Our Mission

Pro-Life Digest has two primary goals; the first is to stimulate a more honest and open dialogue on the abortion controversy; the second is to generate a renewed interest in the urgency for finding a solution. This deeply divisive dispute must be faced head-on and resolved before it tears America apart. When human lives are at stake, time is of the essence! The longer we are evasive, in denial, stubbornly holding on to our prejudices, or purposely distorting facts so that we can defend and/or promote a personal or group agenda, the more this social infirmity will consume the goodness that made our nation great.

Tolerance and delay have bred a social callousness that has weakened our instinctive repulsion to the purposeful killing of our own human species for personal safety and convenience. The resolution of the abortion controversy is the major social obligation of our day. It’s the debt we owe to all those who fought and who died for our freedoms and to the millions of innocent preborn girls and boys who were killed by the choice of the very people who brought them into existence. We can pay our debt to those who have given so much by making a firm commitment to fight vigorously to save the lives of those future millions of innocent preborns who are destined for death.

Our Position

We have beliefs or tenets that we hold firmly. We have embraced them after a great deal of soul-searching, study and exploration. It can even be said that we hold these beliefs tenaciously, but we promise to always hold them open to question and debate; and when they are challenged, if we can’t defend them openly, honestly and logically, then we will live by our commitment to follow the truth wherever it leads us.

Pro-Life Digest will always encourage an open and positive dialogue without the animosity of an emotionally charged, adversarial mind-set that pervades both sides of the abortion debate today. This constraint can be achieved and maintained if we remember that those who disagree with us, and who act in good faith, are our sisters and brothers, and they deserve our love, our honest and sincere effort, and our best intentions.

Pro-Life Digest’s subheading Truth, Justice and Goodwill represents our sincerest challenge to both sides of every dialogue to accept these three words as our ground rule objective. We must force ourselves to listen attentively, as we control the bias that either side may have developed because of the participation, acceptance and/or tolerance of abortion, or by our abhorrence of it. Our emotional need to protect the position we have held must be suspended and restricted to the conclusions or realities which we find in an open, fair, honest and objective debate. Difficult? Of course! But, by an act of will, and firm emotional discipline, we can open our minds and hearts to listen intently to all the ideas and arguments of those who disagree with us. Together we will find the truth.

“There are only four features differentiating preborn persons from born persons; size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And none of these are of any moral significance!” (The Moral Question of Abortion, by Stephen Schwartz, Professor of Philosophy, University of Rhode Island.)

We believe our search for truth requires the intellectual effort of abstract thinking, the desire to learn all the pertinent facts, and the acceptance of true evidence. For our part, we promise to accept or reject arguments on the basis of their validity alone. We know that what we believe to be true, can sometimes be shown, through discussion and debate, to be false. We believe that it’s extremely important to understand that knowledge and belief may not be the same. Plato argued that belief can be a product of persuasion.

We all know that the reasoning that produces knowledge also produces truth. Knowledge is understood to mean truth. Belief, however, may be true or it may be false! Persuasion can lead us to believe something is true even though we do not know it in a factual or scientific way. Therefore, the possibility of grave error remains.

We believe there are established rules of logic that guide us in our search for truth. We use our minds to understand, to reason, and to judge. We express concepts using terms, propositions and arguments. We know that terms are either clear or unclear; and they are clear when they are intelligible or unambiguous. We know also that propo- sitions are either true or untrue; and they are true when they correspond to reality. And finally, we know that arguments are either logically valid or invalid; and they are logically valid only when the conclusion follows from true propositions. Consequently, if all the terms in an argument are clear, and if all the propositions or statements are true, and if the argument is free from logical error, the conclusion must be true!

Unfortunately, even the most logical argument won’t move some of us to think clearly and objectively because we want to be seen as politically correct, or we’ve become so emotionally trapped by a personal or a group bias that we’ve become lost in a myriad of misinterpretations and/or negative experiences. And many of us are fooled by doublespeak, language designed to distort reality and corrupt understanding, prevalent in so much of today’s dialogue. Many of us choose to believe what we want to believe, or what we feel we should believe. And once we’ve suspended our intellectual responsibility, and our objectivity, we tend to avoid all discussion and debate.

