The abortion industry has been gloating over a new Gallup poll that claims half of all Americans identify themselves as “pro-choice.”  But the devil for the pro-aborts is in the details.

You don’t have to drill down very far to see that 55% of Americans agree that abortion should be completely illegal or legal only in a few circumstances.  Only 42% say abortion should be legal under most or all circumstances.

Apparently, many Americans don’t know what they mean by “pro-choice” or “pro-life.”  For example, 4% of those who described themselves as “pro-choice” said that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.  Not sure what they were smoking.  (Come to think of it, that 4% is roughly equal to the percentage of Americans who live where marijuana is legal; hmmmmm.)

Anyway, a full 23% of self-described “pro-choicers” said abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances.  Hardly your classical “pro-choice” position.

Always look at the details.

Lincoln Brandenburg talking with a UNC student
(Click to enlarge.)

by Mick Hunt

“Leftists claim to be the voices of tolerance and diversity; however, the universities they control are the most intolerant and monolithic institutions in American life.  Their notion of diversity is to cover the range from extreme leftist to downright nasty leftist.”  (FAB)

In my experience UNC offered the largest reaction against GAP when we previously appeared in 2005. (But see the positive article on our 2005 GAP on page 13 of the Carolina Journal.)

Then, some 200 students and faculty members surrounded the display with their backs turned away from it, symbolically rejecting its truths, while additionally preventing others from seeing it for themselves. Had they kept this up for longer than 10-15 minutes, police might have taken action, as would have CBR. As it was, we took advantage of the situation by placing our handmade signs throughout their midst, signs that said, “Face the Truth. Choose Life.” After their protest broke up, many of the students stayed to talk with us and view the display.

This past spring (March 31 & April 1) the “pro-choice” response was different. The drum beating and dancing—that sort of thing—we’ve seen the like of it before, but this time our opponents offered something more alarming: Meanness.

Someone at UNC lit our brochure on fire.
(Click to enlarge.)

I’ll list incidents that I personally witnessed.

 A visiting alumnus shouted at CBR’s Georgia State Project Director Lincoln Brandenburg, called him a number of coarse names and shook his finger in Lincoln’s face. Later, without provocation, he challenged me to a fight and offered to hit me across the head with a baseball bat. When I reported this to campus police, they said I need to fill out a warrant for his arrest. I told them they needed to stand closer to him in case he tried to hurt someone.

 Two male students stood along a busy sidewalk, wearing black wetsuits (supposedly condoms) while holding signs featuring explicit, hard pornography and an absurd, filthy “scientifically inaccurate” slogan.

 A black female Planned Parenthood representative mocked a black male student for being a “30 year old undergrad.” (He responded by saying he had served two tours in Iraq.)

 When one of the co-presidents of the student organization that hosted us was standing in front of our display while holding a CBR “Choice” sign, a group of “pro-choice” students surrounded her to pose for mocking pictures, like she was some sort of inanimate object. This was so insulting and I felt bad for her. She is from Asheville and I know her family.

 The worse incident of all is described by Edie Benchabbat, CBR Project Director for North Carolina:

“Emily is co-president of the pro-life club at UNC-CH. She was holding a choice sign and the pro-aborts surrounded her and scared her. Someone from CBR noticed and came to her aid. I was on the other side of the quad so didn’t know what happened. I walked back to get more brochures and noticed her sitting down on the ground behind our display with knees bent and hunched over. She was trembling and crying. I went to her and held her to make her feel safe. She told me what happened. We prayed together. 2 other women joined me and we prayed for her. After 20 minutes, she was settled and ready to go out again with someone around her.”

The meanness I’ve described is only one aspect of doing GAP, probably the hardest part. GAP is always intense, but not often as bad as this. UNC has been the worst that I remember. It wasn’t only the specific incidents, but the entire atmosphere. In summary, we should never believe that it will be easy being a part of transforming our culture into one that values and respects the lives of preborn children.

Next time: Changing lives at the University of North Carolina.

Mick Hunt (Meredith Eugene Hunt) is a FAB contributor.  He has helped organize more than 50 Genocide Awareness Projects (GAPs) all over the southeast and elsewhere.

.

