational," historically other criteria were used. Personhood has been defined using sex, skin colour, ethnicity and other arbitrary distinctions.

What we see is that when personood is defined by factors like these, as something other than existence as a human, inevitably someone gets hurt. Consider these examples:

	"In the eyes of the law... the slave is not a person." –Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858
	"An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution." –George Canfield, American Law Review, 1881
	"The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women." –British Voting Rights case, 1909
	"The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews... as ‘persons’ in the legal sense." –German Supreme Court decision, 1936
	"The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights." –Canadian Supreme Court, Winnipeg Child and Family Services Case, 19971

And so, in some sense, the term "personhood" tells us less about what someone is, and more about what kind of society we are: Are we inclusive or exclusive? Selfless or selfish? Tolerant or intolerant?

• 1. "Person Poster," a resource of the National Campus Life Network, available from www.ncln.ca/resources.php?id=12, viewed on May 4, 2010.

Speciesism

Abortion supporters like Peter Singer classify a view that places a higher value on human life as opposed to animal life as "speciesist," because, he argues, that it unfairly discriminates against non-human persons.

He writes:

...those I would call ‘speciesists’ give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species.

***

To give preference to the life of a being simply because it is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.1

Of course, the problem with racism is that it discriminates against one human compared to another based on skin colour, an arbitrary trait. But Singer’s point is that discriminating against non-humans is just as arbitrary.

Singer takes his argument further, however. He states that individuals should be valued not by their existence, but instead by their function. That is why he is willing to concede that the pre-born are biological human beings but not persons. He says,

The fetus, the grossly retarded ‘human vegetable’, even the newborn infant—all are indisputably members of the species homo sapiens, but none are self-aware, have a sense of future, or the capacity to relate to others.

Pro-lifers then, according to Singer, are speciesist because they fight for the right to life for human ‘non-persons’ but not for animals that ‘are’ persons.

But for any of Singer’s aforementioned abilities to exist, an individual must exist. For example, self-awareness doesn’t exist on its own; instead, it is a function of an individual. The individual must first exist in order for the function to exist. Depending on that individual’s age, environment, and "able-ness," the function may not have actualized, but that doesn’t change what that individual is.

Even criteria like intelligence and awareness develop differently among different humans. Therefore, we cannot arbitrarily choose one human ability to determine our value—we must choose the objective fact of our shared nature, our humanity. Otherwise, personhood will hinge on the subjective whims of people like Singer.

What constitutes the pro-life view is the fundamental idea that abortion discriminates against one human compared to another based on age, an arbitrary trait like skin colour. And just as it is morally wrong to kill born people because of arbitrary traits, it is wrong to kill pre-born people because of arbitrary traits.

Even though the pre-born cannot build buildings and fly to space, by virtue of being human, they inherently have the abilities to function in such ways (unlike animals); they simply cannot currently act in these manners.

The same is true for humans that are not adults: they have inherent abilities that aren’t yet current abilities because of their age and development. Since humans’ current abilities differ from one to the other, humans should be valued by virtue of what is constant: their human existence, not what is changing: their current behavior. After all, if we are to believe the claim that all humans are equal, we must look to the only thing we have in common, which is our human nature.

Singer, of course, is arguing that human equality does not apply to the pre-born, or even to some newborns, because of an ability they don’t yet have. But if he is able to use such an arbitrary system, how would he respond to someone who views speciesism as being worse than racism?

In other words, what would he say to someone who valued their dogs more than people from another race? That’s what some slave owners did in the American deep south—they valued their pets better than their human peers. If anyone can choose any arbitrary trait to decide which humans have value, then how can Singer say racists are wrong?

Moreover, the pro-life view is not necessarily incompatible with a view that values animal life. By stating that we ought to protect our own species because of our common identity (homo sapiens) that doesn’t mean we don’t value other species. One can be pro-life for both human beings and animal beings.

The point simply is this: if someone is going to bring another species up to the level of humans, surely he won’t drop some of his own species down. In other words, if he is going to be inclusive of other species, why be exclusive amongst his own?

Now what of those people who are inclusive amongst their own species but not others—people who do not protect animals to the extent they protect humans? Singer portrays placing more weight on being human over another species as something negative.

Yet by our very existence as humans, we end up valuing some beings more than others. People not only eat animals, they also displace creatures of all kinds. If, for example, consciousness determined personhood, then everyone who ate beef or fish should be considered mass murderers. But even by breathing or digesting, human beings destroy countless microorganisms.

Now Singer might say that we value complex animals more than those that are not. Therefore, we should value dolphins or dogs more than worms or amoeba. But couldn’t we then say the same thing about the human species?

Couldn’t those who value human life more than animals justify their "discrimination" because humans are the most advanced and educated species with incredible functional abilities (e.g., they find cures for diseases and fly to space)? This is why such individuals would not protect animals in the same way.

And unlike Singer who uses current abilities that constantly change, even within the same individual, the "speciesist" would use the most objective trait: our common humanity. Such individuals would recognize that due to a variety of factors (such as age) a human may not currently have impressive abilities, but by virtue of being human, an individual inherently has impressive abilities. For while a dog’s ability to cure disease is not ever, a human baby’s ability to cure disease is not yet.

A distinction needs to be made somewhere, and given that the only thing that people, both black and white, old and young, people have in common is their human nature, why not start there? After all, if someone observed both a baby and a cat crawl across a busy road, what person wouldn’t grab the child first?

External Link: Do Abortion-Advocates Assume Theism When They Speak of a Woman's Fundamental Right to an Abortion? Are Humans Really More Special than Animals?

This is a commentary written by Scott Klusendorf who responds to this question: "At a debate last week in my political science class, a pro-abortion speaker insisted that pro-lifers must rely on religion (specifically, theism) to make their case that abortion is morally wrong. Hence, the only true secular view is the pro-choice one. He also said that pro-life advocates assume a religious view whenever they claim that human beings have inherent dignity that animals do not. Is he right?"

• 1. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 51, 76.

Using Power Responsibly

Imagine yourself flying on a plane: You’re in a properly-pressurized environment that will keep you safe during your time in the air. You’re locked in and completely powerless to control the plane—you are at the mercy of the pilot, but that’s okay as she’s trained to do her job right.

So what would you think if the pilot suddenly decided she didn’t want to fly anymore? She parachutes to safety, leaving the plane to crash with you and your fellow passengers inside. Or, what would you think if the pilot suddenly decided she didn’t want passengers on her plane anymore, and she ordered the stewardess to shoot them?

While these actions are all technically possible, we’d say such behavior is immoral. We’d say that with power comes responsibility—and the pilot must use her power to fly the plane, and its passengers, to safety.

Using power responsibly is what the world saw in January 2009 when Chesley Sullenberger ("Sully") safely landed a US Airways Flight on the Hudson River after its engine blew. In an unplanned, undesirable, unwanted moment, he chose to do what was right—to land the plane as safely as possible. Not only that, but as water was filling the cabin, he walked the aisle twice to make sure every passenger had been rescued.

So it is with pregnancy. A pre-born child is entirely weak and vulnerable, and her dependency on us doesn’t absolve us of responsibility, it heightens our responsibility. A woman’s uterus may be in her body, but every month, it gets ready for someone else’s body. It exists not so much for women, but for one’s offspring. With the power to control the destiny of one’s child, comes the responsibility to protect and respect her life. 

Quickening

The term "quickening" refers to the stage of pregnancy when a woman can feel the pre-born human move in her uterus. A woman can feel her fetus as early as 14 weeks.1

Many western democracies first banned abortion only after quickening. Abortion advocates like to use this fact to assert that because past societies were divided on how to value the fetus, we can’t expect modern societies to agree on the value of the fetus. Therefore, they argue, we should leave it up to each person to decide the value of the fetus.

However, looking at the development of the law in England, it seems what changed was the scientific understanding of the process of fertilization, not the value society has about human life. For example, William Harvey became famous for his study of human anatomy in the early 17th Century. However, without microscopes and other modern tools, scientists of his time believed in a variety of theories on when human life began. Harvey argued that the beginning of life was "incorporeal" and therefore could not be studied physically.2 This meant they could not say for certain that human life began before quickening. It makes sense, then, that they would have various ideas of how to value life before quickening—they weren’t sure it was human life.

However, with the discovery of the microscope and other scientific methods, scientists were able to study the process of fertilization in the early 19th Century. For example, in 1826, Prevost and Dumas discovered how frog zygotes divide. In 1827, Van Bauer discovered mammalian zygotes. Not long after, in 1837, England changed its abortion law to protect the fetus before quickening.

More discoveries followed. In 1843, Martin Barry was able to observe a rabbit sperm fertilize a rabbit egg, the first mammalian fertilization observed by humans. By the time Maitland Balfour published his influential book, Treatise on Comparative Embryology in 1880-81,3 medical science understood that human life began at fertilization. In 1892, the new country of Canada adopted a pro-life law that banned abortion, regardless of the age of the pre-born. 

• 1. Cornelia Van Der Ziel and Tourville, Jacqueline. Big, Beautiful & Pregnant: Expert Advice And Comforting Wisdom for the Expecting Plus-size Woman (Marlowe 2006). Retrieved February 15, 2007.
• 2. Fielding Garrison, An Introduction to the History of Medicine, Saunders 1921, pp. 246–249.
• 3. Garrison, pp. 528–529.

Morgentaler's Activist History

In 1969, Henry Morgentaler quit his general medical practice and began to specialize in performing abortions outside of a hospital, defying s. 251 of the Criminal Code.1 He flaunted his illegal activity in order to challenge the law, and between 1974 and 1988, was in and out of prison. For example, in 1973, Morgentaler publicly announced that he illegally performed 5,000 abortions and invited a camera crew to watch him perform another one. He was quickly arrested and sent to court. There, Morgentaler argued the abortions he performed were necessary, citing the Bourne Defence and s. 45 of the Criminal Code. Though acquitted by some juries who saw his case, higher courts, including the Supreme Court, all sided with the government and sent Morgentaler to jail for breaking the law.

Prison did not stop Morgentaler's crusade. Every time he was released, he continued to perform abortions and was once again re-arrested. The last time Morgentaler was imprisoned, he used the newly created Charter of Rights to defend himself. In his defence, Morgentaler used s. 7 of the Charter.2 Morgentaler and two other abortion providers argued that the law against abortion was unconstitutional because it infringed on women’s right to "life, liberty and security of person." The Charter allowed Morgentaler to turn the abortion issue from one of health to one of freedom for Canadian women, which finally lead to his victory. The Supreme Court struck down the law because women did not have equal access to abortion across Canada.

However, the courts did not say that there should be no federal legislation regulating abortion or protecting pre-born children. In fact, all of the judges in their written opinions argued that "the court cannot presume to resolve all of the competing claims advanced in vigorous healthy, public debate."3 The judges called Parliament, which is suppose to reflect the will of the people, to act on the issue.

Even Justice Bertha Wilson, the strongest advocate of the right to choose abortion, argued for a "developmental view" of abortion law.4 In other words, though she believed abortion should be protected as part of women’s "right to liberty," even she felt that liberty could be curtailed at some point in the pregnancy. She argued that elected politicians should determine the point where the right to abortion may be curtailed:

The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes ‘compelling’ should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive submissions on the subject from all the relevant disciplines.5

That sentiment was echoed in subsequent abortion-related and fetal rights cases.

• 1. Childbirth by Choice
• 2. Section 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." 
• 3. J. Sopinka, R. v. Morgentaler, Morality and the Criminal Law, Canadian Constitutional Law, Vol. I, P. Macklem et al. eds., Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd., Toronto, 1994, 533.
• 4. Raymond Tatalovich, The Politics of Abortion in the United States and Canada, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, 1997, 77.
• 5. Tatalovich, 77

Punishing Women Who Had Abortions

Cases where women were punished for having an abortion are hard to find. Though women obtaining abortions could be punished according to Canada’s first Criminal Code, records show that it was likely only abortion providers who were tried and punished.

Constance Backhouse, from the University of Western Ontario, found 50 abortion-related cases that involved abortion before it became legal in Canada. These cases involved someone being charged with performing, or helping aid in, an abortion.1 These abortion-related legal cases came from Ontario between 1900 and 1929, and from the rest of Canada from 1900 to 1950.

Of these cases, she found very few involving a case against the woman who wanted the abortion:

It was not uncommon for criminal authorities to charge the male partners of the pregnant women, particularly where they were active in securing the services of an abortionist. In contrast, it was exceedingly rare for charges to be laid against pregnant women who sought abortions, in part because of the degree of public sympathy generated by their plight. Furthermore, authorities often secured testimony against the abortionist by promising the aborted patient immunity from prosecution.2

Backhouse did find two cases of women who were charged. One was sentenced to six months in jail and three month in hard labour and one was acquitted.3

• 1. Constance Backhouse, Physicians, Abortions, and the Law in Early Twentieth-Century Ontario in the Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CBMHIBCHM / Volume 10: 1993.
• 2. Backhouse, 238.
• 3. Backhouse, Footnote from article: For rare examples of charges against the pregnant women, see Rex v. Holmes (1902), 9 B.C.R. 294 (B.C.S.C.), which resulted in an acquittal and The King v. Dr. Allen McDonald and Hazel Eliza Lotan, March 1928, idd dies ex County ~r&inal Court Records, Summary Conviction Papers 1918-28, D. B. Weldon Library, University of Western Ontario, Regional Collection, Box 596 and Middlesex County Court Records, D.B. Weldon Library, University of Western Ontario, Regional Collection, Box 152, where the accused woman received a sentence of six months' determinate and three months' indeterminate imprisonment at hard labor.

