Human Revolution

This blog has been moved to

Monday, April 17, 2006

Free Online Video: Partial Birth Abortion Demonstrated by Dr. Bill Lile

This video has moved to our new site.

Please update your links and bookmarks.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Britney Spears and the Pro-Life Image

A statue of a nude Britney Spears giving birth to her son, entitled Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston will be displayed in a Brooklyn museum next month. In response to the announcement, a flurry of complaints has been launched from both sides of the abortion issue – over 3,000 emails in a week’s time. (News Article)

Abortion supporters, as expected, are opposed to the idea of more exposure for the pro-life cause. Abortion opponents don’t seem to want a “monument” to their cause featuring a disrobed pop icon.

The controversy over the statue brings up some important points for discussion, not including the question of abortion itself.

Sculptor Daniel Edwards told the Associated Press his statue was “a new take on pro-life.”

“Pro-lifers normally promote bloody images of abortion. This is the image of birth," Edwards said.

It is interesting that Edwards, under fire for a creating an offensive piece of work and calling it “pro-life,” would be condemned by a movement that has plastered images of the bloody remains of abortion on signs, banners, bumper stickers, and even the sides of trucks driven through major metropolitan areas – images deemed offensive almost universally by abortion supporters, opponents, and those claiming to be neutral.

The merit or harm in the display of Edwards’ "pro-life" statue and the typical pro-life use of abortion pictures can be debated. Edwards' A Pro-Life Monument does celebrate the choice of life from a woman whose career depends on her looks and her body, and does demonstrate the fact that sex naturally results in life. While the the pictures of abortions have been credited with many changes of heart, they have been displayed with much less tact. Edwards has at least limited his "offensive" display to a museum, while the graphic abortion pictures - perhaps the most violent images of our time - are displayed in public, where even parents cannot prevent their young children from seeing them.

So who decides what images the pro-life movement may use? How is it any of us can say, “Take your pro-life message elsewhere, you’re not one of us?” Especially when, disgusting and offensive as it may be to many of us, pictures of the aborted are widely used in pro-life demonstrations. Both the bloody pictures and Edwards’ depiction of Britney Spears have shock value, are offensive, and claim to serve the pro-life movement. Whose movement is it, that they can be say which is to be accepted and which is to be refused?

Though we may disagree with the politics, beliefs, or artistic representation of others who champion life, the pro-life movement does itself a great disservice when it alienates its members that are atheists, Democrats, non-Christians, or do not otherwise fit the stereotypical mold of a “pro-lifer.” We must come together to save lives, and celebrate the contributions (provided they are non-violent) of the many faces of the pro-life movement.

If the pro-abortion force in America is identified as liberal, secular, and feminist, does it not follow that such persons will be more receptive to arguments that are liberal, secular, and feminist in nature?

However, those who have the courage to stand up and say they are pro-life, but do not believe in God, or are not Republicans, or are not Christians, seem to have been ignored by both sides of the debate.

This is not only about Daniel Edwards. Nat Hentoff, Carol Crossed, Vasu Murti, and other members of groups such as Democrats for Life and Consistent Life have been denounced by other liberal groups solely for their opposition to abortion. Yet because they are professed liberals, atheists, and even anti-war protesters, these “Pro-Life Good Samaritans” have not had very warm welcomes from the mainstream pro-life movement.

Edwards seems to have expressed this when he told reporters, “I wouldn't march with either pro-life or pro-choice advocates.”

What, in the reception he has received so far, has encouraged him to continue to further promote the cause for life?

The pro-life movement is bigger than any of us, or even all of us together; that is why it is a movement.

Friday, January 27, 2006

What's Wrong with the Pro-Life Movement?

I've had this article in mind for some time now, but after a noticing a few things at the March for Life 2006 I took the time to put it all togehter:

Please repect the copyrights of the site that published it, and link to the piece if you like it!

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Pro-Life Guerrilla Apologetics Book Now Available

Just a quick note to update everyone: Guerrilla Apologetics for Life Issues is now available at and