Pro-abortion Fallacies-R-Us and more

I participated on an interesting thread at a blog hosted by a guy named Ed. I typically make it a practice to ignore it when Ed links to my site. But it has been a while since he (the first person banned from commenting at my site) had linked, so curiosity got the best of me. I discovered that Ed had been lying about me multiple times and continued to do so on that thread. 

But what was most interesting was the non-stop fallacies they threw out to defend abortion.  I finally made a summary to I could just copy and paste the responses when they would repeat them.

1. I don’t throw the word “liar” around lightly. People can be mistaken, and that isn’t lying. But when one is corrected, when one clearly knows better and when one deliberately repeats untruths then we have a name for that person: Liar.

The pattern was repetitive: Ed uses a ridiculous logical fallacy, Neil calls him on it, Ed lies and said Neil did it, Ed fails to concede the obvious or apologize, Ed uses the fallacy again. I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on his blog. So the origin couldn’t have been more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin. And as a dog returns to his vomit, so Ed returns to his embarrassing use of a logical fallacy.

But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

Ed also breaks his own rule a lot:

“Darrell’s Corollary of Godwin’s Law is that if posters in an internet discussion know to avoid the mention of Hitler to avoid their opponents’ invoking Godwin’s law, they’ll compare the actions to Stalin instead.”

After countless comments he finally conceded what he had done.  No accompanying apology, but I didn’t expect that.

2. You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. They aren’t using intellectual honesty to follow the truth where it leads. They come to science with their biases and twist the data to conform to them. Propping up their pro-abortion views puts them at odds with scientific facts but they work hard to rationalize them away. They use (bad) philosophical arguments and not scientific ones.

If he was really pro-science he’d be pro-life. Embryology textbooks are clear about when life begins, but he chooses to rationalize that away to support the legalized crushing and dismemberment of 3,000+ human beings per day. It is so ironic that he cranks out posts about “dangerous, anti-science bigoted ignorance” when his views on abortion fit that title perfectly.

Nothing is more dangerous to the unborn than abortion. If you get out of the womb alive you are very lucky. Abortion constitutes 99% of all murders.

3. Nick repeatedly tried the Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard. I demonstrated multiple times that one can protest immoral acts without taking ownership of them. If the government decided to jail or kill all homeless people, Nick could protest that without having to let them all live with him.

I also pointed out how even though pro-lifers don’t have to adopt all the kids to protest the evils of abortion, we do all sorts of things to help with our own time and money.

4. Ed and Nick have lived in Liberal Land too long. The concept of personal responsibility is foreign to them. They continually argue that I am “forcing” these women to have babies.   I’m not sure if they thought I’m the father of 1,000,000+ pregnancies per year (Really, I’m not.  I’m a serial monogamist) or if they think these are all unplanned in vitro fertilizations.

But these people have already created new life. I’m just interested in protecting that new life. But Ed & Nick reflexively latch on to the prejudice that to be pro-life is to want to control women. Tell that to all the female pro-lifers.

5. They continually abandon scientific arguments and use faulty “if legal, then moral” reasoning. Yes, abortions are legal. But while slavery used to be legal, it was always immoral.

6. They ignore the scientific fact that these aren’t hypothetical human beings or potential human beings. They already exist on planet earth. They are at the proper stage of development for their age.

7. They both exercise anti-religious bigotry and prejudices to dismiss my views. I pointed out that while I am a Christian, I save biblical arguments for those who claim to be Christians. The pro-life case is so powerful that you don’t even need the Bible to demonstrate it. And of course, there is nothing illogical about using my religious views to inform my political views. No one seems to protest when I use my religious views to oppose stealing, perjury and murder. Oh, and there is also that First Amendment thingy.

