CBR was blessed with four fabulous interns here in Knoxville this summer. From a taekwondo black belt, to an artist, they brought many skills to the table.

CBR 2020 Interns: Maggie, Britt, Heidi, & Annie

Sisters Annie and Heidi Whaley hail from East Tennessee, just like another one of CBR’s favorite people! Growing up in a strong Christian family, Heidi remembers her dad telling stories of martyrs for the faith, “I’ve always heard standing up for righteousness is hard, but after this summer, I know it firsthand. I’ve felt God’s presence this summer like never before. He has given me boldness in my insecurity, peace in my fear, and strength in my weakness.”

Maggie Groover also grew up pro-life. “It was never something I wrestled with, but it has grown in importance to me as I’ve grown closer to God.” Coming from a large family in North Carolina, Maggie decided college was not for her and instead entered the workforce after high school.

Unlike the other three, Britt Huddleston was pro-choice through most of high school. She eventually realized that “My body my choice” is an extremely intellectually dishonest argument, and that there is nothing scientific about calling a fetus “a clump of cells.” Britt says, “I literally had nothing to back that position other than selfishness.”

We asked our interns to learn and push themselves in many different areas, but street activism proved to be a highlight of the internship for them. Annie found activism outside Planned Parenthood to be particularly poignant. “As soon as we parked, the atmosphere weighed down on me. You can feel what a spiritually dark place it is. The experience revitalized my passion to speak and act on behalf of these unborn children who are brutally slaughtered.”

Interns & Staff outside Planned Parenthood in Charlotte.

Britt had done some pro-life activism at her college, Miami University, but never used abortion victim images. She now fully understands their key role in ending abortion, “Through this internship, I became comfortable with using abortion victim imagery and learned how to engage people with it. I’ve had more effective conversations in the past 12 weeks than I have in the past couple of years without it. Pro-lifers can’t be scared to use images if they care about ending abortion.”

Maggie also noted the impact abortion victim imagery had on her, saying that watching “Choice Blues” on the first day of the internship was the most noteworthy experience for her. “I had already seen the graphic pictures several times at that point, but that video motivated me to act in a way I had not before.” Maggie is proof of CBR’s belief that it is just as important for pro-life people to see abortion as it is for pro-choice people. It turns beliefs into actions.

Heidi and Annie have now returned to school at East Tennessee State University. Britt has returned to Miami University and Maggie to her full-time job as a nanny. Before the internship, all four of our interns were pro-life. They would never have considered abortion an acceptable solution to an unplanned pregnancy. However, they were not mobilized. CBR’s internship mobilized them. Both Annie and Britt plan to start pro-life clubs at their schools to host GAP, and all four of them are now considering working full-time to end abortion. As Annie said, “There is absolutely no way I can go home and act like none of this happened. I know the truth and, therefore, am responsible for sharing it.”

We are already accepting applications for our summer 2021 internship. Click here for more information and to submit an application.

I have been surprised at how often the MAGA hat has sparked serious discussions about important moral and political issues.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Not wanting to talk about decapitating and dismembering little human beings, pro-aborts often change the subject.  For example, they will ask if we support every social welfare program, because if we don’t, it means we hate moms and children.  Or they might ask our position on same-sex marriage, because if we don’t accept their enlightened view, we don’t really believe in equality.

To prevent them from changing the subject, we point to the abortion photo and ask, “What does your question have to do with decapitating and dismembering little human beings?”  Other than proclaim the Gospel — we are commanded to do that — many pro-lifers believe we should abstain from hot-button issues that might create barriers to dialogue and just focus on abortion.

After all, people who disagree with us on a wide range of issues can still agree with us that killing is wrong, that killing 6 million Jews is wrong, and that killing pre-born children is wrong.

On the other hand, abortion attitudes often reflect an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility.  Whether it is taking care of their own children, paying off their own college loans, or paying for their own contraceptives, many students consider even the mere notion of personal responsibility to be something akin to a human rights violation.  And this entitlement extends not only to themselves; everyone on the planet is entitled to come to the USA and have their expenses paid as well.  That is idiotic at a number of levels, but many believe it.  There is a political component to all of this that cannot be ignored, and our society cannot long survive if too many people believe that personal responsibility is a human rights violation.

Leftist kookery not only puts our nation at risk, as if that were a small thing, its advocacy of sexual perversion also puts students at risk of great personal harm — spiritually, emotionally, and physically.  God designed love, marriage, sex, and child-rearing to operate as one package.  He designed us to enjoy sex and raise children within the context of a lifelong, monogamous, committed partnership (i.e., marriage) between one man and one woman.

