Select Page




We are often confronted with the semantic rhetoric of the pro-abortion ("pro-choice") movement. It may appear logical at first glance – we all know people who have been swayed by its simplicity – but the words ring hollow when we look for the meaning behind them.

Those who believe in preserving and promoting the innate value of human life can effectively expose the shallowness by firmly and patiently challenging those who are pro-abortion to defend their arguments. 

Please take time to peruse the following 22 comments, questions, and rebuttals; then decide whether you agree with what "They say" or with what "We say"…


1. No one knows when life begins. Everyone has his or her own ideas about it


You were you two minutes after you were born, five minutes before you were born, a month before that, and four months before that. Your life, the life of every human being began at fertilization – when the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg united. This is scientific fact. Nothing was added after fertilization (conception) except the nutrition you received from your mother and the time to grow. When we discuss abortion, we are always talking about a child with a beating heart.

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions, and even operated on for spina bifida, heart problems, etc. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Pro-abortionists base much of their argument on the concept of viability. Can you give me a description of what it means for someone to be viable?

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature but healthy baby, and woman B is still pregnant. One week later each decides she doesn't want her baby.  Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A?  [If the abortion advocate says that one is born and the other is not, point out that being born simply refers to where the baby is located. Then ask, "What are the distinctions between the two babies that allow one to be killed and the other not?"] 


2. Abortion is a matter of individual choice because no one can say with certainty when a fetus becomes a person

It may not be possible to prove that personhood or "ensoulment" begins at conception; however, you cannot prove that personhood does NOT begin at conception. Science has shown that a distinct human life begins at conception. So it is only wise to avoid a possible situation of the destruction of a unique person by respecting this growing, developing entity from conception. "If you must err, err on the side of life" is a famous adage. Scientists for Life note that human life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. "These answers are as well established and completely objective as any that science has to offer. These facts are no more a matter of religion than E=mc2 or 1 + 1 = 2. They are not matters of opinion, conjecture, speculation or theory. Rather, they are the expression of reality as determined by scientific observation and analysis. To deny them is to lose touch with reality." [The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life, Sun Life Publishers, 1983]


3. The unborn may be human but it’s not a person…

[Ask the abortion advocate to give a detailed description of the differences between a human and a person. Look up both words in the dictionary; the differences are semantic. It is likely that the pro-abortion advocate will give a description that will also apply to born people – the senile, the mentally handicapped, the comatose, etc. You then can say…] "So, you cannot really distinguish between the two, but you feel one should be protected, while the other group can be killed for any reason? Are there other human beings who you think are also ‘non-persons’?"

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Can you give a detailed description of the differences between a "human" and a "person"? [Pay close attention to your opponent's answer and listen for those descriptions that also apply to other born human beings. Be aggressive when you hear it. Don't let them get away with some hazy, philosophical mumbo jumbo to frustrate you. Push: "You mean you can't tell the difference between the two, but you feel one should be protected, while the other one can be killed for any reason?" "You mean that we should determine who is entitled to the protection of the law, and who isn't, on a description as poorly defined as that?"]


4. Why are you opposed to terminating pregnancies?

Pro-lifers don’t object to terminating pregnancies. Pregnancy is only supposed to last a short time. Therefore, we favor terminating pregnancies at about nine months, naturally or by Cesarean section. The objection is to killing children in – or partly outside – the uterus/birth canal. [make it clear that the intentional taking of the life of a human being is the problem]. It is almost completely unnecessary due to modern medical technology to require the destruction of an unborn child to save the life of his/her mother. Most physicians, if a rare physical problem should arise for the mother, will treat the mother and hope for the best for the unborn child; or, try alternative medications until the child is old enough to deliver. There have even been numerous cases of the unborn child serving as a protective factor for the mother’s health. Recently (2001), a young mother woke from a lengthy coma after the natural birth of her child.


