HELPFUL RESOURCES TO DEFEND PRO-LIFE!
The SLED method:
The SLED questions are an excellent way to defend pro-life.
ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT ABORTION
IT’S NOT A BABY, IT’S JUST A BLOB OF CELLS.
False! Babies develop incredibly quickly inside the womb. By the time a woman even finds out that she is pregnant (usually 3 or 4 weeks from conception), her baby’s heart is already beating. We now have the technology to see babies inside the womb. The abortion industry promotes this “just a blob of cells” lie well into the pregnancy, because it is much easier if a woman getting an abortion doesn’t know that her baby is in fact, a baby.
IT SHOULD BE A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. IT’S HER BODY.
There is no question that a woman should have free choice and full control over her own body. The question is, is she choosing for only herself or is there another individual affected by her choice?
Abortion hurts women. Women are not properly informed on the harmful side-effects of abortion. There are serious physical risks associated with abortion, including not being able to become pregnant again. Many women also suffer emotionally after an abortion.
WOMEN WILL DIE OF UNSAFE BACK-ALLEY ABORTIONS IF WE MAKE IT ILLEGAL.
This is a myth concocted by the abortion industry. Before it’s legalization in 1969, most abortions were performed in doctor’s offices by physicians. Dr. Bernard Nathansan, the cofounder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), admits that he and other abortion industry leaders invented figures to make the claim that “Thousands of women are dying annually from unsafe abortions.” They did this in order to win public sympathy for legalization.
WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE MOTHER’S LIFE IS AT RISK?
It’s important to remember that there are two lives at stake: the life of the mother and the life of the baby. Everything should be done to try and save both lives. In tragic situations where it is not possible to save both lives, there is no ‘good’ outcome. These situations need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the best decision be made for both individuals: mother and baby.
ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IF THE BABY HAS A DISABILITY OR MEDICAL PROBLEM AND WOULDN’T HAVE A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE.
Who are we to make that call? People with disabilities or medical issues are no less human, or less valuable than everyone else.
Many times diagnoses have been wrong, and women who were advised to abort give birth to perfectly healthy babies.
A WOMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE ABORTION IN THE CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST.
Rape is a horrific act of violence against a woman and the rapist should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. However, abortion does not ‘un-rape’ a women, it just adds more violence to an already violent act. If a child is conceived through rape, that child is innocent and shouldn’t be punished for the crime of his/her father. Less than 1% of abortions are in the instances of rape or incest.
ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT EUTHANASIA
DOESN’T EUTHANASIA ENSURE A DIGNIFIED DEATH?
“Death with dignity” has become a catch phrase used by euthanasia activists, but there’s nothing dignified about the methods they advocate. For example, one euthanasia organization distributes a pamphlet on how to cause suffocation with a plastic bag. Most of Jack Kevorkian’s “subjects,” as he calls them, have been gassed to death with carbon monoxide and some have had their bodies dumped in vehicles left in parking lots.
ISN’T EUTHANASIA SOMETIMES THE ONLY WAY TO RELIEVE EXCRUTIATING PAIN?
Quite the contrary. According to Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the number one reason someone asks for assisted suicide is existential distress, not uncontrollable pain. The activists exploit the natural fear people have of suffering and dying, and often imply that when cure is no longer likely, there are only two alternatives: euthanasia or unbearable pain. For example, an official of Choice in Dying, a right-to-die organization, said refusing to permit euthanasia “would, in fact, be to abandon the patient to a horrifying death.” Such an irresponsible statement fails to note that virtually all pain can be eliminated and that — in those rare cases where it can’t be eliminated — it can still be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. It is a national and international scandal that so many people do not get adequate pain control.
But killing is not the answer to that scandal. The solution is to mandate better education of health care professionals on these crucial issues, to expand access to health care, and to inform patients about their rights as consumers. Everyone — whether it be a person with a life-threatening illness or a chronic condition — has the right to pain relief. With modern advances in pain control, no patient should ever be in excruciating pain. However, most doctors have never had a course in pain management so they’re unaware of what to do. If a patient who is under a doctor’s care is in excruciating pain, there’s definitely a need to find a different doctor. But that doctor should be one who will control the pain, not one who will kill the patient. There are board certified specialists in pain management who will not only help alleviate physical pain but are skilled in providing necessary support to deal with emotional suffering and depression that often accompanies physical pain.
IF DEATH IS INEVITABLE, SHOULDN’T A PERSON WHO IS DYING AND WANTS TO COMMIT SUICIDE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO?
