CBR’s Kendra Wright reinforces the abortion photos with logical arguments.

For the first time ever, CBR hit Georgia Southern University (GSU) hard with the reality of abortion.  Faculty, police, press, and students alike couldn’t deny what abortion does to a human being.  Nearly a dozen students said they will organize a pro-life group to continue the work.  Pray that they will!

One administrator said her own daughter had been born at 24 weeks; she said her baby, “looked like the picture on your poster.”  She was startled by the contrasting photo of a dead 24-week-old baby, killed by a late-term abortionist.

One of the most encouraging responses: “Where’s the sign-up sheet?  I have to do something! This is horrible.”

Campus police were a constant presence.  One officer debated with a couple Liberty students and did his best to defend choice.  It was an unusual but welcome bonus.  The officers, doing their job and standing near the display, allowed us to do ours and influence them with the pictures and our words.

We even had media before GAP:

• Police: Graphic images of abortion to be seen on Statesboro streets (story on truth trucks)
• Anti-abortion group: Graphic images to be displayed on Georgia Southern campus

A reporter from the Statesboro Herald interviewed several CBR members, students, and GSU staff.  (If you can get the Statesboro Herald website to work,) You can read his article here:

• Graphic images and the First Amendment

One student said, “Disgusting!  How can people do that?”  Another commented, “I know the facts and while this is hard to see, I am glad you are here.  People need to know what the word [abortion] means.”

One of the most encouraging responses: “Where’s the sign-up sheet?  I have to do something!  This is horrible.”  Indeed.

Emily McGowan of Liberty University explains how genocide perpetrators always dehumanize their victims.

For the first time in history, CBR exposed the horror at Columbus State University (CSU) in Georgia.  We were hosted by the CSU Advocates for Life (AFL), the student group we started earlier this year.

We were joined by five students from Liberty University in Virginia who spent their spring break winning hearts, changing minds, and saving lives.  We pray for the day these students expose abortion on their own campus, without interference from the Liberty University staff.

The trip was funded by the Chattahoochee Valley United for Life (CVUL), a chapter of Georgia Right to Life (GRTL).  Over the years, we have worked with many GRTL chapters to bring GAP to Georgia.  This trip was a huge answer to prayer.

CBR and CVUL hosed our Pro-Life Training Academy (PLTA) to prepare members and students alike to articulate and defend the pro-life movement, even in a hostile environment.

Check out the local media coverage:

• WBRC TV: Controversial images on CSU campus add fire to the abortion debate

A middle-aged woman told us, “I am so glad you are here. Folks don’t understand what they are doing. I have 50 year-old friends who are still hurting from abortion. It goes so much deeper than people realize.”  Indeed.

Ruby Nicdao

by Ruby Nicdao

We overlook flippant comments, because it is critical to engage people with opposing or dismissive views and help them reason.

As one couple walked hand-in-hand past our display, I offered a brochure and asked what they thought.  The guy answered, “I’m an art student, so I’m indifferent to this.”  His girlfriend smiled at the retort.

Ignoring his dismissive attitude, I asked, “Okay, so what do you think of our artistic layout?  Do you agree with our comparisons?”

He responded, “Yes, I would agree with the comparison.”  He pointed to the dismembered baby’s hands and feet wrapped around the top of a quarter (an obvious national symbol) and remarked, “That looks like America stands behind abortion.”  Even though he was saying it in jest, there was truth in what he was saying.

I pressed further, “Okay, I know you are being facetious, but do you think the the pre-born is a human life?”  He said he did, but that he is not a female and this was not his choice to make.

I pushed further, “If this were a toddler and her mother tried to kill this toddler, would you stand up for this child?”  He said he would.  [This is a variant of the trot out the toddler argument.]

I continued, “Okay.  So if your girlfriend became pregnant and she wanted an abortion—and you just admitted that the pre-born is a human life—would you stand up and speak up for your child?”

He then said, “Yes, yes.  I guess I would.”

This one man’s shift of attitude won’t change the world tomorrow, but he did begin to think of abortion as a serious human injustice.  He saw the need to stand up for one child about to be killed, especially if it were his own.

