Quote of the Week: "You did not exist until you were born"

 "As for the moronic pro-choice claim that women and men do not reproduce until the child is born, I first heard it at college. While discussing prenatal homicide with my feminist college advisor, I said, "Before I was born, maybe I didn't have legal rights, but I was still me, right?" She answered, "No Chris, you did not exist until you were born." In this case, I was never inside my mother's body. Before your birth, your pregnant mother had something alive in her womb which only  became you at birth. [...] When I confronted a second professor about this, he said when a child is born, it has been "retroactively" inside his or her mother, but that if there was an abortion, no child was killed."

From Live Action.

Have you ever heard such anti-scientific, ridiculous drivel? I honestly cannot believe that college-educated people believe this crap. At least pro-abortion pre-natal scientists admit that abortion kills individual humans (as long as the abortion occurs late enough into pregancy), and that the justifications used for abortion also justify the killing of newborn babies, and children even up to the age of 2 or 3. Those beliefs are repulsive, but they are honest. This feminist crap completely denies reality. Which is worse, to be willfully ignorant in order to justify your beliefs, or to be honest about them and just not care?

Pro-Choicers confuse me sometimes ...

I've had many great discussions with compassionate (if awfully mislead) pro-choicers, and I always try to listen carefully to what they say and understand their reasons for being pro-choice. In fact, I am friends with more pro-choicers than pro-lifers, and I love all of them to bits!

But sometimes I come across a pro-choicer who just doesn't make sense to me. Case in point:

Anastasia Blackwell is, according to her twitter profile, a "Proud Pro-Choice Advocate". Now, I don't know what "destroyed" means in abortion-land, but here in life-city it means:

1. Put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it. (Google Definitions)

or

2. Completely ruin or spoil (something). (Google Definitions)

Considering my name is "ProLife Girl" and pro-choice rhetoric often involves the intentionally vague phrase of "freedom of choice", can it really be so hard to understand exactly what I meant? Have I converted a pro-choice advocate, or has she twisted my words to somehow mean that a baby destroys his or her mother's life? If so, can this truly be considered a strong, rational argument for the freedom to choose abortion? After all, if that child is already born, an acceptable solution to the mother's hardship would not be to pull of the child's arms and legs and then crush his or her skull now would it?

I hope most of us would answer no. In that case, why should it be a solution of the child is still in the womb?

(Of course, Anastasia could be mistaken in her view of what an unborn child actually is, which is not such an unusual belief. Most pro-choicers I know would never support abortion if they thought a baby in the womb was a human being. Of course, if you are a pro-choicer, arguing about the hypothetical "destruction" of the mother's future life is not an effective way to convert a pro-lifer who believes that unborn children are persons deserving of rights. Pick a better talking point. They exist, I promise). 

Who cares whether the fetus is viable? Quote from Jessica Grose, former editor of Jezebel

"A lot of women have abortions and don't look back. A lot of women don't want a baby, and they don't care whether the fetus is viable or how much money is in their bank account." Jessica Grose, from "Enough With the Grueling, Wrenching, 'I Had an Abortion' Essays"

And this is why, like I keep saying, the abortion debate is not about bodily autonomy. If it was, viable fetuses would be "aborted" through early induced birth, not through actual abortion. After all, both procedures stop you from being pregnant, right? And the whole reason why abortion should be legal is because women should be able to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, right?

B-freaking-S.

Reading things like this make me SO angry. Thank goodness most of the people I know who are pro-choice are not actually pro-abortion like this former editor of Jezebel. No wonder that website is vomit-inducing.

Free societies need ...

... women with balls. Apparently this is synonymous with women who want to kill viable and/or pain-capable pre-born babies and deny women safety regulations.

And this is after Kermit Gosnell, Douglas Karpen, and Live Action's "Inhuman" investigation. Anyone can go read the Gosnell grand jury report to see why exactly these atrocities were allowed to continue (hint: it wasn't because abortion clinics were over-regulated!).

Seriously. The stupid and hysteria burns my eyes.

The strongest pro-choice argument: comments on J. Savulescu (2013)

This is the first installment in my series "The strongest pro-choice argument", which will focus on analyzing and responding to Volume 39, Issue 5 of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Issue 5 is a special publication which has been made available to the public as an expansion to the article "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?", which was recently published by Giubilini and Minerva.

