by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Justin Barr:  I agree with not calling people against abortion pro-life because 9/10 time they really aren’t pro life, their pro birth and than screw you afterwards.

CBR Response:  Justin, that is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Name-calling and ad hominems are no substitutes for reasoned arguments.  If you have a reasonable argument that justifies decapitating and dismembering little human beings, we’d all love to hear it.  You could save us all a lot of trouble if you would make a coherent case.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

At UNC Greensboro, a female student begged us to give up protesting abortion and spend our time and energy promoting free IUDs (that she claimed were 99.5% effective).  She insisted this would end the need for abortion, apparently being unaware that the IUD is an abortifacient.  This obviously well-formed student wrote,

“Abstinence programs do not work because sex is a basic human need like food, water or shelter.  It is built into our genetic code to crave it and there is nothing we can do to curb this … very human desire … Please reconsider what you spend your time protesting.  Your time is incredibly valuable and people with protesting souls like yours need to take advantage of their gifts.  Please, please protest for free birth control.  IUD’s especially.”

This goes beyond the commonly held view that sex without responsibility is an entitlement.  In this woman’s mind, she and her classmates must have a regular romp in the sack or suffer something akin to starvation, dehydration, or hypothermia.  I have images of mythological nymphs frolicking through the forest in a decaying, oversexed society.  The world is collapsing down around them but all they can do is frolic and play, or die.

Folks, please pray for these poor, deluded people.  That God would give them Light to see the way.

Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Thinking Logically:  [I] called you out on your shame tactics and blatant disregard for the emotional wellbeing of people who have gone through both the procedure in question … Can you perhaps choose another argument?  I think we all get that you are under the impression that abortion “decapitate and dismembers little human beings” or something along those lines. … Abortion isn’t genocide. Genocide is government sanctioned; there is propaganda (again government sanctioned and supported) demeaning the humanity of the targeted group, and military action is taken to eradicate the ENTIRE group.  Firstly, the government does not sanction abortion; there is massive controversy around the subject.  Secondly, you don’t turn on the television and see advertisements saying, “Eradicate the parasites known as the Unborn!” You don’t leave your house and walk down the street and see posters with demonizing pictures depicting “the unborn” and how we should “eradicate” them.  Thirdly, in saying that it is a genocide you are saying that we seek to eradicate ALL unborn children.  In what universe do you actually think that anyone would eradicate the potential life that fuels and sustains our population on earth?  Another thing is that genocide does rely on mob-mentality, bandwagoning, and most other appeals to people.  Does that sound familiar?

CBR Response:  Thinking Logically, If abortion is just another medical procedure necessary for the well-being of women and society, then why would a picture of it shame anybody?

I repeat the fact that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings because that is an important fact that is the crux of the matter.  If you can offer any compelling evidence to the contrary, we would gratefully thank you for the enlightenment and find something more productive to do.  If you could provide a coherent argument for why it is OK to kill some human beings without justification, and give us some rational way to decide who may be killed and who must be protected, then we would gratefully thank you for the enlightenment and find something more productive to do.

Knowing that such simple evidence/arguments would get us to shut up and go away, why don’t you offer them?  You don’t offer such facts nor such arguments because they don’t exist.  To cover up for your lack of facts/arguments, you respond with ad hominem attacks and falsehoods (e.g., preborn humans are not human).

We will offer relevant facts and arguments as long as pro-aborts offer no coherent response.

Your comments are confused because you didn’t read the UN definition of genocide, nor did you read what we said about it.  We use the definition of genocide as stated in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 (11 December 1946): “Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, … and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. … The General Assembly, therefore, affirms that genocide is a crime under international law … whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds …” (source, accessed January 15, 2011)

Note that the action doesn’t have to be government-sponsored in order to be considered genocidal.  The genocide in Rwanda was not government sponsored.

You say that one of the defining characteristics of genocide is the demeaning of the humanity of the target victim group.  True.  Note that we often call a WANTED preborn child a baby, but an UNWANTED preborn child is never a baby, but is rather a fetus, embryo, products of conception, potential life, parasite, not a human, etc.  Can’t get much more demeaning than to call somebody a parasite.  The only difference between the baby and the parasite is that the one is wanted and the other is not. Personhood based on wantedness …  When have we seen that before?

You say that in order for it to be genocide, somebody has to be targeting an ENTIRE group.  With abortion, the entire group being targeted for destruction is UNWANTED, PREBORN children.  Not all preborn children, not all unwanted children, but all children who are both unwanted and preborn may be killed.

How can you say that the government doesn’t sanction abortion?  Haven’t you read Roe v. Wade?  Don’t you know that the abortion industry receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the US government every year?