5. The fetus is a potential life

Rather, the human fetus is life with potential! A "potential" life cannot be killed, by definition. To say that the human fetus is only a potential life is insensitive to the emotions of the woman who has had a miscarriage. It belittles what she lost. When you deny that she lost a baby, you deny that what she lost was important.

OR…One of the major characteristics of living organisms is that they reproduce, and that they reproduce like organisms. Humans only reproduce humans, just as dogs only reproduce dogs, and whales reproduce whales. American ranchers must, by law, keep track of the cost of their cattle from the time of conception. They KNOW their cattle are producing and will give birth to more cattle. So why do we fail to admit that a human woman carries a new human being from the time of conception?


6. Most people are pro-choice

Major polls conducted over the last few years consistently show that the majority of people are opposed to abortion-on-demand for the reasons that 98% of all abortions are performed (social, economic, etc.). We all oppose "choice" in the case of someone wishing to commit rape or wishing to beat up family members. "Choice" is not an applicable concept when there are victims. Thus, while many people have been confused by the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’, most are actually pro-life in their views. When someone says killing unborn babies should be a practice protected by law, that tax dollars should pay for it, that teenagers should be able to have abortions without parental consent or knowledge, that fathers should have no right to protect their unborn sons or daughters, and that killing should be allowed for any reason and at any time during pregnancy, where is the ‘choice’? These are pro-abortion views.


7. I believe women should have a "choice"

When women choose abortion, what are they choosing? The choice is to kill. There is no "fence-sitting" when human life is at stake. Law is a powerful teacher; many are persuaded that when something is legal, it is morally good, or at least, not morally bad. Recent surveys are showing that up to 90% of women who have had abortions felt forced into that "choice" and wish they had not aborted their children. How can an act of despair be referred to as a "choice"?

"Choice" to abort can be society’s way of telling women not to bug it with their "problem", to just go and get rid of "the problem" so society won’t have to deal with it. "Choice" to abort is used as a rationalization for failing to give pregnant women support to which they are entitled and, after the abortion, to belittle the pain felt by women who have experienced it.

OR…"This is not a choice between vanilla and chocolate. This is a choice like ‘Do you want me to break your arm, or your leg?’ This is a choice that says, ‘Do you want to see your life derailed, see your dreams turn to ashes – or do you want to undergo a humiliating, invasive operation and have your own child die?’ ‘Do you want to sacrifice your life plans, or would you rather sacrifice your offspring?’ It’s a lousy choice. Women should not be forced into making such a choice. We should be able to keep both mother and child’s lives and bodies intact. [Feminists for Life of America]

OR…I’m "pro-choice" too! Choice for the preborn baby AND choice for the mom to have informed consent. "Choice" implies more than one alternative; however, if women are only being offered one alternative, how can they make an informed choice? The Supreme Court said [476 U.S. at 762, Thornburgh] that the informed consent material required to be given to abortion-minded women by some states was not ‘always relevant to the woman’s decision, and may serve only to confuse her and heighten her anxiety.’ This attitude is patronizing to women’s decision-making abilities, and essentially establishes for women a constitutional ‘right’ to ignorance. [Feminists For Life of America]

OR…Do you support "choice" for the sex-selection abortion policy occurring in China and India to the point that almost 100% of the aborted children are female? What about equal rights for unborn women?

Or…Miriam J. Barth notes, "Freedom to decide when to conceive a child is a far different freedom than the freedom to take the life of a child once conceived…In light of the many achievements of the women’s movement, it is sad that many radical feminists see women’s right to self-determination as dependent upon the right to destroy other human beings, the children of their wombs."

