Most Recent

Pro-life - Abortion

Euthanasia changed the abortion battle

Dozens of other pro-life volunteers spent the summer talking to strangers about the unborn

****

In 2016 euthanasia was legalized. That was also the summer I did my first pro-life internship with the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform. After that I was involved for several years, and now after a bit of a break I’ve returned. My sister and I are interning for the summer. We're spending our time door-knocking, having conversations, and showing abortion victim photography in the streets of Calgary.

One heart at a time

One young man I talked to said abortion was okay earlier on in the pregnancy, and in difficult circumstances. I agreed with him about how difficult those situations would be, and then I asked him to consider a girl who ends up in a difficult situation once the child was born. I asked if he thought we could ever kill that child, because of her situation. Then we talked about the humanity of the preborn – that if abortion ends the life of a biological human being, then it’s a human rights violation. At the end of the conversation, he agreed that abortion was never okay, and he took a pamphlet with resources to share with his friends.

That was one of three conversations I had during that one hour of activism. And throughout the city about 20 other activists were having similar conversations!

So many people change their minds when they see the signs and hear the arguments. And many of them end the conversation saying, "Thank you for being here."

Euthanasia changed things

It's still shocking to me how many times we hear "I had an abortion," "My girlfriend had an abortion," and "I drove my friend to the abortion clinic." Everyone has been affected in some way or another.

I’m also stunned that we live in a society where so many people think it's better to die than to live through suffering. There's so much need for the gospel. We can show the inconsistencies in pro-abortion logic, and when we do, even the most philosophical nutcases will agree (at least in theory). But when people don't even value themselves, how can we expect them to value other human life?

This summer is showing me clearly what a hurting society we live in – and how that brokenness has progressed even since I started in 2016. When I first did pro-life work, euthanasia rarely came up, which is why I clearly remember one instance where it did. A man who came up to me and shared that he had helped his mom get euthanized in the Netherlands, when it wasn’t accessible in Canada. It was a good thing, he argued, because she hadn’t wanted to be a burden on the rest of the family. I was shocked.

Now, eight years later and euthanasia is widespread. A few weeks ago, a friend shared with me that his grandma chose MAiD – and she had considered herself a Christian.

They used to meet us halfway

We’re no longer just talking with people who think it’s okay to kill preborn babies; we’re talking with people who want to be killed themselves if their life no longer seems worthwhile. Beliefs are a bit different person to person, but the equation goes something like this: a person’s life is worth living, if (and only if) they have awareness of what’s going on around them, they aren’t suffering, and they aren’t a burden to society.

One of our strongest anti-abortion arguments concludes: “If we’d never kill a born person for (X) situation, why is it okay to kill a pre-born human for the same situation?” The underlying principle is that we don’t kill people, regardless of situations.

The foundation of our pro-life arguments is built on two premises:

1) that the pre-born are human
2) and that killing humans is wrong.

Now we’re having a rising amount of people challenge the second premise.

The author, handing out brochures

If life has no meaning death becomes attractive

Why should we be surprised when a generation that’s okay with killing babies decides that it’s also okay to kill parents? Abortion and euthanasia are symptoms (and certainly not the only serious ones) of materialism and abstract spiritualism. You live for personal happiness, you don’t judge, and have only personal morals and religion – don’t impose those on others. It’s an echo of an earlier time when “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

The root issue here is a loss of values of our nation; Virtue itself is no longer a virtue, and suffering is seen as the ultimate evil.

Victor Frankl talks about suffering in his book Man’s Search for Meaning, where he reflects on his time during the Holocaust. He observed that some people shut down while others became more determined to live, and he found that meaning (purpose) was the ultimate difference. For some, meaning was the literal difference between life and death.

With Medical Assistance in Dying, the messages are clear: “Your life no longer has meaning. You are a burden to society and to your family,” and “Your value is dependent on your circumstances.”

Where does our worth come from?

If materialism is the secular religion of our day, then the message of the Gospel stands in sharp contrast. That contrast is highlight in Dr. Goligher’s book, How Should We Then Die? where he brings the discussion back to whether human beings have intrinsic or extrinsic value. Do we have value based on our humanity, or do we assign value based on age, circumstances, and usefulness?

As Christians we know that we're made God’s Image. That’s why we know that we have value and purpose in every stage of our life. And we know to treat others according to that intrinsic value.

Christians also understand that pain and suffering are often a means to refine and shape us. In our suffering, there’s meaning and comfort that we ultimately cannot lose. Our society lives for pleasure and comfort, but it is also craving purpose and meaning. And because it can’t find meaning, it’s not shocking that we find ourselves in a culture of death.

Going on all Prophet Nathan on them (2 Sam. 12)

While doing activism, I met a woman named Janice. Her sister had died of a terminal illness a few years ago, and she cried as she said, “They wouldn't let her have MAiD, so I had to watch her suffer.” I had nowhere to go but the Gospel, and I was able to bring it in.

Logic and truth are also essential and effective in ending abortion - I've seen the fruits over and over again. Our nation’s moral conscience can only be numbed so much; the Law is still written on our calloused hearts (Romans 2:15). We might obscure the Law and justify ourselves, but everyone still know that it’s wrong to kill innocent humans.To show that abortion is wrong, we draw out an analogy that makes it real. I often say, “I know of a baby named Laura. Laura’s mom was on drugs while she was pregnant, but she thought she could handle it. After Laura was born, her mom realized she couldn’t handle it, and she abandoned her. Now, just a few months old, Laura is now suffering from neglect and from drugs in her system. She may end up in foster care her whole life. Would it be okay to kill Laura to spare her from a difficult life?”

When this picture is drawn, murder is harder to justify. In the same way, it’s much more difficult to justify abortion after looking at an abortion image, and much easier to justify it if the discussion is kept in the abstract. This is the reason everything gets covered in euphemisms – euphemisms help us to forget what we are actually talking about.

With euthanasia, we can use the same type of argument. We appeal to cases where it’s clearly wrong, and use that to show our listeners that they are creating a hierarchy of value. “You’re saying that there’s one category of people to whom we should offer help, and another group that we can kill.” And if there’s one thing this culture likes, it’s equality.

So, there are ways to humanize the victims and to change minds.

It’s a heart issue

In pro-life apologetics, we recognize some conversations as “heart conversations.” When we deal with a heart issue, we check in with the person and hear their story. We show them that we care. And then, gently but with full truth, we bring the conversation back to abortion – they can't heal until they acknowledge the wrong.

The reality is that every person you and I ever talk to has a heart issue; we’ve all hurt and been hurt. And what sin is heavier than killing your own child or grandparent? That's the burden of guilt weighing down on our nation. And who else can take away this burden, than the One who died to save us? As Christians we convict and grieve, but we aren't stuck there – we can share the Gospel of redemption and forgiveness.

My brief encounters on the street are one step in pointing people to a higher morality and a higher purpose. Most often it’s a first step, but sometimes it’s a later one. But especially in world where it's so countercultural to just love your neighbor, we have so an opportunity to show the difference of living with the Gospel.

Conclusion

Early Christians in Rome were set apart by the Gospel they preached and by the Gospel they lived. In that culture, it was normal and socially acceptable to abandon babies outdoors so that they would die of exposure. There was no question on the humanity of those children but in Rome a child that wasn’t wanted didn’t have value. Value was assigned, not inherent.