In rejecting this model, man (a) separates himself from God, (b) destroys the healthy formation of relationships between men and women, (c) denies children both male and female role models in the home, (d) exposes himself to dozens of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and (e) invites serious physical injury.  At Middle Tennessee State, a young man enslaved by the homosexual lifestyle told us that he must get tested for STDs every two months.  The god of this world tells him this is “freedom.”

People like this desperately need somebody to tell them the truth.  For some, we might be the only ones who can.  We can’t be so focused on abortion that we forget to love the person in front of us, and the best way to love this person is often to tell him the truth he needs to hear.

To invite discussions of lifestyle and personal responsibility, I have been wearing my Make America Great Again hat when on the campus.  It has stimulated important dialogue on a wide range of important issues, way beyond my expectations.

At Evergreen State College, a young man walked up to me and said, “I wanted to speak with the one person furthest away from me politically, and when I saw your hat, I knew you must be the one!”

We both laughed.  I told him that I wear the hat, not so much to support our President, although I do, but because I wanted to speak with him about three things that make America great.  He was open to that.  I told him this:

1. “Our founding belief ‘that all men are created’ has made us the freest people on the planet.
2. “Our system of capitalism and free enterprise has made us the most prosperous people on the planet.
3. “Our respect for the Constitution and the rule of law has made us the most stable society on the planet.

“Yet we have a political party that wants to set all of that aside and hunt around for something that ‘works.’”

He agreed with my first point, he said, because he is a Christian.  I further explained that because we are created, we are equal before the Creator and bound to respect the dignity of every human person.  We owe that responsibility not to the magistrate, but to God Himself.

He agreed with all of that, but then he then went on to say that he was a practicing homosexual, and he wondered what I had to say about that.  Here was a person in desperate need of hearing the truth.

I told him that I was bound to treat him with respect, just as I would anyone else, but as a Christian, I could not endorse his self-destructive behavior.  I told him,

1. “The Centers for Disease Control reports that men having sex with men are 2% of the population, but are nearly 70% of the new AIDS cases every year.  My best friend in childhood was killed by AIDS that he contracted from same-sex relationships.
2. “The tissues that God designed for waste management purposes will not stand up to the punishment that this kind of activity inflicts.
3. “As a Christian, he should know that God’s Word strictly forbids homosexuality.”

We talked for about 20 or 30 minutes.  Another student stood and listened, without comment.  After I answered all of his questions, we shook hands and he left.

I don’t know how God will use the encounter.  I don’t know if this young man will repent and let God put him on a better path.  But at least I loved him enough to tell him the truth.  And nobody was harmed in the process.

by Fletcher Armstrong

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

No Name:  How dare they compare abortion to the Holocaust. Nothing should every be compared to the Holocaust. … You can’t compare abortion to genocide.  They are two completely different things and trying to do so invalidates people who have survived through genocide or are going through it right now.  Also, the pictures that they put on display can be triggering for many students, faculty, and families who are touring the school.

CBR Response:  No Name, Martin Luther King, Jr. often compared racial injustice in America to the Holocaust.  Rev. Jesse Jackson later extended the comparison to abortion.  Both of them cited some of the same factors that we highlight in our display, including denial of personhood, dehumanization of the victims, etc.  They didn’t “invalidate” anybody when they made these comparisons.  They merely pointed out common themes.

BTW, this talk about “triggering” is nothing more than a plea for censorship.  You say that you think it’s OK for us to voice our opinions, but you think it goes too far when we provide evidence which proves our claim that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings.

Why do you want this evidence covered up?  How can it be that it is OK to decapitate and dismember little human beings, but not OK to show a picture of the result?

by Fletcher Armstrong

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

Science Student:  You can play with words all you want, but your side will ultimately lose this argument.  It’s inevitable as older generations of voters die-off.

CBR Response:  In other words, if society allows you to decapitate and dismember, then you win the argument and you are perfectly justified in committing the act.  Might makes right.  You say, “We can kill, so we will, and you will lose.”  Gee, where have we heard that before?

I cannot say which view will prevail.  For many years, the pro-slavery view prevailed.  That doesn’t mean it was morally acceptable to enslave another person.

by Fletcher Armstrong

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

Observer:  People on both sides of the issue spent half their time trash talking people who opposed them instead of keeping it to the issue.  The pro-lifers compared the pro-choicers to Germans who ignored the Holocaust, while pro-choicers compared pro-lifers to racists who fought to keep public schools segregated.  This constant mud-slinging contest is exactly why people don’t like talking about important issues.