Comparison: Abortion and Other Genocides

Point of Comparison	Slavery	The Holocaust	Abortion
Denial of Personhood Status	"In the eyes of the law... the slave is not a person." -Virginia Supreme Court, 1858	"The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews... as 'persons' in the legal sense." -German Supreme Court, 1936	"Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person..." -Canadian Supreme Court, 1997
Dehumanizing Portrayals	Black slaves were often assigned diminutive names, such as "mingo," that were normally reserved for pets. Ota Benga, an African from the Congo, was put on display at a Bronx zoo in 1906.	Cartoons routinely depicted Jews as pigs, dogs, rats, and other vermin. Naxis used words like "parasites" and "bacilli" to describe those they exterminated. East Europeans were considered "untermensch," which means subhuman.	The pre-born are labeled "products of conception" and "tissue" and have been compared to animal fetuses. Abortionist Warren Hern in his medical textbook, Abortion Practice, analogizes the pre-born to parasites.
Victims Have Something Others Want To Use	Blacks were wanted for their work product. They were also used in harmful experiments to obtain medical information.	Jews' material wealth was wanted by Nazis, who also took over people's land. Deadly medical experiments were performed on prisoners.	The pre-born are killed in the process of removing their stem cells, a procedure rationalized under the guise of helping the born.
Victims Are Seen As A Burden	Emancipated slaves were considered unable to take care of themselves and seen as a drain on society's resources. Compensating blacks for work meant less wealth for slave owners.	The disabled and elderly were considered "useless eaters" and were viewed as using up resources needed by fit Germans.	Sick pre-born children are considered a drain on a family's or society's resources. "Unwanted" pre-born children are viewed as interfering with lifestyle or career advancement.
Sheer Volume Of Victims Killed	8.5-13 million slaves died in transport to the New World.	6 million Jews and 5 million others.	42 million/year worldwide and 100,000/year in Canada.

Letter to a Post-Abortive Woman

In January 2007, CCBR’s executive director, Stephanie Gray, received an e-mail from a post-abortive woman who strongly disagreed with CCBR’s use of graphic visuals and who CC-ed her message to several pro-life and religious leaders.

Because the concerns the writer brings up may be raised by others, Stephanie’s response is provided below as a teaching tool. The writer is addressed by the pseudonym "Kate" and personal references have been removed to maintain confidentiality.

For complete context, read the original e-mail that prompted this letter.

Dear Kate,

I write you as a sister in Christ. Thank you for sharing your experience of redemption. I found it particularly beautiful that your daughter was the impetus for your conversion to the Catholic faith. God is indeed abounding in wisdom and mercy.

Before I address your concerns, I’d like to provide some background:

Post-abortion grief is something I encounter everywhere. In my ministry of working full-time for the pro-life cause, I frequently travel across North America speaking to people of all ages and backgrounds. I have met many, many post-abortive women on university campuses, public streets, and churches, to name a few. I have worked with post-abortive women. I have been billeted in the homes of post-abortive women. I have spoken with them, listened to them, hugged them, and both offered and received messages of hope.

Some post-abortive women have approached me after hearing my presentations to share their stories. In fact, just last week I was in Alaska and a woman approached me after a presentation in which I showed graphic visuals. She shared the stories of her abortions, of how she has had post-abortion healing, and how she wants to help and get involved. Others have confided their experience over private discussions. Some have greeted me with anger and hostility. Others have welcomed my message and shared their regret. Each woman’s experience is unique yet they all have one thing in common: pain.

I have observed that some are in pain because their abortion is a sin they have not yet repented of; they are in denial. Others are in pain because they are experiencing conviction of sin. Still others are in pain because, while forgiven, they are not yet healed. Women who are graced with both forgiveness and healing no longer experience such a sharp pain although the memory will always remain.

As for crisis pregnancies, I certainly acknowledge that the burdens and complications can be many. As a young child I frequented pregnancy care centres (PCCs) because my mom was a volunteer counsellor. Furthermore, I worked in a PCC and saw first-hand women’s difficulties. Finally, I am routinely consulted about women in crisis pregnancy—requests for both prayers for conversion and for advice when interacting with such women.

I want you to know, therefore, that my comments below come from a deep awareness of and love for "the walking wounded." And while I don’t pretend to know exactly what it’s like, I do share in their grief as a sister and as a fellow sinner. Furthermore, I don’t need to know exactly what it’s like, in the same way a drug counsellor does not need to have been addicted to drugs to form positions on drug use and to help drug addicts.

It is my love for both the unborn and for the born that compels me to expose the injustice of abortion visually. "What kind of love compels someone to show graphic pictures that make people feel bad?" some may ask. Genuine love, for you cannot have love without truth.

If you were about to drink a glass of water with poison in it, to love you would be to inform you of that. It doesn’t matter how parched you are; I need to tell you. With that knowledge you’ll act differently. Alternatively, if you have already drunk a glass of water that I know has poison in it, again—to love you would be to tell you. For with that knowledge you would know to go to poison control.

There are many, many women who choose abortion because they are not more horrified of the abortion than they are terrified of the burdens of the crisis pregnancy. No matter how much help is offered, they believe abortion is the lesser of two "evils." We cannot convey that abortion is the greatest evil by covering up the best evidence we have to prove that.

We cannot convey the evil of abortion by showing "pretty" pictures of unborn babies just as we cannot convey the evil of the Holocaust by showing "happy" pictures of Jewish boys at their Bar Mitzvahs. Can we convey the beauty of the life lost through such injustices? Certainly, and there is a place for that. But such images do not capture the other half of the message—the nature of the injustice itself, the very problem people’s consciences need to be pricked about in order to be inspired to solve.

Contrary to your reference to images of victims car accidents not being appropriate, I encourage you to read the story of Jacqueline Saburido (http://texasdwi.org/jacqui.html). She survived a brutal car accident that was inflicted upon her by a drunk driver. She is now the "poster child" for an anti-drinking-and-driving campaign in Texas. The image of her beautiful face pre-accident is contrasted with her burned, distorted, and deformed face post-accident. Jacqui’s story resonates with young people precisely because they see what one person’s "choice" did to another person’s life.

Does the young man who ruined Jacqueline’s life regret his decision? Does he feel badly each time he sees her poster or another campaign against drunk driving? Quite possibly. But bad feelings do not excuse, nor should they cover up, bad behaviour. In fact, bad feelings follow from bad behaviour for those with functioning consciences—and that’s a healthy response.

In order for the young man to be healed of his sin, he needs to be forgiven. In order for him to be forgiven, he needs to repent. In order for him to repent he needs to be convicted that there is a need to repent. Conviction follows recognition of wrongdoing.

You think conviction will follow from pictures of children "missing" from a playground or "missing" from a family photograph. Perhaps in some cases. But the bulk of the history and the present of the pro-life movement involves vague, innocuous approaches like that and abortion is still going strong.

People need to feel bad in order to change and currently they don’t feel bad enough—and that’s why the pro-life movement is losing. The interesting thing is that people feel bad about abortion to a degree, so that they don’t want to see it; and yet, they don’t feel bad enough about it to not commit it, to not permit it, to, in large numbers, seek forgiveness and healing regarding it.

The history of social reform movements (a point I discuss in my presentations) shows the important role that graphic pictures play in making people respond differently to injustice, including making them feel bad. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not arguing for replacing rational arguments with a sole appeal to feelings (after all, abortion advocates base their arguments on feelings). I’m arguing that the imagery is the evidence that supports verbal argumentation for the moral wrongness of abortion. It just so happens that the imagery also has an effect on feelings which helps people come to the correct conclusion about abortion, namely, that it is morally wrong.

Furthermore, the experience of our organization shows the important role of graphic imagery. Every time we speak to high school students the audience members fill out surveys, explaining their position on abortion before and after the presentation. Time and again, people change their minds on abortion and often credit the role images played in that conversion. Here is a powerful example from a teenager who attended a CCBR presentation to a Catholic youth group:

Actually, I thought that I might be pregnant and I was going to get an abortion. After the video, it showed me what I would have done to my child.

More testimonies can be read here: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/evidence.html

Our American affiliate receives over 50,000 unique hits to its website, www.abortionNO.org, each month (a site which shows abortions). They receive a constant stream of e-mails from women all over the world who say they decided not to abort their babies because they saw graphic imagery. Here is a testimony from a 17-year-old in West Virginia:

Well, things have been very depressing lately and my mind and body seemed like they were telling me to get an abortion, but after seeing this my heart lead my mind and body in the right direction!!! I AM TWO MONTHS PREGNANT AND I AM KEEPING MY BABY!

An 18-year-old in New York wrote this:

I was 16 when I found out I was pregnant and I considered having an abortion [until] I saw pictures of how wrong it is. Now I have a beautiful baby girl and I wonder how people can murder an innocent child.

Read more testimonies here: www.abortionno.org/AbortionNO/web_response.html

Conversely, we have also received heartbreaking e-mails from women who wish they had known several years ago what they encountered now (graphic images). Had they seen the brutality of abortion, they would not have killed their babies. A 51-year-old woman wrote the following:

Unfortunately these pictures are 30 years too late for me, and I’ll never know what it’s like to have a child. I wish you were present with these pictures in 1976.

Read more testimonies like that here: www.abortionno.org/AbortionNO/hurt.html

So the question we are left with is this: "If we don’t like abortion and we don’t want people to experience abortion, why not use an approach that we know will convince people not to abort?"

If we avoid saving lives in order to save feelings, that calls into question our very determination to save lives.

Beyond that, I would argue that avoiding graphic imagery to "save feelings" doesn’t save feelings at all. It often leaves women in a state of denial, where they aren’t given strong enough motivation to seek the healing that’s available for them. And beyond that, many women who abort have subsequent abortions. So we spare women the pain from multiple abortions when they "hurt" from realizing what the first (and after conviction, only) abortion did.

One post-abortive woman told me that when she had her abortion she immediately felt bad. "But," she said, "The world told me I had no reason to feel bad. So I felt worse." She explained that she had an inner struggle going on: "I feel bad, but I shouldn’t feel bad. I feel bad, but I shouldn’t feel bad." She said that it wasn’t until she acknowledged those bad feelings as legitimate that she was able to move through the healing process.

Graphic pictures help many women move out of denial. Will that process hurt? Absolutely. But not because of the images; instead, it hurts because of the recognition of the injustice of abortion. Denial of sin is short-term gain at the cost of long-term pain. Acknowledgement of sin is short-term pain endured for long-term gain:

When I declared not my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. [Then] I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord’; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin (Psalm 32:3–5).

It is not a sin to show pictures of injustice. Quite the contrary, we are commanded to expose injustice by St. Paul who said, "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). Graphic images save lives. Graphic images move people to repent of their sin.

Exposing wrongdoing to move people to repentance is biblical. In fact, in Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians he wrote this:

For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it), for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting; for you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret... (2 Corinthians 7:8–10).

Post-abortive women, like everyone in society, need to understand the full measure of abortion’s evilness, so that they can accept the full measure of their guilt, and thereby receive the full measure of God’s forgiveness and mercy that He greatly desires to pour out.

Showing images of aborted babies shows no disrespect in the same way that showing images of starving children in Africa shows no disrespect, or showing Jesus Christ on the crucifix shows no disrespect, or showing images of the brutalization of Blacks from the civil rights movement shows no disrespect. What is disrespectful are the acts themselves: killing the unborn, starving the born, crucifying an innocent man, or beating up peaceful people simply because they’re black.

Disrespect for human life continues when it is kept secret. As my colleague Gregg Cunningham has pointed out, "Injustice that is invisible inevitably becomes tolerable." But as people of good will, we are called to be a light in the darkness. Light exposes things for all to see.

Would I want to be remembered as a dismembered aborted fetus, you ask? If I was killed at a time where my peers were also being killed, I certainly would want the evidence of the crime, through my dismembered body, shown. My concern would not be, "I don’t want dismembered pictures." My concern would be, "I don’t want dismemberment."

Anyone who is a victim of injustice desires that the evidence of the crime be made public, if not for themselves (it may be too late) but for other people and generations. I regularly spend time studying history and social movements and it is very evident that those who inflict injustice are desperate to cover it up; conversely, people who face injustice are desperate to expose it. Even forgiven and healed post-abortive women recognize the need to expose—not cover up—injustice by sharing their testimonies, the facts of their stories, so that others will not do the same (e.g., the movement of post-abortive women called "Silent No More" does this).

In the same way, the born must share the testimonies of the aborted unborn (since they themselves cannot). Graphic pictures are a powerful tool for this.

The pro-abortion movement has succeeded by trumpeting feelings over lives. In other words, the feelings, concerns, and burdens that may come with the crisis pregnancy are given more importance than the unborn child’s life. And so, unborn babies are killed as a result. The last thing the pro-life movement needs to do is to follow the same pattern of putting feelings over lives, of hiding the horror of abortion because exposing it makes us feel bad. All the while, babies get killed precisely because the horror of abortion is not known. In understanding God’s grace and finding true healing, we should realize that the pain of one’s own loss should not prevent others from being saved.