Where were the Christians? Rescuing those they could and raising them as their own. Eventually, culture changed so much that exposure became a crime.

When I walk through downtown Calgary, there’s little that makes me think of Rome. On the surface, we’re extremely civilized. But our values aren’t too different – we just hide it better. Whether we’re headed for destruction or revival, our calling as Christians is clear: Be salt and light; defend the orphan; share the Good News.

To find out more about the work of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, and to investigate spending a summer working for them, go to EndTheKilling.ca.

Full Article

News, Pro-life - Abortion

What does Pierre Poilievre think about the unborn?

Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

Pro-life legislation attempts in Canada

TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective. I'm Alexander Ellison. Since the Morgentaler Decision in 1988 there has been no abortion law in Can...

News, Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life flag proposal gets town talking about worldviews

Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

RPTV: Katrina Marshall on being a pro-life advocate

Book Reviews, Children’s picture books, Pro-life - Abortion

Dr. Seuss's "Horton trilogy"

Parents may be familiar with the first two of Dr. Seuss' Horton books, but the third, only recently republished will be a new delight for many. Horton hearts a Who by Dr. Seuss 1954 / 72 pages This was the last Horton story written, but ranks first in our hearts for its surprising pro-life message! With his giant ears, the elephant Horton is able to hear what no one else can: that there are tiny little people, – Whos they call themselves – living on what looks like a dandelion puff. They are too tiny to see, and for everyone else they are too tiny to hear, but as Horton knows, and as he often repeats: “a person’s a person no matter how small.” So, conscientious pachyderm that he is, Horton is determined to protect the little Whos, and their whole town of Who-ville. His friends think he's crazy, and one in particular is so sure he's nuts that she wants to grab the dandelion puff and burn it, to put an end to his delusion. It comes to a climax with Horton encouraging all the residents of Who-ville to make as much noise as they can so others will finally be able to hear them! Will their humanity ever be recognized? Kids will love this for the rhymes and the charming hero, but pro-life parents can't help but embrace Horton's oft-repeated entreaty that "a person's a person no matter how small." His simple plea is so famous that it can be a tool in cultural conversations about the unborn since absolutely everyone has read Horton Hears a Who! Might Christians be reading something into the story that the author didn't intend? Quite likely. His second wife said the pro-life movement was hijacking the story for its own purposes. But whether Seuss intended it or not, his story makes a point worth hearing: that our worth is not dependent on our size. Christians have to take that further though, explaining where our worth does come from: being made in the very image of God (Genesis 9:6). Horton hatches the egg by Dr. Seuss 1940 / 64 pages The start of the Horton trilogy isn't as insightful as the third, but it is fun. In his first outing, the genial elephant is taken advantage of by a lazy mother bird named Mayzie. She says she just wants a quick break from egg-sitting, but once Horton agrees to take over, Mayzie takes off and doesn't look back. So, for day after day, Horton faithfully babysits the egg, roosting on the nest, at the top of the tree. As in Horton Hearts a Who, his friends aren't supportive – they're making fun of him again. And then hunters, startled by this strange sight of an elephant up a tree, transport him, tree and all, over the sea to put him in a circus. Horton has to endure the indignity, being displayed as a spectacle to crowds all over, but, as he repeats to all his critics: "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent!" And that, there, is the attraction of this book – it is about steadfastness, and sticking to your word, even when others – where is that Mayzie? – just won't. Children don't need to worry, though, as both Horton and Mayzie get what's coming to them in the end: the baby bird that finally hatches is half elephant! Horton and the Kwuggerbug and more lost stories by Dr. Seuss 2014 / 64 pages Back in 2014, reports came of a "new" Dr. Seuss book, to be published 23 years after the author's death. It wasn't new new, but rather rediscovered new, with work that Seuss had published in magazines before, but never in a book. It was to be a collection of four stories, all of which had first appeared in print back in the early 1950s. The title tale features Horton once again being sorely treated, this time by a kwuggerbug, who promises to split some delicious beezlenuts if Horton will only carry him to the tree. It seems a deal when the tree seems near but in the end Horton is crossing crocodile-infested rivers, and climbing mountains and the trail just keeps going on and on. Then, in one final trick, the kwuggerbug "splits" the nuts by taking all the nut meat for himself and leaving Horton the shells for his half. But once again, justice is done, this time via an unintentional sneeze. And while there is no great moral to this story, it sure is fun to see Horton this one more time....

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

If the unborn are not our equals...

In the West we believe all people should be treated equally, no matter their age, race, religion, etc. But why is that? Why should we treat all people equally when, in any way you measure it, no two people are equal? We differ in size, intellect, strength, coordination, hearing, visual acuity, musical aptitude, and in the amount of hair we have left on our head. No two of us are the same so why should we get the same treatment? In any other situation we don’t treat unequal things equally. We hang a Rembrandt up on a museum wall, while our kids’ efforts only make an appearance on the fridge. Both are art, so why don’t we treat them equally? We recycle our newspapers but save our dollar bills securely in banks. Both are printed paper so why don’t we treat them equally? Because they aren’t equal. So let’s ask the question again: if we don’t treat unequal things equally, and in any measurable way no two people are equal, why should we treat people equally? The Christian answer There is a Christian answer to that question. The Bible tells us we are all made in God’s image – all of us, without exception. The smallest, weakest child and the largest, strongest man may seem to have nothing in common but that they are both made imago Dei, in God’s image. What makes us equal is not based on our abilities, but is instead intrinsic, not measurable, but still evident to any who pay attention. Every human being is remarkable precisely because we are all, from conception onward made in God’s image. The world’s fail The world rejects God, yet they still talk about equality. Just not for the unborn. They won’t give the unborn equal rights – not even the right to life – because the child can’t yet breath on its own, or because it doesn’t have a heartbeat yet, or because it can’t feel pain yet. They won’t treat it equally because it can’t do this, or that, or the other thing. In arguing against fetal rights they ground equality on ability. Why are we worthy of respect and the unborn aren’t? Because we can do things that they can’t. However, if ability is the basis for equality, then we’re back to the same question: on what basis do we treat people of greatly varying abilities equally? If women can’t lift as much as men, then aren’t men better than women? Aren’t they superior? That’s not an attractive thought to anyone. But only Christians know why: “…in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Meanwhile the world has to pretend that a 150-pound woman really can lift the same amount at a 200-pound man – they have to pretend that in every respect women can do all that men can do because ability is their only basis for equality. The question As Christians our pro-life argument is that an unborn baby is equal to a newborn, is equal to a toddler, is equal to a teen, is equal to an adult. Different in every measurable ability, and yet equal because they all share the imago Dei. And the question we have for the world is this: “if you think the unborn aren’t our equals, then explain please, why you think anyone is equal?”...

