Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Mother Teresa and Abortion

“I walked out as if nothing in my life had changed but everything had”

By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. We are rapidly approaching the 42nd anniversary of the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. This month we are re-running posts from past editions of NRL News and NRL News Today. In January we will begin posting new stories about this tragedy. This op-ed ran in 2013.
Mother Teresa

As we move closer to the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I will be offering more contributions from a great pro-life resource– “40 years of Roe v Wade: 40 Days of Prayer & Reflection,” provided by the Nebraska Catholic Conference which began December 12 and ends January 22. As is our habit, I’ll be quoting two days’ worth of entries.

January 9 [Day 27] is a quote from Mother Teresa:

“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has shown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts ~ a child ~ as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.”

January 10 [Day 28] is a statement from a woman who has undergone an abortion. Her words illustrates the profound disconnect between what she was told and what she is experiencing.

Everything I read on abortion before I experienced it told me that 99.9 percent of women who have abortions do not suffer from depression or regret afterwards. In fact, the information told me I could expect to feel relieved. Where did they get all that from? I will never be the same again. Soon the relief wore off and I felt increased self-loathing. At first it was more of a relief. Now I am overcome with grief and sadness. I walked out as if nothing in my life had changed but everything had.

Source: NRLC News


Maternal love as an argument against abortion

Admitting that abortion is ever acceptable is incompatible with unconditional maternal love

By Paul Stark
Prof. Alexander Pruss
Prof. Alexander Pruss

Countless pregnant women love (or grow to love) their unborn children. But we do not generally use this fact in any argument against abortion. (Abortion is wrong because it unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being who deserves respect and protection regardless of how others think or feel about her.)

Consider, however, the following argument from Baylor University philosopher Alexander Pruss.
Many unborn children are loved as if they bear the kind of intrinsic value that would make killing them wrong. If those unborn children do not have such value, then those who love them are loving irrationally (or are otherwise mistaken or confused); but it is implausible to say that pregnant women are loving irrationally.
Therefore those unborn children really do have intrinsic value that precludes killing them. Since there are no morally relevant differences between unborn children who are loved and those who are not (the opinion of others cannot determine their moral status), it follows that all unborn children are valuable and ought not be killed. So abortion is wrong.

The decisive premise, it seems to me, is that mothers are not mistaken when they love their unborn offspring. This intuition is so strong that I doubt many pro-choice advocates would deny it, and many have loved their own unborn children and surely thought themselves reasonable in doing so.
Pruss writes:
It seems not only a sociologically natural kind of love, but a perfectly rational love. It would be implausible to suppose that the loving mother is in the throes of some conceptual confusion or is ignorant of some relevant fact. But if the love is perfectly rational and not ignorant, then the object of the love has at least the kind of value that it is loved as if it had. Therefore, plausibly, the fetus has the kind of value which justifies the mother’s love. But the amount of value which the mother in her love predicates of the child is such as would make killing the child prima facie wrong. Hence, abortion is prima facie wrong.
Pruss goes on to answer a number of objections to this argument. The bottom line is that the apparent reasonableness of maternal love for unborn children is significant evidence that abortion is morally impermissible. To say that abortion is permissible, on the other hand, one would have to hold that perhaps a majority of pregnant women (by loving their unborn children as individuals who really matter) are behaving irrationally or out of ignorance or confusion!

Editor’s note. Paul Stark is Communications Assistant for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, NRLC’s state affiliate.

Down Syndrome

What beauty have we missed?

By Mark Leach
JudithScottartAn exhibit in Brooklyn, New York features the work of an artist who was once called “profoundly retarded” but whose work is now considered “genius.”
Judith Scott was born in 1944, a member of the baby boom generation. But, per the standard of care, because Ms. Scott was born with Down syndrome, she was institutionalized.
She became deaf as a child, but was not diagnosed until she was in her 30′s. Her childhood spent in silence cost Ms. Scott the opportunity to develop speech. From this neglect, she was diagnosed as profoundly retarded and ineducable.

That was until her fraternal twin Joyce became Ms. Scott’s guardian and moved her to San Francisco where Ms. Scott was enrolled in a creative arts program.
Initially, Ms. Scott worked in “traditional” mediums: drawings with colored pencils and paintings. But, then she took a class taught by fiber artist Sylvia Seventy. Ms. Scott had found her medium.
The exhibit at the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art at the Brooklyn Museum is a showcase of Ms. Scott’s fiber art sculptures. At their core, these sculptures are mostly everyday objects, like an umbrella or a shopping cart, but then, through hours and hours of toil, Ms. Scott covered them in yarn, silk, wire, and other fibers knotted and intertwined with one another. They are covered so completely that it is near impossible to tell what began at the center of the sculpture, with the exception of the very large pieces like a shopping cart or a chair.

David Byrne, the former lead singer of the Talking Heads, is an admirer and collector of her works. She has had shows around the world. Holland Carter wrote a review of the Brooklyn Exhibit, explaining Ms. Scott’s process:
Although her materials were pretty much determined by what was in stock at Creative Growth at any given time, what she did with what she had was her decision alone, and the decisions were genius.
And so, a woman diagnosed as ineducable later has her decisions described as genius by a New York Times art critic.
In a commentary on Ms. Scott and her work, Lawrence Downes concluded his piece on the Times’ Op-Ed pages, beautifully:
Ms. Scott’s pieces are colorful, oddly shaped yet graceful, unself-consciously beautiful. That is also a good way of describing a human being, which Ms. Scott — against overwhelming odds, and the larger world’s denial, and without saying a word — declared herself to be.
Judith Scott didn’t move to San Francisco and become enrolled in her art studio until she was 43. She produced work that has received international acclaim, but did so only in the last 18 years of her life. As wonderful as the critical reviews and commentary written about her are, reading them left me wondering:
What beauty have we missed by shunning those with disabilities?

Recall, when Ms. Scott was born, it was simply the norm to believe a child such as she couldn’t amount to anything. So they were warehoused in institutions, shut off and segregated from society, left to age and ultimately die. Things have progressed for the better, but still people with Down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities remain a minority group for which most of society has very low expectations.

The example of Ms. Scott should challenge all of our preconceived notions about our fellow human beings. We all believe ourselves to have some creative spark, in one way or another. For you it may be how well you host a holiday party, or decorate your house, or play an instrument, or, in my case, try to write something of significance. And, yet, how many of us has looked at another person, a person who has a more obvious disability, and not even considered that they too have the creative spark we humans are all endowed with?

