Posted on

Mental Health and Informed Consent in Abortion (with Robin Atkins)

by

Download MP3 | 55:05

Robin Atkins is back to discuss mental health, informed consent, abortion risks, the level of counseling in abortion facilities, and more.

Robin is a licensed mental health counselor, specializing in reproductive issues. She also has a philosophy degree. She spent four years doing home-based therapy with the Department of Children’s Services. She’s a pro-life advocate with an atypical perspective on some of the issues surrounding abortion.

Related Links:

Refuting “Abortion as Self-Defense” (video):
https://youtu.be/B2TakKSUawA

Refuting “Abortion as Self-Defense” (article):
https://bit.ly/32fHZWi

Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present:
https://amzn.to/3e8Mjvw

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists or AAPLOG (for abortion risks):
https://aaplog.org/

You can learn more about the Turnaway Study here:
https://turnawaystudy.com

Listen to our first episode with Robin Atkins to hear her thoughts on the Turnaway Study:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yChl-sReTP0

Watch Josh Brahm’s faulty pro-life arguments speech:
https://bit.ly/2VrhYSm

Contact Robin @TruthAgape on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/truthagape

Equal Rights Institute Website:
https://EqualRightsInstitute.com

Equal Rights Institute Blog:
https://Blog.EqualRightsInstitute.com

Equipped for Life Course:
https://EquippedCourse.com

Sidewalk Counseling Masterclass:
http://SidewalkCounselingMasterclass.com

Chapters:

  • 0:00 Introduction
  • 1:13 Why tokophobia cases are increasing
  • 3:52 How can people learn to advocate for themselves better with their doctors?
  • 5:13 How informed consent relates to the abortion debate
  • 9:17 Is it wrong for pro-life ultrasound laws to require internal ultrasound procedures?
  • 11:43 Is it anti-free-speech to require doctors to say things required by a pro-life informed consent law?
  • 16:19 How satisfied are you with the informed consent bills that pro-lifers pass?
  • 19:43 How would you respond to the clinic worker who says they’re just there to provide the service their client wants?
  • 22:18 Should there be screenings before an abortion?
  • 23:49 Assessing the level of counseling and/or care given to women in abortion facilities
  • 27:55 Where should people go for the most accurate explanation of abortion risks?
  • 29:21 What would it take for a clinic worker to become qualified to give anything called “counseling” to the client?
  • 31:05 What are the accurate risk factors for abortion?
  • 37:47 Is the abortion causing these symptoms or are women who were already more likely to experience these post-abortion symptoms having abortions?
  • 41:17 On minors having abortions
  • 47:04 On pro-choice women using women who are suffering as a shield, and how pro-lifers should respond to her
  • 50:18 On abortion in the case of rape
Posted on

On Being Wrong

by

Wrong Way sign

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

I don’t like to be wrong.

I suppose no one likes to be wrong, but I have a particular revulsion to it. (I’m sure there’s some deep-seated reason for that which my wife, the mental health counselor, could explain, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.) As much as it’s in my power, I try to avoid being incorrect about anything.

Yes, I’m lots of fun at parties.

Of course, one could fairly wonder how my intolerance for being wrong squares with open-mindedness, which is held in very high esteem at ERI. The answer is this: I think most people conceive of open-mindedness in a way that doesn’t recognize the importance of holding strong convictions in the first place.

Posted on

Abolitionists Are Going to Get People Killed, and the SBC Just Helped Them

by

Abortion abolitionist man talking to another man
By Steenaire, Flickr
Estimated reading time: 24 minutes

It would be an understatement to call this year’s Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) meeting turbulent. It was marked by the departure of a key leader, moral failures of many leaders who remained, a contentious presidential election, another leader threatening to leave if he didn’t get his way (always the hallmark of a good relationship), and the decision to finally address sexual abuse by clergy.

None of the believable mistakes surprised me, even if they disappointed me. But the unbelievable mistake, an unbiblical error which will likely cost the lives of unborn children, was that this divided convention passed a resolution condemning pro-life incrementalism and supporting nothing but immediate, exceptionless abolition of abortion.

In the first section, I will print the SBC’s resolution in its entirety, though without scriptural proof texts and with added emphasis. I will then proceed to show that the SBC is aiding and abetting a group of misguided radicals whose foolish actions will result in more death, not less.

Posted on

A Mental Health Counselor on Psychology in Debate (with Robin Atkins)

by

Download MP3 | 1:01:26

Robin Atkins is back to discuss psychology in debate. Robin is a licensed mental health counselor, specializing in reproductive issues. She also has a philosophy degree. She spent four years doing home-based therapy with the Department of Children’s Services. She’s a pro-life advocate with an atypical perspective on some of the issues surrounding abortion.

Posted on

Fine-Tuning the Responsibility Objection: A Reply to David Boonin

by

Caution Asbestos sign on rusting container
Estimated reading time: 15 minutes

Boonin’s Bodily Rights Argument

In his recent book, Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal—Even if the Fetus is a Person, philosopher David Boonin develops a pro-choice argument that appeals to the legal case McFall v. Shimp. Here is Boonin’s description of this case:

Robert McFall was an asbestos worker from Pittsburgh. In 1978, he was diagnosed with aplastic anemia. The doctors told him he’d die if he didn’t get a bone marrow transplant. And they said he needed one soon. Preliminary tests for tissue compatibility were quickly conducted. Only one promising candidate was found: a cousin of McFall’s named David Shimp. Before additional tests could confirm his compatibility, though, Shimp had a change of heart. He refused to submit to further testing. And he declared that he wouldn’t give McFall any of his bone marrow even if it was needed to save McFall’s life. Running out of options at that point, McFall decided to sue Shimp. In the motion filed by his attorney, McFall asked the court to order Shimp to undergo the additional testing and, if the results were positive, to order Shimp to give him the bone marrow he needed.[1]

The judge ruled against McFall, deciding that the state had no right to force Shimp to let McFall use his bone marrow.