Laurice Baddour shares the Love of Christ everywhere she goes.

Pray for students who need healing.  A young woman walked past, then turned around and came back.  She asked of Ohio volunteer Laurice Baddour, “What would you do in the case of rape, and you had no other choice but to have an abortion?”  Laurice: “Were you raped and had an abortion?”  “Yes, when I was young.”  (She is still so young!)  So they talked.  Laurice shared with her our “Ask the Victim” handout, told her that there are resources for healing, and said that maybe one day she will have regrets and want to access some of these resources.  She walked away abruptly, but as she left Laurice said “Please know I truly care about you and am here for you.”  She looked back, listened, then sadly and quietly walked away.  Such women often suffer great pain and are unable to engage in civil conversation.  God had prepared her heart for a seed of truth.  Pray that this seed will grow and produce the fruit of healing.

The whole family needs healing.  Missie was looking at the photos, at a distance, crying.  Massachusetts volunteer Marie went to see what she could do.  “My boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend (Susan) just had an abortion and we are all devastated and angry at her.  We all would have helped her and she didn’t let us.”  Missie took information on Rachel’s Vineyard and promised to give it to Susan as soon as her own emotions had calmed down.  She believes Susan will be hurting sooner rather than later.

Bryan McKinney came all the way from Virginia, along with his wife Christie and 17-month-old daughter Elizabeth, to save babies and moms at Michigan State.

Let us follow Paul’s example of praying for the lost.

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.  (Romans 10:1)

Pray for students who believe lies.  As is always the case, pro-aborts asserted that the pre-born aren’t human.  Honest students, even those neutral on abortion, were surprised that pro-aborts would base their arguments on something so blatantly false.  (When Does Human Life Begin?)  Pray that these students will come out of denial.

Pray for students who know the truth but lack courage to face it.  Virginia volunteer Bryan McKinney spoke with two female students for a good bit of time.  She answered the usual questions.   Both young women were quiet for a long time and looked up at the pictures of children who had been decapitated and dismembered.   The next day, Bryan saw one of the women standing with the pro-abortion protesters.  When their eyes met, the young woman looked away.  She knew what she was doing was wrong.  Pray that this student will have courage to accept the truth.

Written on our free speech board at Michigan State University: “Intense images … really forced me to think.”

The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) created such an uproar at Michigan State University (MSU), the Students for Life (SFL) President Lisa Jankowski was elected Chairwoman of the College Republicans!  Congratulations to Lisa!  The CRs know what works, and they want it.

The tension surrounding GAP is not a negative we must overcome.  It is a positive we should embrace, for two reasons.  First, it is an indicator that people are uncomfortable when faced with the status quo.  Isn’t that how we want them to react?  Second, it is a facilitator of social change because it draws more attention, forcing people to think about abortion who would rather not.

I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’ I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.  (Martin Luther King)

The pro-life students at MSU understood this.  SFL Vice President Vinny Szczerowski wrote

By bringing [GAP] to MSU, we achieved greater interest in our growing Students for Life organization.  The attention given to the uniqueness of this project gave our group a new reputation for being a strong advocate for pre-born children.  Though we were met with fierce criticism, the amount of additional support given to the project and our organization made the efforts all worthwhile.

Why do so many students embrace this project?  Because it works.  Szczerowski wrote

… students even completely changed their once-held pro-choice mentality and began to see what an atrocity abortion truly is.

In other words, GAP works.  People can see it.

Tension compels people to think about abortion, even if they would rather not.

.

