So much bad pro-abortion reasoning, so little time

As evidence that some people get older without getting wiser, this pro-abortion post by an elderly woman and the accompanying  comments section trotted out one fallacious sound bite after another. I noticed it because it linked to my site somehow.

I could have spent hours there but just left the comment below. No use spending too much time in an echo chamber.  They actually seem to think that their bumper sticker mentality makes sense.

The indented parts are comments from the post and the rest is what I wrote.

—–

Like my husband says, “Whether or not to have a child is a woman’s choice. Period. End of story.”

That ignores that a female is destroyed 50% of the time during an abortion. Actually, over 50%, since virtually all gender selection abortions are performed to kill females for the sole reason that they are female. It is the ultimate misogyny.

All your back-slapping sound bites ignore a scientific fact: A new human being is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . That isn’t religion, that is science. And abortion destroys that innocent human being.

And how those a-holes have the gall to call themselves ‘pro-life’ when they are calling for death to anyone who is pro-choice is beyond me.

That is a straw man argument. I know it is convenient to demonize your opponents instead of addressing their arguments, but really now — all pro-lifers call for the death of any pro-choicers? C’mon.

For some women it is a time of great sadness – a pregnancy gone wrong, a wanted child not to be.

Using that logic one could support infanticide.

Against abortion? Don’t have one.

Slave owners used the same nonsensical argument. It is like saying, “Don’t like theft? Then don’t steal.” Once again you ignore the human being in the equation who gets killed.

Have you ever noticed that anti-abortionists don’t give a damn about the baby once it’s out of the womb? That’s when all interest in life ceases with these folks.

I hadn’t noticed that. There are more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and they offer their services for free — unlike Planned Parenthood, who charges $400 for abortions no matter how poor you are.

And even if we did nothing to help with our time and money, we could still protest the destruction of innocent human life. If the government was going to solve the homeless problem by killing homeless people, could you protest that without having to take them into your house?

0 thoughts on “So much bad pro-abortion reasoning, so little time”

  1. Great job, Neil. 🙂

    Like my husband says, “Whether or not to have a child is a woman’s choice. Period. End of story.”

    Once sperm hits egg, a woman does have a child – just as much as she has a child right after giving birth, or when that child has children of her own, too.

    That aside, this line of “reasoning” confuses the human right to make up one’s own mind and to try to, the best one can, order one’s life, with the desire to have a particular outcome, regardless of cost to other human beings. We acknowledge that everyone has the right to pursue an education, but we don’t allow people to do that by killing off Harvard’s acceptance list. Likewise, with childbirth, the right is to decide when to have sex, with whom, and whether or not to use protection (i.e. to try or to not try to conceive a child).

    The utter childishness of this lady’s line of reasoning is that life does not turn out the way we plan it to. Adults understand this and don’t run around, blaming other people for it, nor penalising them. Abortion is blaming the child and giving the child the death penalty because one’s life did not turn out as one planned. “Grow up” comes to mind as a possible alternative to abortion.

    Like

  2. It’s a wonder the pro-aborts still dare to put forth these infantile arguments. It’s a wonder what some are willing to tell themselves in order to allow for their self-serving sexual decisions. It’s obvious that for them self-gratification is far more important than human life. Abortion is the most heinous abdication of personal responsibility.

    Like

  3. If he is in our “big tent” then our tent is too big.

    As much as you may disagree with her comments (as do I), you have to give her 10/10 for that one.

    Like

  4. Wow, that was an amazing comment thread there. Nice adds by Roxanne.

    It was sad how impenetrable their bumper stickers are to logic and reason. They just call names and repeat the same fallacies.

    Like

  5. Another example of their logical fallacy-fest — http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/no-more-hoo-hoo-for-you-know-who/:

    Neil, how many of the children languishing in foster care have you lifted your little finger to adopt today? Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of picketing abortion clinics you were spending your energies working to get the children who are already here place in good homes? Just think about it!

    Even after multiple explanations, you get nonsense like that. 1. I don’t picket abortion clinics. 2. Even if I did, there is nothing wrong with that. 3. You can protest immoral acts like killing innocent human beings without having to adopt all the kids 4. Pro-choicers have the same burden to help. I wonder how many foster kids she has adopted? 5. Pro-lifers do lots to help women and kids before and after the births. They do much more than pro-choicers.

    Like

  6. Neil, I checked Helen and Margaret’s blog for the first time in a while, and I read your exchange with the others. They became too much for me to stomach a long time ago. I left last August except for an occasional post to rattle their cage without reading their reactions.

    You did well.

    I am pro -choice, but I consider killing unborn babies to be murder. I believe too many are killed and standards should be as high as whether or not a police officer can shoot a criminal. Sometimes, the life if the mother is more valuable than the baby’s life. At that point, I believe a religious ceremony is appropriate to commemorate the death.

    Now, I’ve probably angered another message board.

    Like

    1. Hi James,

      Thanks for visiting and commenting! Don’t worry, we’re much nicer here than at Helen & Margaret’s place. We have varied opinions and rigorous sparring, but it rarely gets personal (and if it gets out of hand I moderate comments).

      If you were referring to an exception for the life of the mother, then we agree. Actually, all the pro-lifers I know view that as consistent with the pro-life ethic.

      Peace,
      Neil

      Like

    2. Hi James.

      I’m one of the “varied” opinions. I have the view that abortion early on in the pregnancy is ending a pregnancy, not a life, since the cells that are destroyed do not include a functioning nervous system.

      I’m saying this so that Neil can tell me I’m wrong, and show you how we engage in “civil” discussion, absent of rage.

      Who are Helen and Margaret, and how can I get in on some of this rage?