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

How to defend the unborn in under a minute

I live in a town that’s so pro-life that when I go outside wearing a pro-life t-shirt the only reaction I get is, “Hey Jon, great-looking shirt there. Does it come in red?” We’re so pro-life that when pro-abortion politicians marched in this year’s Farmer’s Day Parade, there was all sorts of cheering and clapping for the float in front of them and the marching band behind them, but not a peep anywhere near them. They were enveloped in an angry bubble of silence. Our town is so pro-life that when my daughters and I volunteer at the pro-life booth, we can count on thanks, not shouts. The booth is set up at the summer fair each year, and most everyone stopping by is there to offer encouragement. They bring their kids to get free pro-life lollipops and pencils. Some buy yard signs or hats. The most popular items are our life-size fetal models showing what the unborn look like at 6 months, and 4 months, and 12 weeks; it’s always fun when a pregnant mom comes by to show her kids what size their baby brother or sister is right now. In the half dozen years we’ve been at this, I’ve only had a dozen or so folk either insult or argue with me. This, then, is more about preaching to the choir than reaching the opposition. Equipping the choir That’s why this year I decided to switch things up a bit. If it was always the choir stopping by, then what if we focused on equipping them? What if we tried to give them a quick “Pro-life 101” refresher, so they could walk away better able to speak up for the unborn? Of course, everyone at the fair is there for the rides and the food and the demolition derby, so it isn’t really the time and place for a class in apologetics. If I was going to pitch something educational, it needed to be quick. My daughters helped me out with a big poster that made an even bigger promise: “Learn how to defend the unborn in under a minute!” The sign was eye-catching and, thankfully, ambiguous enough to give me a little wiggle room on the time limit. Was I promising passersby a 59-second lesson or was I going to show them – in perhaps a slightly longer length of time – how they themselves could offer up a sub-minute defense of the unborn? The fudge factor allowed me to go a little long if I needed it. The short version A lightning-quick defense of the unborn is possible because most abortion arguments focus on one thing: what the unborn can’t do. The fetus is said to be less valuable and less deserving of protection than you or me because: they can’t breathe yet they don’t have brainwaves yet they aren’t self-aware yet they can’t survive on their own Whatever the reason given, it amounts to an abilities test – the unborn are said to be worth less, because they can do less. Therefore to defend the unborn all we have to do is show how it isn’t our abilities that give us value. We can do that by asking a couple of key questions. We’ll need our opponents to explain: Where does human beings’ worth come from? On what basis are we all equal? Unpacking the argument If our value comes from what we can do then that presents a problem for equality, since we all have very different abilities. I’m bigger than most, and maybe you’re faster than me, and that fellow over there might be smarter than both of us. So, then, in what sense are any of us equal? It’s quite the conundrum for the abortion supporter. Any ability-based answers he gives to the first question will run him into problems with the second. After all, we all understand that we don’t treat very different things as equal – a Rembrandt is housed in a museum under guard, while a child’s fingerpainting will only rate the fridge door, even though both are art. So unless men and women are actually equal in some sense, then we shouldn’t treat them as equal. That’s a thought no one wants to think, so we can be aggressive in pressing the abortion defender to explain how we’re equal. When he’s fumbling about, it’s our chance and our turn: “You can’t explain where equality comes from, but I can.” We can explain that what makes us all valuable, and equally so, is the only thing we all equally share: that we are made in the very Image of God (see Gen. 1:27). Being made in the Image of God isn’t something we grow into, or get more of, and it isn’t even something we can cast off (Gen. 9:6). We have it, not on the basis of anything we can do, might do, or should do, but on the basis of Who made us, and how He values us. This is not only an explanation for why a small weaker woman is equal to a stronger bigger man, but why the very small and very weak unborn child is equal to any and all. Stand on God’s Word While our opponent might dismiss the Bible, that doesn’t make it any less powerful (Heb. 4:12, Eph. 6:17). And we can counter their dismissal by challenging them to offer any sort of better explanation. They don’t have one! More importantly, when God says His Word won’t return empty we need to trust that it’s so (Is. 55:11). Too often, Christians will try to defend the Christian position without presenting it as the Christian position. If our opponents are attacking the unborn for what they can’t do, then we’ll try to defend the unborn with an equally godless argument, highlighting all that they can do. Instead of arguments about being made in the Image of God, we’ll show how very much the unborn seem to be crafted in the image of Man: The unborn’s heart is beating at three weeks Brainwaves can be detected at 40 days They may be able to survive outside the womb at 20 weeks They can recognize their mother’s voice at 7 months The problem with any of these points is that, on their own and apart from the Bible, they are only another abilities test. We’re saying that the unborn are valuable because of all these things they can do. But that’s the pro-choice argument! If we argue that the unborn are valuable because their heart begins beating as early as three weeks, what does that implicitly say about the unborn at two weeks, before their heartbeat has begun? Any defense of the baby based on what it can do throws shade on babies who have yet to develop those abilities. We either stand securely on God’s Word, or we will, accidentally but most certainly, end up adopting the very position that we oppose: that our worth comes from what we can do. Conclusion I got to share my two-question apologetic with a dozen or so pro-life folk. I also got to try it out with a young man who wanted to argue. It slowly came out that the reason he thought we should all just mind our own business is because he’d gotten his girlfriend pregnant and paid for her abortion. So he was very interested in justifying what he’d done. He thought the baby wasn’t human because it was so small. But this man, little more than a boy himself, was half my size, which I pointed out. Did he really think bigger meant better? No, he conceded, that wasn’t true. He didn’t repent. Or at least not then and there. But I was able to confront him with just how insufficient his justifications were. He left rejecting the Christian explanation for our value, but admitting that he had nothing else to offer. That’s what I could do standing on God’s firm foundation; I could blow apart the underpinnings of his godless arguments. Because I did this while giving the glory to God, this confused and hurting boy will know where to go, and Who to turn to for truth and forgiveness. And all it took was a couple of questions and a minute… or so....

News, Pro-life - Abortion

Abortion was the leading cause of death in 2022

According to the organization Our World in Data, 67 million people died in 2022. Among the leading causes of death were heart disease (approximately 15 million), cancer (10 million), and stroke (3 million). But nowhere in that list was the actual number one cause of death. And the overall 67 million death toll estimate was nowhere near the true number. As the World Health Organization reports: “around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year… 3 out of 10 of all pregnancies, end in an induced abortion.” The true death total for 2022 was, then, approximately 140 million, of which 52% of them – over half – were murdered before they were even born. More people died of abortion than of cancer, heart disease, car accidents, war, COVID, stroke and absolutely everything else, combined....

Pro-life - Abortion

A day in the life of a pro-life intern

A summer internship gives young people an opportunity to build friendships and grow in courage while speaking up for the unborn **** It’s 5:30 AM....

Pro-life - Abortion

No place for pro-life cynicism

Roe’s reversal shows us what God can accomplish for and through His people. ***** “In the days when the idea of a surprise pregnancy was only...

Documentary, Movie Reviews, Pro-life - Abortion, Watch for free

180: from pro-choice to pro-life in minutes

Documentary 2011, 33 minutes Rating: 7/10 The trailer for 180 showed people being interviewed on the street declaring their support for “a wom...

Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life memes and cartoons to share

Through the years Reformed Perspective has created a number of pro-life comics and memes, and this is where we are going to collect them, so that th...