This piece by Julian Savulescu acts as an introduction to the debate.

Reference: Julian Savulescu "Abortion, infanticide, and allowing babies to die, 40 years on" JME 39, 5 (2013)

This is a very good introduction by the editor of the JME. He briefly describes the controversy around Giubilini and Minerva's 2012 publication, but like so many academics, is barely able to hide is confusion with regards to why the article stirred up such an intense, angry backlash. He understands disagreements, but not name-calling or death threat.s I think this is both the greatest virtue and greatest flaw of the academic mind. Passion is incomprehensible, while, at the same time (and perhaps due to this), reasoned discourse is the highest of achievements. As a scientist, I can certainly agree that emotions should be curtailed as much as possible, but I truly hope I never reach a point where anger is both an unexpected and incomprehensible reaction to advocacy for the legal killing of human beings without reference to medical justification or acknowledgement of other viable option. One can imagine a mother or father reading the Giubilini and Minerva article, and being enraged and saddened at the suggestion that their newborn's life is not worthy of government protection, simply because he or she is young. Can we really blame them for acting irrationally after being confronted with such a view? I myself cried the first time I read the after-birth abortion paper. Of course, I waited until I was more rational before commenting on the article, but can we really fault those who did not wait? Especially if they have not been trained in academic discourse?

Indeed, I think it ridiculous that such reactions are even mentioned in an academic journal, which should only focus on rational, well-written arguments. Instead, we are treated to references towards the most extreme and hateful reactions towards the article. This is a clever and subtle way of linking all those who drastically disagree with Giubilini and Minerva (i.e.: pro-lifers) with the few who thought putting death threats into print as perfectly acceptable.

Of course, what seems perfectly acceptable depends on how one views this issue. I realize pro-choicers find this exceedingly hard to believe (indeed, contributing authors touch on this later on in the journal issue) but many pro-lifers really do view a human embryo as having an equal claim to right to life as a human adult. Many more "mushy" pro-choicers and nomincal pro-lifers view 3rd trimester fetuses and newborn babies as having an equal claim to right to life as a human adult. And many more people irrationally consider birth as the moment when human beings recieve an intrinsic right to life which lasts, unchanging, throughout the rest of a human's life. So if it is widely agreed that newborns, at the least, have a right to life equal to that of a human adult, then let us take this parallel a step further. Imagine that instead of infanticide, the authors had argued in favour of something as horrific as Nazi Germany's medical experiments during WWII. Would the article have even been published? If it had, would immediate legal action for "hate speech" or "incitement towards violence" have occurred? Would anyone have faulted those who sent violent mail to the authors? Indeed, would any of us fault a WWII contemporary for sending death threats to Hitler or his medical researchers?

While such reactions, in my opinion, should not be a part of public discourse (EVER), I don't think any of us would consider such people to be "in the wrong". Those of us who are anti-infanticide indeed view newborns as having equal value as the Jews who died during the Holocaust (though undoubtably mental and physical torture prior to killing is far worse than a quick death - but if Hitler had killeed the Jews swiftly, cleanly, and painlessly, would any of us spare him even a single shred of respect?) so of course we pro-lifers are absolutely horrified and our immediate reaction is to view Giubilini and Minerva as horribly evil monsters. Of course, rational discourse, understanding, and compassion is ALWAYS the best way to proceed, so such feelings should be curbed as quickly as possible, but I do maintain that they are perfectly reasonable initial responses. If we view newborns as equal to adults, then indeed this controversial paper is hate speech of the worste kind, directed towards some of the youngest and most defenseless of our peers.

[Aside: I apologize for using the tired example of Nazi Germany above - but sometimes it really can be used to make a point. Hopefully, I have succeeded here. Let me know if you think it would make more sense to word things differently, I want to make sure my thoughts are as clear and coherent as possible!]

All this being said, Savulescu definitely has some interesting points with regards to euthanasia, though I do think that he conflates the two issues of euthanasia and "after-birth" abortion. In my understanding, euthanasia can be interpreted as "palliative killing" and this definition does not apply in the case of a healthy newborn being targeted for death. That being said, euthanasia of infants has been practiced throughout human history - often openly and legally (ex: the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands). The point Savulescu successfully makes is that different cultures disagree on if/when it is acceptable to kill newborns, even today in our "enlightened" society. Apparently, when infanticide can be considered moral or immoral is a conversation worth having.

