Category Archives: Abortion industry

The Pro-Choice Movement is Anti-Intellectual – Part 2

No uterus, no opinionI ended my previous post by saying that the pro-choice position promotes anti-intellectualism and implying that the pro-life position does not. I will now be explaining why.

The pro-choice leadership has long recognized that the fetus is alive, reconciling this knowledge with their support of abortion using Singer-esque ethics. However, the knowledge that the fetus is a human life is too much for the average person to know and still support abortion. That is why Planned Parenthood has taken great pains to have the idea that the fetus is a non-living clump of cells firmly entrenched in the mind of the public. To this day, one of the most common objections to pro-life arguments is that the fetus is not alive.

This alone does not make the movement anti-intellectual. There is a difference between being misinformed and being illogical or irrational, which is true anti-intellectualism. However, because the pro-choice community sees portraying the fetus as a non-living being as their hill to die on, their misinformation leads them into anti-intellectualism. They feel forced to defend bad science in order to maintain their pro-choice stance. This very often leads to horrendously illogical arguments and cognitive dissonance.

The brain doesn't develop 'til it's out of the womb
Take, for example, the young lady who told me that the fetus is not alive until it is eight weeks old because that is when it “develops a gender.” We can perhaps pardon this woman for not knowing that gender is determined by the X and Y chromosomes at conception and not by the presence of genitalia. After all, science is not the strong suit of most people. But the lack of basic reasoning skills she displayed is inexcusable for someone who takes a stand on an issue as important as abortion. Are asexual organisms such as earthworms and jellyfish not alive? Is a neutered horse not alive? Even without knowledge of the function of the X and Y chromosomes, she should have been able to ask herself such questions and realize that gender (and much less the presence of genitalia) is not a prerequisite for life.

The slogans of the movement are often just as irrational as their science. In part one of this post I talked about the “no uterus, no opinion” mentality and how it shows that the pro-choice community places a greater value upon emotions than facts. When we follow it out to its logical conclusion, it also undermines their philosophical framework of radical feminism. If reproductive decisions are entirely the domain of women, with men not allowed even so much as a voice, then it follows that all the responsibilities of reproduction belong solely to women. Reproduction becomes a “woman’s job” and the blurring of gender roles that feminism tries to achieve is undone.

While there may be the occasional misinformed or unintelligent pro-life person, the pro-choice movement’s “logic” collapses in on itself in a way that the pro-life movement’s does not, with their own slogans and arguments being detrimental to their cause. This is due mainly to the fact that the pro-life movement is not owned by a massive corporation that force-feeds it information and misinformation. With the possible exception of the Catholic church, whose contributions are mostly theological rather than scientific or philosophical, there is no group or company that holds the pro-life movement in its grip the way that Planned Parenthood does the pro-choice community. Pro-life people are left to do their own research and, more importantly, have not been programmed by propaganda to use a false scientific basis for their arguments.

<< Read part one of this post


Do Abortion Rates Vary with Legalization?

Pro-life and pro-choice protesters

I recently took part in an online discussion in which it was claimed that criminalizing abortion does not lower abortion rates. The source cited was a 2007 New York Times article titled “Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare.”

The person who cited the Times went on to say that, while she opposed abortion as a moral evil, if women were going to have abortions regardless we may as well make it safe and legal for them.

The first problem with this argument is that the best statistic I could find on the subject says that about only (and it is a great shame that I am forced by pro-choice claims of thousands of deaths in illegal abortions to use the word only in such a context) thirty-nine women died as a result of injury during abortion in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.1

But that aside, I was curious to know just how accurate the claims of the study are. The legality of a behavior has much to do with its cultural acceptance, and its cultural acceptance has much to do with how much it is practiced. I found it hard to believe that a lifestyle choice as heavily stigmatized and as highly controversial as abortion would not become more prevalent with legal sanction.

