ISS:Prochoice or Prolife?

   The following is a transcript from the February 18, 1990
   airing of The John Ankerberg Show.  Since this transcript
   was taken from an audio tape, some misspelling of names
   might occur. For that, I apologize.

THE SCENE IS OF A PRO-CHOICE RALLY.  A WOMAN IS CHANTING, AND OTHERS
ARE REPEATING WHAT SHE IS SAYING: WOMAN: Control of women is what they
want

OTHERS: Control of women is what they want

WOMAN: Furious women is what they've got

OTHERS: Furious women is what they've got

SPEAKER ON A PLATFORM: (Mostly unintelligible)...  I know that women
are the majority of the people and the communities of the people of the
world...  women are also the majority of the poor ...

MORE CHANTING: GROUP: The system ain't fair

   (unintelligible) family

   Male supremacy

   Christian morality

   Baby factories

   All a plan used by the Klan

   to keep women down

   under the man

SPEAKER: And since women's work is NEVER done, now we have to
[unintelligible] not only ourselves, but the world ...

MORE CHANTING: GROUP: Ka-ka-ka-ka-ka Ka-ka-ka-ka-ka Christians!

   Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa Fascists!

   War on women has been declared

   But we can defeat it, if we dare

   Abortion on demand, without apology

   We've got to fight the power

   If we wanna be free!

   MOLLY YARD, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN [NOW],
SPEAKING ON A PLATFORM: We will never go back, we will never go back,
we will never go back, we will never go back...

   JOHN ANKERBERG: Many today who are ProChoice, and desire to keep
abortion on demand legal in this country, are arguing that every woman
has the RIGHT to control her own body.  From this true statement, they
believe it logically follows, that if a woman does become pregnant, she
has the RIGHT to choose termination of the pregnancy by getting an
abortion.  Since the developing child is ASSUMED to be just another
part of her body, similar to a group of cells, or a blob of tissue, she
is thereby ENTITLED to end the life of the child inside of her, and
terminate her pregnancy.

   I'd like you to listen to three prominent women in the ProChoice
movement express this point of view.  First you'll hear Janet Benshoof,
an American Civil Liberties Union attorney.  Second, Gloria Allred, a
prominent feminist attorney, and third, Faye Wattleton, the president
of Planned Parenthood.

   JANET: But you must remember that the fetus is part of a woman, and
that ...  the ... the woman is the ... the person who is directly
affected by the pregnancy, and by the childbearing. So, there isn't
going to be any scientific advance that's going to make the American
Civil Liberties Union change their position at all.  In fact, I think
.. you know .. we, we become yearly very ... much more strongly
committed to knowing that ... in order for women's equality to go
forward, women must be able to control their own bodies.

   GLORIA: The...  fetus ...is not considered a person under the
Constitution of the United States, and therefore, ahhh, has no rights
whatsoever; because only a PERSON has rights under the United States
Constitution. And that person is the mother.

   FAYE: There are a RANGE of views on these issues.  And your dogma
cannot be imposed -- the fact that you have DECLARED that women will
NOT, is really the essence here ...  is that people must be left to
decide for themselves -- you among them must decide for yourself -- and
that I want you to grant me the dignity of my ability to decide for
myself.

   JOHN: Now maybe you wonder, how could anyone possibly object to the
principle of a woman having the RIGHT to control her own body?  I asked
this question of Susan Smith, of the National  Right to Life Committee
in Washington, D.C., and this is what she said:

   SUSAN: I think every woman DOES have the right to control her own body.
 The question is: does she have the right to control someone else's
body?  And what we say in this country, in a democratic society, is
that we as individuals can't attack -- much less take the life of --
another innocent human being -- and that's really the ...  the, ah,
issue at stake in this whole issue of abortion.

   And science demonstrates, and every woman who's pregnant and has come
home from the doctor, will tell you that there's another unique human
being living and developing and growing in the mother's womb.  So, YES,
women have the right to control their own body; but they shouldn't have
the right to determine the fate of another human being.  Especially an
innocent baby.

   JOHN: Now Susan Smith has brought up a very important point: is the
child in the womb really a part of the mother's body?  What if it can
be SCIENTIFICALLY proven that it is NOT part of her body, but a
separate, living human being?

   Well, obviously, then, if that can be scientifically proven, the
slogan, "Every woman has the right to control her own body" would NOT
apply to the child in her womb.  She CANNOT control someone else's
body.