      Like

      1. Thanks, Ryan, I’ll take my cue from there . . .

        Some people have a class of human beings they think are fair game for destruction. They discriminate based on arbitrary criteria, such as an elusive philosophical distinction such as “personahood” or lack of certain physical properties — sorta like Ryan just did.

        They aren’t up to date on science and don’t realize that mainstream embryology texts and experts agree that a new human life is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice, but you know these anti-science types let their bias get in the way of the truth ;-). Definitely don’t go into a coma around them.

        Re. Helen & Margaret, see the link I referred to in the post. Those Liberals are so crazy and immune to reason that they make you look like a Rush / Beck hybrid. It was kinda fun, but overly time consuming, to annihilate their pro-abortion reasoning and watch them squirm into a logical fallacy-fest. But that is inevitable when you are defending abortion-on-demand, aka this — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv .

        Give Helen and Margaret a hug for me, and tell Joe that no one will ever die again now that Obamacare has passed (but be sure to ask how much he has ever donated to help others with medical care — hint: zero).

        Like

      2. One last comment, then I’ll go to bed, and you can rip it apart while I sleep.

        Yes, I do place different values on life that lacks certain properties. I don’t consider someone to be alive if they lack a head, for instance. Likewise, if an embryo lacks a brain or nervous system, I don’t consider them to be alive in the same sense that we are alive. Once any primitive awareness of self is present, at about 3-4 months, what we have is a little person, and I’ll agree that little person has a right to live.

        Like

      3. Another alternative is to wait a month until the living human being meets your arbitrary criteria and let her live. Why the rush to kill her?

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      4. Maybe lack of a head is a poor example for you to use, if it’s expected that a head will grow where there currently is no head. If a head is not expected to grow, then yes, I agree – that human is not alive. This may be a new idea, but dead things cannot magically sprout heads. Living things do sprout nervous systems. And their status doesn’t change when they do – it’s just another part of the life—–>death cycle.

        Like

      5. Yes, I see the difference, but what I’m saying is that until the embryo reaches that stage, it is as lifeless as a person without an nervous system.

        We can use the “potential” logic to go all the way back and insist that sperm are lives worth protecting, since they have potential as well. Both are completely dependant on certain events happening for them to reach a stage where a functioning human being exists.

        Like

      6. Hi Ryan,

        until the embryo reaches that stage, it is as lifeless as a person without an nervous system.

        But it is only by your peculiar and non-scientific definition of “lifeless” that you can judge that class of human beings to be abortion fodder.

        Also, that view leads to some odd conclusions. If that is the basis for abortion, it would have been wrong to have an abortion until we learned via science when nervous systems develop.

        And of course, where you draw the line is critical. On one side is always an (allegedly) morally benign act of abortion, on the other is the death of a “person.” Those in favor of legal partial-birth abortions think it is fine to kill the unborn as long as 10% of the baby is still inside the mother. Talk about legalism! But even in their warped view of the world there is a recognition of a fine line that can’t be crossed (unless you are the President of the U.S. and think the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was misguided). So you would need to be very precise about whether the living human being about to be aborted has a nervous system. Pretty warped logic if you ask me.

        We can use the “potential” logic to go all the way back and insist that sperm are lives worth protecting

        But I don’t think I used “potential.” If the unborn is a potential human, then have a potential abortion.

        And the sperm / egg argument fails here. There was never a sperm that was Ryan. There was never an egg that was Ryan. At the point of conception, a new human being created that was Ryan. Crushing and dismembering you at any point in time would have ended your life, just as it would today.

        Like

      7. How is linking the word “lifeless” with an absence of a nervous system peculiar and non-scientific?

        Anyway, there’s not much point in hashing this out again. This is all about whether or not a soul exists at conception (or whether one exists at all). I don’t think it’s about science.

        Hope everyone has a good Easter weekend.

        Like

      8. How is linking the word “lifeless” with an absence of a nervous system peculiar and non-scientific?

        Because the human being is alive. That’s a scientific fact. If she wasn’t alive and growing the abortion wouldn’t be “necessary.”

        Just for the record, I never brought up souls . . .

        Thanks, and I hope you and your family have a wonderful weekend up in Canada! Let me know when it warms up there. My team audits our Canadian branches but they try to avoid traveling there in the Winter.

        Like

  7. The point of my post was that the human embryo was alive, because living beings are not reproduced by dead ones.

    Function does not = value.

    Certain people require certain circumstances to live, like Stephen Hawking, for example. His sympathetic nervous system is all but destroyed. He has a brain and a digestive system, not much else. Not much a human, is he?

    I argue what the science tells us is fact – a single celled human is biologically a distinct human. Potential does not factor into anything…if it did, well, we’re all potentially dead. I’m potentially senile, to, so I guess I shouldn’t be legally able to drive.

    Therefore I agree – potentiality has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. There is only life and non-life. It’s a continuous process – live sperm + live egg = live human and eventually dead human. There is no stop/start for life.

    Like

  8. Though I don’t for a moment buy into the “sperm has potential, too” argument, since it’s, well, stupid, I do think that from a religious and/or philosophical point of view, it too is a good argument against abortion, or more importantly, sex for pleasure only. Though the potential of a sperm cell or an ovum can’t morally OR scientifically equate with an embryo, because potential exists if either is given the chance to combine with each other, that potential deserves some level of respect. That is, because of that potential, the act shouldn’t be taken as lightly as it all too often is.

    The underlying issue regarding abortion is the morality of engaging in the procreative act for reasons other than procreation, or at least reasons that align with accepting responsibility for a child should one be conceived. It is, after all, the purpose of the act—to bring into existence a new human being (which is why it always is a human being deserving of the right to life endowed upon it by its Creator).

