pro-life blog buzz and pro-life newsby Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email

  • At Life Training Institute, Clinton Wilcox addresses the controversy surrounding Marco Rubio’s recent assertion that life at conception is “settled science.” The Washington Post decided to do a “fact check” on Rubio’s claim – or did they? Wilcox writes:
    In order to “look at the science” on the abortion issue, Philip Bump, the author of the Washington Post article, reached out to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This was the statement they returned to him: “Government agencies and American medical organizations agree that the scientific definition of pregnancy and the legal definition of pregnancy are the same: pregnancy begins upon the implantation of a fertilized egg into the lining of a woman’s uterus. This typically takes place, if at all, between 5 and 9 days after fertilization of the egg — which itself can take place over the course of several days following sexual intercourse.”

conception when human life begins and pregnancy

      Now I don’t know what question Bump used to ask regarding this. But notice that ACOG

didn’t answer the question

    … because ACOG is a pro-abortion organization. So they have a vested interest in using flowery language, such as when pregnancy beings, to muddy the waters so that they don’t give the impression to the general American public that they are supporting the deaths of unborn human children. They were being purposefully vague and misleading.

I have no problem with the definition of pregnancy beginning at implantation. But even if this is the case, that doesn’t prove that the unborn are not human before that point. There is nothing about the act of implanting in the womb that would suddenly bestow humanity to the unborn child. But even if we take the ACOG’s statement, this would still show that since pregnancy begins roughly a week after fertilization, all abortions past that point do, in fact, kill a human being.

  • Clinic Quotes shares an interesting excerpt from an obstetrics and gynecology textbook published prior to Roe v. Wade. Seems like the pro-choice movement has taken the idea to heart:
    Through public conditioning, use of language, concepts and laws, the idea of abortion can be separated from the idea of killing.
  • Judie Brown discusses birth control and why the Pill “is sinful and destroys marriage, families, the bodies of women, and the lives of preborn babies prior to implantation in the wombs of their mothers.”
  • Josh Brahm shares the news that his good friend, Deanna, has converted to the pro-life viewpoint:
    Deanna would tell you that two things were necessary conditions for her conversion: rigorous philosophical arguments and a loving friendship with someone on the other side. The intellectual arguments were very important. I haven’t written very much about our initial email exchanges yet, but we got very philosophical, going back and forth on issues like bodily rights arguments, rape, the concept of intrinsic human value, concepts of harm and taking away the dignity of people in temporary comas, moral objectivism, utilitarianism, stem cell research, the “after-birth abortion” paper, and the use of graphic pictures.Josh and Deanna are also willing to speak at events together, detailing their relationship and their conversations, which led her to change her position on life.


  • At Live Action, Ashley Herzog gives her thoughts on DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s controversial (and frankly, anti-woman) comments regarding forced abortions:
    Following a high-profile case in which a Florida man, John Andrew Welden, slipped his girlfriend the abortion pill, the Florida legislature passed a bill criminalizing such behavior. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a so-called feminist, attacked the legislation as a waste of time.

“Florida Republican lawmakers have wasted taxpayers time and money by passing these extreme bills that further limit women’s reproductive rights. It is senseless and it’s wrong,” said Wasserman Schultz.

Since when did being “pro-choice” include supporting the “choice” of men to force an abortion upon unwilling women?…

How is a man forcing a woman to have an abortion different from forcing a woman to have sex with him?

[Photos via and Live Action]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...