CBR Response:   Observer, thanks for your comment.  We did not invent the comparison of abortion to the Holocaust and slavery.  Martin Luther King, Jr. often compared racial injustice in America to the Holocaust.  Rev. Jesse Jackson later extended the comparison to abortion.  Both of them cited some of the same factors that we highlight in our display, including denial of personhood, dehumanization of the victims, etc.  But it would be wrong to accuse them of “trash-talking”.

It isn’t trash-talking to point out that perpetrators of genocide always redefine personhood in terms that exclude the intended victim class.  Our Supreme Court declared preborn children to be non-persons in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, applying a developmental criteria (trimesters).  The Court did the same thing in 1857, by declaring Black men and women to be “subordinate and inferior” beings.  The Nazi court declared Jews to be non-persons in 1936.

Another common theme is the language used to dehumanize the intended victims.  For example, Nazis called their victims rats, pigs, vermin, and untermensch (subhuman).  We all know the language used to dehumanize Black men and women in this country.  So what do we call preborn children.  A wanted preborn child is called a “baby” — “look at the ultrasound of my baby” — but an unwanted preborn child is never a baby, but is often referred to as a “parasite”, “blob of cells”, “products of conception”, etc.

These are all true historical facts.  Stating facts is not mud-slinging.

Of course, these facts have relevance only if the preborn child is a living human being, but science tells us that the preborn child is both human (not a pig, cow, or horse) and alive (not dead, but growing).  So can anyone tell us why it OK to decapitate and dismember some human beings and not others?  And what criteria is appropriate to decide which human beings may be decapitated and dismembered and which may not?

by Fletcher Armstrong

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

Science Student:  Your “movement” implies that those who have had abortions are “murderers” and compares them to those who oversaw the holocaust [i.e. “Nazis”].

CBR Response:  We explicitly state that women who have had abortions may not be compared to Nazis.  In fact, aborting mothers are often more victim than perpetrator.  They’ve been lied to.  Many face enormous pressure and even threats of abandonment (or worse) by irresponsible or predatory males who should be supporting them.  Some “choice.”

We compare abortion to the Holocaust because in both cases, (1) the victims are denied rights of personhood, (2) perpetrators use dehumanizing terms to describe the people they intend to kill, etc.  But we also compare slavery to the Holocaust, for all the same reasons.  Does that mean that we believe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and William Clark were as evil as Nazis, because they owned slaves?  Of course not.  These men are personal heroes of mine, but they were very wrong about a grave moral issue.  They grew up in a society in which slavery was an accepted part of daily life.

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

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 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 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.

by Fletcher Armstrong

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

Sara:  The important part about choice people don’t understand is that it is about giving every woman her own voice to make her own decisions.  If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t get one, but don’t force other women to believe that same things.

CBR Response:  Sara, we all want choices, but the choice of abortion kills another human being, often by decapitation and dismemberment.  If you doubt that, then please watch the video at www.abortionno.org.

You claim to be pro-choice, but forgive me if I doubt you on that.  I don’t know where you are politically, but people on the political left are not pro-choice at all.  I am much more pro-choice than they.

For example, unlike most on the extreme left, I believe Big Government shouldn’t force me to pay for my neighbor’s abortions.  You say, “If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t get one.”  Very clever, but your political allies are doing everything possible to force me to pay for somebody else’s abortions.  How is that “pro-choice”?

Many on the far left believe that if I am in medical school or nursing school, I should be forced to participate in abortions as a condition of getting my medical degree.  I should have no conscience protections.  How is that “pro-choice”?

Unlike many on the left, I think I should be able to choose for myself what kind of medical insurance I buy (or sell).  The current Administration has said that Big Government should decide for me what kind of insurance I can buy and even whether I must take the blue pill or the red pill.  How is that “pro-choice”?

But all choices have limits.  The way I learned it down on the farm, your right to swing your fist ends where somebody else’s nose begins.  When your choices cause death, harm, or risk of harm to another human being, then that is one circumstance in which Government, acting on behalf of civilized society, should step in to protect the weaker from the stronger.  That’s why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, speeding, dumping toxic waste, etc.

We all want choices, but the choice of abortion kills, often by decapitation and dismemberment, another human being.

BTW, I should point out that slave-owners could make the same argument you made, i.e., “If you don’t agree with slavery, don’t own one.”

