Planned Parenthood Director Turns Pro-Life

By Bob Ellis on November 2nd, 2009

KBTX reports a Planned Parenthood director in Bryan, Texas has turned pro-life, resigned from Planned Parenthood and now supports a pro-life group called Coalition for Life.

Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson’s life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

“I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it,” said Jonhson.

She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.

Amazing! Miraculous!

(But then, miracles are God’s specialty–as are life-changes)

I was pro-abortion for many years.  I bought the pap the “mainstream” media fed me hook, line and sinker.

I had no interest in being responsible–not sexually and certainly not toward a little dependent human child–so abortion was a great failsafe for me.  It was a convenient “ejection handle” in the event my half-hearted attempts at contraception failed.

So my media-enabled ignorance was the perfect compliment to my desire to escape responsibility.

That all began to change when I found the end of myself one day and turned my life over to Christ. Within a year of that decision, while still pro-abortion (running on the fumes of my self-centered ignorance), a Christian brother challenged me to investigate the matter for myself.  So I did, figuring I’d quickly dispose of his silly pro-life ideas.

Instead, I found in the Bible that God repeatedly emphasized the sacred nature of human life, created in His image.  I also found that God repeatedly talked about how children are a blessing, and how God values and recognizes human life even in the womb.

Turning to science to reinforce my crumbling confidence in abortion as morally and ethically upright, instead I found things the “mainstream” media never bothered to tell me or anyone else.

I found that human beings begin development very early in the womb, that babies are probably capable of feeling pain by the time most women even know they are pregnant and seek an abortion. I found that human beings are genetically unique from the moment of conception, that they are not a part of their mother’s body that the woman is entitled to do with as she pleases; these young children have a separate, distinct and unique genetic makeup–that is totally complete–that makes them their own person.  I found that their hearts begin beating within just a few weeks of conception, as does the formation of their circulatory system, their nervous system and their brains.  I found out many children can and do survive outside the womb long before the usual 9 months of development–and that many are killed at all points along this developmental journey.

I realized to my horror that I had been supporting murder. Thankfully, I had never created a child and participated in its destruction, but I had given encouragement and support to others in their decision to kill their children.  And though God’s grace is great, that still weighs on my conscience.

So, by taking the time to investigate the facts of the issue for myself, and by bringing an open mind to the exercise, I went from being strongly pro-abortion…to being strongly pro-life.

Had I much earlier seen an ultrasound of a living human being in the womb as Johnson did, I probably would have reached this conclusion much sooner.

No wonder the death merchants at Planned Parenthood so strongly oppose measures which make sonograms available to pregnant women.  This former Planned Parenthood director is a living illustration of the life-changing power of knowledge–and of sonograms.

HT: Hot Air.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: ,

  • fredfrosty
    Not to mentions Margaret Sanger's eugenics promotion. When the Church suffered in Mexico in the 1920s she advocated continued persecution. She is the founder of Planned Parenthood.
    She is now known as "The Angel of Death" and books about her have been written.
  • DCM
    It's always amazing how those (on what you'd call the "liberal" side, for lack of a better term) who are quick to accuse their opponents of "ignorance" (especially regarding science) can depend so fully on keeping information from people -- in the case of abortion providers, the information you cite about preborn children.

    And it's always amazing how ridiculous and fallacious the logic is of those who go along with such people. For example, women who say "It's my body and I have the right to do with it what I want!" Really? Never mind that (1) there are plenty of things one can do with "one's body" that they have no right to, such as abuse or murder someone; and (2) the unborn child has its OWN body, however small!

    P.S. to Brian: That's not a contradiction. It's not like Adam ever got to be in a womb, you know. And think of the pre-born John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth's womb when Mary visited, for a start. Now, *that's* a fetus being recognized as a living human!
  • brianrutledge
    I am not sure that God recognized the fetus as a living human in the Bible. The fetus is described as having 'the spirit' of God and other references-some rather vague, but never mentions the fetus is a living human.The Bible is full of spirits, for instance, that are not humans. Genesis 2:7 even declares that Adam isn't living until God breathes life into Adams nostrils which could be interpreted as we are not alive until we breathe. There are Biblical contradictions is my point.

    Being an atheist, I feel that all life is precious and since we don't know exactly when life begins, we can't take the chance and have no right of prematurely ending it through abortion.
  • I applaud you, Dr. Rutledge, for you intellectual and moral honesty and consistency in taking a pro-life position. Such courage is not often seen among atheists and agnostics, who usually take any position as long as it is in opposition to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    Your interpretation of the Biblical point of view, however, is wanting. The Word of God makes it clear that we are all children of God from conception. In Jeremiah 1:5 we are told ""Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart."