    So to treat the act, and the elements within it that join in making a new person, as if no child is possible, or worse, that it can be done away with under the lamest of rationalizations, seems completely immature, arrogant, and really, quite pathetic for anyone claiming the status of “adult”.

    Like

    1. Excellent points, Marshall. The vain attempt as the separation of the sex act from the possibility of creation is foundational to the whole problem.

      Like

  9. “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

    Imagine human reproduction like making copies…

    In computers, information is imprinted on a drive. To copy a file, all the information is duplicated and transferred to create a file that becomes its own entity. As one in control of the functions of that computer, you can cancel at any time during the transfer, and that entity will fail to exist. Those in control of the computer always have that option. Sometimes, if you wait too long to cancel, it WILL create the new file, though it may not function as well as one left alone until a complete transfer is performed. Occasionally technical difficulties will stop the transfer or not allow it to finish. Until the transfer is complete, it isn’t a fully operational file. Only then can it live on another drive and multiply itself, if the user so desires.

    The human file transfer time is approximately 9 months.

    How about cells? We see this design and principle throughout the entire universe, no matter what type of cells we are observing. To multiply in cellular terms, cells copy and then divide. One becomes two. Some cells are fast growing (fast dividing), some grow much slower, but in each case they do not divide until all the information is duplicated. It isn’t an individual until then. As a rule we don’t ever count two when it’s still part of one.

    Like

    1. I appreciate your attempt at an illustration, but I don’t think it advances the conversation or proves that abortions are morally acceptable. In your computer analogy there would be no moral issue with destroying the files at any time, before or after the copying process. In fact, the information for the growth of the human being is there at conception. No new information is added in months 1-9, just growth.

      Re. cells, the cells of the unborn child have unique DNA.

      Peace,
      Neil

      Like

      1. I agree. The genetics are there. The entire instruction manual is there, for sure. Just as one drop of blood carries the same information as the entire living being does, so the physical origin of every being is inherent in it’s smallest component. So if I spill one drop of blood, is it the same as saying I have destroyed human life? The life is in the blood, you know. What about the spiritual essence of life? Does it cease with each droplet, or where does it regroup?

        Like

      2. So if I spill one drop of blood, is it the same as saying I have destroyed human life?

        If you spill all the blood of a human being, then you have destroyed a human life. My point about DNA was that each unborn human being is unique. He / she is not her mother. I didn’t say that taking a drop of her blood was killing. But you knew that, right?

        Like

      3. He is never a potential human being. He is always a human being with unique DNA. It is a scientific fact.

        Why do you work so hard to ignore the science and to rationalize abortion?

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      4. So by your logic, we should call every “apple seed” that is nestled in the core of the fruit an “apple tree” because its unique DNA separates it from it’s mother?

        What about the blood question? When do they stop sharing the same blood?

        Like

      5. Apple seeds are seeds. Sperm are sperm. Eggs are eggs. But those pesky embyrology textbooks say that a new human being is created at conception.

        You haven’t explained the relevance of your blood question and it won’t help you rationalize abortion anyway. Do you realize how hypocritical you look?

        You try to say abortions are kinda bad but should be legal. But then you keep coming with this unscientific bit about apple seeds and bad theology where you mix up God’s moral and sovereign wills. You try to ratonalize abortion.

        Before you write anyhog else, how about finishing the “innocence” issue that you brought up and are now avoiding?

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      6. Sperm do not carry all the elements need to produce a full grown human being, an apple seed has already gotten both sets of DNA when it was a bloom.

        Afraid of the blood question, or not sure? I just asked out of curiosity. You seem to be the expert in the science of all this. I just know my bible says the life is in the blood, so I felt it would be significant.

        I don’t have to rationalize abortion. I am not needing to get one nor do I know anyone in the position of getting one. I’m sure I could go out and hunt for someone looking for one if I had the inkling, but frankly I see much more pressing issues that hold more dire consequences for our race than trying to shut down every abortion clinic on the planet. Abortion is more of a political buzzword and rallying cry than anything else.

        Hopefully my definition of innocence has found its way to your device by now. I am much slower at typing and multi-tasking than you are, I can tell.

        Like

      7. Your blood question is probably as ridiculous as your innocence question. Please just make a point then defend it without all the side comments. You aren’t fooling anyone.

        You are most certainly rationalizing abortions — not to have one, but to defend their legality and morality.

        Like

      8. A lot of judgments on your end here. Ridiculous question? I don’t see how. Fooling anyone? That certainly isn’t my intent. I just do not have the confidence of your convictions. You certainly seem to have side-stepped some questions.

        Like

      9. Side-stepped what? You blood question? Make your point and let’s see what that’s about. I’m not into guessing games, especially with someone making such a volume of incoherent arguments. Try picking one and proving it with real facts and logic and without a bunch of superfluous side points.

        Will it be as coherent as your equivocation on original sin and guilt for capital crimes? Wow, you must be super-duper-pro-capital punishment. I mean, if original sin is enough to make abortion-on-demand fair game, I can imagine what you have in mind for real criminals!

        Like

  10. Though an apple seed has the potential to be a tree, and an egg has the potential to be a bird, we cannot call them either until that transformation is complete. The same is true with humans. A zygote, embryo, and fetus have the POTENTIAL to be a human being. Of course there is life there. There is life in the apple seed, too.

    God is the author and giver of life. He holds the balance of life in His hands. The thread of life is woven with great diversity within our small universe. The living strands of two human lives are woven together through physical intercourse. This will sometimes manifest and begin to grow into a new human vessel, weaving those two strands into a new thread. At times, God has different plans and that thread is not woven into the same fabric.