Finally, if you can prove that the preborn child is not a living human being, but something less than human, then I’m more pro-choice than anybody.  Can you offer that proof?

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

Science Student:  Given that you’re pro-life, I’m assuming that you’re also religious — Weird to see you attempting to cite “science” for something in that context.

CBR Response:  Famous scientists who believed in God: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and many, many others.

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prizes Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.  Overall, Christians have won a total of 72.5% of all the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, and 62% in Medicine. (source)

Science is a way of discovering truth about the natural world.  Some scientists claim that all phenomena have a naturalistic explanation, but that is a statement of philosophy, not a conclusion of science.

Science can only tell us that the preborn child is both human and alive from the moment of conception.  Science cannot tell us whether killing humans is immoral or not, nor can science tell us which human beings may be decapitated and dismembered and which may not.

Answering a question about dehumanization at Grand Valley State University.

Online discussions can be a lot of fun.  When we do it social media, only our friends see it.

But when we do it on a newspaper webpage, most people who read it don’t agree with us.  That is our target audience!  So we monitor and respond to online comments.

We clarify confusion and challenge sloppy reasoning.  We reinforce the visual images these students saw when we were on campus.  Unlike many commenters, we avoid ad hominems and make only rational arguments.

Here begins a series presenting reader comments and our responses on an online article about GAP in the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Annoyed Protester: We support the rights for those to chose what they wish to do with their body and the potential life they carry. … I just do not approve of the way they decided to compare it to genocide and had the nerve to basically call me a murderer because I support the right to choose.

CBR Response:  Annoyed, thank you for your comment.  Our purpose is never to condemn those who may have aborted in the past or those who support abortion.  Our purpose is to clarify the confusion that exists about the baby in the womb and his or her moral status.  We don’t say that you are a murderer, but we do say that you are the victim of a confused culture that has taught you that decapitating and dismembering little human beings can be justified.

For example, you call the baby in the womb as a “potential” life. Science tells us — and your own common sense will bear this out — that the baby in the womb is both human (not a pig, horse, or cow) and alive (not dead but alive and growing).  The abortion industry dehumanizes this child so that they can justify killing him or her.

We compare abortion to genocide because abortion kills 1.2 million children per year, many by decapitation and dismemberment, and some of them by torturing them to death.  Yes, late-term babies can feel excruciating pain.

If you watched the big Cunningham-Hunter debate on Incrementalism vs. Immediatism, you may have seen CBR Executive Director Gregg Cunningham announce that CBR would no longer include the following statement in it’s Volunteer Agreement for the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) and other projects:

If asked a secular question, I will give only a secular answer, not a spiritual answer.  I will give spiritual answers only in response to a spiritual question or comment.  (Note:  Many people reject spiritual answers and use them to change the conversation or to discredit the pro-life position.)

Yes, this is going away, but I wanted to clarify the confusion about what it meant and why it was included in our Volunteer Agreement in the first place.

First of all, this was in no way a prohibition to sharing the Gospel.  In our GAP training, which we call the Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA), we routinely remind people that God commands us to share the Gospel.  I have shared my Faith at GAP on many occasions.  Other staff and volunteers have done the same.

But if a student asks why abortion is wrong, it is pointless to reply, “The Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not kill’”  Three reasons:

1. If the student does not accept the authority of Scripture, then such a pronouncement won’t be very compelling to him.  We have to reach him where he is and go from there, just like Paul did in Athens (Acts 17:16-34).  He preached the Jewish Scripture to the Jews, who accepted the authority of Scripture.  But with the Athenians, he stared with a frame of reference they would understand.
2. In most cases, the student likely already accepts the premise that killing a human being is immoral.  (Even atheists agree that killing 6 million Jews is immoral.)  He just disagrees that the preborn child is morally equivalent to a born person.  Most often, his mistake is not a belief that killing is OK, but is rather a belief that preborn children are somehow subhuman.
3. People mistakenly believe our opposition to abortion is just a religious tenant that should remain a matter of personal discretion, much like our belief in keeping the Sabbath.  But we don’t oppose legalized abortion because it violates our religious beliefs; we oppose legalized abortion because it unjustly kills another human being.  That is a much different argument, and we need to make that point crystal clear.

Of course we can also share the Gospel, but we can make a compelling arguments against abortion that don’t depend on a belief in Scripture to be credible.

Some people want CBR to be focus primarily on evangelism.  But if we were to do that, what version of evangelical message would we adopt?  Would it be a Catholic version?  A Baptist version?  A Lutheran version?