Had Joyce not gone and removed her sister from that institution an entire exhibit hall in Brooklyn would be devoid of works of art described as mysterious and beautiful. How many more exhibit halls may have been filled if those who were left behind at that institution or have limits placed on them by school administrators with low expectations or never had the chance of being born because of biased, coercive, negative counseling, instead had been given the chance to express their creative spark?
How much beauty have we deprived ourselves because of how we have treated those with Down syndrome?
Editor’s note. This appeared at

Source: NRLC News

Assisted Suicide

Debbie Purdy Dies: Case Echoed I Accuse!

By Wesley J. Smith
Debbie Purdy
Debbie Purdy

Debbie Purdy, who won a landmark legal case in the United Kingdom requiring the public prosecutor to issue guidelines when assisted suicide would be prosecuted, has died in hospice after refusing to eat. She was 51.

Purdy’s case thrust the legalization of assisted suicide onto the front burner in the UK in 2009, where it remains today. Ironically, even though she wasn’t terminally ill at the time–and died now because she stopped eating–UK assisted suicide promoters continue to pretend that legalization is about terminal illness.

Considering Purdy’s case–and the support she received for the right to assisted suicide–it clearly is not. Any such limitation is only the proverbial foot in the door.

I am reminded of the 1941 German pro-euthanasia propaganda movie Ich Klage An (I Accuse). As in the Purdy case, the plot involved a woman who contracts progressive MS. As she loses abilities, she wants to die. Her physician husband eventually assists her suicide and is arrested. The movie ends with the character looking into the camera, as if the audience were the judges, declaring:
No! Now, I accuse! I accuse the law which hinders doctors and judges in their task of helping people. I confess . . . I have delivered my wife from her sufferings, following her wishes. My life and the lives of all people who will suffer the same fate as my wife, depends on your verdict. Now, pass your verdict.

The answer the movie-makers wanted was to validate the husband’s act. In essence, that is what the Purdy case was also about.

If you agree that the husband acted properly in I Accuse, stop pretending assisted suicide is about terminal illness and admit it is much more about disability–which is why the disability rights movement remains so opposed as they are the primary targets. It is about allowing killing as an acceptable answer to many causes of suffering, whether terminal or chronic disease, disability, mental illness, or existential despair.

Indeed, as we have seen in Switzerland, Netherlands, and Belgium, once the fundamental premise us accepted, the sheer force of logic leads to permission for virtual death-on-demand.
Debbie Purdy looked at society and said, “I accuse!” What is your verdict?
Mine is to never legalize. Ever.

Editor’s note. This appeared at

Source: NRLC News

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Justifing Abortion

Painfully stupid “10 reasons to have an abortion”

By Dave Andrusko
unbornbabymonthbymonth_2A tip of the hat to a recent post at LiveActionNews for reminding me that I never responded to an awful abortion advocacy piece that ran last year on a website called Mommyish. The author, Eve Vawter, listed “10 Reasons to Have an Abortion”
Oh, I forgot to add the full title: “10 Reasons to Have an Abortion—illustrated by adorable cats.” I am not kidding.

Each of the “reasons’ (“reasons” is to give Vawter’s words more intellectual heft than they deserve but…) accompanied by a different cat or cats with differing expressions. I could obviously spend time on this bizarre juxtaposition but won’t.

Clinton Wilcox, writing at, did a very nice job in debunking the inanities in the list, which actually was pretty much exhausts the entire list.

Most of the reasons beg the question—the question being if the unborn child is a human being (what else would she be?), then it matters not if you believe the child is an inconvenience or that you are too old or too young or that the baby would put a crimp in your career plans. These justifications are simply not commensurate with the gravity of the tradeoff—ending a defenseless human being’s life.
Or the reason/justification is simply preposterous. In today’s world, are women really peering at a world population clock and deciding they will off their child because children are being born elsewhere at a rate they disagree with? Fear of “overpopulation” is, at best, hollow, at worse, embarrassingly, painfully silly.

Or that the woman has no relationship with the baby’s father. Next to question-begging, this is the most curious reason. One acts immaturely, with no view or concern with the consequences, and when a baby is conceived you double back and say, “I hardly knew the guy.” How is that the child’s fault?
And aren’t mature, adults what feminists says every woman should aspire to become and be recognized for? Or is what they really are advising/rationalizing is a kind of perpetual adolescence?
Reading the back and forth at the Mommyish website is fascinating. My favorite (so to speak) is
I would have been perfectly happy to have had my mom abort me if that is what she had wanted. It was her human right, regardless of men’s laws. I never would have known the difference.

I assume the writer is semi-serious. Would she have “known the difference” at birth + one day? Of course not. If someone’s grandfather has advanced Alzheimer’s, would he “know the difference” if you poisoned him?

Last thought. A line of affirming responses begins (and ends) with the declaration that while the unborn child has no intrinsic rights, at the magical moment (birth), he/she MAY acquire rights but who knows. Why the hesitation?
Because the foundation on which so many of the pro-abortion responses rests is nothing more than “I know what’s best for me: what’s inside me is mine to do with as I please.” Is it really much of a stretch to follow that logic a step (or a few inches) further? That “I know what’s best for me: what was inside me and is now outside of me but totally dependent on me is mine to do with as I please”?
Actually, that extension has been made every few years for decades–see neonatal euthanasia or “after-birth abortion.” It comes and goes with varying levels of furious rebuttal and then vanishes, but not without further softening resistance in academic circles and in popular journals.
The best conclusion is to quote Mr. Wilcox:

There are only nine reasons, but no bother. Ms. Vawter claims she could have come up with a hundred more, but it would have been nice if she could have come up with a second good one [beyond danger to the life of the mother]. Abortion cannot be justified by situations because not only does it beg the question, but situations must be looked at on a situation by situation basis.

And ironically, as J. Warner Wallace points out, these reasons wouldn’t justify killing the cats in these pictures, so why should we justify abortion for these reasons? Have pets become more important to us than unborn children?

Source: NRLC News

Assisted Suicide


Good Grief: Now It’s “Death Doulas”

By Wesley J. Smith
Donoharm45The Hippocratic Oath is one of the last remaining impediments to the complete deprofessionalization of medicine.

Doctors don’t take it much anymore, but the people still embrace its core purpose as an essential protection of their lives and wellbeing.

