Speech: Monica Snyder at the Walk for Life West Coast 2014
 |
| WFLWC 2014 Attendance Broke Records |
Most years we write a blog post filled with photos examining the religious nature of the Walk for Life West Coast, and the anti-religious nature of its counter-protesters. However, this year we had the honor of speaking at the Walk on behalf of Secular Pro-Life, so this year the blog posts are about that experience.
(If you still want to see SPL’s photos from this year’s Walk, click here. If you want to see our opposition’s counter protest photos, click here.)
The following is the text of Secular Pro-Life’s speech, complete with links to more information. (You can watch SPL’s video of the speech here.)
* * *
Thank you Fr. Pavone. Hello!
As you’ve probably just heard, my name is Monica Lynn Snyder, and I’m a member of Secular Pro-life – a group that doesn’t exist! Well, okay, we do exist but apparently we’re not supposed to. According to our opposition, the pro-life movement is based solely on religion–yet here we are, Secular Pro-Life, using secular arguments, using science. This seems to irritate some people.
By “some people” I mean “pro-choicers.”
They want this to be about religion. They want this to be religion vs. freedom, to be dogma vs. progress, because it distracts from the real issue. So they’ll go on about religious sexism and they’ll ignore anti-abortion feminists like, I don’t know, Susan B. Anthony. They will talk about puritanical views on sex while ignoring the human rights atrocity of murder in the womb! They will talk all day about how there’s no proof of a human soul, but they’ll skip the part where there is plenty of proof of a new human life!
This is why Secular Pro-Life, the mere mention of our name, causes abortion rights advocates to freak out. Because we take away their favorite distraction: their anti-religion bigotry. We show the Pro-Life movement is not just about religion–it’s about human rights, it’s about science, and science says abortion kills humans!
Secular Pro-Life isn’t here because of faith—we’re here because of facts. Like the fact that fetal heartbeat begins 3 weeks after conception, the fact that brain waves can start at 6 weeks. You put those two together, that means 2/3rds of abortions kill human beings with heartbeats and brainwaves. And do you know how I know? Because the biology textbook tells me so!
Because, at its core, this is a debate about biology. At its core, this is a debate about life and death. And we’re promoting life, they’re promoting death. It’s like Coke vs Pepsi—we’re Coke, they’re Pepsi, but instead of Pepsi they use rat poison. It’s Coke vs. rat poison! They can have the coolest cans, they can have the funniest commercials, but in the end it’s still a can of rat poison! When you peel away the glossy ad, the pro-choice position offers death. Nothing more.
They’ll use rhetoric—they’ll use rhetoric about freedom, about female empowerment, and that can be very appealing. I mean I’m all for freedom! I am all for female empowerment. I believe women should have the same opportunities as men—for education, for career, for balancing family life, all of it. We should be creating a society that allows that. But! Creating that society—an equal society—is tricky, because biology has dealt the sexes different hands. Women bear the children. That takes time, energy, resources—in some ways that makes life more difficult for us than for men.
And we can level the playing field: we can work to improve maternity leave, childcare options. We can work to break down stigmas about single mothers, about working mothers, stigmas about stay-at-home fathers! But those solutions take work. They take complicated changes, and abortion tries to short circuit the whole process. The abortion-on-demand mentality tells me, “Sure, you can have the same opportunities as men! All you have to do is kill your offspring!!” That’s the decision I’m left with? That’s choice?? That’s equality?
The pro-choice position has little to offer in terms of feminism and nothing to offer in terms of science, so they change the subject to “freedom from religion.” That’s why Secular Pro-Life makes pro-choicers so defensive.
But for pro-lifers, we’re hope. Our existence symbolizes the strength of the Pro-Life message to all people, regardless of religious belief. The fact that I have no religion and I’m still passionately pro-life means We! Are! WINNING!
I know…I know it doesn’t always feel like that when the media acts like we don’t exist. Doesn’t matter! The tide turned years ago. Now it’s lifting all of our boats. As of last year, 58% of Americans said they think abortion should generally be illegal. And that holds true for the youngest generation, even though we’re the least religious. And do you know why? Because it’s not just about religion; it’s about human rights!
You know it wasn’t supposed to be like this. You guys were supposed to get tired! Sick of being misconstrued! Sick of being mocked! You were supposed to quit! In ’84 or ’94, or 2004. And yet here we are, 2014, larger than everI And why is that? It’s because people like you and me take action, large and small. We turn words and ideas into deeds. And that’s why we’re growing and they’re shrinking, and it’s making them desperate!
Just look for their signs today, they’ve got nothing left! They’re going to scream about theocracy, about Christian “fascism,” about the pro-life movement being a bunch of religious old men. You know what? The pro-life movement does have a bunch of religious old men, and I say “great!” We welcome religious old men, we welcome everyone! Religious, secular, men, women, young, old—I have a pro-life friend who’s ambidextrous! Yeah!