In 1955, a 14-year-old black boy, Emmett Till, was brutally beaten and killed by white racists in Mississippi. When his mutilated body was recovered, his mother held an open casket funeral saying, "Let the people see what I’ve seen" ("The Murder of Emmett Till," PBS documentary, 2003). Through this story and image, Emmett is credited as being the catalyst for the civil rights movement (see research by Dr. Clenora Hudson-Weems who wrote the book, "Emmett Till: The Sacrificial Lamb of the Civil Rights Movement"). Was Emmett’s mother, Mamie, heartbroken? Most certainly. But not because of the image of his dead body. But instead because he was dead, because he was killed. She didn’t want any more children to suffer the same fate as her own child.

With regards to the civil rights movement, Dr. Alveda King is a post-abortive woman who is the niece of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a pastoral associate with Priests for Life in New York. In her essay "Visual Learning and the Culture of Life" she writes the following:

For many years, I have been an outspoken advocate for the unborn child, because in a culture of abortion, the child is like a slave. The new civil rights movement of our time is the pro-life movement, and as I seek to preserve the dream of my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and of my father, Rev. A.D. King (Martin’s brother), I ask the question, ‘How can the dream survive if we murder the children?’ I grew up seeing these two great men fight for the equal rights of their people.

But equality is not something you can see. What you can see are people. My uncle knew that the ugly reality of segregation had to be seen visually by the American public. He therefore organized events at which the eyes of the media could broadcast the way our people were treated when water hoses and dogs were unleashed on their peaceful marches. People responded to those images, not simply to abstract concepts of ‘segregation’ and ‘equality.’

Likewise, people—and especially African Americans—respond to the disturbing images of aborted children. Sure, some people get angry when we show them. But everyone who fights injustice has to be ready to pay a price. My uncle did, and so did my Dad. So does everyone who has the courage to show the ugly reality of abortion. Don’t be afraid to do so. Many people are grateful. As a woman who has had two abortions, I am grateful that the truth is being shown, so that others can avoid this pain in the first place (www.priestsforlife.org/articles/visuallearning.htm).

I sincerely pray my message is received well by you, Kate. I mean only good will. I pray that you will be able to offer up your suffering of being reminded of your abortions in the interest of saving babies. While it is too late for [your two children], it is not too late for others.

I certainly recognize that there are many things to be done to rid the Culture of Death and to build a Culture of Life. I applaud the essential work of post-abortion ministries. In fact, it is my plan for CCBR to meet with such ministries in the Calgary area. I know [name of pro-life leader who was CC-ed on both the original e-mail and this response] and this plan will involve us meeting with her and [said pro-life leader's post-abortion ministry]. So while I thank you for the invitation to attend [said post-abortion ministry] with you, we will begin such networking via [said pro-life leader].

Far from CCBR’s approach counteracting other pro-life activities, such as post-abortion ministries, it is a fundamental base. Like the story of Emmett Till, graphic abortion images act as a catalyst for change and healing. To understand our role in the broader pro-life movement requires much more writing or a whole presentation. Thankfully, I am doing the latter at your parish. I pray you will attend.

Most sincerely and with prayers,

Stephanie Gray

Executive Director

P.S., As for your offer of coffee, yes, I would be happy to meet with you and hear about your journey of reconciliation. Please provide some dates and times that work for you.

For complete context, read the original e-mail that prompted this letter.

Abortion Statistics

Examining the number of abortions over the last ten years, for which statistics are available, reveals a relatively steady trend: the number of abortions from 1994 to 2005 was consistently around 100,000 per year, the highest being 111,709 in 19971 and the lowest being 96,815 in 20052.

Although this decrease in numbers is good, there are several factors which call into question if there has been any positive change at all.

Firstly, over that decade, the number of abortions per 100 live births increased. This is the ratio between the number of women who had abortions compared to the number of women who gave birth. In 1994, there were 27.6 abortions per 100 live births. In 2005, there were 28.3.3 There may have been fewer women in total getting abortions but only because there were fewer women getting pregnant.4

Granted, from 2002 to 2005 that rate was improving (32.1 in 2002, 31 in 2003, and 29.7 abortions per 100 live births in 2004v ), but the numbers were still higher than the 1994 rate.

Secondly, it is important to realize there are pre-born babies being killed in Canada who aren’t factored into the available statistics so the number of abortion deaths is much higher.

There are a variety of reasons for this:

• In Canada, pre-born children can be killed by methods of birth control which act after fertilization (chemical abortifacients). However, it is impossible to determine how many lives are lost this way.
• Some reproductive technologies result in the creation and destruction of human embryos.
• There is no legal requirement for the collection of data on induced abortions performed in Canada. The Supreme Court struck down such a law in 1988. This has resulted in incomplete reporting with some clinics not reporting the abortions they perform.

Because of these problems, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) "has estimated that as of the 2000 data year the Therapeutic Abortion Survey database represents approximately 90% of all abortions performed in Canada on Canadian residents."5

Moreover, Statistics Canada even admitted that their statistics for the number of abortions in 2006 must be used "with caution." That’s because they can’t provide the number of abortions that year for New Brunswick, Manitoba, and British Columbia saying the information is "too unreliable to be published."6 All of this tragically indicates little to no change in behaviour towards abortion.

Finally, it is interesting to note that a government agency that can accurately count the number of privately paid for toilets in Canada,7 cannot count the number of publicly-funded abortions.

• 1. "Pregnancy outcomes 2003," Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 82-224-XIE, 9 and "Pregnancy outcomes 2004," Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 82-224, 9. N.B. In the 2004 document a footnote reads, "In 2004, information on induced abortions performed in clinics in Manitoba was not submitted to the Therapeutic Abortion Survey."
• 2. "Induced Abortions," The Daily, Statistics Canada, Wednesday, March 21, 2008.
• 3. Therapeutic Abortions," The Daily, Statistics Canada, Wednesday, November 5, 1997, viewed online at www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/971105/dq971105-eng.htm#ART2 on August 11, 2010.
• 4. In 1994, there were 385,114 live births. In 2005, there were 342,176 live births (Source: CANSIM table from Statistics Canada: Table 106-9002, Pregnancy outcomes, by age group, Canada, provinces and territories, annual).
• 5. "Pregnancy outcomes 2003," p. 56 with the source given as "Canadian Institute for Health Information. Privacy impact assessment of the Therapeutic Abortion Database. June 2003. Page 4." P. 56 of "Pregnancy outcomes 2003" also states the following: "Caution should be taken when comparing data for 1999 and later with data from earlier years. As of 1999, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care no longer maintain a system for the collection of detailed information on abortions performed in clinics in Ontario. Ontario now uses the billing system of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) to provide counts of clinic abortions to the Therapeutic Abortion Survey. As a result, information is no longer available for clinic abortions performed on non-residents of Ontario or on Ontario residents who do not submit a claim to OHIP. A comparison of the data collected using both sources for the years 1995 to 1998 shows that the new data source underestimated clinic abortions performed on Ontario residents by an average of 5.4% (950 cases) per year, or approximately 1% of all abortions performed in Canada. The new source does not include abortions performed on non-residents that averaged 70 cases per year or .4% of total clinic abortions performed in Ontario." It also states, "In January 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the 1969 abortion law which had contained a clause requiring the collection of data on all induced abortions performed in Canada. Some hospital and provincial ministry respondents interpreted this action as the basis for no longer having to report to the Therapeutic Abortion Survey. While Statistics Canada surveys (including the Therapeutic Abortion Survey) are mandatory unless otherwise specified, Statistics Canada chose to treat the Therapeutic Abortion Survey as ‘voluntary’ but encouraged respondents to continue to supply data for health-related purposes. Over the years, with the absence of any legal requirement to provide data to provincial ministries of health on induced abortions, some respondents began to submit only counts of abortions rather than detailed records on each abortion." It is worth pointing out that Statistics Canada’s document, "Therapeutic Abortion Survey," record number 3209, "Detailed information for 2005," under "Data accuracy" says "There is a possibility of some over-coverage in the Therapeutic Abortions Database. It is not possible to track a patient once they have been discharged. As such, if a patient is released but later requires another procedure as a result of complications, for example an incomplete abortion, it is possible that she would be counted twice in the database. This issue is particularly relevant with the growing popularity of medical abortions in Canada, which have a higher rate of incomplete abortions than do surgical abortions. If a woman seeks treatment in a clinic and then requires further intervention elsewhere, that case will be counted twice in the database."
• 6. Induced abortions by province and territory of report," Statistics Canada, Viewed online at www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health40a-eng.htm on August 11, 2010.
• 7. Household and Environment Survey", Statistics Canada, Viewed online at www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/090210/dq090210a-eng.htm, Viewed on Aug. 12, 2010.

Public Opinion Polls

Public opinion polls reveal, time and again, that a significant percentage of Canadians need their minds changed on this issue:

• According to a 2001 Gallup poll, a 52% majority believes abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. An additional 32% of Canadians believe abortions should be legal in all circumstances, while only 14% would make abortion illegal in all circumstances (2% have no opinion).1
• A year after the aforementioned Gallup poll, Leger Marketing Omnican and LifeCanada polled Canadians by asking, "In your opinion, at what point during human development should the law protect human life?" 30% of Canadians responded from the point of birth (practically matching the 32% who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances), 6% said after 6 months, 13% said after 3 months, while 37% responded from conception on (14% don’t know).2
• That same year, 2002, Leger Marketing revealed in a separate poll that 42% of Canadians defined abortion as immoral—as opposed to 89% who defined shoplifting as immoral.3 In 2006 when Leger Marketing did another poll the percentage dropped: only 34% considered abortion immoral.4 Therefore, one can deduce that a majority of Canadians, 66%, consider abortion moral to some degree or do not have an opinion.
• In 2005, LifeCanada commissioned Environics Research Group to poll Canadians’ attitudes toward abortion. When Canadians were asked at what point in human development should the law protect human life, 33% said from the point of birth, 11% said after six months of pregnancy, 19% said after three months of pregnancy, and 30% said from conception on (7% had no opinion on the question).5
• The following year, LifeCanada commissioned Environics Research Group to do yet another poll on Canadians’ attitudes toward abortion. The results were virtually identical to the year before: 30% of Canadians supported legal protection for human life from birth onwards, 10% after six months, 23% after three months, and 31% from conception (6% had no opinion).6
• In 2007, LifeCanada commissioned another poll. Given the track record of previous years, Canadians’ opinion about the point in human development that the law should protect human life was unsurprising: 33% said from the point of birth, 11% said after six months, 21% said after three months, and 30% said from conception on (5% had no opinion). These numbers show, in comparison to the previous year, that public opinion has actually worsened.7
• LifeCanada’s 2008 poll showed similar results as the year prior: 33% said human life should be legally protected at birth, 9% said after 6 months, 20% said after 3 months, and 28% said from conception on (10% offered no opinion).8
• In June 2008, the Angus Reid Polling Group reported that 49% of Canadians think abortion should be legal under any circumstances. What of the other 51%? The results are devastating: Only 5% think it should be illegal in all circumstances. 3% aren’t sure and 42% think it should be legal in certain circumstances.9
• In February 2010, the Manning Centre Barometer conducted 1000 telephone interviews with Canadians, asking them several questions on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 is totally disagree and 7 is totally agree). The report states that 60% of Canadians "strongly agree" that abortion is morally wrong (43% totally agree). But they do report that individuals aged 18 to 30—the age group that most often has abortions—were more likely to "totally disagree" with that statement.10
• In the Spring of 2010, EKOS surveyed Canadians and found that 52% identify themselves as pro-choice, 27% as pro-life, 10% as neither, and 11% as don’t know/no response.11
• In August 2010, an Angus Reid Poll was released. When respondents were informed there were no restrictions on abortion in Canada, only 27% supported the status quo while 63% thought there should be some regulation. The views about "some regulations" varied, and only 6% said there should be no abortion under any circumstances.12

It appears from these polls over the past decade that anywhere from 5% to 43% of Canadians hold an authentically "pro-life" view (that is, against abortion in all cases). That, of course, cannot be said with total assurance as the questions varied in each poll. What can be said with reasonably greater confidence, however, is that a majority of Canadians accept abortion to varying degrees.

Some pro-life advocates will interpret these polls as showing a majority of public support for protecting human life at some point prior to birth. These advocates are theoretically correct concerning support for legal protections during the second and third trimesters, but they are misguided when they trumpet that as a public-opinion victory.

Nothing in any poll would indicate majority support for protecting human life within the first three months of pregnancy, when the overwhelming majority of abortions occur. 13

And so, based on the most recent poll that asked for opinions on abortion at different stages of pregnancy, over 70%—over two-thirds—of Canadians do not believe in protecting pre-born human beings when the majority of them are killed.

And so, when it comes to public opinion, the pro-life movement is winning where it matters least (later in pregnancy) and losing where it matters most (early in pregnancy).

Having said that, it is even questionable whether we’re "winning where it matters least" as there is no outcry by the Canadian public to make late-term abortions illegal. Given that life begins at fertilization, it is essential that Canadians come to the conclusion that any abortion is immoral. That, however, is far from the reality.

Some pro-lifers may even be tempted to take comfort in the possibility (an unlikely possibility when all the polls are reviewed) that over 40% of Canadians are of the opinion that abortion is wrong, but the question remains: what are those Canadians actually doing to make abortion unthinkable if they truly believe abortion takes a human life?

