Tag Archives: abortion

Reversing Roe

Posted on by
Reply

by Roger Resler

I’m a little late to the game but I just discovered a 2018 documentary on Netflix called: “Reversing Roe.” Intrigued by the title, I dove in. It was well produced, although obviously slanted in favor of the pro-choice position. While it clearly couldn’t be described as “fair and balanced,” at least for the most part it wasn’t overt, over-the-top pro-choice propaganda. The majority of the views presented were from those in favor of Roe v. Wade, but a few pro-life proponents were also given time to make their case – or at least to make various pro-life counter points while the film was making its case. And, as the producers themselves point out on a separate Q & A session, the term “pro-life” is used often rather than “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” out of respect for the fact that that is the term pro-lifers use to describe themselves. Kudos for that.

That said, however, there are still some major flaws.

First, – and this is one of my pet peeves – the pro-life position is taken for granted as being fundamentally religious in nature while the pro-choice position is assumed to be factually and scientifically based. This is a serious skew. While it is obviously true that many pro-life proponents are deeply religious people, it is also true that there are plenty of religious people who are pro-choice – ironically, as casually revealed in the film itself. Case in point: the film features several comments from Rev. Tom Davis of the United Church of Christ, who was a member of the Clergy Consultation Service in the years prior to Roe v. Wade and identifies himself in the film as an “abortion counselor.”

It is also true that various religious groups are opposed to abortion to one degree or another while others are in favor of it to one degree or another. But the pro-life point of view itself is not based on religion; it is based on morality. The same is true for the pro-choice position. In both cases, the relevant question is whether or not abortion is morally acceptable, not whether it is religiously acceptable. Even prominent members of various pro-life groups recognize their opposition to legalized abortion doesn’t ultimately rest on the positions taken by their various churches, but on the broader notion that legalized abortion (in most cases) is simply morally wrong. Yet, just as many individual pro-choice proponents are in the habit of doing, Reversing Roe characterizes the pro-life position as being integrally tied to religion. If you were only going off information presented in the film, you might easily come to the conclusion that it is impossible to be pro-life without also being religious. Try arguing that with pro-life atheist Kelsey Hazzard or the members of Feminists For Life.

If the abortion debate is framed as religion vs. science or dogma vs. facts (with science and facts residing on the pro-choice side), it doesn’t take a genius to see who’s going to win. OBGYN and Missouri abortionist, Dr. Colleen McNicholas is featured prominently in the film, at one point arguing that there are allegedly “factual inaccuracies” in pro-life legislation. The irony is this: biological facts and science in general support the pro-life position, not the pro-choice position. And what is even more ironic, the pro-choice position is actually founded on ignorance of scientific facts and it must perpetuate that ignorance in order to remain viable.

I realize if you’re pro-choice you may find that offensive. But it’s true and the film itself proves it.

Sarah Weddington is the attorney who argued in favor of the pro-choice position in Roe v Wade. While giving the history of Roe in the film, Weddington makes the following statement:

“At one point a Justice had said to me, ‘When do you believe human life begins?’ And I said, ‘Well, your honor, we did not try to say exactly what moment that was.’ There is no one answer to that. Different religions have different answers to that question. But there is no legal standard that said at this point the fetus becomes a human. So the question is: who gets to make the decision? Is it the woman or is it the government? And my position has always been: it’s not the government.”

So here we have multiple factual inaccuracies resting on one another and ultimately resting on an appeal to ignorance. When does human life begin? “We did not try to say exactly what moment that was.” That, of course, is lawyer mumbo-jumbo for: “We don’t know.” But the truth is we do know. And in fact we knew in 1972 when Sarah Weddington was presenting oral arguments in Roe v. Wade. There are many sources that could be cited to prove this easily researched fact. For example:

“…upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.”

When Do Human Beings Begin?
“Scientific” Myths and Scientific Facts
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
(copyright February 1999)

This excellent paper is only one, but I cite several other sources in my book (Compelling Interest: The Real Story Behind Roe v. Wade). So the first “inaccuracy” in Sarah Weddington’s statement is the implication that in 1972 science did not know when human life begins and apparently she wants us to believe it still doesn’t. This, of course, is utter nonsense. But notice Weddington’s phraseology. She does not even mention the words “science” or “biology” or “embryology.” Pretty sure that’s intentional. Not surprisingly, what she does mention is religion. And her point in bringing up religion is to muddy the waters. Religions disagree on when human life begins? So what? If there were consensus among all religions that human life begins at fertilization, would Sarah Weddington then be willing to give up a woman’s right to choose abortion? I seriously doubt it. So her use of alleged disagreement among religions as to when human life begins is purely a red herring and is completely irrelevant.

Another serious problem with Weddington’s “logic” is that the decision to have or not have an abortion is only a valid decision if both options are equally morally acceptable. Weddington takes for granted that the decision is morally acceptable because, as she freely acknowledges, people disagree about when human life begins (despite the lack of disagreement among embryologists). Her position makes no attempt to resolve the question (as doing so would be self destructive). Therefore, even according to Weddington’s way of thinking, it’s still quite possible that each legal decision for abortion her advocacy in Roe has permitted is the killing of an innocent human being. Her appeal to ignorance on the central question leaves her position glaringly vulnerable to this line of criticism.

But then Weddington’s “logic” devolves even further into the absurd when she asserts that: “…there is no legal standard that said at this point the fetus becomes a human.” Sheer and utter nonsense. A human fetus is always a human. Humans can only reproduce other humans. Therefore the notion that there needs to be a “legal standard” declaring that at a certain point in human development a “fetus becomes a human” is patently ridiculous. Yet here is the most prominent advocate for a woman’s right to choose abortion resting her case on both ignorance of genuine scientific facts and rhetorically twisting those facts into absurdity.