The study was conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO),  a branch of the United Nations, and the Guttmacher Institute. If you are unfamiliar with the Guttmacher Institute, they are a reproductive rights group founded in 1968 as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.2 The Times article did not contain a link to the report, but it can be safely guessed based upon its contents and publication date that the report in question is “Induced Abortion: Estimated Rates and Trends Worldwide.” This report was apparently updated with new data in “Induced Abortion: Incidence and Trends Worldwide from 1995 to 2008.” I will be addressing the updated version of the report in this article.

It is not difficult to find an agenda within the report, namely that abortion mortality is on the rise and we need to make a push for safe and legal abortion, and the Guttmacher Institute has been criticized by the pro-life community and charged with manipulating the data.While other pro-life writers and speakers have focused on exposing errors about abortion mortality rates in the report, I thought that I would focus on the claim that abortion’s legal status does not affect the procedure’s popularity.

If banning abortion does not cause a decrease in the number of abortions performed, then why was there a steady increase in U.S. abortions following Roe v. Wade until 1981? One would think that this hike in numbers would not have occurred if the rate of abortion is truly not linked to legalization. It is, of course, possible that there was another factor that caused a large dip in abortion just prior to Roe v. Wade, or that there was another factor following Roe v. Wade that caused an anomalistic rise.

Abortion by year

A Guttmacher Institute graph showing the number of United States abortions from 1973-2011.

This, however, seems unlikely when one considers that other countries show similar steady rises in abortion rates following the procedure’s legalization. Below is a graph showing the rise in abortion rates from 1969 to 2011 in England and Wales. Abortion was legalized in the United Kingdom by the Abortion Act of 1967, which took effect in 1968.

A graph created by Bioethics Today illustrating rising abortion rates in England and Wales following the legalization of abortion. The graph was created with data from the BBC.

A graph created by Bioethics Today illustrating rising abortion rates in England and Wales following the legalization of abortion. The graph was created using data published by the BBC.

Every country that I managed to uncover statistics for showed the same pattern: when abortion is legalized, abortion rates rise steadily for the next few years. Because of this, it seems almost undeniable that legalization does indeed cause an increase in abortions. Believing the titular claim of the New York Times, that “legal or not, abortion rates compare,” would lead us to expect something very different than what we see: minor up-and-down fluctuations in abortion rates from year to year with no steady rises over long periods of time.

So, then, what is the true cause of the comparable abortion rates between countries where the procedure is legal and those where it is illegal? I believe that the availability of contraceptives is the main factor. According to the Guttmacher Institute,

Eastern Europe presents a very different situation, with an abortion rate that is nearly four times that of Western Europe. This discrepancy corresponds with Eastern Europe’s relatively low levels of modern contraceptive use and low prevalence of highly effective methods such as the pill and the IUD.5

In highly developed countries, like the United States and England, abortion is far less likely to be used as a form of birth control than poverty-stricken nations where more orthodox contraceptive procedures are not available. If abortion were to be legalized in one of these poverty-stricken countries it would likely cause a rise in abortion rates similar to the ones that occurred in the United States and the UK. And if modern birth control were readily available, these countries would likely have a far lower abortion rate than nations where the practice is legal.

I believe that the data shows that legalization does indeed increase the abortion rate and that it is birth control that wreaks havoc on abortion-to-population ratios and contributes to the confusion that surrounds the ramifications of legalized abortion. But whether I am right in my conclusions or not, the claims of WHO and the Guttmacher Institute are a weak support for one’s stance on an issue of such great moral import as abortion.

1. “Before Abortion Was Legal.” 05 Feb. 2013. <>

2. “The History of the Guttmacher Institute.” Guttmacher Institute. 05 Feb. 2013. <>

3. “Guttmacher/WHO Study Is Abortion Propaganda, Pro-Life Leader Says.” The New American. 2012. 05 Feb. 2013.<>

4. “FACTBOX: Abortion law around the world.” Reuters. 2008. 05 Feb. 2013. <>

5. “Long-Term Worldwide Decline In Abortions Has Stalled.” Guttmacher Institute. 2012. 05 Feb. 2013.  <>

Planned Parenthood Phases Out the Term “Pro-Choice”


It’s official. Planned Parenthood is saying farewell to the iconic label “pro-choice.” The decision came about not because of an idealogical change but because the controversial organization recognized a need for better PR tactics. The word choice just doesn’t hold the same psychological power as the word life. Pollsters have found that even people who are pro-abortion in their beliefs will describe themselves as pro-life, presumably because of the term’s attractiveness.1 When you defend something as sacred as life you immediately seize the moral high ground and so to say that one is pro-choice rather than pro-life goes against people’s instincts.