Now, in the LA Times, a doctor and journalist try to put the Oath out of its misery by taking the primary responsibility for interacting with dying patients away from physicians and handing decision-making over to “death doulas.” From, “The Hippocratic Oath and the Terminally Ill,” by Nora Zamichow and Ken Murray:

If we allow medicine to prolong life, should we also allow it to shorten life for the terminally ill?
We could, however, skirt the controversy entirely: What if we created another class of medical professionals known as death doulas, who could fill a gap between treatment doctors and hospice workers?
Death doulas would, in essence, become suicide facilitators:
In one recent study, 12% of doctors received one or more requests from patients asking about physician-assisted suicide; and an additional 4% received one or more requests for euthanasia. Another recent study put the numbers even higher: 57% of today’s doctors have received such requests.
And other studies show that most of those who ask, when treated properly, are glad they weren’t dispatched.
Back to the suicide pushing:
Don’t we owe it to our doctors to provide guidance in such matters? Do we want each doctor to grapple with these decisions individually?
No, we owe it to doctors not to ask them to participate in any way in killing. Death doulas would just let doctors shirk their professional responsibilities.
Moreover, if any doctors says they “can no longer help the patient,” it is time to get a better doctor!
This article demonstrates once again how the death movement distorts, twists, and subverts everything it touches. You see, a doula isn’t about death and darkness, but about enhancing and increasing the joy of childbirth, e.g. the giving of new life! Here is the definition:
The word “doula” comes from the ancient Greek meaning “a woman who serves” and is now used to refer to a trained and experienced professional who provides continuous physical, emotional and informational support to the mother before, during and just after birth; or who provides emotional and practical support during the postpartum period.
The point of the doula is to uplift! It is to help assure that the experience of birth is a positive one that the mother “remembers for the rest of her life.”
“Death doulas” turn that concept on its head.

But Wesley, wouldn’t a death doula be akin to hospice? Quite the contrary: Hospice is about living, not dying. When a hospice professional runs across a patient with a suicidal desire, the team engages to help the patient not want to kill themselves.
That’s an essential service. In direct contrast, death doulas be about making sure the dying gets done.
And who would want to be death doula? At least some would be the kind of people who now facilitate suicides because they like it.

Here’s an example from pro-assisted suicide advocate Lonnie Shavelson’s book, A Chosen Death about the time he witnesses a Hemlock Society leader assist the suicide of a depressed and lonely man named Gene, partially disabled by a stroke. From my description in Forced Exit:
Gene wants to end it all. He contacts an undisclosed chapter of the Hemlock Society and asks its head, a woman given the pseudonym “Sarah,” to assist in his death. According to Shavelson, Sarah has experience in this dark business, having previously assisted a close friend to commit suicide. Sarah found her first killing experience tremendously satisfying and powerful, “the most intimate experience you can share with a person. . . . More than sex. More than birth . . . more than anything,” including being present for “the deliveries of my four grandchildren.”
Jack Kevorkian used to promote a similar idea, which he called a “lay executioner.” Pending Scottish assisted suicide legislation would authorize “licensed suicide facilitators,” and now it’s “death doulas.”

We live in increasingly dark and death-obsessed times.
Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s great blog.

Source: NRLC News

Empty Chairs


So Many Empty Chairs

By Joleigh Little, Region Coordinator and Teens for Life Director, Wisconsin Right to Life
Editor’s note. We are rapidly approaching the 42nd anniversary of the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. This month we are re-running posts from past editions of NRL News and NRL News Today. In January we will begin posting new stories about this tragedy. The following ran in January 2014.
Joleigh and Clara Little
Joleigh and Clara Little

So not my thing.
I prefer letters that make words which become sentences. In fact, I love them. And while abortion can be explained in words, opposed in words and, eventually, eradicated with words, I don’t think it can be adequately understood without the numbers.
Knowing this, I tried to wrap my tiny fourteen year old brain around the numbers. It was 1985. I’d just marked the 12th anniversary of Roe v. Wade – my first as a full-fledged right-to-life advocate.
Our cold Wisconsin winter morphed into spring and one rainy Saturday when I was home alone I decided to try to not only understand the vastness of the abortion tragedy, but to help explain it to others.

I knew that abortion killed 1.5 million children a year (thankfully considerably lower now). I figured I would pull out the old stack of catalogs on our living room shelf and cut out the faces of the kids in the children’s clothing section. Logic dictated that after a good, hard day’s work I would be well on my way. My goal was a display banner that would show the tragedy of abortion.
A simple banner with 1.5 million faces on it. (I laugh now and understand the frustration my math teachers felt all those years.)
So I got out my scissors, stacked up three or four massive catalogs alongside my paper, glue and paintbrush, and I went at it. I cut carefully around tiny faces. I left entire legions of child models headless. I cut for hours, amassing what I was certain was a large dent in my project.
Once all of the catalogs were depleted, I decided to tally them up. I knew I’d probably have to borrow a few more catalogs to get the job done, but I was pretty sure I was well on my way. I counted the faces.
One hundred and seventy six. I had cut out 176 faces. I couldn’t believe it wasn’t more. I counted again and moved everything off the table to make sure I hadn’t missed a million or so that were lost under a pile of paper scraps. I still only had 176.
I got a calculator and did the math. It had taken me a whole afternoon to cut out faces equal to the number of babies killed by abortion in one hour! I looked down at those faces on the table and then it hit me. Babies were being aborted faster than they could be cut out of magazines and glued on a piece of paper.
I spent the next half hour locked in our downstairs bathroom sobbing uncontrollably. It seemed the numbers had won that round.
I found other ways to explain the devastation that was abortion — ways that were easier to picture and equally upsetting. In a classroom full of students, nearly every third chair was empty because of abortion. A child died from abortion every 20 seconds in America. But still that number eluded me.
Decades after the baby faces incident, I assigned my camp team kids to count grains of rice. We got our 1.5 million grains in bottles, jars and bags, and we put it out on the stage at a Wisconsin Teens for Life Convention. It certainly had an impact. But as a traveling display it was impractical, for the simple reason that it was too heavy to carry.
As is the burden of what we know. Three words.
Abortion… kills… children. On a massive scale with calculated brutality.
Beyond that, abortion scars women and their families. This ripple effect mocks the absurd notion that abortion is a “woman’s decision.”
The loss to our society is incalculable. We have lost brilliant doctors and researchers, eloquent lawyers, dedicated teachers, colorful personalities and so much more – each of them gone before they even drew a breath.