    The Bible has always regarded abortion - killing the child in the womb- as murder, a crime punishable by the death penalty. The grounds for this judgment are "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex.20:13); regarding child sacrifice, "he shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:1-5); and Exodus 21:22-23, where an explicit example of abortion is found:

    "If men strive, and hurt a women with child, so that her fruit depart from her [premature birth], and yet no mischief follow [the mother and child survive]: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow [death of the baby or mother], then thou shalt give life for life" (Ex.21:22-23).
  • brianrutledge
    dr theo I will be the first to admit that my interpretation of the Bible is wanting. Jeremiah 1:5 could be interpreted that before we are conceived that
    God has set us apart and has plans for us. Before 'forming us in the womb' and before 'birth' could mean preconception, but it is interpretive.Could just as easily be interpreted as God gives us life in the womb as well, so will defer to you.

    I think a bigger contradiction is seen in Ex 21:22-25. Jewish people do not interpret it as you do. They feel it is saying that if a pregnant woman is somehow caused to have a miscarriage by a man and the fetus doesn't survive but the woman isn't done permanent harm, then the guilty man will be fined by judges. If the woman is killed( mischief), then the perpetrator will also be put to death. This clearly states that the value of the fetus is not commisurate with a human life-in this case the mothers life. My devout Jewish friends confirmed this with a Rabbi and tell me this is one reason they do not have a problem with abortion from a Biblical viewpoint. Seems like Jews and Christians interpret that verse differently. Whose right ?
  • Yes, Ex 21: 22-25 has been a verse subjected to mind-numbing and convoluted exegesis by liberal theologians of all types. The view that you express, held as well by your devout Jewish friends, was only recently discovered following the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. Prior to that time there was little disagreement about what the text meant. This is like the claim that Sodom was destroyed because the inhabitants of the city were "inhospitable." No one thought of that until the homosexual community discovered it while attempting to quiet Christian criticism of homosexual behavior. What luck!

    The key passage in verse 21 is "that her fruit depart from her." This was a little creative translation by the 16th century translators who felt the literal "her children come out" just a little too blunt for their time. The Hebrew word yatsa is used in original texts that means to go forth or come out. This is in contrast to the word nephel which means stillborn or miscarriage (used elsewhere in the Bible). Clearly what is being refered to is a premature delivery.

    As there is no loss of life the punishment for causing a premature delivery was monetary and to be decided by the husband and approved by the judges. The "mischief" or harm that follows in the second part of this verse can only refer to the serious injury or death of the mother and/or child. Since such injury resulted from willful (felonious) acts the perpetrator(s) are subject to corporal judgements.

    Tertullian (who died in 220 A.D.) alluded to this passage writing in A Treatise on the Soul, “The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed [i.e., at conception—theo]. The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the condition of life and death".

    Exodus 21 properly understood, confirms that an unborn child has legal standing in Jewish Law no less than a patriarch, each regarded by its Creator as unique, loved and protected.
  • brianrutledge
    Great response and very informative, but not sure the comment that before Roe v. Wade, that there was little disagreement about what the text said. Talmudic law reveals that this has never been settled for millenia even amoung the most Orthodox of Jews.

    Halacha( Jewish law) states that a " baby becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the the womb. Before then, a fetus is considered a partial human being". Talmudic law is very complex and often reveals contradictory statements. One can choose the part that fits their current day ideology.

    From a religious standpoint, it seems to me the question should be when 'ensoulment' occurs and most orthodoxed Jews and Jewish Rabbis will say that it is regarded as " one of the secrets of God that will only be revealed when the Messiah comes "
  • jim_littlegus_anderson
    I greatly appreciate your point of view brianrutledge and agree with your well thought-out conclusion. Give me an honest atheist over some a Christian afraid of the tough questions any day.

    However, I am compelled to point out that your example of a "contradiction" in the example of God breathing the (breath of life, KJV) into Adam seems to assume that the "breath" is mere air. In the original Hebrew the word is neshama. It specifies not only air but spirit as well. Man is not only his body. Man is spirit, according to the Bible. He has a soul (mind, will, emotions) and is housed, literally interfaces with the material world, through his body. Yet, the body is not merely some mechanical abstract but has been incorporated into our sense of self. (reference the accounts and prophecies of physical resurrection.

