1996
Human Life Alliance of Minnesota Education Fund Inc. Advertising Supplement
The
of the Matter
The special love between a mother and baby comes straight from the heart.
This supplement has been prepared and copyrighted by Human Life Alliance of Minnesota, Inc., 3570 Lexington Avenue North, Suite 301 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55126 - (612) 484-1040.
Dear Reader:
If you're in a crisis pregnancy, or know someone who is, please be assured that we understand the emotional trauma you are going through—the doubts, the fears, the sense of shame and frustration. We know the agonizing decisions you face and the pressures you feel.
At first blush, opting for an abortion probably sounds like the "quick-fix" solution to your problem. You need to be advised, as this supplement does in numerous articles, that abortion is not in your best interest. Those who have been telling you that it's a "women's rights" issue have been withholding critical information from you.
Actually, if you are subjecting yourself to the possible after-effects of abortion, as outlined on page eleven; or putting yourself in the position of being the anguished mother pouring out her heart from personal experience (also page eleven); or making yourself two to four times more prone to breast cancer (documented by recent research), shouldn't people who claim to be for women be warning you of these consequences?
Perhaps abortion isn't about women's rights after all! What then, or whom, is it about? The answer can be found within these pages.
For instance, isn't it exciting to discover, as Dr. Jerome Lejeune points out
on page four that the miniaturized language mapping out the new baby at the time of fertilization contains more information about him/her than can be stored in five sets (not volumes) of Encyclopedia Britannica?
It is our hope that in reading this supplement and relating to the preborn child you will be convinced that abortion, besides not being in your best interest, is indeed an unjust, inhumane and irreversible destruction of an innocent human life. There are alternatives to such a drastic measure!
Is carrying your baby to term a manageable decision? Yes it is! Please refer to page five to realize the number of people and organizations ready and eager to help you. Don't hesitate to call on them, whatever your needs. The support is there to see you through your crisis pregnancy - and beyond!
Remember the decision you make will affect you for the rest of your life. Don't let anyone pressure you into a quick decision! We don't pretend to have an easy solution - but a just, manageable, rewarding one, one which you will not regret: continued life for your baby!
Marlene Reid, President Human Life Alliance of Minnesota
The War of Words
Claim: Abortion is legal, therefore, it must be right.
Answer: If child abuse were suddenly declared legal by the U.S. Supreme Court, would that make it right? Would we ignore such an injustice and do nothing to protect the children?
Claim: I have the right to "choose" to abort my baby - a woman's "right to choose!" Answer: How can anyone have the right to choose to kill another individual? The only "choice" in abortion is between a dead baby or a live baby. Furthermore, the advocates who defend the "choice" to abort, resulting in a dead baby, are not consistent. Why is it only in the case of abortion they argue that "choice" should be legal and absolute? Using the same rationale, shouldn't people have the right to "choose" to use drugs ("It's my body") or the right to "choose" to practice prostitution? Should our society allow a person to "choose" to kill another person (or have that person killed) to solve the first person's problem?
Claim: The government should not interfere with a woman's "right" to abortion.
Answer: Our Declaration of Independence declares that we have an "inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Thomas Jefferson defined government's role, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Pres. Reagan, a defender of the human and civil rights of the preborn, called it "the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning." (Without life, taxation, health-care etc. are immaterial).
Claim: If public money (tax money) is not available to pay for abortions "poor" women will be denied access to abortion. They will be discriminated against.
Answer: Are we obligated to provide cigarettes and alcohol to poor people if they cannot afford them? On the contrary, government is very explicit about which items may be purchased with food stamps. Is this considered discrimination? The same people who argue for "public" subsidies for abortions are the same ones who argue that it is a "private" decision. To quote Congressman Henry Hyde, "We have a "right" of free speech. Does this mean the government has to buy us a personal computer? A typewriter? A megaphone?"
Claim: I am personally opposed to abortion, but I would not interfere with another's right to have an abortion nor impose my morality on others.
Answer: Analogy -- if the abolitionists had bought this line of reasoning regarding the slavery issue, some states could still be saddled with slavery today. Every law ever passed sets standards which reflect someone's (or a body of law-makers') morality.
Claim: You want to ban women's "constitutional right" to abortion.
Answer: This is a "spurious" or false "right"- having no basis in the constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court claims to have discovered a "privacy" right in the "penumbra" of the Constitution ("penumbra" definition: a partly lighted area around an area of full shadow). Court decisions (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) are aberrations (deviations from truth) and do nothing more than grant temporary license to kill children in the womb, the most dangerous place of residence. This license is tenuous and could be over-ridden by reversal or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, to guarantee the permanent freedom of the slaves and establish rights for all U.S."persons" the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed. It states, "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." (emphasis added). In Roe v. Wade the Court determined that unborn children are not "persons" even though they have the right to inherit property and many other rights. Some states have entire sections of law outlining Crimes Against Unborn Children in which they, from conception on, are protected from negligent or willful harm or death.
Claim: If legal abortions are banned, women will resort to back alley abortions.
Answer: In 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, a total of 39 women died from illegal abortions, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Former abortion provider Carol Everett states "In the last 18 months I was in the business, we were completing 500 abortions [legal: 1982-83] monthly and killing or maintaining one woman out of 500" (p.10). If the numbers are this astounding for her four Texas clinics, it doesn't take an expert mathematician to figure out that the number of casualties happening nationwide at the over 2200 supposedly "safe" abortuaries would be in the high hundreds.
Claim: Abortion should be legal to end a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Answer: It is important to remember that the child conceived in rape, or incest, is no less human than any other child. David Reardon's article, (page 8) points out that the very worst solution that can be offered to the pregnant woman at this crisis time in her life is an abortion. Abortion compounds the problem! If a small child were killed in the street by a negligent driver and it was later determined that the child had been conceived in rape, would the driver be held less responsible? Is that child's death less tragic?