NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Pro-Life

Children Are Not Commodities

So far, five videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s atrocities have been released. The videos show a disgusting, utterly callous affront to human life: first Planned Parenthood employees talking about aborted children in terms of paychecks and sports cars, then actual depictions of trays full of frozen baby organs. These videos demonstrate horrifically the objectification of children all too common in society and among activists on the left. Such objectification will dramatically increase as a result of the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Obergefell marriage case, which treats children merely as tools for obtaining adult pleasure. As Robert Oscar Lopez writes at Public Discourse:

ThinkstockPhotos-527616603Obergefell brings Roe v. Wade to its climax because it completes the transformation of children into objects. For children will be forced to love gay adults who are not their parents. To Kennedy, gay adults have a right not to feel lonely, which includes the right to start families. In fact, he states that they have a right to “custody” and “birth certificates” (i.e., birth certificates falsified to include two same-sex parents and erase biological parents of the opposite sex). To satisfy the human right to dignity and to thwart the civil injustice of “loneliness,” children must be produced and provided to people who want them, whether or not those people conceived the child by making love.

Children not only can, but must be manufactured. The transfers of custody must generate orphans and abandoned children, paying gamete donors and surrogates to abandon and orphan their offspring, so that this new product—the loving and obedient human being—can be delivered to paying customers.

. . .

The wine-sipping doctor of Planned Parenthood didn’t come out of nowhere. This individual was dealing with people who claimed to be doing research with the fetal tissues. She was educated by a system that framed her brutal trade as not only acceptable, but just and fruitful.

Dr. Nucatola is the inevitable offspring of a society that has no way to discuss humanity, no real lens into the history of past atrocities, no true connection to all the arts and letters left by millennia of writers about what makes us human and why humanity is precious. She is the indispensable sentinel of the society and the educational system that gave us the twin disasters of abortion and gay marriage.

ThinkstockPhotos-119998604We must protect our children and educate them so that future atrocities like the Planned Parenthood scandal will not occur. Our children deserve to know how precious every life is, how every child has a mother and a father, and how every human life is unique and irreplaceable. #AnotherBoy suffered a cruel death because our society has turned its back on its foundation: the family.

To protect our children, we must protect the family. To protect the family, society needs to protect marriage. Without marriage as the union between one man and one woman, our children will be considered “commodities.” Our society can be educated; our children can be protected. When marriage is upheld as only between one man and one woman, children are viewed as they truly are: precious humans, who are the hope for the future.

For the full article, please visit Public Discourse.

Redefining Marriage Puts All Children at Risk

Our culture has become one focused on satisfying adult desires, no matter the cost. The recent Planned Parenthood scandal reinforces this fact, but its existence is not the cause. Of course, selling baby body parts is disgusting and an egregious offense against humanity, but it can only exist if people want it to exist. And we, as a culture, do.

ThinkstockPhotos-79072286American culture has left chastity by the wayside, thus endangering the lives of the unborn. This first surfaced in the divorce culture, then in the acceptance of abortion, and now in the legalization of same-sex marriage. Ryan T. Anderson explains this progression:

Adults must have what they want, including children. If those children cannot be conceived through a natural act of love, they must be manufactured. Far more children will be destroyed than will be born, of course, but we have decided that adult desires come first.

Giving people the right to get what they want, even a baby, sounds like an expansion of freedom. But it’s not. Activities that were once prohibited are now acceptable, protected, and even privileged. The Supreme Court ensured the legalization of contraception and abortion, for example. And now the government mandates that other people promote them. Obamacare requires employers to provide free contraception and abortifacients, and the State of California and the District of Columbia are attempting to require insurance coverage of elective surgical abortion.

ThinkstockPhotos-100614973Children should be conceived within a relationship that will provide them with the love and care of the man and woman who gave them life. The unborn child has a right to life, yes, but also deserves a mother and father, and where possible the mother and father who brought the child into being. Because of human frailty, it isn’t always possible for a child to be raised in his natural family, but that should be the ideal to which our policy aspires. And we should never intentionally deprive a child of such an upbringing. And yet redefining marriage does precisely that. That’s another reason why Justice Kennedy got the case so wrong.

The only way to ensure the safety of our children is to give them a family--a mother and a father, to love and care for them.

To read Ryan Anderson’s full article, please visit Town Hall.

The Awakening of the Silent Majority: First on Abortion, Next on Marriage

In spite of the fact that SCOTUS has failed the American people by choosing not to protect the institution of the family, marriage supporters have every reason to keep up the fight — just examine the pro-life movement.

The history of the pro-life movement demonstrates that Roe v. Wade did not at all end the war about abortion. Rather, Roe v. Wade stirred the pot, and awakened the silent pro-life majority. What is more, Roe v. Wade successfully showed apathetic civilians the true horrors of abortion, and brought more people to the pro-life movement than there had ever been before.

ThinkstockPhotos-153902795Obergefell v. Hodges is poised to do the exact same favors for the pro-marriage movement. Through a historical study of the pro-life movement, Michael J. New demonstrates why, despite popular opinion being contrariwise, the pro-marriage movement has every hope of becoming stronger:

Someone analyzing the GSS in 1975 might have gotten the impression that in the pro-choice position lay America’s future. In fact, countless surveys showed that young adults were far more likely to support legal abortion than the elderly. But someone analyzing the GSS forty years later could be excused for drawing a very different conclusion. Indeed, the GSS shows that young adults are actually the most pro-life age demographic. Supporters of traditional marriage should take comfort in this fact; it is reasonable to hope that the marriage situation—both culturally and legally—will improve, grim as the present outlook might seem.

The supporter of male-female marriage should draw three important lessons from these four decades of GSS survey data. First—and unsurprisingly—people often change their opinions over the course of their lifetimes; people become more “pro-choice” during their 30s and more “pro-life” during their 50s. This point coheres with the truism, supported by other significant research, that people often become more conservative with age.

Second, national opinion trends can change as well. For instance, one can see from the GSS that, in the 1990s, the debate over partial-birth abortion increased pro-life sentiment among nearly all demographic groups. Other surveys show that during that time period, a higher percentage of Americans came to consider abortion morally wrong, and believed that abortion should be banned in all circumstances. A September 1995 Gallup poll showed that only 33 percent of Americans identified as “pro-life.” That figure reached 51 percent in a Gallup poll taken in May 2009.

Third—and this is the most important—there can be surprising shifts in opinion even within demographic groups. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the GSS survey results consistently revealed that eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds were more supportive of legal abortion than was any other age cohort. But starting around the year 2000, this group became the most pro-life age cohort—more pro-life, even, than senior citizens.

What caused these unexpected shifts in public opinion on the abortion issue? The political pundits of the seventies foresaw neither the reality of legal abortion in the United States nor the effectiveness of incremental pro-life legislation.

. . .

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, no one could have predicted the developments that shifted public opinion in a more pro-life direction. Abortion opinion trends during the past forty years should offer some reassurance to supporters of traditional marriage. It’s hard to anticipate how reality will turn around and confront public opinion, but the truth often has a way of revealing itself. Demography today is not necessarily destiny tomorrow.

To read the full article, please visit The Public Discourse.

WATCH LIVE: Values Voter Summit 2014

The Values Voter Summit is just days away! The annual Summit—which provides a forum to inform and mobilize citizens across America to preserve the bedrock values of traditional marriage, religious liberty, sanctity of life and limited government that make our nation strong—will be held from Sept. 26-28 in Washington D.C.

If you're not able to attend, you can watch the live feed all weekend right from your home or office.

Friday, Sept. 26 Live Feed:

Saturday, Sept. 27 Live Feed:

VVS copy

When Our Laws Start Losing Sight of Children

Alex Saitta writes a thought-provoking letter to the editor of the Easley Patch this week, pointing out what happens when our laws start catering only to adults and ignore the best interests of children's when it comes to their growth and development.

GirlThe arguments for gay-marriage and abortion are fundamentally flawed because both put the rights of the adults ahead of those of the children. Adults create our laws and naturally have written them to benefit adults and the point of view of the child has been given too little weight. That’s wrong! This would be like the captain of the Titanic saying adults off first; leave the children behind. Children need to be thought of first.

You can see this clearly with the abortion issue. The abortion debate has devolved into what is best for the mother or “father”. Birth is not about the adults, but the life of a new child. In the case of abortion the mother and father walk out; the child is killed. If children made the laws, it is safe to say abortion would be illegal.

Looking at the same-sex marriage issue, we don’t have to look far to see what happens when society gets careless about the togetherness of parents and their raising of children. Just look at the divorce craze that began in the 1970’s. So called sociological experts of the “me” generation said if you aren’t happily married, leave your spouse, and all will be better off. As the trend unfolded, marriage was further trivialized with the onset of terms like the “starter marriage”.

Today what we see in the wake of the divorce craze are millions of broken families, millions more children and their offspring suffering from emotional and psychological issues that prevent them from reaching their potential in school, their careers and even their personal relationships. That’s what happens when marriage focuses on the adults and loses sight of the children.

Likewise, those advocating gay-marriage, it is all about them – the adults. The children are secondary. Just look at the recent Supreme Court case. It dealt with gay couples having a claim to their partner’s federal benefits. When the focus of marriage turns to the adults and adult issues, and it is no longer about the children, the children suffer.

Mainwaring in Public Discourse: Quelling "Same-Sex Marriage Fever"

Doug Mainwaring, in Public Discourse, dismantles some of the myths by which same-sex marriage advocates seek to generate momentum. He arrives at a compelling conclusion:

Put all this together and it’s evident that there’s no real urgent need for same-sex marriage to be instituted, no great demand for it, and no sea change of conservative support. In fact, the degree of popular support has been fabricated, woven from thin strands of sophistry and fragile threads of emotion. [...]

I am confident that the naked overreach of the media and progressive activists on this issue will invite a voter backlash that will either meet or exceed the same-sex marriage movement’s achievements, leading to a thorough rethinking of Roe v. Wade, no-fault divorce, and our debilitating, anti-family, anti-father welfare state.

Read his whole piece to see what gives him this confidence. It should give us confidence, too.

Study: Marriage is the Safest Place for Pregnant Women

LifeSiteNews:

A new study of Canadian women finds that pregnant women who are married suffer less partner abuse, substance abuse, and post-partum depression than women who are cohabitating or single.

Dr. Marcelo Urquia, an epidemiologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, found that about one in 10 married women (10.6 per cent) suffered partner abuse, substance abuse, or post-partum depression. However, 20 per cent of women who were cohabitating but not married suffered from at least one of those three conditions.

The figure rose to 35 per cent for single women who had never married—and to 67 per cent for those who separated or divorced in the year before birth.

“We did not see that pattern among married women, who experienced less psychosocial problems, regardless of the length of time they lived together with their spouses,” Dr. Urquia said.

Dr. Urquia said understanding the differences in abuse and depression between married and cohabitating partners was important as the number of children born outside marriages rises.

The study was based on data from the 2006-7 Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey, a national survey of 6,421 childbearing women compiled by the Public Health Agency of Canada.