Here are just some random comments made by passersby at Oakland University:

“It’s crazy; can I take a picture?”
***
“I appreciate what you are doing.”
***
“I want to punch you in the face.”
***
“I am disturbed; I don’t know what to think.”
***
“They are freaking terrible.”
***
“You should have been aborted.”
***
“That’s really blunt.”
***
“Thank you.”
***
“It’s just really disturbing.”
***
“You guys are just disgusting.”
***
“It’s all God’s creation…I don’t know how people can say this is normal, but we have a pretty crazy humanity right now.”
***
“Not allowing abortion legally won’t stop it.”
***
“I am glad you are doing this and I pray it gets changed in your country.” (Muslim woman)
***
“If my girlfriend gets pregnant, she’s going to have an abortion.”  [CBR: “That doesn’t sound like ‘choice’ to me.”]  “I don’t care.  I would make sure she had an abortion.”
***
“[Abortion is a] very bad thing; I think it is a loss.”

Silent No More on campus.  Shirts say, “I regret my abortion: Please ask me about it.” When you come and open yourself up to college students, you can help them in ways the rest of us never can.

Tyler, a young man at Oakland University was angry at us.  His girlfriend had been raped and had an abortion.  He told us that when she saw the GAP display, she was quite upset and unable to do anything but sit in her dorm room and cry.  He wanted me to remove the GAP display, and he wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less.

I probably didn’t handle it correctly.  I’m human, too, so I fumble the ball sometimes.  But in the final analysis, Tyler really didn’t need to hear from me.  He needed to hear from somebody he could listen to.  He needed to from a woman (or man) who could relate to the pain of having aborted a child.  Maybe he needed to hear from you.

We must show the truth, because everyone, including women who have been raped and are pregnant, need to see the truth before it’s too late.  We were too late for this couple, but not for others.

But we also need to show compassion.  If you have experienced abortion, please join our team.  Please go with us, so you can explain to folks like Tyler how God loves us in spite of our sin.  You can explain how God can forgive us and heal us from abortion, just as He can forgive and heal us from any other sin.  You can tell them that you know this is true, because you’ve been there.

One post-abortive rape victim told us, “When you talk, I want to punch you in the face.”  If you are post-abortive yourself, I’m willing to bet you will get a different response.

At every university, they basically tax conservative and neutral students (through exorbitant student activity fees) to subsidize left-wing student activism on campus.  They take in millions of dollars in mandatory fees every year, with almost none of it going to conservative events/projects, but huge amounts going to left-wing propaganda events/projects.  A local example is $20,000 of student activity money spent on (Perverted) Sex Week at the University of Tennessee, but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

But occasionally, they do throw us a bone.  At Oakland University (OU), the Students for Life (SFL) applied for and received the funding necessary to pay for GAP.  This happens rarely … very rarely.

As conservatives, we need to be coaching our students to apply for and get money for conservative activities, just like the leftists do.  (We actually pay professors to coach leftist students how to apply for and get this money, but nobody is coaching our students.)  When they apply for money and don’t get it, we should go to court and sue universities over and over again until they are forced to level the playing field.

Abortion advocates: Isn’t this equivalent to a cell you can cut out of your finger?

One student at Oakland University (OU) said, “If you cut off your finger, then you can take the cells and turn them into reproductive cells which can be turned into a human being.  So why is the embryo so important?”

Two factors in play here, dehumanization and confusion of wholes with parts.

He is confusing wholes with parts when he equates an individual cell that is part of a human being (the cell in your finger) with a cell which is a human being (a human being at an early stage of development).  The cell in your finger can never act as a whole living organism. You leave it alone and it dies.  The embryo in you womb is a living human being.  You leave it alone and he grows into a fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, etc.

Theoretically, it may be possible to create a new human being by manipulating an individual cell taken from the “parent.” Once that process is complete it would be a new human being. But until then, it’s only a cell from the “parent.”

He then uses this theoretical possibility of asexual reproduction to equate a baby in the womb with a cell in your finger. It’s just another way of dehumanizing the unwanted human being that he intends to kill.

CBR volunteer Mark Wolf from Columbus, Ohio describes how advocates of genocide often use words to dehumanize their victims.

We encounter many foreign students who know what genocide is.  They know what dehumanization looks like.  That’s because many of them have experienced it … or their families have.

