This observation was made by Caitlin Flanagan in a recent Atlantic article in a rare attempt at fairly describing both the pro-abortion and the pro-life argument. She does indeed use a picture – a 3D ultrasound of 12-week pre-born child with fingers, toes, eyelid, and ears. “She can hiccup—that tiny, chest-quaking motion that all parents know,” Flanagan says, highlighting the humanity of the pre-born child and acknowledging the destructive nature of abortion.

And yet, she views legal abortion as a necessity.

The many words Flanagan uses to describe the pro-abortion argument revolve around heart wrenching stories of back alley abortions. They may be hard to read, but it is important to face their reality. While the number of illegal abortions and resulting fatalities prior to-legal abortion are often grossly exaggerated, I have no reason to doubt the credibility of the specific stories Flanagan tells.

And it is a repeat of these stories of deaths due to illegal abortions that Flanagan views as inevitable if pro-life legislation is put in place. Completely accepting the humanity of the child, she still argues for abortion to “save” women, saying, “We accepted that we might lose that growing baby, but we were not also going to lose that woman.”

Flanagan speaks of accepting the loss – but who is supposed to be accepting it? A mother and a father certainly lose their child to abortion. Grandparents lose their grandchildren. Siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles all lose a family member. Communities lose members. As a society we lose a part of us. Maybe Flanagan is even speaking of her personal loss. We all lose to abortion. Do we accept this?

And there is one who loses all. After all, a “safe” legal abortion is never safe for the baby. Is Flanagan speaking on behalf the baby when she accepts their loss?

As a pro-life movement, we should absolutely be concerned about back alley abortions – we have no wish to lose women. We counter back alley abortion for the same reason we counter all abortions. It is not just legal abortions that stop a beating heart – we have the same objection to illegal abortions. We share the pro-abortion movement’s abhorrence for back alley abortions.

If abortion was illegal, we would still have work to do. We would still be busy educating about the humanity of the pre-born child, we would be encouraging the prosecution of those performing back alley abortions (characters Flanagan glosses over in her stories), and we would still be there to come alongside women facing unplanned pregnancies – whether it be with financial support, counsel, or just a friendly conversation.

The pro-life movement does not accept losing a growing baby, nor are we going to accept losing the women. To suggest that the pro-life movement is okay with back alley abortions is to misunderstand both the value of pre-born life as well as our valuing of women.

The Globe and Mail published an interesting piece last week titled, “Finally, a meaningful definition of pro-life.” As though all definitions of pro-life until now have been distinctly absent of meaning, Balkissoon looks at climate change, poverty, and immigration as issues people should care about if they call themselves pro-life.

In what seems a genuine attempt to be thoughtful and nuanced, Balkissoon unfortunately uses an age-old distraction technique, also asking why the pro-life movement doesn’t focus on “ensuring secure housing, good schooling, decent jobs, freedom from violence and a stable environment, especially for women and children.”

This is akin to asking why the local car dealership doesn’t focus on pothole repair and improved road access to remote communities. It is likely that car salesmen believe in good roads and access for remote communities, just as pro-lifers believe in secure housing and freedom from violence for women. But pro-life work, like car salesman work, must be focused.

We focus on life from its earliest stages because a true valuing of life starts when life begins. This value placed on human life extends naturally into many other areas, but here, at the beginning, is where we must work until hearts and minds are changed to understand that you cannot preach “human dignity” while letting stronger humans choose whether weaker humans get to live.

The term “pro-life” has come to be associated specifically with promoting the right of children to be safe in the womb. This is not something the pro-life movement should be ashamed to declare.

Yes, the treatment of all human life should matter to those who call themselves pro-life, and we support all efforts to improve the lives of women in ways that empower them to mother confidently and safely. Naturally, we also have thoughts on immigration, foreign aid, euthanasia, mental health services, and clean drinking water on reserves.

But, more people die every year from abortion than any other cause in North America. Estimates have as many as 1 in 4 pregnancies ending in abortion in Canada. This is not an issue that can be given divided attention. Abortion advocates do not accept the idea that pro-life initiatives after birth are the answer; abortion is the only answer they will accept.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada responded to Balkissoon’s article on their Facebook page with this analysis:

“A thoughtful piece…But, some food for thought.

…Reducing unwanted pregnancies is important, crucial really. But, the idea that if we were all happy/healthy/wealthy we would want to KEEP an unwanted pregnancy is a myth. Some of us simply do not want children, and that is 100% alright.”

THIS is the extremist attitude the pro-life movement counters. This attitude declares it “100% alright” to end a pregnancy for any reason at all, at any time at all, because you are a woman and this is your right. This devalues life at its core. It is a dangerous, vicious ideology that needs to be fought with focused attention that starts at the very beginning.