• 1. "Fewer Canadians Favour Legalized Abortion Under Any Circumstance," by Dr. Thomas Hartley and Dr. Josephine Mazzuca, Volume No. 61, No. 85, December 12, 2001.
• 2. "Canadians’ Opinion on Abortion," Omnican Report LifeCanada, October 2002. www.legermarketing.com.
• 3. "Canadians and Immorality," Leger Marketing Report, 2002. www.legermarketing.com.
• 4. "Pedophilia, adultery top immorality poll," by Dene Moore, Toronto Star, June 11, 2006, Viewed online July 26, 2006 at www.christianity.ca/news/.
• 5. "Canadians' Attitudes Toward Abortion," Environics Research Group, October 2005, 3.
• 6. "Canadians' Attitudes Toward Abortion," Environics Research Group, October 2006, 3.
• 7. "Canadians' Attitudes Toward Abortion," Environics Research Group, October 2007, 4.
• 8. "Canadians' Attitudes Towards Life Issues," Environics Research Group, October 2008, 8.
• 9. "Half of Canadians Want Abortion to Remain Legal," June 21, 2008, Angus Reid Strategies, Viewed online at http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/half_of_canadians_want_abortion_to_remain_legal/ on August 13, 2010.
• 10. "Manning Centre Barometer 2010," available from http://www.manningcentre.ca/resources, viewed online August 13, 2010.
• 11. Canadians Decisively Pro-Choice on Abortion: No Change Over the Decade, EKOS Politicis, viewed online at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/majority-backs-abortion-rights/article1519823/ on August 13, 2010.
• 12. Susan Martinuk, "Ignorance on Abortion is Far From Bliss," August 6, 2010, viewed online at http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ignorance+abortion+from+bliss/3365799/story.html on August 13, 2010.
• 13. It is difficult to obtain detailed Canadian abortion statistics that identify the number of abortions performed in each trimester. However, Alberta does provide detailed records of its abortion statistics. In its report, "Alberta Reproductive Health: Pregnancies & Births," Alberta Health & Wellness 2006, p. 44, it says, "In 2004, 85.8% of induced abortions occurred before 13 weeks gestation, and 13.4% occurred between 13 and 20 weeks gestation." Childbirth by Choice Trust reports that "In 1993, 92% of abortion [sic] in Canada took place in the first trimester of pregnancy" ("Abortion: The Medical Procedure," viewed online February 12, 2007, available at www.cbctrust.com/medical_proc.php).

The Pro-Abortion Movement

It is worth noting that the pro-abortion movement also achieved social reform, in part, through the use of graphic depictions of what they were fighting against. One doesn’t have to agree with their conclusion in order to agree that their methodology worked. Canadian abortionist Garson Romalis conveys the power of graphics in his 2008 National Post article, "Why I am an abortion doctor." He wrote, "Abortion was illegal when I trained, so I did not learn how to do abortions in my residency, although I had more than my share of experience looking after illegal abortion complications."1 Indeed, he did. He began his obstetrics and gynecology residency in 1962 and "will never forget the 17-year-old girl lying on a stretcher with 6 feet of small bowel protruding from her vagina."2

The graphic image Romalis saw in-person was something abortion advocates knew would help sway public opinion, and policy, in their favour. In 1964, an American woman, Gerri Twerdy Santoro, was found dead as a result of a self-induced illegal abortion. She was only 28 years old and had two other children. Fearing her abusive estranged husband would kill her if he discovered she was pregnant by another man, she and her boyfriend aborted their pre-born child. In the process, she herself died and was found lying face down in a pool of blood. The photograph of this horrific site first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973.3 It has since been used by the pro-abortion movement as a tool to make their case for why abortion should remain legal.

The tactic of conveying the devastation of illegal abortion was also used by Canadian abortion-rights. In April 1970, a group of Vancouver activists set out to Ottawa. Their numbers swelled (from over a dozen to hundreds) as the trip’s participants drew close to their destination. When the Minister of Justice refused to attend a scheduled meeting with the activists, they protested at Prime Minister Trudeau’s residence. They wanted to draw attention to the deaths of women who perished from illegal abortion so they displayed a coffin on Trudeau’s lawn, piling objects in it that women used to perform illegal abortions, such as knitting needles, a Lysol container, and a vacuum cleaner hose.4

• 1. Garson Romalis, "Why I am an abortion doctor," The National Post, February 4, 2008.
• 2. Ibid.
• 3. "Gerry Twerdy Santoro," lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/gerri_twerdy_santoro.html.
• 4. Joyce Arthur, "Winning Choice on Abortion: A Book Review," Pro-Choice Press, Spring 2005, www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/05spring.shtml.

The Pastoral Arm

Throughout Canada, there are pro-life resource centres to help pregnant women who are overwhelmed by the burdens of an unplanned pregnancy. These burdens include

• Pressure (including threats of, or actual, violence or abandonment) by family members and partners
• An already abusive relationship the woman does not want to bring a child into
• Drug addiction and therefore the belief that it is in the child’s best interest to be aborted
• A successful career that a child will impede
• The desire to finish school unhampered by motherhood
• Financial hardship

In Canada there are over 135 pro-life centres.1 These centres, which are commonly known as crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), pregnancy care centres (PCCs), or pregnancy resource centres (PRCs), offer alternatives to abortion with the hope of sparing women and their pre-born children from abortion. They provide a vital service, typically offering free pregnancy tests, pregnancy counseling, baby and maternity clothes, adoption information, and parenting resources.

It is certainly encouraging to know these centres are available to help mothers embrace their pre-born children. Furthermore, these centres offer a great service to women and to the movement because they build relationships that will last over time.

Because these centres are so essential, it is important that they succeed in reaching as many abortion-minded women as possible. And if they are not, then all pro-lifers, including the staff at these centres, need to examine what the movement can do to improve their effectiveness. This starts by asking these questions:

• How many clients are coming to these pro-life centres?
• And of those women, how many are abortion-minded (seriously considering abortion)?
• And of those women, how many babies are saved?

These questions are vital because it is abortion-minded women whose babies are most vulnerable to being killed. PCCs hope that, through their existence, women will choose life—not abortion—for their babies. But in order to ensure this is happening, we need to face the reality of who is coming to these centres.

In Canada, almost 100,000 abortion-minded women go a clinic or hospital to end their pregnancies. In contrast, what kind of women, in large numbers, go to PCCs? Women who are seriously considering abortion or women who are unlikely to abort anyway and are looking for help with their pregnancy?

By their own admission, PCCs generally reach very few of their target audience: women contemplating abortion. In most cases, these women aren’t even coming through the door. Rather, these women enter the doors of abortion providers.

In fact, in 2002, Focus on the Family’s newsletter HeartLink reported that "less than 10 percent of the clients darkening the doors of pregnancy care centers [across the United States] were abortion-minded." That is, fewer than 1 in 10 women making use of their pregnancy-support services were seriously considering abortion.

In its 2004 Starfish Report, the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) provided a detailed description of its statistics in this country:

the "total number of ... expectant clients who were initially abortion-minded or vulnerable to proceed with an abortion" was 1,074.2

They report 157 known saved lives, 99 known lives lost to abortion, and 361 cases with the outcome unknown or not reported.3 The statistics are qualified with this statement: "Please note that some of the centres who report abortion-minded clients are unable at this point, in their reporting capabilities, to track all outcomes. Thus the numbers for a [saved lives]; b [lost to abortion]; c [unknown outcome]; do not total to all abortion-minded women."3

Even with the best possible interpretation of these statistics, only 1,074 abortion-minded or abortion-vulnerable expectant women went to 52 of their centres while almost 100 times that figure went to Canadian abortion facilities that same year.

Of course, the service that PCC’s provided for these women is invaluable. The point is, these centres were created to help abortion-minded women, and they are helping too few of these women.

Fast-forward several years and the numbers are still dismal. According to CAPSS, 61 of its centers (affiliate and non) across Canada served approximately 6374 individual clients in 2007 with possible new pregnancies.4 While no one doubts the priceless value of human life and the need to positively influence these thousands of lives, the number of people reached is strikingly low in comparison to those who choose abortion each year.

And as low as that number is, it gets even lower when examining those who are actually abortion-minded. At CAPSS centres, all new positive pregnancy test (or doctor confirmed) clients are assessed as to their initial intentions for how they will proceed with the pregnancy. This is how that broke down for 2007:

Total abortion-minded clients: 425
Total abortion vulnerable clients: 361
Total carry to term intention clients: 1439
Total undecided clients: 1865

This means that at least 1439 women who used the services of these centres weren’t even considering aborting their pre-born children. So what happened to the 972 pre-born babies for whom abortion was a risk (abortion minded clients + abortion vulnerable clients + undecided clients)? We know that at least 203 were killed, leaving 769 pre-born babies for whom abortion was a risk and who may not have been killed.3 And so, using a best-case scenario, one hopes that the 769 were saved. That, however, isn’t conclusive since their mothers did not inform the centre of what their ultimate decisions were.

This means, at best, if all 769 women decided to carry their pregnancies to term, there would be 13 saved babies at each of the 61 centres in 2007.

This analysis does not include data from PCCs unaffiliated with CAPSS (such as Birthright centres). If these and other numbers are made available, they will be incorporated into a future edition of this analysis.

Some may consider it unfair to compare statistics from abortion clinics with PCCs, because the former receive government funding and greater promotion (e.g., from physicians) than the latter. While this imbalance certainly exists, an abortion-minded woman does not make her choice because of this promotion: if she really doesn’t want an abortion, she won’t get one. And if she really wants an abortion, she will get one.

In other words, the problem of large numbers of abortion-minded women choosing abortion clinics over PCCs is not due simply to an imbalance in support between the former and the latter.

Most abortion-minded women do not choose the help of PCCs because the PCCs will help women through the pregnancies but abortion clinics will help them out of the pregnancies. PCCs are willing to provide whatever a woman needs (e.g., housing, baby supplies, moral support). The abortion clinic offers her what she wants.

Our society, particularly through the mass media, promotes the primacy of oneself and of making decisions with expediency. People are implicitly taught to strive for whatever is the fastest, easiest, and simplest solution (in the short term). They are taught this in a culture where the medical and political institutions endorse abortion as a legitimate choice.

An abortion-minded woman wants out of the pregnancy and all that would come with it. In the climate of fear and panic that characterizes an unplanned pregnancy, the woman is desperately looking for immediate relief. PCCs, however, cannot necessarily give that; they cannot offer a "quick fix" or guarantee an easy life. The pro-life movement is offering an alternative that in many women's minds does not even compete with what the abortion clinic offers by way of short-term solutions.

With all that in mind, it is no wonder that abortion-minded women with unplanned pregnancies, by and large, are choosing abortion. This way, they don’t have to deal with any of the crises surrounding their pregnancies. No one in their social circles need know that they have been pregnant, or even sexually active for that matter.

In one moment—that positive pregnancy test—their worlds come crashing down. And in one "simple" procedure—before they appear pregnant, feel their child’s presence, and bond—their crumbling worlds are (supposedly) put back together.

CCBR has seen this first hand over the years: women who have been offered all the help they need to continue with their pregnancies have turned it down and had abortions instead.

This truth must teach the movement that offering help, while necessary, is not sufficient in ending abortion.

The point is not to be unfairly critical of help centres—they do vital work. Instead, it is to show that the pastoral approach needs the prophetic approach to change peoples’ minds on abortion. As CBR's American director, Gregg Cunningham, has pointed out, "The simple fact of the matter is that women who are not more horrified by abortion than they are terrified of the burdens of the pregnancy will kill their babies almost every time."

So while we most certainly need to help women in crisis pregnancy (pastoral approach), we must convince those women (prophetic approach) that the help we offer is what they should choose. They need to know that the alternative, abortion, is a horrifying choice to which they shouldn’t give a moment's consideration. In other words, when the prophetic approach turns women off of abortion, the pastoral approach will be able to more effectively turn them on to the right choice.

• 1. In August 2008, Stephanie Gray spoke with a representative of Birthright (416-469-4789 and info@birthright.org) in Toronto, ON, and was informed that they have 43 chapters in Canada. On December 6, 2006, Deborah Woelders, director of operations for the Christian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS), e-mailed Gray to say she had 93 affiliated and non-affiliated Canadian pregnancy care centres in her database which did not include Birthright centres. Note: In contrast to places where women can obtain abortions, there are slightly fewer PCCs than abortion providers in Canada (According to "Abortion in Canada Today: The Situation Province-by-Province," from the Childbirth by Choice Trust (available from www.cbctrust.com/provincebyprovince.php, viewed February 15, 2007), there are 121 Canadian hospitals that perform abortions. On February 15, 2007, Gray called Canadians for Choice (613-789-9958) and inquired of a representative about the number of abortion clinics in Canada. The representative did not have the exact number but stated that there were fewer than 25 clinics in the whole country. She also noted that the number of hospitals in Canada that provide abortions has gone down and that in March 2007 they would be publicizing a report which indicates that even fewer than 121 hospitals do abortions.)
• 2. Starfish Report, taken from 2004 CAPSS National Statistical Report—52 Reporting Centres, available from www.capss.com/reports.php, viewed online August 25, 2006.
• 3. a. b. c. Ibid.
• 4. CAPSS Statistical Report Summary, 1997 to 2007.
• 5. E-mail from Laura Wittman, CAPSS executive assistant, September 3, 2008.