But as the pro-abortion Katie Roiphe points out, the term is also an oversimplification of the issue that has lost its former persuasive power. Planned Parenthood’s position has been that there is no destruction of life in the abortion procedure, that is a mere lifestyle choice that affects the woman receiving the abortion and her alone. But it is becoming more and more difficult to convince people of this.

But behind this question of words lies the more arduous question of concepts and philosophy. The idea that “life begins at birth” is also outdated, too easy. It is useful politically, but as many have pointed out, in the age of sonograms, of cloudy little hands and feet coming into focus at nine weeks, how many people actually believe it?

Our language betrays our desire. A cluster of cells that is wanted is a “baby,” and one that is unwanted is a “fetus.” One never hears excited parents-to-be referring to the “fetus”; the leap of imagination from fetus to baby is so ordinary, so automatic, so universal that we cannot pretend, even in the realm of political expediency, that it is not so. We can’t try to argue that some clusters of cells are not “life” if we are, say, busy calling our own cluster of cells a baby.2

Planned Parenthood’s claims that the unborn child is not alive are coming back to haunt them it seems. Naomi Wolf, feminist activist and author, wrote an article back in 1995 arguing that this is so. “Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death,” she said, “we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life.”3

After all these years, Planned Parenthood is beginning to acknowledge that the fetus is indeed alive. I do not know how long it will be before this starts to trickle down into the beliefs of the pro-choice laity, but I am curious and excited to see what effects it will have upon them. Once the fetus has been acknowledged as a living being the only task left for the pro-life apologist is to convince his or her opponent that life has value.

The truth is a dangerous thing for Planned Parenthood to have to deal with and this policy change has great potential to harm rather than help it.

Further reading: “Our Bodies, Our Souls: Naomi Wolf Evaluates ‘Pro-Choice’ Strategy”

1. “Abortion.” Gallup. 2013. 28 Jan. 2013. <>

2. Roiphe, Katie. “Good Riddance, ‘Pro-Choice.'” Slate. 2013. 28 Jan. 2013. <>

3. “Our Bodies, Our Souls: Naomi Wolf Evaluates ‘Pro-Choice’ Strategy.” Wolf, Naomi. Priests for Life. 1995. 28 Jan. 2013. <>

Did Savita Halappanavar Die Because of Pro-Life Laws?

Savita Halappanaver demonstrators

In the wake of an Irish pro-life video proclaiming that abortion is never needed to save a woman’s life, Savita Halappanavar died in Galway, Ireland following a miscarriage. Her husband Praveen claims that she was denied an abortion, a procedure that would have saved her life. According to ABC News:

At the Galway University Hospital, Halappanavar’s fetal heartbeat stopped nearly three days after she arrived on Oct. 21. Doctors evacuated Halappanavar’s uterus, but she died of septicemia, or blood poisoning, on Oct. 28, according the Irish Times, which cited the autopsy report.1

Halappanavar’s death has sparked massive protest rallies of Ireland’s strict abortion laws. Thousands took to the streets to call for legalized abortion in the small country. But Youth Defence, an Irish pro-life organization, says that it is “regrettable that some people are seeking to use this tragedy as an argument for legislating for the Supreme Court decision in X.”2

This is an extreme case of jumping the gun. The investigation of Halappanavar’s death has not been completed (in fact, it has barely begun) and for the media to be already claiming that the abortion laws are responsible for the death is shameful. Youth Defence points out that,

“According to an article in the Irish Times, it seems that the administration of antibiotics may not have started until the Tuesday following Savita Halappanavar’s first presenting at the hospital. The delay may have contributed to the septicaemia which tragically led to her death, but only the result of an investigation will reveal the full facts.”3

In other words, the simple administration of antibiotics may have been enough to save Halappanavar’s life. It is disgusting that the liberal media, without having the facts, is already using the young woman’s death to demonize Ireland’s pro-life laws and incite the Irish people.