The fact is the notion of personhood became the gold standard for Roe v. Wade. It was recognized that the scientific question of “when does human life begin” would not provide the desired answer on which to base the legalization of abortion on demand. Accordingly, the science was ignored and the debate shifted into the metaphysical realms of philosophy and religion. The new question became: “When does a living human become a ‘person’?” As I point out in my book, the ambiguous concept of personhood was then easily manipulated to accommodate the pre-existing desire for legalized abortion. And the rest, as they say, is history.

CNN ‘Gotcha’ Interview Backfires

Posted on by
Reply

by Roger Resler

Every now and then I run into (or have) a conversation on abortion (I know, not a typical topic of conversation for normal folks) that – how do I put this… uh… makes my blood boil. Current Exhibit A: CNN’s Chris Cuomo interviews Presidential candidate, Senator Marco Rubio on the heels of the first Republican National debate of the 2016 Presidential race. During the debate, Fox’s Megyn Kelly (who is awesome, but, nevertheless) mischaracterized Rubio’s stance on abortion as allowing for exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

Rubio corrected the record, indicating his position on abortion does not now nor has ever included allowances for rape and incest. After hearing this exchange – and sensing Republican red-meat – the ever-vigilant yet under-performing CNN felt compelled to investigate the accuracy of Rubio’s claim and invited the unsuspecting Senator to appear on the network the following morning to clarify things. In other words: CNN was prepared to unleash a typical liberal “gotcha” interview on the topic of abortion with a high-profile Republican they view as a real threat to the Democratic status quo. Knowing that whenever abortion can be discussed within the context of rape and incest it’s a win-win for pro-choice liberals, how could CNN resist? They couldn’t.

Armed with undeniable evidence that Rubio had indeed voted for a bill that (gasp!) included: “a carve-out for rape and incest,” the ever-confident Cuomo, suggested that Rubio had his own record wrong and asked if that were something he’d like to correct. Unfortunately for Cuomo, that’s as far as the ‘gotcha’ part of Plan A went. Rubio noted that virtually every pro-life senator supported the bill in question, exceptions and all, (double-gasp!) and, for that matter, so did every major pro-life group because the bill prevents abortions. Oops.

Not willing to let a perfectly good ‘gotcha’ moment slip away, Cuomo shot back: “But it included the exception.” Rubio conceded the point and reminded Cuomo that, “Any bill that reduces the number of abortions is a bill that I’m going to support.”

Here, playing out in living color (see the video – here – thanks to the Blaze who I’d rather link to than CNN), is the classic rape-incest tactic pro-choice proponents are so fond of employing. ‘You say life begins at conception, so how can you support rape or incest exceptions?’ And on the flip side: “You don’t allow for rape or incest exceptions?? Barbarian!’ Like the race-card, it’s the same old song and dance they’ve been playing for decades. And for good reason – it usually works.

But Rubio was having none of it. In an admirable attempt to respond in good faith (as though the entire exchange thus far had merely been a case of Cuomo’s legitimate lack of understanding) Rubio suggested that Cuomo could: “Think about it this way. I’m in favor of a 20 week abortion ban. Does that mean I’m in favor of abortions at 19 weeks? No. Any bill that reduces the number of abortions is a bill that I’m going to support.”

Bam! So simple a caveman could understand it! This is where a reasonable journalist concedes to the water-tight logic, realizes his gotcha tactic didn’t work and moves on. Instead the now visibly agitated pro-choice proponent who also moonlights as an objective CNN anchor doubled down: “I don’t think it’s an analogy. But the bill did have that carve-out and you said you’ve never been near it.”

Really?! This is where I realize how much better a man Rubio is than me. Rubio had just finished explaining – and in rather simple and eloquent terms – that Cuomo was committing a basic non-sequitur fallacy wherein Cuomo’s desired conclusion doesn’t follow from his premise. In caveman terms: Just because one votes for an abortion bill that allows for rape and incest exceptions does not mean that one must advocate for those exceptions as part of his own stance on abortion.

Politics has been described as the art of compromise. Both Rubio and Cuomo understand that. Rubio voted for the bill because he – and every other pro-life senator and group – understood it was a reasonable compromise that would prevent abortions and had no chance of passing otherwise. That’s reality. The exception clauses had to be put in the bill in order to satisfy the other side of the PC rape-incest argument that cries “barbarian” without it. There’s no doubt Cuomo knows this (stay tuned). There’s no question about it. He’s not stupid. But he, like many other PC proponents, sees the whole tragic rape-incest phenomenon as the perfect means of forcing pro-life proponents into a no-win, catch-22 scenario.

Make no mistake about it. Cuomo and his PC cronies have no more compassion for rape and incest victims than do pro-life proponents like Marco Rubio. In fact, I suggest they have less compassion because they are the ones who are all too eager to exploit the tragedies of rape and incest simply to benefit their own political agenda – which is keeping abortion legal at any stage of pregnancy for any reason.

Want proof? Exhibit B: After failing to trap Rubio in what instead turned out to be his own non-sequitur fallacy, Cuomo predictably reverted back to plan B, which, in a nutshell, states that if your pro-life opponent admits to not allowing for rape and incest exceptions, suggest he’s holding on to a backwards, barbaric position: “But let’s take your position as you’ve presented it this morning. To not have a carve-out for rape and incest is also something that seems very backward looking in terms of the cultural mores that we have today. Why do you not see rape and incest as areas for potential carve-outs even if you are pro-life?”