It’s really important to understand that suicide in a person who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness is no different than suicide for someone who is not considered terminally ill. Depression, family conflict, feelings of abandonment, hopelessness, etc. lead to suicide — regardless of one’s physical condition. Studies have shown that if pain and depression are adequately treated in a dying person — as they would be in a suicidal non-dying person — the desire to commit suicide evaporates. Suicide among the terminally ill, like suicide among the population in general, is a tragic event that cuts short the life of the victim and leaves devastated survivors.
WITH LEGALIZED EUTHANASIA, WOULDN’T PATIENTS DIE PEACEFULLY INSTEAD OF VIOLENTLY?
No. Campaigners for euthanasia often say that, but it’s not true. In places where laws were passed to allow euthanasia, it was clear that legalizing euthanasia only legitimizes the use of plastic bags and carbon monoxide to kill vulnerable people.
For example, immediately following the passage of Oregon’s Measure 16, those who had said that it would enable people to die peacefully with pills did an immediate about face and admitted that it would permit the types of activities carried out by Jack Kevorkian, including a plastic bag to ensure death after taking pills.
In Australia’s Northern Territory, proponents of euthanasia painted pictures of a calm, peaceful death with the patient surround by loved ones. However, family members were warned to leave the room when the patient was being killed because the lethal injections often cause violent convulsions and muscle spasms, which was very unpleasant to observe.
A particularly chilling method of ending a patient’s life was proposed by Dr. Philip Nitschke, a leading Australian euthanasia activist, when he announced that he had developed a computer program for euthanasia so that doctors could remove themselves from the actual death scene
WOULDN’T EUTHANASIA ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE TERMINALLY ILL?
Absolutely not. Recently in Newfoundland, a mother was urged by her doctor to euthanize her 25 year old daughter who lives with multiple disabilities. This was only so that no one needed to treat her daughter anymore, not because the daughter was terminally ill, or that her daughter wanted to die. Doctors’ attitudes towards people and whether or not they should live is changing because of legal assisted suicide.
There are two problems here — the definition of “terminal” and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia to those who aren’t “terminally ill.”
There are many definitions for the word “terminal.” For example, when he spoke to the National Press Club in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was “any disease that curtails life even for a day.” The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to “terminal old age.” Some laws define “terminal” condition as one from which death will occur in a “relatively short time.” Others state that “terminal” means that death is expected within six months or less. Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient.
Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as “hopelessly ill,” “desperately ill,” “incurably ill,” “hopeless condition,” and “meaningless life.” An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. “Hopeless condition” was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual.” That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .
In a May 1996 speech to the prestigious American Psychiatric Association, George Delury (who assisted in the 1995 death of his wife who had multiple sclerosis) suggested that “hopelessly ill people or people past age sixty just apply for a licence to die” and that such a licence should be granted without examination by doctors.
WOULDN’T EUTHANASIA ONLY BE AT A PATIENT’S REQUEST?
No. As one of their major arguments, euthanasia proponents claim that euthanasia should be considered “medical treatment.” If one accepts the notion that euthanasia is good, then it would not only be inappropriate, but discriminatory, to deny this “good” to a person solely on the basis of that person’s being too young or too mentally incapacitated to make the request. In fact, a surrogate’s decision is often treated, for legal purposes, as if it had been made by the patient. That means children and people who can’t make their own decisions could well be euthanized. Suppose, however, that surrogates were not permitted to choose death for another. The problem of how free a death request would be still remains. If euthanasia becomes accepted in policy or in practice, subtle, even unintended, coercion will be unavoidable.
In January 2017 in the Netherlands, a Regional Euthanasia Review Committee decided that a forced euthanasia on a woman with dementia, where the doctor sedated the woman by secretly putting the drugs in her coffee and then had the family hold her down to enable the lethal injection, did not follow the rules but found that it was done in “good faith.”
The Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform has a great pro-life video series that will arm you to defend life.
Objective Truth in the Abortion Debate
This video in the Pro-Life Classroom series explains why truth is important when it comes to debating about abortion.
Men and Abortion
This video tells of one man’s involvement with abortion.
Stop by our office and pick up any of our many brochures, t-shirts, bumper stickers, pins and bracelets.
Life In Motion brochures
We currently have brochures about Life In Motion and information about abortion in Canada.
Development & Growth of the unborn
We distribute many different brochures, pamphlets and booklets explaining the development and growth of the human fetus appropriate for different ages.
Pins, bracelets, t-shirts, etc.
We have lots of different ways for you to promote pro-life with baby feet pins, life bracelets, positive messages on t-shirts and even bumper stickers. Witness wherever you go!