Pro-life - Abortion, Sexuality

Abraham Lincoln, on abortion

How would Abraham Lincoln have addressed the biggest moral issue of our time? We don't have to wonder. While President Lincoln may not have spoken to abortion directly, he did still give us guidance on the issue. In the 1800s American slave trade supporters tried justifying the practice of slavery all sorts of ways. Lincoln was very good at tearing those justifications apart and the technique he used is one that transfers directly to the plight of the unborn. In one of his speeches he argued: If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B why may not B snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A? You say A is white and B is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. Biblical inspiration? Lincoln turned the slave trade supporters' justifications back on them, arguing that if it is good for you, then you shouldn’t object if this same logic is then used by someone else to justify enslaving you. If his strategy seems familiar, it's because it aligns perfectly with what Jesus says in Matthew 7:1-2: Judge not, that you be not judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. What Jesus issued as a warning Lincoln used as a tool. So how might this tool work in the abortion debate? We could begin by noting that if someone argues the unborn can be killed because they are smaller than us, then, as Lincoln might have put it, “Take care. By this rule you could be killed by the first man you meet who is bigger than you.” Or if it comes down to some ability, then watch out when you meet someone who is more able than you. Self-interest? This is a major justification for abortion: a child would interfere with our lifestyle. But, “take care again – by this rule you may be killed by any who can show it is in their self-interest for you to be dead.” Conclusion Lincoln lived more than 150 years ago, but we can still learn from him. Lincoln showed the standard of justice that slave owners were trying to apply was one they wouldn't want applied to themselves. That sort of hypocrisy still happens today, and not only to the unborn. We have only to think of Christian bakery owners or flower shop owners who are not allowed to work according to their conscience. And yet the world celebrates when a dress designer refuses, because of her own convictions, to dress the First Lady. Let's do as Lincoln did, and ask them to apply their own arguments to themselves. And then let's insist on an answer....

Pro-life - Abortion

A pro-life push back against the darkness

The Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform’s internship program is preparing young people to speak up for the unborn ***** Sometimes I stand on my porch before bed and take in the sight of a thousand city lights twinkling against the night sky, and I’m struck by the overwhelming number of people outside my door who are living in darkness. People who are trapped by lies - lies about who they are and who God is and what is right and wrong. Lies that bring about death for nearly three hundred babies every day in our country. I think about how our culture celebrates the dismembering and decapitating of God’s tiniest image-bearers by euphemizing abortion with terms like “healthcare” and “clumps of cells,” and how our hospitals have become centers for killing instead of saving. During such moments, I’m reminded of the reason I came here in the first place. Common cause I first moved to Mississauga three years ago to do a summer internship with the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), an educational pro-life organization working to make abortion unthinkable. My internship with CCBR were the best months of my twenty-three years. Some days were sweltering hot and we got $1 ice cream cones at McDonald’s during our breaks, other days we shivered in the rain and laughed at the colorful ponchos some of us wore to stay dry. Every day, we saw people change their minds on abortion through our outreach projects. That summer changed my life, and this year will be the fourth internship I’ve been part of, now as a full-time staff member at CCBR. I’m still here because babies are still being killed, and minds need to keep being changed in order to save lives. Hitting the streets four days a week to reach the people of the Toronto area with the truth about abortion is challenging work, but there is nothing else like it. You get so close to people when you are fighting darkness together, and you grow so much when you are pushed out of your comfort zone. Best of all, there is the indescribable joy of hearing stories of children who are alive today because of this work. A quiet crisis Isn’t it strange how we so easily forget about the darkness all around us? Death is celebrated, tiny heartbeats are stopped, skulls are crushed. Meanwhile, we go to school and church and family get-togethers and almost never have to think about abortion. When I look across the city I live in and am reminded of the depth of evil in our country, it is easier to turn around and walk back into my cozy house and ignore it. But I must not, and I beg you not to either. Babies are being killed in our cities, and we have the ability to take meaningful action to stop this bloodshed. One of my favorite Tolkien quotes is from The Lord of the Rings: “I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” There is much to be done. Jesus commands us to be salt and light in this hurting world. Let us not grow weary in doing good. Let us be willing to sacrifice much to rescue these children from death. Let us be bold in truth and unwavering in love, knowing that our labor is not in vain. Let us work and pray, pushing back the darkness and eagerly awaiting the day when Christ returns to bring about perfect justice! Miranda King works for the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, a dynamic pro-life group working to end the ongoing slaughter of 300 unborn Canadian children that happens every day in our country. And they are offering a unique Summer Job opportunity, to come help them in this fight. You can learn more about this paid position at www.endthekilling.ca/internships. Deadline to apply is March 15th. (Picture courtesy of CCBR)...