Obviously, I think that this is an absolutely horrifying conversation to have, but unfortunately the situation today is such that this is a necessary (even critical) debate to engage in.

Other thoughts:

1. Savulescu discusses how, in neonatal intensive care, if doctors withdraw treatment the death of the baby is not a crime, but if the parents take it upon themselves to remove treatment, the infants death is considered a homicide. The author argues that the morality of an action should not depend on the person doing it (he compares ending life-extending treatment to running). I believe he over-simplifies the issue here. There are countless examples of when the "goodness" or "badness" of an action depends on the people involved. For instance, if an adult punches a child, we rightly consider that action deplorable, but if two siblings, especially below the age of 10, get into a fist fight, I would consider these children undisciplined but kind of adorable (how many youtube videos of kids punching each other have gone viral? Answer: lots.) Besides, the action of running is (literally) morally neutral and depends heavilyt on circumstance. Running away from commitments? Wrong. Running to win a race? Commendable.
I always thought that the reason only doctors (with the permission of the parents of course) can withdraw treatment is because they are trained to know when/if care is futile. If my child were in intensive care, I would not know if their situation was hopeless or not, but their doctor should know - in fact, it is the doctor's job to know. Allowing non-experts to refuse/discontinue treatment runs the very obvious risk of patients who would otherwise recover, dying instead. I would think that it is obvious that this risk is not ok.

2. The example of Jim, who rescues a drowning person, is awful. In one case, he swims to save the person, but changes his mind and lets go, allowing the person to drown. In the other case, he rescues the person using his boat, and then changes his mind and throws the person overboard.
I fail to see any moral distinction between these actions. In each case, Jim has the ability to save the drowning person, and begins a rescue effort. Assuming Jim's own life is never put into danger by the rescue effort, Jim's change of heart is deplorable in both cases. why does the presence of a boat make a difference?

3. Apparently, there is reason to believe that the circumstances where death is considered ok is less stringent for newborns vs. older children. I was not aware of this, and if true, this is very tragic. To quote "societal antipathy to infanticide is not as strong as it might seem at first glance." Perhaps society's reactions to infanticide are not as strong as our reactions to the murder of older children, but that hardly indicates that one is inuitively 'more ok" than the other, or that one entity has more of a right to life than the other. Consider a parallel situation where a three year old has disappeared, and then is found murdered. Now compare that situation with the disappearance and death of a thirty year old. Which is "intuitively" more horrifying? Considering the sensation the first situation often creates in the media, it seems that most of us react more viscerally to a young child's disappearance and death. But is the three year old more intrinsically valuable than the thirty year old? While some might disagree, I would hazard to say no. While it is more unfair to die when young, I don't think that an adult would be required to give his or her life to save a three year old, and the laws reflect that. Ergo, neither life is more valuable.
A better example would be the difference in societal reactions to crimes against white women or girls vs. crimes against ethnic women or girls. It seems that a greater sensation is created in the media by the first scenario. But are whites more valuable than other races? Obviously, the answer is a vehement no, and the presence of a Missing White Women Syndrome in our culture is deplorable.

4. I LOVE that this guy is in favour of embryo adoption! Based on his statements about a newborn being easily adopted by others as a reason not to resort to infanticide, is Savulescu also against abortion post-viability? Does he realize that he is basing a right to life on properties extrinsic to the individual, while it is my impression that most philosophers agree that such a right should be based on intrinsic properties? I do think a coherant case could be made, it just wasn't well-stated here. I'm sure, however, that more details are provided later in this journal issue.

 Overall Impression: very good summary of this debate.

Most Important Quotation: Savulescu summarizes the position of the after-abortion paper [emphasis my own]

"Giubilini and Minerva extend the long-running debate on infanticide to ask: if abortion is permissible both for social as well as medical reasons, why is infanticide permissible only for medical reasons (assuming that selective non-treatment is a form of infanticide)? They ask: what is the moral difference between a fetus and a neonate? As McMahan points out in this issue, there is at least a 4-month period during which a human being could be either a fetus or an infant, depending on whether delivery has yet taken place. Giubilini and Minerva point out that both have similar capacities and if one is permissible, why not the other? The presence of disease or disability should not make a difference to moral status, so if infanticide is permissible for medical reasons, why is it not permissible for social reasons?"

