Download Audio MP3 | 00:44:19

Content warning: This conversation necessarily includes some thought experiments that relate to sexual abuse, as well as the real-world example of Jeffrey Epstein. As usual, the discussion isn’t graphic, but we want our listeners who are survivors of sexual assault to know that and make an informed decision of whether they want to listen to this episode or not.

It’s Rachel’s last episode! She and Josh discuss how pro-choice people are often inclined to believe that adult women should be prioritized over fetal humans because adults have thoughts, dreams, and relationships. They offer some talking points for pro-lifers including some thought experiments that might help the conversation become more productive. Josh also tells a story about a related dialogue he had with a philosophy professor about prison reform, and how pro-life advocates tend to be primarily motivated by different things, especially when they first become passionate about this issue.

Related Links:

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post The Immorality of Harming an Unaware Victim appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

Download Audio MP3 | 00:54:04

Transcript PDF

Josh and Rachel discuss the common pro-choice phrase, “consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy” in greater detail than we covered in our recent video on the “Abortion as Self-Defense” argument. There is a version of this argument that is so strong, Rachel says she would use it if she were pro-choice! There are both strong pro-life responses to that argument, and there are also some really cringey ones, and we want to help you avoid the bad ones so you can change more minds!

To see a shorter and more shareable video refuting this argument, click here:

Watch the full “Abortion as Self-Defense” video here:

More resources on responding to bodily rights arguments:

“Consensual Pregnancy: The Moral Permissibility of Abortion” by Maya-Frost Belansky:

Secular Pro-Life: “No, I Am Not Interested In “Punishing” Women for Having Sex”:

Texas Trial Lawyers Association: “McDonalds’ Hot Coffee Case – Read the Facts NOT the Fiction”:

Sophie Lewis Interview:

Blood Donation and Bodily Rights Arguments:

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post Is Consent to Sex Consent to Pregnancy? appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post Why Do They Always Ask About Rape? appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

Download Audio MP3 | 00:47:40

Josh Brahm and Rachel Crawford dive deeper into the pro-choice argument regarding back-alley abortions than we ever have before on ERI. Topics include understanding why this argument is particularly persuasive to pro-choice people, the most persuasive responses, several bad pro-life responses, and how some pro-abortion-choice advocates lied about this before Roe vs. Wade.

A good question to ask:

Do you think like I do, that abortion is an unjust act of violence against an innocent person? If you don’t, that’s okay and we should talk about that. But I do, and so it affects the way I think about these questions. Can you think of one other example where we should keep an unjust act of violence legal to make it safer for a perpetrator to do it anyway?

Mary Anne Warren:

The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it.

Source: “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” in The Problem of Abortion, Joel Feinberg, et al, Wadsworth, 1984, p.103

Mary Calderone:

Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians . . . Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is.

Source: “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Health 50 (July I960): 949

Afred Kinsey source: Cincinnati, Ohio: Hayes Publishing Co, 1988), 169.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson:

It was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year,’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws [against abortion] eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.

Source: Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, 193

Dr. Christopher Tietze, chief statistician for, among others, Planned Parenthood and the CDC at the time:

Some 30 years ago it was judged that [illegal abortion] deaths might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year, but this rate, even if it was approximately correct at the time, cannot be anywhere near the true rate now. The total number of deaths from ALL causes among women of reproductive age in the U.S. is not more than about 50,000 per year. The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000.

Source: Scientific America, volume 220 in 1969

We referenced a graphic image of Gerri Santoro’s body, who died because of an illegal abortion in 1964. Then picture is circulated in textbooks today, and it was also published in Ms. Magazine in 1973. Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article about her, that includes the famous picture. Graphic picture warning, both for blood and for nudity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerri_Santoro

Abortion Images: A Case for Disagreement without Division

Podcast: Should Women be Punished if Abortion Becomes Illegal?

Podcast: Response to Pro-Choice Propaganda

Bodily Rights Arguments Necessitate Extremism

Is Abortion 14 Times Safer Than Childbirth?

Fetus Tunnel Vision: 4 Reasons Pro-Lifers Need to Stop Doing This

Back Alley Abortion Arguments in 5 Minutes:

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post Responding to “Back-Alley” Abortion Arguments appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

Download Audio MP3 | 00:40:02

Josh, Rachel, and Elijah Thompson from Dank Pro-Life Memes discuss the various ways pro-life advocates tend to define the word “abortion,” and how this can be confusing to pro-choice people. They also talk about tips for responding to life of the mother cases, and explain how some pro-choice advocates mean something completely different than we think when they ask about that.

Related Links:

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post Defining the Word “Abortion” Will Change Your Dialogues (with Dank Pro-Life Memes) appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

Download Audio MP3 | 01:08:49

Josh and Rachel interview Elijah Thompson from Dank Pro-Life Memes to compare and contrast his messaging with ERI’s. Topics include the potential value of snark, whether it’s possible to make memes that aren’t strawmen, whether Dank Pro-Life Memes feeds people’s vice, and Elijah even responds to a question from a pro-choice follower who is critical of Dank Pro-Life Meme’s work.