Blood boiling yet? Rubio, as usual, proceeded with poise and grace. Me? Not so much. This is the point where I need to take a break or I might say something I’ll regret later. My next blog entry will continue with analysis of this – shall we say – fascinating exchange.

Planned Parenthood Exposed. Again.

Posted on by
Reply

by Roger Resler

I applaud the Center For Medical Progress on the release of their latest undercover video exposing Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts. My understanding is that there are more videos to come and the hope is that the impact of these videos will create enough ruckus for Congress to finally discontinue its annual multi-million-dollar donation to the abortion behemoth.

Still, it’s frustrating that it takes something like this to get people’s attention and spur action. Unfortunately the old adage, “out of sight, out of mind,” remains true. Nevertheless, thanks to the CMP, we now not only have the optics, we have the disturbing audio (and transcript) to solidify the deal.

It comes as no surprise that Planned Parenthood is profiting from baby body parts. They profit from killing them in the first place, so why not double-dip? What is surprising – shocking even – is the cavalier language used in the video by Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services at Planned Parenthood, as she casually describes the destruction of unborn humans over lunch.

In the video, actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company meet with Nucatola at a busy restaraunt to discuss how they might acquire specific human body parts from Planned Parenthood. According to CMP’s press release, Nucatola “has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.” So when Nucatola callously mentions that:

 “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

she knows what she’s talking about.

For those who’ve researched and studied the barbaric phenomenon known as legal abortion for decades, the idea that large, for-profit abortion providers consciously strategize on how best to preserve specific fetal body parts while killing unborn humans is nothing new. What is new is the fact that CPM has managed to expose the casual dialogue we always knew went on behind closed doors.

Predictably, Planned Parenthood insists that it has done nothing wrong. Eric Ferraro, Vice President of Communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America suggests that the transfer of fetal body parts is done “with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.”

Ferraro goes on to suggest that the CPM is a “well-funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services” and describes the video as “heavily edited,” and “secretly recorded.” The “heavily edited” allegation falls apart immediately since CPM has also released the complete, hours-long video. As far as “secretly recorded” is concerned, yeah, that’s the whole idea. The point is that Nucatola obviously doesn’t know she’s being recorded, otherwise she wouldn’t be casually talking about her proficiency at selective destruction and preservation of various fetal body regions during abortions.

This video is shocking and revealing in more ways than one. Obviously Planned Parenthood abortionists understand what pro-life proponents have been trumpeting for years. Newsflash: Unborn humans slated for abortion have human body parts. Sort of makes it a bit more challenging to continue promoting the notion that what is destroyed in an abortion procedure is just “a cluster of cells.”

That, of course, is still the pro-abortion party line. “Move along folks, no real humans are being destroyed here. Just cell clusters that resemble human body parts that we donate to science.” This time, however, thanks to the hard work and tenacity of CPM, the world can see behind the smoke and mirrors.

 

Silencing men – or at least pro-life men.

Posted on by
Reply

by Roger Resler

My Dr. Seuss post from February, 2013 continues to draw comments, mainly from pro-choice proponents. One recent supportive comment, however, came from Carlos Zamora. He writes: 

Great argument Roger. It pleases me greatly to see such an educated and well informed individual standing up for the rights of the unborn. Especially a man. Far too often have I been scorned and my opinion completely disregarded on the matter simply because I do not possess ovaries. In reality, that is a very stupid point. Never before in history were you expected to be either a victim or a perpetrator of an injustice in order to speak out against it. But like I said, great information and great blog. I hope to get a chance to read your book soon.

Of course this will likely be dismissed by those on the pro-choice side (especially the females) as merely one “anti-choice” male complimenting another for promoting misogynistic ideas. The simplest stereotypical explanation is usually preferred when a genuine understanding of the opposing point of view would otherwise require thoughtful consideration.

Ironically, while neither Carlos nor myself had any choice in the matter of our gender, neither (presumably) did our female critics who seem confident that “femaleness” is a necessary prerequisite to free speech when the topic is abortion. Carlos makes a good point when he observes that:

Never before in history were you expected to be either a victim or a perpetrator of an injustice in order to speak out against it.

Like Carlos, I’ve run into the “gender objection” from pro-choice advocates on many occasions – and it always seems to be pro-choice females who raise the objection. Take for example this blog entry. Simply stated, the idea is that men don’t get pregnant, therefore they have no right to speak against abortion. Conversely, you might think – at least for the sake of consistency (or at the very least the appearance of consistency) – men should also not be encouraged to speak in support of the pro-choice cause, right? Wrong. Take for instance this NARAL endorsed “Men For Choice” celebration marquee that reads:

We appreciate the men who stand proud for reproductive rights, and we’re thrilled to celebrate their contributions at two exciting Men For Choice events! 

Or this one, which “honors” pro-choice Massachusetts State Representatives Carl Sciortino and Jim O’Day and then lists their accomplishments for the pro-choice cause. Not only does NARAL allow these men to speak about abortion, they furnish a platform and then promote their comments.

Or how about feminist Colleen Crinion’s admonition that abortion rights is “still an issue [men] need to support.” Crinion suggests that:

Just as gay rights needs straight allies and civil rights needs white supporters, abortion rights need men. If you know and love a woman then you should care about access to abortion.

And then there’s the love-fest between NARAL and 11 Men For Choice.