Pro-life - Abortion

Not without a fight: the history of the pro-life movement in Canada

Pro-life activists perform an important role in society. They help to remind people about what is perhaps the most pressing political issue in our country, namely, the legally-sanctioned killing of unborn children. This killing is often justified as being the consequence of a "woman's right to chose." In Canada, exterminating the unborn is considered to be a "human right" supported by all levels of government and all of the major political parties. But this phrase, "a woman's right to choose," is simply a euphemism for the killing of unborn babies. It's a clever choice of words to hide the reality of abortion. Of course, abortion is a worldwide phenomenon, not a specifically Canadian one. All of the Western countries allow abortion, although Canada is unique among them in having no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever. But it is helpful to see the abortion controversy in its international context. The Canadian pro-life movement has not been successful in stopping abortion in Canada, but the same is true of pro-life movements in the USA, Australia, and elsewhere. It's not that Canada's pro-lifers have failed to find the right tactic - some silver bullet that would put an end to the killing. Rather, the Canadian situation reflects a worldwide embrace of abortion by cultures that want to separate sexual activity from its consequences. A history of the abortion fight in Canada demonstrates that the Canadian pro-life movement has been very adept, thoughtful, strategic and thorough in their various attempts to stop abortion. But despite the movement’s best efforts, it was not able to stem the tide. It began in 1969 In Canada, the push to legalize abortion came on strong during the 1960s. Towards the end of that decade, Parliament was looking into the matter, and in 1969 the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau passed a bill easing the Criminal Code restrictions on abortion. Although the new law did not completely decriminalize abortion, it made abortion more easily available. Hospitals could each have a therapeutic abortion committee (TAC), and the committee could approve an abortion after three doctors confirmed that a pregnancy would likely endanger the life or health of a particular woman. Women seeking abortions were normally approved for the procedure. The pro-life movement in Canada emerged in response to the 1969 law. By the mid-1970s there were dozens of pro-life groups across Canada. The main national organization was the Alliance for Life headed by Dr. Heather Morris. In 1973 the pro-life groups gathered a petition of 352,000 signatures requesting a stricter abortion law. This petition was presented to Prime Minister Trudeau. Then in 1975, the Petition of One Million campaign managed to get over a million signatures on a petition opposing abortion. Yet, despite this tremendous effort, it was not successful in leading to any legislative change. Two key figures In 1978 a new pro-life group called Campaign Life was formed. It represented the more conservative and militant segment of the pro-life movement and continues today as the leading pro-life organization in the country. In the national debate about adopting a Charter of Rights in 1981, Campaign Life's legal counsel, Gwen Landolt, accurately predicted the negative consequences that would result from the Charter. Another major pro-life figure was Joe Borowski, a former Manitoba cabinet minister in that province's NDP government of the early 1970s. In 1978 Borowski launched a court challenge to Canada's abortion law, arguing that it violated the Canadian Bill of Rights which guaranteed the right to life. There was considerable legal wrangling over whether Borowski even had the right to launch such a challenge, and it wasn't until 1983 that his case was finally heard. By this time the Charter of Rights had been adopted, so his challenge was modified to argue that the abortion law violated the Charter's guarantee of the right to life. Borowski lost later in 1983, but he continued to press his case and the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear it in 1988. Morgentaler starts fighting In the meantime, another significant case was winding its way through Canada's courts. From the early 1970s on, Henry Morgentaler, the leading abortionist in Canada, was in and out of the courts for violating the terms of Canada's abortion law. Morgentaler opposed the abortion law because he thought it was too restrictive. The law only allowed abortions to be performed in hospitals, whereas Morgentaler wanted to be able to perform them in abortion clinics. He was ultimately successful in operating a clinic in Quebec where public sentiment strongly supported abortion rights. When Morgentaler opened a clinic in Toronto in 1983 (the first abortion clinic in English Canada), he was charged with performing illegal abortions. He fought this charge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada which heard his case in October 1986. Pro-lifers were very active during this period. In some locations across Canada, pro-lifers were able to get elected to local hospital boards and shut down that hospital’s TAC. Thus the hospital would no longer be able to perform abortions. This was an especially effective tactic in the Maritime provinces. There were also numerous protests and demonstrations in front of Morgentaler's Toronto abortuary. Occasionally some pro-life activists would attempt to block the steps leading to the "clinic" and would be arrested. An organization called Choose Life Canada was formed by Baptist minister Ken Campbell, and it managed to set up its office right next to the Morgentaler facility. This office was called The Way Inn and it was in a perfect location to dissuade women from proceeding with their abortions. January 28, 1988 Then, on January 28, 1988, the infamous Morgentaler decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, striking down Canada's abortion law and consequently eliminating all legal restrictions on abortion in the country. However, this decision did not create a "right" to abortion in Canada. Instead, the law had been struck down for violating the procedural fairness required by the Charter. Thus the way was left open for Parliament to enact a new law restricting abortion. Pro-life organizations could likely have intervened in the Morgentaler case but had chosen not to. They were active in supporting Borowski's case and did not think they had the resources to also be involved in Morgentaler's. At the time, Gwen Landolt argued that this was a mistake. As usual, she was right. The mistake became clear to all when the Supreme Court heard Borowski's case in October 1988, months after the Morgentaler decision. Borowski was challenging the very abortion law which had previously been thrown out in the Morgentaler decision. So, since the law had already been thrown out, in March 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that the case was moot. The pro-lifers lost again. In the wake of the Morgentaler decision, pro-life groups organized a massive letter-writing campaign urging members of Parliament (MPs) to pass a restrictive abortion law. But there were deep divisions even within the governing Progressive Conservative caucus of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, so despite some attempts, nothing was accomplished. The infamy of 1988 – when free trade trumped life A federal election was called for the fall of 1988, and pro-life groups were very active in trying to elect pro-life MPs. However, the central issue in this election campaign was the proposed Free Trade Agreement with the USA, so the abortion issue did not really receive a lot of attention. Nevertheless, some new pro-life MPs were elected. Many pro-lifers were becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of any legal restrictions on abortion in Canada and therefore became involved in an American-based organization called Operation Rescue led by a theologically charismatic minister, Randall Terry. The "rescuers," often in large numbers, would use their bodies to block the entrances to abortuaries so that women could not enter them. It was hoped that this would prevent abortions from being performed. The police, of course, would move in and arrest the rescuers. Most of this rescue activity took place in the first half of 1989. When is moot not moot? By the summer of 1989 the courts were back in the center of the abortion fight. In July an Ontario court and a Quebec court each issued an injunction preventing a woman from having an abortion, both at the instigation of former boyfriends. The Ontario injunction against Barbara Dodd, however, was quickly overturned by the Ontario Supreme Court so she went to the Morgentaler clinic for an abortion. But in the other case, the Quebec Superior Court upheld the injunction against Chantal Daigle, and two weeks later the Quebec Court of Appeal also upheld the injunction. This latter decision went so far as to declare that unborn children had a right to life! Can you imagine?! Anyway, Canada was now in the midst of a full-fledged national crisis. The achievements of the pro-abortion camp were severely threatened by the Quebec Court of Appeal decision. An emergency session of the Supreme Court of Canada was called, and organizations from both sides of the abortion debate were granted intervener status, including Campaign Life and REAL Women of Canada. During the court proceedings, Daigle's lawyer announced that she had gone to the US and had an abortion there, making the case moot. Despite being moot, the Supreme Court proceeded to strike down the injunction against Daigle. This makes for a very interesting contrast. When Joe Borowski's case became moot, the Supreme Court refused to deal with it for that reason. But when Chantal Daigle's case became moot, the Supreme Court decided the issue anyway. It appears that the Supreme Court is willing to proceed with a moot case, but only as long as doing so will further the pro-abortion cause. This is "justice" in Canada. A law both sides hated In November 1989 the Mulroney government introduced Bill C-43, a new proposed abortion law. It made abortion a criminal offence, except where the pregnant woman desired to have one for reasons of physical, mental, or psychological health. Although the pro-abortion camp opposed the bill because it technically criminalized abortion, many conservative Christians saw the loopholes in it as basically enshrining abortion on demand. People such as Ken Campbell, Ted Byfield of Alberta Report, and Gwen Landolt of REAL Women opposed the bill on these grounds. Some other pro-life organizations, such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, supported the bill for pragmatic reasons, arguing that it was better to have a faulty law with some restrictions on abortion than no law whatsoever. Despite strong opposition from both the pro and anti-abortion camps, the bill passed the House of Commons in May 1990. However, it still had to pass the Senate, so opponents had another chance to block it. The Senate vote in January 1991 was a tie, and ties count as a loss by Senate rules. Thus the abortion bill failed and Canada remained without any legal restrictions on abortion. This is still the situation today. We have work to do The pro-life movement has remained active since that time, but no Canadian government has even attempted to bring in an abortion law since the failure of Bill C-43. The pro-life movement in Canada has lost all of its major battles. In this respect, it looks like a failure. But viewing it that way would be a mistake. As mentioned earlier, the abortion fight is a worldwide phenomenon and even the USA, with strong conservative Christian and pro-life movements, basically has a situation of abortion on demand. If the American movement, with its prominent and powerful Christian activist groups, and sympathetic politicians (including President Bush and most Republican congressmen), can't hold back the pro-abortion tide, can we really expect the Canadian pro-life movement to do any better? The fact is that Canada's pro-lifers have fought valiantly, using the best means at their disposal. Getting over one million signatures on a pro-life petition in the mid-1970s is quite an achievement. (Remember, they had to do this the old-fashioned way – they did not have the Internet.) But the petition was ignored. Working for the election of pro-life MPs is a reasonable strategy. But every government caucus has contained some pro-life MPs, and yet look at the situation we are in today. The pro-life movement has tried to use the courts to protect the unborn, with Joe Borowski being the best example of this. But with a judiciary dominated by abortion supporters, this didn't work either. And as a last resort, courageous pro-lifers joined Operation Rescue to use their own bodies to block entrances to abortuaries. And what did they get? Fines and jail time. So it hasn't been for a lack of trying. The pro-life cause will ultimately prevail and abortion will be outlawed in Canada once again. But it will be a long road, and it will be easy to become discouraged in the meantime. The struggle against abortion needs to be seen in its worldwide context so that the setbacks on this issue in Canada are seen as part of a pattern of setbacks for the pro-life movement around the world. It may be an embarrassment that Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion, but many other Western nations also have high abortion rates so they aren't much different from Canada, really. Their pro-life movements have also "failed" in this respect. It's not like the pro-life movement is simply missing a winning strategy, and once that strategy is discovered the pro-life side will finally prevail in Canada. The situation is much worse than that. The culture of the Western nations, at least among the controlling elites, is a basically pro-abortion culture, and there will need to be a change at the cultural level before the law is changed. Canada and the other Western countries need to be re-Christianized. Failing that, it's likely that abortion will continue unabated. Michael Wagner is the author of “Leaving God Behind: The Charter of Rights and Canada’s Official Rejection of Christianity,” available at Merchantship.ca. This article first appeared in the January 2008 issue....