    My rather round about point is that whether Spiritually and Materially, we do know precisely when and where life begins. Our spirit is born of the "Father of Spirits" (God) incorporates into our body the instant the man and woman's DNA strands combine and begin to replicate. That is provable both by Scripture and Science.
  • julien
    Hello jim,

    Your point about the fact that god ensouled the embryo body when the male and female nuclei fuse during fertilization makes me wonder: what about human clones (if it was technically possible)? They would not come from the fusion of a man and a woman germ cell, but rather result from the transplantation of a single cell (like a skin cell) into an unfertilized ovocyte. So would human clones have a soul?
  • jim_littlegus_anderson
    I should probably preface my comment here by saying, I am not a scientist by any stretch, merely someone who has always been interested in and endeavored to understand it as much as someone can without having the professional training.
    However, I don’t believe that the lack of professional standing or training disqualifies someone from having an opinion.
    My understanding is that identical (maternal) twins are natural clones. There were not two sperm and two eggs involved in the genesis and development of those babies. Is the cloning process, as you’ve described it, similar?
    Whatever the answer is though, I both think and feel that I must be very careful in declaring any product of such a genesis non-human (man be identified as a living soul, as in the Genesis account).It seems clear to me that the Judeo-Christian scriptures teach a substantive difference between soul and spirit and that the spirit is what makes the soul “living”.
    The soul, in broad terms, being the mind will and emotions of a person. It is literally the psuche (flesh) of the New Testament. The flesh described in the lists and specifications of sinful thought and action is not the meat, muscle, and bone of a person but the inward part so easily influenced by the physical world. The spirit, pneuma, is that ultimate, essential identity and indeed unseen, immeasurable substance that is any child of the “…Father of Spirits...” and is inseparable from our soul in our living state. Indeed the New Testament teaches that we must renew our minds (part of our soul) to the Word of God and yet our spirits are already sealed unto God from the moment of regeneration that takes place at the new birth. This also explains why the Bible teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord and yet our dead bodies await the resurrection and transfiguration (“…we shall be like him…”) that comes at the return of the Jesus at his Second Coming.
    Bottom line of yet another run-on comment…
    I don’t believe I can definitively say that the product of such a process is not and cannot be a human being (being possessed of a body, soul, and spirit.
  • brianrutledge
    Jim You stated that our spirit is incorporated into us the minute the man and woman's DNA combine and begin to replicate and that it is provable by Scripture and Science. I would have to agree that they are enough references in scripture for that claim to be made.

    I would like to hear the scientific proof that shows that a supernatural agent ( God) incorporates a "soul" or " Godly spirit" into that replicating DNA.I am not familiar with these scientists or their studies that reveal a soul being incorporated into DNA. Thank you.
  • jim_littlegus_anderson
    Sorry, I spoke rather sloppily there.

    What I meant is that Science proves or rather acknowledges that it is a baby, a human, from that moment. I also understand that there are scientists who look at the same evidence and not come to the same conclusions. I did not intend to say that a breakthrough had occurred where scientists had actually, empirically described the spirit and soul in any human being at any level of development.

    I was referring to your comment about an apparent contradiction in the Biblical description of the forming of Adam's body and the incorporation of his spirit, not just air.

    In the end, I believe this issue comes down to a presupposition read "faith statement" about God at some point. The anti-life movement with all of its nodes is correct in my view that the vast majority of pro-life activists come from some kind of religious, particularly Christian, viewpoint.

    For example: (a very oversimplified one, but sufficient to my point, I think.) Here are 3 statements from as many generalized schools of thought.

    "I can't measure God empirically so therefore God doesn't exist." (Atheist)

    "I can't measure God empirically so, therefore I refuse to say for sure that God does or doesn't exist." (Agnostic)

    "I can't measure God empirically but I believe the Bible to be the Word of God because of the faith that it births in my heart." (Christian)

    I admit my faith in and of not only the mere existence of God but in His Word and actions evident in my own life compel me to accept that the Bible and Science are not at odds at all. It is evident to me there are merely some scientists at odds with the Bible and, indeed, much empirical evidence. I am singularly relieved that consensus is not necessary in either Faith or Science for something to be true especially since both disciplines are replete with many examples of consensus being 180 degrees at odds to actual reality.

    I’ve probably digressed again but I want to be sure that I reiterate my appreciation your pro-life stance as expressed earlier in this.
  • brianrutledge
    Jim Appreciate the clarification, not that you owe me one, but there are some that say some aspects of science proves there is a God or that science can prove when life begins and I personally don't think questions like like that fall under science's domain. Nor do I believe science can prove there is not a Deity.

    I always find it interesting that some people think the atheist viewpoint is " I can't measure God empirically, so therefore God doesn't exist" My atheism started before I knew much about science or proofs. It just started and ends with the simple concept that a truly benevalent God would never have concocted a scenario such as we read about in any of the religions.

    Nonetheless, lets keep righting for the rights of the unborn !!
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »