On April 25, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham debated Abolish Human Abortion’s T. Russell Hunter on the topic, “Pro-life Incrementalism vs. Abolitionist Immediatism.”

by Clinton Wilcox of Life Training Institute

On one hand, a favorite punching bag of T. Russell Hunter is pro-life fundraising.

On the other, Hunter’s group Abolish Human Abortion is incorporated, has a for-profit arm through which it sells t-shirts and other wares, and rents office space (see screen shot right; click to enlarge).

It was these contradictory positions Hunter had to balance in his April 25 debate against Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham.

Hunter contended (1:06:10 on the video) that one reason Christians aren’t actively involved in anti-abortion activism is because they donate money to pro-life organizations to do the work for them. (See also 1:14:24-1:16:26.)

by Clinton Wilcox of Life Training Institute

It is an honor to be able to contribute to Jill’s frankly devastating critique of T. Russell Hunter’s performance in his “Immediatist vs Incrementalist debate against Gregg Cunningham.

Late in the debate (timestamps 1:05:10 to 1:07:04), Hunter made the following claim: Christians are not practicing activism at abortion clinics because they don’t trust in the power of God, they trust in incremental legislation.

During cross-examination  (timestamps 1:41:32 to 1:44:56), Hunter made the same accusation, adding pastors and churches, and asked if Cunningham agreed.

Cunningham rebutted that while he agreed churches aren’t doing enough to combat abortion, it is not the fault of incremental legislation. Incremental legislation is a good thing.

Rather, Cunnngham observed:

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

• American Life League’s Judie Brown contrasts the indifference toward the slaughter of 3,000 humans daily by abortion in America to the outcry over the euthanasia of an Ebola patient’s dog in Spain. Brown is a dog lover, but even she was shocked at the huge response to save the life of one animal:
  

  Here is the first sentence of a news report that came to my attention recently: “With more than 3,400 people dead in west Africa and 7,500 infected in the latest Ebola outbreak, 300,000 people sign a petition demanding action… to save an infected dog.” This was twice as many people as those who signed a petition demanding a cure be found for the deadly virus….

  As it turns out, the dog was “put down” Wednesday by Madrid’s regional government. But the fact of the matter is that the plight of this one pet generated more interest and involvement than a single preborn child threatened and then killed by the act of abortion.

  There is something dramatically wrong with this picture.

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

• A Culture of Life says another study from India – that makes 12 now, from that nation alone – shows a “very strong link between abortion between abortion and breast cancer:
  

  The average “odds ratio” of developing breast cancer in each of the studies was at least 1. But the average “odds ratio” for all 12 studies came out at 5.54. [Steven] Mosher [of the Population Research Institute] explains that this means a woman has “a 554% increased risk of developing breast cancer” if she has had an induced abortion….Mosher points out that India is a great place to do this sort of study as the women “marry early, do not use the pill, have multiple pregnancies, and breastfeed their babies. In other words, all of the other major risk factors for breast cancer are… absent.”

by Kelli

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

• 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.”

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

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

• The Guiding Star Project points out how “reproductive healthcare” for women is actually biased against helping women who wish to reproduce:
  

  Let me take a pause for a moment, I am not agreeing that abortion should be considered “healthcare”, but I want to talk about other facets of healthcare for women. Why do I (and others like me) have to pay high premiums to find out why I can’t achieve a healthy and normal pregnancy?If it is an equal right for a woman to terminate a healthy, or even an unhealthy pregnancy (for her or the baby), paid for by taxpayers or her insurance, why do I have to pay all costs trying to find out what is wrong with my body?

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com. Pro-Life Action League continues to comb over the details that Planned Parenthood would rather keep hidden about the death of 24-year-old Tonya Reaves […]