I think sometimes we avoid numbers because they are just plain overwhelming. The baby faces project and the grains of rice project show those numbers, but what they can’t show us is the humanity of what we’ve lost. And that, even more than the numbers, is the real tragedy.
When I think about abortion and what it has cost us, my mind inevitably goes to the individual child who is aborted. As a mom I know that one single child can change the world. Clara, my little girl, has certainly rocked mine. (And probably yours if you’ve met her.)

Specifically, as we mark the 41st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, and as I ponder the countless and senseless deaths, I try to imagine what we’ve truly lost.
And that is nearly impossible to do without putting a face on the tragedy.
Think about it for a minute. Every child lost is someone’s son or daughter — a grandchild, a sister or a brother, a cousin, a niece or nephew… a person. Not a potential person. Not a “baby to be” but a real, living human child.

When I try to imagine the world without Clara my heart breaks. Unlike millions in similar situations to hers (conceived to a single mother, born in a country overseas where abortions outnumber live births,) she is here. She is alive. She laughs, she plays, she loves, and she will grow up to make a difference. She and so many others are the faces we need to see when we hear about abortion.
And then we need to multiply that face times a classroom, times a school, times a town, times a city, times a state. And we still haven’t accounted for the massive, incalculable loss.
So as we commemorate the loss of life today, be mindful of the numbers. But also be mindful of the individual lives lost and how much every single one matters to all of us. And mourn, because every child killed by abortion takes with her a little piece of who we are.
In the words of 17th Century English poet, John Donne,
“Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee. “Source: NRLC News

Illinois Abortion Statistics

Illinois abortions fall to lowest number since 1974

By Lauren Enriquez
church-abortion-600x372The Illinois abortion rate has fallen to its lowest number in 40 years, a new report reveals. The 2013 Illinois Abortion Statistics, issued by the Illinois Department of Public Health, reported that the abortion rate has dropped by 5.7 percent. This decline represents nearly 2,500 babies who saw life instead of abortion last year. The abortion rate decreased in every age group except for those 45 years of age and above.
There was a very dramatic abortion decline among minors – 20 percent fewer young mothers choose abortion from September to December. Illinois Right to Life credits the decline to the implementation of a new parental involvement law:

Most notably, in August of 2013, the Illinois Parental Notification Law went into effect, requiring children under the age of 18 to notify one parent or guardian before obtaining an abortion. With that law in effect for only the last four months of 2013, we see a dramatic 20 percent decrease in the number of minors obtaining abortions, pointing to increased parental involvement and a positive effectiveness of the law. In 2013, 1,762 abortions were performed on minors 17 years old and younger, in contrast to the 2,213 in 2012. The number of abortions performed on girls 14 years old and younger dropped 31.6 percent in 2013 to 149 – the lowest number in at least 18 years.

We have seen the dire need for parental notification laws in states like Texas, where consent can be easily bypassed by a judge without parents knowing that their daughter sought or underwent an abortion procedure. Notification ensures that parents are informed, and as Illinois has proven, this knowledge plays a crucial role in the decisions that children make. Illinois is demonstrating the effectiveness of the measure.

In 1973 (the only year that had a lower abortion rate than 2013), Illinois saw 32,760 abortions, with dramatically more – 46,800 – in 1974. Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand in the U.S., did not pass until late January of 1973. That year’s abortion rate would likely have not encompassed a full year of legal abortions.
Editor’s note. This appeared at

Source: NRLC  News

Monday, December 29, 2014

Beautiful LIFE

Breathtaking Pictures Capture the Miracle of Birth, First Moments Outside Womb

by Steven Ertelt 

A top photographer was given access to Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark where she was able to capture some breathtaking pictures of the miracle of birth and the first seconds of human life.
Suste Bonnen followed 22 caesarean operations on the maternity ward and says her pictures, although some may see them as “graphic” are meant to be a “testimony to the magical wonder of life.”
The London Daily Mail carried the story and the amazing photos:
A photographer has captured the wondrous, miraculous moment of birth – in all its raw and unglamourised glory.

Taken before a mother has seen her baby for the first time these amazing photographs show the reality of how we all enter this world.
The warts and all pictures are the work of respected Danish photographer Suste Bonnen who was given unprecedented access to mothers while they were in labour.
Suste said: ‘A life-long theme for my portrait photography has always been the affection and love displayed between a mother and daughter, a father and a son, a brother and a sister.

‘I have portrayed heads of states, politicians, celebrities and CEOs, but family is what have always interested me the most.
‘What suddenly intrigued me, however, was if that feeling of love for life was detectable at first eyesight. What are we emotionally like at the earliest stage in life? What are we like at the very first second?

Compelling: Ms Bonnen said she wanted to show the emotion of birth as a mother set eyes on her child for the first time
Miracle: The thought-provoking series of photographs show birth in excruciating detail

Baby Development

Your Baby’s Development Month by Month

Editor’s note. The following appears on the webpage of Wisconsin Right to Life.
Watch the video below to see the beginnings of life in the womb and the step-by-step process of fetal development.
Thanks to National Right to Life for giving us permission to show this video online!
An Amazing Journey! LIFE!
At the miraculous moment of fertilization – when the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man unite, a new human life begins. From this moment on, it will take approximately nine months for the baby to develop and be ready to be born.
Babies come into this world one of three ways – early (premature), on time (born at the expected time), or late (after the expected due date). All babies, regardless of when they arrive, must go through the same developmental stages – usually a nine-month cycle. Let’s examine what happens before birth.

For the sake of clarity, please note that fertilization is placed at the beginning of Week 1. If you had intercourse multiple times since the end of your last menstrual period, it may be difficult to determine exactly the date of the baby’s conception and stage of fetal development.
Month One

Fertilization – the joining of the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg – this is when life begins. Fertilization can occur within minutes of intercourse or within two to three days afterwards. When fertilization occurs a new, unique human individual begins the journey of development. At the earliest stage, the new person is referred to as a zygote and is no larger than a single grain of sand. Cell division begins mere moments after fertilization.

Amazing Fact: At fertilization, every bit of genetic information necessary for the child’s development is present. The “program” for everything is there: hair and eye color, skin tone, height – even likely giftedness as a pianist, vocalist or computer programmer.
A function called implantation happens from five to nine days after fertilization. Implantation occurs when the new human nestles him or herself in the wall of the uterus (or womb) and begins to draw nutrition. Once he/she has implanted, your baby is called a blastocyst and is about 0.1 – 0.2 mm in diameter.

