Got Stories?

Hey pro-lifers, we need your help!

You see, being at the fair for the past week, we've learned a few things.... A lot of people are interested in what we have to say. A lot of people need to hear what we have to say. And a lot of YOU have incredible personal stories about what we do and why we do it. 

So here's our idea: 

Do you have a pro-life story to share? Were you adopted? Did you or someone you know consider abortion but chose life? Have you had upsetting experiences with doctors who were not pro-life? Were you once pro-abortion and had a conversion experience? Have you had any conversations about life that left an impression on you? 

If you can say "yes" to any of these questions (or ones like them!), we invite you to share them with us, and we will publish them on this blog. 

Here are a few ground rules, though.

1) Keep it at or below 500 words. If your story is shorter, great! We can publish several at the same time. If your story needs significantly more than 500 words to be told, perhaps we can consider a guest post.

2) Abortion and euthanasia are not pretty subjects, but remember that many other people have been hurt by them, too. Please avoid bad language, graphic descriptions, and angry outbursts.

3) Don't over-share. While we appreciate your willingness to share with us, we ask that you be mindful of the privacy of others. Consider changing names and locations (just tell us if you've done so) and leaving out specific dates, especially if other people are involved in your story.  

4) Using "Pro-Life Story" as your subject, please email your story to Erin at ncrtl.erin@gmail.com. 


Thanks in advance!

*NCRTL reserves the rights to decide what gets published and to make minor editorial changes as necessary*

Euthanasia: Why Not?

While the cultural battle rages most obviously around abortion, another threat to human dignity, euthanasia, has been in the background for decades. And while many will concede that the killing of an innocent child is morally questionable, they might disagree when it comes to euthanasia. After all, isn’t it more compassionate to allow someone to avoid the pain, embarrassment, and drawn-out suffering that old age so often brings? And aren’t those of us who want to force Grandma to live against her will somehow doing something inhumane? For Christians, it may be most natural to respond that only God may choose when we die and that people have dignity at every age, but with the average secular American, this tactic won’t work.

Fortunately, there are intelligent ways to argue against euthanasia without resorting to religious beliefs, and the easiest way to learn them is to divide the arguments into two categories: autonomy and quality of life.

The basic premise of the autonomy argument is that people should have the right to decide when they want to die. Proponents of euthanasia want laws allowing the elderly and terminally ill to have this option, but it’s impossible to limit this “right” to only certain people. What if an eighteen year old has been dumped by her boyfriend and decides that life is no longer worth living? Most people would agree that this is no reason to allow her to kill herself, but a law preventing such cases could be challenged on the basis of discrimination. In the Netherlands, for example, euthanasia was once limited to the terminally ill; today, children as young as twelve may legally seek assisted suicide, and doctors have more power over their patients’ lives than ever before.

Another way to address autonomy is to explain how those seeking suicide are never truly autonomous. Two separate studies, one conducted in Missouri and the other in Great Britain, found that of those considering suicide, 93% suffered from a mental disorder that impaired rational decision making. Another study discovered that of the terminally ill, 24% expressed a desire for assisted suicide, but of that 24%, every single patient had a mental disorder. In other words, in the overwhelming majority of cases, depression or another mental disorder, not the illness itself, caused suicidal thoughts, and mental illnesses are treated separately. Remember, too, that it’s terrible to assume that because someone is terminally ill, they should want to die. Most people who receive a terminal diagnosis are sad because they want to continue living.

This brings us to the quality of life arguments. These are harder to argue because they are much more personal; people are concerned about living in pain, facing a life of disability, or being a burden upon a loved one. What most people don’t realize is that we have the ability to control pain in up to 99% of cases. Too often, however, doctors and nurses do not receive adequate education in pain management, leaving them helpless or unsure of themselves when their patients are suffering. Instead of focusing on euthanasia, we should work for greater education in pain management so that healthcare providers at a clinical level can use it. After all, killing someone in pain does not solve the problem of pain, and we shouldn’t solve problems by killing people.

Also within the quality of life category is the disability argument; in our culture, it is far too commonly assumed that because someone has a disability, that person’s life is not worth living. Besides being incredibly discriminatory, this is just wrong, and certainly not compassionate or respectful. Allowing a disability exception within euthanasia laws just says that anyone who doesn’t meet our standards is disposable. A better response is to work as a society to be more accommodating; for example, we already require new buildings to be handicap accessible, indicating that we value people in wheelchairs despite their inability to walk. Many people with disabilities will tell you that they only feel different when other people treat them that way. Somehow, I suspect that being told they qualify for assisted suicide isn’t what they have in mind when it comes to equality.