    He also shows us that life does not end. We shed the physical shell, the mortal coil – that part which is dust goes back to dust. But the spirit lives on. Remember, we are vessels…tabernacles…lamps meant to contain and reflect His image. His Spirit. His likeness. Created to commune with Him. He gives us life. He also allows physical life to be dashed. To be taken away. For nothing can be done without His permission. The fact that He uses people as His conduit makes it no less His design.

    Like

    1. Hi Poolman,

      Thanks for visiting and commenting. I must call to your attention the scientific experts on embryology, who seem quite in agreement and emphatic that a new human being is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . I encourage you to read it. It even has comments from those who are strongly pro-legalized abortion who concede that point.

      The zygote you mention is a human zygote. The fetus is a human fetus. They are human beings at a particular stage of development, but in essence they are human.

      Yes, God is the author of life. And He was clear and emphatic in telling us not to take innocent life.

      Like

      1. Please expand on what your point is. Surely you aren’t equivocating and pretending that original sin is equal to a capital crime and thus deserving of death by human hands?

        Like

      2. Original sin puts us in the devil’s domain. Innocent flesh is no longer on the planet. Pain in childbirth. Aging, sickness, disease. It’s a downhill run.

        Innocent spirit is still possible. Look at Enoch. There is more to this human equation than merely flesh.

        When God speaks of innocent, He refers to the heart of those concerned. You cannot assign innocence where there is no conscience.

        Like

      3. So you think abortion is acceptable because everyone is tainted with original sin? Using that reasoning you could kill anyone, anytime, inside or outside the womb.

        Worst. Pro-abortion argument. Ever.

        Like

      4. Pro-choice used to mean pro-choice. Now it is pro-abortion. When you support taxpayer-funded abortions, that is pro-abortion, not pro-choice. When you refuse to make it illegal because poor people might not have the same opportunity to pay $400 to have their children destroyed, that is pro-abortion. You oppose anything that would limit abortion.

        Like

      5. Seriously, I’d appreciate it if you would explain what you meant by this. Please define God’s meaning of innocence and how it relates to whether killing the unborn should be legal.

        Like

      6. Do you equate this killing to murder? I don’t think all the criteria are met to ascertain that verdict.

        Like

      7. I already told you, murder is a legal distinction. I choose my words carefully: Abortion kills an innocent human being. You ignore that fact.

        Like

      8. You have proved the innocent human being part. I admit it certainly stops a human from being born.

        Like

    2. That’s some pretty creepy theology. Just because He lets something happen doesn’t mean there are no earthly consequences. Using that reasoning you’d oppose laws against killing outside the womb as well.

      Like

      1. There are always consequences to our actions. What we do not pay for here we will at the judgment. Laws were made for men because they could not discern the Spirit. Jesus came to fulfill the law and sums it up in two rules. Love God with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbor as you would yourself.

        If we followed those principles we would have no problems.

        Like

      2. What we do not pay for here we will at the judgment.

        For unbelievers, of course. For believers, all our sins — past, present and future — were nailed to the cross. And I thank God for that!

        Love God with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbor as you would yourself.

        If we followed those principles we would have no problems.

        You are correct. We agree. Now, who is your neighbor? If you really loved your neighbor you wouldn’t spend so much energy rationalizing the destruction of the unborn.

        Like

      3. For believers who are walking in the Spirit and have no areas that are hidden from Him, you are correct. All is forgiven. As far as the east is from the west, separated. And it is a daily nailing of our sins to that cross that keeps them from hindering us from performing His good deeds in that day.

        My neighbor is anyone I see, talk to, write to, or interact with in anyway on this planet. If it were in my power, I would end war, famine, disease, rape, abortion, etc.

        Like

      4. I am saying there should NOT be a law making abortions illegal. Laws do not stop these things. Laws are applied the harshest to the poorest in our society. If the goal is to incarcerate all the minorities and the poor, make these “moral” laws that an immoral society cannot live up to. The best solution? Change the next generation. This one is still wandering in the desert. Talk to your children about sex early and often. Offer free birth control. Castrate sex offenders!

        Like

      5. Actually, laws do stop many things. You don’t want to reduce abortions of poor people?

        Your implication that we’re trying to make abortions illegal to hurt poor and minorities is ridiculous. You are the one wanting abortion to be legal. It kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites. Why do you want that to keep happening?

        How will you change the next generation when they are being destroyed?

        Still waiting on your definition of God’s view of innocence and its relevance to this discussion.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      6. The wealthy do not follow the laws. They can work all the loopholes and still do whatever they want. I guarranty they will still be getting abortions if they want them, legal or not. Those that will be the greatest hurt will be the less fortunate and poor. They will be having more unwanted babies, dying the most from botched back alley procedures, and getting prosecuted and put in jail at a MUCH higher percentage than those with wealth.

        I have talked with my kids and now my grandkids. In today’s world, you cannot get away from the display or discussions of sex. The key is to take control and supply honest answers. So far it has made a difference in my small world. That is what I am expected to do for now.

        Like

      7. Please stay on topic. Reasoning that the rich can find ways to break laws so let’s do away with laws is ridiculous. You are saying that since the rich could still kill their offspring that the poor won’t have the equal opportunity to kill their offspring. That is nonsense.

        Like

      8. I am saying that laws DO NOT apply equally across the income spectrum. If you believe they do you haven’t paid close attention or polled our prison population. It IS ON TOPIC if your intent is to create a law that makes access to abortions illegal. That is your goal, correct?

        Like

      9. I do prison ministry and know hundreds of felons, so I’m pretty familiar with that.

        Yes, abortions should be illegal. That will reduce them.

        Your argument seems to be that the rich might get around these laws, so that wouldn’t be fair to the poor.

