Friday, November 30, 2012

Your adoption stories

National Adoption Month is about to come to a close.  Earlier in November, we asked SPL members how adoption had touched their lives.  Here's what you had to say:
"I gave my oldest child up in an open adoption. She's now almost 14 and is a happy, healthy young woman. We just visited with her and her family about a month ago and my youngest daughter (6 years old) was super excited to spend the night at her big sister's house. My whole family and her biological father's family are all pretty involved in her life. Our situation is not common, but it is awesome!"  ~Rachel M. 
"I am an adopted child." ~Cynthia T. 
"My little sister's from china!"  ~Dominique E. 
"I've adopted two through foster care and they are the light of my life. I can't imagine my life without them."  ~Kristin C. 
"I have friends who were adopted, but my dream is to build my future family through adoption."  ~Sara K. 
"I am an adoptive mom to a 3 year old."  ~Nicole K. 
"I'm adopted!  I'm now 36, with two biological children of my own, and it's amazing to look at them & see the faces of my biological parents. Being adopted to me, and being adopted out of a terrible situation in infancy, into a safe family, is foundational to why I am pro-life."  ~Jen M.
Many thanks to all of you for sharing.  Also, check out Amanda Lord's story on the Abolish Abortion blog.  She reminds us that, while adoption is the best outcome in many cases, simplistic slogans like "adoption not abortion" mask an important emotional element.  Pro-lifers must be sensitive to the feelings of pregnant women and birth moms.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Do human beings begin at fertilization?

Hydatidiform moles occur when an egg without a nucleus gets fertilized; this fertilized egg does not have the genetic code of a human organism and will never develop into an infant. Some argue, then, that fertilization isn't a defining moment and that it's incorrect to say fertilized eggs are human beings.

The Life Training Institute wrote a post on this unusual situation, quoting from Maureen Condic's article, "A Biological Definition of the Human Embryo." The bottom line:
When we say "human beings begin at fertilization" we are actually using a sort of shortcut. It takes a lot longer to say "human beings are human organisms that have begun the course of human development." In the vast majority of cases, fertilization is the point when a new human organism begins the course of human development, and so we just say "fertilization." However, there are some fertilized eggs that are not organisms (hydatidiform moles), and there are some organisms that do not begin human development until well after fertilization (the second embryo in a pair of identical twins).

If fertilization is usually--but not always--the beginning of a new human being, does this mean we don't really know when human beings begin? Nope. We know. I will say again: human beings begin when a new human organism begins the process of human development. This means the second embryo in a pair of twins is a human being, and a hydatidiform mole is not a human being.

Check out the rest of The Life Institute's post for some great analogies between hydatidiform moles, the Alphabet Song, and wildlife spotting. :-)

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Does the pro-life cause have the wrong allies?



















Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Movie review: Life Happens

"It's not a Christian or a Jewish or a Muslim or a Buddhist issue... it's common sense." So says Gary Graham in the trailer (above) for Life Happens, a documentary focused on people who were at risk for abortion. The film's description promises that director Ash Greyson "skillfully replaces rhetoric and religion with hope and heart."



Life Happens opens with a short, accessible, and useful history of the abortion conflict in the United States. The film's coverage of the question of when human life begins is also excellent, with numerous expert interviews. But the heart of the film consists of personal stories.


You can download Life Happens for $2.99 here.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Philosophy in the abortion issue: part one

[Today's post is by SPL member Clinton Wilcox.]




P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
P3: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.




P2: Abortion kills a human being.
C: Therefore, abortion is immoral.






P2: Abortion kills a human being.
C1: Therefore, abortion is immoral.


So conclusion two necessarily follows that abortion should be illegal.

Logical fallacies



Appeal to pity

X is in a pitiful situation.
Therefore your argument fails.


P1: Some women are too poor to raise a child.
C: Therefore, abortion should be legal.


Ad hominem

X is a horrible person.
Therefore, X’s argument fails.



Strawman argument

X believes Y.
I’ll attack argument Z.
Therefore argument Y fails.




Begging the question




“The unborn are not persons.”
“Why are they not persons?”
“Because they’re not viable.”
“Why does viability make someone a person?”
“Because they can survive outside the womb.”
“Because they’re viable...”


Non Sequitur

If A, then B.
Therefore, B.

Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow." If you are committing a non sequitur, then your conclusion does not follow from its premises.





Tuesday, November 20, 2012

November newsletter

Please take the time to read our latest e-newsletter, which contains important information on Roe memorial events.  January will be here before you know it!  Don't miss your chance to meet SPL representatives at the March for Life, Walk for Life West Coast, and Students for Life of America annual conference.