This week your body will experience a hormone reaction to the presence of the developing baby. The result is that you stop menstruating. In other words, you miss your normal period.
Between weeks three and four (18 to 25 days after fertilization) the developing baby’s heart begins to beat. Arm and leg buds form. The face – eyes, ears, nose and mouth – begin to take form.
Month Two

Your baby has only been developing for five weeks and is now 10,000 times larger than he/she was at fertilization. Your baby now is only about one inch long and weighs no more than one whole peanut. The lining of the placenta begins to develop but does not take over the production of hormones until about week 12. Brain waves are detected.

Amazing Fact: It’s a good thing this blazingly fast growth rate slows down after the second month, otherwise the baby’s birth weight would exceed 10 tons!
Your baby’s heart is bulging from the body and blood circulation is well established. Early evidence of the liver, pancreas, lungs and stomach can be seen. When you see your baby through ultrasound at week six, you’d be amazed by how much he or she has already developed.
Genitals are present but you can’t distinguish boys from girls at this point. The pumping action of your baby’s heart is about 20% of your own heart’s capacity.

Amazing Fact: Your baby will actually go through three sets of kidneys during his or her development. By week seven, your baby is already on the second set!
By this time, the end of month two, your baby receives a new technical name to describe his/her development: fetus, a Latin word which means “young one.” All organs are present – and most are functioning – although some need more time to develop. The irises of the eyes develop, fingernails are visible and your baby can curl his/her fingers around an object. He or she also hiccups, has taste buds on the tongue and tooth buds in the gums.

Amazing Fact: If your health provider uses a “Doppler,” you may be able to hear your baby’s heartbeat during your week 10 visit. It will sound very fast. Your risk of miscarriage is greatly reduced after you hear this sound. 

The baby’s mother and father can also see their baby in the womb through 3D/4D ultrasound imaging. Most doctors use ultrasound to trace the baby’s development throughout pregnancy.
Month Three
Your baby can smile, make funny faces. She/he can practice “breathing” the amniotic fluid in/out of the lungs, all 20 teeth are formed and waiting to develop. Your baby is now approximately one ounce in weight, as is the placenta. The pancreas has now started to secrete insulin. This is also the time of peak movement for the baby. The movement can not be felt by the mother but the baby rarely pauses for more than five minutes at a time. He/she may change position as often as 20 times an hour even if the mother lies still. The baby also feels the mother’s motions at this time and rocks in the womb as the mother moves.
Amazing Fact: Amniotic fluid completely regenerates itself every three hours. While we know for sure that this fluid is partly made up of urine from the baby, science still has not discovered what makes up the other parts. As advanced as modern medicine is, some mysteries remain!
Amazing Fact: What was that noise? At 15 weeks, loud sounds may actually cause baby to startle. Some moms and dads find that quiet music played near mom’s tummy will cause baby to relax and calm down.
Month Four

Your baby is now about eight inches tall from head to toe. Baby’s movements can now be felt by his/her mother and he/she can suck his/her thumb. The fingernails are now well-formed and often need to be trimmed at birth because they have grown so long. Baby is emptying his/her bladder every 40-45 minutes. The placenta is fully established by now. Another critical part of the baby’s growth is the umbilical cord. The umbilical cord is attached to the placenta, not the mother, and serves to provide baby with the needed nutrients for the rapid growth the baby is now experiencing. Fingerprints are now evident.
Month Five

Amazing Fact: “Why can’t I sleep through the night?” Many moms find themselves asking this question. The simple answer is you have a son or daughter inside you who lives on a different sleep/wake cycle than you do. Some kids consistently wake mom at 3 a.m. every morning. Chances are, after baby is born, he or she will want to be active about this same time!
Baby’s weight will increase to approximately 15 ounces by the end of the fifth month. Hearing is very acute and activity continues to increase as the baby swims around in the amniotic fluid. The baby’s body shifts to a head-down position in preparation for birth in a few months. Eyebrows have developed. Lanugo, (fine hair) begins to appear on the baby’s body. Sometimes this lanugo remains on the body after birth. Also, a creamy white substance (named vernix) clings to the baby’s fine hair and in creases of the skin. It is believed that this “skin cream” protects the baby during the remaining weeks of pregnancy. This substance is sometimes seen after birth.
Month Six

By now your baby has gained another pound. His/her hand coordination has increased and the baby can now move the thumb in opposition to the fingers. Eyes are now open though the baby is still in the darkness in the womb. Little deposits of fat, which retain heat, begin to form. The uterus allows some light to be seen so the baby begins to distinguish between lightness and darkness.
Month Seven

Baby’s skin is wrinkled from so much time floating in water. The skin will stay this way until a few weeks after your child’s birth. Your baby’s eyelashes are developing and fat continues to be deposited beneath the skin. If you have a baby boy, his testes will probably begin descending. Now into his/her seventh month of development, a baby born at this time has a good chance of survival with the help of medical technology. Your baby also is beginning to regulate his/her body temperature. The baby’s temperature will always be warmer than the mother’s.
If you are having Braxton Hicks Contractions, they are a sign that your body is getting ready for labor. The baby notices the contractions, but is not adversely affected by them.
Your baby now weighs two to four pounds.
What are Braxton Hicks contractions?

Named for J. Braxton Hicks, who first made note of them in 1872, Braxton Hicks contractions are an occasional (and unpredictable) tightening of the uterus during the first and second trimesters of a pregnancy. Usually these contractions are not painful and do not indicate that labor has begun. Third trimester Braxton Hicks contractions may increase in frequency and may cause the mother some degree of pain. These contractions may even occur with a regular rhythm (10 to 20 minutes apart) and are sometimes called false labor pains. The only way to be absolutely certain that the contractions are indeed false labor pains is for mom to be examined by her doctor.
Month Eight

Baby’s irises can now dilate and contract in response to light; weight is now about four to six pounds. Sleep and waking become more differentiated toward the end of the eighth month. Four distinctive behavioral states become recognizable and these will continue to be characteristic in the baby’s behavior in the weeks beyond birth. These are sleep, awake, actively awake and crying. Your baby’s body is now producing a chemical (called a surfactant) which helps baby breathe after birth. The surfactant is coating the alveoli in the lungs. Baby weighs about four pounds (1.8 kilograms). Babies born after this week have fewer breathing problems at birth.
Amazing Fact: Baby has put on about two pounds of weight, mostly fat and muscle tissue, since last month measures to 40 cms or 15.8 inches.
Month Nine

Baby weighs about five to seven pounds, and puts on about half a pound a week now. All organ systems are completing development for birth. Baby gains his/her “fat cheeks” during the ninth month. Mother’s antibodies pass through the placenta to provide baby with immunity from measles, chicken pox, whooping cough and other illnesses.

