Category Archives: Public relations

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


The Pro-Choice Movement is Anti-Intellectual – Part 1

Pro-choice feelings-driven propaganda

The pro-life community has long been stereotyped as a group of unintelligent bigots, generally of the Christian fundamentalist variety. But if we clear away the propaganda (or examine it) it becomes clear that the pro-choice movement can be profoundly anti-intellectual itself.

The pro-abortion group NARAL recently released a website and video (or as they prefer to call it, an “experience”) that serves as a good example. The video, which is a stop-motion compilation of thousands of photographs, was created to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  No argument is made. No evidence is presented. The video is simply an expensive piece of eye-candy designed to affirm people in their support of abortion using fluffy statements like, “It’s really important for me to be able to determine my own future.”

The slideshow that accompanies the video contains more of the same. Next to pictures of professional models sit snippets of text in beautiful typography, one of which is “Choice is the utmost act of selflessness and compassion for humanity.” The movement that spawned the slogans “My body, my choice!” and “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!” (Emphasis mine. But not really.) is now being cast as selfless? It’s hard to believe, but it’s true. The simple reason for this is that pro-choice community needs to feel good. For many pro-choice people, their support of abortion is entirely about feelings.

The “No uterus, no opinion” slogan repeated ad nauseam on blogs and campuses is a classic example of the sheer emotionalism that fuels the pro-choice agenda at the expense of rational thought. It is revealing that they are willing to discount the opinion and arguments of an entire people group because of their gender, but even more so that their reason for doing so is that the group they are discriminating against can “never know what it is like to be pregnant.” This is nothing short of an admission that it is feelings and not facts that determine their stance on abortion.

The ultimate expression of this sentiments-over-science mentality may be unearthed when one asks a pro-choice person at what point the unborn child becomes alive. Shockingly, there are those who claim that the child is not alive until it is fully born. The belief that there is essentially some sort of a magic wand that passes over the unborn child and transforms it from a fetus into a baby as soon as the umbilical cord is cut is sheer nonsense. Even more surprising are those who claim that the unborn child is a baby if the mother wants it and a fetus if she does not. It is yet another example of feelings being more important than facts to the movement.

A pro-choicer claiming that a child is alive only after being born.

I would like to conclude this article by saying that I do not label every person within the pro-choice camp as anti-intellectual. There are those, such as the perceptive feminist Naomi Wolf, whose intellectual prowess I have great respect for. I am speaking of the rank and file of the movement, the average pro-choice person on the street. Yes, I will admit that there are those within the pro-life camp who could be labelled as anti-intellectual as well, but every movement has supporters who do not represent it well. There is, therefore, a question that needs to be asked: Does the movement itself foster anti-intellectualism? I believe that in regard to the abortion rights movement the answer is “yes.”

Read part two of this post >>

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. <>