Save the Baby Humans

January 22, 2014 | 5 comments

Readers always ask writers, "Where do you get your ideas?" And it is not an easy question to answer. Sometimes a thought association sparks an idea. Other times I might read an opinion piece that gets me thinking about a subject. Common questions apologists are asked might provide a springboard. When I can think of nothing else, I rummage through old Q&As I have published on other cyber platforms and re-work them into a new blog post.

Then there are the times I glance at my calendar. 

Today is the forty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down state laws that illegalized abortion. To date, more than 55 million children have been legally aborted in the United States alone. Worldwide, since 1980, the number is over one billion. Yes, that is billion with a capital B, and is roughly equivalent to the current population of China.

I had to write about abortion today.

Trying to find an angle on the topic that I had not yet covered (you can find my previous blog posts here and here), I did some Googling. Up popped an article on, which proclaims itself to be the "largest online community for healthy and green living, human rights and animal welfare."

Titled "Protective" States? How Anti-Abortion Organizations Patronize and Infantilize Women, the article reads like an opinion piece, although it is not clearly labeled to be an op-ed. The gist of the piece is the author's outrage that pro-life organizations have the gall to seek protection for women from abuses by the abortion industry:

What is very different, and what should strike any person who believes that women, especially adult women, are capable of rational thought and their own decision making, is the different frames used depending on who wrote the report [on the state of abortion throughout the U.S.]. NARAL [Pro-Choice America]'s report is called "Who Decides," implying that it is up to the pregnant person—not a lawmaker, an anti-choice activist, or anyone else—to understand and obtain the best medical care to fit her situation.

AUL [Americans United for Life]? They call their report "Ranking the 50 States Based on How Well Women are Protected from Abortion Industry Abuses."

Protected? Really?

Calling women who terminate pregnancies "mothers" and declaring their bills "protections for both mother and child, the victims of an avaricious abortion industry," AUL makes it clear that, to them, a pregnant person cannot make a decision on her own. If she chooses an abortion, it was because she was taken advantage of, either by a greedy provider, a coercive partner, an overbearing parent or guardian.

Of course, it has been well-documented that women have been pressured, threatened with, and forced to have abortions. It very often seems that a woman's free choice when it comes to abortion is much the same as the choice in car color offered to Henry Ford's customers: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."
As annoying as the essay was, I did not think it blog-worthy in itself—that is until I scrolled to the bottom of the piece and found "Recommendations from" for similar pages visitors might like to view. There we find (as of the date and time I viewed the article) a logo for the wildlife protection charity Defenders of Wildlife, known primarily for its commitment to the protection of wolves, and the heart-rending plea that all who pass by this page "Click to Protect Threatened Wolves."

Michelle Arnold is a staff apologist at Catholic Answers.
Pro-Life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments
As politicians, citizens, and families continue the raging national debate on whether it's proper to end human life in the womb, resources like Randy Alcorn's Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments have proven invaluable.

Comments by Members

#1  Helen Hawkins - Hotchkiss, Colorado

I find the inconsistency of animal advocates thinking interesting. All one has to do is Google "baby kangaroos" and they will be able to see a born baby kangaroo. This baby kangaroo - equal to the size of a human embryo of the same age - has been born and has made the dangerous journey up and into its mother's pouch.

The "animal advocate" would be horrified if some one reached in the pouch and killed this baby kangaroo. But they still have no regard to a human baby of the same age and size.

January 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm PST
#2  Mike Wright - Rapid City, South Dakota

I left the Catholic church in 1979, I became a Christian in 1986. I find it rather strange that the church takes such a supposedly strong pro-life stance and then have 80-90% of the Catholics vote for Democrats. This is the party that voted at the last Democrat convention to remove the name of "God" from their platform. If you listen to the vote it is clearly in favor of getting rid of "God." The people on the stage then didn't know quite what to do and probably realized that this would be a disasterous stance to take. They then ruled against the motion and the amount of booing from the floor is sickening. But, Catholics continue to vote Democrat.

January 25, 2014 at 7:57 pm PST
#3  Henry Ashley - Alton, Illinois

Humans are not in danger of becoming extinct. Wolves are protected for the sake of biodiversity. If you remove a significant predator from the wile, those creatures which it would usually suppress the population of, will no longer be suppressed.

This is basic conservation. Biodiversity is useful. At the very least you could respect that God has created such a wonderful variety of creatures and we should not wipe them off the face of the planet. Humans are in no danger of disappearing any time soon.

Many animals we are literally having to protect with guns, because otherwise they *are* being destroyed completely.

January 26, 2014 at 5:34 pm PST
#4  Lewelyn Fidler - Lehi, Utah

Four Children born, I as their Father held all of then the moment they where born (sorry mom, you had them for 9 months my turn) I could never if the thought to Abort thees presouise children. Spirits from Our Father they are, I came from 9. My sister went full term with a "tumor" in her stomach for her daughter no medication to protect her child, Very smart and intelligent niece, 2 years collage and just barely 19!

With the advent of the medical and technical knowledge pregnancy are 99.999% preventable, all the way from abstinence to technology (hold just a wee bit) I did state Morality,

Abortion for critical issues I can agree with, Health (although I have seen mothers even sacrifice their own selves) Incest and Rape, choices mostly upon the mother/women own choices, she will be the one to carry the the issue with her, but most to others to be used for "birth Control" I sternly disagree, we all know hoe the process gets started and it is NOT by drinking the water....

February 11, 2014 at 2:15 am PST
#5  Tom Brogan - Point Boro., New Jersey

Henry, the fact that humans "aren't in danger of becoming extinct" does not give anyone the right to practise abortion, any more than it gives people the right to murder someone. You are correct that we should protect any animals in danger of becoming extinct, it would be a terrible loss to see a part of God's creation vanish forever.

However, it shows a remarkable sense of moral corruption when people wish to save animals and at the same time do not wish to save human life. To many of us, it would be like saying one does not give a dam(excuse my French) about what happens to the starving children in Africa, or those innocent people who are murdered in war. Human life is, in my opinion, by far the most glorious part of God's creation, and should not be treated as less dear than the animals because " humans are in no danger of becoming extinct any time soon"

If anyone can help with who this quote is by please let me know, but I will try to put it in my own words. "Man is the microcosm of the universe. He moves through the planets and plants, reacts and has feeling in the animals, has intelligence and imortality in the angels, and was made in the likeness of God Himself. I do not believe anything made in the very likeness of God should be killed by numbers THAT HAVE RECHED THE BILLIONS since the legalisation of abortion and then have their murder justified by saying they were unnecessary. It is not that we think they were necessary to keep the human race from extinction, but that they should never be made extinct themselves, the unborn are to precious for that.

I hope this clears up what Michelle meant when she criticised animals protection advocates.

July 16, 2014 at 5:21 am PST

You are not logged in. Login or register to leave a comment.