We reference bodily rights arguments and “the Violinist” in this episode, but we didn’t explain what we meant by that. Learn more about this category of pro-choice arguments here: https://EqualRightsInstitute.com/BodilyRights

Related Links:

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post Should Pro-Lifers be Snarky? (with Dank Pro-Life Memes) appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

You’ve likely heard about the documentary that premiered on FX, AKA Jane Roe, claiming to offer the true story of Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade. Pro-life and pro-choice people are interested in this story, regardless of how relevant it actually is (or should be) to our beliefs about abortion. Even if it feels off-topic, we need to be prepared to talk about this, and shifting to another topic too quickly will likely hurt your conversations about abortion.

I’m explaining our main thoughts below but feel free to use these links if you’d prefer to watch or listen to our discussion on the documentary that covers all of the points below, albeit in more detail.

Why does this matter, especially if our views on abortion shouldn’t be influenced by whether Roe was pro-choice or pro-life? The question this documentary poses isn’t what people should believe about abortion, but rather whether the pro-life movement is corrupt. We then need to answer whether it contains an accurate depiction of the modern pro-life movement.

It would be convenient if this film was deceptively edited to the point that we didn’t need to seriously consider its claims (like the editing practices Josh covered in his videos about Netflix’s “Reversing Roe”), but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Certainly, the movie is incredibly biased, and there’s some evidence that the filmmaker lied about his bias in order to gain access to McCorvey. Still, the underhandedness on display doesn’t invalidate all of the claims presented in AKA Jane Roe, and it seems most plausible that what Norma said in the movie was, at least to a large degree, representative of how she felt.

Again, we don’t agree with the sentiment in some pro-life tweets that we don’t need to pay attention to this documentary because of its pro-choice bias. If that were true, we shouldn’t expect pro-choice people to pay attention to pro-life films such as Unplanned or Gosnell, since they are biased in favor of the pro-life side (and while we believe that bias to be true, it is a bias all the same).

There were a couple major examples of bias. First, and most crucially, the pro-life movement is painted as almost inherently violent through B-roll of actual anti-abortion violence and the description of protestors as “terrorists” by a pro-abortion worker. While “domestic terrorism” is an appropriate term to describe acts of violence against abortion workers and their facilities, it is certainly not a fair representation of how pro-life people are, or even how they were then on the whole; peaceful sidewalk counseling has outgrown protests and demonstrations, and the pro-life movement is committed to non-violence. That said, the inclusion of the buckshot fired at Norma’s door is completely fair, since that would be a major part of anyone’s life story, and the ostensible goal of the movie was to tell her story.

The inclusion of only one pro-life group (Operation Rescue) also lets the filmmakers color the portrayal of the pro-life movement by pretending that one particularly extreme part of it represents the whole. Because McCorvey had significant involvement with the group, it makes sense for them to feature prominently, but it was also very convenient for the desired narrative to minimize Norma’s connection to other groups or to omit situating Operation Rescue within the pro-life movement as a whole.

On the other hand, when it came to Norma’s many controversial statements in the documentary, Josh couldn’t find any evidence of deceptive editing. The quotes were taken from multiple interview days in various locations (even if some were prompted by leading questions). Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, who was shown briefly in the film, commented that “[e]verything she said, I have heard her say before.” It is plausible that any quotes tending toward views that would be considered pro-life were left on the cutting room floor, but we don’t have reason at this point to doubt the reality of the quotes that made it into the film.

Given this, what’s the most plausible explanation of what McCorvey actually believed? After all, she asserted multiple contradictory or seemingly contradictory things to many people in public and private over the course of 30-plus years. In order to answer that, we need to look at two plausible motivations for why someone would say something in public that they don’t really mean: financial and emotional (attention/acceptance/fame). We think that both likely applied for Norma, each to a different extent.

It’s true that Norma made money as a pro-life activist (it’s unclear from the documentary whether she was compensated during her pro-choice media blitz). The movie tried to aggregate a $500k figure for her non-profit’s income as if it was brought in over a few years, but it seems to have come in over a much longer time period, and as far as we can tell from looking at the three 990’s available on Guidestar, Norma drew a salary between $11-$26k each year—hardly an outrageous amount. Similarly, it attempts to paint the “benevolence gifts” as under-the-table bribes, but donations between non-profits and speaking fees/honoraria are commonplace throughout the non-profit world. (And if drawing a salary as an activist makes you untrustworthy, then why are you reading this article? We’d be untrustworthy by that rule, since we’re supported by many churches and individuals so we can devote ourselves to pro-life work.)

Of course, this cuts both ways. If money makes her untrustworthy, then we shouldn’t believe what she said in the documentary or as an activist, because she received compensation for cooperating with both. (The documentary director claims that he didn’t pay McCorvey for the interview but that he did pay to license her pictures. We’re guessing that was a distinction without a difference to her.) On the other hand, if we think it’s silly to say she was “bought off” by a meager salary as a pro-life speaker, then we shouldn’t dismiss McCorvey’s claims in the movie because she received compensation for participating).

