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.

An angry woman confronts CBR’s Maggie Egger.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

“You should have been aborted!” a male Grand Valley State University student shouted at CBR’s Jane Bullington.  While it hurts to be told these things, it could be taken as a good sign.

First and foremost, their anger shows that the images have pricked their consciences.  The images are disturbing, but Dr. Martin Luther King taught us that until people are disturbed by the status quo, there is no pressure for change.

When they say, “You should have been aborted,” they show that they understand, on some level, that abortion does take a human life.  They wish that our lives had been taken.  They sometimes follow up with, “I hope you die!”  Note the connection.  In other words, “I wish you were dead; preferably sooner than later, but better late than never.”

Granted, this is not a well-thought-out reaction.  But it’s often the knee-jerk reaction that reveals a person’s true thoughts.

We happily continue our work because some of these students will take their own words to heart.  One day, they will know that killing is killing, whether later or sooner.

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

Men discuss personal responsibility at Georgia Southern University.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

Men, you have every right to stand for your pre-born children.  Fathers have equal responsibility for the lives of their children.  Fathers have the right to say, “Do not abort my baby!”

Unfortunately, the pro-abortion culture says that unless a man is coercing the mother to abort, they have no say-so.  The laws reflect this.

At Grand Valley State University, many young men took time to let the pictures sink in.  They thought about the implications and asked questions.  They listened carefully to our answers and thanked us for being there.  These young men wanted to take responsibility for their future children.  They wanted to be men, not boys who ran and hid.

At Georgia Southern University, a young man came to our poll table and was about to vote “Yes, abortion should remain legal.”  He reasoned that since we don’t know a mother’s “situation,” we can’t outlaw abortion.  As I pointed to the pictures and asked if it was truly okay to decapitate and dismember a pre-born child based on the “situation,” he seemed less and less sure of himself.  As I asked questions, he finally admitted that a past girlfriend had aborted one of his children.  The time wasn’t right for a baby.  He later had a baby girl with a different mother, and that little girl was his whole world.

As we continued to talk, the young man started to look sad … regretful.  He thought about his dead child.  That child would have been his whole world, too.  But he had believed lies.  The pro-abortion cowed him to be silent, while an abortionist murdered his child.

Men, protecting your child is your God-given responsibility, so man up!

Women, take a step back and let the man in your life protect you and your baby.  Together, you can do it.

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

by Jacqueline Hawkins

Walk a mile in the shoes of the pre-born.  After all, you were pre-born too.

With tears in his eyes, a young man pointed to the sign with 24-week old babies—the unwanted child (an aborted corpse) and the wanted child (the premie in an ICU).  He was a student at Grand Valley State University.

“I was that baby,” he told CBR staff member Jane Bullington.  “I was born at 24½ weeks and spent 11 months in the hospital.”  Even today, his voice is raspy from the trachea tube that chafed his throat during those 11 months.  “That picture hits home.  Thank you for sharing my story.”

Because he was wanted, doctors worked hard to preserve his life.  But what if he had been unwanted?  The answer was all too obvious.  The pictures hit home when we can see ourselves as that unwanted child, weak and alone with nowhere to turn.

Not everyone can say that he was a black person or a Jew with a target on his back.  But everyone can honestly say he was in a group targeted for elimination.  Everyone was a pre-born baby.

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

Patti Shanley of Raleigh, North Carolina traveled with us to Michigan for a week of GAP.

This was our first trip to Grand Valley State University (GVSU).  The GVSU Students for Life did an awesome job of hosting both GAP and our Pro-Life Training Academy (PLTA).

The Quote of the Week came from one of the students who actually came out to protest against GAP:

You saved my future children.  I would have aborted them.  Now I won’t because I know what it looks like.

Media coverage:

• GVSU Lanthorn: Anti-abortion demonstration ignites debate
• Editorial: Civil Conversation
• Letter to the Editor
• Lanthorn response to letter to the editor
• WZZM-TV: Pro-life students host graphic display on GVSU campus