I agree that women should have the right to choose, and the REAL choice comes in the bedroom. If women are really powerful and "equal" to men, let them communicate and work out an understanding with the man prior to conception, not take out their frustration on a helpless little child. Often, abortion advocates portray women as weak, vulnerable wimps who must give men all they want (blame men for their problems); then they turn around and demand that women are totally in charge of their destinies with total "control over their bodies" (blame their babies for their problems) because they allow the abortionist (usually a male) to violate their bodies and destroy their preborn babies. The abortion advocates cannot have it both ways! Attached to every "freedom" is a "responsibility" – abortion is the result of freedom to choose without taking the responsibility for the new human being formed in the process. Our choices reflect our values…

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent? [Be aggressive. Ask what would be the problem in telling the woman about the development of her unborn child, or allowing women to see an ultrasound of the baby, not on an individual basis, but under the law.]

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women.  Other than offering to kill their babies for a price, what are they doing? [There are more abortion alternative agencies in the USA than abortion sites, and they are staffed almost entirely by volunteers. They provide counseling on free pre-natal care, free room and board, free clothing, help with adoption, post-natal instruction, help in continuing education, etc. Don't let them talk about all the "counseling" they do. Remind them that their income comes from the number of abortions they do…]



8. Abortion is frequently a result of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life

Abortion has become a widely used method of birth control in the U.S. and almost 60% of the women procuring abortions in 1997 reported that they were using a chemical or barrier type of birth control the month they became pregnant; abortion then becomes a back-up birth control method.

By 1988, 43% of all abortions were repeat abortions and this figure is still accurate today. In 1990, more than 1.6 million abortions were performed in the U.S. (this figure dropped to 1.5 million in 1992 and has continued a slow downward trend through 1997, according to the CDC and AGI).

About 1% of these abortions are performed for reasons of rape and/or incest and, at the very most, 7% are performed to protect the mother’s physical or emotional health or life. Abortion advocates stress the ‘hard cases’ and fail to mention the other 92%-98%, about 1.3 million abortions performed each year for social, emotional, and financial reasons.

OR…First we should understand that if we were to allow abortions only for rape or incest victims, there would not be enough abortions to keep abortion centers open. Those abortions would have to be done at medical facilities where more individual attention to the woman’s case would be expected. Would anyone argue that more individual attention is needed in rape or incest cases? In the case of continuing abuse, social workers and law enforcement must look into stopping the abuse. Abortion helps to cover up abuse.

The assembly-line nature of modern abortion centers is the worst possible system for incest victims or victims of sexual child abuse. Not only is the crying need for intervention to stop the abuse not met, but the abortion center may actually participate in the abuse by making it easier for the perpetrator to cover up the crime. Advocates of continuing the current system of assembly-line abortion centers are ignoring the needs of these victims of continuing sexual abuse.

Many women report suffering from the trauma of abortion long after the rape trauma faded. Rape is a violent act against the woman, while abortion is a violent act by the woman against her child. Regarding abortion as a turning back of the clock does not help the healing process, and that attitude is insensitive to the trauma most women associate with abortion. [Feminists for Life of America]


9. Every woman has a right to control her own body

All human beings have rights which must be protected. A woman has a right to protect her own body. Her child has rights, beginning with the right to continued life. The preborn child is separate and distinct from the mother genetically, and has her/his own blood type, heart, brain, other organs, and may have differently colored eyes, hair, and complexion, or even a different sex. Being dependent on others should not deprive a helpless human being of her/his fundamental rights.

OR…What kind of control are we talking about? A control that allows for violence against another human being is a macho, oppressive kind of control. Women rightly object when others try to have that kind of control over them, and the movement for women’s rights asserts the moral right of women to be free from the control of others. When women feel that a pregnant body is a body out of control, deviant, diseased, they are internalizing attitudes of low self-esteem toward the female body. These attitudes contradict the rightful feminist affirmation of pregnancy as a natural bodily function which deserves societal respect and accommodation.

OR…What about REPEAT abortions? There are roughly 1.4 million abortions yearly in the U.S. (Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm); over one pregnancy in four is aborted. About 43% of abortion patients have had at least one previous abortion, 10% are on their third abortion, and 5% are on at least their fourth abortion. Of about 4300 abortions per day (U.S.), over 210 women are getting their fourth or more abortion per day. If they have the right to control their own bodies, why can’t they control their sexual activities?