   Well, what scientific evidence speaks to this issue?  I'd like you to
listen to Dr.  Bernard Nathanson, a practicing obstetrician in New York
City, who was a founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League,
and formerly the director of the world's largest abortion clinic.

   NATHANSON: Well, I agree that every woman SHOULD have the right to
control her own body. Certainly, and no one denies this. If a woman
wants to use contraception, that's fine.  The problem is that when a
pregnancy implants into the uterus, it's no longer her body -- that
pregnancy, that baby.

   We know this from immunology.  Whenever a pregnancy implants, there's a
MAJOR immunological attack on the pregnancy by the white blood cells
and the lymphocytes of the mother.  Ah, the mother's white blood cells
*recognize* the unborn baby as a foreign person -- a foreign protein --
and it must be expelled. Ah, it's not the same as the mother's heart,
or kidney, or lungs. White blood cells don't try to expel your own
HEART. But when something different comes into your body -- some other
person, for example -- or another person's tissues, or organs, then
your own body will try to expel that as a non-self.  Ah, fortunately
the ... the fetus, over the aeons, has developed a mechanism to repel
that attack.  Otherwise, we'd all end up as miscarriages, of course. 
Ah, and there would be no human beings on the face of the earth. 
But...ah, so, it's devised a rather clever, immunological sanctuary, as
it were, to hide behind and to deflect the attack of the mother's
cells.

   But, what I'm trying to get at is that all of this ...  these
immunological data, illustrate PRECISELY that the pregnancy, the
growing unborn child is NOT of the mother's body --- not a PART of the
mother's body.  It's somebody else. The mother really acts as a trustee
for this child, who is growing inside of her.  The child is simply a
tenant. An uneasy tenant for nine months.  Now if you had a tenant in
your apartment and you didn't like them, you would probably go to court
and get an order to evict them; you would not take your shotgun and ...
and blow them to pieces.

   Ah, so this is what it's really all about ..  that this -- I believe
STRONGLY that women should control their own bodies, but this growing
baby inside of a woman is not of her body. It's IN her body, but it is
not a PART of her body.

   JOHN: Now, in addition to what Doctor Nathanson has just told you,
biologically it is:

      Number one: A scientific FACT that in pregnancy there are
      TWO bodies; there's the body of the woman, and there is
      another body, that of the child.

      Second: Many women carry babies whose blood type differs
      from their own.  It is medically IMPOSSIBLE for a single
      individual to have two completely different blood types.

      Third: A female may be carrying in her womb a male child.
      One body cannot be both male and female at the same time.

      Fourth: Some women deliver infants which may have been
      dead in the womb several days prior to delivery.  Since
      one body cannot be both dead AND alive at the same time,
      there must be two bodies.

      Fifth: Science tells us that the infant, separate from
      its mother, has its own heartbeat, its own brainwaves,
      its own fingerprints and its own different DNA structure.

   Professor A.  W. Lilly [sp], research professor and fetal
physiolog[ist] in Auckland, New Zealand, is known as the father of
fetology.  He has written, quote --

      Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view
      that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.
      Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals
      from conception.

 endquote.  Another doctor has gone so far as to say, quote --

      The child is no more a part of the mother's body than the

      nursing baby is a part of the mother's breast.  Or a test

      tube baby is a part of a petri dish.

    endquote.  Now I'd like you to listen to Dr. Norman Geisler, a
Christian philosopher, in a debate with Dr.  Paul Kurtz, a humanist
philosopher.  Dr. Geisler commented on why the baby in the womb cannot
scientifically be considered to be a part of the mother's body.

   GEISLER: ...but a fetus is not part of her body.  A fetus could be male
-- she's female.  [It] has its own blood type, has its own brainwave
from forty days on.  You take a *black* embryo and transplant into a
white womb and that woman will have a black baby.  It's not part of her
body. It's an individual human being of its own.  And the last time the
Supreme Court said somebody wasn't a person, was in 1857 when they said
BLACKS weren't persons.  And it took 11 years to reverse that; we've
been 13 years with this tragedy and it's time we reversed *it*.

   JOHN: In light of these scientific facts, let us carefully examine the
words used in ProChoice's slogan, "Every woman has  a right to control
her own body."

    First, let's look at the words, "every woman." Is it really true that
those arguing for abortion on demand want EVERY woman  to have the
right to control her own body?  They say, "yes."