Some things should be reported – assault is never ok, whether aimed at children, women, peers, or abortion doctors. But the media is so quick to judge on the issue of pro-life activism that some skip the journalistic step of investigation and corroboration. In March, the CBC reported on an incident where a woman alleged a man had come up, asked her name, and then thrown a can of paint in her face, causing damage to one eye. In the story, prominent words were “assault”, “hate crime”, and “security”.

That woman is now being charged for giving a false claim, and outright lying to police. The incident never happened. Yet, in reporting on the false claim, The Record reinforces the anti-pro-life narrative by concluding with words from Lyndsey Butcher, Executive Director of the local abortion clinic. They have never had an altercation with a pro-life advocate, she admits. But she, and the article, conclude with the dire words, “We think it’s sort of only a matter of time.”

Why would she think that if she has no experience to bear it out? And why would news outlets do such a shoddy job of their reporting, and then also refrain from printing a letter to the editor clarifying things for readers? Jonathan vanMaren shares the letter that wasn’t published, and discusses the biased narrative the pro-life movement is up against. It is up to each one of us to shift that narrative in conversations we may have in our daily lives. One-on-one interactions continue to be the best way to change hearts, change minds, and save lives.

Here lies the impressive jump in logic common to pro-abortion “research”: studies are undertaken with foregone conclusions by researchers with a strong socio-political agenda.

Consider this statement from the Guttmacher Institute’s summary of their findings: “Age is the biggest risk factor for having had a prior abortion; the longer a woman has been alive, the longer she is at risk of unintended pregnancy.”

While presented as a telling finding, age is not, in fact, a risk factor the way it may be for something like heart disease, as arteries undergo physical changes with age that increase risk. One does not become more likely to get pregnant with age – in fact, after a point, the opposite is true. To suggest age is a risk factor in having multiple abortions is like saying age is a risk factor in having eaten more hamburgers: the longer you have been alive, the longer you’ve had to eat hamburgers.

Such a statement is utterly meaningless and should not qualify as research nor be a basis for any policy recommendations.

A recent article on LifeNews.com points out the paradox often heard from abortion advocates: they blame “racism and sexism for the high abortion rate in the black community but also advocate for more abortions for black women.”

So which is it? Minority groups want abortion destigmatized and accessible to all, yet no community wants to have higher abortion rates than other communities.

Why not?

There is a deep, visceral understanding that abortion is not the solution. Pro-life advocate Frederica Mathewes-Green said, “There is tremendous sadness, loneliness in the cry, A woman’s right to choose.’ A woman wants an abortion like a fox caught in a trap wants to chew off his own leg.” Even Hilary Clinton once said, “I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion.”

Women want better options. Studies telling them it’s ok to have an abortion aren’t helping solve the deeper problems leading to abortion. And they certainly aren’t helping them realize the very real life they are ending by choosing abortion.

We all know there’s a better way, a way that isn’t morally, ethically, and medically wrong. Let’s seize the opportunities we have to keep pointing to that better way, a way of life and love. This way holds hope that cannot be found in hollow and biased “research”.

While we certainly don’t think teen pregnancy is something to be lauded, it is something that should give us pause to think. If we are pro-life, and we see a pregnant teen, what are we telling her if we shake our heads or look the other way? We’re telling her abortion might have been a better choice.

A recent story from Maryland featured Madeline Runkles, a teen who became pregnant in high school. Her small Christian school’s response was to tell her she was not allowed to walk in her graduation, “not because she is pregnant, but because she was immoral.”

While we support the school’s right to expect Christian standards from Christian students, the excuse of “accountability” despite forgiveness does set teen pregnancy apart. As Maddi herself points out, many students have broken rules, and been dealt with very differently. This action singles out Maddi because the result of her choice is so visible and not easily swept under the rug. One wonders if the punishment would have been the same if she had confessed to having an abortion.

For a visibly pregnant teen, a choice has generally already been made: a choice for life. These girls have not made an easy choice, and their lives will never be the same. They need grace, love, and encouragement, which Maddi’s parents showed in abundance. While we shouldn’t necessarily hold up pregnant teens as celebrities of the pro-life cause, we should hold them up by our support.

One of the more disputed claims of the pro-life movement is that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, and more abortions increase that cancer risk exponentially. This claim is controversial because many see it as a scare tactic or threat that will “make” a woman keep her child out of fear for herself. But is that really why pro-life advocates would mention the link between abortion and breast cancer?

This is a misunderstanding of the purpose and tone of the vast majority of pro-life advocates. In fact, the pro-life movement includes not only heartfelt care for the right to life of pre-born children, but also genuine care for the women who carry these children. We already know a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk of depression, suicide, and substance abuse, and now we’re also going to suggest a greater risk of breast cancer? Well yes, as it turns out, abortion isn’t good for anyone, anytime, regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary.

Evidence exposed in the documentary film Hush discusses this link in detail, as does work done by The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research.  Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is one of the prominent voices in this discussion, as she has studied the possible connection in her practice for years. Since abortion has been legal and widely practiced for almost 30 years in Canada, and a bit longer in the United States, we are now starting to see the true long-term effects of abortion on women.