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…If what you say is true and the issue isn't really abortion but a woman's right to control her own body, why doesn't your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren't laws against those just as restrictive to a woman's right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body as laws against abortion are? [Your opponent will try to avoid answering, but ask your question often until you get an answer.]

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother's body.  If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type?  How do you explain the fact that it has it's own immune system? Why is it male about half the time? [Your opponent will try to sidetrack. Be aggressive. Get an answer. The pro-abort advocate sometimes says the "fetus" is not like other individuals because it is totally dependent upon the mother for survival. But that's true even after birth, and it's true for the handicapped, the senile, the comatose, etc.]

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standards as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics? [Higher standards equals lower profits.]

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion for absolutely any reason, such as sex-selection, or for career, or because she soesn't want to be tied down by a child? If not, when should she not be permitted to abort? [They will try desperately to avoid this answer because if they say "yes", they know they will make many people very uncomfortable.  If they try to appear reasonable and answer "no",  ask, "Why not, if abortion is morally acceptable?" then, they may answer that women don't have these kinds of abortions — that they only have the ones they "need". Point out that, according to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, 92% of abortions are for convenience. Also, point out that your question was whether women should be legally allowed to have abortions for any reason.]

ASK THE PRO-ABORT…I am going to take the liberty of characterizing your position, and then I want you to tell me where I'm wrong. You want abortion to be leg

al right up to the moment of birth — in other words, through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl without parental consent, even without parental knowledge; and if she can't pay for it, you think the taxpayer ought to. Is there anything inaccurate about that statement? [Persist until you get an answer!!]


10. How can women achieve equality without control of their reproductive lives?

How can women ever shed a "second-class" status as long as they are seen as requiring surgery in order to avoid it? Nature does not provide for inequality and it is an insult to women to say women must change their biology in order to fit into society.

Why should women have to become like men in order to be successful? Kate Michelman (President, National Abortion Rights Action League) has said, "We have to remind people that abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s…right to participate fully in the social and political life of society." [NY Times, 5/10/88] But pregnant women and new mothers can participate fully in the social and political life of society, and if there are barriers to this, it’s the fault of society, not the women. [Feminists for Life of America]


11. Every woman has the right to privacy

If abortion were not the taking of the life of a human being, then applying the right to privacy could be reasonable. When the right to privacy is used to cover violence against women or children in domestic abuse, it is intolerable.

The abortion debate concerns whether or not violence is done in the abortion. If not, then the reason for opposing it as a matter of public policy disappears and an appeal to privacy rights isn’t even necessary. But if it is violence, then surely privacy has nothing to do with it.

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman's right to privacy. Is that right absolute? Does somebody's right to privacy exceed another's right to live? [The law has always weighed one individual's rights against another's. Yes, a woman has a right to privacy, but the question is whether that right is so complete that it exceeds the unborn child's right to live…We don't allow someone to kill another and then claim that their religion requires human sacrifice. Ironically, even though the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, abortion advocates cite an absolute right to privacy as the basis for an absolute right to unrestricted abortion.]


12. You cannot impose your religious morality on other people

Nor can you impose your immorality on others! Besides, religion did not discover when human life begins; biologists did! Some religions permit and even support the right to abortion. If what you say is true, then religions that support legalized abortion do impose their religious beliefs on everybody else.

For the most part, because some who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds does not make abortion a religious issue anymore than the opposition by religious people to driving after drinking makes drunk driving a religious issue. Some who opposed slavery, the Jewish Holocaust, and mistreatment of American Indians were religious people, also; but these inhumane acts have not been deemed ‘religious issues’.

The majority of our laws are based on a moral code. Those who seek to change abortion laws are legislating morality, but so were those who sought to legalize abortion in the 60s and with the US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions in 1973.

OR…Susan B. Anthony was not imposing her religious views when she called abortion "Child-Murder" any more than she was imposing her religious views when she advocated that women should have the vote.