A group of three Armenian students at Oakland University (OU) had lost family members in the genocide in Turkey (1915). They understood it at a personal level, and believed those family members would agree our message of genocide.

She started her life in China. She was a second child, so she started her life as an unwanted child. Most such children in China are killed, but her mother had been brave to save her life. Eventually, she found her way to America, where she was adopted by an American family. As a former unwanted child, her response to GAP was to join the Students for Life and volunteer to help!

Abortion apologists say that abortion is simply a “choice” and its victims are subhuman. This is one of many ways they mimic genocide apologists throughout history.

GAP highlights many ways in which abortion is comparable (although not identical) to other forms of historical genocide.  One similarity is the language used to justify the killing.

For example, pro-abortion protester Lauren Catoni was quoted in the Oakland Post (the OU student newspaper), “It’s actually horrifying that they’re comparing this to genocide because genocide is a widespread movement to eliminate people and abortion is a medical procedure people have when they need it.”

Perpetrators of genocide almost never “eliminate people.”  No, they exercise their “choice” because they “need” to.  Perhaps Ms. Catoni should complete her sentence: Genocide is a widespread movement to eliminate people and abortion is a widespread medical procedure people have when they need to eliminate people they don’t want.

OU SFL President Michelle Anderson changed her mind and brought GAP to Oakland University.  After GAP, she wrote to thank us, “GAP is the perfect project …”

The Oakland University (OU) Students for Life (SFL) opposed the use of abortion victim photos … until they attended the Students for Life of America (SFLA) National Conference in January.

They heard Stephanie Gray of the Canadian CBR describe how social movements have used victim images not only to change hearts and minds, but also to move people to action.  They called us, and because of your support, we were able to answer that call.

OU SFL President Michelle Anderson wrote:

My fears suddenly seemed so minuscule after hearing Stephanie’s talk.  We needed to do this at Oakland University.  There was no way around it.  We are extremely happy that we decided to go through with this campus-shaking project.  The large-scale influence that this project has had on our campus is immeasurable!  We are constantly doing pro-life activities on campus, but there hasn’t been something as grand as the GAP project.  It reached more students in two days than we would while tabling for one hour in the student center every day for two semesters.  Even then, we wouldn’t be able to tell students why abortion is wrong in 3 seconds.  With the GAP project, you don’t even need to use words because the “picture is worth a thousand words” cliché truly applies here.

With your support … only with your support … we can help pro-life student heroes like Michelle change the campus culture, win hearts, change minds, and save lives.

My new friend (I hope) W. Russell responded to an FAB post earlier this week.  He (or she) wrote:

I think you are making a big mistake by linking the pro-life cause with religion. There are people out there like me that are prolife but want nothing to do with religion. Not to mention the fact that “Darwinism” (btw, there is no such thing) has nothing to do with abortion. I am an atheist, believe in evolution, and am pro-life. Why do you want to write me off as an enemy to your cause. You say the biggest treat to children is the belief in evolution and abortion. No, the biggest treat to children is ignorance and the lack of respect for human rights, every human’s rights. One can believe that every human being, born and unborn is deserving of life without believing in a deity. The pro-life cause needs all the support possible. Don’t exclude people because they don’t have the same beliefs as you. If you do, you are just as ignorant as the people who support abortion.

This is my reply (with a few edits):

Thanks for your comment. I wholeheartedly agree with much of what you said. For example, you said, “One can believe that every human being, born and unborn, is deserving of life without believing in a deity.” You are of course correct. Many atheists agree with us on the right to life.

You said we should not link the pro-life cause with religion. There is some truth in that. For example, we should be able to argue against abortion without appealing to our religious beliefs. With our Pro Life Training Academy, we do exactly that. We train people to talk about spiritual matters only with people who are open to that discussion. When an atheist asks us why we oppose abortion, we don’t say he must adopt a new moral code before he can become pro-life; we simply ask him to apply his current moral code to everyone equally, including the unborn. We assume that he opposes killing born people, and usually he does.