Amazing Fact: In the days and hours prior to your baby’s birth the amniotic fluid is continually replaced, even in labor, at the rate of once every three hours.
Chances are good that your baby is one of the 90% who is head down and deeply snuggled into your pelvis. The immune system is still immature and the baby receives antibodies from the placenta and after birth will receive antibodies continually from mother’s breast milk. Most of the lanugo has fallen off the baby’s body, although you may still find some hidden in spots, particularly in the creases, and around the shoulders or ears.

The average baby will be about 7.5 pounds (3.4 kilograms) and 20 inches long at birth. The placenta will weigh about one eighth the size of the baby and the umbilical cord will be about the same length as the baby. The baby will be judged, at birth and five minutes later, with an Apgar score.
What is an Apgar score?

Virginia Apgar, M.D., gets the credit for developing the APGAR score in 1953. She wanted to provide moms, dads and hospital staff with a uniform method of measuring the initial health of a newborn. The test looks at five different signs of health: heart rate, respiratory rate, reflex irritability, muscle tone and color.

Happy birthday, baby!

Recognition given to the following authors for information throughout fetal development:
A Child is Born, Lennart Nilsson; text by Lars Hamberger, Delacorte Press, 1990.
Beginning Life, Geraldine Lux Flanagan, DK Books, 1996.
From Conception to Birth, a Life Unfolds, Alexander Tsiaras, Text by Barry Werth, Doubleday, 2002.
Source:NRLC News

Laws Save Lives


Illinois abortions fall to lowest number since 1974

The Illinois abortion rate has fallen to its lowest number in 40 years, a new report reveals. The 2013 Illinois Abortion Statistics, issued by the Illinois Department of Public Health, reported that the abortion rate has dropped by 5.7 percent. This decline represents nearly 2,500 babies who saw life instead of abortion last year. The abortion rate decreased in every age group except for those 45 years of age and above.
There was a very dramatic abortion decline among minors – 20 percent fewer young mothers choose abortion from September to December. Illinois Right to Life credits the decline to the implementation of a new parental involvement law:

Most notably, in August of 2013, the Illinois Parental Notification Law went into effect, requiring children under the age of 18 to notify one parent or guardian before obtaining an abortion. With that law in effect for only the last four months of 2013, we see a dramatic 20 percent decrease in the number of minors obtaining abortions, pointing to increased parental involvement and a positive effectiveness of the law. In 2013, 1,762 abortions were performed on minors 17 years old and younger, in contrast to the 2,213 in 2012. The number of abortions performed on girls 14 years old and younger dropped 31.6 percent in 2013 to 149 – the lowest number in at least 18 years.
We have seen the dire need for parental notification laws in states like Texas, where consent can be easily bypassed by a judge without parents knowing that their daughter sought or underwent an abortion procedure. Notification ensures that parents are informed, and as Illinois has proven, this knowledge plays a crucial role in the decisions that children make. Illinois is demonstrating the effectiveness of the measure.
In 1973, (the only year that had a lower abortion rate than 2013),  Illinois saw 32,760 abortions, with dramatically more – 46,800 – in 1974. Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand in the U.S., did not pass until late January of 1973. That year’s abortion rate would likely have not encompassed a full year of legal abortions.

Source: LiveAction News

Pro-Abortion and Religious Leaders


Playing God in God’s name: ThinkProgress hails pro-abortion religious leaders 


Fetus with HaloPro-aborts periodically take time off from hating religion to remind those of us nutty enough to think God values the children He creates that they’ve got believers on their side, too. ThinkProgress’s Tara Culp-Ressler provided a refresher course on “the religious abortion advocates that history forgot,” casting these clergy for child-butchering as selfless underdogs on a vital divine mission. Yes, really:

The New York legislature had just failed to pass an incremental reform to the state’s strict anti-abortion law, leaving the status quo in place. At that time, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of New York City’s maternal mortality rate. While wealthy women could use their “connections” to have illegal yet safe abortions performed in hospitals, less privileged women didn’t have that option. According to a survey of low-income women who had abortions in the 1960s, eight in ten said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, and only two percent said that a trained physician was involved in any way.
The first thing that stands out is that the link in Culp-Ressler’s 42% number goes to, er, Yikes.
It’s usually a bad sign when an author is already citing full blown, red-fist, self-professed Marxists just three sentences in. As such, it’s unsurprising that key details of illegal pre-Roe abortions, like the vast majority of them actually being performed by qualified doctors or the death toll’s decline having more to do with antibiotics than legalization, go unmentioned.
She goes on to chronicle the work of pastors and rabbis who, according to pro-abortion academic David Grimes, “just could not stand by and witness the carnage continuing on that scale.” If you’re waiting for an explanation of how we can make the leap from “we’re called to save these women’s lives” to “we’re called to end their babies’ lives,” you’re going to be disappointed.