You said that genocide depends on mob-mentality, bandwagoning, and most other [fallacious?] appeals to people.  You asked if such a characterization sounded familiar.  Yes, it does.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

Sibling rivalry.  It happens.  You can even say it’s natural.  But with abortion, it can be dark and disturbing.

“If my mom didn’t have an abortion, I wouldn’t be here today!”  We hear it all the time.  Okie from Georgia Southern U said that because his father coerced the abortion of two older siblings, he was able to raise successful, productive sons later on, of which Okie was one.  In other words, “I’m glad my big brother is dead.  If he had lived, things sure would be different for me!”  Kill or be killed.  Dog eat dog.

As the sister of a dead brother (not because of abortion), this is disturbing to my very core.  I can’t imagine being grateful he’s gone because his death makes my life somehow “better.”  Statements like that ring cold and cruel in my ears.

There’s even a children’s book called Sister Apple, Sister Pig, written to help children rejoice over their sibling’s abortions.  It’s about a boy who is looking for his sister in various places at his family’s farm.  His sister was aborted, and according to the boy’s father,

“…You have some good reasons to not have a sister right here, right now.  Maybe you will have another sister when there is more time, and there is more money.”

See kids, if your sibling hadn’t been murdered, there wouldn’t be enough time and money for you!  In fact, that is the exact conclusion the young boy comes to in the story.  He says,

“I’m not sad that my sister is a ghost!  If you kept my sister, you would be tired, and sad, and mad! … Because we would be wild and loud and sometimes we would fight.  Mama might be scared that she could not buy enough food for us.  Mama might not have enough time to read to me, to paint with me, to play with me, to talk with me … Sister is a happy ghost!”

I’m starting to realize that this is a vital survival mechanism.  How can a child process the news that his own mother or father murdered his own brother or sister, without going completely insane?

Sister Apple, Sister Pig isn’t a story about a boy who has come to healthy acceptance of his late sister’s death.  This is a story about a little boy who rationalizes his sister’s murder to avoid completely losing his mind.  The same can be said of the people we have met, on campus and elsewhere.  When a parent turns against a child, it’s only natural for the remaining children to turn against the victim as well.  This protects him from the shattering effects of cognitive dissonance.  You can’t be pro-slaughtered-baby and pro-slaughtering-parent at the same time.  This is especially true when you are related to both.

Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Man:  You’re comparing a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a potential child to term (and dramatically change her life, cause unforeseen health issues, potentially lead to a bad life for a child, etc) to an event which imprisoned/killed millions of [already born] people and caused the death of countless other via a global war?

CBR Response:  We are comparing killing human beings who are little with killing human beings for any number of other arbitrary reasons.

We are comparing the dehumanization of unwanted preborn children with the dehumanization of other people groups singled out for destruction.  For example, you claim that the preborn child is only a “potential” child, because you want to kill him or her.  Similarly, Nazis said that their intended victims were “untermensch” (subhuman).  Where does that end?  Why not kill infants because they are only “potential” teenagers?

If you think somebody is going to have a bad life, you can kill that person?  Where does that stop?  We all know many people who came from difficult life circumstances; do you think they should be dead?  How can the potential for future difficult life circumstances be used to justify killing anybody?

You mentioned the process of birth?  How does that change anything about that baby?  What is essentially different about a baby 10 minutes before birth and that same baby 10 minutes after?  Why do you believe it is OK to decapitate and dismember the one and not the other?

Perpetrators of genocide almost always discount the humanity of their victims.

A UNC Greensboro student takes a GAP brochure.  Who could resist?

by Jacqueline Hawkins

Sometimes at our GAP display, you will see a gaggle of babies and toddlers, and also moms with strollers. These are members of our “Baby Brigade.”  They make a subtle but powerful pro-life statement.

They change the dynamic in several ways. First, students are less likely to become verbally abusive.  No one likes to use obscene language in front of 2-year olds.

Second, students can see the contrast between death (the stark truth of child murder) and life (the end result when pre-born babies are spared).  When students see women with their own children romping about in the green grass, motherhood doesn’t seem so scary; it looks inviting.

The babies soften the blow of the images.  Christy McKinney, one of the mothers in the Brigade, spoke with a freshman at Tennessee Tech for an hour.  The pictures hit home for this young woman, because she had recently learned that her mother wanted to abort her when she was six months along.  She was very hurt by this and became tearful during the conversation.  Christy let the student hold her 6-month old son, and that seemed to ease her pain.

Are you a mom with babies in tow? Would you like to join the Baby Brigade and make a subtle but powerful pro-life statement during GAP?  Call or e-mail us and we’ll keep you abreast of volunteer opportunities!

Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.