        So let’s consider the logical consequences of that, even if it is true.

        1. The poor don’t get to kill as many of their unborn children as before. You think that is a bad thing; I think that is a good thing.

        2. If being rich makes it easier to get away with stealing, murder outside the womb, etc., should we make those legal to be “fair” with the poor?

        Remember, the poor are also victims of the crimes being committed.

        Like

      10. That is very noble of you Neil. May God richly bless you and give you a heart of compassion for those incarcerated souls, I pray. May they see His love and grace through you, I pray. May their hearts be open to the message of salvation and to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. May He bless your ministry and keep you on the path of righteousness, I pray. I will hope to check in from time to time, as the Spirit allows, and keep you in my prayers. In His service, Marc.

        Like

      11. Neil is always very forthright and consistent in his views on every matter, and I say so even though he and I probably disagree on most things.

        So let me say what he is too polite to say, and please excuse my bluntness:

        All your schmaltzy pseudo-Christian speak; “bringing it all into the light”, shalom, blessings, devils and angels, earthly journey, incarcerated souls, non-judgemental heart etc etc ad nauseum are just glitter sprinkled on crap, if at the end of it all, what you get is dead children.

        Like

      12. Thanks, Michael. I may have been too polite to say that, but I’m not too polite to agree with it!

        I’d say we disagree on many things we kick around here, but we probably agree on plenty that we don’t talk about.

        Cheers!

        p.s. My autocorrect originally turned my typo-laden “cheers” into “jeers.” Glad I caught that one, but it makes me wonder how many of those things I miss.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      13. Hello Racing Boo. Use any words you like. Death is part of the cycle of life. All physical things must die. It is a cycle that all earthly things go through. Native cultures, mostly non-whites, have a much better appreciation of the part death plays in the cycle of life. Living in the flesh leads to death. Sooner or later, it is going to happen.

        Now spiritual death is a different matter altogether. The bible clearly says we MUST die to self in order for Christ to live in us. It is a daily event in the life of a true believer. There are a lot of walking and breathing people that are dead spiritually.

        In your opinion, do you think it is more tragic for a human to never be born or rather have one that is breathing and lives to a hundred, never receiving salvation which is spiritual rebirth?

        Like

      14. Racing Boo is welcome to answer that false dichotomy non sequitor, but perhaps you could explain why it has anything to do with whether unborn human beings can be killed?

        Like

      15. My answer to your question is an emphatic yes.

        I’m not a Christian any more, but the last time I looked the “Christian worldview” still seemed to recommend a life on earth first before proceeding to the afterlife.

        Like

      16. A lot of people claim to be Christian, and yet do not meet the criteria. I was raised Catholic and an alter boy. I would have said I was a Christian if asked. The reality is until I had a spiritual rebirth – that “born again” experience in my early 20’s, I was not a true Christian. “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (John 3:6) And once Jesus has spoken to you, it would be near impossible to back out of that relationship, IMO. “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” (John 10:27-28)

        As far as the “Christian worldview” is concerned, the world is considered the devil’s domain since the fall of man. The bible’s wisest person was Solomon. He writes: “But those who have never been born are better off still; they have not seen the evil that is done here on earth.” (Ecclesiastes 4:3), and “A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. (Ecclesiastes 6:3)

        Like

      17. Are you using that to justify abortion? If so, that is beyond creepy and possible the worst Bible interpretation I’ve ever heard

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      18. Absolutely not. I have repeatedly stated that I wish NO MORE abortions would EVER be performed from this day forward. Is that clear enough? You have continually failed to pick up on that. I have merely provided a scriptural answer to RB’s question.

        Like

      19. Is it The Bible Is To Be Read Literally In 100% Of All Verses Day again? If so, I want to know how big the Bowls of Wrath are going to be. I mean, at least as big as my porridge bowl, I hope. There’s not more than 500mL of Wrath that will fit in one of those.

        Like

  11. Like the potter, He forms us in the womb. As a potter works the clay on the wheel, some – not all – become pots to place in the kiln for the first firing. The vessels that do survive this initial firing are then detailed with mineral glazes (environment and traits) that will react sometimes brilliantly when exposed to extreme temperatures. The hotter second firing of the kiln, much like the trial of life here on earth, brings out the full strength and beauty of the vessels that are from good clays, properly kneaded and thrown. Likewise it cracks and sometimes shatters those that were not as good in substance and form.

    The Father knows the destiny of every creature He has created. They are all created to bring Him glory. They are all created for that purpose. “Let everything that has BREATH praise the Lord. Praise the Lord.” (Psalms 150:6)

    Like

    1. “Let everything that has BREATH praise the Lord. Praise the Lord.” (Psalms 150:6)

      Hmmm . . . maybe if you and other pro-legalized abortion / anti-science “Christians” hadn’t kept abortion legal there would be 50 million more human beings who could taken that first breath.

      Are you saying those that were aborted weren’t as good in substance and form? Maybe if they hadn’t been destroyed we would have known for sure.

      Do you realize that your just-so computer copying story would justify partial-birth abortion? So you think that a human being can be 90% out of the mother and have a sharp object stuck in her head and her brains removed and that is morally acceptable?

      Let’s see how good you are at learning — or are you just here to force your opinions on us? Go analyze the scientific evidence and show me where it is flawed — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq .

      If you want to insist that this is morally neutral or even a moral good — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv — then you have that right. But please don’t claim the name of Christ and do that. It is sickening.