News, Pro-life - Abortion

On mandatory vaccines and “My body, my choice”

Don’t we live in strange times? Thousands of people are calling on governments all over the world to mandate vaccines for everyone twelve years old and older. These same people are often the loudest proponents of the principle: "My body, my choice!" How does that make sense? If the argument for allowing women to end the life of their unborn child is based on the false principle that their bodily autonomy trumps all, how can they also argue for the government to mandate the insertion of all kinds of chemicals into one’s body? Shouldn’t it be: my body, my choice? Absolute autonomy – the rule of one’s self – is also the rationale against conversion therapy, and it is the rationale for stripping parental rights in all kinds of areas, but this is probably most damaging when parents want to resist their child’s wishes for sex alignment therapies and surgeries. Because we must let everyone do with their bodies as they wish, without limit, and without any opposing opinions offered. Does it not strike you as extremely ironic, and terribly inconsistent, that the warriors for abortion, conversion therapy bans, and for stripping parental rights – all in the name of autonomy – are the same warriors arguing for mandatory vaccination? (Might this be an irony we can point out, to the benefit of the unborn?) Of course, Christians do not claim, “My body, my choice”, nor do we claim that we are autonomous selves. Rather, we understand that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit; that we belong body and soul to our faithful Saviour. We also know that we have been given stewardship of those bodies, to care for them as best as we know how. That means that while some of us may get vaccinated to God’s glory, others will refuse to do so to God’s glory. Some will argue: "Because my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, I will not get vaccinated" while others: "Because my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, I will get vaccinated." That’s okay. We do not all have to agree. But Christians should be agreed, it seems to me, to be against mandatory vaccinations. We need to have the freedom to act according to our own conscience when it comes to weighing the consequences of receiving, or not receiving, the vaccination; we need freedom to make the best decision in how we serve the Lord with our body. Chris deBoer is the Executive Director of Reformed Perspective Foundation. ...

Pro-life - Abortion

Can a politician be personally, but not politically, pro-life?

Pro-life - Abortion, Science - General

The wonder of the womb

If you haven’t seen any of the YouTube videos of Dr. Kristin Collier talking about the unborn, you've missed out. This Christian physician and Unive...

Pro-life - Abortion

Investigating the Birth Control Pill

I was married in the summer of 2015, and a few months prior to this my fiancé and I began researching Christian methods of birth control. The minist...

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life 101: Removing the red herrings

RED HERRING: In argument, something designed to divert an opponent's attention from the central issue. If a herring is dragged across a trail that hou...

Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-lifers aren't helping people after they're born?

When it comes to the topic of abortion, I often hear the claim that pro-lifers aren't helping people after they're born. The idea/objection is that pro-lifers are hypocritical and thus shouldn’t speak out against abortion. Is this a good objection? I don’t think so, for two reasons. Reason 1: It isn't true First, is it true that pro-lifers aren’t helping people after they’re born? Well, maybe some aren't. But many are. Witness the proliferation of crisis pregnancy centers/ pregnancy care centers. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, in the U.S. in 2017 there were 2752 such centers, providing much help to women and their children. Also, witness the fantastic response gotten from a newspaper editor who asked via Twitter (disparagingly and dismissively, expecting no good answers) what pro-life people have done personally to help lower-income single moms. It turns out this editor received 13,000 responses indicating that pro-life people in fact do a lot! Permit me to speak from personal experience. My wife Carla is deeply pro-life. But she is also humble and doesn't talk much about the good things she does. She sees such talk as morally inappropriate – as bragging. So I will brag on her behalf! When Carla and I were dating and during our first years of marriage, Carla worked in a group home caring for – helping – children who were severely handicapped physically and mentally. Later (while I was completing my PhD and beginning to teach philosophy courses) we lived for eleven years in a low-income, high crime neighborhood. During this time Carla (along with a couple of her friends) began a community center to help our needy neighbors. This community center was supported by one church initially, then two, then three, then seven—and more. Carla also tutored some of our neighbors' kids. She also taught single parents how to make inexpensive but nutritious meals (Carla even took the time to become certified by our local health department to do this). She also helped organize a weekly food distribution. She also helped a neighbor (a low-income single mom with five kids) learn to drive, obtain a driver's license, and find some part-time employment (subsequently Carla often loaned our car to this mom for grocery shopping). Carla also helped a young woman deal with her abusive husband. Carla also used her nurse training to help injured neighbors as well as neighbors with young children, including a home birth. Carla also was instrumental in having our family provide ongoing financial support for an orphanage in Bolivia begun by a young couple at our church. And there's much more, but space doesn't permit. (She also homeschooled our two sons during this time!) You get the picture: Pro-life people (like my wife) are against abortion and they often do lots of good stuff – which we tend not to hear about. Reason 2: Even if it was true, so what? Second, an important logical point should be made: Even if pro-lifers weren't (contrary to fact) helping people after they're born, this would not make the killing of unborn children morally correct or permissible. And it wouldn’t mean pro-lifers shouldn’t speak out against abortion. Pro-lifers hold the view that abortion is the killing of an innocent unborn child – and is wrong, period. Maybe the following parable from Scott Klusendorf will help: Joe found the young girl unconscious in her upstairs closet. By the time he got there, the structure was a raging inferno. No one else dared go inside. Scooping up the girl, he took his only exit, straight out the second-story window and into the bushes below. The girl lived. Joe sustained three cuts and two sprained ankles – and an avalanche of questions. The media wanted to know how he planned to pay for the girl’s food, clothing, and health care now that he’d rescued her. A pastor asked if time spent saving the girl from temporal flames might be better spent saving people from eternal ones. The social justice coordinator at a local parish insisted that if Joe truly cared about saving lives, he’d care about all life and spend equal time rescuing poor workers from rich corporations. The local Congressman asked if Joe supported tax hikes aimed at reducing fire risk. Joe just kept looking at the girl. The above story is contrived, but it’s played out in the real world every day. Only the issue is abortion. The minute you state your pro-life convictions, foes attack. Or think of it this way: I believe that killing kittens by suctioning off their legs (via a high-powered suction machine) is wrong, period. Objecting to my view because I don’t volunteer at my local animal shelter is beside the point. (Oh, by the way, our cat Rupert came from our local animal shelter.) The critics' objection is beside the point, too. Conclusion In conclusion, the objection that pro-lifers aren't helping people after they're born is often false and it’s not relevant to whether or not a pro-lifer should speak out against the killing of innocent human beings via abortion. Hopefully, pro-choicers are helping people after they're born, too, to provide a real choice, and thus not merely advocating for the right to kill unborn children. P.S. Permit me to brag about my wife once more. Carla donates blood regularly. At time of writing, she once again donated blood – for the 73rd time! Seventy-three blood donations. SEVENTY-THREE. Pro-lifers aren't helping people after they're born. Yeah, right. Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor and author of "Untangling Popular Pro-Choice Arguments: Critical Thinking about Abortion," now available at Amazon.com and Amazon.ca....