There’s clearly a double standard here. It seems that men (who can’t get pregnant whether they’re pro-choice or not) can speak about abortion if their speech conforms to acceptable pro-choice guidelines.

But what if you’re male and you sincerely believe induced abortion is an injustice? What do you do in that case? According to pro-choice feminists you can either change your views or shut up. Why? Well, basically because you can’t get pregnant. Consider again Carlos’s observation:

Far too often have I been scorned and my opinion completely disregarded on the matter simply because I do not possess ovaries.

As Carlos notes, based on his own experience, you can’t speak out about abortion if you’re male and you see abortion as an injustice. This conveniently eliminates potential criticism from half of all would-be pro-choice critics. For the remaining segment of the population, again, as Carlos points out:

Never before in history were you expected to be either a victim or a perpetrator of an injustice in order to speak out against it.

In this case the smallest victims can’t speak out (other than a very few abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden) and the perpetrators won’t (other than a few brave souls who’ve changed their positions like Abby Johnson, Bernard Nathanson or Carol Everett).

What this all boils down to is the idea that the only people who allegedly have any moral grounds to actually speak about abortion are women who approve of it and the males who agree with them. If you’re a male and you believe in “a woman’s right to choose” abortion on demand for any reason, then speak all you want. But if you’re male and you sincerely see abortion as an injustice, then shut up because you can’t get pregnant. And if that doesn’t silence you then prepare to be accused of wanting to control women and having your opinions branded as either religious imposition or misogynistic hate speech.

The debate over “personhood” was created by pro-choice proponents in order to make the pro-life position impossible to maintain. From the same playbook, pro-choice philosophy also attempts to impose ground rules on free speech that make it impossible for abortion critics of the wrong gender to have a voice. As one blogger puts it:

men are dismissed on the basis of their sex as an anti-intellectual manoeuvre to try to shut down critical enquiry on this ideologically-charged topic.  

What we see from the prevalence of all this is that many – if not most – pro-choice advocates simply aren’t interested in having a legitimate, civil discussion. They’re not interested in listening to and understanding the claims made by those on the other side. If there’s any truth to pro-life arguments, they don’t want to hear it. They prefer to stereotype, caricature, marginalize and silence the opposition. This is an example of the ad hominem fallacy wherein “a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.” People who are arguing a weak case are particularly prone to this kind of fallacious response. When this type of response is commonly resorted to among pro-choice proponents – to the point of being openly posted on pro-choice websites (see for example this or this) – it’s a pretty clear indication that there must not be much left for them to fall back on.  

Roger Resler is an author, researcher & media producer for Truth In Depth Productions.

Gosnell Guilty!

Posted on by
Reply

by Roger Resler

Things don’t seem to be going well for the pro-abortion lobby in the U.S. in recent weeks. Following on the heels of Planned Parenthood of Florida’s pro-infanticide slip of the tongue in March and Live Action’s undercover exposé of late-term abortionist, Le Roy Carhart last week, the conviction today of late-term abortionist, Kermit Gosnell is the latest in what may be a lasting trend. To those of us who consider the evil of induced abortion on an almost daily basis, Gosnell’s conviction is a no-brainer. It’s nearly impossible to believe that anyone could legitimately fail to grasp that what Gosnell does on a routine basis – simply stated: killing babies – is immoral; beyond any reasonable doubt illegal and should be condemned by even the most pro-abortion of pro-abortionists.

It would have been a sorry state of affairs had this blatant killer been acquitted. That he was not at least bodes well for the future. In the past, convictions such as this one have been appealed and overturned by a judge. Other similar convictions have stood, but typically on the basis of maternal death. In 2007, the aforementioned Le Roy Carhart – of recent Live Action fame – was convicted of performing illegal “partial-birth abortions” and the conviction was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. The difference with the Gosnell case is that the conviction is based exclusively on the value of the baby. The implication is that a “person” comes to exist at birth which makes birth the moral dividing line between legal abortion and illegal infanticide.

While the birth-line may make legal interpretations more convenient (at least to a certain extent), from a rational and scientific standpoint, human life has clearly begun long before birth – as any expectant mother beyond quickening knows.

While we can definitely celebrate the trend toward fetal-value-based legal convictions as a positive development, the next logical step will be to point out the irrationality of protecting human beings only after they manage to escape the confines of the womb intact and breathing.

 

 

We knew it was bad, but…

Posted on by
Reply

by Roger Resler

I’ve been writing and producing media content on the subject of abortion for decades. I’ve debated “hard-core” pro-abortionists in online discussions who were either born without a conscience or have numbed what they were born with into irrelevancy. I think I’ve seen and heard it all. And then along comes another Live Action undercover video. It’s not easy to watch, but everyone – whether you’re pro-life, pro-choice or have no opinion on abortion – everyone needs to watch this video: click here to watch.

How does one describe what Lila’s organization repeatedly captures on video? Stomach turning comes to mind, yet seems inadequate. The only analog I can think of would be a slave-trader who treats the human beings under his charge as commodities while still recognizing their humanness. Used to be – back in the good ‘ole days – that pro-abortionists knew they couldn’t gain public approval for abortion while simultaneously acknowledging the humanity of the unborn. It was merely a “fetus” they reassured us, not a baby.