Five things I think the pro-life movement needs to change

#5. Let go of the gay marriage debate.

I know this won't be a popular thing to say among Christian pro-lifers, but I really believe that this is one of the biggest things holding back the pro-life message from youth today. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a pro-choicer conflate the two debates, and I believe that is largely our fault. And it is tragic. One issue involves the killing of unique human beings, the other involves two consenting adults having sex.

When you go to many of the big name websites in the pro-life movement, you will find them divided between advancing the sanctity of life, and pushing extreme anti-gay stories. How many people have been turned off of our message because our movement (as a whole) has focused on issues that have little bearing on the abortion debate?

If you are against gay marriage and are pro-life - fine. But please keep these two sides of your advocacy separate. And if I have to explain to you why abortion is a much more serious issue than gay marriage, learn a bit more about what you are advocating against. Gay rights do not even come close to approaching the scale of harm that abortion rights inflicts on our society (and of course, the question of gay rights causing harm at all is debatable) - especially when we consider the young lives that are ended through abortion.


#4. Focus on real arguments.

I cannot even count the number of times I have read a pro-life comment or blog post that does not address at all what the author had hoped to address. Instead, all I read are intensely emotional appeals to the evilness of abortion, the presence of the devil, and the judgement of God. While these things may be true, no one will be convinced by such appeals. What will convince people, however, is sticking to the salient points of the debate. What are pre-born humans? Do they have a right to life? Do mothers really have unequivocal control over their pre-born children, even to the point of causing harm and death?

See this blog entry from Pro-Life Humanists for a non-Christian perspective. I think they have a point. Are we in this movement to save babies, or are we in this movement to convince people to believe in God?


#3. Understand science and statistics.

One other issue with the pro-life movement is that as soon as we find a study that hints at support for the pro-life side of the debate, we run with it. Pro-life blogs and spokespeople reference the study to the point of absurdity, and make statements which assume that there is no room to doubt the study's conclusions.

That is not how science works. And that is definitely not how statistics work. Read the studies you quote, read studies which draw conflicting results, and read the scientific commentary on these issues. And never, ever state anything for certain.

In any case, our thesis does not rest on whether or not abortions cause breast cancer, increase suicidal thoughts, or that most women choose abortion for economical reasons. Putting too much weight on these conclusions, especially when they may be incorrect, weakens our message. Abortion is always wrong. Period. Even if it were healthier for women to abort than give birth. Even if most women reported increased levels of happiness after abortions. Even if women choose to have abortions for other reasons besides the monetary cost of raising a child. Abortion always kills someone (both scientifically and philosophically) - and that is why it is wrong.


#2. Increase your reach.

Become better at reaching people. Spread the message. This is easier said than done, especially since the MSM prefers to ignore our message rather than report dispassionately on the issue of abortion. But even so, there is definitely room for improvement for every pro-life organization.

For instance, I will give an example relevant to my life as a student. If I didn't actively seek out the date of Canada's 2013 March For Life, I wouldn't know it was happening on May 9th. The university pro-life groups I am a part of haven't even bothered posting a link to the event page on their own Facebook pages. The church I attend included March for Life in their April bulletins, but didn't bother saying anything about the pro-life message or the March during the beginning of May. Pro-life friends who are actively involved in the movement haven't been searching for others to come with them to the March - in fact, I had to reach out to my campus pro-life group in order to get any information at all.

All of these pages are from prominent Ontario Universities - ones that are nice and close to Ottawa. Yet, no information whatsoever on the March. How many people are we losing because we haven't been connecting with them? If I wasn't absolutely determined to attend the March this year, I can say that I would have definitely given up.


#1. Engage the culture.

Many pro-life leaders, in Canada and in the States, are young. Which is great. But many of them are also very devout religious people and it is hard for the average person to relate to them. We need to promote organizations and advocates who come from a different background and who advocate for a different, more secular kind of approach. I would love for a Secular Pro-Life chapter to begin in Canada. I think something like this could make great strides in the academic / university world towards converting students and professors to the pro-life cause.

 How many pro-life songs (not written by Christian artists) do you know? How many pro-life pieces of art have you seen? How many pro-life movies are out there? Are they popular, or do they only succeed in the Christian niche market?