Pro-life - Abortion

Should we ask God to forgive Canada for all the babies being aborted? No.

A few years back I was busy preparing for a cross-country series of pro-life presentations. My research had me digging through some articles on what Scripture says about who or what the preborn child is, what our responsibility to the preborn child is, and what the law’s relationship to the preborn child ought to be. In one of piece I came across the following Bible text from Deut. 21:1-3a, 7-9: If anyone is found slain…and it is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the distance from the slain man to the surrounding cities. And it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain man will take a heifer…. Then they shall answer and say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. Provide atonement, O LORD, for your people Israel, who you have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people…” So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD. The passage left me pondering: should we, as Reformed churches, be regularly praying for forgiveness for the shedding of innocent blood, as it relates to abortion? We know that the carcasses of dead babies can be found in nearly every hospital in every major city in this country. Ought we to be in specific prayer on this issue? Or would that be a misapplication of the text? No forgiveness without repentance I turned the passage and the text over to Professor emeritus of Old Testament, Dr. Cornelis Van Dam. He wrote the following. "What is striking is that although the murder was unsolved, and no one could specifically be held accountable, God teaches that there is nevertheless corporate responsibility. The people as a whole needed to respond to it through their elders. The elders of the two closest cities have to make atonement on behalf of Israel and pray for forgiveness. By making atonement, the people through the elders show remorse over this murder and thus provide a basis for asking for forgiveness. " there are some major differences with our current situation. Canada is not in a special covenant relationship with God, with special rules for affecting atonement in the land. However, the country’s rulers are ultimately responsible to God, also with respect to the sixth commandment (Rom 13:1-5). But, as a nation, we have not received special covenant regulations for making atonement. Atonement has been made in Christ and it is the church that has been given the duty to proclaim that gospel. Hence your question, does the church also have the task to pray for forgiveness? "Abortions are not unsolved murders and we certainly have corporate responsibility as a democratic society for the murders of those children not yet born that take place in hospitals. Abortion has become a taboo topic. Those who govern are determined to let abortions continue. Can we pray for forgiveness when there is no repentance? The biblical answer is 'no.' We can pray that God withhold his wrath from our decadent society, bless the proclamation of the gospel so that many repent, and bless the work of those who want to honor God’s rights in the land. But simply to pray for forgiveness would go against the biblical principle that repentance is necessary for forgiveness to be possible. Think, for example, of Christ’s words: 'If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him' (Luke 17:3). God only forgives us if we are repentant (Luke 13:3; Acts 3:19) and his forgiving is to be a model for ours (Eph 4:32; Col 3:13). If and when Canada repents of the sin of abortion, then the church should certainly pray that God also forgive that heinous crime. "The crime of abortion is extremely serious. Israel had to make atonement lest God’s wrath descend on the land. But Israel also had to repent in order for the sacrifices of atonement to be accepted. Without repentance, God rejected the sacrifices and – due to Israel’s continued sins – ultimately destroyed both the northern and southern kingdoms in accordance with the covenant curses. Even though Canada is not in a special covenant relationship with God, this country too faces God’s judgment and at some point it will happen unless there is repentance and the forgiveness that follows. After all, God holds all nations accountable, especially those who know or could know his will (cf., e.g., Luke 10:14)." But what of Jesus and Stephen’s prayers? Dr. Van Dam’s response was very helpful, but it did prompt one more question. If repentance must precede forgiveness, what should we make of Jesus’ plea on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?” (Luke 23:34) And what should we make of Stephen’s prayer as he was stoned to death, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60). Dr. Van Dam responded with the following: "In the light of what Scripture teaches, the late Dr. William Hendriksen, in his commentary on this passage, rightly paraphrased this prayer of our Savior thus: “Blot out their transgression completely. In thy sovereign grace cause them to repent truly, so that they can be and will be pardoned fully.” "In this way he interceded for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12). Christ’s prayer was heard. Thousands of Jews believed in Christ after his death when they realized what they had done (Acts 2:37-41; 4:4; 6:7). At the same time, the nation as a whole stood condemned and the judgment pronounced on Jerusalem could not be averted (Luke 21:5-6). The city fell to the Romans in 70 AD with the resulting slaughter, enslavement, the sacking of the city, and the destruction of the temple. It was the end of the Jewish state. Stephen’s prayer can be understood in the same light as that of the Lord. It was a plea that those who were killing him would see and realize what they were actually doing and repent and so receive forgiveness." Conclusion As Christians then, we must be a shining light in this country darkened by the heinous crime of abortion. We must continue to work also to bring repentance to our decadent society so that, one day, our Father might forgive Canada our trespasses. As one pro-life apologist said to me, “May their sins of commission never be because of our sins of omission.” André Schutten is ARPA Canada's Director of Law & Policy. Dr. Van Dam is Professor emeritus of Old Testament at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary....

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life shirts that spark, spur, and speak

“Hey, what’s with the shirt? What’s Abort73.com?” “I could tell you, but better yet, why don’t you go online and check it out?” **** Fifteen years ago, on campuses across the US, Canada, and even in England, students started showing up to class in t-shirts emblazoned with a distinctive “Abort73.com” logo. And the next day they'd be back, with a different shirt, in a different color, with a different style, but also emblazoned with “Abort73.com” across the chest and back. What'd it be like to sit behind someone who, day after day, was outfitted this way? Would you start getting a bit curious about this website? Would you want to know more? Speaking up without saying a word That’s the brilliance behind Abort73.com. Through repeated exposures, people who otherwise would never check out a pro-life website go to this one. Their curiosity compels them. Day after day, week after week, month after month, shirt after shirt, the same short web address – eventually curiosity has to get the best of them. These shirts are also an aid – and really an answer to prayer – to the many Christians who want to speak out against abortion but don’t feel equipped to do so. Perhaps you’re the type to get tongue-tied, or maybe you always think of just the right thing to say twenty minutes after the opportunity has passed you by. Maybe you’re worried that if you do speak up no one will pay attention. Or you’re more worried that everyone will listen. Whatever the case might be, these shirts can help you speak up without saying a word. A two-pronged approach Most pro-life t-shirts have been designed to make a statement all on their own with slogans like “Abortion is Murder” or “Choose life - Your mother did.” Originally Abort73.com shirts weren't like that. They were focussed entirely on getting folks to the website, because that's where they would have the room to really make the case for the humanity of the unborn in a way that no single t-shirt ever could. That's why their early shirts just had the website address, albeit in all sorts of fonts, colors, and styles. When people did visit the site, what they found was a well-organized summary of the medical, philosophical/logical, and pictorial arguments against abortion and for the humanity of the unborn. The one notable downside to their approach is that none of their "first layer" arguments – those you can find off of their front page – are Christian arguments. God's thoughts can only be found by digging deeper into the site. Nowadays Abort73 has expanded their approach in that they also sell shirts with slogans. I suspect that's because, even as it's better to get people to the website for the full presentation, they now recognize that speaking to the humanity of the unborn via even brief t-shirt slogans can be a way of stirring things up too. Especially on today's college campuses. The shirts are $20 US each but if you buy a half dozen you can get them for just $10 per, and that is pretty impressive. Why not check it out? So, is your curiosity piqued? Then why not go to www.Abort73.com and check it out? Or go directly to their store to order a shirt...or thirty? A version of this article was first February 2006 issue under the title “A shirt a day…the vision of the folks behind Abort73.com”...