Ruby Nicdao is a CBR Project Director in Virginia and is a frequent FAB contributor.

Virginia Project Director Maggie Egger explains how abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings.

by Maggie Egger

Abortion photos don’t just make converts; they educate and energize people who are already pro-life.

At Radford University, a young man approached me and asked, “Are you the people I’m supposed to interview?”

“I don’t know,” I replied.  “We’ve had a good number of people interview us for their classes.”

“OK, great!  I must be in the right place!”  As he pulled out a notepad, he said, “I’m Catholic.  So I’m, ya know, pro-life.”

I told him I was excited to hear that, but from the way he said it, I could tell he was not strongly committed.  It seemed like he was raised in a pro-life house, but he didn’t necessarily buy all of it.

“Jacob” began to ask questions about the display, e.g., what was our purpose in being there, what kind of reactions did we get, what did we think of the protesters, etc.  He appeared to believe that the preborn are human beings, but he didn’t know much about abortion in general.  He knew the answer to “What is the preborn?” but he didn’t yet fully understand the answer to “What is abortion and what does it do?”

Then he asked me why we compared abortion to genocide.  Before talking about personhood, dehumanization, and all of that, I simply said,

“A lot of people say that our comparing abortion to genocide is ludicrous and offensive.  And you know what?  They’re absolutely right, if the preborn are not human beings, in the same way that you and I are human beings.  If they are not human beings, then (a) abortion doesn’t kill them, (b) abortion is no different from getting a tooth pulled, and (c) any comparison with genocide is absolutely insane.  But, as you and I both know (because science tells us), that every human life begins at fertilization.  So, abortion kills 1.2 million human beings every year in the U.S. alone.  I don’t know any word for that, other than genocide.”

“Wait, what?  How many abortions a year?”

“1.2 million.”

His eyes grew wide in disbelief.  He shook his head.  “Wow!  Yeah, you’re right.  That’s what it is … a genocide!”

We walked around the rest of the display so he could see all the different pictures, and he asked a few more questions.  When we finished he said, “Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all this to me. I’ve learned a lot.”

Yes, he had learned a lot.  And that knowledge left him more committed to the pro-life position.  That’s why you send us.  There are many more like Jacob, so please send us more places, more often.  And ask your Christian friends to do the same.

Maggie Egger is a CBR Project Director in Virginia and was the Project Manager for CBR’s recent GAP visit to the Commonwealth.

Rio Hondo College welcomes GAP to campus.  (Click on photo to enlarge; see yellow sign in background.)

When we expose abortion, two things happen.  People who have aborted feel the pain of knowing, but babies are saved because of knowing.

“I might be pregnant now and I’ve been thinking about having an abortion.”

CBR was at Rio Hondo College in November when a 32-year-old student approached our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).  She had aborted her child some years ago and now lives with regret.  She is married but unable to conceive.  She told volunteer “Carol” that she thinks she is being punished by God for having aborted her only child.  Carol sought to encourage her by telling her how God works in our lives and by bringing up the possibility of adoption.

“Rhonda,” the wife/girlfriend of a campus security guard, asked Carol about people’s response to GAP.  As they talked, Carol shared her own testimony of having aborted, the deep regret, and how it has affected her life.   Then Rhonda told her own situation to Carol, “I might be pregnant now and I’ve been thinking about having an abortion.”

Carol told her about the student who aborted and now cannot have children.  Rhonda had never thought of that possible consequence.  She was worried about the economics of raising a child, citing a $400,000 figure she had read.  Carol helped her understand that those numbers do not reflect most people’s needs; Carol had been raised without her parents having much money, but there was always love in the home.  At the end of the conversation Rhonda said, “I don’t think I’ll have that abortion now.”

Three women came up to CBR’s Lois Cunningham and one asked what Lois would tell a woman who was contemplating abortion.  Lois told her we would (1) show the abortion pictures to educate her, (2) be sure the woman has adequate support in her life, including supportive family and friends, if at all possible, and (3) take her to a pregnancy help center/clinic for services.  The lead woman than told Lois that she has a friend who is pregnant and planning to abort, but she was now going to show her friend our photo brochure and tell her about pregnancy help clinics.