Abortion cuts out a pre-born life while a woman’s body is in the midst of major hormonal shifts in anticipation of caring for that life.  Some of those hormonal changes directly impact her breasts, as they get ready to produce milk. Ending a pregnancy while that tissue is changing, but not giving it time to complete that change, leaves it particularly susceptible and vulnerable to cancer. Conversely, carrying a pregnancy to term decreases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, as the hormonal changes that are allowed to complete their course leave the breast tissue more resilient against cancer than they were prior to pregnancy.

A full term pregnancy, especially for young women, can result in breast tissue changes that make up to 85% of the tissue essentially immune to cancer. The note that this is especially true for young women is important, as abortion frequently has the effect of delaying child-bearing to a later age, adding to the increased risk.

This does not apply only to women who have abortions, of course. The same science applies to those who never have children, as evidenced in breast cancer rates among nuns, as well as in those who experience miscarriages or premature births before 32 weeks’ gestation. But the fact remains: abortion is one of the causal factors in increasing your risk of breast cancer. Isn’t that something someone who is genuinely pro-life would tell you, out of care and concern for both your pre-born baby and you? Shouldn’t someone who is pro-choice also be willing to tell you that? As a woman, isn’t that something you would want to know as you made your “choice”?

In 2015, the United States saw an incredible 57 pro-life laws enacted, between 17 states, with almost every single state at least considering increased restrictions on abortion.  The Guttmacher Institute released a study to this effect, pointing out that in only 5 years, 288 abortion restrictions have been introduced, only a few short of those enacted in the previous 15 years combined.

This is reason for hope, also here in Canada. The government in the United States is recognizing the changing tide, as the pro-abortion movement grows older and sticks to the same tired, self-centered arguments, while the pro-life movement has both faith and ever-increasing science on their side. Most of the laws made in the U.S. are compatible with restrictions most Canadians also agree with, and it is up to our government to take on it’s long-shirked responsibility to make laws in this field. 

The pro-abortion movement is getting nervous, as evidenced in articles reminding us there is a war on women afoot. I’m a woman, and I can’t say I feel particularly under attack for not being allowed to kill my children, but clearly I don’t speak for us all.

Read our full article about last year’s successes in the U.S., and what this means for Canada and Canadians, here.

In the words of Durham:

“There exists no reasonable argument or possibility that the person responsible for the murder of Cassie did not know she was pregnant. There exists no reasonable argument or possibility that the person responsible for this did not intend to kill both Cassie and the baby she carried. In Canada, there exists no law against what this person did to our daughter.

…The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada claims to be a “voice for choice,” but where are they now? Where are the ones that so ardently defend a woman’s right to choose? Should they not be standing up and screaming for Cassie? For a woman whose choice was violently and intentionally ripped away from her?”

You can read the rest of his emotional speech here.

Talking about abortion is really tough with people who don’t agree with us. Our hackles rise, our stomaches churn, and a part of us just wants to lead with, “How can you possibly be ok with killing another human being simply because it’s unwanted?” We can walk away from these conversations fuming, upset, feeling justified in our anger and despair, wondering how our words failed to get through.

We too often fail to take just a moment to stand in the other person’s shoes and realize they are feeling exactly the same way about us.

So how can we move past simple agreement or heated argument, and move into serious, passionate debate where minds may actually be changed?

Realize first that you enter the discussion with a goal to change a mind, not the intention of truly listening, assessing the information, and possibly changing your mind. You know you are in the right on this one. And the person you are talking to goes into the conversation with the same mindset. 

If you recognize at the outset that you are unlikely to change their mind in one conversation, you can calmly present your case, then let it be. Let them walk away with the memory of what you said, not the memory of how you acted. Imagine them blogging about your conversation, or how it would play out on YouTube. Don’t give them the benefit of harsh, unkind words and a raised voice. Leave the door open to further conversation, should they ever want to follow-up with you.

Be bold, uncompromising, and clear, yes. But do not be hateful, accusing, or one-sided. Hear their arguments, truly listen to what they are saying. Answer specifically; really respond rather than just reacting. Be willing to participate in a real conversation, with the goal of having a lasting impact after the interaction is long done.

In her piece On Changing Minds, ProWomanProLife co-founder Andrea Mrozek says, “We all need time to make good decisions. We all, I think, go back and forth with our decisions. Unplanned pregnancy does not allow for this. You can go back and forth, back and forth, but if you choose abortion, it is final and there is absolutely no undo button. If you choose life, can you decide not to parent? Absolutely. But if you choose abortion, you don’t ever get to reconsider.”

Neither pro-choice or pro-life adherents do a pregnant woman any favours by pressuring her to make a decision without giving her time and space. Similarly, we do ourselves no favours in the abortion debate by hoping each conversation we have about abortion will result in a changed mind and heart. It’s going to take time, but, as Elvis Presley said, “Truth is like the sun. You can can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t going away.”