Finally, people are frequently concerned about dying alone or being a burden on their loved ones. However, telling the elderly that we will be “compassionate” and allow them to die is actually confirming their fears of being burdensome and unlovable. Instead, telling Grandma that we will care for her and love her no matter what is much more reassuring; it says that we value her as an individual, and not because she’s “useful” or self-sufficient. Caring for others and allowing ourselves to be cared for is part of the human experience, and no one could survive long without other people there to help them.

Many proponents of euthanasia may never have heard persuasive, rational arguments against it, so hearing the subject presented in this way might be the key to more fruitful discussion. For anyone seeking more information or interested in learning where these studies come from, National Right to Life has an excellent series of articles on euthanasia (found here), as well as other issues of medical ethics.

 (A version of this article was first published on Ignitum Today)

Pro-Life 101: Final Thoughts

*This is the seventh and final installment in a series of posts on pro-life apologetics based on the “When They Say, You Say” talks developed by Olivia Gans Turner and Mary Spaulding Balch. While reading in order is not strictly necessary, you may find it helpful. Post 1. Post 2. Post 3.  Post 4. Post 5. Post 6. 

Over the last couple months, we've broken down the pro-abortion arguments into five categories and discussed how to address each one. We've also talked about how language influences what we say. Today we'll wrap up our Pro-Life 101 series with a few more thoughts.

While the main arguments fall into the five categories already mentioned, sometimes people will slip into a sixth....the ad hominem attack! When there's nothing left to say, you will become the target. The following are some common ones:

You're a man. 

You're too old to have children.

How many children have you adopted?

Remember, abortion is a human rights issue. It doesn't matter if you're an older man who's never had children--you have a right to speak up for your fellow humans! Always go back to your basic talking points, that life begins at conception and that mothers deserve better care than abortion. 

Your conversation may not change someone else's mind, but you never know what seeds you may plant or who else may be listening. And of course, your words are only a small part of what it means to be pro-life. More than anything else, the witness of your life, the things you do with it, will change the world. 

Forty Years of Pro-Life Work!

While 2013 marks the 40^th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this year also marks 40 years of life-saving work in North Carolina. On Saturday, September 28, NCRTL celebrated the occasion with 160 friends and supporters at a banquet in Greensboro. 

Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest

The evening began with a reception with Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest, who greeted guests and posed for pictures with them. Forest is only the second Republican lieutenant governor to be elected in North Carolina since 1897, and he has been active in pro-life work for many years, including acting as former chairman of the board of Wake Forest Pregnancy Support Services.

Following the reception, guests were seated for dinner and the evening’s program began. After leading the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance, Allen Morris, director of Concerned Methodists, presented Barbara Holt with the group's Trooper for Christ Award. Morris explained that while the award traditionally goes to members of the Methodist church, the organization felt that Holt deserved recognition for her years of devotion to pro-life ministry.

Guests waiting for the program to begin

Holt then gave some updates about NCRTL’s progress in recent years. As you know, North Carolina has passed some important pro-life legislation, including the Woman’s Right to Know/informed consent law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a ban on sex-selection abortion and webcam abortions, opting out of federally funded abortion in the health care exchange, and increased regulation of abortion facilities. Holt also talked about the success of NCRTL's first Camp Joshua and our increased presence on social media sites such as Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter.

NRLC President Carol Tobias

Guests were then treated to an address from special guest Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. Tobias commended NCRTL for not only the laws passed, but also for the number of pro-life members elected to Congress. Tobias encouraged North Carolinians to keep up the good work, noting that the pro-life movement is one characterized by love. Even though we may never meet the people we work so hard to save, she said, the fruit of our efforts is important nonetheless.

Lieutenant Governor Forest, the featured speaker, also spoke positively about the progress made in North Carolina. He recognized the legislators in attendance, saying that although he is the one often in the spotlight, the citizens owe their gratitude to the hard-working members of the General Assembly who face so much opposition for being pro-life.  Forest focused much of his speech on the need to return America to her roots. The misrepresentation of separation of church and state, he said, is responsible for the culture today because once you remove God from the public sphere, you lose respect for human life, too.

The evening’s program ended with a benediction, but many people stayed afterward to chat with one another. It was truly wonderful to see so many pro-life people enjoying each other’s company, and we at NCRTL are blessed to have all of your support!