These are only two of the babies who may have been saved as a result of CBR’s presence on campus.  If you will help us, we are committed to showing students the truth about abortion so we can spare them and their children from the brutality of abortion.

Debbie Picarello, who is post-abortive herself, reaches out to pro-choice protesters. She can offer hope and healing in ways the rest of us never could.

With tears in her eyes, she said, “I interned all summer with the political arm of Planned Parenthood (PP).  People called me a baby-killer all summer.”

She had been well-indoctrinated by PP—clean, safe, regulated, counseling, psychological help offered, ultrasounds given, etc.

“We save lives,” she claimed.

She was speaking with CBR’s Jane Bullington, standing in front of the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at James Madison University (JMU).

Jane kept reminding her, “Abortion kills a human being.”  She hated that.

“It is not a human.  What if it is not wanted?”  (As if being “wanted” makes one  human.)

“You can’t ask the mom to work at McDonald’s so she can have a kid and go to college; that is too demeaning.”  (As if hard work is “demeaning.”)

[This reminded us of the Middle Tennessee State University student who said his mother was unmarried and waiting tables when she got pregnant with him.  But she got serious about her life and went back to school.  Eventually, she would become head nurse at a hospital and make close to $100,000 a year.  It was a strong counter-example to the poverty myth.  He went on to say that if she had aborted him, she would still be waiting tables.  Anyway, back to JMU.]

Her most astounding statement was this: “Women have evolved and our bodies are not designed to carry and deliver these babies anymore. They are too big for our small pelvic bones.”

Lemme get this straight.  PP’s buddies on the Left say it took millions of years for the human body to “evolve.”  Now, in only two generations, the female reproductive system has further “evolved” into something dysfunctional?  Why?  Because of evolutionary pressures?  From what?  Radical feminism?  Has PP become that ridiculous?

Believing lies has consequences.

She began to cry uncontrollably and kept saying abortion does not kill babies.  Jane now knew she was post-abortive.  She was seeing, for the first time, the monstrous lies she had told herself and others.  She was horrified.

It was horrifying to us, also.  We were too late to save her oldest child(ren), but we pray the truth will save her younger ones.

We also pray she will repent of telling abortion industry lies and tell the truth from now on, to others as well as to herself.  We pray God will use this painful experience to save many babies and moms.

Over the course of 2 days at James Madison U, thousands of students were forced to face abortion.

An op-ed piece in the James Madison University (JMU) Breeze validated (again) the effectiveness of CBR’s Genocide Awareness Project (GAP):

“… our campus was so abruptly forced to face [abortion] this week.”

Mission accomplished!

Sarah Freeze, the author of the piece, was confused about whether the humanity of the preborn child was of any consequence at all.

She wrote, “The question we should be asking is this: Are you pregnant?”

We responded:

According to Ms. Freeze, it doesn’t matter at all whether the preborn child is human or not, nor if abortion unjustly kills a human being or not.  The only question we must ask is, “Am I pregnant?”  If the answer is “no,” then we must not have any opinion on the matter.

Really?

Let’s apply this logic in another context, 200 years ago.  Applying Ms. Freeze’s logic, it wouldn’t matter if the black man is a human being or not, nor whether slavery unjustly steals the lives of black men and women.  The only question we must ask is, “Do I have a cotton plantation?”  If the answer is “no,” then we must not have any opinion on the matter.

She responded

While I appreciate your response, to my opinion, I do have to point out that your argument is wrongly applying my view on abortion to a view on slavery.  Abortion affects no one outside of the woman’s body.  Slavery obviously affected several people and generations and is definitely not the same thing.

We answered

You’d be right in your conclusion, if you had your facts straight.  Of course if no person were killed by abortion, then the right to abort would be established.  But you ignore the other human being, the one being decapitated and dismembered.

When you deny the humanity and personhood of the preborn child, you are making the same mistake that was made by slavery apologists who said that Black slaves were “subordinate and inferior.”  They reasoned, as you do, that the victim class was not fully human, therefore the real people (the ones who counted) could do anything they wanted to those subhumans.  You are making the exact same mistake … unless, of course, you can provide some compelling evidence that the preborn are, in fact, subhuman.