The Political Arm

Abortion became legal in Canada in 1969. In the 1970s, the government created therapeutic-abortion committees at hospitals to approve or reject requests for abortions. Pro-lifers who were elected to these boards denied most abortions while abortion advocates would allow almost all abortions. While this helped prevent many abortions, these elections had no impact on the legality of abortion.

Furthermore, in 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the 1969 abortion law that required these therapeutic-abortion committees to approve abortions. This law effectively allowed for abortions on demand and has remained the status quo ever since.

In other words, while pro-lifers had no impact on public policy, abortion advocates did by eliminating the aforementioned committees. Thus they achieved their goal of abortion on demand, dismantling the shaky political framework pro-lifers were using to save lives.

Since then, pro-lifers have lost court cases, elections, and legislative initiatives dealing with abortion on all governmental levels. Even a 1991 referendum that pro-lifers won in Saskatchewan to defund abortion was never made into law.1 Defunding initiatives in other provinces have yet to even reach that level of "success."

Because criminal law is a matter of federal jurisdiction, the only way for the pre-born to be protected is for Parliament to pass legislation recognizing the pre-born as human beings deserving of the right to life that born human beings already enjoy.

The most prominent effort to provide any protection thus far failed in 1990 when the Senate rejected Bill C-43. This bill would not have even outlawed abortion, and its compromising nature satisfied neither the pro-abortion nor the pro-life movements. Other efforts have not even made it this far.

Moreover, it is virtually impossible for political lobbyists to amend the law on abortion (or on any law for that matter) if they cannot convince politicians that voters want change. As we’ve seen through public opinion polls, there is no determined public interest for changing the status quo to protect the pre-born from fertilization onwards.

And because Members of Parliament rely on being re-elected to maintain their jobs, they tend to focus on issues they believe will get votes and stay away from issues they believe will cost votes.

The fact that there haven’t been significant improvements politically does not negate the pro-life movement’s responsibility to work for political changes. This is essential. But what it does reveal is that convincing politicians to change the law first requires convincing voters to change their minds.

• 1. Joyce Arthur, "Why Abortion Won't be Defunded in Canada," available from www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/defunding.shtml, viewed on March 10, 2006.

Prophetic/Educational Arm

Since the vast majority of Canadians do not hold a pro-life view, the most basic job pro-lifers have is to educate the public on abortion. This task is the mandate of educational or "prophetic" pro-life organizations. Only when the educational arm of the movement succeeds will the other arms of the movement succeed.

The political arm cannot change the law until the prophetic arm changes the minds of voters. The pastoral arm cannot reach all abortion-minded women until the prophetic arm help these women understand that abortion is an unthinkable choice.

But it is not enough to talk about educating the public. Pro-lifers have to discern which methods are most effective in changing hearts and minds on abortion.

For example, within the specific task of firefighting, there are different ways to put out a fire. Some methods (firehoses) are more effective than others (buckets of water). In the same way, while it is important to respond to abortion from a number of ways (pastoral, political, prophetic), within each approach, there are more effective and less effective activities. Prophetic activists, just like firefighters, must choose the most effective, ethical and efficient methods that will save the most lives.

So what does the prophetic arm often do to educate the culture?

Provide presentations: As excellent as these presentations can be, they are only as good as the number of people who come to them. Unfortunately, most Canadians choose not to get educated on abortion and those who come to presentations are often those who are already pro-life.

It is therefore imperative that pro-lifers don’t rely on presentations alone. They must take their message to the public directly.

Life Chain, Marches, Hikes for Life: While these activities bring together a large body of people, they generally do not show evidence, seen by the public, for why the group is gathered or for why the group opposes abortion.

Colourful balloons, messages like "Choose Life" or "Defend Life," or even statements such as "Abortion Kills Children" do not convey reasons for being pro-life. They only show the pro-life conclusion that most Canadians already reject. Without compelling evidence, it is unlikely that large numbers of passersby will move from indifference (or even support for abortion) to sudden agreement with the pro-life message.

"But," someone may respond, "in history social movements often did walks and marches to confront the culture about an injustice and those were effective."

There is a key difference between those social movements and the pro-life movement: in history, the people who were victimized participated in public protest. By their presence and attitude of peace and respect, they conveyed to the public that they were human like everyone else. Often they were victimized during their marches and images of this further injustice, communicated via the media, turned the public against the injustice.

But with abortion, the very people being victimized—the pre-born—cannot participate. Therefore, those who participate in their place (born pro-lifers) need to convey whom they’re standing for and what they’re standing against. This is why public pro-life gatherings should have images of pre-born children and graphic images of what abortion does to them.

Billboards: A large pro-life message in a public area is a good idea. But the challenge with billboards is that billboard companies ultimately decide who they rent space to. So if they don’t like a message, they’ll simply deny the space. Of course, if pro-lifers can get space to display a compelling, evidence-based message, that is good. But where they cannot, they shouldn’t pay large sums of money to media that will censor them.

And when pro-lifers do display billboards, it’s important they keep their message focused on the pre-born. Too often images of born children are used alongside messages such as "Abortion Kills," or "Choose Life." But born children aren’t the ones under attack—nor are they the ones hidden. These messages must be accompanied by 3-D ultrasound imagery or abortion imagery.

Memorials. Women and men grieving from past abortions can most certainly benefit from erecting small memorials to their children. But now is not the time for costly memorials erected by organizations.

A pro-life organization once told CCBR that its sculpture project may deplete all of its funds. But here’s the question they needed to consider: Was the activity it was prepared to go broke over actually going to help stop the killing of pre-born children, the very mandate of the organization? Even if it were a wealthy organization, could it justify the expense?

After all, if someone died because there wasn't enough money at a hospital to provide him life-saving treatment, would it be better if donors pay huge sums of money for a statue to remember that person or should they pay for technology so that future patients won’t die of the same disease? Which would leave a better legacy?

Furthermore, memorials, by their nature, are properly erected after an injustice has passed, when there is widespread acknowledgement of it. A memorial doesn’t help end an injustice, it helps remember it.

There is another kind of memorial sometimes used by educational pro-life groups, and that is to display rows of crosses in a public field to remind passers-by of the many lives killed by abortion. But the display relies on the false assumption that most of those who see the crosses already recognize the pre-born as human beings and acknowledge abortion as a tragedy.

We know, of course, that this is not the case. That is why abortion is still happening. So here we see time and money put into a campaign that lacks the evidence needed to convince the public.

But this kind of campaign need not be thrown out entirely. If the evidence of abortion were shown with rows of crosses, a powerful message could be conveyed because it would show how wrong abortion is and provide the context of just how often that wrong action has occurred.

And so, a lot of responsibility weighs on the prophetic arm of the pro-life movement. This is why constructive criticism is important. If we don’t improve how we educate, we can’t expect to stop abortion.

External Link: Graphic Billboard Raising Eyebrows and Questions in Midland

This television news clip is about a pro-life billboard in the US which perfectly illustrates how a traditional pro-life text message can be made effective with visual evidence. It says, about abortion, "One Dead, One Wounded," and has an image of an aborted child next to an image of a distressed woman.

Civil Rights Movement

In 1955, Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American from Chicago, was visiting family in Money, Mississippi. While there, he went to a corner store and allegedly said, "Bye, Baby,"1 and whistled at the white woman behind the counter.2A few days later, relatives of that woman kidnapped Emmett from his uncle's home. They brutally beat him, shot him in the head, and disposed of his body in the Tallahatchie River. They were never convicted of their crime, but later confessed their guilt.3

When Emmett’s body was recovered, it was sent to a funeral home in Chicago. Upon seeing Emmett’s mutilated body, his mother declared that she wanted an open casket at the funeral, saying, "Let the people see what I’ve seen."4

Dr. Clenora Hudson-Weems, Ph.D., wrote a book about this incident entitled, Emmett Till: The Sacrificial Lamb of the Civil Rights Movement. In it, she argues that Till’s beating and death was the catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement. Hudson-Weems interviewed civil rights activists who testified that Till’s murder motivated them to fight for the equality of African-Americans.5

In the month following Till’s murder, five out of six black radio preachers aired sermons about what had happened to the young boy. There was also nationwide television coverage of the trial of the suspected murderers.6

What is interesting is that today most people credit Rosa Parks, the African-American woman who refused to surrender her bus seat to a white man, as being the catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement. Hudson-Weems’ research shows otherwise and she provides a compelling quote from Emmett’s second-cousin to provide insight into this situation:

Historians will talk about the good and the bad, but they don’t want to deal with the ugly... The ugliness of racism is not a White man’s telling a Black woman to give him her bus seat—bad as that is—but the confident home-invasion, kidnapping and murder of a fourteen-year old Black youth and the exoneration by jury of the youth’s apparent killers.7

In 2005, Rosa Parks died. At her funeral, Reverend Jesse Jackson said that he had asked Parks why she didn’t give her bus seat to the white man in 1955 and quoted Parks as having said, "I thought about Emmett Till, and I couldn’t go back."8

Civil rights activists courageously exposed the injustice of racial segregation and made sure that Americans could see its brutality. Whether it was the shocking pictures of Till or the disturbing images of peaceful civil rights activists being attacked by racist bullies, they strived to effect change.

Opening the casket on injustice was a controversial step, but an important one for the Civil Rights Movement. They knew it required leaving the comfort of their churches and confronting the culture at whites-only lunch counters, on segregated buses, and in other public areas. When they did this, they were persecuted brutally:

Look back to the civil-rights-era images: Fire hoses. Lunging dogs. Citizens hammered for the audacity of attempting to vote, to ride a bus or sit at a lunch counter.

‘People talked about justice for years and years, but suddenly you could see a graphic illustration of injustice,’ says Jim McNay, who teaches visual journalism at Brooks Institute of Photography in Santa Barbara, Calif.

When 900 students marched for freedom in Birmingham, Ala., on May 3, 1963, police attacked with dogs and fire hoses. Dramatic photos... dominated the news. Demonstrations erupted in 186 cities. President John F. Kennedy called for the Civil Rights Act. The nation faced up to injustice ‘because the pictures backed up the words,’ one senator said.9

These direct-action campaigns were bold and were even criticized by prominent people who opposed segregation. In defending these tactics, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote the following in his Letter from Birmingham Jail:

Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.10

History, both pre and post the era of the Civil Rights Movement, shows that the exposition of images was a powerful tool to convict people.

• 1. Douglas Brinkley, Rosa Parks (New York: Penguin Group, 2000), 100.
• 2. Timeline: The Murder of Emmett Till," 1955-2003, PBS online documentary information available from www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/timeline/timeline2.html, viewed on February 14, 2007.
• 3. The Murder of Emmett Till," PBS online documentary information available from www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/sfeature/sf_look.html, viewed on April 4, 2006.
• 4. "The Murder of Emmett Till," PBS documentary, 2003.
• 5. Clenora Hudson-Weems, "Resurrecting Emmett Till," Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2, November 1998, 179–188.
• 6. Brinkley, 102.
• 7. "Resurrecting Emmett Till," quote taken from Emmett Till: The Sacrificial Lamb of the Civil Rights Movement, by Clenora Hudson-Weems, 1994, 75.
• 8. "Mourners pay tribute to Rosa Parks," CNN.com, November 3, 2005. Viewed online at www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/02/rosa.parks/index.html on July 26, 2006. In Douglas Brinkley’s book, Rosa Parks, it says, on p. 101, "Rosa Parks wept when she saw a grisly photograph of Till’s body in Jet magazine, his face so bruised and distorted that the sight of it made her physically ill." Then, on p. 109, "A lifetime’s education in injustice—from her grandfather’s nightly vigils to the murder of Emmett Till—had strengthened her resolve to act when the time came."
• 9. Photos bring our agony into focus," USA Today, May 10, 2004, 5D.
• 10. "Letter from Birmingham Jail," 365.

British Abolitionist Movement

In an age before photography, social reformers in Great Britain knew that in order to end the slave trade they would have to expose the slave trade. They used first-hand testimonies from people who conveyed the deplorable conditions of the slave ships. They showed chains and other equipment used to abuse Africans. In 1788, they began using one of their most powerful tools: a drawing of the inside of the slave ship "Brookes."

[The diagram] gave measurements in feet and inches while showing the slaves closely lined up in rows, lying flat, bodies touching one another or the ship’s hull... The diagram began appearing in newspapers, magazines, books, and pamphlets; realizing what a powerful new weapon it had, the [abolitionist] committee also promptly printed up more than seven thousand copies as posters, which were hung on the walls of homes and pubs throughout the country.1

Adam Hochschild, in his book "Bury the Chains," provides an in-depth study of the history of the abolitionist movement and the key players of the cause. He ends his book with this insightful passage:

To the British abolitionists, the challenge of ending slavery in a world that considered it fully normal was as daunting as it seems today when we consider challenging the entrenched wrongs of our own age: the vast gap between rich and poor nations, the relentless spread of nuclear weapons, the multiple assaults on the earth, air, and water that must support future generations, the habit of war. None of these problems will be solved overnight, or perhaps even in the fifty years it took to end British slavery. But they will not be solved at all unless people see them as both outrageous and solvable, just as slavery was felt to be by the twelve men who gathered in James Phillips’s printing shop in George Yard on May 22, 1787.