We don’t have a theological statement, nor do we proscribe an evangelical approach that all must embrace.  We, like others in the pro-life movement, work with Catholics, Protestants, non-denominational, and even anti-denominational Christians to witness against the evil of child sacrifice.  When it comes to sharing the Gospel; we have to believe that every Christian is being trained (or should be trained) how to do this within their own particular Church.  (Full disclosure: On occasion, atheists have volunteered to help with our outreaches to secular audiences, and we have accepted their help.)

There need to be places in the pro-life movement — and we believe CBR should be one of those places — where Christians of good will can come together to fight a common foe, which is child sacrifice.  Otherwise, we end up fighting each other… about Catholic vs. Protestant, Calvinist vs. Arminian, Latin liturgy vs. Southern drawl, King-James-only (KJO) vs. Nearly Inspired Version (NIV), etc., etc. etc.  The list of issues that could divide us, if we let them, is endless.

If you don’t agree, if you believe your pro-life-ism cannot be separated from your particular brand of Christianity, and if you can’t work with other Christians outside your own particular brand, then there is still a place for you in the movement.  But CBR won’t be that place, because our mission transcends denominational boundaries.

That is not a statement of judgement against denominational pro-life work.  To the contrary; we wish every “pro-life” church would join this fight, as a part of the mission of that church.  And true to our calling, we will make our abortion images available to you and support your denominational pro-life mission in every way possible.

“You all are a bunch of racists for comparing abortion to slavery!”

The accusation is almost comical.  We hear it all the time from students who have no better argument for decapitating and dismembering little human beings.

But of course, we didn’t invent the comparison.  Long before there was a CBR, Jesse Jackson compared abortion to racial injustice.  He must have been a racist.

As it turns out, Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson has also equated abortion with slavery.  He must be a racist, too!

.

by Nicole W. Cooley

At the Shenandoah Valley Soap Box Derby, a complete stranger asked, “Did you go to Tennessee?”

He seemed really excited about my orange Tennessee hat.  I hated to disappoint him, but “No, my boss did.”

Furrowed eyebrows.

I continued, “I am a pro-life activist.  We travel all over the country with our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), and I always get a hat from each campus.”

Who knew a simple baseball cap could spark a conversation about abortion with a complete stranger?

… he carefully dismantled each [fallacy] in a patient way, not acting superior, but as if he were merely suggesting another way to look at it.

I’ve been a collector all my life.  I collected Longaberger baskets for years.  I still buy a new basket on occasion, but at over 200 baskets, I’m pretty satisfied there.

As a child, I collected rocks from the different places we lived.  We were a military family that traveled all over the world, so I have lots of rocks, including some neat limestone from England and large round rocks from a beach in Scotland.

But of all my collections, my current one is the most meaningful to me.  You see, every hat has a story.

At the University of Tennessee, I spoke at length with a student who used to be pro-life, but changed her mind in college.  Veteran pro-life apologist Mick Hunt took the lead.  I call him “the philosopher” because he’s great at talking with students who are wrestling with higher-level questions.  Her struggles centered around “bodily autonomy” arguments like the “famous violinist” who could be saved by an unwilling kidney donor.  We sat on the grassy knoll across from the display for over an hour.

Mick gently explained how a mother’s relationship to her own child is different from a person being forced to offer his kidney to a complete stranger.  I took note of his probing questions to specifically identify the fallacies in her thinking.  I also saw how he carefully dismantled each one in a patient way, not acting superior, but as if he were merely suggesting another way to look at it.

I’m not sure if that young lady is pro-life today or not. But, I do know she must have wrestled with the things we talked about for some time.  Most people are not solidly pro-life without having first wrestled a bit.

For most people, being pro-life or pro-abortion is a continuum; few are truly 100% pro-life or pro-abortion.  Most get hung up somewhere along the line because of those pesky “exceptions” to the rules.  They struggle with the idea of telling a rape victim she should carry to term or with preventing abortion in the case of fetal abnormalities.  That’s why GAP is such a great tool for college campuses.  We help students wrestle with the hard questions.  We challenge the status quo of their own opinions.  We put pebbles in their shoes and force them to think.

After watching Mick Hunt at work, I vowed to be ready next time.  I went home and studied the bodily autonomy arguments in depth.  At the next GAP, I would be ready to plant a few pebbles of my own.

Nicole Cooley is a CBR project director and a new FAB contributor.  This is the first in a series of “hat blogs” about memorable conversations gleaned from her experiences with GAP.