Magdalena Nowakowski

**Note** This is my second attempt at posting this paper.  I wrote it in Open Office, and this is what happened when I saved it as a website and imported it into WordPress.  It’s a formatting disaster, but at least it’s done.  My footnotes also changed places (I used footnotes instead of endnotes; I hope that’s ok.)   I’ll keep working to fix the visual side of things.  It’s frustrating, because I really worked hard to make the original version look good. ***
******

One of the themes early in our class is that we should write from our heart, picking a topic that is very important to us. Another theme is that we should take chances: with ourselves, with our instructor, and with our audience”.  I know that my topic is very controversial, but I think it fulfills exactly what you are asking for. I appreciate the opportunity you are giving us to write boldly about what we believe in.
***
The Activists Guide to Life
By Magdalena Nowakowski
On February 2^nd, 2012, author Eric Metaxas had the privilege to address the President, Vice President, their wives, and a large group of powerful Washington politicians at the National Prayer Breakfast. He spoke about William Wilberforce, who fought against slavery in England during the 18^th
century, and Dietrich Boenhoffer, who fought for the rights of Jews
in Germany during the second world war.
“In Wilberforce’s day going with the flow meant supporting slavery: that
Africans were not human. In Boenhoffer’s world, in Nazi Germany, it
meant supporting the idea that Jews are not fully human. So whom do
we say is not fully human today? Who is expendable to us?”¹

In order to justify the slave trade, people had to deny the humanity of the Africans which they were selling. In order to justify the holocaust, people had to deny the humanity of the Jews. During the recent Rwandan genocide, the Hutu majority in Rwanda conducted mass killings of the Tutsti minority. Tutsis suddenly found themselves hunted and killed by their former neighbors and friends, who had instead begun to call them “cockroaches.”

The first step to commit a crime of terrible proportions is to take away
the humanity of your victim. When people become convinced that another human is not human, they are capable of terrifying things.²
Now consider a modern American situation. A young African American
mother falls pregnant. She is poor, and her husband will leave her within two years. The child’s future is uncertain, and raising him well will certainly be a huge burden on his Mother. Growing up poor without a Father, he may be at risk of spending time with the wrong people and going in to crime. Drugs may become a problem. Is abortion a possible answer to this dilemma?

If you answered yes, you may have just aborted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and also President Barrack Obama. These well known stories of famous African American figures on both sides of the political divide, who worked their way from the bottom of society to become incredible contributors to American history, illustrate a huge problem with the idea of abortion on demand. You just never know what life you might be ending.

 The National Right to Life Organization factsheet on abortion –whose statistics are taken entirely from the pro-abortion Guttmacher institute – claims that there have been 54,559,615 abortions in the United States since 1973 when abortion became legal.  That is about 3,000 abortions per day, or about 1/3 of our generation.  One of the justifications for this genocide is that “they’re not human,” or in this case, “they’re not human yet.”³
Abortion is one of the most divisive and controversial topics in the world.
Yet most people don’t know the ugly facts behind abortion, and do not think about the human cost of it. My hope is that even if people choose to be pro-choice, that they are at least fully aware of what they are supporting.
You may be totally against the pro-life cause. You may think that it is not fair to compare African slaves or Jewish Holocaust victims with aborted unborn children. If this is your position, I only ask that you have the intellectual courage to consider the other side of the debate. If your position is one of pro-life, I hope to arm you with more knowledge to help protect the unborn.

When does human life begin?
Many people justify abortion by saying that the fetus is not human or not yet fully alive. So according to them, we’re not sure about the fetus, but we’re definitely sure about the feelings of the Mother. Is this a good argument for abortion? Consider the Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, who wrote:

“In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the   sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self- conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics – not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant – disabled or not – has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over
time.”⁴