Despite purporting to introduce us to a legitimate part of the Judeo-Christian tradition that has been unjustly exiled from mainstream organized religion, nowhere in Culp-Ressler’s piece will you find a theological argument for abortion’s permissibility, or a scriptural quote that explains why the unborn don’t count as God’s children after all. As notoriously shoddy as such efforts are, it’s telling that nobody she interviewed even tried. It’s scandalous enough when secular pro-aborts try to skirt the issue by simply ignoring their victim, and doubly so for those who supposedly accept that those victims are made in God’s image.
What these heroic Herods do have are plenty of superficial platitudes, with only the thinnest link to the actual contents of the Bible:
[Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice president Rev. Harry] Knox said that many of his colleagues decided to get involved with RCRC after witnessing “a complete lack of compassion” in today’s conversations about abortion among people of faith.
He never sees compassion from the pro-life side of the conversation? Either Knox hasn’t been paying attention, or he’s bearing false witness against his neighbors — which would be no surprise, considering he’s already broken the commandment about murder by spearheading abortion advocacy.
“As faith leaders, we all feel literally called — and supported by spirit on a daily basis — to model something different in the face of this overwhelming message to people that they’re not enough, that they’re not loved, and that in fact they’re hated,” Knox said. “Our message is that you are loved, loved, loved. God loves women who have abortions.”
Of course He does. But that doesn’t mean He loves their abortions. In fact, it’s Christianity 101 that God loves us in spite of the evil we do, not because of it. That was the whole point of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection — “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” It was to save us from our sins, and to twist that into the Holy Spirit calling on us to support sin is a special kind of vile.
“We believe that women are good, created in the image of God, and able to make difficult decisions. We believe this power to make personal decisions is good and given to us by God,” [Missouri-based “reproductive justice” outfit] Faith Aloud explains in the section of its site devoted to its counseling services.
No pro-lifer disagrees with any of that, but how does it make abortion godly? No rational person would conclude that because God endowed us with decision-making abilities, whatever decision we make therefore has His unconditional approval. That obviously wouldn’t justify stealing, killing, raping, committing adultery, lying, cheating, or any other wrong one might be tempted to do. So why does it deserve any respect as a defense of killing your son or daughter?
“We have embraced reproductive justice as the frame for how we do our work,” Knox told ThinkProgress, referencing the intersectional framework that has been put forth by women of color. “Central to that effort is making sure — as Jesus Christ did, and as the leaders of all of our major faiths did — that the people at the margins are always brought into the center of the conversation.”
Another utter non-sequitur. Not only are there no pro-lifers trying to “exclude people at the margins from the conversation” (whatever that means), we’re the ones giving platforms to those whose abortion experiences the abortion lobby would prefer to marginalize.
It’s often possible to draw parallels between those personal stories and the major themes that arise in the Bible, like Jesus ministering to prostitutes rather than passing judgment on the choices they previously made.
But just by clicking the link, one sees a very different picture. Yes, Jesus ministered to those whom lesser figures would want nothing to do with, telling them, “Your sins are forgiven.” But note that He still calls it sin. The behavior is still wrong; indeed, the entire idea of forgiveness makes no sense if there’s nothing to forgive in the first place. And as usual, those trying to hijack Christianity for abortionism are only giving half the picture: Jesus forgives sinners, but still tells them to “go and sin no more” afterward.
Rev. A. Faye London, the interfaith outreach coordinator for [Tennessee-based] SisterReach, said. “We moved toward an ending of Jim Crow by connecting with the Exodus story and people being brought out of slavery by the hand of God. So we look at some of these stories that challenge our traditional beliefs” […]
“We saw that in the Clergy Consultation Service — we’re repeating history by doing the work in this way,” [SisterReach CEO Cherisse Scott] said.
Culp-Ressler couldn’t have picked a more fitting note to end this barbaric blasphemy on, because while there are indeed parallels to be found, these folks have cast themselves in the wrong roles. The truth is, they’re following in the footsteps not of Christian abolitionists, but of those Christians who stood with Jim Crow.

The Confederate Constitution, which enshrines “the right of property in negro slaves,” “invok[es] the favor and guidance of Almighty God.” Episcopal theologian James Warley Miles said the South was “working out a great thought of God — namely the higher Development and Humanity in its capacity for Constitutional Liberty.” Baptist preacher Richard Furman argued that “the right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Indeed, ThinkProgress itself has noted elsewhere that Mississippi Sen. Theodore Bilbo claimed that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.”

Racist Christians rejected their Lord and Savior’s command to love all their neighbors as they did themselves, and twisted their own faith to excuse it. Though citing a more sympathetic group of beneficiaries than plantation owners, today’s Christians for “choice” are degrading God’s children and dishonoring God’s word just the same.

Source: LiveAction News

Saturday, December 27, 2014

What is Human


The end of human rights?

According to a recent report by Reuters, a court in Argentina has ruled that Sandra, an orangutan living in a Buenos Aires zoo, is a “non-human person.” The court determined that Sandra’s internment in the zoo is therefore an unlawful violation of her fundamental rights. According to Paul Buompadre, the lawyer representing Sandra, “[t]his opens the way not only for other Great Apes, but also for other sentient beings which are unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in zoos, circuses, water parks and scientific laboratories.”

Now in many countries, including the United States, members of the species Homo sapiens are not granted legal rights until they are born. The landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade declared, “The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” In other words, the law considers a fetus belonging to the species Homo sapiens a “human non-person.”
According to this logic, the term “human rights” is a misnomer. If a “non-human person” possesses these rights and a “human non-person” does not possess these rights, then the determining factor is clearly personhood, not humanity. Thus, individuals do not have “human rights”; they have “person rights.” The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has been misnamed.

We should notice, however, that replacing “human rights” with “person rights” is no small change.
The term “human” is clearly defined. Every member of the species Homo sapiens is a human. Therefore, the humanity or non-humanity of an individual is a scientific fact; it is not open to debate.
The term “person,” on the other hand, is not clearly defined. For example, Sandra has been deemed a person in Argentina because she has attained some unspecified level of cognitive function. However, in the United States, the personhood of a fetus is not determined by cognitive function at all. The law currently considers a premature infant a person, while an older fetus at full term is not deemed a person, despite the fact that the fetus is more developed than the infant and thus has greater cognitive function. The criterion is not cognitive function, but birth.
Therefore, unlike the designation “human,” which is entirely objective, the designation “person” varies from country to country. One country may declare that orangutans are persons; another may declare that orangutans are not persons. One country may declare that fetuses are persons; another may declare that fetuses are not persons. One country may declare that infants are persons; another may side with scholars such as Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who recently gave this opinion in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics:
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’….Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.
The notion of human rights is revolutionary precisely because it places the individual above the state. The notion of person rights, on the other hand, is not revolutionary at all. On this view, individuals have rights only because the state has deemed them persons. In other words, individuals have rights only because the state has decided to grant them rights. Thus, the state remains the final authority.
The shift from “human rights” to “person rights” is therefore not a progressive move toward a more enlightened understanding of justice; it is simply a return to the old view that the state has absolute power.

Source LiveAction News

Incest and Abortion


Judge says abortion makes incest acceptable

It stands to reason that if abortion is viewed as morally and legally correct, other immoral acts will become socially acceptable as well. Now, according to a judge in Australia, incest is one of those acts.
During the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister, Judge Garry Neilson said that incest may no longer be morally unacceptable because the only reason it is criminal is due to the potential for abnormalities in any conceived children. Neilson said that thanks to contraception and abortion, there is no longer that risk.
The man on trial had raped his sister beginning when she was as young as 10 or 11 and pleaded guilty to that. However, he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him for the incest that occurred after the sister turned 18.

“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner,” the judge said. “If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”
The judge went on to say that by the time the sister had turned 18, they were both mature adults, and since she had been sexually involved with two other men, she had been “sexually awoken.” And since sex outside marriage and homosexuality have now both become socially acceptable, so can incest.