Pro-Life 101: The Hard Cases

*This is the sixth installment in a series of posts on pro-life apologetics based on the “When They Say, You Say” talks developed by Olivia Gans Turner and Mary Spaulding Balch. While reading in order is not strictly necessary, you may find it helpful. Post 1. Post 2. Post 3.  Post 4. Post 5.

Rape. Incest. Fetal Abnormality. These constitute what we call “the hard cases,” because they are incredibly personal and emotionally charged. Many people are afraid to talk about them, but you shouldn’t be. Discussing the hard cases requires compassion, sensitivity, and reason, just like everything we’ve talked about so far.

Abortion advocates often bring up the hard cases because they know they carry emotional weight and tend to shake up their pro-life peers. Even those who are otherwise pro-life hesitate when it comes to abortion in the case of rape and incest.

When you look at the statistics, though, you’ll notice that the vast majority of abortions aren’t for the hard cases at all; in fact, rape and incest account for less than 1% of all abortions. In total, rape, incest, life of the mother, and fetal abnormality are the reasons given for only 7% of abortions. It is very important not to downplay the tragedy behind these statistics. You should bring this up to illustrate that there is not an overwhelming need for abortion in these circumstances, but be careful: you cannot reduce the suffering of rape victims to a small statistic in the abortion debate.

So what do we say about abortion in the case of rape? First, remember that rape is a disgusting, violent crime. Whatever you do, start by acknowledging the woman’s pain; she is the innocent victim of a terrible ordeal, and she needs your love, compassion, and support, not your judgment. Pro-lifers are (falsely) accused of caring more about the baby than the mother, and you want to avoid that.  However, when rape results in pregnancy, a second innocent victim is at stake.

Too often, when a woman conceives after rape, counselors encourage her to abort her baby. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable solution since she was forced into her situation. Upon closer analysis, however, this line of reasoning falls apart. Regardless of how he was conceived, the baby is still a unique, innocent human life. Abortion is a death sentence, but it punishes the child for the crime of his father. We forget that the child has two parents—he is also his mother’s, and when we pressure her to abort, we turn her into the aggressor against her own child. Rape victims are already traumatized, and women who have abortions often suffer emotionally, physically, and psychologically for the rest of their lives. When a woman  is pressured into abortion after being raped, then, she often feels like she has been victimized twice.

In the case of incest, which almost always involves the abuse of a minor by an older relative or family friend, abortion not only takes an innocent life and further traumatizes the mother, it also shields the criminal. He pays for his victim’s abortion and resumes his abuse, unbeknownst to those who would protect her. In this way, abortion allows the cycle of abuse to continue, and, again, only adds to the mother’s pain.

But won’t carrying her child to term only distress the mother further? We often hear that women who are pregnant after rape will relive their rape every day. However, studies have shown that women who continue their pregnancies after rape actually heal better than those who abort. Rather than trying to cover up her experience as something shameful, she is able to cope with it in an open, healthy manner. Like grieving, recovering from a rape is a process that takes time. Women reported that although they were afraid at first, in the end they felt that giving life to their child was a special way of redeeming their horrible experience. Instead of compounding the violence of the rape with an abortion, they brought something good and beautiful to the world.

Just as a child conceived in rape has the same dignity, value, and right to life as a “planned” child, so does a baby diagnosed with fetal abnormalities. It’s never easy for parents to hear that their very much wanted baby might have a lifelong disability or perhaps not survive outside the womb, but this does not make abortion the acceptable solution.

We should never judge the worth of a life based upon an arbitrary standard of “quality.” All lives are unique and valuable, and to say otherwise is to establish a dangerous precedent that opens the door to euthanasia. If we say that babies in the womb should be aborted due to disabilities, what’s to prevent us from extending that principle to those outside the womb with disabilities? Modern technology has made it much easier to accurately diagnose problems before birth, but sadly our medical professionals often use this as a means of advocating the abortion of these “less than perfect” children instead of using it as an opportunity to better equip themselves to care for those children’s medical needs.

Even when parents receive a fatal prenatal diagnosis, we know that it’s better for them to continue their pregnancies, just like those pregnant through rape. Many times, parents are excited about their baby and have already picked out names and planned for their future with their baby when they receive the diagnosis. They’re already grieving the life of their baby…before their baby has died. Abortion, rather than acknowledging that baby as a valued family member, turns him into a problem that must be destroyed. In contrast, those with experience at perinatal hospices know that treating the baby as a valuable human being, regardless of how long he lives, brings much greater peace and healing to his family. Families are able to celebrate their newest member’s brief life and are allowed to grieve naturally. Their baby isn’t treated as a problem, but as a blessing.