   But the answer MUST be "no, " since at least 50% of the babies that are
destroyed by abortion are female.  Now, if these unborn women in the
womb are included in the term, "every woman, " then obviously every
woman *hasn't* been given the right to control her own body.  In fact,
this exposes the slogan for what it really is: a prejudicial slogan,
advocating elitism for powerful women over those women who are NOT so
powerful.  If the millions of aborted women could speak for themselves,
what do you think they would say?  Do you think they would agree that
abortion on demand has ensured for them the basic right to live and
control THEIR own body?  If the claim that "every woman has a right to
control her own body" is to have ANY integrity at all, it MUST include
ALL female human beings.  That is, ALL women, even the unprotected
women developing in the womb.

   Here's what Adelle Nathanson said when I asked her if she thought ALL
women should have the right to control their own bodies, INCLUDING the
right to having an abortion:

   ADELLE: As a feminist, I ...  WILL ... NOT ... WADE ... THROUGH ... 
THE ... BLOOD ... of my unborn sisters, and my born sisters, to gain MY
freedom. End of story.

   JOHN: Next in the slogan, "Every woman has the right to control  her
own body, " let's examine the words "has the right." Now legally, no
person -- man or woman -- has an absolute right of control over his or
her own body.  For example, in her informative book, Jeanne [sp] Garton
points out that the laws of society do not permit us to mutilate our
bodies or abuse them with drugs.  A man or woman who has consumed
alcohol is NOT legally permitted behind the wheel of a car.  A person
covered with chicken pox is not permitted in a classroom. Those adults
who participated in the former craze of "streaking" who ran nude down
Main Street, found society did not give THEM the right to control their
own body in THAT fashion.  And today, many individual rights are
partial and not absolute.

   In our relationship to others, we CANNOT endanger the lives of other
human beings by our actions.  And the same holds true for life in the
womb. NO ONE has the right to destroy it.

   DR.  KURTZ: I mean, ah, this is an invasion of her body, and it seems
to me a woman has a right of freedom of choice, and you can make a
MORAL CASE that, ah, women ought to be permitted to have an abortion
under such conditions.

   DR.  GEISLER: A woman has a right of freedom of choice, but she does
not have the right to freely kill another innocent human being -- and
it is scientific fact that it's another innocent human being in her
womb, and she doesn't have the right to kill it.

   KURTZ: It's not a human being, it's a FETUS.

   GEISLER: It's a human being.

   KURTZ: It's a FETUS ---

   GEISLER: It's a medical, genetic, scientific FACT it is human --

   KURTZ: --- and it's...  and it's NOT innocent ---

   GEISLER: Well, did it SIN?  You don't believe in original sin, do you?

   KURTZ: (Laughing) Ah, nooo!

   (AUDIENCE LAUGHS)

   JOHN: Next, in the slogan "Every woman has the right to control  her
own body, " let's examine the words "to control." What DOES the woman
have the right to control?  Well here is Judie Brown, the president of
American Life League; and then, Mr.  Joe Scheidler, the executive
director of the ProLife Action League:

   JUDIE: My response to the claim that "every woman has a right to
control her own body" is, that that is absolutely correct.  The problem
is that when a woman makes a decision, within her free will, to
participate in the sexual activity of her choice, she has already MADE
that choice; and if, BECAUSE OF her engagement in sexual activity she
and her partner procreate another person -- procreation does result, at
times, in the development of a brandnew human being -- then her choice
has already been made, and she is immediately making decisions for
herself, and for another innocent human person.

   When those people who claim that a "woman has the right to control her
own body" ah, speak out about their --- quote --- ProChoice --- end of
quote --- beliefs, what they're really saying is that they are in favor
of the right to deny responsibility for one's actions.  Even at the
expense of another person's life.  They're NOT ProChoice for that
innocent baby. They are very much ProDeath.

   JOE: You know, it's the most nonsensical thing in the world to say that
the new life developing inside a woman's body is HER body.  It is not
genetically her body, possibly it's a little boy baby, it had -- the
only thing this new body is doing is residing inside her uterus for
nine months!  To say that controlling her body gives her the right to
murder one of her children is absolute nonsense.  It's legally bad,
it's morally bad, it's ah, psychologically wrong and it's medical
nonsense.