She will offer no such evidence, because there is none.  If she bothers to formulate an argument, it will inevitably allow us to kill certain born people as well.

German student: I don’t know how old you are, but …

“Frederick,” a James Madison University (JMU) student from Germany, was ashamed of his peers. He said to CBR’s Jane Bullington,

“It is so closed-minded to decide you guys have nothing worth hearing and just sit on the sidelines protesting.

I am studying genocide and human atrocities.  These photos are not disturbing; the actions are disturbing.  Folks need to get out of their comfort zone and engage others so they can expand their world views.  It is pitiful that my peers are so pansy and childish.

I don’t know how old you are, but I do know that you know more than I do and I need to listen and learn.  And whether this is genocide or not, I see the reasons for the comparisons and it is an atrocity.

You have made my Tuesday.  My comfort zone has been stretched once again.  Thank you for coming, and thank you for taking with me.”

He’s right about one thing.  Jane is pretty old.

Lincoln Brandenburg explains prenatal development at James Madison University

by Lincoln Brandenburg

At James Madison U, I spoke with a young Jewish lady who had heard about GAP and came out to see it.  She was Jewish and was offended by the comparisons of abortion with the Holocaust.

She opened by declaring that “Abortion is not genocide!”   I responded, “You are absolutely right … if the preborn are not human.  Were that true, the comparison would be inappropriate and the right to abort would be established.

“But if the preborn are human, as science tells us they are, then we kill over a million humans every year.  Then there’s no better word to describe it.”

“I can’t believe I’m saying this, but you’re causing me to change how I think about this.”  (protester at James Madison U)

She brought up many examples of when abortion might be “needed,” such as for a woman who is in college and cannot take care of a baby.  Again, I agreed with her that abortion would be acceptable in those cases (and, indeed, in every case) … if the preborn were anything less than human.

She began to grasp the concept that the humanity of the preborn is the central question to the morality of abortion.

Some of her friends have had abortions and she didn’t want to believe they are guilty of murder.  I assured her that we are not here to condemn or judge her friends; they may be good people who didn’t realize that abortion decapitates and dismembers a baby.  I pointed out that, like many who have seen these images, they might not have aborted their children had they known how evil abortion really is.

As we spoke, her demeanor changed.  She glanced at the pro-abortion protesters and said, “I don’t want to say this out loud, but you’re making good points.  You’re really making me shift in my view.”

I told her how I personally became a pro-life activist after connecting abortion to the Holocaust.  I knew that I couldn’t say I would have stood up for Jews (her ancestors) in Nazi Germany back then, if I didn’t stand up for preborn children right now.

As we continued to discuss the logic of standing up for all human beings, she hesitantly said, “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but you’re causing me to change how I think about this.”

Some respond to GAP with a closed mind, but others are willing to blindfold their own prejudices.  At first, she opposed our use of abortion pictures, but she had to admit that our conversation (and many others) would not have happened without the tension created by the photos.  Dr. King was right:

“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.”  (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Lincoln Brandenburg is a Project Director for CBR in Georgia.  He iis with the GAP team in Virginia this week.

Abortion victim photos (AVPs) don’t just convert people to pro-life.  They affect everyone.  They …

1. neutralize the opposition, …
2. convert the neutral, …
3. activate the converted, and …
4. energize the active.

Live Action News recently highlighted the pro-life activism of Katie Perrotta at Eastern Michigan University.  She is just one more example of a student who became actively pro-life after seeing GAP.

From Live Action News:

Katie Perrotta is a 20-year-old student at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Having grown up “pro-life” she wasn’t active in defending life until she witnessed a campus display featuring images of abortion victims and the angry reaction of pro-choice students. It was then that she started reaching out to her campus and actively defending life.

We are often challenged by pro-lifers who resist our efforts to expose abortion.  We recently met with a group of students who offered a series of objections to our work.  Here are their objections and our answers.

Objection:  We will be disliked, hated, criticized, etc.