As late as 2001 pro-choice cheerleader Marian Faux  adamantly insisted that while “The fetus may be like a baby in some respects,” it is “emphatically not a baby.” (Faux, pg. 149). In 1991, during a live Phil Donahue taping in Wichita, Kansas, when asked about the fate of babies who survive abortion (see for example the story of Melissa Ohden), Faye Wattleton, then president of Planned Parenthood answered: “I do not accept that a fetus is a baby. It is a fetus.” Apparently Wattleton missed the point of the question which was concerned with babies who survive abortions. But for Wattleton and Faux, and the host of other pro-choice proponents they speak for, abortion is morally acceptable because a fetus is “emphatically not a baby.”

Yet here, in the latest Live Action undercover video, we have an abortionist (how much more pro-choice does it get?) brazenly acknowledging that he’s killing babies on a routine basis and does so as casually as roasting meat in a crock-pot. Has the world gone completely insane?

What is it going to take to get Americans upset about abortion? If the only way to change things were to mobilize an army and fight a civil war, I could see how that might present a difficult challenge. But the fact of the matter is, all we really need to do is vote pro-life en masse. The problem is it’s going to take a lot of us getting so upset that we remember these videos every time we go to the ballot box.

Another sorry testament about this – beyond, of course, the fact that Dr. Carhart and other abortionists routinely kill unborn babies – is that if this and other Live Action videos had instead exposed evil gun lobbyists casually talking about the effectiveness of semi-automatics on school children or oil barons yucking it up on their private jets en route to a New York country club you can bet they would be receiving multiple plays on every major media outlet across the country with bold headlines demanding action and guest appearances on late-night talk shows. As it is, it’s up to us, Live Action, a few good bloggers and Fox News to pique the conscience of a nation.

The video closes with the definition of “inhuman” as follows:

Adjective
  1. Lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric.
  2. Not human in nature or character

After giving the matter some additional thought, I may have a phrase that captures the essence of what Live Action has captured on video: civilized barbarity.

A person’s a person, even if Dr. Seuss threatens to sue

Posted on by
78

by Roger Resler

The recurring maxim expressed by “Horton” the elephant in Dr. Seuss’s classic story Horton Hears a Who, goes like this: “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” So certain is this truth to Horton, that he takes it as being self-evident. His actions throughout the story are admirably consistent with this assertion and the moral implications that accompany it.

While enjoying a bath in a river, Horton’s large ears pick up on a tiny voice emanating from a speck of dust as it flutters by. While Horton never sees the person producing the voice – since that person is too tiny to be seen by an elephant – he, nevertheless, realizes that there must be a person there since he can clearly hear the voice coming from the speck of dust. In fact, there is apparently an entire city – if not a planet – consisting of many “Who’s” living on that speck of dust.

Trouble enters the story when Horton’s animal friends reject the foolish notion that there could be any kind of life, much less a person, living on a speck of dust. They accordingly ridicule Horton for believing in such nonsense. Eventually, in an effort to relieve Horton of his delusions, it is decided that the dust speck should be boiled in oil. Knowing that this would mean a sudden and violent destruction of Who civilization (resisting the desire for a Roger Daltrey joke here), Horton does everything in his power to save the dust speck from such a terrible fate; because, “after all, a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

In the end, the Who’s concerted effort at noise-making generates enough decibels to register in the ears of Horton’s skeptical friends. Once they realize they had been wrong in their criticism, their mood changes dramatically and, once again, in accordance with the truth that “a person’s a person, no matter how small,” they cease their attempt to destroy the dust speck (which they now realize would be immoral) and everyone lives happily ever after – that is until pro-life advocates wanted to express the same truth to a skeptical world.

The irony is that the creator of Horton, the Who’s and Whoville itself, the late Theodore Geisel, apparently preferred to identify with the skeptics rather than those advancing the same truth his hero expresses when it comes to the controversy surrounding the morality of abortion. My introduction to this bizarre turn of events came a few days ago from someone who commented on the trailer for my book Compelling Interest. In both the book and the trailer, we quote this phrase of Dr. Seuss (or more precisely Horton) because we agree with it.

While commenting on the trailer, smitelystacey, asks if we are aware that Dr. Seuss, “never intended his quote to be used in this manner” and that, “he threatened to sue an anti-abortion group for using his quote [on their letterhead] before he died, and his widow has also spoken out against people hijacking his work to support their own agendas.”

Seriously?

I’m sorry but this is one of those things that just takes the cake. No, in fact, I was not aware of Dr. Seuss’s antipathy toward the pro-life agenda, nor would I ever have imagined such a thing. Admittedly, I’ve seen some strange things in my near half-century on this earth, but the irony of Dr. Seuss threatening to sue a pro-life group for using the phrase “A person’s a person, no matter how small,” when they agree with the premise, is certainly unexpected. Upon further investigation I learned that Dr. Seuss was apparently quite liberal and – it would appear – was either pro-choice on abortion or at least opposed to the pro-life agenda.

Of course threatening to sue and actually being able to sue are two different things. I’m reasonably confident that Dr. Seuss had no exclusive copyright on the phrase “A person’s a person, no matter how small” nor – more importantly – on the moral truth behind the phrase. Even if that had been the case, it’s still quite legal for anyone to quote the phrase provided they properly attribute it to Dr. Seuss. Even skeptics who don’t believe that “a person’s a person no matter how small” are free to quote the phrase. But the idea that Geisel would threaten to sue a pro-life group for using the phrase, and that his widow has “spoken out against people hijacking his work to support their own agendas” is jaw dropping in light of the moral implications behind Horton’s sudden awareness of the existence of microscopic human life.

If pro-life people wanted to misuse the quote or twist it to mean something different from the truth expressed by Horton, I could understand the Geisel’s righteous indignation. As it is, pro-lifers use the quote precisely because they agree with it! It would be like the police department threatening to sue security guards for suggesting their job also exists “To protect and to serve.”