      Like

  12. Poolman said:

    “Like the potter, He forms us in the womb. As a potter works the clay on the wheel, some – not all – become pots to place in the kiln for the first firing. The vessels that do survive this initial firing are then detailed with mineral glazes (environment and traits) that will react sometimes brilliantly when exposed to extreme temperatures. The hotter second firing of the kiln, much like the trial of life here on earth, brings out the full strength and beauty of the vessels that are from good clays, properly kneaded and thrown. Likewise it cracks and sometimes shatters those that were not as good in substance and form.”

    This is a relatively fair illustration, in the sense that as the potter, God has the choice of which become viable, special, etc. On this you’ll find little disagreement here. It does not, however, speak to the issue of abortion.

    The main trouble is (even ignoring the obvious issues of life stages, intent of creation, etc for the sake of the analogy) abortion isn’t the work of “the potter.” Abortion would be like someone coming into the potter’s workshop and reshaping his clay or breaking his pots before they could be completed.

    It’s a bit reminiscent of the unfortunate notion that many people fall back on: “Because nothing happens without God’s will, X is okay because it’s God’s will.” It’s faulty because it ignores what His very word tells us in the Bible. It’s the foundation of many false teachings and doctrinally tenuous churches.

    There’s actually another good topic here that covers bible study that is quite apt to this. “The clear trumps the unclear” comes to mind. Also “The specific trumps the general.” In other words, when there is specific word from God on what NOT to do, anything beyond that based on generalities, basically boils down to rationalization on our part and is danger of becoming false doctrine.

    That verse from Psalms you quoted, for example, wasn’t a commentary on where life begins. It was as simple as it sounded. There are many un-aborted, fully developed human beings without the “Breath” to praise the Lord, but it doesn’t define whether or not they are alive.

    Like

    1. Excellent points, PJ. People often confuse God’s sovereign will with his moral will. And his moral will is rather clear: Don’t take innocent life.

      Like

    2. “Abortion would be like someone coming into the potter’s workshop and reshaping his clay or breaking his pots before they could be completed.”

      Ah, but this potter is all-knowing and all-seeing. If those pots were broken for righteous reasons, He could forgive those spoiled pots. If not, then He would surely punish those that did it for the wrong reasons. He is the only true and righteous judge/potter.

      “There are many un-aborted, fully developed human beings without the “Breath” to praise the Lord, but it doesn’t define whether or not they are alive.”

      There are many among the breathing that are dead, for sure. And God could cause the rocks to cry out in praise, if He so desired. But if you are human, and you don’t have breath, you don’t have life. It is part of our being. God first breathed into man the breath of life. Before that, he was merely a slab of meat.

      Like

      1. “But if you are human, and you don’t have breath, you don’t have life.”

        That isn’t what the Bible says, and it isn’t what embryology textbooks say. But you don’t let facts get in the way of rationalizing abortion.

        Like

      2. One of the characteristics of being human is we are mammals and we breath air to live. I didn’t make up the criteria. It is known fact.

        Where does the bible say not to abort human babies? Where does it refute my claim?

        Like

      3. “One of the characteristics of being human is we are mammals and we breath air to live. I didn’t make up the criteria. It is known fact.”

        So you are right and the embryology texts are wrong? We breath air outside the womb, but we get oxygen in a different way in the womb. That’s your rationale for why abortion should be legal?

        You realize that you are defending partial birth abortion with that argument, right? Do you really think those should be legal?

        The Bible says not to kill innocent human beings. There are many passages that recognize the unborn as human beings (John the Bapist reacting in his mother’s womb, Jeremiah 1:5, Jesus is the author of life, and more).

        The Bible didn’t specifically mention abortion because the Jews considered children to be a blessing. They weren’t moral freaks like some “Christians” who work overtime rationalizing why it is OK to kill the unborn.

        Like

      4. Wait a minute. You wrote this:

        One of the characteristics of being human is we are mammals and we breath air to live. I didn’t make up the criteria. It is known fact.

        But just before that you wrote this:

        You have proved the innocent human being part. I admit it certainly stops a human from being born.

        Why are you still arguing against the humanity of the unborn?

        Like

      5. That second quote I mis-wrote. It should read: You have NOT proved the innocent human part. Humanity is more than flesh and blood, as I have previously noted. But alas, before I get back into reinstating much of what has been stated, I must get out to check on some crews. Later.

        Like

      6. You have got to be kidding. I offer over a dozen mainstream embryology texts plus quotes from experts to prove the human part. You offer gobbledygook, fallacious illustrations in response and do nothing to address anything I’ve offered. Did you even read the site? If not, please don’t comment again until you’ve read the whole thing.

        You offer the original sin part about innocence, which, as I outlined in my latest post, is the worst “Christian” pro-legalized abortion argument I’ve ever heard (and I’ve heard a lot of bad ones) — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/worst-christian-pro-legalized-abortion-argument-ever/ .

        So I’ve offered plenty of evidence on the human part and the innocent part.

        Like

      7. And once again, you contradict yourself. Why the faux hand-wringing over abortions if the unborn aren’t human and aren’t innocent? And how can something non-human be innocent, anyway? That’s rhetorical.

        Like

  13. Oh, and by “for example” in that last paragraph, I meant it as an exaple of reading in context, which I realized I forgot to reference as a bible reading necessity.

    Oops!:)

    Like

  14. I am pro-choice and pro-science. I was for many years anti-abortion, now referred to as pro-life.

    Abortions have been going on in society since the beginning. Legal or not, they will continue as long as there is sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

    Abortions are never pretty. A lot of what we do as a race is ugly. It is better to bring it ALL into the light. I can only be responsible for my actions. I am not in the shoes of anyone else. I know my heart is clear before my Lord. I do not pretend to know anyone else’s heart. I certainly wouldn’t accuse ANYONE of murder without knowing the intent of their heart.