   So, a woman has a right to get pregnant if she wants to, or not to get
pregnant; but once she is pregnant, there are now two bodies.  There...
are... two... human ... lives... at stake, and no more than she has a
right to kill her three year old, does a woman have a right to kill her
unborn child.

   JOHN: Then finally, in the slogan "Every woman has the right to 
control her own body, " let's examine the phrase "her own body." As has
already been demonstrated, the growing child is NOT part of the woman's
body.  The child is an INDEPENDENT person with it's OWN body.

   DR.  NATHANSON: I believe STRONGLY that women should control their own
bodies, but this growing baby inside of a woman is not of her body. 
It's IN her body, but it is not a PART of her body.

   JOHN: Concerning the same topic, I'd like you to listen to part of the
debate between Dr.  Paul Kurtz, a secular humanist, and Dr.  Norman
Geisler, a Christian philosopher, concerning the scientific evidence
that shows the growing child in the womb is NOT part of a woman's body.

   DR.  GEISLER: Well here's a good example that I think that if a
humanist were truly humanist, he'd be ProLife.  Because we know
medically life begins at conception.  There's no medical doubt about
the fact that fertilized ovum is a 100% genetic human being; it's sex
is determined --- there's no doubt about the fact that the babies that
are being killed today with fingerprints, heartbeat, blood type, full
...  fully functioned, are human beings and I think that the humanists
someday are going to sit around in smoke-filled rooms and say to
themselves, "We shouldn't have let those evangelicals grab that 
ProLife thing.  We're humanists, we're for human life!" and yet, "we're
only for it after it begins at birth" not, "after it  begins at
conception." I think the TRAVESTY --- Hitler only killed six million
Jews; we've killed eighteen million unborn human beings in America in
the last 13 years.  I think humanists ought to all repent and get on
the ProLife side --- like Bernard Nathanson, who is a Jewish atheist,
did, and wrote a book "Aborting America" after he had personally killed
sixty thousand of them.  He got "dehumanized." Because that MORAL
principles finally got through to him --- a moral ABSOLUTE came through
 to him, and he said, "This is morally WRONG."

   DR.  KURTZ: Norman, on this point, ah, I think that what you have  at
conception is a FETUS, or a CONCEPTUS [?], not a living human being, or
a living human ...  ah, not a human personality ...  which develop ...
not a human personality which develops ....

   GEISLER: The personality is a philosophical religious term about which
people debate.  There IS no debate about the fact it being a hundred
percent genetically human being...

   KURTZ: In a democratic free, open pluralistic society, these are 
arguable questions...and it's very difficult to say, ah, under what
point does the fetus become a human being with rights ...

   GEISLER: Paul, it's not difficult at all.  Science has pointed ---
there was a subcommittee hearing recently here in Washington, and
virtually EVERY scientist that came there including the famous
world-geneticist LeJeune from France said that life begins at
conception.  That's not what you're debating about ---

   KURTZ: --- something ---- something --- but we're not talking about
life.  Something begins at conception ---

   GEISLER: ---what we're talking about is human life ---

   KURTZ: --- it's 'conceptus' --- it's conceptus or it's a fetus, but
there's a developmental process.  Now, I agree that LATER in the
pregnancy I would not have an abortion unless the life of the mother is
...  is in danger. And the woman ought to have an abortion early ---
that's in the first trimester or the second TRIMESTER ---

   GEISLER: --- there is no new genetic information added AFTER the the
point of conception.

   KURTZ: There ... there is a developmental process ...

    GEISLER: There...is...no...new...genetic...information---

   KURTZ: Well, but the fetus GROWS and is nourished by the mother.

   GEISLER: Well, you grow AFTER you're born.  You would kill people
because they're SMALL?

   (Laughter)

   KURTZ: Well ....  well ... but uh, ah, a fetus is not ... is not a
person.  That's the point. I mean ---

   GEISLER: Well, now wait a minute, a person as defined by *what*?

   KURTZ: The fetus is a POTENTIAL person.  It's...it's as if you would
argue that one ought not to practice contraception because the sperm or
the egg is a potential person, in the same sense.

   GEISLER: Who said the fetus is NOT a person?

   KURTZ: Well!

   GEISLER: Philosophers and theologians.  I'm not talking about religion
and philosophy.  I'm talking about cold, hard, scientific facts that
you like as a humanist---

   KURTZ: No ... person ... develops later ... it's not cold ... it's not
cold, hard, scientific facts, um, at this point a moral attitude is ...
is applied to the developmental process.