Spreading the message does nothing if it only reaches the Christian pro-life echo chamber. This is the most important point, in my opinion, because if the average person never comes across a thoughtful, well reasoned depiction of the pro-life cause, they will remain pro-choice simply because it is the status quo.

March For Life 2013

 This was my first ever March for Life! To say I was nervous would be an extreme understatement. As May 9th approached I found I could think about little else. I was incredibly excited to finally have an opportunity to attend the March - it is something I have wanted to do for years! But I was also terrified. Would it live up to my expectations? What would the reactions of the people living in Ottawa be? Would the pro-choice protesters be angry? Could I be rational and compassionate in the face of any opposition? Did I have it in me to be a good pro-life ambassador or would I push more people away from the pro-life side? What would my family and friends say about my attendance?

The day itself started out beautifully. Despite calls for rain and thunderstorms, the morning was bright, sunny, and incredibly hot. I know it sounds cheesy to say, but it really did feel like God was watching over our March.

I spent quite awhile trying to decide what to wear. I have never been to the March before (in fact, I have never been to any rally or protest before) so I wasn't sure what to expect. Since March for Life presumably involves a lot of walking, I opted for my brand new (and super colourful!) running shoes, work out clothes, sunscreen, and a rain jacket just in case.

Walking to Parliament Hill was a surreal experience. I have spent so much time reading pro-life news, blogs, and websites but I have never encountered people, pro-life or pro-choice, who care about this cause. And suddenly, I was in a place where everyone there had something to say about abortion. And there were SO many of us! Literal rivers of pro-lifers were streaming towards Parliament. Some of them I recognized from the news, so I was very starstruck. I actually got to talk to one of the students who was arrested in Carleton a couple of years ago, and I think I almost fainted from excitement! Of course, there were also some pro-choicers, nearly all of them women about my age, and all of them with homemade signs and hipster clothes. They clearly weren't happy with us, so we just waved and smiled at them.

Parliament Hill was incredible. There were so many people, and such a diverse crowd. And so many signs, in French and English and, occasionally, other languages. Old people, priests and nuns (it was wonderful to see religious people taking a stand, as they should!), children, teenagers, students, families, so many women, and lots of babies! There were even rumours that Pro-Life Humanists attended, and I was very disappointed that I did not get an opportunity to see them.

But by far, the babies were my favourite; there is something about a baby that just gives such a wonderful testimony against the pro-choice cause. How can you argue for abortion, when the very people who die in abortions are sleeping right in front of you?

It was also wonderful to see the pro-lifers' reactions to these children. There were quite a few young, unmarried mothers there, and everyone was so filled with joy to see these families! These reactions fly in the face of the stereotype that pro-lifers are stuffy religious people who hate women who become pregnant out of wedlock.

This baby is awesome!

As the pre-March rally progressed, more and more people streamed into Parliament Hill, until it became difficult to walk anywhere for fear of stepping on someone. The sky was clear, the heat was terrible, but there were few complaints. The densest area was near the stage, where MPs were giving short speeches in favour of the pro-life cause. I know that there are few MPs who are openly pro-life, so I was surprised how long the talks lasted! Clearly, there are more of them than I ever thought. By far the biggest cheer was for Mark Warawa (he's amazing, by the way), who proposed Motion 408 against sex selection abortion, which just happened to be the theme of this year's March.

And finally, the March began. It took forever to funnel out of Parliament Hill. Everyone was so full of joy, spontaneous cheering broke out throughout the walk, and there was even a saxophone serenading us. I expected to see pro-choice protestors right away, but they were nowhere to be seen. I was starting to wonder if they had gone home, when we finally hit a stretch of sidewalk where they had decided to gather.

 
There were way less of them than I expected. My favourite moment of the March was when I overheard a conversation between a pro-choicer and a group of pro-life highschool students.

Pro-choicer: "I know you're only here because you get a day off school."
Pro-lifer: "Actually, we really believe in this cause."
Pro-choicer: "..." [the look on her face was priceless. A mixture of I-don't-know-how-to-process-this shock and disgust]

My least-favourite counter-protester was a middle-aged man who held a sign which said: "Pro-choice dad, protect my daughters' right to choice".

Another interesting thing I noticed was that no one who was watching the protest or the counter protest joined in any significant way. I was especially surprised to see people avoiding the pro-choicers. There were many pro-choice protesters who seemed to spend the March standing by themselves, holding a sign and never saying anything. It seemed very lonely, especially in contrast to the pro-life March, which filled the streets!