    The root of the problem is lack of knowledge. We have treated sex like a dirty word, especially in the church, for so many years that we don’t equip our children with the means to make smart decisions about their bodies and their potential. And then we market sex everywhere. The evil forces that control this world are relentless in their quest. Put on the full armor daily.

    I don’t make the call as to who gets to walk and breathe on this planet. I don’t pretend to know where the Father sends those souls. I could only imagine it would feel like a fish out of water. My point is that you cannot judge the heart of anyone. You do not know the essence of that individual, nor what God’s plan is for that soul. Bless who you can with whatever you have been given to bless with and keep the faith. He sends angels to test you and allows devils the same.

    Remember this earthy journey is only a blink of an eye in relation to the big picture of life.

    Shalom.

    Like

    1. Abortions have been going on in society since the beginning. Legal or not, they will continue as long as there is sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

      What logically follows from that? Murder outside the womb has been going on since Genesis 4. Should we legalize that?

      I can only be responsible for my actions. I am not in the shoes of anyone else.

      And what logically follows from that? No laws at all?

      I do not pretend to know anyone else’s heart. I certainly wouldn’t accuse ANYONE of murder without knowing the intent of their heart.

      Murder is a legal distinction. What we’re talking about is whether unborn human beings deserve protection.

      My point is that you cannot judge the heart of anyone.

      Now that’s odd. You judged me quite a bit on the Grandma blog, and most passive-aggressively and hypocritically. Here’s just one comment (maybe there are more — I quit reading the thread but that one shows up in my comment reader) — “I thought he was open to learning, but it seems he was just here to force his opinions and beliefs on us. It appears he has it all figured out, unlike the rest of us. I don’t know what his motivation for hijacking this blog is, but it seems to please him. I sense an air of self-righteousness . . I suggest you ask the Holy Spirit to guide and teach you as you walk in the light of His presence. From where I sit you have taken several mis-steps. But I am not going to judge you for it. ”

      You judged there and you judged here, and had the nerve to criticize me for judging. Please be consistent.

      Please re-read your comments and consider how you create one story and diversion after another to deny the humanity of the unborn and your complicity in abortion being legal.

      Like

      1. You call abortion murder, yet abortion is legal. It is the law of the land. Your goal is to change that and you are so convinced it will make a difference if it was law. As I have stated over and over again, it will NOT fix the moral issue at hand. You continue to say I should advocate for no laws against murder, since my logic shows that the law would make no difference. It certainly hasn’t taken murder out of our society. Even our government can murder, and legally now via loopholes in the law. Jesus did not instruct me to write legislation or even try to enforce it. That isn’t my ministry.

        Laws are for men. God introduced them because men needed guidelines and no one was able to live up to all the laws. That is why He sent His son. As children of light and coheirs with Christ, we have the whole of the law written in our hearts. We don’t need no stinking badges!

        On the Margaret and Helen blog, you showed up and began passing judgment. We had a dispute over the meaning of a well known passage you described to mean hypocritical judging. I disagreed with your interpretation and showed you another verse that better emphasized my point and you basically said okay, I’m not judging and you’re not judging, how’s that? So let’s not try to make it out as more than that.

        Also in your quote of my response you left out the my disclaimer and justification … …air of self-righteousness, but it could be an innocent boldness of spirit. Blog personalities tend to be bolder than the individual face to face.

        As an imperfect human being on this side of eternity, I have and will continue to pray for you Neil, but … …mis-steps. But I am not going to judge you for it. As a believer I feel oligated to point to these things. May God richly bless you and cause His face to shine on you and in your life, I pray.

        I am critical of what you are putting forth as fact. On that you can be sure I will make judgment and critique. But as far as you and your actions, all I can do is tell you to follow your heart. Anyone can go to the M&H blog and read your back and forth there.

        Like

      2. Yeah, I know you say it won’t change behavior but you are wrong. Abortions skyrocketed when they were made legal.

        Yes, Matthew 7:1-5 is about hypocritical judging. You were embarrassed because you misinterpreted every passage you brought up. And you were — and are here — the clear hypocrite for endlessly judging while saying not to judge.

        When I said “I’m not judging and you’re not” it was a joke pointing out how silly your argument was. You were judging left and right then using your special definition of judging to say you were not but I was. I just pointed out how two could play that game.

        “But I am not going to judge you for it.”

        Too late. You’ve judged there and here. But you are missing the point: I don’t care if you judge me. Well all make judgments. Nothing wrong with that. I just despise the passive-aggressiveness of those who judge to their heart’s content then back off and say they aren’t judging.

        “I am critical of what you are putting forth as fact.”

        LOL. You are in direct opposition to the science of embryology and you’ve offered nothing but fallacious illustrations to make your points.

        The fact is that the unborn are human beings innocent of capital crimes. You equivocate and use the term “innocent” in the sense of original sin to justify abortion, but that, of course, is ridiculous.

        Like

      3. You either did not grasp my meaning that the flesh is not innocent, though the spirit could be. As humans we are in the image of God and that means we are trinity beings also. Most break it down as body, soul, and spirit. The body part is the flesh. The only way to redeem that is by the blood of Christ. That is the part science doesn’t get, yet I believe through faith. Science sees the human as a mammal with physical attributes and a life cycle. Where does science say the spirit resides? Or the soul?

        You keep accusing me of judging you, yet I am merely disagreeing with what you expouse as fact. I do not dispute the science.

        Innocent of capital crimes is a whole different kind of innocence and relates to our legal system of laws. What capital crimes are you insinuating?

        Like

      4. I have no idea what you mean. Your claim was that original sin somehow made abortion acceptable. That is wrong on many levels. If that wasn’t your claim, why bring it up in this abortion discussion?