There are many atheists and agnostics in the pro-life movement.

OR… In order to find out if abortion is the violent taking of a human being’s life, I do not need to consult a church. I need to consult a medical textbook.

OR… Would a religious argument favoring the legalization of abortion be treated the same way as a religious argument opposing it?


13. The government should not interfere in this highly personal issue

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." The real issue is whether the government will fulfill its responsibility to protect and preserve life, OR continue to allow this most fundamental human right to be denied. Pro-abortion advocates forget that the government legalized abortion in 1973. Pro-abortionists want the government to fund abortions and to provide abortion facilities in every hospital; they just do NOT want the government to protect the lives of the preborn.

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Why is it that the very people who say the government should stay out of abortion are the same people who want the government to pay for abortions?  [Abortion advocates generally answer this question with another question to sidetrack the debate.  Refuse to talk about any other issues until they answer this question.]


14. Putting restrictions on abortion would send women to jail

Every major pro-life group opposes penalizing the women who get abortions. The goal of the pro-life movement is to stop the killing of prenatal children, to make abortion unthinkable. A large part of the pro-life movement is composed of women, many of whom have had abortions. Penalties are only desired for the abortionists who make their money from the fear and desperation of abandoned women.


15. If safe and legal abortions are not available, women will be driven to dangerous back-alley abortions, resulting in needless injury and even death

Abortion advocates produced unverifiable statistics that thousands of women died from unsafe, illegal abortions in order to help legalize abortion in 1973. Now some of them admit their claims were fabricated in order to gain support for changing the law.

Actually, in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion-on-demand, there were only 39 deaths in the U.S. from illegal abortion. Ever since the introduction of antibiotics, the number of maternal deaths had been dropping.

Even one such death is a tragedy, of course; but the way to prevent women from dying is not to continue the destruction of their children. True compassion dictates that mothers should be offered positive alternatives to abortion – let’s love them both.

OR… It should be remembered that a death occurs every time an abortion is performed – that of the child. It should also be remembered that abortion is a surgical procedure from which many women suffer post abortion complications such as cervical muscle damage and uterine wall damage, which can lead to scarring, sterility, future miscarriages, or ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.

There is a significant risk of breast cancer, especially following abortion of the first pregnancy. Abortion also puts many women at serious mental and emotional risk, sometimes for scores of years. Since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe and Doe decisions, at least hundreds of women have died from what pro-abortion groups insist on calling "safe and legal" abortions.

OR…Most abortionists who performed abortions when they were illegal are still performing abortions today. Those seriously concerned about women’s rights should at the very least support consumer protection regulations. Abortion is the most unregulated medical procedure in the country. Why are abortionists given such free rein in a procedure which, after all, involves only women? Women are deserving of better protection.

OR…Killing belongs in the back alley…

OR… To say women will get illegal abortions is saying that women are not law-abiding citizens.

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standards as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics? [Higher standards equals lower profits.]


16. I'll admit that abortion is not a good thing, and it may even have physical and psychological risks. But surely you would agree that legal abortion is safer than illegal abortion?

No. More than 90% of illegal abortions were already performed by doctors. When abortion was illegal, abortionists had to be very careful to avoid infection, laceration, and puncturing of the uterus, since a visit to the emergency room was an invitation for a police investigation. Not anymore. Today, abortionists are free to operate on an assembly-line basis. The faster they work, the more money they make. When women get hurt…well, that's just the risk that goes with any surgery.


17. I still think that legal abortions must be at least marginally safer than illegal abortions. Certainly women who suffer physical complications can get emergency medical treatment faster now without being afraid of becoming involved in a criminal investigation

That is true. But that is the only health benefit of legalized abortion. The overall impact is still very negative because the total number of women having abortions has increased dramatically.