Response:  MLK, Lewis Hine, William Wilberforce, and Thomas Clarkson were all disliked, hated, criticized, etc. … and more.  If we are serious about ending abortion, we need to be as strong as they were.  In Dr. King’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail, he was very clear that reformers must expose evil, in spite of the inevitable negative reaction from those who support the status quo.  Please take a few minutes and read his letter.

Objection:  There is nothing but anecdotal evidence to say that pictures work.

Response: We have ample independent evidence to prove pictures work:

1. We have the verdict of history that says pictures always work to educate, change public opinion, and ultimately public policy.
2. We also have the history that reformers who don’t use pictures never succeed.
3. At Middle Tennessee State, 15% of passersby said the GAP display changed their minds.  That was in addition to the sizeable percentage (40-50%) who said the display made them even more sure of their pro-life beliefs.
4. Typically, about 10% (range: 5-15%) of the respondents to our informal polls tell us that the GAP display changed their minds.
5. At the U of Louisville, 65% of an independent group of students said the display was effective at changing minds.  That included 29% who said GAP changed their own minds.
6. Here is another statistic that is not anecdotal.  At 100% of the venues at which we have displayed GAP, multiple people have told us that our pictures changed their minds.  Others changed their minds but didn’t tell us until later.  Here are just a few examples:
   1. 1. University of North Florida (mind changed 3 years earlier)
      2. University of California Irvine (baby saved 3 years earlier)
      3. University of California Riverside (mind changed 1 year earlier)
7. The following comments came from just one philosophy class at the U of Louisville:
   1. 1. Student B:  I had always believed in choice … but the pictures were too convincing.   I’m not sure why the relationship between abortion and genocide has never crossed my mind, but the display was surprisingly convincing.  … Abortion is a form of murder and genocide.
      2. Student I:  … it truly changed my perspective on abortion …
      3. Student L:  I had only a few cheap glances over at [the pictures], but what I did see I wish I would have not. … [The photos] made me think about this and I think that the pictures woke me up … and gave me a reality check. … The pictures said enough for me.
      4. Student O:  The first picture stuck in my head and I just stared at it in total shock. It was a picture of a tiny little embryo/baby, its head the size of a dime, lying dead in blood with all its organs visible … They are murdered because of the selfishness of others.
      5. Student P:  I think these photos were used to prove the point that abortion is still murder and in mass numbers, should be compared to genocide.  I didn’t think of abortion in this way until viewing the exhibit.
      6. Student A:  It definitely make everybody not just stop and look, but to really think about the message … It worked!
      7. Student J:  They made the presentation so that you didn’t want to look but you couldn’t help but look.
      8. Student Q:  It was a clear illustration of how a well-planned … [the] project could reach hundreds of people in a very short span of time.

Objection:  This approach is not compassionate to post-abortive women.

Response:  Many post-abortive women have told us to please show the pictures so that others won’t make the same mistake they made.  One such woman is Dr. Alveda King, who had 2 abortions.  Others have said that only by seeing abortion pictures were they able to come out of denial, confess, repent and heal.  One such woman is on this video.  We always try to bring a team of post-abortive women who can reach out to women on campus who wish to discuss their experiences.  Pictures don’t hurt women; abortion hurts women.

No reformers have ever stopped an injustice by covering it up.  Reformers like Dr. King, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Lewis Hine, and others have always used horrifying images to educate the public and create a forum in which the purveyors of injustice were forced to defend the indefensible.  The purveyors of injustice had never had to do that before.  With abortion pictures, we create a forum in which abortion apologists are forced to defend the practice of decapitating and dismembering little human beings.  They can’t do it.  But only the display of abortion images forces them to try and thus exposes the frivolity of their arguments.

If we don’t expose injustice, history is clear that the killing will never end.  There is nothing our opponents fear more than pictures.

.

At the University of California at Riverside, a student let us know how GAP changed her mind a year ago.

“I want to thank everyone who showed this to me … because it’s important for people like me to get the right information.”

Watch brief video below:

“I don’t want you to stop showing the pictures. They’re working so don’t get discouraged …”

This was the third time Candace had seen abortion pictures on display.  As Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust held abortion photos on the street, Candace drove by.  She was overcome with gratitude, so she pulled over to talk.