There is abundantly more objective evidence supporting the fact that human life exists long before it can be registered by adult sensory perception than there is for the existence of barely audible Who’s living on a speck of dust. If the Geisel’s don’t/didn’t believe that human fetuses or embryos are persons, they are free to disbelieve, but such skepticism is perfectly analogous to the villains in the Horton story who also don’t believe human life could exist at a microscopic level. The truth expressed in the phrase: “A person’s a person no matter how small” remains valid in both cases. The irony is beyond palpable.

smitelystacey closes her remarks (I’m assuming a female gender here, my apologies if I’m mistaken) by suggesting that we should: “Keep your personal opinions away from women’s bodies, and don’t steal a dead man’s work in order to gain support for your erroneous life views,” – as though the assertion that: “A person’s a person, no matter how small” only represents my (erroneous!) “personal opinion” and only infringes on “women’s bodies” when it’s expressed by me and other pro-life proponents rather than by Horton the elephant in a children’s book. Apparently Horton knew how to use the phrase in a non-erroneous manner.

After the dust settles (pun intended, feel free to roll eyes) pro-lifers, like Horton, will continue to operate under the self-evident truth that a person’s a person, no matter how small and will consistently recognize the moral implications of that truth to human life at any stage of development regardless of Theodore Geisel’s political views or pre-mortem threats of imminent lawsuits.

No middle ground

Posted on by
Reply

by Roger Resler

Following Anna from Las Vegas’s not-so-complimentary review I noticed that James from Canada, had a different reaction to the book:

My reaction to this book was in stark contrast to the previous reviewer. She is absolutely right that those that have made up their minds on the abortion issue will find this book most helpful. However, pro-choice advocates react to “screeds” such as this with the same vitriol, unsubstantiated by fact. Compelling interest is an excellent tool to expose one’s true point-of-view on the subject of abortion. Contrary to the opinion of the previous reviewer, there is no middle ground on this issue. Pro-life advocates are accused of closed-mindedness. Ey tu Brute?

James is correct: There is no middle ground on this issue in spite of the fact that many people long for middle ground. People wanted middle ground in the mid-1800’s with regard to the problem of slavery; but “middle ground” included such things as looking the other way when human beings were bought and sold, separated from families, and then beaten and lynched for attempting to escape the tyranny. Being “neutral” meant that you were expected to report and return runaway slaves. How can middle ground exist in the face of such injustice?

The problem with abortion is the same problem that made slavery morally impermissible: it violates basic human rights. People disagreed over whether black humans should be protected by the Constitution and those who believed they should not attempted to justify their belief by suggesting that black humans were inferior to white humans. They were not “part of the people.” Abolitionists disagreed. The question of the moral permissibility of slavery was highly controversial, just as the question of abortion is today. Yet slaveholders wanted the law to sanction their desire to own slaves, which can only be morally permissible if their racist philosophy is correct. If the abolitionists were correct, then slavery was immoral.

It is exactly the same situation today with regard to abortion. Those who desire legal abortion want the law to continue to sanction their desire to kill fetuses, which can only be morally permissible if their pro-choice philosophy is correct. If the pro-lifers are correct, then abortion is immoral. Both sides cannot be right.

Pro-choice philosophy can’t establish itself as correct (and most pro-choice advocates don’t even attempt to). It can only assert its alleged correctness in the face of both hard evidence and basic intuitions that run counter to the assertion much like slaveholders asserted their racism was the correct way to think about skin shades when basic intuitions said there is something wrong with that. After Dred Scott we had slavery based on skin shade discrimination. After Roe v. Wade we have legalized abortion based on age discrimination. Both forms of discrimination are equally irrational and equally appalling in their violation of human rights.

Neither of these forms of discrimination offer room for middle ground. And in both cases, it was not possible for both of the opposing sides to be correct. It could not be morally permissible for southerners to own slaves but not northerners. It was either morally permissible for all or for none. Today, contrary to popular opinion, it is not morally permissible for pro-choice people to choose abortion (in the absence of life-threatening pregnancies) but not for pro-life people. If pro-lifers are correct when they assert that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, then abortion (in the absence of life-threatening pregnancies) is immoral for all, not just for those who recognize the immorality.

The good, the bad and the scathing.

Posted on by
Reply

Since the subject of my book is abortion and since that subject tends to be highly controversial, I fully anticipated receiving – on one end – thoughtful and possibly even glowing reviews from people who agree with me about abortion, and – on the other end – scathing reviews from those who don’t. Reviewers, after all, are human.

The first reviews to appear on Amazon fit the former description while the first review to appear on audible.com fell solidly in the latter category. While contemptuous reviews are anticipated, it still injects some extra adrenaline in the blood flow to read something akin to hate-mail in the form of a public review. I am, after all, human. Enter: Anna from Las Vegas. I get the distinct feeling Anna just doesn’t like me.

After giving the book 1 star out of 5 (I suspect since negative stars are not an option), here’s what Anna writes about my book:

“HORRIBLE!!!!”

Would you try another book from Roger Resler and/or Roger Resler?

Never.

What do you think your next listen will be?

something actually entertaining

What didn’t you like about Roger Resler’s performance?

He is incredibly sanctimonious. Also, the addition of numerous adolescent voices is both annoying and attempting to illicit an emotional response from the audience. It is yet more one more way in which this book shows its bias and downright mean-ness.

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

Intense remorse for wasting a credit.

Any additional comments?