All of the twelve were deeply religious, and the twenty-seven-year-old Clarkson wore black clerical garb. But they also shared a newer kind of faith. They believed that because human beings had a capacity to care about the suffering of others, exposing the truth would move people to action. ‘We are clearly of opinion,’ Granville Sharp wrote to a friend later that year [1787], ‘that the nature of the slave-trade needs only to be known to be detested.’ Clarkson, writing of this ‘enormous evil,’ said that he ‘was sure that it was only necessary for the inhabitants of this favoured island to know it, to feel a just indignation against it.’ It was this faith that led him to buy handcuffs, shackles, and thumbscrews to display to the people he met on his travels. And that led him to mount his horse again and again to scour the country for witnesses who could tell Parliament what life was like on the slave ships and the plantations. The riveting parade of firsthand testimony he and his colleagues put together in the Abstract of the Evidence and countless other documents is one of the first great flowerings of a very modern belief: that the way to stir men and women to action is not by biblical argument, but through vivid, unforgettable description of acts of great injustice done to their fellow human beings. The abolitionists placed their hope not in sacred texts, but in human empathy.2

• 1. Adam Hochschild, Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 155-6.
• 2. Hochschild, 365-6.

Child Labour

In 1908, an American photographer, Lewis Hine, was hired by the U.S. National Child Labour Committee to photograph images of children working long hours, often in dangerous conditions, being robbed of their childhood.1

When speaking to an audience, Hine once remarked, "Perhaps you are weary of child labor pictures. Well, so are the rest of us, but we propose to make you and the whole country so sick and tired of the whole business that when the time for action comes, child labor pictures will be records of the past."2

• 1. "The History Place: Child Labor in America 1908–1912: Photography of Lewis W. Hine," available from www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/about.htm, viewed November 29, 2005.
• 2. www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRhine.htm, viewed November 29, 2005.

Canadian Seal Hunt

In 1969, a picture was taken in the Northumberland Strait. It depicted a seal hunter about to club a baby seal as the mother seal watched in the background. This picture was widely distributed and resulted in public outrage. Two significant behaviour changes resulted: many members of the public chose not to buy fur and seal-fur imports from Canada were banned by some countries.1

• 1. "100 Photographs that Changed the World," Life Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 5, August 25, 2003, p. 80.

Victims of War

A young boy, Ali Abbas, was living in a village near Baghdad in 2003. His home was hit by two U.S. missiles at the start of the Iraq war, killing many members of his family. Ali was severely wounded: his mangled arms were amputated, and he had third-degree burns over 35% of his body.1

He was taken to a Baghdad hospital that had limited resources to help him and his uncle described Ali as "dying and rotting before my eyes."1 A Reuters photographer took a picture of the boy as he lay in excruciating pain and it was this image that compelled the people of Great Britain to respond with an outpouring of sympathy. With donations from the public and pressure from Prime Minister Tony Blair, Ali was flown to a hospital in Kuwait where he was given proper medical attention, including receiving painkillers for the first time in 18 days. Ali now lives in London as a member of Britain’s Limbless Association.1

• 1. a. b. c. "Ali Gets Better," People Magazine, November 10, 2003, 113-4.

Drug Education

"Through a Blue Lens" is a graphic film made by police officers who work in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, British Columbia, an infamous area known for drug abuse. The film’s graphic message is communicated to high school students across the country and makes a huge impact.

Television program 60 Minutes Australia did a documentary of the officers and their project. Here is a portion of the transcript:

Ray Martin: "...It’s a shock tactic that has made a real impact with the kids."

Teenage Boy One: "It’s unbelievable the stuff that’s captured on film is actually what happens in Vancouver."

Teenage Boy Two: "More than half of our school totally got turned off by [sic] drugs by the film."

* * *

Police Officer One: "What do you think grabbed the kids the most?"

Teenage Boy Two: "Actually them doing [it] and seeing the side effects that they get from it."

* * *

Ray Martin: "Deputy Chief Gary Greer is convinced that these police shock tactics are the way to go."

Deputy Chief Gary Greer: "Oh, absolutely. It’s the way to go in terms of bringing the issue to the attention of people. They have raised the awareness here. They have raised the awareness of youth in our schools and they had a spin-off video that is now shown in the schools."

Ray Martin: "Over the past two years, these campaigning cops have taken their videos to schools across Canada. They don’t preach. They let the pictures tell the true story."1

Along similar lines as "Through a Blue Lens", "Death by Jib" is another graphic drug-education video. It is designed to expose young people to the dangers of crystal meth. The film’s target audience is grades 7 to 12, and as one grade 8 student said, "The music, the images, the message is unforgettable!"2

The accompanying resource guide says the following:

The rationale for producing this video is to expose the audience to the negative or horrific consequences, including death, often associated with Crystal Meth use. The message is conveyed through stark images, stories and music. The prevention hope is that viewers will develop such a strong negative association with the use of Crystal Meth that they will turn away from the drug if they are ever offered it. If they have used the drug the hope is that they will seek help.3

• 1. "Through a Blue Lens," 60 Minutes Australia, September 30, 2001, Viewed online December 4, 2006 at sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2001_09_30/story_437.asp
• 2. "Death by Jib," Kinetic Video, Viewed online January 4, 2007 at www.kineticvideo.com/links.asp?pid=8712&pc=canada
• 3. "Death by Jib," Resource Guide, Kinetic Video, 2005.

Drinking & Driving

The Texas Department of Transportation uses the story and image of a woman named Jacqueline Saburido to convey the dangers of drinking and driving. In 1999, a drunk driver collided with the vehicle she was in. A fire broke out when Jacqueline was pinned in the front seat of the car. She was inflicted with burns on over 60% of her body. She lost her hair, ears, nose, left eyelid, much of her vision, and her fingers had to be amputated.1 Her story is a disturbing one, but it conveys an important lesson: some people’s "choices" have a devastating effect on other people’s lives. 

• 1. "Jacqui’s Story," available from texasdwi.org/jacqui.html, viewed online February 8, 2007.

The Pro-Abortion Movement

It is worth noting that the pro-abortion movement also achieved social reform, in part, through the use of graphic depictions of what they were fighting against. One doesn’t have to agree with their conclusion in order to agree that their methodology worked. Canadian abortionist Garson Romalis conveys the power of graphics in his 2008 National Post article, "Why I am an abortion doctor." He wrote, "Abortion was illegal when I trained, so I did not learn how to do abortions in my residency, although I had more than my share of experience looking after illegal abortion complications."1 Indeed, he did. He began his obstetrics and gynecology residency in 1962 and "will never forget the 17-year-old girl lying on a stretcher with 6 feet of small bowel protruding from her vagina."2

• 1. Garson Romalis, "Why I am an abortion doctor," The National Post, February 4, 2008.
• 2. Ibid.
• 3. "Gerry Twerdy Santoro," lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/gerri_twerdy_santoro.html.
• 4. Joyce Arthur, "Winning Choice on Abortion: A Book Review," Pro-Choice Press, Spring 2005, www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/05spring.shtml.

Abortion Images

Persecution from Within

"Stand on the line if you’ve lost a friend to gang violence. ... Stay on the line if you’ve lost more than one friend. ... Three. ... Four or more."

Those were the instructions from a teacher being taught, from a woman getting a glimpse into the life of students considered "unteachables." Her name is Erin Gruwell, and her true story is dramatized in the inspiring film Freedom Writers that I watched a few weeks ago.

As a first-year teacher at an inner city school in Long Beach, California, Gruwell inspired a group of students—many of whom were involved with gangs, drugs, and other criminal activity—to abandon racism, to respect their fellow human beings, and to embrace education; in short, to transform their lives for the better.

It is a remarkable film and while many aspects struck me, one in particular stood out as it relates to recent CCBR experiences: Gruwell was having a positive impact on her students’ lives, yet received resistance from some fellow educators who had never given the troubled students the attention they deserved.

Gruwell took the time to understand the plight of these students: where they were coming from, what they had experienced. She got to know them. The educators critical of Gruwell, on the contrary, did no such thing. They did not understand the students’ experiences and thus failed to address the students’ needs; beyond that, they even worked against Gruwell’s laudable—and effective—efforts.

CCBR also encounters opposition, in our case from some pro-life and religious leaders. Recently, individuals have not only been critical of our well-researched strategy, particularly our use of graphic visuals, but at least one has gone so far as to make and spread the erroneous claim that what we are doing is wrong.

As I reflect on the persecution we’re experiencing from those who should be supportive, I realize that none of this is new. It is a cross that must be borne by all who would fight the good fight against injustice. The most obvious example is that of Jesus Christ who was opposed by the religious leaders of His day, by scribes and Pharisees who should have recognized the truth of His teachings. Instead, the Pharisees plotted how they might kill Jesus when He cured a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:6). They even considered Him guilty of blasphemy (Luke 5:21), a charge reiterated by the high priest Caiaphas at the trial prior to Christ’s crucifixion (Matthew 26:65).

Jesus made it clear that those who choose to follow Him will also face persecution: "‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18, 20).

And indeed they do. In April 1963, a group of clergymen, including Catholic and Methodist bishops, criticized Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s peaceful civil rights demonstrations as being not only "unwise and untimely" but even "extreme." Although today Dr. King is credited as playing a significant role in transforming the culture for the better, these religious leaders of the time argued that the local black community should not support his demonstrations nor press their cause in the streets.

Not only did Dr. King eloquently defend his tactics in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (www.kingpapers.org), he also expressed his heartfelt disappointments:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; ...Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

***

"...I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church, who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

"When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

"In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

***

"...In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities...

"I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi, and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: ‘What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?’...

"...In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church..."

We at CCBR share Dr. King’s concerns about the indifference and even persecution from within. That is not to say a religious belief should be abandoned because of some of its leadership. Nor is it to say that if a strategy is being criticized that the criticizers are always wrong; there are certainly inappropriate methods and approaches just as there are appropriate ones. The point is this: when individuals endorse or oppose a strategy, people must carefully examine the reasons behind that position and then test its merits by examining the other side of the argument. This is the due diligence which CCBR takes in adopting the use of graphic images.

We know that what we are doing is effective; furthermore, we have well-reasoned responses to our detractors’ claims. We find it bewildering, then, that our critics continue to object to CCBR’s use of graphic visuals.

But, once more, Dr. King’s response to the clergymen who opposed him provides insight we can apply to our present-day struggle:

"Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, ‘Wait.’ But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; ...when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: ‘Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?’; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; ...when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next...—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

***

"...I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action."

As I grieved over the opposition we have faced from within, I realized that perhaps there is another reason for grieving: could it be that our detractors don't really understand abortion, don’t really comprehend the oppression of the pre-born? Just as it is possible for someone to hear but not listen, it is possible for someone to know yet not understand.

"Perhaps it is easy for those who have never been aborted to say graphic abortion photos should not be shown. Perhaps it is easy when you are not the one being dismissed as a "blob of tissue" and disdainfully viewed as a "clump of cells"; it is easy when you are not subjected to dismemberment, disembowelment, and decapitation; it is easy when you aren’t the one to endure poisoning by saline that will burn your skin; it is easy when potassium chloride isn't injected into your heart to induce cardiac arrest.

But when you imagine that baby being attacked but unable to escape; when you comprehend a baby being in a safe place only to have it invaded by a stranger who will kill her; when that baby cannot defend herself; when you catch a glimpse of her body parts being ripped off piece by piece; when you realize that what you know about this baby’s plight, most people do not—then you will understand why we use pictures.

This is the story of the aborted pre-born. This is the story that must be told. Their cries cannot be heard—their screams are silent. But their victimization can be seen. It is the images of their terrible suffering that give voice to their cries and pierce the heart of anyone with a functioning conscience.

The story of the pre-born, while unique in many respects, is a story that bears far deeper similarities to that of any group that has suffered brutality and mistreatment:

"[t]he real story is the universal one of men who destroy the souls and bodies of other men... It is the story of the persecuted, the defrauded, the feared and detested."

These words were penned in 1960 by John Howard Griffin not regarding abortion but describing the evil of segregation in the United States. But, for those with eyes to see, his words readily apply to the story of the pre-born.

Recognizing that it is now the pre-born who are the persecuted and defrauded, we at CCBR carefully study historical injustices and learn from the brave men and women who responded to them.

The aforementioned writer, Griffin, authored a compelling book, Black Like Me, which recounts first-hand how he underwent treatments in 1959 to darken his white skin and experience "what it is like to be a Negro in a land where we keep the Negro down". Through his subsequent experience, he gained critical insight into the universality of persecution and oppression: "The Negro. The South. These are details. ... I could have been a Jew in Germany, a Mexican in a number of states, or a member of any ‘inferior’ group. Only the details would have differed. The story would be the same."

We are moved by The White Rose, a book about university students who were killed for resisting the Nazis and for encouraging others to do the same. One of the students perceptively asked the following:

"...Isn’t it preposterous that we sit in our rooms and study how to heal mankind when on the outside the state every day sends countless young people to their death? What in the world are we waiting for? Until one day the war is over and all nations point to us and say that we accepted this government without resisting?"

The book also reports about the cover-up of injustice by German newspapers:

"They made no mention of the fact that day after day not one but dozens of executions took place. God knows the newsreel cameras never got inside the prisons which were crowded to bursting, though the inmates resembled ghosts and skeletons rather than human bodies. They did not film the pale, drawn faces behind the bars..."

