Pro-life vid of day: “Yes, we’re having another baby!” announcement

by Hans Johnson

It seems if you have more than 2.3 children these days, there will be people who expect you to explain yourself. That’s what Andrea Chapman found when she became pregnant after having had twin girls and a boy. After comments like “I thought you were done!” she got the idea of doing a parody of Miley Cyrus’ music video “We can’t stop!” as a cheeky pregnancy announcement.

Husband Chad, a digital marketer, handled the production of the video while Andrea did the singing. The North Carolina couple’s second boy is due in August.

YouTube Preview Image

Email with your video suggestions.

[HT: Susie Allen]

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism

Abolish Human Abortion leader Don Cooper wrote on Facebook two days ago:

I am an abolitionist. I am calling for the immediate abolition of human abortion. And anyone who opposes the immediate abolition of abortion I consider an enemy of God, an enemy of my neighbor, and enemy of me.

11178259_10153138428041832_1619056870529681235_nThat’s a noble thought but certainly not earth-shattering. There’s no pro-lifer in the world who “opposes the immediate abolition of abortion.”

Yet, do not be confused. When those calling themselves “immediatists” call for the “immediate” abolition of abortion, they don’t really mean immediate. When pro-lifers challenge them to stop talking and just do it already, they mock us for advancing the Straw Man of Overnightism (right).

AHA co-founder T. Russell Hunter hedged his bets during the April 25 “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate against Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham, stating the tree of abortion must be hacked with an ax “over and over and over, no matter how long it takes” – a signal for patience.

Except there is one tiny people group for whom patience in this instance is not a virtue – it’s deadly.

big-redwood-postcard (1)In a comment to my Part II post, Hunter wrote to “think of the abortion tree as more like Redwood,” the world’s biggest tree.

In a comment to my Prologue post, Hunter reiterated, “As I said in the debate, Immediatism has to do with what we are calling for and focusing on, it does not have to do with what we do on a daily basis or how long it takes for us to achieve abolition.”

In yet another comment Hunter wrote, “Immediatism often produces incremental results….” What in the world?

And so we return to my “freaked out obsession,” those preborn children caught in that unknown span of time between now and “no matter how long it takes” to abolish abortion.

During the debate Hunter persistently tried to evade Cunningham’s questions about those particular babies, since Hunter and AHA oppose incremental legislation that is proven to save them, even though Hunter admitted three times (I actually found a fourth, at 1:26:11 in the video) he knows such legislation works.

In another comment to my Prologue post Hunter admitted it again, writing: “Sorry Jill, I never say that the numbers saved ‘don’t matter,’ I only say that you guys are being deceived (and deceiving others) into believing that reducing the numbers leads to abolition…”

So, “reducing the numbers” (“numbers” being Hunter’s inhuman term for children) of those slaughtered by abortion doesn’t necessarily equate to abolishing abortion, in Hunter’s opinion, even though for those kids abortion was obviously abolished.

Hunter’s opinion is grossly uninformed, I might add, since Hunter admitted during the debate (at 1:35:26) he hadn’t read the foremost statistical study listing specific “numbers” saved by incremental legislation. So how does he know?

1970609_10203352839766237_395429064_nIt appears the only AHA-sanctioned way to pull children from the branches of abortion during the time between wanting the “immediate abolition of human abortion” and actually abolishing it is protesting at abortion clinics, as Hunter wrote in another comment:

Abolitionists are going into the fields to save as many as we can and change as many minds as we can while we call for the total and immediate abolition of human abortion. We go out to the killing fields to rescue children because we are not just sitting at home and supporting the incremental schemes of politicians and lobbyists who write laws specifying which of the children in the field must be protected now and which in the field must be protected later.

Nice to “call for the total and immediate abolition of human abortion,” but what’s the plan? How many of the 738 remaining abortion clinics in the U.S. (from a high of 2,176, no thanks to AHA) does AHA cover on a daily basis? One? Two? Five?

It would be great if there were fewer to cover, right? No. AHA fights regulations to close those clinics, even though Hunter admitted in the debate (at 1:27:56) he didn’t think William Wilberforce was immoral to regulate slave ships for the same reason.

AHA also fights legislation that would keep pregnant mothers from going to abortion mills in the first place, such as informed consent, parental notification, waiting periods, and abortion bans.

It’s crazy. But what’s crazier is this: Hunter launched his fight against pro-life incrementalism with no immediate and functional plan of his own in place to replace the plan he was seeking to destroy.  Hunter posted this on his Facebook page yesterday, infuriating me even more. Click to enlarge…


So Hunter knew when he launched AHA in 2011 immediatism would take “a long time,” and there would be “a long period in which it was impracticable.” But he had no safety net prepared for the children from whom he would go on to rashly attempt to remove protections. He had no immediate and workable plan in place to save the children he was pulling the rug out from under.

To this day, four years later, AHA has no cohesive, wide-ranging plan to save these kids.

Did Hunter “think it through”? Clearly not.

All one can conclude is Hunter would prefer that these children die rather than be saved in a way in which he disapproves.

And mock those standing in a gap he is too small to stand in…

Confession: In some things, I am incrementalist. Posted by T. Russell Hunter on Tuesday, 5 May 2015

It’s all just so funny, isn’t it?

Steve at the Triablogue blog nailed it yesterday:

It’s risky for AHA to level the charge of “methodological moral relativism,” for that’s apt to boomerang. AHA mortgages the lives of babies here and now in the hopes of saving every baby’s life in the future – except for all the babies they sacrifice in the interim in the furtherance of their long-range goal. What’s that if not ruthlessly “pragmatic” and methodologically “relativistic”?

Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
Part IV: Straw men and the Bible
Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
Jonathan Van Maren: Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate

Pro-life blog buzz 5-5-15

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • Culture Campaign comments on self-professed Satanist name “Mary” who claims the Missouri waiting period is preventing her from exercising her religious belief “that her body is subject to her will alone.” (I wonder how they square this with other laws in society which restrict individual rights.) Of course, Mary and the Satanists have the full support of abortion advocates. A fund has been established so “Mary” can have an abortion ASAP at the only remaining abortion clinic in MO, Planned Parenthood of St. Louis – which is not exactly known for it’s great track record on safety.
  • [Read the rest of this entry...]

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part IV: Straw men and the Bible

1010893_636469939752357_1169770429_nAbolish Human Abortion followers love to use the term “straw man” to dismiss pro-life arguments that point out their inconsistencies.

(For example, during their recent “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate, AHA’s T. Russell Hunter called it a “very, very silly straw man” when Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham challenged Hunter for saying he would let a secularist save the life of his 2-year-old but not let a secularist help him save the lives of children marked for abortion [beginning at 1:20:20 on the video].)

So today let’s talk about straw men.

[Read the rest of this entry...]

Pro-life vid of day: Post-abortive mother helps to save a life

by Hans Johnson

A moving encounter occurred last Friday at the Founder’s Women’s Health Center in Columbus, Ohio. A woman passing by saw displayed images of abortion victims and felt compelled to stop and relate her awful experience from 30 years before. When a couple who had previously been counseled exited the clinic and sat in their car, the woman went over and told them her story as well.

As she left, she encouraged the Created Equal members: “If one mother hears you, you did a good job!” She did a good job as well. The couple accompanied a counselor to a pregnancy resource center nearby, and later cancelled the abortion appointment.

YouTube Preview Image

Email with your video suggestions.

Columnist: Christians are at risk of “adapting” to accept abortion

effersonby Kelli

… [W]hen Christians take offense at the suggestion that deeply held religious beliefs must change so that women can access abortion, they may be failing to appreciate the tenuous nature of their pro-life hegemony. Not only is [Hillary] Clinton’s suggestion not absurd, recent history tells us it’s completely plausible….

Ten years ago, the same-sex marriage debate was a non-starter issue among Christians. Today we have Christians openly supporting gay marriage, and some even arguing homosexuality isn’t a sin. Again, this is significant, and this didn’t happen in a vacuum. As the culture continues to move to the Left, certain numbers of evangelicals will adapt and move Left with it. All that has to happen to syphon off Christians to the pro-abortion cause is more of the same — open hostility for any Christian espousing the stance that life begins at conception and aborting that life is murder….

Hillary Clinton’s suggestion to the Women in the World audience has caused a strong counter-reaction among evangelicals, and there is incredible value in this. It helps reinforce what the deeply religious, pro-life movement believes, and it unites them against a common cause.

My hope is that profoundly religious people will recognize what candidate Clinton’s suggestion portends. My fear is that the profoundly religious will acquiesce, because they have done so before.

~ A.D.P. Efferson (pictured), The Federalist, May 4

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter

7067987283_3bb744093cAs I start, I’d like to reiterate why I’m pursuing this multi-part analysis of the “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate between Abolish Human Abortion’s T. Russell Hunter and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham.

In a comment to my Part II post, an antagonized Hunter called my efforts a “freaked out obsession,” to which I responded:

[Read the rest of this entry...]

Pro-life vid of day: Welcome to the Pro-Life Future

by Kelli

Students for Life is promoting a new division of their organization – Pro-Life Future – which is for “young, pro-life adults and Students for Life alumni.” They state that their mission is “to mobilize communities to abolish abortion in our lifetime.” To start a chapter, visit their website at

YouTube Preview Image

Email with your video suggestions.

Questions surround artist Frida Kahlo’s “El Aborto” lithograph

frida-kahlo-untitled-installby Carder

Kahlo depicted herself mourning with tears rolling down her cheeks. At the bottom left, she drew a healthy fetus attached to her by an umbilical cord, suggesting her unfulfilled role as a mother. On the right, an arm holding a heart-shaped palette for paint emerges from behind her body, as if to assert her role as an artist.

~ The Detroit Institute of Arts gallery description of a lithograph by artist Frida Kahlo usually referred to as “El Aborto”, Hyperallergic, April 29

Stanek Sunday funnies 5-3-15

Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!

beginning with a twofer by Chip Bok at

[Read the rest of this entry...]

Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.

Read Jill's full bio »
What the Media says »

by Kelli

Screen Shot 2015-05-06 at 12.46.20 PM

Today, we point to abolition as proof that we can improve society by eliminating one glaring evil. This is what unites “new abolitionists” across the political spectrum, whether they’re working to end the death penalty or ban abortion. We like the idea of sweeping change, of an idealistic movement triumphing over something so clearly wrong.

The problem is, that’s not really how slavery ended. Those upright, moral, prewar abolitionists did not succeed. Neither did the stiff-necked Southern radicals who ended up destroying the institution they went to war to maintain. It was the flexibility of the Northern moderates, those flip-floppers who voted against abolition before they voted for it, who really ended 250 years of slavery.

~ John Grinspan, New York Times Opinionator, January 30

[HT: Eric Scheidler; photo via]

Leave a Comment
Stanek Top 20
Weekly Poll