They missed the irony, of course, that they also used religious arguments to justify their positions. Nick used a bad exegesis of Exodus to rationalize abortion. Not only did he cherry-pick a mistranslation to make his point, but he ignored the legions of pro-life verses, starting with “don’t murder.” But my main point is by his own reasoning Nick is forcing his pro-abortion religious views on innocent unborn children. What hypocrisy!

In addition, he just repeated his claim that Exodus supports abortion but never defended it with facts. He didn’t even attempt to refute the scholarship in the link that I provided, which went back to the original language and demonstrated how some poor translations led to pro-abortionists misusing the passage.

8. And of course they trotted out the “anti-women” ad hominem attack. They had no response to my questions about why they support gender selection abortions, virtually all of which destroy innocent female human beings. They ignore the reality of post abortion trauma and the chauvinism of abortion, which puts the burden on the woman to use it as a form of birth control. I also pointed out how the pro-life position is actually pro-women. Many women are pushed into abortions by men who won’t take responsibility for their actions.

I reject the reasoning that says women must have the ability to kill their unborn children to prove their worth and to fit into society, the workplace and politics.

9. Nick tried to act like I was hypocritical for not wanting to finance the care of unwanted children, but he didn’t realize that he was pointing fingers back at himself. In his “kindness” he unwittingly concedes that he would prefer that unborn human beings be destroyed rather than inconvenience him.

10. Ed objected to a link I posted with images of abortion. But if abortion is a moral good and doesn’t kill an innocent human being then what could be wrong with showing images of it? And why is Ed so concerned about the innocence of these alleged children who read his blog? He fully supported the “rights” of their mothers to have them crushed and dismembered before they were born, and now he wants to profess his concern that viewing images of this allegedly moral procedure will harm them?

11. They tried the angle multiple times that I don’t use evidence, but I’m the one who used evidence throughout: Evidence that Ed is a unrepentant liar, evidence that the book of Exodus does not support abortion and evidence that a new human life is formed at conception. They were the ones with the fact-free fallacy-fest.

12. Ed claimed that I want to poison Africa. Sure, Ed. I pointed out that I’ve been on mission trips there three times, have donated tens of thousands of dollars to various causes there and have had a World Vision Sponsor child there for ten years. I don’t say that out of pride, just to point out how ridiculous it is for him to say I want to poison Africa. I’m still waiting to hear just how much Ed has contributed to Africa in terms of his own time and money.

13. Ed added these new lies:

The point is that you advocate creationism to be taught to innocent children in schools.

Nick parroted Ed’s lie that I push for creationism to be taught in public schools and he made all sorts of vicious accusations in doing so. I challenged them to find any evidence of that in the nearly 1,000 posts I’ve done on my blog. They found none. I am on record for saying that I don’t want non-Christians or theologically Liberal Christians (but I repeat myself?) to teach the Bible in public schools. They would probably teach that all religions lead to God, Jesus is not God, there is no Hell, the Bible can’t be relied upon, God is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, etc.

Was Nick lying? I don’t think so. I think he was using bad discernment in trusting Ed without evidence and was prideful in failing to apologize for his outburst.

14. Nick claimed that since it would be ineffective to make abortion illegal because it wouldn’t eliminate all abortions. That reasoning would mean we’d get rid of all laws, because despite the risks people still steal, rape, murder, etc. So his argument is faulty because it proves to much.

15. Ed claimed I was bigoted for disagreeing with Rachel Carson because she was unmarried. The only problems with that are a) I didn’t know she was unmarried, b) it wouldn’t have mattered even if I had known and c) using that “reasoning” you could never disagree with a woman or any minority without Ed calling you a bigot.

16. Ed tried the miscarriage canard by implying that abortion must not be wrong if miscarriages happen so frequently. It is hard to believe I have to explain this, but killing an infant by chopping him up is a “little” different than if the infant succumbed to SIDS. In the same way, the unborn are scientifically proven to be human beings. Death via abortion is wildly different than a miscarriage.

