With Planned Parenthood in the news (at least some news . . .), be ready to discuss basic pro-life reasoning. Feel free to use part or all of any of this without attribution, and please feel free to share!
Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq ) and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.
The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.
In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Regarding the “pro-lifers don’t care about those outside the womb” sound bite, note these:
1. If people were slaughtering toddlers, the elderly or anyone else the way they do unborn children, I guarantee that we would be protesting that as well. So we are completely consistent in protecting innocent human lives regardless of location and yes, we do care for life post-birth.
2. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day without being obligated to care for all the victims for life. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love life, pressure from boyfriends / parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection. The right to life is the foundational human right.
3. The premise is false. Countless pro-lifers help women and children before and after birth with their own time and money. Crisis Pregnancy Centers offers an array of free services. Planned Parenthood and the like make millions via abortion.
4. Asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on your part.
5. Do you criticize the American Cancer Society for not working on heart disease? If not, why are you being prideful about your preferred ministry over what others feel called to? That is, if you actually do anything for others at all.
6. Unless they want forced abortions, pro-choicers have the same obligations to help that they put on pro-lifers.
7. The claim that we don’t care about the children outside the womb is demonstrably false. But even if their claim was true, it seems like the greater sin would be to approve of a child being literally crushed and dismembered rather than just not personally feeding someone else’s living child.
“Reproductive freedom/choice/justice/rights/health/etc.” are false, Orwellian, anti-scientific terms. They apply to birth control, not abortion, because abortion destroys a human being who has already been reproduced. That is a scientific fact confirmed by any mainstream embryology textbook and basic logic. It is a deadly and evil phrase. Yes, they have a right to reproduce, but no, they shouldn’t have the right to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.
Never let pro-aborts get away with using that phrase.
Remember that these pro-abortion extremists have the full support of the “Christian” Left, who insist that life doesn’t begin until the first breath and that Jesus is OK with killing any unwanted children before that time. https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/the-christian-left-is-far-more-extreme-than-the-average-pro-choice-person-2/
Here is a fact: Abortion rates in the black community are 3x that of whites. Taxpayer-funded abortions — which the Democrats want so badly that they almost lost Obamacare over it
— and that which their official platform calls for — would take that rate even higher.
If the situations were reversed and conservatives supported abortion in the same way and liberals opposed it, we’d be hearing nonstop about how racist and genocidal conservatives are.
Democrats are officially pro-abortion extremists, not pro-choice. Why? Because they want taxpayer-funded abortions, laws requiring all health care plans to cover abortions, removal of conscience clauses, and no restrictions on anything, including “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide), late term abortions, gender-selection abortions, parental notification, etc.
From their platform (http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform ): “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
And if you approve of the legalized crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings you don’t gain any moral authority by criticizing those who would literally cheer for abortions. http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2014/12/10/megyn-kelly-and-the-abortion-phile-n1929127/page/2
Pro-abortion advocates often refer to a passage in Exodus 21 to support their views.
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)
The short version is that the key word of the passage is sometimes not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.
More here, with a listing of all the errors pro-aborts make with this passage: https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/exodus-21-and-abortion/
Regarding the rape/incest exceptions:
I’m glad you brought up the topic of rape and incest. Those are terrible crimes that we should seek to prevent, and we should ensure that the victims aren’t further victimized and that there is justice for the rapists. If you propose the death penalty for the rapist I’d consider that, but why is it the first option for the innocent child? It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization.
Abortionists like Planned Parenthood help hide the crimes. They have been caught countless times hiding statutory rape, incest (which is another form of rape) and sex trafficking. If you really care about rape, then protest Planned Parenthood and how they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking. http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p
Rapes results in less than 1% of abortions. Those abortions are still wrong, but for the record, would you oppose outlawing all abortions, except those in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? If not, then why not admit that you are really just pro-abortion and you use the rape card to advance your cause? Do not exploit rape victims to justify abortion. https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/planned-parenthood-overview/
Unless you can look at an ultrasound and tell if a child was the product of rape or incest, then you shouldn’t let them be killed.
Abortion doesn’t undo the trauma of rape, it compounds it. It is another way of a stronger person abusing a weaker person.
Really, I’m pro-choice.
Pro-choice for whom one should legally marry (i.e., no forced marriages).
Pro-choice for legal “sexual orientation change.”
Pro-choice for choosing your religion (or lack of one).
Pro-school choice (whether it is the choice of which public school to attend or the option of home schooling).
Pro-choice of parents to know if their children are receiving birth control at school.
Pro-choice of parents to know if their children are having an abortion, which involves great physical and mental risks to their daughters in addition to destroying their grandchildren.
Pro-choice for medical professionals not to perform abortions or dispense abortion pills.
Pro-choice to own guns.
Pro-choice of the unborn to determine if they can live.
Pro-choice for secret union ballots.
Pro-choice to access conservative radio shows.
Pro-choice to teach the flaws of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Pro-choice of people to choose how they want health care insured or provided.
Pro-choice on the voters of America to decide social issues instead of having judges ignore the will of the people.
And so on. So yeah, I’m pretty pro-choice.
Oh, wait, you meant “pro-choice to crush and dismember the unborn, who we know from science are most definitely human beings?”
No, I don’t think people should have that choice unless it is to save the life of the mother.
The “Christian” Left is against all those choices, except the one that results in this and this.
I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/