Carve a pro-life pumpkin this Halloween

UPDATE, 12:18a: Here's a template for the pro-life pumpkin pictured below, courtesy of American Life League.
_______________

American Life League pro-life pumpkin abortion Halloween.jpg

American Life League has a boo-tiful idea: Carve a pro-life pumpkin this Halloween. I don't know why someone didn't think of this before. Explains ALL...

Halloween activism Idea - Pro-Life Pumpkins - Spread the message of life on October 31st by making pro-life Jack-O-Lanterns.

There are many opportunities to be a voice for the voiceless, and most of those opportunities require us to go someplace public.

But, on the eve of All Saints Day... the public comes to us!

So make a pro-life Jack-O-Lantern and send your photos to us. Be sure to include your name, age and address in the e-mail, and we'll post the best ones on our homepage!

It doesn't have to be anything fancy. It could be as intricate as the design here or as simple as the word "Pro-Life." Whatever your skill level, be creative and tell the world about the personhood of preborn babies!

Send your pro-life Jack-O-Lantern pictures to prolifepumpkin@all.org.


Comments:

Oh this is gorgeous. We don't do pumpkins or Halloween down under though.

Posted by: Therese at October 20, 2009 5:58 AM


Therese,

There are some in the States that don't do Halloween either.

Great job on the pumpkin carving! Wow!

Posted by: Marie at October 20, 2009 6:55 AM


When Rush Limbaugh had his TV show someone did a pumpkin carving with his likeness.

That probably scared liberals 'witless'.

It wouldn't take much, they were already pretty close to the empty mark.

What is the difference between B.O. and God?

The lame scream media does not believe in God?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 20, 2009 7:19 AM


Heaven forbid pro-aborts decide to counter this with pro-choice pumpkins. What the hell would THEY look like? Genitals? Sex toys? Contraception? They have not one image to move a person toward their side that doesn't assault one's sensibilities.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at October 20, 2009 8:54 AM


They have not one image to move a person toward their side that doesn't assault one's sensibilities.
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at October 20, 2009 8:54 AM

Well, we do have the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court. Pretty good images, but hard to fit on a pumpkin.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2009 8:58 AM


My friend Mike at ALL posted this yesterday. He made it a couple of years ago. I'm happy to see it's getting a lot of attention. Great job Mike.

Posted by: Kathie Ghormley at October 20, 2009 9:11 AM


Nobody can look at the Constitution and be moved by it. You have to READ it. Besides, when have you ever seen a Pro-Choice education-booth with a visible Constitution on display?

NEVER! Because those inventions that pro-aborts hold so dearly aren't in the Constitution -- right to privacy, right to choice, right to uninhibited sex.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at October 20, 2009 9:32 AM


Wow, I never even would have thought of doing a pro-life pumpkin. How creative! I love the pictured jack-o-lantern, by the way. Beautiful.

I could do one in honor of my unborn son (we hit 25 weeks yesterday, yay!). :-)

Posted by: army_wife at October 20, 2009 9:34 AM


Cranky Catholic, great response!

I've carved a monstrance on a pumpkin before for Halloween. We have All Saint's Parties instead of trick or treating or when we do go out, we don't get into all the ghoul stuff.

Posted by: angel at October 20, 2009 10:05 AM


Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2009 8:58 AM

"Well, we do have the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court. Pretty good images, but hard to fit on a pumpkin."

--------------------------------------------------

HAL,

I will agree some of the activist justices on the scotus reflect your humanistic relativistic approach to understanding the the constitution.

But you do not have the constitution.

All you have is a dicitioanary whose definitions ebb and flow with public opinion and a vivid imagination.

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at October 20, 2009 11:23 AM


Ken (and Cranky Catholic), I wouldn't want to live in a country without the right to privacy. I doubt you would either.