So, when it comes to the critical question of abortion, we ask ourselves: “Why have we, the citizens of America, allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we have the right to kill unborn human life even though we have not, and cannot demonstrate-scientifically, medically, or philosophically-beyond a reasonable doubt, when unborn life becomes fully human?”

The burden of proof falls on those of us who condone and defend abortion! Therefore, until such proof can be demonstrated, it’s our moral duty to protect the lives of all the unborn!

Along with seemingly irrefutable logic, we agree with the legal scholars who find Roe v. Wade and its companion decision, Doe v. Bolton (which radically changed the nature of Roe), to be unwarranted judicial activism that has turned the Constitution on its head. It has not only given us abortion on demand, but even abortion at birth, which has created a pervasive disrespect for human life in general, and has caused us to endure the shameful era of dump-bin babies-the treating of human life as trash! What a reflection on American morality, and what depraved inhumane injustice we’ve visited on the most innocent form of human life, and on our nation.

Our division over this issue continues to grow and has fractured our democracy. We have a critical cancer corroding our society. The only cure is a determined search for truth; to insist on the use of an honest language, and to follow the rules and restrictions of logical reasoning.

Pro-Life Digest is determined to exclude the use of doublespeak. The purpose of an honest language is to transfer objective truth from one mind to another. Doublespeak is aimed at communicating a falsehood disguised as truth. We believe it’s necessary to restrict our dialogue to denotative definitions that are clear in their sense, and are complete in their meaning and consequence. We also believe that searching for truth under these ground rules will be fair and balanced and will ultimately lead all of us to a comprehensible and irrefutable conclusion.

Pro-Life Digest is determined to eradicate from our abortion dialogues the refrain used repeatedly by abortion advocates to divert or discount the credibility of any argument that is based on a person’s belief in God. On hearing a religious argument, this group will say “don’t impose your religion on us” or “you’re against abortion because of your religion.” For this reason we have chosen to restrict our dialogue to the position held by the agnostic (which we are not), because we believe that anyone who has faith in God must logically accept that God, through nature, is the author of all life, and no man or woman who believes that God is truly the creator of every human life could possibly rationalize to the position of usurping that power except to save one’s own life from direct malevolent, life-threatening attack. Therefore, we must assume that all “believers” are clearly pro-life. So, we welcome all non-religious dialogue because we believe it will more clearly expose the illogical activism that brought our nation down to the base inhumanity of abortion up to birth itself, for which we are now paying a devastating price. When we finally expose and put an end to this repugnant, anti-intellectual killing of our own species, we will regain our soul and the moral integrity we must have if we are to again become a great nation.

Doe v. Bolton?

Whatever happened to Doe v. Bolton? The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, by itself, does not convey the complete depth of the abortion devastation. Doe v. Bolton, Roe’s companion decision, is central to understanding the radical change it made on the Roe decision!

Some pro-life leaders have complained over the years that they don’t understand why a great many men and women don’t seem to realize that Roe v. Wade actually legalized abortion up to birth! One example of this expression was in pro-life giant J. P. McFadden’s Human Life Review (Summer 97), where he wrote, “…a great many Americans remain confused, they still don’t understand that the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision actually legalized abortion up to birth….”

But Roe, by itself, did not give us abortion up to birth. That’s why I believe that pro-life writer John T. Noonan, Jr.’s 1979 book, A Private Choice, referred to the court’s decision(s) as the “abortion cases” (plural) to convey they were inseparable. The “abortion cases” that is, Roe and Doe together, convey the full brutality of abortion.