This book is sold as an unbiased account of abortion litigation. IT IS NOT. It is a pro-life screed. Essentially, do not listen to this unless you have already made up your mind about this issue.

The internet allows people to speak their mind freely and to say things they probably wouldn’t say if they were standing in front of you. In spite of the harsh words I think there are some things to be gleaned from this review. First, from her comment: “something actually entertaining” it would seem that Anna may have been hoping that my book would entertain her. If so, I can see why she might be disappointed – and especially so, if she is sympathetic to the pro-abortion cause.

Although I think it could reasonably be suggested that the book has its creative moments, it was certainly not intended to be an entertaining book. It was intended to be an educational book that accurately examines key elements of the Roe v. Wade oral arguments, majority and minority opinions; and evaluates them openly, fairly and honestly, from a pro-life point of view. I suspect Anna has already concluded that that is simply not possible. Were it not for thoughtful, pro-abortion writers like David Boonin, with whom I passionately disagree but, nevertheless, highly respect, I might have arrived at a similar conclusion about pro-choice/pro-abortion philosophy.

Anna describes my performance as “incredibly sanctimonious.” This is obviously subjective, and yet, I want to be open to criticism and try to honestly evaluate whether there is some truth lingering in the background. Anna is reviewing the audio book, so I think it is likely that my tone could come across as “incredibly sanctimonious” to someone who is pro-abortion. I suspect Anna would have a different take on the matter if I agreed with her opinions on abortion. Regardless, I definitely believe in what I have written in the book. Passionately so. I have no doubt that abortion kills innocent human beings. Consequently, I think a passionate, heartfelt delivery is appropriate. If that is what constitutes being “incredibly sanctimonious” then I accept the label unapologetically.

Anna’s next criticism is more intriguing. She suggests that, “the addition of numerous adolescent voices is both annoying and attempting to illicit an emotional response from the audience.” There are indeed a lot of voices other than my own in the audiobook. As to the suggestion that a “numerous” amount of them are “adolescent” voices, Anna is simply incorrect. My then-16-year-old daughter recorded one brief quote for the original audio production in 2006 when she was in high-school, which I retained for the new, expanded version. Her’s is the only voice that could be considered “adolescent.” There were four college age adults and many of the rest were, if not over the hill (like me), at least close enough to see the summit.

It’s surprising to learn that my motivation for using these alleged “adolescent voices” was – unbeknownst to me – an attempt to “illicit an emotional response from the audience.” It’s especially surprising since, in the first place, with regard to the exploitation of my daughter’s voice, I simply remember needing a female voice and she happened to be available (given that she lived in the same house as I did at the time and had no homework to do – or at least she preferred recording to doing said homework). In the second place, illiciting an emotional response from the audience has never been a goal for the book, so I’m confident it wasn’t a consideration when looking for voices. The simple truth is: I did not write the book to appeal to emotions. It is intended to appeal to the force of reason and logic. I think even critics should be generous enough to concede at least that much.

It’s interesting that several other reviewers have found the “numerous voices” to be a nice touch that keeps the listener from tuning out. That is certainly more in line with what I had in mind by using additional voices for quoted material. Anna, however, suggests that the use of “numerous adolescent voices” is “yet one more way in which this book shows its bias and downright mean-ness.”

This one truly has me baffled. Why would the use of (what she incorrectly perceives to be) “numerous adolescent voices” show “bias” and “downright mean-ness”? Perhaps Anna believes I was exploiting children by forcing them to participate in the production of pro-life propaganda. If so, I can assure Anna that my daughter voluntarily recorded the quote. In all fairness, however, bribery may have been involved. It is entirely possible there may have been an enticement in the form of a cookie. Pro-lifers will stoop to anything.

Finally, Anna suggests that the book “is sold as an unbiased account of abortion litigation.” This is another area where Anna’s review is simply factually inaccurate. She will not find that description anywhere in the promotional materials for the book. The truth is, we all have a bias; myself included. Anna does as well. And so do all pro-choice and pro-life proponents. It comes with being human and having opinions. No one is unbiased. I would not have allowed a description that claims the book is “unbiased” to have been used to promote the book. What eChristian (the publisher) does state is this:

“This carefully researched book speaks with a thought-provoking, balanced voice that will challenge your thinking on abortion no matter where you currently stand on the issue.”

I think that’s an accurate description. In fact, I suspect its accuracy may be playing out in terms of challenging Anna’s thinking, which, in turn, has sparked a passionate response. The description makes no claim of my being “unbiased” but does suggest careful research and a “balanced voice.” That term was not my opinion, but the opinion of my editors. It is certainly subjective, and, as such, Anna is free to disagree with it. Given what I might have written about the type of reasoning Sarah Weddington and the Roe majority employed, however, I think “balanced” is a reasonable description for what made it to publication. If not balanced, then certainly restrained. In any case, the book is unapologetically written from a pro-life point of view.

Anna prefers to characterize it as a “pro-life screed;” suggesting that you should not listen “unless you have already made up your mind about this issue.” That is an interesting comment that, once again, is slightly baffling. Anna seems to be suggesting that if you’ve already made up your mind about the abortion issue, then it’s okay to read my book. But if not – if you’re undecided – then, apparently, you shouldn’t. I suppose the logical implication might be that, if you’re undecided on abortion, the “bias and downright mean-ness” of the book when coupled with the sinister use of “numerous adolescent voices” might illicit an unexpected emotional response which, in turn, might have the potential to illegitimately sway you toward the pro-life point of view. If that is at least close to what Anna is suggesting, then I could see how she might want to insulate unwary folks from falling into unwarranted sympathy for the pro-life cause due only to the underhanded tactics of a sanctimonious pro-life author.