Documentary, Movie Reviews, Pro-life - Abortion, Watch for free

FREE FILM: Babies are still murdered here

Documentary 2019 / 102 minutes Rating: 8/10 If you were told the pro-life movement is made up of two groups that don't always get along, who would you guess? Old vs. young? Men and women? Catholics and Protestants? The answer is, none of the above. The real divide is between abolitionists and incrementalists. If you aren't familiar with these two camps, abolitionists want the unborn to be protected from the moment of conception onward and see anything else as being an unprincipled compromise. Incrementalists also want the unborn protected from conception, but they argue that this goal can best be achieved with a step-by-step or "incremental" strategy that involves protecting some now – saving whatever babies we can right now – even as we move towards protecting all at some later date. So an incrementalist might propose a law that would criminalize abortion in the third trimester, seeing it as a step towards full protection, while an abolitionist would see such a law as saving those third-trimester babies at the expense of babies in the first two trimesters. Babies Are Still Murdered Here comes from the abolitionist camp, and while I count myself among the incrementalists I'd say this is a thought-provoking watch for all pro-lifers. Overall the film makes three points: Pro-lifers need to call out abortion for what it is – murder – because we do nobody any favors by minimizing the wickedness of sin. A related point: Christian pro-lifers need to fight abortion as Christians. No more of these secular, scientific, supposedly "neutral" arguments. We need to call out abortion as a sin, call people to repentance, and offer them every help we can as representatives of God's Church. Some pro-lifers can get so caught up in strategy that they'll work against other pro-lifers. If this third point strikes you as incredible, the film gives a few different examples. Ohio Right to Life opposed a heartbeat bill in the name of being strategic. They argued that the bill would almost certainly be struck down by the courts, and the legal precedent could set the pro-life movement "back 40, 50 years" so they spoke out against it. And after the heartbeat bill was struck down by a federal district judge, this question came up at the National Right to Life convention: "If one of these more idealistic bills comes up in our state what advice do you think we should give to our legislature? Do we ask them to vote for something like that? Should we ask them to oppose it?" The answer given? National Right to Life General Counsel Jim Bopp said: "Not introduce it. Not consider it. Not a committee hearing. Not vote for it." This is what a pro-lifer was telling pro-lifers. Lest you think pro-lifers undermining the pro-life movement can happen only in the US, let me give a Canadian example. Back in the 1990s, I witnessed the Alberta pro-life movement get so intent on a strategy that they undermined the personhood of the unborn. The provincial government had taken a fiscally responsible turn and was cutting programs to balance the budget, so pro-life leaders proposed that we promote an end to the tax-funding of abortion as a financial issue - we could pitch it as one more budget item that could be cut. However, the pro-choice opposition saw through this approach and accused the end-tax-funding group of trying to save babies' lives rather than save budget dollars. And, of course, that was entirely true. But that's when things got crazy – the end-tax-funding group denied they wanted to save babies' lives and insisted it was about the money. And by making it all about money, when it was pointed out that a live birth cost the government more than 10 times what an abortion did, the whole strategy fell to pieces. Avoiding all mention of God or the worth of the unborn didn't fool anyone but did make pro-lifers seem money-grubbing and uncaring. So yes, there are times when a pro-life incremental strategy can go very, very wrong. We need to know that, so we can steer clear of it! It is by understanding how and why it can go wrong that we can head it off from doing so. It comes down to keeping our first priorities our first priorities. God's people save babies as a means by which we can glorify God: in reaching out to the desperate, we reflect His goodness, His mercy, and His love. But when we make saving babies our ultimate goal, then it becomes an idol, and in service to that idol, we might find ourselves opposing or undermining God's Truth. We can then, in the name of "effective strategy," downplay what abortion is and downplay what our own end goals are. But this is not honest. And it does not make glorifying God our goal. And, interestingly enough, as we saw in the Alberta tax-funding debacle, it doesn't even seem to be effective. RC Sproul, Jeff Durbin, George Grant, Voddie Baucham, Sye Ten Bruggencate, and John Barros are among the notable names involved in the film. They have a lot of provocative thoughts to share, and even if you don't agree with them all, there is something here every pro-life will find beneficial to hear. What's more, you can watch the whole film for free, below. If you find it edifying, then be sure to check out the original, also free: Babies are Murdered Here. ...

1 2 3

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

Magazine

Recent Articles

Past Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

Job Postings

More of Reformed Perspective!

RPTV

Our App!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

VOTC

Links

About Us

Advertise

Advertising, Job Postings

Trivan and ITB: Now Hiring!

Search CATEGORY: Pro-life – Abortion

Pro-life - Abortion

Euthanasia changed the abortion battle

Dozens of other pro-life volunteers spent the summer talking to strangers about the unborn

One heart at a time

Euthanasia changed things

They used to meet us halfway

If life has no meaning death becomes attractive

Where does our worth come from?

Going on all Prophet Nathan on them (2 Sam. 12)

It’s a heart issue

Conclusion

News, Pro-life - Abortion

What does Pierre Poilievre think about the unborn?

Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

Pro-life legislation attempts in Canada

News, Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life flag proposal gets town talking about worldviews

Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

RPTV: Katrina Marshall on being a pro-life advocate

Book Reviews, Children’s picture books, Pro-life - Abortion

Dr. Seuss's "Horton trilogy"

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

If the unborn are not our equals...

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

How to defend the unborn in under a minute

News, Pro-life - Abortion

Abortion was the leading cause of death in 2022

Pro-life - Abortion

A day in the life of a pro-life intern

Pro-life - Abortion

No place for pro-life cynicism

Documentary, Movie Reviews, Pro-life - Abortion, Watch for free

180: from pro-choice to pro-life in minutes

Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life memes and cartoons to share

Pro-life - Abortion, Sexuality

Abraham Lincoln, on abortion

Pro-life - Abortion

A pro-life push back against the darkness

Pro-life - Abortion

Not without a fight: the history of the pro-life movement in Canada

News, Pro-life - Abortion

On mandatory vaccines and “My body, my choice”

Pro-life - Abortion

Can a politician be personally, but not politically, pro-life?

Pro-life - Abortion, Science - General

The wonder of the womb

Pro-life - Abortion

Investigating the Birth Control Pill

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life 101: Removing the red herrings

Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-lifers aren't helping people after they're born?

Pro-life - Abortion