NRL News

Sarah Terzo’s Free E-Book Exposes Pro-Abortion Extremism

by | Dec 18, 2020

By Dave Andrusko

Sarah Terzo

Kudos to Secular Pro-Life for a post that appeared Monday about a new contribution from Sarah Terzo. Anyone who reads NRL News Today with any regularly knows, we repost something from her invaluable “Clinic Quotes” virtually every day.

“They said it” is a sort of informal mantra for Clinic Quotes which, as Secular Pro-Life aptly noted, “tracks damning admissions by abortionists and their allies.” And what they said often is so incredible your jaw hits the table.

Sarah has put together a 25-page eBook, a kind of inverted greatest hits of the Abortion Industry. To access it, all you need do is sign up for free at her email list.

This  excerpt from the opening essay, “Pro-choice Activists Admit Abortion Takes a Life,” begins as follows. You can read this exquisitely documented essay in its entirety here.

It is sometimes assumed in the abortion debate that the fundamental difference between the pro-life and pro-choice position is conflicting views on when human life begins. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. The fetus in the womb is a human being. Pro-lifers use science and reason to back up this premise. Pro-choicers, on the other hand, are thought to believe that a baby in the womb is not a human life. They think life does not begin at conception. Or they may believe that a fetus, while physically alive, is not a baby.

Many pro-lifers think that if we can just convince pro-choicers that a preborn fetus is a human being, they will change their minds and embrace the pro-life cause. Sadly, for many, if not most, this is not true.

More and more pro-choice activists are admitting that a preborn baby is a living human being. Their pro-choice stand is based not on the belief that the baby is not a human being, but rather on the belief that killing the baby is justified.

This opinion was expressed in Naomi Wolf’s essay “Our Bodies, Our Souls: Rethinking Prochoice Rhetoric.” Her essay, which appeared in the October 16, 1995, issue of The New Republic, contains this passage:

It was when I was four months pregnant, sick as a dog, and in the middle of an argument, that I realized I could no longer tolerate the fetus-is-nothing paradigm of the pro-choice movement. I was being interrogated by a conservative, and the subject of abortion rights came up. “You’re four months pregnant,” he said. “Are you going to tell me that’s not a baby you’re carrying?”

The accepted pro-choice response at such a moment in the conversation is to evade: to move as swiftly as possible to a discussion of “privacy” and “difficult personal decisions” and “choice.” Had I not been so nauseated and so cranky and so weighed down with the physical gravity of what was going on inside me, I might not have told what is the truth for me. “Of course, it’s a baby,” I snapped. And went rashly on: “And if I found myself in circumstances in which I had to make the terrible decision to end this life, then that would be between myself and God.”

Many pro-life readers found this revelation shocking, and some pro-choice activists criticized Wolf. Having a fellow activist suddenly proclaim that yes, a fetus has been a baby all along, was jarring to them. They saw her rhetoric as a threat to abortion rights. But despite the outcry from some pro-choicers, others have echoed her sentiments. 

One example is abortion supporter Judith Arcana. Arcana was part of the group JANE. JANE was a group of feminists that was established before abortion was legalized. JANE started as a referral service that connected pregnant women with illegal abortionists. Later, the members of JANE, who had no medical degrees, performed abortions on women themselves. They did illegal abortions in all three trimesters of pregnancy. Arcana, therefore, is both a pro-abortion activist and a former illegal abortionist. She says:

I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.

Arcana readily admits that abortion kills a baby. She clearly feels that abortions are justified, even though they kill babies. She has no problem with believing a woman has the right to murder her baby for personal reasons.

In an interview, Arcana was asked whether pro-choice activists should show pictures of starving children to illustrate the need for abortion and argue for legal abortion. She felt they shouldn’t, because, “Surely the outcome of that approach is to make the case less woman-centered. Surely the child is really irrelevant to the issue (emphasis added).”

It is clear Arcana sees a preborn baby as a child, just like pro-lifers do. She just supports killing that child.

Categories: Pro-Lifers