        I didn’t insinuate capital crimes. I just pointed out that the unborn haven’t committed any so they are innocent and deserve to have their lives protected. You are arguing that they don’t deserve protection.

        Listen to me: If you want to comment here you need to slow down, stay on topic and put forth clear points and then defend them. I didn’t run the Grandma blog so I had to put up with their craziness, ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacy-fests. I don’t have to do that here. Life’s too short.

        Like

    2. My point is that you cannot judge the heart of anyone.

      Who was talking about judging someone’s heart? We are judging actions. My point is that killing the unborn is an immoral action (99%), except to save the life of the mother (1%). The victims don’t know or care about the condition of someone’s heart.

      Like

  15. “The victims don’t know or care about the condition of someone’s heart.”

    The victims are often the girls that would be mothers. Until that embryo has a conscience, it can’t even be a victim, IMO. And I can’t say when that happens, only God knows.

    Like

      1. I have said several times that I am not in favor of abortion. I would love it if we never had to have another abortion from this day forward. I have told you that I have been on both sides of this issue and was at one time a protesting anti-abortion participant.

        I have seen the ugly of humanity in many of life’s arenas. Destruction and mutilation of flesh is not a new phenomenon and is never pretty. I have expressed that laws don’t eliminate to problem. In simple economic/capitalist terms, it is a matter of supply and demand. Like drugs, prostitution, and gambling, abortion is a product of social deterioration. You can make all the laws you want regarding its legality, but it does not stop the demand. If you get to the root of it, which is unwanted pregnancies, then you begin to reduce and finally eliminate abortions. That is your goal, I believe – to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce the occurrence of abortion? This is common ground, IMO.

        Like

      2. I agree on the common ground. That is why I donate to and volunteer at a Crisis Pregnancy Center. That reduces abortions every day. I have never seen pro-choice Christians support these organizations, even though they are apolitical and just help the women make the right choice and help meet her physical and spiritual needs. Worse yet, these pro-choice Christians support organizations like Planned Parenthood and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

        Abortions skyrocketed when they became illegal. Laws do influence behavior. Even if your premise was right, it wouldn’t hurt anything to make abortions legal. In fact, by claiming that the rich would still do them and the poor wouldn’t you seem to concede my point that it would reduce abortions.

        Even if they aren’t illegal, persuading people that they are immoral would be a good start to reducing them. Think about what you did at the pagan Grandma blog, with lots of unsaved, pro-legalized abortion Liberals watching? You rationalize why abortion is OK and you use Bible verses out of context to attack a pro-life Christian there. Thanks, buddy!

        Like

      3. I think it noble that you work with Crisis centers and support 3 kids through World Vision.

        My daughters both benefited from Planned Parenthood for wellness women checks and birth control prescriptions. They are not all about promoting abortion. I am sure there is abuse in some of their rank, but they do perform a service that the community needs.

        Our mission as Christians is to spread the gospel – the GOOD news. Telling all people that God has a plan for salvation. That the kingdom of God is at hand. Go forth and heal the sick, casting out demons, baptizing in the name of Jesus and carrying the kingdom to the ends of the earth. We are His representatives, witnesses to the pagan world. We should have a heart of compassion, not condemnation for the unsaved. Our goal among ourselves should be unity of spirit.

        I pull no scripture out of context to prove any point. We may not agree on the meaning of some scripture, but my spirit is clear before my Lord. I think the church has lost its first love and misunderstood its marching plans. This interaction between us should serve to sharpen us – as iron sharpens iron. I recall you said at the “pagan” blog that I seemed reasonable and you invited me to come over here. Are you taking that back now?

        I wish we would stop all abortions from this moment forward. The whole abortion issue is a dividing issue. It divides politics and people, churches and families. It is never pretty for those involved.

        Like

      4. Yes, I am taking back the notion that you are reasonable. You can still comment here, but after seeing your hypocritical, back-stabbing follow up comments at that site and your incoherent justifications for abortion here I’ve lost a great deal of respect for you.

        You sure put forth a lot of effort here and at Grandma’s blog to justify abortion and keep it legal considering you say here that you wish we could stop abortions. Seems like you want everything both ways.

        I don’t have condemnation for the unsaved, I try to share the Gospel with them. But I also try to protect the unborn. That isn’t condemning anyone, that is the heart of the pro-life movement — the movement you oppose.

        I am glad that you realize the Gospel is good news for salvation, though! Keep up with that message. Too many Liberal Christians are too gutless to advance that case. Good luck with that message at Grandma’s blog.

        Like

  16. Poolman-why have you decided that a conscience will determine victimhood? To make a judgement based on your posts here-despite a rather weak attempt at posing as a Christian-you apparently have no conscience, so could I kill you and not be guilty of murder?
    Abortion is murder-plain and simple, whether it’s legal or not.

    Like

    1. I believe God requires a conscience to determine innocence or guilt. If God allows it, you could kill me and the motivation of your heart would determine whether it was murder. God goes one step further and says you don’t even have to perform the act, only harbor those thoughts in your heart and that makes you just as guilty as having actually done it. Now our society does not judge us that way, and we can only use evidence to convict, but the scripture is clear.

      Like

      1. I don’t follow. What does any of that have to do with whether killing the unborn is morally acceptable for anyone, let alone Christians?

        Like

      2. The scripture is clear that murder is wrong. Where in the world do you come up with God needs a conscience to determine our guilt or innocence? And where in the world do you get that I could kill you and only the motivation of my heart would determine my guilt?
        If I kill you literally or only in my thoughts, I have committed murder. Just because my conscience might not bother me about it doesn’t negate my guilt.
        Just because you can condone murder of unborn babies with a clear conscience doesn’t lessen your guilt either.

        Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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