This isn’t the first time that the legality and acceptance of abortion has led to the idea that other illegal and immoral acts should become acceptable. We saw it with the idea of after-birth abortion, or infanticide.

The Journal of Medical Ethics published an article that stated that babies are not “actual persons” and therefore have no “moral right to life,” therefore after-birth abortion should be legal. In some countries it is legal now to kill disabled newborns, and in 2013, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow spoke in support of the choice to deny medical care to babies born alive as a result of a botched abortion:
How many longstanding laws based on our moral code will soon be struck down thanks to the legality of abortion?

Source: LiveAction News

Abortion and ACOG


National OB/GYN organization releases blatantly pro-abortion committee opinion


Last month, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Committee Opinion entitled “Increasing Access to Abortion.” In the opinion, ACOG unequivocally condemns pro-life legislation, contending that pro-life laws are bad for women (emphasis added):
Legislative restrictions fundamentally interfere with the patient-provider relationship and decrease access to abortion for all women… The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists calls for advocacy to oppose and overturn restrictions, improve access, and mainstream abortion as an integral component of women’s health care.

However, as an “integral component of women’s health care,” we have seen abortion do nothing to improve women’s health. As an elective procedure that is never medically necessary, it could be concluded that abortion’s only impact on women’s health from a medical perspective has been negative (botched abortion and maternal death). And, of course, one person involved in the abortion decision almost never makes it out alive: the child.

Overlooking these points, however, ACOG made a laundry list of recommendations to “ensure the availability of safe, legal, and accessible abortion services free from harmful legal or financial restrictions.” Among these recommendations is the elimination of the federal Hyde amendment, and ensuring public funding for abortion training that would require medical students to opt out (if they had an objection).

ACOG later directs its attack to crisis pregnancy centers, claiming these centers “present themselves as health clinics offering pregnancy options services, but operate to dissuade women from seeking abortion care.” Ironically, the laws ACOG seeks to mitigate (such as mandatory counseling prior to abortion) are those that do provide  some level of informed consent to the mother. If showing women ultrasounds and apprising them of the risks associated with the abortion choice (which is what pregnancy centers do) “dissuades” women from abortion, those are facts speaking the truth for themselves. And women deserve to know the truth before an abortion.

In the opinion’s conclusion, ACOG notes the stigma experienced by abortionists “in the workplace, in their communities, and from colleagues” among reasons why restrictions to abortion are harmful to “women’s health.” Clearly, abortion restrictions “hurt” someone. But pregnant mothers are not the ones negatively impacted.

Source: LiveAction News

Abortion Clinic Workers


Why abortion clinic workers quit – in their own words

Ever wondered what compels abortion clinic workers to quit?
What makes the nurses begin to reconsider their career choice? What turns the doctors from performing abortions and compels them to never be involved again? What convinces other staff to just walk out and not return?
Here are excerpts from the stories of just a few.
March 30, 2014: 40 Days for Life
While people prayed in the rain at the 40 Days for Life vigil in Sacramento, Wynette – the local coordinator – watched a scene unfold outside the abortion center.
“Several abortion business employees huddled together, holding their umbrellas, as they took turns hugging one abortion worker in particular,” she said … wondering what was going on.
A few minutes later, that worker exited the driveway right in front of Wynette and rolled down the car window, ignoring the falling rain.
“I’ve had enough!” the distraught worker called out. “I hate this place! I quit!”

“I cannot say much more,” Wynette said … but she added that the worker asked for prayer. [Emphasis added.]
Excerpt from Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood director, as she explains how an ultrasound-guided abortion changed her mind:
The next movement was the sudden jerk of a tiny foot as the baby started kicking, as if it were trying to move away from the probing invader. As the cannula pressed its side, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. It seemed clear to me that it could feel the cannula, and it did not like what it was feeling. …
The cannula was already being rotated by the doctor, and now I could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. For the briefest moment the baby looked as if it were being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then it crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes. The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then it was gone. And the uterus was empty. Totally empty.
August 29, 2013: Wendy
I was required to go to an abortion clinic in our affiliate in order to observe abortions.  I was asked by my Health Center Director what my thoughts were on my experience…what a trap. She wanted me to use the term “empowering” as I discussed my experience.  Instead, I said it was disturbing. That is when it went down hill for me. …
After that conversation with my supervisor I quickly realized something…Planned Parenthood does not empower women and I have not been helping them.  We were hindering them from making good choices and being responsible.  We were sending the message “do whatever you want sexually, we will help you take care of any consequences.”
September/October 2008: “Valerie”
On that particular day, from my position I was able to see him extracting perfectly formed little arms, legs, toes, fingers, spine and finally the head. I could see the baby’s face. I don’t know how to describe what I felt at that moment. I felt death. I was ashamed and confused as I was staring at the bloody parts of the baby. I can even say I felt the presence of the devil. It was very disturbing. My mind was so blinded by the darkness in it I was unable to do anything. …
If this baby had been born prematurely at 20–22 weeks it would have had a chance to live. I thought, “People, think about what are you doing. Think about the consequences of this abortion. Imagine this is you, Imagine you are in the most secure place you could be, in your mother’s womb. You have no idea how cruelly your life will end, how you will be torn to pieces. We betray our children. We interrupt their precious lives so abruptly, so unexpectedly. You think abortion brings relief but instead it brings emptiness, shame, pain, regret, feelings of death.” …

I remember one day specifically. The head abortionist came into the laboratory with a six-week-old fetus he had just aborted. I remember thinking I was looking at something in a museum. My heart was blocked from seeing the truth. Shortly before, I had seen a calendar that showed a very similar baby. It was positioned just the way the head abortionist held the one in the laboratory. My eyes were opened, and I saw the humanity of the baby. This was a revelation.
1974: Paul Jarrett
[I]t was a 1974 operation that “changed my mind about abortion forever.” While doing a suction abortion, Jarrett found that the suction curette was obstructed by a torn-off fetal leg. So he changed techniques and dismembered the child with a ring forceps:
“And as I brought out the rib cage, I looked and I saw a tiny, beating heart. And when I found the head of the baby, I looked squarely in the face of another human being–a human being that I’d just killed. I turned to the scrub nurse and said, ‘I’m sorry.’ But I just knew that I couldn’t be a part of abortion anymore.”
For more information, check out the following articles. If you are interested in leaving the abortion industry, And Then There Were None is a ministry designed specifically for you. It was founded by a former Planned Parenthood director. You can visit ATTWN’s website here.

Source: LiveAction News