One of the students, Christl, had conviction and insight that all people of good will should heed:

"Then it is our duty by our behavior and by our dedication to demonstrate that man’s freedom still exists. Sooner or later the cause of humanity must be upheld, and then one day it will again prevail. We must gamble our ‘No’ against this power which has arrogantly placed itself above the essential human values and which is determined to root out all protest. We must do it for the sake of life itself—no one can absolve us of this responsibility."

We are inspired by the film Hotel Rwanda, which tells the story of one man who risked his life many times to save over a thousand refugees from the Rwandan genocide. We are emboldened by the efforts of Oskar Schindler, who saved more than twelve hundred Jews from the Holocaust, and by the example of Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian Independence movement who confronted British colonialists regarding their mistreatment of Indians. We draw strength from the determination of those who fought to free the slaves of the British Empire and from the courageousness of Lewis Hine, who photographically exposed the plight of child labourers in the beginning of the twentieth century.

Our studies have taught us unmistakably clear lessons: victims always want their sufferings to be known. And the people who respond to their plight do so because they have become intimately aware of the injustice. They know about good and they know about evil. Their knowledge of evil convicts them; their knowledge of good motivates them. Having seen both life and death (Deuteronomy 30:19), they fight for the lives of the oppressed. It is through the exposure of injustice that they and others are convicted to respond. Dr. King expressed this very point as well:

"...we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Today there is no debate about the use of graphic imagery to convey injustices from the past; it is a "no-brainer." People pore through history textbooks that contain graphic images; they flock to museums that show images of yesterday’s injustices; they line up to watch movies that convey the mistreatment of peoples by previous generations.

Why, then, is there a debate today about the use of abortion imagery? For the simple reason that such imagery shows a present atrocity not a past one. The guilt of historical crimes lies with our ancestors, not us. The guilt of present-day crimes lies with no one but ourselves. It is easy to say, "Shame on them." It is difficult to admit, "Shame on us."

It has been eleven years since I was in grade 10, yet I remember a poignant story one of my teachers told: when he himself was in high school, an outcast student was grabbed by a group of bullies. They stripped him naked, put him in a net, and hoisted him up the school’s flag pole. Another student, outraged at the injustice, stood up in defense of the frightened, victimized teen, only to have the same degradation inflicted upon him. A crowd of other students watched this evil play out; my teacher was one of them.

As he told us this story, he asked, "Looking back, if I could have taken the place of anyone there, who do you think I wish I would have been?" He answered himself, "The student who was mistreated for standing in defense of the victimized boy."

Whenever an injustice occurs, we have one of four roles to play: the victim, the persecutor, the bystander, or the defender. We may not have a choice about the first role, but we certainly do about the latter three. We can be guaranteed that if we follow our consciences and become defenders of the weak and vulnerable, we too will face mistreatment, not only from persecutors but even from bystanders who are being put to shame. Enduring this we must contemplate, "Am I now seeking the favour of men, or of God?" (Galatians 1:10).

Should Angry Responses Change How We Proclaim Truth

In January 2007, CCBR received an e-mail from a Catholic pro-life leader who opted not to support CCBR because she had received angry phone calls from two women. These women were upset about the possibility of graphic abortion images being displayed not only generally, but particularly in upcoming CCBR talks at their Catholic churches. Because the concerns this leader expresses may also be raised by others, CCBR’s response is provided below as a teaching tool. Names have been changed and personal references have been removed to maintain confidentiality.

Dear Sandra,

You wrote, "In the last three days two women, who don’t know each other have called me, both very upset about the possibility of these images being displayed and of your upcoming talks in their parish. Their calls have reminded me of the harm the photos can cause and while you at CCBR see positive outcomes through the use of these images it is not consistent with the work we do through [names of post-abortion ministry and pro-life organization]."

It is surprising that just because someone is angry at the images, you would conclude the photos do harm. After all, many people were angry at Bishop Fred Henry, of the Calgary diocese, for speaking against gay "marriage." Should he not have done so? Countless people were angry at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, the early Church martyrs, and Jesus Christ. Take Saint Paul as an example. Prior to his conversion he was irate over what Christ’s followers were saying and doing. Yet God made the scales fall from his eyes. Perhaps if Saint Paul had never been angered, he would never have converted to Christ.

Sometimes people get angry when they are convicted of truth and yet are resisting that truth. That inner struggle takes on an outer appearance of frustration. Through that frustration, through wounds, we can be motivated to look for answers and for healing. This concept became clear to me as I watched a presentation by Christopher West as he taught John Paul II’s "Theology of the Body." He pointed out that it was through experiencing the wounds and pain from his immoral sexual choices that he started asking himself questions and looking for answers. That turmoil was a part of his conversion process.

As Christians we are called to follow Christ. He didn’t say, "Don’t make people angry." Christ said, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). He also said, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18). Time and again the scriptures show Jesus having more concern with truth than with feelings. And He realized that in stating truth, some people would get angry; in fact, the Gospel reading a week ago highlights this: "When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath" (Luke 4:28).

Any expression of opposition to abortion will anger someone: Memorials to the unborn, involving displays of crosses, have been destroyed. "Feminists for Life" poster-campaigns, which focus more on women and are non-graphic, have been ripped down on Canadian university campuses. Participants of LifeChain are often met with angry shouts and middle-fingers to their word-based messages. Non-violent pro-lifers have been arrested outside abortion clinics for trying to talk to women in crisis pregnancy or for standing with word-based messages that state facts about the law. Pregnancy Care Centres have been smeared for offering alternatives to abortion. Post-abortion ministries have been criticized by abortion advocates as having a "guilt-ridden approach" that "can often exacerbate and prolong a woman’s anxiety about her abortion" (www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/98spring.shtml). Billboards offering toll-free help lines to women have been defaced with graffiti.

These approaches are non-graphic and likely your centre has participated in some or all of them. If angry responses cause you to avoid participation in pro-life activities, you won’t be participating in any pro-life activities. If people get angry whenever someone claims that abortion is wrong, and you don’t want people to be angry, you won’t be claiming abortion is wrong.

Clearly, anger in and of itself is not a reason to stop doing what you are doing. We need to get to the reasons behind the anger. Are people angry because one is being unkind? Or, are people angry because they are being convicted of sin in which they are somehow complicit?

This matter of angry responses to us is a point we address here under the GAP FAQ.

Therefore, I do not see how our approach is inconsistent with [your post-abortion ministry]. For any of your clients to find healing they need to come to terms with their involvement in their children’s death. To use a comparison, people with alcohol addictions who want healing must admit they have a problem. In fact, many members of support groups introduce themselves as, "Hi, I’m Tracey and I’m an alcoholic." As you know from working with post-abortive women, taking ownership of guilt is not an easy thing to do. But often what is right is not easy.

I am concerned about [your post-abortion ministry’s] ability to help women find healing if your ministry considers graphic visuals to be negative. These women need to be healed and we rob them of true peace when we water down sin in the healing process. Anyone who cares about a post-abortive woman will want to know why the images make her angry, not simply that the images make her angry. Perhaps she has never come to terms with her abortion and not sought forgiveness; if so, her anger is an opportunity to minister to her. Perhaps she has been forgiven but is not yet healed. Again, this is another ministering opportunity. Healing takes time. And there are many wounded women who are forgiven but not healed. As mentioned above, anger can be an external expression of an internal issue that needs to be addressed. To love that woman is to address that issue, not to feed into it or mask it.

Furthermore, part of healing involves moving beyond our own hurt and having concern for others. A post-abortive woman who regrets her abortion should most desperately want to save other children from death and other women from the pain that follows abortion. Far from graphic imagery damaging these women, it gives them hope that the lie they fell for will be exposed and therefore both unborn and born human beings will be spared similar suffering. Therefore, the woman who is upset at graphic imagery can be challenged to shift her grief. Yes, any counsellor or friend must certainly be sensitive to the woman’s suffering and grieve with her. But then that woman can be challenged, "Offer up your suffering in the interest of saving babies. I can see how much you are overcome with grief that you killed your child. But I want you to know that you can be overcome with hope that you can save other people’s children. God can bring good out of a bad situation. And this is one way to do that; know that through the darkness of your choice—and we all make dark, sinful choices—you can be an instrument of light by saving lives."

When explained from this perspective, graphic pictures are redemptive pictures; they are healing pictures. She needs to be shown how to think about the babies who will live or die based on their mothers’ seeing the truth about abortion. My e-mail to a post-abortive woman who was angry about CCBR’s graphic visuals provides evidence of babies being killed because their mothers never saw the truth about abortion as well as evidence of babies being saved precisely because their mothers did.

I would like to also address the point sometimes expressed in pro-life circles that the graphic nature of abortion should be covered up because to do so is "loving" or "compassionate." That is a frightening sentiment of perverted compassion and perverted love. Christopher West points out in his teachings on "Theology of the Body" that Satan takes what is good and twists it. Compassion and love are good. But when these virtues are divorced from truth and used to justify covering up the truth, they become dangerous sentiments. When these virtues are used to rationalize tip-toeing around born people’s feelings at the expense of unborn people’s lives, the very nature of those virtues gets lost.

To love means to want the other’s good. A parent who says she loves her child and as a result does not discipline him to avoid getting him angry has a perverted sense of love. A parent who has true love for her child will discipline him. Like medicine, sometimes what is good for us doesn’t seem that pleasant.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Gray

Executive Director

Letter to a Post-Abortive Woman

In January 2007, CCBR’s executive director, Stephanie Gray, received an e-mail from a post-abortive woman who strongly disagreed with CCBR’s use of graphic visuals and who CC-ed her message to several pro-life and religious leaders.

Because the concerns the writer brings up may be raised by others, Stephanie’s response is provided below as a teaching tool. The writer is addressed by the pseudonym "Kate" and personal references have been removed to maintain confidentiality.

For complete context, read the original e-mail that prompted this letter.

Dear Kate,

I write you as a sister in Christ. Thank you for sharing your experience of redemption. I found it particularly beautiful that your daughter was the impetus for your conversion to the Catholic faith. God is indeed abounding in wisdom and mercy.

Before I address your concerns, I’d like to provide some background:

Post-abortion grief is something I encounter everywhere. In my ministry of working full-time for the pro-life cause, I frequently travel across North America speaking to people of all ages and backgrounds. I have met many, many post-abortive women on university campuses, public streets, and churches, to name a few. I have worked with post-abortive women. I have been billeted in the homes of post-abortive women. I have spoken with them, listened to them, hugged them, and both offered and received messages of hope.

Some post-abortive women have approached me after hearing my presentations to share their stories. In fact, just last week I was in Alaska and a woman approached me after a presentation in which I showed graphic visuals. She shared the stories of her abortions, of how she has had post-abortion healing, and how she wants to help and get involved. Others have confided their experience over private discussions. Some have greeted me with anger and hostility. Others have welcomed my message and shared their regret. Each woman’s experience is unique yet they all have one thing in common: pain.

I have observed that some are in pain because their abortion is a sin they have not yet repented of; they are in denial. Others are in pain because they are experiencing conviction of sin. Still others are in pain because, while forgiven, they are not yet healed. Women who are graced with both forgiveness and healing no longer experience such a sharp pain although the memory will always remain.

As for crisis pregnancies, I certainly acknowledge that the burdens and complications can be many. As a young child I frequented pregnancy care centres (PCCs) because my mom was a volunteer counsellor. Furthermore, I worked in a PCC and saw first-hand women’s difficulties. Finally, I am routinely consulted about women in crisis pregnancy—requests for both prayers for conversion and for advice when interacting with such women.

I want you to know, therefore, that my comments below come from a deep awareness of and love for "the walking wounded." And while I don’t pretend to know exactly what it’s like, I do share in their grief as a sister and as a fellow sinner. Furthermore, I don’t need to know exactly what it’s like, in the same way a drug counsellor does not need to have been addicted to drugs to form positions on drug use and to help drug addicts.

It is my love for both the unborn and for the born that compels me to expose the injustice of abortion visually. "What kind of love compels someone to show graphic pictures that make people feel bad?" some may ask. Genuine love, for you cannot have love without truth.

If you were about to drink a glass of water with poison in it, to love you would be to inform you of that. It doesn’t matter how parched you are; I need to tell you. With that knowledge you’ll act differently. Alternatively, if you have already drunk a glass of water that I know has poison in it, again—to love you would be to tell you. For with that knowledge you would know to go to poison control.

There are many, many women who choose abortion because they are not more horrified of the abortion than they are terrified of the burdens of the crisis pregnancy. No matter how much help is offered, they believe abortion is the lesser of two "evils." We cannot convey that abortion is the greatest evil by covering up the best evidence we have to prove that.

We cannot convey the evil of abortion by showing "pretty" pictures of unborn babies just as we cannot convey the evil of the Holocaust by showing "happy" pictures of Jewish boys at their Bar Mitzvahs. Can we convey the beauty of the life lost through such injustices? Certainly, and there is a place for that. But such images do not capture the other half of the message—the nature of the injustice itself, the very problem people’s consciences need to be pricked about in order to be inspired to solve.