While we can debate whether abortion falls within that right, I don't see as debatable the ideas that one of fundamental principles of freedom that we enjoy as Americans includes the right do do as we please in our personal lives if we don't impact on the rights of others.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2009 11:51 AM


I'll gladly give up my right to privacy if 50 million preborn babies are allowed to live.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at October 20, 2009 12:18 PM


Cranky, you don't have to do that. Your argument works within the framework of the right to privacy, since "the abortion does effect the rights of other people, to wit, the baby."

however, the preborn babies doen't get to live just because the government tries to prohibit abortion again. Some do, perhaps, but definitely not al.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2009 12:33 PM


If you want to talk about founding documents, let's use the Declaration of Independence. I especially like this part:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Posted by: Randy at October 20, 2009 1:48 PM


Randy,
Of course, we know that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are listed in ascending order of importance, and abortion falls under the "pursuit of happiness"....... :-(

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2009 1:52 PM


Aaaaannnnnddddd ... Here's the pro-abort response:

http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/10/pro-life-pumpkin.html

Posted by: Mike at October 20, 2009 3:32 PM


Mike,
The pumpkin is beautiful!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 20, 2009 4:51 PM


Mike,

After viewing the pro-life pumpkin, Anonymous quite predictably says:

"I wonder if they bothered to carve a supporting the child-making sure mother/child have after birth healthcare-adequate food/shelter/housing/safe environment pumpkin? Anyone? Bueller? "

In my estimation, that would be a Women's Pregnancy Center pumpkin. I'm sure we could come up with a nice design for that.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2009 9:57 PM


Wasn't that just a brilliant argument that REALLY addresses the issue, Janet? I especially liked Anonymous' final line, which you wisely left off your quote.

Hear talking point. Do not question talking point. Mindlessly repeat talking point. End with some curse words.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 20, 2009 10:08 PM


Yep, Bobby. Can't beat that.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2009 10:24 PM


You know, it's not a very flattering pro-choice argument to insist that pro-lifers should be solely responsible for caring for children and mothers in crisis. That argument is essentially admitting selfishness: "Well, since we would prefer to just kill the thing and wash our hands of the situation, then I suppose it's on you guys to provide the diapers and food and housing and all that lovey dovey ongoing care stuff. So ha." And one merely has to point out the sheer number of pregnancy centers to prove that a solid effort to do just that is already in the works. So yep, keep graciously offering to kill the unborn for a dollar amount and we'll keep doing the actual work on a volunteer basis. And do please continue to bring it up, and let me know how that "pro-lifers don't really care!" argument works out.

Posted by: Janette at October 21, 2009 1:18 PM


It is amazing how many men in this world think that they should have a say in whether or not women should be able to have abortions. I, for one, would never have an abortion. However I feel that the same men who rape our women, or won't take no for an answer, or abuse women to the point that women have no choice but to do what is asked of them, . . . should NEVER have a say as to what is done when they abuse their rights! I do understand that you may NOT be those men, but you must understand that the women who are posting on here are NOT those women either. What you all need to do is put your focus on helping to educate the children that ARE BORN INTO THIS KIND OF LIFE that they do not have to FOLLOW IN THAT DIRECTION, rather than preaching to each other in your perfect little worlds about how this should not be done! Where are your efforts getting you?

Please get your heads out of your butts, and try making a difference where it counts!!!

Posted by: Jessica at October 21, 2009 1:19 PM


Jessica,

You said: "However I feel that the same men who rape our women, or won't take no for an answer, or abuse women to the point that women have no choice but to do what is asked of them, . . . should NEVER have a say as to what is done when they abuse their rights!"

The men you just described are engaging in criminal acts that carry penalties, including losing many of their rights. No one here advocates the rights of rapists and abusers over the rights of their victims - that's why we seek to keep their actions illegal and punished.

"I do understand that you may NOT be those men, but you must understand that the women who are posting on here are NOT those women either."

You proport to know that no woman here has ever been raped, abused or coerced by a man? Please tell me how you reached that conclusion.

"What you all need to do is put your focus on helping to educate the children that ARE BORN INTO THIS KIND OF LIFE that they do not have to FOLLOW IN THAT DIRECTION, rather than preaching to each other in your perfect little worlds about how this should not be done!"

You mean like teaching children appropriate sexual behavior and donating our resources to provide diapers, food, housing, medical care, etc to these families? No worries, we're already all over that, and it'd be great if you'd like to contribute, as well. You obviously feel very comfortable preaching to us, so why are you entitled to "preach" while you demand that we stop? And what leads you to believe that we live in "perfect little worlds"?

"Where are your efforts getting you?"

Our efforts are providing women with a better choice than abortion. You like choice, right?

"Please get your heads out of your butts, and try making a difference where it counts!!!"

My head is not in my butt, thanks. I've already provided a couple examples of how we strive to make a difference. Do you have any additional suggestions for how we can help?