The first time she saw abortion photos was in 2010 at UC Irvine, where CBR was displaying the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).  She was 5 weeks pregnant with Daughtry, her first child, and was planning to abort.  Watch the videos below to see what happened next.

A year later, when Daughtry was only a few months old, Candace volunteered to help when GAP returned to UC Irvine.

Here she is now, the happy mother of 2:

Here she was in 2011:

Written on the free speech board at North Carolina State. (Click on image to enlarge.)

by Maggie Egger

I’d been dealing with protesters and administrators all morning — not sure which is worse, sometimes —  but things had quieted down a bit.  I was finally ready to engage a few students, so I went over to our free speech board.  It is a low-stress place they can write whatever they want without fear of confrontation, but we can often use their comments as springboards for dialogue.

I saw a young woman writing on the board, so I casually walked over to see what she was writing and to possibly start a conversation.  What I saw next moved me.  She was writing furiously fast, right in the middle of the board.  I discreetly looked over her shoulder to read her comments, expecting to see some justification for abortion, a rant about women’s rights, or whatever.  Instead, I discovered this:

People say they shouldn’t have to give birth to conceptions of rape.  As a probable conception of rape writing this, I feel discriminated against, as if my life is worth less than everyone else’s.  You don’t have to raise a child of rape, ADOPTION IS AN OPTION!  You would not believe how thankful my parents are that I was not aborted, but given to them, a couple who were not able to conceive.

As soon as she finished writing, before I had a chance to speak with her, she walked away.  Honestly though, I don’t know what else she could have said that she hadn’t already.

Not long after that, I was standing near the poll table when a young man came up to answer “Yes” to our poll question “Should abortion remain legal?” I asked him why he thought that.

His main argument was that it’s a woman’s choice to make, and therefore it has to be legal, regardless of her justifications.  We started discussing some of those justifications and soon another young man joined our conversation.  He said he was pro-life, except in the case of rape.

I said to him, “You have to be careful when you start making exceptions to who has a right to life.  There are people on this campus, your fellow students, who were conceived in rape and you have effectively just told them ‘I wouldn’t care if your mothers had killed you before you were born,’ simply because of circumstances outside of their control.  Have you thought about that?”

I walked them over to the free speech board and showed them what the woman had written earlier.  I could see the wheels turning, turning.  The “pro-life” student started to look a little guilty.  The pro-choice student said, “Yeah, maybe some of the reasons women get abortions aren’t that valid after all.”

I have always said that abortion can be justified only when necessary to save the mother’s life.  However, I have still found the case of rape to be one of the hardest questions to answer satisfactorily.  People get so focused on the woman being the victim and easing her pain, they just can’t see the other victim who needs their compassion and love.  They can’t imagine “forcing” the woman to do anything else she doesn’t wholeheartedly agree to (i.e. carrying a pregnancy to term).

That day at NC State helped me realize what the problem is, for some.  They want to help the victim, but they don’t realize that they are actively creating more victims, in two ways.  First, they are condoning a woman’s choice to destroy her unborn child based on how the child was conceived.  Second, they are victimizing those born people conceived in rape whose mothers chose not to kill them, by saying their lives are less valuable.

Sadly, most college students in America have a personal experience with rape, whether it was themselves or their classmates.  They can relate to those victims.  But how many of them have a personal experience with someone who is a “conception of rape”?  They can’t relate, because they don’t see the face of the second victim.  GAP brings those faces out into the open.

Now showing at a campus near you!

Maggie Egger is a CBR Project Director and FAB contributor.  She served as site manager for CBR’s Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at North Carolina State University in April 2014.

People in this tour group of parents and prospective students were trying not to look at the GAP display, but eventually, they couldn’t help but see. (Click to enlarge.)

by Mick Hunt

Fall is coming and classes have begun at the major universities in the United States and Canada. Which means it’s the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) season again. I hope you will consider joining the team for the GAP nearest you. At least come out to observe. There’s a need for every kind of personality and set of interests and abilities.

We just need to show up, and that’s where we fail most often.