17. Nick tried the “better dead than poor” line. I wonder why it took him so long. It is as fallacious as ever. The “your pro-life policies will result in more poor” line ignores the fact that Nick’s pro-abortion policies will result in more dead.

So according to Nick, it would be good to kill poor children.

It also ignores the fact that only 23% of abortions are due to inadequate funds at the moment, not that it would be a moral reason to kill an innocent human being.  The source of that figure was from Planned Parenthood’s research arm.

18. Ed tried the “keep government out of bedrooms” fallacy, which ignores that the government shouldn’t care where murders are committed. You can’t kill a toddler in your bedroom. And of course, if he really held that view he’d oppose Planned Parenthood funding and involvement in schools, as well as any government involvement with Gardasil.

19. Ed repeatedly used the viability argument, concluding that abortion was acceptable because the unborn weren’t viable. That fails on many levels. Lots of people outside the womb aren’t viable without care (e.g., infants) but we don’t let people chop them up. And many human beings who are aborted are viable. The viability argument is philosophical, not scientific. The science is clear: Abortion kills an innocent human being.

Also, that argument implies that Ed is firmly against partial birth abortions (aka infanticide), which, if true, he has never bothered to mention.

20. If you ban Ed from your blog for moronic, repetitive comments he accuses you of being a censor (I didn’t know I was the government and the only blog in town!). But he is glad to advance the idiocy that to even question macro-evolution is to be slowing down the cure for cancer, and he can’t stand the thought that schools would teach the strengths and weaknesses of his worldview — oops, I mean his pet (false) theory.

BTW, here’s a direct quote from Ed:

It’s absolutely true: Every dime spent advocating ID is a dime deprived from working for a cure for cancer. And, I’m still waiting for you to explain how your views on Darwin differ from Stalin’s.

I know that sounds made up, but it isn’t!

The irony is lost on him that while he is busy throwing around the guilt-by-association Stalin fallacy he is the one trying to shut down the free exchange of ideas. Hey, maybe the irony isn’t lost on him . . . he’s probably just cynical enough to do it deliberately. He doesn’t appear to have any shame. At least the guys exposed in Expelled! are a little more subtle than Ed.


I’ve probably missed some things, but that will give you a flavor for their tactics and “reasoning.”

Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above, but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” scientific concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution, DDT or Gardasil?

Abortion is the greatest moral issue of our time. Over 3,000 innocent human beings will be destroyed today in the name of “choice.” It is a scientific fact that these are human beings. It is a shame that so many allegedly in the pro-science crowd deny that truth.

0 thoughts on “Pro-abortion Fallacies-R-Us and more”

  1. I’m not sure if they thought I’m the father of 1,000,000+ pregnancies per year (Really, I’m not. I’m a serial monogamist) or if they think these are all immaculate conceptions (which would be odd, because I’m pretty sure they don’t believe the original one).

    While I’m sure this wasn’t your intent, this comment provoked some monitor-spraying followed by muffled laughter.

    Yeah, Ed’s posted a couple rambling non-sequitors on my blog too, and linked to one of my posts over on an atheist forum, where he was begging the other atheists to visit mine and harass me (no one bothered). Pathetically sad. I think there is some mental instability going on there – if you read his comments, he sounds very unbalanced (not just because of his obsession with Stalin, either). Very delusional and unable to follow a clear, rational line of thinking. I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting Nick, but he doesn’t sound like the sharpest tool in the shed, either.


    1. Hi Marie,

      Yes, that sounds pretty typical. He is the prototype “Christian” that the evolutionists in Expelled! simultaneously use and mock. The evos like the support of people in the church but only in the most patronizing way. The church folk don’t seem to pick up on the fact that they are being used, or they are in such rebellion to God that they don’t care.

      Nick is probably not as off the wall as Ed, but he made the mistake of taking Ed’s side on a couple things without examining the evidence. He was too proud to admit his errors, so he had to go into full spin mode and change his rationale.