You said, “The pro-life cause needs all the support possible. Don’t exclude people because they don’t have the same beliefs as you.” You are again correct, and I am happy to work beside you to end injustice, including the injustice of killing unborn children, no matter what else we may disagree about.

But I don’t agree with you that just because we disagree on something important, I have “[written you] off as an enemy to [our] cause.” It only means that we disagree on some things and agree on other things.  I have many friends in the pro-life movement, and I disagree with almost all of them about religious matters that we consider important.

It is unrealistic to expect that Christians will quit being Christians when they take up the cause of ending injustice. We Christians fight injustice for two reasons. First and foremost, we are commanded to do so by our Creator.

Second, Christians believe that all of us (including you and me) are created beings, and we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these is the right to life. If there is no Creator, then we all evolved from the earth. We are simply a cosmic fluke, mere dust that happens to be animated for a short period of time before we return to dust. And if that is true, then what is the basis for any kind of morality? How can one clump of animated dust say what is moral and what is not moral for another clump of dust?

And are all clumps of animated dust to be treated equally? What is the basis for declaring that human lumps of dust have a greater status than non-human lumps of animated dust (e.g., animals)? Or even non-animated lumps of dust (e.g., rocks).

If we claim greater moral significance for ourselves than for dogs or rocks, because we are more evolved, then who is to say that some of us humans aren’t more evolved than others, and therefore entitled to greater rights?

That’s why I believe Darwinism to be a dangerous philosophy … because it ultimately leads to the conclusion that there is no objective morality, there is no basis for equality, and there is no imperative to treat anyone with human dignity. Any moral code is only a tool to promote self interest, and it can be discarded by those in power as soon as conditions make a different moral code more profitable.

I know that you have a different basis for your beliefs that there is a moral code we are all bound to follow, that we all have a right to live, etc. And I respect that. I just don’t agree with it. I welcome you to the table of respecting the unalienable rights of all people; I just got there through a different door. That doesn’t mean that I have written you off as an enemy, nor does it mean I don’t welcome your support.  It just means we disagree.

But before I close, it is my duty to say that I am concerned for your eternal soul. It is my hope that you will live abundantly, not only for a few years on this earth, but eternally in the world to come. I hope you won’t be angry to know this.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:16-18)

On final note about Darwinism (the notion that all life forms evolved as a result of random, unguided, naturalistic processes). Speaking as somebody with a science background, I believe the claim that science has made a conclusive case for Darwinism, as opposed to the alternative theory that life is the result of intelligent design, is a classic example of begging the question (i.e., assuming the proposition you claim to be proving). Darwinism does not prove man evolved via naturalistic processes; it assumes man evolved via naturalistic processes. Big difference. But, that’s another topic for another day.

At Virginia Tech, a male student asked what should a couple do if they can’t financially provide for a child.  We talked about community resources and adoption options.  We talked about adopted children who are thankful to be alive.  He was visibly moved, we wondered if he is the father of a pregnant woman’s child.

It occurred to me that our culture is telling young people two contradictory things.

First, they hear a steady stream of flattering remarks about how smart they are.  Stuff like, “You are the smartest group of students ever to attend this university.”  Teenagers already believe they are much smarter than everybody else.  That’s part of being a teenager, but this generation believes they are smarter than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

On the other hand, they believe themselves to be so weak and helpless, they can’t possibly take care of themselves, much less take care of their own children.  It has never occurred to them that parents less well-educated and less wealthy than themselves have been raising children for thousands of years.

This kind of thinking is the staple of the political party who promises to (1) provide for their every need, and (2) preserve their the right to kill their own children.  If people figure out that they are plenty strong enough to take care of themselves and their children, the party of dependency and death would become less relevant.

GAP is a venue for Christians to openly share truth.

Sometimes we focus so much on the antics of those who oppose us, we forget to report on the many pro-life students who support our presence on campus.  They are so thankful that they are not alone.