Why? Because legalizing abortion has made it easier to pressure reluctant women into having abortions. Before 1973, women could resist an unwanted abortion on the grounds that it was illegal and unsafe. But now, people assume that since abortion is legal, it must be safe.

That makes it harder for women to resist unwanted abortions for health or safety reasons.

And as we have seen in the last few years, many of the young women being murdered have been pregnant. We know that, at least for some, they were murdered by boyfriends/husbands because they would not abort their children.

As a result, the number of abortions has increased 10- to 15-fold with only a minimal improvement, if any, in safety. So, while the percentage of deaths from hemorrhage and infections may have gone down, the actual number of women suffering these complications has gone up far more. In addition, since psychological complications are even more common than physcial complications, the number of women experiencing complications of one type or another has increased dramatically. [; Hope and Healing]


18. If abortion is made illegal, millions of "unwanted" babies will be born who will be victims of abuse and neglect…

Unplanned pregnancy does not necessarily mean an unwanted baby. Many women report that pregnancies they did not plan resulted in babies who were much loved and wanted after birth.

Legalizing abortion has not reduced child abuse; in fact, it has risen dramatically. So has the tragedy of babies found abandoned in the trash or in public commodes. Legalizing abortion has promoted the idea that only "wanted children have value and those who are not wanted, or are a burden, can be destroyed".

OR… When abortion on demand is defended as a means of avoiding an unfair burden on a pregnant woman, this tacitly rejects the idea that parents owe their children care and support.


19. I’m not for abortion when the fetus is viable, but government shouldn’t restrict it during the first trimester…

Whether the abortion is performed early or late, it's the same baby who dies! Justice demands that the law should offer equal protection to all babies at every stage of their development. By the way, the word '‘fetus" is a Latin word which means "young one" or "offspring", very innocent, defenseless terms, just as "adolescent" means "to come to maturity". These are medical terms to describe stages in the whole spectrum of human life.

OR… If end-of-life is determined by no heartbeat or brainwaves, shouldn’t the beginning of human life at least be recognized by the beginning of the heartbeat or brainwaves? The heart begins beating regularly by 25 days after conception, and brainwaves can be recorded by six weeks after conception.

OR, ASK THE PRO-ABORT…Pro-abortionists base much of their argument on the concept of viability. Can you give me a clear description of what it means for someone to be viable?


20. What if the mother's life is endangered by pregnancy?…

Modern medical practices nearly exclude this possibility today. Still, if the rare situation should happen, the doctor should do all he can to save both patients.  The doctor should treat the mother for the condition, and do nothing to directly harm the unborn child.


21. If parents find out about a minor daughters’ abortion plans, they may throw her out of the house or even physically harm her…

Parents and children are not natural enemies. The law should presume that parents have their children’s best interests at heart and that they are more qualified to help their daughter cope with a pregnancy than is an abortionist, who in most cases has never seen the girl until she is on the operating table, and who will obviously profit from her abortion.


22. Teens are capable of making the abortion decision on their own…

Parental consultation and consent is required for minors to have a tooth drilled, to take an aspirin at school, get a driver’s license, or even to go on a field trip. In all other areas of a teen’s life, parental guidance is considered necessary.

Is the abortion industry so anxious to operate on her without parental involvement? Is that why the abortion industry works so very hard to fight against parental notification and parental consent laws? Could it be that the monetary gain is more important to the abortion industry than the well-being of these desperate young girls?



I am going to take the liberty of characterizing your position, and then I want you to tell me where I'm wrong. You want abortion to be legal right up to the moment of birth — in other words, through all 9 months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl without parental consent, even without parental knowledge; and if she can't pay for it, you think the taxpayer ought to. Is there anything inaccurate about that statement? [Persist until you get an answer!!]

[Primarily from the booklet In Defense of Life, by Alabama Physicians For Life, Inc.; some parts from "Abortion Questions They'd Rather Duck", Citizen Magazine, 20 May 1991 and "Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments", Worldwide Challenge, Jul-Aug 1986;; Hope and Healing]