In the comments appended to the WBIR story on our Urban GAP at Market Square, Canna asserted that nobody thinks abortion is a great thing:

OMG- NO ONE thinks abortion is a great thing- what an IDIOTIC thing to say. No one I know, including myself, is pro-abortion. However, I AM pro-choice. … The points that others are making here are:
1. that no one (few) are pro-abortion, they are PRO-CHOICE and believe the right to bear an embryo to full term is the choice and a matter of the family alone. not your matter.
2. that nearly everyone is a proponent of life and prosperity, but since we haven’t gotten it right yet, why don’t we help those in need of food and health before we force others to bear life. Rights to the unborn are valid but DO NOT PRE-EMPT the rights of the born.
3. regardless of ANYONE’S stance on abortion, your photos are unnecessarily graphic and DO NOT belong on public dislplay, especially in the presence of children. Not only is this rude, it is not an effective tool. ALSO- MOST abortions occur early trimester, when the fetus looks like a tiny lump of cells- not like in your graphics. Would you display graphic images of dead people in front of a DUI offender’s home for all-including children- to see? Of course NOT! Besides, where is the dignity of the deceased you post so proudly on public display??

.

Got up early this morning.  Read the paper.  More nonsense from Ina Hughs.  It’s the same old stuff she normally writes.  But I did post a response you might find interesting.

Comment responding to Ina Hughs op-ed piece in Knoxville News Sentinel:

Ms. Hughs raises a good point. In fact, I’m going to agree with many of the points she made.

First of all, perhaps we should include fathers in these sessions. The Elliot Institute reports that as many as 64% of abortions are coerced, many of them by irresponsible men, family members, employers, etc. Anything that will reduce the pressure on women to abort would be a step in the right direction. More people need to know about the development of the baby inside, the physical and emotional hazards of abortion, etc. But as Ms. Hughs noted, finding some of the more corrupt miscreants who impregnate women would be difficult. And, according to existing law, it is the mother only who has the final say whether the baby lives or dies, so that might explain some of the limitations of the North Carolina law.

Ms. Hughs is also correct when she says that compared to men, women do bear the greater burden for the consequences of sexual “freedom.” By any measure (pregnancy, the health effects of STDs, and abortion, just to name a few), women pay a heavy, heavy price so that irresponsible and predatory men can have whatever they want. People who buy into the lie of “sexual freedom” find out later it ain’t quite so “free.” That’s why we work so hard to keep the sex merchants like Planned Parenthood out of the schools our children attend.

Ms Hughs says, “no woman should be told by her government that she must have a child anymore than she should ever be told she cannot have a child.” No disagreement here. I don’t think anybody favors forced sex nor forced birth control. But in a civilized society, every human being deserves respect. No person should have the right to unjustly kill another.

Ms. Hughs says that pro-lifers should help women in crisis. Right again! That’s why the overwhelming majority of pro-life resources (money, volunteer time, etc.) go to support pregnancy resource centers like the one across the street from one of the abortion clinics here in Knoxville. The Hope Resource Center (www.hoperesourcecenterknoxville.com) arranges for medical care, housing, adoption, help with parenting, and more. In addition to that, we pay federal, state, and local taxes to create a safety net for people who need it. It’s unfortunate that so much of the money we pay goes to bureaucrats and people who don’t need it, but we still pay.

I’ll grant you that we should have more pregnancy centers, maybe one for each abortion clinic. But is it productive, Ms. Hughs, to ignore most of what we do and belittle the rest?

And the failure of pro-lifers to do enough (in Ms. Hughs’ estimation) for moms and babies in crisis does not make it OK to kill a baby … any more than our failure to do enough for battered women makes it OK to beat your wife.

Ms. Hughs falls victim to one of the most common logical fallacies when she implies that our only two choices are to either (a) provide cradle-to-grave welfare or (b) keep it legal to kill children before they are born. It’s called a “false dilemma.” In a civilized society, we protect the weak from the strong. That’s why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, etc. That does not obligate us to create Ms. Hughs’ version of a utopian welfare state.

Ms. Hughs wants to know what are the pro-lifers going to do about all these children if they are allowed to live and not be killed. It’s the same silly argument used to justify the continuation of slavery 150 years ago, “If we turn all these slaves loose, who is going to take care of them?”

Ms. Hughs says she is not pro-abortion, she is pro-choice. That’s essentially what Stephen Douglas said about slavery. He said that he was not in favor of slavery, but he believed that the Southern states should have the right to choose whether to be slave states or free states. I would argue that by the same token we say Mr. Douglas was pro-slavery, we can assert that Ms Hughs is pro-abortion.

And finally, Ms. Hughs engages in the most glaring ad hominem attack when she asserts that because some pro-lifers happen to be men, it is OK to kill a preborn child. How silly. Either (a) the preborn child is a living human being whose life must be respected, or (b) the preborn child may be killed at will. My gender has nothing to do with it. But if you have some kind of hangup about that, there are many, many women who will make the same arguments I make. Would Ms. Hughs listen to them? No. It’s just a cheap way of changing the subject and avoiding the issue, “Who is the unborn child and may we kill her?”