  2. Oh, my.

    This man needs to lock himself in a room with “The Silent Scream” and “Pro Life Answers” until he either goes insane ( which, given what I’ve read, doesn’t seem like it’s that far up the road) or becomes pro life.

    Sometimes I can’t stand unbelievers! You know they wouldn’t think like that if they were born again–the same reason my Spanish teacher can announce to our class that Sarah Palin is “evil” and remark to me that she doesn’t participate in religion because–well, I never really got her answer; something about all the infighting among religious people. (Participate? Is Christianity a Rotary club?)

    Anyway, stay strong in your sparring with Ed. Not that he’s a formidable debater but more that you might be tempted to reach through your monitor and bang his head against his desk. (I am not advocating that, BTW.)

    Happy Memorial Day!



    1. Hi Barbara,

      I imagine there is, but it certainly isn’t worth it in this case. I think most people can figure this guy out. The “Reverend” Chuck Currie did a similar thing to me. Personally, I laugh it off as evidence of their desperation, insecurity and false views. I just like to highlight on blogs now and then to teach them a lesson. Maybe they’ll think twice before lying about the next person.


  3. Neil,

    I lurked over via. Dawn’s link, and decided to accept your invitation to explore the page. I liked some of the posts, especially this one.

    As a Catholic Christian, I often find myself particularly hearing complaints that “the Church is against science” or alternatively, “Christians are anti-science.” The basis for this is often historical falsehoods, or a bias that Christians place belief ahead of science (as if God’s creation could somehow be opposed to God?)

    What I often find is something you dance around a bit in this post– there is a demand for Christians to recognize science and at the same time a refusal to recognize science on the part of the person doing the demanding. For example, I have had this exact conversation with several individuals:

    “Okay, let’s dialog about science and its role in faith. Can we start by agreeing on some facts regarding science, just to make sure we’re on the same page? Human life begins at conception, just like the embryology medical textbooks say.”

    “NO that is a matter of scientific opinion. SOME scientists believe that, but that’s not a fact.”

    I find that, most the time, those that are demanding Christians “listen” to science are really demanding “Christians listen to ME and do not question my beliefs or opinions, for they are authoritative.” Even when those beliefs themselves disagree with clear and undisputed scientific fact.

    As a corollary to this, the same group of individuals demand that Christians start taking ‘reality’ into account for moral decision making, and yet they are the ones who are divorcing actual realities from moral calculus. In they end, they arrive at the moral principle of “Might Makes Right”– whatever is good for me, my group, or my goals is what is right.


    1. Hi LCB,

      Thanks for visiting and commenting! Good points and good strategy re. how you address the pro-abortion atheist crowd. They are unlikely to turn immediately but I think that approach gives them something to think about. I like to remind them that I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.


  4. Neil, I’m having trouble with something you’ve said in this post. You say that you are putting Christianity aside, and tackling this issue from a scientific point of view, and I believe you have said that abortion is wrong – scientifically.

    I’ve told you my views on abortion, and I am very much against it in all but the most dangerous (for the mother) circumstances after the first few months. I am not able to determine which month that should be, but just as I’m sure that the baby is viable in the third trimester, I’m sure that the baby is not viable, has no feelings, no pain, nothing resembling consciousness or sensory awareness in the first trimester. Neural pathways do not connect to the thalamus until about 30 weeks gestation. An embryo is not a person yet unless you use the Christian idea of a soul to grant “personhood”, if you will.

    So if you want to use science to argue against abortion, then there is no reason to believe that abortion in the early stages of pregnancy hurts a baby. If you want to argue that it can hurt the mother, then sure, I will agree with you. Abortion, like any procedure, has risks, and there can also be psychological risks.

    What do you say about ectopic pregnancy? Unless embryos are removed in these cases, neither the mother or the child has a chance. What about certain contraceptives that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting? Is that murder too?