   GEISLER: It's not a question of moral attitude.  I think if we took a
survey, Paul, wouldn't you agree that everyone --- 98 to 99 percent of
the country -- would answer this question in the affirmative: Do you
believe that it's wrong to kill an innocent human being?  Right?
Wouldn't you say 98 percent of the country would believe it's wrong to
kill an innocent human being?

   KURTZ: Uh ....  yes ... of course, but the question, the definition is
whether the fetus is an innocent human being.

   GEISLER: That's right!  Now, let me finish.  Then there's only really
one question left and that's a FACTUAL question: IS A FERTILIZED OVUM A
HUMAN BEING?  And when 23 chromosomes from a male sperm unite with 23
chromosomes from a female ovum, it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT THAT 46
CHROMOSOMES IS A HUMAN BEING.

   KURTZ: Potential ... it's ...

   GEISLER: It's NOT potential ---

   KURTZ: It is potential...

   GEISLER: --- It's a human life with great potential.  It is NOT  a
"potential life."

   KURTZ: It is ...  well ... it is it is it is not fully developed as a
potential human being.

   GEISLER: Neither is a four year old fully developed!

   KURTZ: You could argue...  you could argue that... you could argue
against birth control, as many devout Catholics have because either the
sperm ---

   GEISLER: ---we're not talking about birth control ---

   KURTZ: --- or egg are potential human beings --- they use the same
argument.  That therefore this is - is - is a sin to DO that.  So,
where, at what point do you split the developmental process and say,
"does ...  does human personality begin--"

   GEISLER: ---we're not talking human personality!

   KURTZ: --- or does not begin ---

   GEISLER: That's what PHILOSOPHERS argue about!

   KURTZ: --- In any case, it seems to me women have RIGHTS, and men
should not simply IMPOSE her standards on women and say, "You must
carry---"

   GEISLER: I agree ... I agree ...

   KURTZ: "---you must carry this fetus to term no matter what, EVEN if
it's a product of rape, EVEN if it's a deformed fetus---"

   GEISLER: But Paul ...  when you're talking about "IMPOSING ---

    KURTZ: "---even if, even if your life is at stake..."

   GEISLER: ---your moral standard on someone else --- and your religious
beliefs, " that unborn, innocent human being is having SOMEONE else
impose THEIR standards on them, and not allowing them to live!

   I think that's immoral.

   JOHN: Now, we can only conclude from examining the scientific evidence,
that the slogan, "Every woman should have the right to control her own
body" does NOT apply to the child in the womb.  The reason being, that
the child in the womb is a SEPARATE human being, and NOT part of a
woman's body.  And, as such, NO WOMAN has the RIGHT to TAKE THE LIFE OF
ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

   In our next program, you will see the different techniques of
destruction that are used to kill the developing child.  Many think,
that because the child is so small, so undeveloped, it is alright to
have an abortion during the first trimester -- that is, during the
first 12 weeks of pregnancy.  We will even go beyond that time, and
trace the development of the child from conception, to birth.  And YOU
will see what the child looks like at each stage of its development... 
and the method used to destroy it.

   DR.  WILKE: Abortions are done with different techniques at different
ages.  The most common type would be what we call a  "suction
aspiration abortion." Now this would be approximately two weeks... 
late ... three weeks late for her period, and up 'til, maybe about when
the baby's about three months old.

   This is a vaginal approach.  The abortionist stretches open the mouth
of the womb, the cervix; then inserts into the cavity of the uterus (of
the womb), a hollow plastic tube about this long [1 foot].  This he
attaches to a powerful suction --- it's about 25 times more powerful
than your vacuum cleaner.  This RIPS the developing baby's body apart,
and pulls it out through that tube.  Then the abortionist must cut and
slice the deeply- rooted afterbirth from the inner wall of the womb. 
Now that is  a "suction abortion."

   JOHN: Tonight, I want to remind you that you can recieve the book "When
Does Life Begin?  And Thirty-nine Other Tough  Questions About
Abortion" for a gift of $15.00 to this ministry.  You can also receive
the entire series of television programs that we are now airing on a
VHS video tape for a gift of $39.00 to the ministry....

      JOHN ANKERBERG SHOW

      P.O.  Box 8977

      Chattanooga, TN 37411

   ....Goodnight. God bless you. We'll see you next week.
