Making a Case for Life
By Karen Young

Fourteen years ago I began my journey in the pro-life movement when a friend in my grade 10 class encouraged me to attend a Hike for Life in Winnipeg.  Hiking for life soon turned into envelope stuffing for life, sitting at a pro-life booth at fairs and exhibition parks to working part-time in the pro-life movement.
           
One particular Saturday night at a pro-life booth in Winnipeg will forever be ingrained in my memory.  When I arrived for my allotted time with a friend we were told that very few people had come by the table and to expect a quiet evening.  Well, the evening was anything but quiet.  Within fifteen minutes of taking over the booth myself and my friend were surrounding by about twenty young people about our age enraged that we would dare sit at a pro-life booth.  After two hours of conversation and debate many of those who came to our booth left a little more pro-life than they came; however, there were about six die hard pro-choices who in the end left with an agreement to disagree, but I was amazed even at the age of 17 how illogical and inconsistent were the arguments.
           
Needless to say, I began to question how best to discuss the life issues with those who are adamantly pro-choice.  I have attended countless debates, prolife 101 workshops and talked to many pro-life and pro-choice people.  The arguments presented in the pro-life 101 workshops and other similar programs while great didn’t seem to quite work when facing adamant pro-choicers and quite honestly almost every pro-life debate I have attended has left me with more questions than answers.
           
At every abortion debate I have attended the pro-life side grounds itself in logic and if one were to judge the debate on the merits of the arguments presented I would almost always concede that the pro-life side won.  However, at the end of most debates the overall sentiment of those in attendance, who did not come already pro-life, is that the pro-choice side won.  I have come to realize that most people are more easily swayed by emotional appeals than logic; thus, the pro-choice side gains much of the sympathy of those sitting on the fence with their emotional appeals to the rights of women’s health, freedom and security of person.
           
It was during a conversation about six months ago with a friend that I started to understand why debates never seem to convince the pro-choice masses.  My friend was taking a women’s studies course at a Canadian university when the topic of abortion came up for discussion.  The professor basically stated that while from the perspective of science, it cannot be argued that human life begins at conception, as women and supporters of women’s rights one must never publicly admit that life exists in the womb.  To admit that human life begins in the womb just confuses the argument and gives more strength to the arguments of those opposed to abortion.
           
For those who support women’s rights, the issue of abortion is merely a distraction from the ‘real issue’: ensuring that women’s rights are promoted and enshrined in society no matter what the cost.  For many women’s rights activists, pregnancy by its very nature is seen as an affront to women’s rights.
           
The professor also explained one of the greatest threats to the abortion debate for pro-choice minded people is pictures of a fetus/baby in the womb.  Pictures of babies in the womb gives a face to the unborn and makes it that much more difficult to deny that life exists in the womb.
           
In recent years, many crisis pregnancy centres in the United States have added medical services to the practical aid and counseling they offer pregnant women.  These centres offer women free sonograms which show real-time images of the child in the womb.  Pro-choicers vehemently oppose the use of sonograms at Crisis Pregnancy Centres because they know that a woman who sees the unborn child and realizes that he or she is truly alive, will not go through with the abortion.  A September 2006 article in the Washington Post confirms their fears.  According to a 2005 survey by Care Net, a network of about 1000 crisis pregnancy centres in the US and Canada, “72 percent of women who were initially ‘strongly leaning’ toward abortion decided to carry their pregnancies to term after seeing a sonogram.”
           
It seems that aborted babies are not as powerful an image as developing babies in the womb.  Actually some pro-choice activists prefer that we use images of aborted babies because they do not have the same emotional impact. 
           
With my newly gained insight into the pro-choice mind I attended an abortion debate at Carleton University at the end of October.  I was amazed as I listened to the debaters, for everything I had been told was unfolding right before my eyes.  Even in the face of indisputable scientific evidence the women debating in favour of legalized abortion refused to concede that human life begins at conception or that human life even exists in the womb.  In fact, Tracy Davidson, director of Planned Parenthood Ottawa kept reiterating that according to Canadian law a human being is only defined as such after ‘it’ has completely vacated the body of its mother.
           
As a result, the women debating for legalized abortion argued their case from the point of view of the mother and would not even enter into a discussion on the humanity of the unborn.  Meanwhile, the entire pro-life case rested on the humanity of the unborn The presenter did an excellent job of proving that human life does in fact exist in the womb.  However, when the debate concluded I could not help but wonder how either side could be deemed a winner when no debate really took place.  Those in support of abortion refused to even address the issues raised by the supporter of making abortion illegal and the gentleman who supported making abortion illegal likewise did not refute even one of the arguments presented by the other side.  It was almost as if both sides were more intent on winning the debate on their grounds that they did not take the time to really enter into the arguments put forth by each other.
           
I look with much anticipation for the day when someone from the pro-life camp will take the arguments of the pro-choice side seriously and enter into a debate on their grounds and truly hear, acknowledge and refute their arguments.  We know we have logic on our side so should not fear addressing the concerns of the pro-choice side and the reasons they feel abortion is necessary for the well-being of women.  Dr. John Patrick, a knowledgeable debater and teacher, told us at the 2005 pro-life conference in Montreal that the only way we can win against ardent pro-choicers is to make their argument better than they could.  We need to reconstruct their arguments bringing in logic, truth and justice.  It is only when we stop having parallel debates and conversations that we will truly reach others and may even change hearts and minds.

Karen Young is the office Manager of LifeCanada.