Former Director of the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson, recently released a book chronicling her transformation from Planned Parenthood Director to pro-life activist. The first chapter of her book, an account of the day that changed her life, was released on LifeSiteNews in full. Click here to read it. The visiting physician needed Abby’s help with an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13 week old baby. The following is the key section of her account. I dare you to read this and not be shaken.
At first, the baby didn’t seem aware of the cannula. It gently probed the baby’s side, and for a quick second I felt relief. Of course, I thought. The fetus doesn’t feel pain. I had reassured countless women of this as I’d been taught by Planned Parenthood. The fetal tissue feels nothing as it is removed. Get a grip, Abby. This is a simple, quick medical procedure. My head was working hard to control my responses, but I couldn’t shake an inner disquiet that was quickly mounting to horror as I watched the screen.
The next movement was the sudden jerk of a tiny foot as the baby started kicking, as if it were trying to move away from the probing invader. As the cannula pressed its side, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. It seemed clear to me that it could feel the cannula, and it did not like what it was feeling. And then the doctor’s voice broke through, startling me.
“Beam me up, Scotty,” he said lightheartedly to the nurse. He was telling her to turn on the suction — in an abortion the suction isn’t turned on until the doctor feels he has the cannula in exactly the right place.
I had a sudden urge to yell, “Stop!” To shake the woman and say, “Look at what is happening to your baby! Wake up! Hurry! Stop them!”
But even as I thought those words, I looked at my own hand holding the probe. I was one of “them” performing this act. My eyes shot back to the screen again. The cannula was already being rotated by the doctor, and now I could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. For the briefest moment the baby looked as if it were being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then it crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes. The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then it was gone. And the uterus was empty. Totally empty.
Read her entire account (the first chapter of her book) here, then buy her book via the link at the bottom of the page.
According to a recent study, unborn twin babies socialize as early as week 14 of gestation. The scientists that conducted the research summarized their findings in the following way:
“We demonstrate that by the 14th week of gestation twin foetuses do not only display movements directed towards the uterine wall and self-directed movements, but also movements specifically aimed at the co-twin, the proportion of which increases between the 14th and 18th gestational week”
In cases in which the mother’s health is not at risk due to her pregnancy, it is currently legal to kill unborn children in America well past 14 weeks. The following summary of abortion laws was compiled based on information from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute:
12 states do not prohibit abortions at any point in pregnancy
38 states prohibit abortions in which the life of the mother is not in question after a certain point in pregnancy.
23 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability (when the attending physician determines “there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,” generally b/w 22-24 wks).
5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester (28 wks).
10 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks (24 in most, 20 in a few).
A couple is conducting a poll that asks internet users whether they should kill their 17 week old pre-born baby. Evidently, the results of the poll well help them decide. The couple states the following on their website:
You can vote and choose whether we abort or keep our unborn child. For the first time, your vote on the topic of abortion can make a difference.
We invite you take this journey with us as we contemplate our own options and encourage you to utilize this site to vote and voice your opinion in a way that will have a real consequence… in a way that truly matters. Here, your vote will not go unheard.
… a new study suggests that feminist ideology no longer is the driving force to keep abortion legal, but that more sinister motives of commerce and profit are dedicated to keeping the billion dollar abortion industry alive and growing.
… market forces are now deeply intertwined with the abortion industry that supplies them with “fetal parts, tissues and cells.” Pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies often use aborted fetal material in their products.
In January of this year, the Journal of Marriage and Family published a study that concluded that it was unnecessary for children to be raised by both a mother and a father. USA today sums up the study here:
Sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California, spent five years reviewing 81 studies of one- and two-parent families, including gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples. “No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being,” they conclude.
However, Stacey and Biblarz do come to a conclusion that the gender of parents matters! They seem to believe that straight men are inferior to women and gay men when it comes to parenting! One of the results of the study found that the gender identity of children raised by same-sex parents was more ambiguous, and Stacey and Biblarz actually come to the conclusion that this is a positive effect, rather than a negative effect. Dr. Jennifer Morse has consolidated several statements directly from this study which expound on their views:
“Women parenting without men scored higher on warmth and quality of interactions with their children than not only fathers, but also mothers who coparent with husbands.”
“If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”…
“12 year old boys in mother only families (whether lesbian or heterosexual) did not differ from sons raised by a mother and a father on masculinity scales but scored over a standard deviation higher on femininity scales. Thus growing up without a father did not impede masculine development but enabled boys to achieve greater gender flexibility.”
“If, as we expect, future research replicates the finding that fatherless parenting fosters greater gender flexibility in boys, this represents a potential benefit. Research implies that adults with androgynous gender traits may enjoy social psychological advantages over more gender traditional peers.”…
“Thus, it may not be fatherlessness that expands gender capacities in sons but heterosexual fatherlessness. When gay men, lesbians or heterosexual women parent apart from the influence of heterosexual masculinity, they all seem to do so in comparatively gender-flexible ways that may enable their sons to break free from gender constraints as well.”
“Parenting by gay men more closely resembles that by mothers than by most married, heterosexual fathers.”
Are we to come to the conclusion that a child having a loving father in the home is not in the child’s best interest? Is it really a positive thing for the child to potentially have confusion about their gender? That may be the statement these researchers are making, since it is clear that their study showed same-sex or fatherless parenting does have a significant effect on childhood development in this area. However, they are setting aside one of the most important questions of all: what are the actual experiences and thoughts of a child growing up in a home without a father? Should we not be asking what is really best for the child? Following is a Mercator study cited in a previous article here on VOR that specifically takes into account the child’s perspective:
Lesbians raising boys think they can fully compensate for the absence of a father — that fatherlessness is not a problem unless an oppressive society makes it one. But the children do not see it that way:
Parents reported a number of instances where children age four and older would ask about their father. Children would ask someone to be their daddy, ask where their father was, or express the wish to have a father. They would make up their own answers, such as their father was dead, or someone was in fact their father. (10)
Can the “second mommy” compensate for the absence of a father? There is substantial evidence that children benefit from having a second sex represented in the home — not just a second person. Developmental psychologist Norma Radin and her colleagues studied the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren born to adolescent unwed mothers living with their parents. The young children who had positively involved grandfathers displayed more competence than those with an absent or uninvolved grandfather. The presence of the grandmother, on the other hand, did not have a clear-cut impact, suggesting a redundancy between the two forms of maternal influence.(11) Children, especially boys with involved grandfathers, showed less fear, anger, and distress.(12)
Even gay-affirming therapists are noting the problem. In an article entitled, “A Boy and Two Mothers”, Toni Heineman reports that in spite of the pretence that two “mothers” were the same as a mother and father, families had to cope with the reality of an absent father.(13)
Men and women grow up with certain natural expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman. Although activists may claim that these feelings are mere social constructions which they can overcome, in practice nature will always have its way.
The needs and desires that children have for an involved father or father figure are not going to go away. Children naturally do not want to miss out on either the love of a mother, or the love of a father, in their different expressions! An excellent quote from Glenn Stanton’s article Fathers Matter sums up some of these differences:
Erik Erikson, a pioneer in the world of child psychology, asserts that a father’s love and a mother’s love are qualitatively different. Fathers “love more dangerously” because their love is more “expectant, more instrumental” than a mother’s love.2 A father brings unique contributions to the job of parenting a child that no one else can replicate.
When we are looking at the family, there is no way to get around the fact that fathers are important. Heterosexual marriage is important. Children want their parents to live together and love them in their own unique ways, whether that is politically correct or not!