The pro-life movement is winning, because we are THE big tent! Do you believe in God? Great, come on in! You don’t believe in God? Great, come on in! You’re not sure about God? Great, come on in! Everyone who recognizes the horror of abortion is welcome here!
I think it was Mother Teresa who said, the best defense is a good offense….actually, I think General Patton said that, but Mother Teresa would agree, and that’s Secular Pro-Life, we’re on the offense. We’re writing and walking and talking and blogging about everything science has to say about life. We love, a good, secular-based debate, if only we could get one! All pro-choicers want to do is talk about religion.
President Obama said that before he could support a law banning abortion he’d have to explain how “abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” Well Mr. President, I am happy to help you with that.
www.secularproflife.org
It’s filled with secular reasoning about why women deserving better than forceps and saline solution. Why the pro-life movement is right, and abortion is wrong! Why you should choose Coke, not rat poison! Stop by anytime!
Thank you.
Excellent speech, skillfully delivered!
Love this!!!
Awesome speech! I wish I could have been there myself.
Awesome. I love it! (incidentally, I'm an active Mormon).
Love your secular approach~I sent similar arguments to every member of congress some years ago and the letter was accepted by ProLifeLetters.com as an example~Here's the text (Note the Taber's definition of "life" and the dictionary entry on "reproduction"):
Throughout history many good people have been seduced by bad ideas. Foremost among these is the belief that human beings may be legally killed during the first nine months of life. Abortion policy must be based on relevant facts and logic. Consider the following excerpt from the Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary entry for "life": "Biologically, unitary life begins at the moment of conception and ends at death. However, for legal and other reasons the definition of when life begins has been subject to a variety of interpretations. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that life is a continuum which can be arbitrarily but not logically indicated as having begun at some point in time or development past the moment of conception. " This unequivocal refutation of the "pro-choice" premise was published in the 1973 edition of a standard medical reference–the same year abortion was legalized by Supreme Court justices who pretended the beginning of life was debatable. This tragic error in American history casts our most noble principles in the light of hypocrisy. "Reproduction" correctly understood and defined by Webster's New World Dictionary is the "process by which animals and plants produce new individuals." Fishbein's Illustrated Medical & Health Encyclopedia (1985 ed.) defines "conception" (fertilization) as "the beginning of life for a new individual." Therefore, abortion cannot be a "reproductive" right, because it does not prevent reproduction–a process ending at fertilization with the existence of a new individual but commonly confused with gestation, which is merely the internal nurturing of that individual. We accept infants as "persons" though they lack definitively human qualities (rationality, for example) and this precedent demands equal treatment of the unborn. Obsession with sexual freedom and temptation toward medical exploitation of embryos can blind us to pro-life logic, but eventually we must face the painful truth about our fatal discrimination against the unborn, into which so many have been unwittingly led. Let's find the courage to admit the facts and support pro-life candidates who will pass right-to-life legislation, and let us also teach the rationale behind it so abortion will no longer be sought as a means to an end; only then will our laws and our nation truly uphold what we all profess to believe in–the value of a single human life.
Very cool. Well done!
As an animal advocate, I've noticed religious pro-lifers adhere to a double-standard. They expect everyone, including those outside their faith and those of no faith, to accept secular arguments to protect the unborn, but then they think their religion exempts them from secular arguments to protect animals. Secular arguments to protect the unborn are good politics, because secular arguments are religion-neutral, and thus applicable to *everyone* including atheists and agnostics. Secular arguments to protect animals are met with the cry "MOVE" ! Secular pro-lifers, people for the ethical treatment of the unborn, shouldn't play these games.
Philosophically the animal rights movement has lost credibility when its leaders like Princeton Prof. (and PETA guru) Peter Singer defend the idea of legal infanticide and denial of legal personhood up to age two. That puts Singer in the same category with the villains of history who actually tried to take the right to life and legal personhood away from those who've already been accepted as having it. It also raises the question of whether the animal rights movement is just a Trojan Horse to get acceptance of legal infanticide via an animal-friendly but infant-hostile manipulated definition of "personhood." Given the high numbers of pro-abortion celebrities in the animal rights movement I wonder if the PETA philosophy is a way to expiate abortion guilt — some sort of transference, like the final dramatic MASH episode when the analyst helps Hawkeye realize that his guilt at urging a woman to quiet an animal whose noise put them all in danger from hostile forces–was really denial–it wasn't a hen but a crying baby and the mother smothered the child to death–the suppressed guilt at being the cause of that caused his mental breakdown. And in this fictional account the baby wasn't even his — imagine what happens in the minds of those who've been deceived into aborting their own children. For more on the MASH episode see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090801090047AAr7pVA
Bravo! I myself am Catholic, but I totally agree with you that one doesn't have to believe in God to understand that abortion is wrong. Study biology! It is almost like all pro-choice advocates failed high school science classes. Anyway, I am glad I found your site. Keep up the good work! Larry
In what capacity are you referring to? Can you be specific as I do not know where the double standard you refer to exists. I know of know animal abortion pro-choice argument so, will you please clarify an argument that actually makes sense?