Pro-abortion activist Judith Arcana, who performed illegal abortions before Roe:
“… we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening…. In the clinics, having an abortion is sometimes compared to going to a dentist. There is no discussion of, and no acceptance of, what is actually being done when the choice is made, when the responsibility to abort is accepted.”
A pro-choice article meant to be read by women considering abortion said:
“It is important to understand that while abortion does involve the taking of a human life because all life that is in and of a human being is human life in order to call it murder we would have to believe that prenatal life in the early stages of pregnancy is a human person and that there were absolutely no reasons that justified the taking of that life … “
Marjorie Reiley Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire. “Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Decisions,” Catholics for a Free Choice, September 1983
Mark Mercer; a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Saint Mary’s University:
“At conception comes a new human being.
Abortion, then, involves the killing of a human being. But that abortion involves the deliberate killing of a human being is no reason for abortion to be illegal. Nor should one be morally troubled by it….
A human fetus… though human, has only a rudimentary awareness of its environment and lacks self consciousness entirely. It has no interest in living, for it can have no interests at all.
Because a fetus is not a person, killing a fetus is not killing a person.”
In the section on Abortion Counseling, you can read stories from former Planned Parenthood workers and former Planned Parenthood patients talking about how PP denies that a pregnant woman is carrying a “baby.” Instead, they use words like “products of conception” or “fetal tissue.” But in a video on YouTube aimed at teaching children about sex, PP admits they knew it was a baby all along. The video narrator says:
“With younger children you can keep it simple and direct. For example, you can say “A baby grows in a parent’s belly and comes out of their vagina.” That may be all it takes to satisfy their curiosity. If they ask, “How does the baby get in the belly?” You can say something like, “Most women have tiny eggs in a special part of their belly. Most men have very tiny seeds, called sperm. If sperm and egg meet they can grow into a baby.”
From pro-choice Alexander Sanger, grandson of Margaret Sanger, and International Planned Parenthood Council Chair:
“While abortion opponents argue that the taking of human life is prima facie is evidence that abortion does not serve a biological purpose, I would argue otherwise… While abortion takes life, it enables life to reproduce itself successfully, not on nature’s terms but on human terms. The unborn child is not just an innocent life. While it is the epitome of human destiny and the greatest potential joy that humanity can create, it is also a liability, a threat, and a danger to the mother and to the other members of its family. In order to survive, humanity has necessarily taken preborn life to preserve other life all throughout its evolutionary history.”
Alexander Sanger Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom in the 21st Century (New York: Public Affairs, 2004) 261
The following is from feminist Karen Houppert, in response to an article by Gregg Easterbrook. Easterbrook claimed that unborn babies should not be aborted in the third trimester because their brain patterns at that stage are similar to that of adults. Houppert supports third trimester abortion. She says:
“According to Easterbrook’s new science, at 24 weeks the fetus’s “cerebral cortex becomes “wired,” and “fetal EEG readings begin to look more and more like those of a newborn.” Easterbrook contends that the “hopelessly confusing viability standard should be dropped in favor of a bright line drawn at the start of the third trimester, when complex fetal brain activity begins.”
It is at this point that feminists who’ve been around the block once or twice might fight the temptation to take this earnest neoliberal by the hand and lead him gently back to the point of contention: What does it mean that this fetus acquires “personhood” inside the body of another?
Memo to Gregg: Yours is that same tiresome argument about when life begins. Randall Terry [founder of Operation Rescue] and his minions call them the “preborn.” You’ve simply modernized, adding the intellectual’s imprimatur by invoking science to define “signs of formed humanity.”
But get this. Most of us feminists don’t even disagree with you. We might quibble with the notion that “personhood” is bestowed at precisely 24 weeks when the brain waves are first detected on an EEG, because, in general, when a pregnancy is a welcome one, we women tend to bestow “personhood” immediately. (We change the way we eat; “You’re eating for two now.” We pass around sonograms and coo at those 10 little “signs of formed humanity.” We mourn when we miscarry.)
… Our jaded feminist gives a weary nod and says, “Remember, this fetus is being carried inside a woman’s body. The question,” she reminds him, “is not, “When does life begin?” But, “Can it ever be moral for a woman to be pregnant against her will?”
Karen Houppert “The Meaning of Life” The Nation vol. 270, March 13, 2000 P7
Dr. Christopher Tietz, who is senior consultant for the Population Council of New York and a pro-abortion researcher:
“Biological life of the individual begins at the union of ovum and sperm… At what point does this life deserve the respect and protection that we accord people? Such respect and protection become appropriate when the fetus has obtained viability, that is when it has become capable of surviving and eventually maintaining a meaningful, independent life.”
quoted in John O Anderson Cry of the Innocents: Abortion and the Race towards Judgment (South Plainfield, New Jersey: Bridge Publishing, Inc., 1984)
In 2015, NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of the most extreme pro-abortion groups in America, sent out a fundraising letter that called a preborn child a “baby” and admitted that a child in the womb feels pain at 20 weeks, which almost all pro-choice individuals vehemently deny.
The letter was signed by a NARAL supporter, Dana Weinstein, asking for donations to NARAL to fight HR 36, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks (5 months).
The text was:
“When I was more than 20 weeks pregnant, my doctor discovered our baby had horrifying severe fetal anomalies that could not have been discovered earlier in pregnancy.
If I’d carried our wanted and loved baby to term, she would have survived only for a short time, in a world of immense suffering. So we chose to end our baby’s pain.”
Below is a scan of the letter.
These pro-abortion activists publicly admitted that a “fetus” is a baby and that when pro-lifers say the child can feel pain at 20 weeks, they are telling the truth.