So Peter Singer takes the “not fully alive” argument one logical step further. He says that (much like the fetus), the infant isn’t really conscious and can’t make choices, so it is ok to kill it. This is what happens when we begin to pretend to have the right to kill others for whatever reason. One cannot help but wonder how many murderous dictators would make Peter Singer the official philosopher of their regimes.
Let me ask you a question now: suppose that you are a construction worker who has been paid to demolish an old building. Just before you press the button to blow the building up, your assistant tells you that a person might be left in the building. He says: “Well, there probably isn’t anybody in there, but I’m not really sure.” Would you blow up the building? Most people
would answer “no”, because they would not even want to take the chance of being responsible for taking a human life. This same logic applies to the human embryo as well – even if you’re not sure that it is really alive, are you willing to take that chance?⁵
Now think about this: do we even have to use the previous argument? The answer is no. If there is one thing that both secular humanists and religious people agree on, its the idea of “humanism.” Both sides want to protect human beings and improve the quality of their lives. This means that anybody who cares about humans or is a “humanist” must be against abortion. This is because it doesn’t matter whether or not you can prove that a three day old fertilized egg or a week old fetus is technically “alive”- it is still human. According to science, the continuum of human existence begins at conception. This is because at conception, the genetic structure of a unique human being is created. If not harmed in any way, this fertilized egg becomes a fetus, and then a toddler, and then maybe even one day a college graduate. It’s human from the beginning and there is no point and time where it is not human in any way. So logically, to destroy either a fertilized egg or a fetus is to end a unique human existence. Philosophically, there is no way to get around this. Abortion ends a human existence.
William L. Saunders, the Director for the Center for Human Life and Ethics in
Washington D.C., summarizes this argument as follows:

“Every human being begins as a single-cell zygote, grows through the
embryonic stage, then the fetal stage, is born and develops through infancy, through childhood, and through adulthood, until death. Each human being is genetically the same human being at every stage, despite changes in his or her
appearance. Embryologists are united on this point. Consider the following statements from standard textbooks: “Human development begins at fertilization…. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual” (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud); “Almost
all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)…. The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual” (Bruce M. Carlson); “Although life is a
continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity” (Ronan O’Rahilly and Faiola Muller).”⁶

Who do you agree with? Because if you are still for abortion, then you must agree with Singer. He may seem extreme, but he only carries the pro-abortion philosophy to it’s logical conclusion: a world without
human dignity. Or do you agree with Metaxas or Saunders, who view
human dignity as unbroken from beginning to end?

A Doctor holds a model of a 12 week old child

A doctor holds the feet of an aborted child.

Sometimes when our thoughts are stubborn, our hearts tell us the truth. When I was pregnant with my son, the woman giving me a sonogram told me a story. She said that right before me was a girl contemplating an abortion. When the doctor convinced her to have a sonogram, she said: “there is no way that I can kill this. It’s a child, my child.” Why do most women who are contemplating abortion choose life after a sonogram? Is this because they recognize life? Is it because they realize that they have a child? Is it because it triggers their maternal instinct? Whatever the reasons, the fact that most women choose life after seeing a sonogram points us to a natural truth: that life is life, even when it is inconvenient.

Feminism and Abortion:

Many times women complain when a “bunch of men” talk about abortion,
instead of the women who have to make the “choice.” Yet there are plenty of feminists who oppose abortion. For instance, there is the group Feminists for Life (http://www.feministsforlife.org/), or the many women who work in pregnancy crisis centers and pro-life groups. In fact, women are the primary activists in the pro-life cause. The leading female pro-life crusader is none other than Norma McCorvey, who most people know as “Jane Roe.” Years after she helped legalize abortion, she has now become entirely pro-life. Should we not listen to her powerful message?