“Thank you!  I am glad you are here!”

“I’m glad those other students [finally] have something to be upset about.”

“If you support this, why don’t you want the advertisement?”

“Why are these people saying you should leave campus?  It is just [the truth]!”

“These are just pictures.  If you are upset, that’s good.”

“This is stirring up conversation; this is good.”  (Christian dining hall employee)

Young Christians believe the truth (at some level), but they don’t know how to answer the full-frontal assault that is the atheistic campus culture.  The modern church has never taught them how to articulate and defend the Christian Faith with logic and reason, so they fear the Faith is illogical and unreasonable.  What a tragedy.

The most effective evangelical organization on campus is often the College Republicans, because those kids know how to articulate the truth without fear.

The two biggest threats to our children … your children … are Dawinism and abortion.  Darwinism is an assault on the intellect; abortion is an assault on the flesh.  Yet the typical evangelical church (e.g., your church) does almost nothing to address these threats.

For example, have the youth at your church seen the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?”  No?  That’s a scandal.  And if you have never watched it yourself, that’s a scandal, too.

Anyway, the intellectual needs of young Christians has been ignored by the modern church, but when we show up with GAP, they don’t feel so alone.

Recently, John Stonestreet made some great points in his commentary A Time To Shock? over at BreakPoint.  He says that he used to be against the use of graphic abortion images, but now has “mostly” changed his mind.  He made several good points that will be familiar to most FAB readers.

However, we’d like to see him change his mind all the way.  We were confused as to what displays Mr. Stonestreet endorses and what displays he believes are off-limits.

His subtitle says: “Using Images of Abortion in the Public Square.”  But then he says: “Now let me be clear: I am completely against blindsiding people with images of aborted babies. It’s not only unfair; it can be a visual form of assault.”  How can we expose abortion in the public square without being accused of blindsiding or assaulting people who are in the public square and don’t want to see the photos?  Is it too much to ask them to look the other way?

He writes favorably about reformers who absolutely placed horrifying images into the paths of people who did not consent to see them (e.g., publishing the photo of Emmett Till in a newspaper, taking unsuspecting men and women into the odor cloud of a slave ship, publishing the photo of the Vietnamese girl on TV and in magazines).  In our case, the newspapers and TV are covering up the truth of the abortion injustice, so is it inappropriate for us to go to the public directly?

Are abortion photos off-limits except for academic settings, sermons in church, and speeches (generally attended only by people who are already pro-life)?  How can we show our fellow citizens the facts if they don’t attend our lectures or worship at our few-dozen churches where they will see the truth?

He cites Eric Metaxas saying we should show our fellow citizens the facts, but we should do so in “appropriate ways at appropriate times.”  What does that mean?  What is an inappropriate method or time to show our fellow citizens the truth?

When does showing abortion pictures become an assault?

Debbie Picarello set up a table for Deeper Still, a post-abortion counseling ministry, at Virginia Tech. She is able to reach many people who will not walk over to the GAP display itself.

She was a student at Virginia Tech.  She was 23, post-abortive, divorced, and has a toddler and a new boyfriend.  She joined the protest against GAP.  She has lived hard and experienced a lot.

She came from a Christian background and was pro-life until she aborted her first child and walked away from the faith.  She does not regret her abortion and is thankful she had it.  She wouldn’t look at the pictures while we talked.

After 45 minutes she finally said “Ok, I now get what you are saying about a woman’s autonomous body and the baby’s autonomous body.  They don’t share the same DNA and the baby is not a part of her body.  I am really struggling now.”  We gave her some literature about prenatal development.  She thanked us and said, “I am now interested in reading about this.”

Here is the question that keeps us awake at night …

What if her pro-life pastor had understood/cared enough about her salvation and her baby to show her the truth about abortion?

Why didn’t he show her an abortion video (e.g., Choice Blues) before she shed innocent blood and ran away from Jesus.