While money likely played some part, it seems probable that the acceptance and acclaim Norma received when she switched to the pro-life side provides more of an explanation for why she was willing to say things she didn’t necessarily agree with, especially given the context of her traumatic background. For the most part, the pro-choice people ignored her except as a bare symbol (a “trophy”, if you will). They didn’t want her to speak, and they were quick to feel like she was betraying women when she left their ranks. The pro-life people, who were initially overtly hostile to her, were willing to hang on every word when she became “one of them.” She was offered the opportunity to speak, to be famous, and to receive adulation, even during unpaid events. Indeed, this provides a more realistic answer for why Norma would participate in prayer vigils and other pro-life activities with no stipend forthcoming. Pro-life people were understandably excited for her, specifically, to be there.

Especially important to Norma was the offer of acceptance in Jesus Christ. Even though she abused substances, spoke crass language, and probably never adopted the pro-life position fully, she seemed to genuinely profess faith in Christ. To this end, the documentary shows that Norma ceased intimate relations with her female partner, believing that such was contrary to the faith she had accepted, which was no small thing for her to do (whether or not you agree with it).

But even as a pro-life speaker, she didn’t follow the pro-life line. She, more or less openly, supported the availability of first-trimester abortions, even if she had personal reservations. She seemed to do genuine work to overturn Roe, but sometimes stated that her change in stance was for herself (as opposed to what you might expect: saying it was for the babies). And even people who knew this considered her to be “pro-life.”

It’s here that our simplistic labels fail us. What does it mean to be “pro-life?” Is it that you support efforts to overturn Roe? Is it that you wouldn’t personally get an abortion? Is it that you believe that human life should be protected by right from conception, meaning unjustified taking of that life is a grave evil? There’s good evidence that, by the first possible definition, McCorvey was pro-life; but that doesn’t seem like the right definition. Rather, she seems a paradigmatic example of the classic pro-choice position: she supported reforming and restraining abortions, but believed they should be available for others in at least some circumstances.

If Norma was “personally pro-life” and functionally pro-choice, how could she have functioned as a pro-life speaker for so long? She simply acted more pro-life than she was, because she and the pro-life people could support a common goal (overturning Roe). People in the pro-life movement who knew her views were willing to keep quiet because she brought media firepower to their efforts, and she was willing to say more than she believed because the pro-life people met her needs in a way that the pro-choice people didn’t (if this documentary is to be believed at all). She likely became less pro-choice after her conversion to Christianity, but never became truly pro-life.

We think most pro-life people who heard McCorvey’s story truly believed that she was completely pro-life based on the speeches she gave, and the fact that she was welcomed into the movement with so much love and acceptance says something beautiful about our movement. Some of you reading this truly showed the love of Christ to her, and she was much better off for it.

Note: We have to pick an “author” on each post but the content here is really a team effort of primarily Rachel Crawford, Andrew Kaake, and myself.

The post Our Take on the “AKA Jane Roe” Documentary appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

Download Audio MP3 | 01:03:10

After the entire ERI staff watched the “AKA Jane Roe” documentary, we processed our thoughts together and in this nearly unedited discussion, Josh and Rachel offer their analysis of the film, including:

“AKA Jane Roe” can now be seen on Hulu.

Related Links:

and

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post Our Take on the “AKA Jane Roe” Documentary appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

Download Audio MP3 | 01:25:02

Josh Brahm interviews Isaac Saul, political journalist and founder of Tangle, an independent, ad-free, non-partisan politics newsletter that offers both sides of the biggest news stories every day.

They start by discussing Isaac’s background and the experiences that led him to attempt to create a truly non-partisan, fair, political newsletter. They then talk about common problems in the media, how to avoid confirmation bias, and how easy it is to fall into the game of snarky tweets, including Isaac admitting that he had published a snarky tweet from his personal account that morning, which they then analyze. Finally Josh asks Isaac for a list of his favorite sources from both sides of the political aisle for people who want to subscribe to at least one source from the opposite side.

Subscribe to Tangle:

ERI Video: “Should We Be Open-Minded About Abortion?”

Isaac Saul: “You’re Not Agnostic, You’re An Atheist”

Karol Markowicz piece on Andrew Cuomo that Isaac referenced:

Isaac Saul’s favorite sources from both sides:

David French:

Jonah Goldberg:

Noah Rothman:

Coleman Hughes:

We the Fifth/The Fifth Column:

Karol Markowicz:

Matt Fuller:

David Brooks:

Adam Serwer:

Mehdi Hasan

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post One Easy Step to Avoiding Confirmation Bias: Interview with Tangle Founder Isaac Saul appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

Download Audio MP3 | 00:43:20

Rachel Crawford interviews Jacob Nels from ERI’s Sidewalk Counseling Masterclass. Topics include: – Should sidewalk counselors talk about adoption with abortion-minded women? – How to accurately keep track of lives saved vs. “hopefuls”; – How there are no silver bullets or “perfect words” that work for everybody.

Subscribe to the Equipped for Life Podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Subscribe to ERI’s other podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post Why Sidewalk Counselors Should Not Recommend Adoption appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.