Jane Roe Speaks

The truth is that abortion is an industry which kills children and harms
women, changing their lives forever. The truth is that most abortion
clinics do not advertise these risks to their clients. The truth is
that these same clinics even fight against laws requiring women to
have sonograms before an abortion. This is because they clearly do
not have an interest in helping a woman make a truly informed
“choice,” but rather are making a huge profit from women
being motivated by fear.
A popular feminist argument against
abortion centers on the fact that many abortions happen because of
pressure from men. Others are young girls being compelled by their
parents, or young women afraid of the stigma of being an young single
Mother. Fear is common in all of these situations,
but those who favor abortion never seem to bring up this fact. A
true feminist should feel horror at all the young women who make
uninformed decisions – only to regret them years later when
they realize the full truth of what they have done, and when they
suffer the psychological and physical side-effects of this “safe”
procedure. A true feminist should be ashamed that in the richest
country on earth, young women are compelled to kill their babies as a
normal solution. A true feminist should show compassion and help the
young girl under social pressure. A true feminist should realize
that only women can be Mothers, and that motherhood is ended over
3,000 times a day in America, often for the convenience of an
irresponsible or even criminal man. Even a pro-choice feminist
should actively fight for each woman to have accurate information
about abortion: every woman should know the health risks of abortion,
and every woman should know the scientific truth about her fetus and
the full weight of her possible “choice.” Anything less
is not honest, and is definitely not “pro-woman.”
Unfortunately the abortion industry regularly fights against informed
consent, as evidenced by their universal challenge to every sonogram
law brought about in this country. Is ignorance a feminist position,
or is knowledge and empowerment a feminist position?

The Abortion Industry
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant
members is to kill it.”⁷
-Margaret Sanger

The above quote comes from Margaret Sanger, the controversial pro-eugenics nurse who founded Planned Parenthood. For Sanger – who some accuse of being a racist as well – nothing is more important than a woman’s complete control over her reproductive system. Only a decade after she died, abortion became legal and her organization was able to expand its “services.”  What are some of the fruits of Sanger’s ideology?

– 30% of American women will have an abortion before age 44.⁸
– The abortion rate for black women is three times higher than white women⁹
– Over 50 million abortions in the United States since 1973.¹⁰
– 1.2 Million abortions a year in America¹¹
– 40 Million abortions worldwide each year¹²
– The world’s highest abortion rate is in Russia, where in 2009 73 out
of 100 pregnancies ended in abortion.¹³
– The average cost of natural child birth in the United states regularly exceeds 15,000 dollars, while the average abortion costs 500 dollars or
less.¹⁴

Looking at the above statistics, one must admit that the marketing of
abortion as a safe and rare procedure is dishonest. Furthermore Planned Parenthood – which markets itself as a “womens health” organization – makes the majority of its funds from induced abortions. While Planned Parenthood’s website proudly displays a graph that shows that only 3% of their activity is doing abortions¹⁵, the 2008 annual report translates this to 36.7% of official profit, or roughly 140 million dollars. 34% of their income comes from government grants, which we know are generated by pro-choice
politicians.  Finally 24% of revenue comes from private donations, many of who certainly support abortion. If one takes these things under consideration, it is easy to estimate the Planned Parenthood’s abortion related profit could top 50%.
Even those who support abortion generally seem to agree that far too many occur, and that we have a real social problem on our hands. The fact is that abortion has become a major industry that has return customers. It is an
industry which disrespects women, kills the most vulnerable members
of our society, and has killed 1/3 of my generation.

The main reason to oppose abortion – as Princeton Professor and McCormick Chair of Jurisprudence (once held by President WoodrowWilson) writes:
“Our position is that we human beings have the special kind of value that  make us subjects of rights in virtue of what we are, not in virtue of some attribute that we acquire some time after we have come to be.”¹⁶

How Abortions are performed.
The abortion procedure is one that is invasive for the mother and obviously violent and deadly for her child. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood’s own website describes the various procedures
without the real ugly details. Early medical abortion is done with a series of pills taken over several days, which cause the body to reject the new life inside of it. With this comes heavy vaginal bleeding and oftentimes enough pain to require painkillers. From about seven to 15 weeks, a “vacuum” abortion may be performed, where a Mother is dilated (like for giving birth) and literally has her baby sucked right out of her by a machine. Oftentimes forceps are used to tear the baby apart before it is
removed.¹⁷
In this case, a doctor is literally ripping a living human being apart in the womb, where it should be safest. The most brutal kind of abortion is an “induction abortion,” known more
popularly as a “saline abortion.” In such an abortion, a saline solution is injected into the Mother, it is swallowed by the baby in order to burn its lungs, and burns off its delicate skin.
The procedure is generally done in the second and even third trimester, which means that the baby literally suffers and feels extreme pain for up to two hours. With all of these methods of abortion, the combination of vacuums, chemicals, and forceps are used to make sure that the child does not survive. The true bloody result of these abortions can be seen by simply doing a quick search online
for the photos of aborted children. Anybody who doubts the brutality of this procedure – or the humanity of its victim – is only one quick google search from the truth. As brutal as abortion
is, it doesn’t always go as planned. A significant amount of women experience side-effects,
while there have even been survivors, such as the next person we will speak of.