These cases are all difficult and entail much suffering, but abortion only adds to that suffering. Sympathy, compassion, and love are needed when we talk about them, but so are facts. No matter how a baby is conceived and no matter what disabilities he may have, he is still a unique human life, as fully worthy of our protection and love as his parents.  

Pro-Life 101: Back-alley Abortions

*This is the fifth installment in a series of posts on pro-life apologetics based on the “When They Say, You Say” talks developed by Olivia Gans Turner and Mary Spaulding Balch. While reading in order is not strictly necessary, you may find it helpful. Post 1. Post 2. Post 3.  Post 4.

Abortion advocates often state that if abortions were difficult to obtain or illegal, thousands of women would die or be horrifically maimed in back-alley abortions. They even insist that abortion is safer than childbirth and much less painful. These arguments can be intimidating because they rely, to an extent, upon statistics. No worries! We’ve broken down some basic facts to get you started.

Really?

First, let’s look at the claim that thousands of women will die because of unsafe illegal abortions. Did you know that in 1972, a year before abortion on demand was legal, the Center for Disease Control reported only 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions? While it’s truly sad that these mothers and their children died in such a horrific way, this statistic doesn’t even come close to the thousands of deaths that abortion advocates talk about.

Furthermore, illegal abortion-related deaths were rare because by the 1960s, most abortions were performed by physicians (yes, even though it was illegal) and medical technology had improved enough to prevent or treat many problems that previously would have been deadly—including complications from childbirth and basic illnesses like the flu. In 1960, Dr. Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood, wrote “Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.” In other words, so long as women did not attempt self-induced abortions, their risk of death was relatively low, even 13 years before Roe.

But what about that “5,000-10,000 deaths” figure we always hear about? Simply put, it was a fabricated statistic. In his 1979 book Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former director of NARAL, wrote “I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?” As already mentioned, a look at the true figures demonstrates the truth in Dr. Nathanson’s words: relatively few women died from illegal abortions.

Of course, just because thousands of women didn’t die from abortion doesn’t mean abortion is ever “safe.” After all, at the end of every abortion is a dead baby, and many post-abortive mothers suffer from physical, emotional, and psychological complications. We know, too, that even though abortion is widely available and medical technology better than ever before, women still die during abortions, even legal ones. A quick Google search brings up the tragic stories of Tonya Reaves and Jennifer Morbelli, two young women who died after botched legal abortions performed by licensed physicians.

Another point, too, is that many expectant mothers seek abortions because they can. Since abortion is legal, these vulnerable women rationalize that “it’s legal so it must be okay,” even if they know they are taking the life of a child. How many mothers facing unplanned pregnancies opt for abortion just because it’s the fast and “easy” solution to their problem? How many of those mothers would consider abortion if it wasn’t legal and, to an extent, accepted in the United States? Within ten years of Roe, the number of abortions per year shot up from 744,600 (1973) to over 1.5 million. Today, that number has leveled at about 1.2 million abortions per year, but many post-abortive mothers will say that they only had an abortion because it felt like their only choice.

Sometimes abortion advocates will try to make the case that “safe” abortions reduce maternal mortality rates. Fortunately, studies show that it’s not the availability of abortion that saves mothers’ lives, but better access to medicine and healthcare. In fact, countries where abortion is illegal have a lower maternal mortality rate! In the US, the maternal mortality rate actually increased from 10.3 in 1999 to 23.2 in 2009. In Chile, where abortion has been illegal since 1989, the maternal mortality rate dropped 69.2% within 14 years. Chile now has the second lowest maternal mortality rate of all the countries in North and South America. For a fascinating summary of maternal mortality figures around the world, National Right to Life has an excellent handout detailing some of these trends.

Don’t let the numbers scare you! A little research and common sense is all you need to know that abortion doesn’t save lives, it takes them. Although pregnancy and childbirth can be dangerous, they are natural functions of the female body, and with our ever-increasing medical knowledge and availability, there is no reason to believe that abortion is somehow a safety net. 

Pro-Life 101: Every Child a Wanted Child

*This is the fourth installment in a series of posts on pro-life apologetics based on the “When They Say, You Say” talks developed by Olivia Gans Turner and Mary Spaulding Balch. While reading in order is not strictly necessary, you may find it helpful. Post 1. Post 2. Post 3. 