Roe established the legality of abortion, but it could be restricted during the last three months of pregnancy unless the life or health of the mother were at stake. Doe defined “health” as encompassing: “all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age-relevant to the well-being of the patient.” Doe gave us the barbarism of executing an innocent living human life in the process of being born! Abortion advocates and apologists have worked hard to keep Doe v. Bolton out of the discussion because its message completes the picture of the inhumanity we are practicing! In my opinion, a proactive use of Doe with Roe in our dialogues over the years would have forged a different set images and concepts in the minds of Americans and would have reflected the truth of our human devastation. The abortion industry must be seen for what it does. It has made us participants in a social suicide that has become a part of our way of life. Forcing these facts to the forefront of our debate, forthrightly, will challenge distorted and false beliefs, and will intensify our dissonance and stimulate a review of our depraved behavior. We have selfishly robbed America of a generation of great men and women.

Political Hostages?

Are there politicians who are willing to hold preborn life hostage to political expediency? We believe there are. Abortion is the most destructive force in our country today! It’s certainly the most fundamentally divisive issue before us. The debate will slowly heat up because it has become obvious to thinking Americans that without life all the other issues are irrelevant. We who are alive are lucky to have survived the danger in the womb where almost one third of the unborn will be killed.

We were all there at one time growing toward our birth, so it’s fair to ask this question: If you were there now as a preborn what issue would you want the people of America to be most concerned about? The answer is abortion! As tragic as the circumstances may be in an unwanted, or crisis pregnancy, the right to life principle, by its very nature, applies to everyone of us, no matter what our stage of development. If not, then everyone’s right to life is abrogated. Our willingness to sacrifice preborn lives for political correctness, convenience, expediency, or money, not only compromises the life principle guaranteed by our forefathers, it also destroys the logic that protects the right to life of everyone-a corruption that puts our most vulnerable citizens, the preborn, the aged, the sick, and the handicapped, all at serious risk.

How are politicians holding preborn life hostage? By disregarding their obligation to debate abortion openly and forthrightly so the people can be exposed to all the facts. Every pro-lifer who works in the field knows that when you change the hearts and minds of people you will save lives. Our elected representatives are responsible for getting to the truth. We need to roll up our sleeves and embrace the slogan that tells the people why we must debate and learn to face the ugly fact that we are killing our own children. The slogan, “It’s the consequences, stupid!” could crash the gates of the conspiracy that hides the human devastation behind walls and words. We are committing a moral and cultural blunder, and are being unfaithful to our great American Constitution. How could any political leader, of any party, be willing to sacrifice human lives for a political career? Sadly, they are doing just that!

The Real Issue

A U.S. Senator told a TV audience that pro-life extremists want to tell a woman what she can do in the privacy of her bedroom, and these extremists also want to tell women what they can do with their own bodies (does a woman’s body have four ears?). These ridiculous statements were not challenged by the interviewer as being absurd, evasive and untrue. Our challenge is to clarify the real issue. The only way we can hope to get some abortion advocates to really understand the pro-life concept is to draw them a picture. For example, a woman, Mrs. RO, knows that if she gets pregnant she can choose to have her unborn baby legally killed by an abortionist. The court somehow conjured that right from the dark shadows of our Constitution. She also knows that all women have that same right. But Mrs. RO chooses to go next door to her neighbor’s house where, Mrs. DO has just brought home her newborn baby girl. Mrs. RO decides to exercise her right to “choose” on her neighbor’s new baby, and pays someone to kill her neighbor’s baby! This is a hypothetical story that exposes what abortion is really about-one individual person choosing to have another separate individual person killed!

From the publisher…

Pro-Life Digest will print articles, anecdotes, news, conversations, letters and opinions that explore the fundamental realities of abortion; the act itself, its causes, and the depth and scope of its brutal and far-reaching consequences.

Our editor has been writing about abortion for over 30 years. His deep concern for the serious damage it inflicts on our country, and in particular for its crime against our children, has motivated a book in process; Killing American Citizens. We will print excerpts as they are finalized and approved.

Carrie M. Martinsen