Some people are really good at speaking to crowds. Fletcher Armstrong is one of the best at this. Every group that gathers becomes his class and he is the professor. Stephanie Grey of CBR Canada is best at give and take in a crowd. I prefer the one-on-one, off-script, creative, philosophical discussion.

All of us struggle with the angry, bright, loud, combative student or professor. Sometimes the most you can do is listen, and let the pictures speak for themselves. I enjoy talking or debating with really smart people, and invariably they know more about certain subjects than I do, in which case I’m usually quiet while listening and asking questions. I look at these times as an opportunity to learn.

The one thing that makes it all easier is the fact that our position is right. We represent truth, fact, and reason. And no matter how smart or educated you are, no matter how polished your PhD looks, or how many peer-reviewed publications you have, or how many academic honors you’ve received, if you are trying to defend the indefensible, you will have a hard time, especially if you believe too many things that aren’t true. We pro-lifers, on the other hand, win the debate without saying a word. We just need to show up, and that’s where we fail most often.  Very few pro-life people are involved when needed (or as often).

Showing up. Let me tell you about a classic confrontation during our Genocide Awareness Project at North Carolina State University (NCSU) last spring.

I was standing at the corner of the GAP display nearest the student center where most of the traffic was. Between me and the main walking lane was a line of pro-abortion-choice students holding signs. All of a sudden someone started shouting. He was a rather nice looking student with a clear baritone voice in an Australian accent. He had been talking with one of the GAP volunteers, another man about my age. Something apparently ticked the student off, which set him hurling insults at the volunteer.

He then said, “Who’s in charge here, who is the mastermind? Who can answer my questions?”

He then shouted a few of the usual derogatory remarks about GAP. A few people around cheered.

True, he was angry, but he obviously was clear-headed, fearless, and bright. Capable of sarcastic, winsome insight. I was intimidated. So, when he looked directly at me and asked loudly if I was the mastermind, I was relieved when an attractive girl just then spoke to me out of the blue from my left when I had been looking toward the commotion on the right. She had asked a question, an easy one. So, I was saved from being drawn into a public spectacle in which I had a clear disadvantage. No way I could look good and respond to this guy in front of a crowd. I just can’t yell and be winsome.

Things quieted down and I took a break and sat on a brick wall away from the action. Then I noticed our Australian friend was talking quietly with Starla, a pro-life acquaintance of mine from Asheville. I joined them just as the young man asked her about the classic “Famous Violinist” thought-experiment of Judith Jarvis Thomson, the scenario taught in every introductory liberal rhetoric class.

In a few moments I could tell Starla wasn’t prepared for this question, and I joined in. She left after a minute. (She said later it was fine for me to butt in.) Then I talked with the young man for the next hour. It turned out that he had been a war paramedic in Afghanistan and had seen more than his share of blood, death, and mangled bodies. Also, he said his mother was strongly pro-life and had often debated with him about abortion. So, he was good at this.

I believe (for the reasons given above) I won the debate. He could only assert but not defend his claim that it’s OK to kill a prenatal child and not OK to kill a born child, but he wouldn’t admit it, of course. His argument was built around “agency” or the mother’s right to “bodily integrity”, which means a woman is morally permitted to repel a person who “invades” her body, even if the person is her own child whose very existence came into being by the child’s mother’s actions, actions which are by nature those bringing people into existence. And even if society ordinarily places a burden on parents, even unwilling parents, to either provide for a child or safely turn the child over to another agent.

My conclusion was to say his position was “brutal”. He said it wasn’t, and basically that’s where we ended the debate. If a person can’t see how it is brutal to kill a child in the womb when looking at the photographs of brutally killed children, I don’t know what else to say. My conversation with him took place on our first day we were at NCSU, and I saw him again the second day when we spoke again briefly.

At least I gave him an amicable, cogent presentation, but conversations like this point out the price we are paying for 47 years of legal child killing by abortion since 1967. The brutality of it isn’t so raw anymore. Over time, some people have become so accustomed to the violence that they don’t believe it is violence. Which is all the more reason to reach as many people as possible as soon as possible before it’s too late to turn things around.

So, we need to show up. We need to stand and talk.

Mick Hunt is a regular contributor to FAB.