 This third category contains responses to the social arguments for abortion. Social arguments include concerns about the ability of poor families to care for children, unwanted children, and child abuse. Oftentimes people are only repeating what they’ve heard (and have not thought through the subject well themselves), and it’s best to assume that they have good intentions. In order to win hearts to the pro-life movement, you must recognize their compassion for what it is, even if it’s misplaced or uninformed.

The main premise of social arguments is that it is in both the parents’ and the child’s best interest to abort. An unplanned pregnancy will only add to the burden of parents struggling financially. Parents who don’t want their children will be more inclined to abuse. Children born into such families will suffer poverty or abuse. And because nobody wants to increase child abuse or poverty, they look at abortion as a reasonable and even responsible solution to the problem. Our job, then, is to persuade others lovingly that while these are good concerns, their conclusion is incorrect and better solutions exist.

What exactly does the slogan “every child a wanted child” mean? At first glance, it looks great: everyone wants to be wanted and loved! But the implications are much more negative. First, this suggests that value is equated with being wanted, and we know that simply isn’t true. We set a dangerous precedent when we say that someone only has worth when she is wanted by someone. With reference to abortion, “every child a wanted child” quickly becomes “and every unwanted child aborted.” This mentality of killing anyone who isn’t “wanted” endangers everyone living. As soon as we assign value based upon an arbitrary standard, anyone who does not meet that standard is at risk.

More importantly, is any child truly unwanted? At any given time, thousands of couples are on the adoption waiting lists, hoping for a child. Even children with disabilities, who are undervalued by our culture, have families lining up to bring them home. Just this summer, for example, hundreds of couples volunteered to adopt an unborn baby whose parents were considering abortion after discovering he had Down syndrome. While adoption is a difficult decision requiring great self-sacrifice on the part of the birthmother, it has a happy ending. By making an adoption plan, a mother not only gives life to her baby, she gives life to a completely new family. The same cannot be said about abortion.

It’s also good to note that feelings about pregnancies change. It’s common for mothers to have mixed feelings when they learn they’re pregnant, but over time they begin to bond with their unborn baby, especially when they can feel him moving. Every woman has a different timeline for when she bonds with her child, and for some mothers, it might not be until after birth. Regardless of how women feel about their pregnancies, though, we need to remember that the decision to abort is a serious matter, and a temporary emotion is not enough to justify the taking of a life. Too often, expectant mothers who feel trapped into abortion live with regrets for the rest of their lives.

But what about poverty? First of all, aborting the newest member of the family will not solve the problem of poverty. Someone’s financial situation and unplanned pregnancy are two different issues, and a poor mother who has an abortion remains a poor mother, with the additional pain of knowing she killed her child. We don’t condone the arbitrary killing of poor adults, and neither should we advocate the killing of their unborn children! Even if parents don’t feel like they have the financial resources to raise a child, there is help available. Pregnancy care centers across the country exist to support women as they face difficult pregnancies, providing free care, classes, and supplies. Besides material support, the workers at pregnancy centers often form friendships with the clients, providing much-needed emotional support, as well. Unlike abortion facilities, pregnancy care centers empower women and their families with education, resources, and the tools they need to succeed. 

Despite all this, many people are concerned that if parents are “forced” to care for an “unwanted” child, the abuse rate will escalate. If that is the case, it would make sense for cases of child abuse to decrease after the Supreme Court ruled abortion on demand legal, right? Wrong. In 1973, the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect reported 167,000 cases of child abuse. In 2011, an estimated 681,000 cases of child abuse were reported. This is in spite of increasing standards of safety, such as background checks and training for anyone working with minors, as well as approximately 1.2 million abortions per year. 

So why does the abuse rate go up with the abortion rate? One reason might be that women suffering from post-abortion syndrome are more likely to struggle to bond with or care for subsequent children. Another reason is that an abortion culture promotes a very negative view of children. Planned, wanted unborn children are babies; unplanned and unwanted unborn children are disposable clumps of tissue. When abuse takes place within the womb, we call it abortion and say it’s a woman’s choice. When abuse takes place outside of the womb, it’s a crime. Is it any wonder that as children are no longer seen as gifts within the womb, they aren’t seen as gifts outside of it, either? When children become commodities, we lose the understanding of them as persons.

Abortion has become so customary that it doesn't even occur to some people that it is part of the problem, not the solution. As pro-lifers, it is our duty to address these issues with great love. Our culture is broken and needs to be retaught the value of each person, born and unborn.