Posted by: Janette at October 21, 2009 1:54 PM


HI Jessica.

There are many problems with your thinking.

"It is amazing how many men in this world think that they should have a say in whether or not women should be able to have abortions."

This is not an argument for several reasons. First of all, it addresses nothing the pro-lifer says. It is an ad hominem attack on the PERSON making the argument rather than the argument itself. How does it follow that because a man makes an argument that the unborn are human beings that the unborn may be killed? Any argument that I give can be given word for word by Bethany, Jill, Janet, Carla, and other women on this website who have been pregnant.

Second, if a man can not say whether or not a woman can have an abortion, then a woman should never be able to circumcise her son. For she is not a man! She has never had a penis, so who is she to decide what happens in regards to the MAN issue of circumcision?

Finally, your argument actually works against your cause. This is because if abortion is really a woman's issue, then a woman should have no say in it because she is too emotionally and personally involved. Better that a man, who is an objective third party, make the decision about whether or not a woman should have an abortion. A man can look at the situation calmly and rationally without emotional attachment which the woman can not. So for the best results, if you consider abortion only an issue for women, then a man should decide.

"What you all need to do is put your focus on helping to educate the children that ARE BORN INTO THIS KIND OF LIFE that they do not have to FOLLOW IN THAT DIRECTION, rather than preaching to each other in your perfect little worlds about how this should not be done!"

This argument begs the question. It assumes that the unborn are not human or not worthy of equal protection and rights like born humans. And what is wrong with fighting just for the unborn? Do you chastise those who devote their lives to curing breast cancer for ignoring prostate cancer, colon cancer, Alzheimers, diabetes, AIDS, etc. etc? Should we criticize "violence against women" campaigns because they ignore violence against men and children? Of course not. Your argument assumes the unborn are not valuable members of society, and THAT is the issue. If the unborn aren't human, have as many abortions as you want, the government should pay for it, and its nobodies business. But if they are human like you and me, don't they deserve the same rights and protection as you and me? God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 21, 2009 2:07 PM


To Janette: If an infant boy should be able to "decide" whether or not to have a circumcision, do you also say that infants should not be named until they choose their name? I mean really. Do you see infants having abortions against their will? No. That is impossible. They are hardly similar circumstances. I didn't say that the men and women posting on here ARE NOT, rather I said MAY NOT BE the same who are rapists ... or that the women on her HAVE NOT, but MAY NOT be the abused or raped. Please read more carefully! I did not ASSUME!

To Bobby: So you are saying that fathers (MEN) are not emotionally attached to their children. Well you just proved my point. Thank you! Not that I was saying that, because that is not what I believe. What I do believe is that a woman who has to actually go through the pregnancy, and worry about whether or not she will have what she needs for that baby, is HER responsibility and therefore should be SOLELY her decision. Men get away with not paying child support all the time. Sure, the "system" goes after them, but that could take centuries!!

And to all of you, . . . I am sure that you go around knocking on doors asking people if they have children that they didn't want to have but had anyway because they don't believe in or couldn't afford an abortion, and then proceed to buy them diapers, food and clothing for the rest of that child's life. PLEASE!

Posted by: Jessica at October 21, 2009 2:35 PM


Jessica,

"So you are saying that fathers (MEN) are not emotionally attached to their children. Well you just proved my point. Thank you!"

No, I proved MY point. I argued using reductio ad absurdum. I began with YOUR assumption that abortion is a woman's issue, and logically concluded that if abortion is indeed a woman's issue, then what I said follows i.e. that men should make the decisions regarding abortion. Now according to you, it also follows that men would not be emotionally attached to their children. I agree that it follows form YOUR assumption about abortion being a woman's issue. Great. We have reached an absurdity, which means that our initial assumption that abortion is a woman's issue is incorrect. So my point still stands.

"I am sure that you go around knocking on doors asking people if they have children that they didn't want to have but had anyway because they don't believe in or couldn't afford an abortion, and then proceed to buy them diapers, food and clothing for the rest of that child's life. PLEASE!"