Contrary to your reference to images of victims car accidents not being appropriate, I encourage you to read the story of Jacqueline Saburido (http://facesofdrunkdriving.com/). She survived a brutal car accident that was inflicted upon her by a drunk driver. She is now the "poster child" for an anti-drinking-and-driving campaign in Texas. The image of her beautiful face pre-accident is contrasted with her burned, distorted, and deformed face post-accident. Jacqui’s story resonates with young people precisely because they see what one person’s "choice" did to another person’s life.

Does the young man who ruined Jacqueline’s life regret his decision? Does he feel badly each time he sees her poster or another campaign against drunk driving? Quite possibly. But bad feelings do not excuse, nor should they cover up, bad behaviour. In fact, bad feelings follow from bad behaviour for those with functioning consciences—and that’s a healthy response.

In order for the young man to be healed of his sin, he needs to be forgiven. In order for him to be forgiven, he needs to repent. In order for him to repent he needs to be convicted that there is a need to repent. Conviction follows recognition of wrongdoing.

You think conviction will follow from pictures of children "missing" from a playground or "missing" from a family photograph. Perhaps in some cases. But the bulk of the history and the present of the pro-life movement involves vague, innocuous approaches like that and abortion is still going strong.

People need to feel bad in order to change and currently they don’t feel bad enough—and that’s why the pro-life movement is losing. The interesting thing is that people feel bad about abortion to a degree, so that they don’t want to see it; and yet, they don’t feel bad enough about it to not commit it, to not permit it, to, in large numbers, seek forgiveness and healing regarding it.

The history of social reform movements (a point I discuss in my presentations) shows the important role that graphic pictures play in making people respond differently to injustice, including making them feel bad. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not arguing for replacing rational arguments with a sole appeal to feelings (after all, abortion advocates base their arguments on feelings). I’m arguing that the imagery is the evidence that supports verbal argumentation for the moral wrongness of abortion. It just so happens that the imagery also has an effect on feelings which helps people come to the correct conclusion about abortion, namely, that it is morally wrong.

Furthermore, the experience of our organization shows the important role of graphic imagery. Every time we speak to high school students the audience members fill out surveys, explaining their position on abortion before and after the presentation. Time and again, people change their minds on abortion and often credit the role images played in that conversion. Here is a powerful example from a teenager who attended a CCBR presentation to a Catholic youth group:

Actually, I thought that I might be pregnant and I was going to get an abortion. After the video, it showed me what I would have done to my child.

More testimonies can be read here: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/newsletters

Our American affiliate receives over 50,000 unique hits to its website, www.abortionNO.org, each month (a site which shows abortions). They receive a constant stream of e-mails from women all over the world who say they decided not to abort their babies because they saw graphic imagery. Here is a testimony from a 17-year-old in West Virginia:

Well, things have been very depressing lately and my mind and body seemed like they were telling me to get an abortion, but after seeing this my heart lead my mind and body in the right direction!!! I AM TWO MONTHS PREGNANT AND I AM KEEPING MY BABY!

An 18-year-old in New York wrote this:

I was 16 when I found out I was pregnant and I considered having an abortion [until] I saw pictures of how wrong it is. Now I have a beautiful baby girl and I wonder how people can murder an innocent child.

Read more testimonies here: www.abortionno.org/AbortionNO/web_response.html

Conversely, we have also received heartbreaking e-mails from women who wish they had known several years ago what they encountered now (graphic images). Had they seen the brutality of abortion, they would not have killed their babies. A 51-year-old woman wrote the following:

Unfortunately these pictures are 30 years too late for me, and I’ll never know what it’s like to have a child. I wish you were present with these pictures in 1976.

Read more testimonies like that here: http://www.abortionno.org/index.php/site/feedback/C9/

So the question we are left with is this: "If we don’t like abortion and we don’t want people to experience abortion, why not use an approach that we know will convince people not to abort?"

If we avoid saving lives in order to save feelings, that calls into question our very determination to save lives.

Beyond that, I would argue that avoiding graphic imagery to "save feelings" doesn’t save feelings at all. It often leaves women in a state of denial, where they aren’t given strong enough motivation to seek the healing that’s available for them. And beyond that, many women who abort have subsequent abortions. So we spare women the pain from multiple abortions when they "hurt" from realizing what the first (and after conviction, only) abortion did.

One post-abortive woman told me that when she had her abortion she immediately felt bad. "But," she said, "The world told me I had no reason to feel bad. So I felt worse." She explained that she had an inner struggle going on: "I feel bad, but I shouldn’t feel bad. I feel bad, but I shouldn’t feel bad." She said that it wasn’t until she acknowledged those bad feelings as legitimate that she was able to move through the healing process.

Graphic pictures help many women move out of denial. Will that process hurt? Absolutely. But not because of the images; instead, it hurts because of the recognition of the injustice of abortion. Denial of sin is short-term gain at the cost of long-term pain. Acknowledgement of sin is short-term pain endured for long-term gain:

When I declared not my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. [Then] I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord’; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin (Psalm 32:3–5).

It is not a sin to show pictures of injustice. Quite the contrary, we are commanded to expose injustice by St. Paul who said, "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). Graphic images save lives. Graphic images move people to repent of their sin.

Exposing wrongdoing to move people to repentance is biblical. In fact, in Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians he wrote this:

For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it), for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting; for you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret... (2 Corinthians 7:8–10).

Post-abortive women, like everyone in society, need to understand the full measure of abortion’s evilness, so that they can accept the full measure of their guilt, and thereby receive the full measure of God’s forgiveness and mercy that He greatly desires to pour out.

Showing images of aborted babies shows no disrespect in the same way that showing images of starving children in Africa shows no disrespect, or showing Jesus Christ on the crucifix shows no disrespect, or showing images of the brutalization of Blacks from the civil rights movement shows no disrespect. What is disrespectful are the acts themselves: killing the unborn, starving the born, crucifying an innocent man, or beating up peaceful people simply because they’re black.

Disrespect for human life continues when it is kept secret. As my colleague Gregg Cunningham has pointed out, "Injustice that is invisible inevitably becomes tolerable." But as people of good will, we are called to be a light in the darkness. Light exposes things for all to see.

Would I want to be remembered as a dismembered aborted fetus, you ask? If I was killed at a time where my peers were also being killed, I certainly would want the evidence of the crime, through my dismembered body, shown. My concern would not be, "I don’t want dismembered pictures." My concern would be, "I don’t want dismemberment."

Anyone who is a victim of injustice desires that the evidence of the crime be made public, if not for themselves (it may be too late) but for other people and generations. I regularly spend time studying history and social movements and it is very evident that those who inflict injustice are desperate to cover it up; conversely, people who face injustice are desperate to expose it. Even forgiven and healed post-abortive women recognize the need to expose—not cover up—injustice by sharing their testimonies, the facts of their stories, so that others will not do the same (e.g., the movement of post-abortive women called "Silent No More" does this).

In the same way, the born must share the testimonies of the aborted unborn (since they themselves cannot). Graphic pictures are a powerful tool for this.

The pro-abortion movement has succeeded by trumpeting feelings over lives. In other words, the feelings, concerns, and burdens that may come with the crisis pregnancy are given more importance than the unborn child’s life. And so, unborn babies are killed as a result. The last thing the pro-life movement needs to do is to follow the same pattern of putting feelings over lives, of hiding the horror of abortion because exposing it makes us feel bad. All the while, babies get killed precisely because the horror of abortion is not known. In understanding God’s grace and finding true healing, we should realize that the pain of one’s own loss should not prevent others from being saved.

In 1955, a 14-year-old black boy, Emmett Till, was brutally beaten and killed by white racists in Mississippi. When his mutilated body was recovered, his mother held an open casket funeral saying, "Let the people see what I’ve seen" ("The Murder of Emmett Till," PBS documentary, 2003). Through this story and image, Emmett is credited as being the catalyst for the civil rights movement (see research by Dr. Clenora Hudson-Weems who wrote the book, "Emmett Till: The Sacrificial Lamb of the Civil Rights Movement"). Was Emmett’s mother, Mamie, heartbroken? Most certainly. But not because of the image of his dead body. But instead because he was dead, because he was killed. She didn’t want any more children to suffer the same fate as her own child.

With regards to the civil rights movement, Dr. Alveda King is a post-abortive woman who is the niece of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a pastoral associate with Priests for Life in New York. In her essay "Visual Learning and the Culture of Life" she writes the following:

For many years, I have been an outspoken advocate for the unborn child, because in a culture of abortion, the child is like a slave. The new civil rights movement of our time is the pro-life movement, and as I seek to preserve the dream of my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and of my father, Rev. A.D. King (Martin’s brother), I ask the question, ‘How can the dream survive if we murder the children?’ I grew up seeing these two great men fight for the equal rights of their people.

But equality is not something you can see. What you can see are people. My uncle knew that the ugly reality of segregation had to be seen visually by the American public. He therefore organized events at which the eyes of the media could broadcast the way our people were treated when water hoses and dogs were unleashed on their peaceful marches. People responded to those images, not simply to abstract concepts of ‘segregation’ and ‘equality.’

Likewise, people—and especially African Americans—respond to the disturbing images of aborted children. Sure, some people get angry when we show them. But everyone who fights injustice has to be ready to pay a price. My uncle did, and so did my Dad. So does everyone who has the courage to show the ugly reality of abortion. Don’t be afraid to do so. Many people are grateful. As a woman who has had two abortions, I am grateful that the truth is being shown, so that others can avoid this pain in the first place (www.priestsforlife.org/articles/visuallearning.htm).

I sincerely pray my message is received well by you, Kate. I mean only good will. I pray that you will be able to offer up your suffering of being reminded of your abortions in the interest of saving babies. While it is too late for [your two children], it is not too late for others.

I certainly recognize that there are many things to be done to rid the Culture of Death and to build a Culture of Life. I applaud the essential work of post-abortion ministries. In fact, it is my plan for CCBR to meet with such ministries in the Calgary area. I know [name of pro-life leader who was CC-ed on both the original e-mail and this response] and this plan will involve us meeting with her and [said pro-life leader's post-abortion ministry]. So while I thank you for the invitation to attend [said post-abortion ministry] with you, we will begin such networking via [said pro-life leader].

Far from CCBR’s approach counteracting other pro-life activities, such as post-abortion ministries, it is a fundamental base. Like the story of Emmett Till, graphic abortion images act as a catalyst for change and healing. To understand our role in the broader pro-life movement requires much more writing or a whole presentation. Thankfully, I am doing the latter at your parish. I pray you will attend.

Most sincerely and with prayers,

Stephanie Gray

Executive Director

P.S., As for your offer of coffee, yes, I would be happy to meet with you and hear about your journey of reconciliation. Please provide some dates and times that work for you.

For complete context, read the original e-mail that prompted this letter.

What About Children Seeing the Images?

CCBR does not directly target children with our campaigns—they aren’t the ones perpetrating this injustice nor the ones complicit in it. The reality, however, is that it is impossible to reach teenagers and adults in society where no children will ever be present.

If parents with young children see the images, they can practice parental discretion and distract their children as they would if there were a dead deer on the side of the road. Or, they can seize it as a teaching opportunity.

They can gently explain to their children that babies were hurt but that the people with the signs are trying to stop that from continuing. Furthermore, parents can reassure their children that they will never be hurt like the babies have been hurt because "Mommy and Daddy love you and will keep you safe."

Sadly, parents sometimes use their children as an excuse for why the images shouldn’t be shown. Often, the reality is that they don’t want to see the images. They may have guilt from past abortions and they don’t want to come to terms with their mistake.

After all, children have consciences and they love babies. When children see the images they see a hurt baby and they want to know, "Who hurt the baby?"

It’s worth observing that the parent’s reaction will often determine the child’s reaction. An irate and swearing parent will have a frustrated and confused child. But a calm, rational parent will have a calm child.

Such was the case with a 5-year-old who saw graphic abortion images. Her teenage sister gently explained the situation and although the little girl cried, she was moved to pray during family prayer time "...that the doctors will stop killing babies."

Another child, a 9-year-old, who saw a graphic abortion photo went directly to his mother and said, "Mom, I want to stop abortion."

This is true for other issues too. In 2006, the Calgary Herald newspaper wrote about a 10-year-old homeless advocate who was inspired—at an even younger age—to form a charity to help the homeless. The paper reported that it was her seeing injustice that convicted her to act:

When Hannah Taylor was five years old, she was struck by the unfairness of something she saw that makes most others turn their heads.

As she watched a homeless man dig for food in a trash can in Winnipeg, she decided no person should ever have to go without food or a home.

Notice that people are not complaining that young Hannah was victimized by seeing such an injustice. On the contrary, people are inspired by her willingness to do what she can to help the less fortunate. But where is that same attitude towards children seeing the injustice inflicted upon the pre-born?

Children have functioning consciences. The question is: do we? If we think we care so much about children, shouldn’t we care about the fact that we contribute, through our taxes, to the deaths of 100,000 Canadian children every year? In other words, shouldn’t we care more about the injustice happening rather than the fact that we see the injustice happening?

After all, if you were walking down the street with a 2-year-old and saw a 5-year-old being killed in front of you, would you complain about your 2-year-old merely seeing the injustice, or would you intervene to stop the injustice itself?

External Link: Show the Truth and the Effects that Graphic Pictures have on Children [PDF]

This is an article by Rosemary Connell of Show the Truth. She explains her study of children’s reactions to the display of graphic abortion imagery. In particular, she discusses the observations she’s made about how children in certain age groups respond.