    From what I gather, you’ve used science to show that abortion is killing a human being. Sure, I’ll give you that. It’s a human being – only because there’s no other type of being it could be. But I equate life with the awareness of self, and you equate life with anything that has a string of unique DNA in it. I can’t wrap my head around how you think every fertilized egg, most of which never see the light of day, aborted or not, has a soul and goes to heaven. Wouldn’t heaven have billions and billions of souls that have never experienced – anything?


    1. Hi Ryan,

      An embryo is not a person yet unless you use the Christian idea of a soul to grant “personhood”, if you will.

      You are jumping from human being (scientific argument) to personhood (philosophical argument).

      Arguing that if the human fetus / human embryo doesn’t feel pain then it is OK to kill her is a bad idea. Just because someone kills you painlessly in your sleep doesn’t make it any more moral.

      What do you say about ectopic pregnancy?

      Good question. Those are permissible. The baby can’t live, and not having the abortion would kill the mother. It is consistent with the pro-life ethic. The staunchest pro-life doctors will perform those procedures.

      But I equate life with the awareness of self, and you equate life with anything that has a string of unique DNA in it. I can’t wrap my head around how you think every fertilized egg, most of which never see the light of day, aborted or not, has a soul and goes to heaven. Wouldn’t heaven have billions and billions of souls that have never experienced – anything?

      Again, you are jumping from scientific to (bad) philosophical arguments. You brought Heaven and souls into this, not me. If you want to know that side I’ll be glad to address it.

      Whether the souls “experience” anything before death is irrelevant. Using that logic, the younger a person was the less of a crime their murder would be.


  5. Great post, Neil. Long before I became a proper Christian (rather than a nominal one) I opposed abortion on scientific grounds. As a medical student I realized that the pro-abortion campaign was based on emotion and lies. I agree that for non-believers there is no point in using the Bible as evidence, but then again there is no need to. What could be clearer scientifically than that the fusion of two gametes becomes one new and unique individual? It seems to me that all arguements should stop there.


    1. Thanks, Craig. That should be must viewing for pro-choicers, especially those who claim to be Christians. If it weren’t for them abortion would still be illegal.


      1. Neil,

        I think you had said that you had never heard Phil Keaggy when we were doing the 5 influential album’s thing. This is just a taste. The amazing thing is I listened to this CD (True Believer) for literally years before I figured out what this song was about. Anyway, glad to be of help. Also glad I’m not in on the Mary thread. Good grief, that’s just nuts over there.


      2. I can’t believe I’ve actually read the whole thread. Two or three times I’ve read something that I’d read before, not realizing that it wasn’t new. I envy (not really) you your patience. You’re a better man than I. Maybe you can just announce that you are stopping at 300, it’s a nice round number.

        BTW, It seems like you travel a bit, ever get north of Iowa?


      3. There’s something north of Iowa? 😉 No, I don’t get that way too often! I make it to Ohio once a year to see the in-laws.

        Kudos to you for reading the whole thing. Thanks for saying I was patient. I didn’t feel that way much of the time. I hate to cut off conversation with all the visitors but I do have a few other things in life I’d rather attend to!


  6. Couldn’t watch the whole video. I don’t get grossed out, I get pissed. I get desperately sad. Don’t tell me it ain’t killing a person. What the hell else could it possibly be considering the means by which it came into existence? The means is the joining of a man in woman in the act designed to bring into existence, another PERSON.


  7. Yes, that’s frustrating about this, and why I don’t blog full time. )Although I will be starting to post weekly on my Habitat Blog as we go into the build season. ) It gets too involved, and i find myself taking time from other things to blog. I don’t know where you get the time. It’s just like having to send the obnoxious house guest home at some point. In the case of the Mary thread I’d say it is past the point of being anything like a productive conversation. Maybe it’s time.


  8. BTW, that’s not my picture, I don’t know where it came from, or how to get rid of it. It kind of looks like Yeltsin.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s