Abortion: The Survivors
“If abortion was merely about womens’ rights, then what were mine? There was not a radical feminist standing up and yelling about how my rights were being violated that day; in fact my life was being snuffed out in the name of women’s rights.”
-Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor.

Since the abortion industry never advertises the victims of abortion, it’s not surprising that most people have never heard about the survivors of abortion. America’s most famous abortion survivor – Gianna Jessen – survived a saline abortion and was born at only two pounds. Today she is a
singer, a nationally recognized public speaker, and runs marathons despite having cerebral palsy due to the oxygen deprivation caused by the attempt to kill her in the womb. She is living proof that each and every fetus is a human life. It is worth taking a moment to hear her address the Australian Parlaiment regarding the reality of abortion. Here is the link to the first part of her speech:

Gianna Jessen speaks

– You can find more about Gianna Jessen at her website, www.giannajessen.com
– While they are rare, there are enough abortions survivors that a network exists to support
them and spread their unique story. It can be found at:
http://theabortionsurvivors.com

Dr. Bernard Nathanson: a former abortionist tells his story.
   “If pro-choice advocates think that they’re going to see the fetus happily sliding down the suction tube waving and smiling as it goes by, they’re in for a truly paralyzing shock.”
-Dr. Bernard Nathanson¹⁸

Not only has Jane Roe become a pro-life activist, but so has one of the famous architects of the abortion movement, Dr. Bernard Nathanson. He was in charge of one of the largest abortion clinics in the world. As his carer went on, he became increasingly uncomfortable with abortion, famously saying: “I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” Later he abandoned his profession and began, starting with his famous movie “The Silent Scream”, fight for the humanity of rights of every unborn child on scientific grounds. This man, who by his own words knew “every facet of abortion” from both a personal and scientific perspective¹⁹, would eventually say: “My switch to pro-life had nothing
to do with religion.” but rather was “based on the scientific evidence … based on fetoscopies and ultrasound studies.”²⁰

Whether you are a woman and Mother or an unborn child, abortion is a brutal violation of your dignity. Women deserve better than abortion, and have a responsibility towards the children they create. A society can’t be healthy if it thinks that women are usable and children are
disposable.

What can we do?
Is there another option to abortion? Is there another way? Consider Congressman Jeff Fortenberry’s words to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton:
“I believe that women throughout the world deserve better. I urge you to consider another way: one that upholds the genius of womanhood and the life nestled within her. And no matter how difficult the circumstances, I just believe that we should be big enough and bold enough to celebrate the beautiful gift of life. Then we will truly make a greater change in the world for the greater good, and I am convinced that we would create an extraordinary amount of goodwill with this perspective…”²¹

If women are to be respected and the unborn made safe, it can only begin in the richest country on earth. There are two main parts to the pro-life cause. The first is to raise awareness about the true nature of abortion, so that people – especially women – may have their hearts changed. There are many groups both religious and secular that do such work, and they are always looking for volunteers. The second step is to help prepare the alternative to abortion – this means volunteering at pro-life pregnancy
centers, pressuring politicians to reform the adoption process, and donating or volunteering for organizations who help pregnant women in need.
Finally, one must be political. This is unfortunate, because abortion is a humanist issue and should not have to be political. But even if a large minority of Americans voted pro-life and pro-adoption – and made it clear that only pro-life policies were acceptable to them – we would see a big change in the laws and culture around abortion within only a few political
terms.

Conclusion

I would like to finish with the following idea from one of the greatest humanitarians ever, Mother Teresa. When she received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, she shocked the world by using her speech to talk about abortion. Only six years after Roe v. Wade, she understood the terrible cost our society was paying.²²
A few decades later, when she was invited to address the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, she
repeated her words even more firmly.
“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts.”²³

Please,
choose life!

---