More important to me, however, is the fact that Anna makes no claims whatsoever regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of the arguments that are made and the conclusions that are drawn in the book. While she finds fault with (what she perceives to be) the youth of the voices, she says nothing about what the voices are actually stating. The real irony is that the majority of the quotes in the book come from solidly pro-abortion proponents like Sarah Weddington, Marian Faux, Beverly Harrison, Jack Balkin, Jed Rubenfeld, Connie Paige, Gloria Feldt, Naomi Wolf, Francesca Minerva, Alberto Guibilini, Roy Lucas, Cyril Means Jr. and Harry Blackmun. Unlike Anna, I respond directly to the arguments presented by these pro-abortion advocates with what I believe are sound, rational arguments that refute their logic. Anna has no comment about this. She challenges none of the facts presented; none of the premises; none of the logic and none of the conclusions.

As it stands, her review is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy which is the fallacy of attacking the messenger rather than the message.

If you ever read this review of your review, Anna, I would encourage you to post any substantive objection to the facts, arguments and logic that I present in the book. If you do so, I will consider reducing the level of sanctimoniousness when recording my next pro-life screed.

All the best!  

Am I living on Mars?

Posted on by
Reply

by Roger Resler

The callousness of the “tolerant” pro-choice left never ceases to mystify me – at least until the shock wears off and I force myself to see things from their shallow, “politically correct” point of view. Case in point: actor Mehcad Brooks’ tawdry video “celebrating” his and Jane Roe’s 40th Anniversary. (It must have been an arranged marriage given that he wasn’t even alive in 1973). Produced through the auspices of the Center For Reproductive Rights, the video is so revolting – when one considers the subject matter – that I refuse to dignify it with a link. You can readily find it online. By now you’ve probably seen at least snippets on TV anyway.

The silky, smirking Brooks chortles: “Oh, hey baby. Did you think I forgot?” as he sniffs a rose and puts his cognac down while sexy jazz plays and a fireplace burns in the background. “All these years,” he smugly expounds, “so many people said we’d never make it. They’ve been trying to tear us apart. Take you away. Put limits on you. On me. On us.”

As is common for typically question-begging pro-choice logic, Brooks and Roe’s allegorical relationship only manages to keep itself out of the realms of sheer barbarity when viewed from the narrow perspective of “reproductive rights.” But there is a more subtle truth hidden behind the apparent irony of a man starring in a video that is intended to celebrate “women’s rights.” Townhall’s Katie Pavlich observes with respect to pro-choice proponents, “it’s not that they don’t want men involved, they simply want men to regurgitate talking points and celebrate abortion when it’s convenient.” Pavlich also notes that: “It’s no wonder men in our culture today don’t respect women as they should, because they aren’t required to.”

While Pavlich’s points are certainly valid, the truth is that the adoption of abortion as a natural staple of “women’s reproductive rights” is actually driven by male interests and has been from the beginning.

The seeming paradox of the male “reproductive freedom” advocate makes sense when understood within the misogynistic context of escaping the moral consequences of one’s actions at the expense of female biology. Readily available abortion relieves men of moral obligation and child-support responsibilities. It is precisely the avoidance of this moral obligation that MSNBC’s “The Cycle” co-host, Toure, extolled on Friday, suggesting that the availability of abortion saved his life because he wasn’t ready to be a dad. Think about that for a moment. Toure explains that he was “in a committed relationship with a woman” that he paradoxically “knew was just not the one.” According to Toure, “She also knew it probably wasn’t going to work out. And then she got pregnant” as though Toure himself was a sideline observer in the phenomenon. “I knew that pregnant woman and I were not going to be able to form a lasting family.” Years later, Toure explains, he met another woman, married her and “after we decided to get pregnant, I went to her doctor’s appointments – our doctor’s appointments, with joy.”

Surprisingly, though, Toure’s “lifelong commitment to abortion rights was… jostled” by witnessing their “boy grow inside her”  and noticing “how human they are” during the second trimester as “we watched him move around on 3-D sonograms.” Despite this challenge to his pro-choice commitment, Toure remained pro-choice because he “cannot imagine arguing against a woman’s right to control her body and thus her life.”

Ironic, isn’t it, that Toure identifies his “lifelong commitment to abortion rights” with “a woman’s right to control her body and thus her life” and yet he’s specifically grateful that abortion was available to save his life. Consider the male-centricity in Toure’s assertion that: “I thank God and country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me and keep me on a path toward building a strong family I have now. And I pray that safety net stays in place.”

Aside from the fact that abortion was there to save him, one wonders how exactly Toure “fell into a bad situation” in the first place. Even when hammered, a typical male needs a minimum level of functioning cognition in order to “fall into” the act that leads to pregnancy.

Given the male interest in avoiding long-term obligations that stem from one’s inability to keep from stumbling into “bad situations” coupled with the fact that men don’t have to undergo abortion procedures, it’s no great surprise that men have been strong supporters of “women’s reproductive rights” since before, during and after Roe v. Wade. As I point out in Compelling Interest (Chapter 5) several of the key arguments Sarah Weddington used while arguing Roe originated with men. In particular: Roy Lucas and Cyril Means, Jr. That these arguments turned out to be largely fallacious illustrates that the establishment of a moral basis for abortion on demand, secured by rational logic, was not as important as the benefit men would receive from the creation of “women’s reproductive rights.” Given that backdrop, Brooks and Toure have a lot to celebrate.