The blog will be on hiatus for the rest of the week as people travel to be with their loved ones.  I wish you all a wonderful Thanksgiving.  I am grateful to you for your support every day!

Monday, November 19, 2012

Election Reflection

Despite America's pro-life majority, abortion supporters were victorious at the ballot box earlier this month. This is no doubt due to a confluence of many factors. Most pro-lifers are not single-issue voters, and they viewed Obama as better on the economy. Mitt Romney was never a strong candidate to begin with; you'll recall that pro-lifers were essentially rooting for "anyone else" in the GOP primary. Todd Akin made an outrageous comment on rape that was then presented as a mainstream pro-life position. And so on, and so on.

A good friend of mine who is a longtime supporter of SPL suggests that "perhaps a different lesson needs to be drawn: the pro-life cause has the wrong allies." When the pro-life movement is allied with fiscal conservatives, who are inclined to cut social programs, it's all too easy for abortion supporters to accuse us of not caring about people after they are born. (I myself described this alliance as "strained" when I appeared on NPR.) The Democratic Party, with its historic concern for those who cannot speak for themselves, would seem to be a better fit-- in theory. In practice, of course, the Democratic Party is married to abortion. So it's only natural that, in a country with a pro-life majority and a two-party system, the GOP would ally with us.

Are Republicans the "wrong" allies? My response is to quote Jason Jones: it's a tragedy that the pro-life flag was not firmly planted in both parties. We must reach out to people on the left as well as the right. But that shouldn't mean abandoning those allies we already have.

What does all of this mean for pro-life political strategy in the short term? I'll conclude with two quick thoughts, and welcome yours.  

First, we must be very clear about the fact that pro-lifers do amazing work to provide for needy families through private charity, regardless of the political situation. Pro-life organizations and individuals that do this work are often reluctant to talk about it, possessing a certain humility and embarrassment about "tooting one's own horn." That has to stop.  

Second, I've noticed an interesting trend emerging among some fiscal conservatives. Rather than the usual dry talk of waste, balanced budgets, and so on, they have shifted their messaging to focus on the debt we are leaving to our children. In short, they're saying that they do care very much about people who are already born, and using that as a basis for their fiscal conservatism. That could be a harmonious fit with the pro-life position. With a few other tweaks, like an intense focus on education reform, the Republicans could plausibly market themselves as the party of children's issues (including, but not limited to, the child's right to be born).

Your reactions?

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Celebrating adoption

November is National Adoption Month!  In honor of this occasion, Secular Pro-Life asks that you do two simple things:

1) Educate yourself by reading our pamphlet on adoption, which explains the often misunderstood differences between private adoption and the foster-to-adopt system.

2) If adoption has touched your life-- whether you've adopted, placed a child for adoption, been adopted yourself, or in any other way-- email your story to  We'll share your stories on our facebook page throughout the remainder of the month.  (If you wish to remain anonymous, please note that in the email.)

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The Larger Agenda

[Today's post is reprinted from my blog, "Yeah, but..."]

If we suddenly stopped arguing about the legality of abortion and just skipped straight to an appeal to morality independent of legality (if that's even possible), how would people react?

Secular Pro-Life once talked about how 68% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. The blog post ends by asking, "Why, then, has it been so difficult to unify and enact meaningful change?"

One of the blog followers commented,
How many people would work to legally restrict abortion if they weren't afraid that the end goal was to legally eliminate abortion?

Similarly, how many people would work to legally restrict abortion if they were confident that exceptions for the life of the mother and for rape would be preserved?

Even if we could change hearts and minds such that no one chose to get an abortion, I think I'd still want abortion to be legally restricted. After all, what does it say about my society that it is legal to kill an innocent person, even if no one actually chooses to do it? What would you think of a society in which it technically wasn't illegal to kill an infant, even if no one ever chose to do it?

But sometimes I do wonder if, on a practical level, the pro-life movement could get more done with a different strategy.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

This is what an abortionist's job description looks like



Friday, November 9, 2012

Pro-Lifers & Birth Control


Gallup says 89% of American adults consider birth control morally acceptable. Gallup also says 50% of Americans describe themselves as "pro-life."

Let's assume all of the other 50% (the people who don't describe themselves as "pro-life") consider birth control morally acceptable. That leaves 39% of Americans who both describe themselves as "pro-life" and consider birth control morally acceptable. In other words, at a minimum, 78% of self-described pro-lifers consider birth control morally acceptable. But you wouldn't know it, would you?