My favourite pro-life protesters were the Pro-Life Avengers. I especially loved Thor, who had "Pro-Life" written on the front of his hammer. These guys were a huge hit with everyone at the rally. I have yet to see them in the news though, even in the pro-life news! :(

The reactions of the Ottawa citizens were mixed. Construction workers stopped their work to stare, and a few of them cheered (yay!). Many people just looked at us with bewilderment. They clearly could not understand why we were here, or why there were so many of us. A few were angry. Some yelling. A few fingers were flipped. There were lines of cars stretching as far as you could see, held up by the March. The traffic must have been horrible.

People had no choice but to notice us!

There were some press. Not a large press presense, and even though I expected this it still boggles my mind. What other rally - a rally that involves the attendance of tens of thousands of people - would create such a small wave in the media? But I was told the coverage was better this year (yay again!) and I did see some interviews between pro-lifers and reporters. EWTN was also there to broadcast the March live. It's times like these that I am just SO PROUD to be Catholic!

Near the end of the March, I was told we were going to walk by an abortion clinic. It wasn't clear to me where this clinic was - I never saw it - but the moment we walked by was very obvious. Suddenly, people stopped smiling. There were no cheers. There was a kind of chill over the crowd. If people were talking at all, they were talking very quietly.

That was also around the time we walked by the large abortion posters - the ones which show babies who have lost their lives in the procedure. They were very hard to see. Suddenly you're reminded why you are there, and all the joy at seeing so many people marching for life leaves you, and you just wish that this didn't have to happen at all, that all lives could be protected.

Then we were back at Parliament Hill. People were returning their signs to the March organizers. Many were leaving - all of the students had to return to school. The pro-choicers cleared out almost immediately, which surprised me as I expected them to hang around until the very end.

Once I reached the Hill I think it was obvious why they had left. After the March, post-abortive women and men share their testimonies, and it is very difficult to listen to the pain in their voices. It was a very fitting way to end the March, but I would like to see at least one abortion testimony spoken loudly before the March next year, so that everyone can hear it, especially the pro-choice protesters. 

Then a mass started, and we left to return home. And my first ever March for Life was over.

The Positives:

1. The amount of people. The diversity in age. The amount of students and children. The amount of women. The presence of religious leaders and MPs.

2. How peaceful and family-friendly the event was. How many other rallies like this (if there are even other rallies that can draw this kind of attendance), involve almost no danger of violence, no vandalism, no littering, and no anger. It was amazing to see how respectful the pro-lifers were, both of the city itself and of the people in it. The police definitely had an easy job yesterday.

3. The joy that permeated the March. The cheering. The smiles.

4. The reactions of the average citizen. So confused. So bewildered. Hopefully a few are inspired to read about our cause!

The Negatives:

1. The focus on Christianity. How many atheist or agnostic pro-lifers didn't attend, or left early, because they didn't feel welcome? That isn't to say that there shouldn't be a religious presence - there absolutely SHOULD - but I don't think there should have been a mass after the March, on Parliament Hill. The masses should occur in the churches, and be specifically for the Christian pro-lifers. If we want other people to attend the March, we shouldn't force church on them! There was also too many speakers who said they were against abortion because God is. This does not help our cause. It just makes us sound like crazy religious people. 

2. The Theme. I agree that sex selection abortion is wrong, but it isn't the ONLY thing that is wrong about abortion. Aborting anyone, boy or girl, is wrong, and I think this theme overshadowed that very important fact.

3. The lack of homemade signs. Homemade signs show you care about the cause, they show that you are willing to put time into spreading your beliefs! I hope more people are inspired to make their own signs next year.

4. The fact that so many people left right away. It gives the impression that you really don't care that much about the pro-life cause. Though there was still a very sizable crowd several hours after the March (much larger, I am sure, than any other crowd that comes to Parliament), if the attendance could have stayed as high as it had been during the March, that would have made a wonderful witness!

5. The amount of Christians. That in itself is a VERY good thing (this is exactly the sort of protest that Christians should be involved in!), but I would like to see a more diverse set of beliefs expressed in the March. There should be more groups like Pro-Life Humanists and Secular Pro-Life, and they need to have a strong presence!