Again, this is another ad hominum attack. Suppose not a single pro-lifer does a THING to help born children. How does it follow that killing an unborn human being is morally permissible? Suppose every single pro-lifer is the biggest hypocrite in the world. How does it follow that abortion is a moral decision? Again, you are avoiding the actual issue which is whether or not the unborn are human beings who should have the same rights as you or me. What is the unborn? That is the issue. If the unborn are not human, no justification for abortion is needed. If the unborn are human, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 21, 2009 3:12 PM


"If an infant boy should be able to "decide" whether or not to have a circumcision, do you also say that infants should not be named until they choose their name? I mean really. Do you see infants having abortions against their will? No. That is impossible. They are hardly similar circumstances."

Again, Jessica, you don't understand my argument. It is a proof by contradiction. It follows that if abortion is a woman's issue as you claim, then circumcision is a man's issue. But as you point out, it is absurd. So the assumption that abortion is a woman's issue is absurd. Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum if you are not familiar with this type of argument.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 21, 2009 3:17 PM


Jessica,

Bobby made the analogy regarding circumcision, so you need to address him on that issue. I will post your exact quote that you claim I failed to read carefully: "I do understand that you may NOT be those men, but you must understand that the women who are posting on here are NOT those women either." If you intended to say "may not" when referencing women, I suggest you post a clarification.

And no, of course we don't knock on doors and inquire about the circumstances and feelings surrounding the conception of one's children. We donate diapers, food and clothing to centers that women voluntarily visit for assistance. But what if we didn't? What if we didn't lift a finger or didn't donate a dime? How would that justify killing innocent human beings?

Additionally, if you were satisfied that we did provide the essentials to every single "unwanted" child for the rest of his/her life, would you then join us in abolishing abortion?

Posted by: Janette at October 21, 2009 3:17 PM


NO I will NEVER tell a woman that she MUST have a baby, . . . and I think that you all need to check you facts on your ABSURD methods of arguing, . . . In formal logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is an argument to refute a proposition (or set of propositions), by showing that it leads to a logically absurd consequences. To you they are absurd consequences, to me they are not. YOUR silly false counterclaims are absurd to both you and I, . . . you are using this improperly.

Posted by: Jessica at October 21, 2009 3:39 PM


"To you they are absurd consequences, to me they are not. YOUR silly false counterclaims are absurd to both you and I, . . . you are using this improperly."

WHAT? You ADMITTED above that they are absurd consequences! You said yourself that it isn't right that a father is emotionally detached from his child.

I am definitely not using this incorrectly, Jessica. I'm not going to talk about my training in logic but I certainly have the expertise to know how a proof by contradiction works and that I am using it properly.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 21, 2009 3:53 PM


"NO I will NEVER tell a woman that she MUST have a baby"

If you're going to support abortion regardless of assistance provided to women/children, then it is disingenuous of you to reference our inability to assist every single child as a reason why you believe abortion is necessary.

I will also never tell a woman that she must have a baby. But I will tell anyone that they cannot intentionally kill an innocent human being. You have yet to acknowledge what the unborn actually are: human beings. As Bobby has pointed out, the issue is whether or not the unborn are human beings with the same rights that we enjoy.

Posted by: Janette at October 21, 2009 8:20 PM


"NO I will NEVER tell a woman that she MUST have a baby"

Would you also say:

"NO I will NEVER tell a woman that she MUST feed her child." (?)

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2009 10:23 PM


Jessica, hi. Why would you never consider an abortion for yourself?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 23, 2009 10:32 PM


I know this comment was made awhile ago, so bear with me. It was too silly not to address.
"Heaven forbid pro-aborts decide to counter this with pro-choice pumpkins. What the hell would THEY look like? Genitals? Sex toys? Contraception? They have not one image to move a person toward their side that doesn't assault one's sensibilities."

Speaking as a pro-choicer, what the hell do dildos have to do with abortion? o_O I had friends who worked at Adult Mart during the election, and I can tell you this for free: sex toy use knows no political affiliation...
I was also just wondering how contraception and genitals are supposed to 'assault sensibilities'. Obviously I'm not going to plaster either onto a pumpkin (it's not even scary!), but I didn't realize that human anatomy was so offensive. Do you have a black square that you hold up in front of yours every time you are naked and in the vicinity of a mirror?
As for contraception, I know that the pill is considered an abortifacient by some (I definitely beg to differ), but what about condoms and non-chemical contraception? Can't we agree that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is to prevent pregnancy, at least in a non-chemical way for all y'all pill-haters?

Posted by: Hannah at October 27, 2009 7:25 AM