Youth Defence points out in their official statement that Ireland’s laws require doctors to save the life of the mother in cases where she will die if her child is not aborted. Thus, it was not adherence to but violation of the law that caused Mrs. Halappanavar’s death, assuming an abortion would have saved her.4

1. Lupkin, Sydney. “Ireland Probes Death of Miscarrying Woman Seeking Abortion.” ABC News. 2012. 20 Nov. 2012. <>

2. “Savita death ‘not caused by Ireland’s ban on abortion’ – Youth Defence.” 2012. 20 Nov. 2012. <>

3. “The tragic loss of Savita Halappanavar’s life was not caused by Ireland’s ban on abortion.” Youth Defence. 2012. Youth Defence. Nov. 21 2012. <>

4. Ibid.

Planned Parenthood’s “Superhero for Choice” Cartoon

This crude and disgusting video looks like pro-life propaganda created to give Planned Parenthood a black eye. In reality, it is a Planned Parenthood-produced short film that was released in 2005 and shown in Californian public schools.

The cartoon depicts a sleazy man in a back alley pushing abstinence to a group of teens. Luckily, superhero of choice Dianysus (namedarrives the scene just in time to drown him. “Now you kids know where to go for all your healthcare needs and reproductive advice, don’t you?” she asks, the obvious answer being Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. Dianysus tosses the teens a “Safe Sex Kit” before blasting off to right other sexual freedom wrongs.

This scene raises the issue of sex education, something Planned Parenthood has been heavily involved in. The pro-choice organization’s involvement in sexual education has been highly controversial as many parents believe that the responsibility of “the talk” should fall to them.1 The controversy was multiplied exponentially by Planned Parenthood’s content. According to George Grant’s exposé of Planned Parenthood, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, “they openly endorse aberrant behavior – homosexuality, masturbation, fornication, incest, and even bestiality – and then they describe that behavior in excruciating detail.”2 Below is a video created by the American Life League on this topic:

The next scene takes us to a Planned Parenthood building where pro-life zombies are protesting outside. Dianysus has her trusty condom gun, though, and covers the protesters with exploding latex, killing them. This film reveals something of the Planned Parenthood mindset. As the Conscientious Contemplation blog points out, pro-choicers employ a blatant double standard.

While pro-life activists are often accused of violence and bigotry, pro-abortion activists are applauded for similar actions when done in the name of choice (see, at your own risk, Imagine, for just a moment, what would happen if a conservative group, like National Right to Life, or the Family Research Council, were to release a cartoon depicting pro-choice advocates being drowned, blown up, or decapitated.3

Dianysus then heads over to our nation’s capitol to deal with a senator who dares stand in the way of Planned Parenthood’s agenda. Dianysus follows the logical course of action and dumps him into a boiling pot. She then pulls him out, sans clothing, a changed man who has seen the light, a.k.a. is free from “the stench of misinformed conservatism.”

Our heroine’s final destination is Africa, to which Planned Parenthood exports abortion. We are shown what a wonderful favor Planned Parenthood is doing the world by providing their services to third-world nations. Planned Parenthood’s alleged interest in racial cleansing suddenly doesn’t sound so far-fetched…

As a closing note, Dionysus is the ancient Greek god of wine and fertility whose emblem was an erect phallus.4 For more information on Dionysus please read “The Ivied Rod: Gender and the Phallus in Dionysian Religion.”

1. “Parents Say They Want to Teach Sex Ed to Their Kids.” U.S. News Health. 2011. 17 Nov. 2012 <>

2. Grant, George. Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. Franklin: Adroit Press, 1992.

3. Harris, Alex. “Double Standard: There’s the Left, and Then There’s the Rest of Us.” Conscientious Contemplation. 2005. 17 Nov. 2012. <>

4. Morgan, Delia. “The Ivied Rod: Gender and the Phallus in Dionysian Religion.” 2000. 17 Nov. 2012. <>