I thought I was a minority in being both anti-abortion and pro-birth control. The polls say most pro-lifers are fine with birth control, so why doesn't it seem that way? I have some theories.

1) Pro-lifers who are more active in the pro-life movement are probably both more vocal and more ideologically "pure." In other words, perhaps the majority of self-described pro-lifers are fine with birth control, but the majority of pro-life activists (the people we hear from the most) are not?

2) "Birth control" is a vague term. There are many different types of birth control, and some are more controversial than others. For example, maybe most pro-lifers think condoms are a good idea but reject the morning after pill. Would they say, generically, that "birth control" is morally acceptable, or no?

3) The religious right is vocal about opposing the birth control mandate. People conflate pro-lifers with the religious right (and there's certainly a correlation, but still it's not quite accurate). People also conflate not wanting to pay for birth control with thinking people shouldn't be allowed to use birth control.

Anything I'm missing? Why do you think there's such a discrepancy between the perceptions of the pro-life movement and what an average "pro-lifer" actually thinks?

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Should Men Stay Out of the Abortion Issue?

[Today's post is by SPL member Clinton Wilcox.]

Does this sound familiar? “Seventy percent of pro-lifers are men, and 100% will never be pregnant!" How about this? “Pro-lifers are nothing but old white men who want to send women back to the dark ages where they are pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, breastfeeding twins!”

These types of argument commit a logical fallacy known as the ad hominem attack, which means you attack “the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.” [1] This article was inspired by another article on a blog making the argument that all men in the abortion issue should be silenced. [2]

The seventy percent statistic, unsurprisingly, is simply made up. [3] The next time you hear that, ask them to justify their statement. There are many pro-life women who make the same arguments that pro-life men do. But even if we did fall under the pro-choice stereotype of pro-life people, how does that negate our arguments? Even if we were all misogynistic old men, how would that suddenly make killing innocent unborn human beings moral? Remember that arguments don’t have gender, people do.



Standing against injustice is right for everyone, not simply someone of a particular gender, race, religion, and so on. Trying to quiet one gender from speaking out is, itself, a sexist position. As Martin Luther King Jr. has famously said, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” [4]

[3] According to a 2011 Gallup Poll, 46% of pro-life people are men, and 44% are women. By contrast, pro-choice people are pretty evenly split -- 50% are women, and 49% are men (it’s unclear where the missing 1% is, perhaps people who forgot or neglected to fill out the “gender” portion of the survey).
[4] Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The future of the Supreme Court

President Obama has been re-elected, and while many pro-life groups are disappointed, no one is calling it quits.  The pro-life movement has made many gains in the last four years, and we will make many in the next four.  For the most part, our struggle is a grassroots, local effort; having a pro-life president is a plus, but not a necessity.

The president's greatest impact on abortion issues is in the area of Supreme Court nominations.  A Romney presidency would have meant more pro-life Justices, and a possible overturning of Roe v. Wade.  Under President Obama, what is likely to happen in the next four years?

It all depends on who dies or retires.

Four current Justices--Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito-- believe that the Constitution leaves the abortion issue up to the states, which makes Roe v. Wade bad law.  None of them would dream of resigning while Obama is in office.  But if one of them dies in the next four years, Obama will undoubtedly replace him with a solidly pro-abortion Justice.  In January of 2016, when Obama's successor enters the White House, Scalia will be 79 years old; thus far, however, he has enjoyed good health.  Thomas will be 67, Roberts 60, and Alito 65. 

Justice Kennedy is in the mushy middle.  He wrote the majority opinion in the case that upheld the partial-birth abortion ban, and infuriated abortion supporters by acknowledging affidavits from regretful post-abortive women.  But he also helped write the lead opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the Court had the opportunity to overturn Roe but declined to do so.  He will be 79 in January of 2016.

Finally, there are four Justices who are committed to maintaining or expanding Roe v. Wade.  An Obama replacement for any of these Justices will simply keep the status quo.  These include his two earlier appointments, Kagan and Sotomayor, who are young, in good health, and have no reason to retire.  Justice Breyer will be 77 years old in January of 2016.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest member of the Court, and has suffered from numerous health problems, including pancreatic cancer.  With Obama's re-election, there are indications that she will retire some time before 2016.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Election hiatus

For the next few days, your news consumption is likely to focus on the little matter of who's going to run the United States for the next four years.  We are therefore suspending the blog through Wednesday.  If you're eligible, fulfill your civic duty and vote!

Non-American readers, please accept our sincerest apologies for the interruption.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

The Hogan twins are back!




The original video, in case you missed it: