Category Archives: Pro-life reasoning

Pro-life reasoning: Simple and accurate responses to pro-abortion sound bites

Be prepared, people! Abortion is going to be a hot topic for some time, and you’ll constantly come across fallacious pro-abortion sound bites. Bookmark this if you like, as I’ll be updating it as I think of other examples. I offered multiple answers to some objections. Let me know in the comments section if you think of others.

I’m using anti-abortion instead of pro-life for a reason. It cuts down on one of the baseless pro-abortion attack lines. Sure, call me anti-abortion, because I am anti-child murder. And I’m using pro-abortion because anyone who demands that others pay for abortions to the child’s first breath is more than just pro-choice. You can soften the snarkiness as you see fit, especially in one-on-one encounters, but sometimes evil ideas deserve mockery.

Whenever you can, “trot out the toddler” and show how most pro-abortion arguments fail when applied to toddlers. Then you point out how the real issue is that the unborn are human beings from fertilization, so the pro-abortion reasoning fails for them as well.

I use some terms interchangeably, such as kill/murder and abortion/crushing and dismembering. They may sound extreme, but so is killing children. Sometimes people need to be confronted with what they are actually supporting.

__________

One example of the stupidity I saw on social media on “No-mo-Roe” day (which should now be a national holiday). Of course, it got lots of cheers from fellow Molech-worshiping ghouls who don’t know how to think critically.

This marks the first time in history that the United States Supreme Court has taken away a constitutional right…

No, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that there had never been a Constitutional right to kill your child.

What happened to the separation of church and state?

This had nothing to do with church and state. It was about what the Constitution says. Try reading it. That said, God is against killing your children. You’ll answer to him for that.

What happened to my rights over my body and what I choose to do with it?

There are countless laws telling you what you can’t do with your body, such as killing your children outside the womb. Now some states will have laws making it illegal to kill them inside the womb. Do what you like, just don’t kill your children. Or live in one of the many states where you can still legally kill your children.

What next? We can no longer purchase contraceptives?

Hold on, drama queen. There is nothing about that in the Constitution, either. It should be left to the states, which are unlikely to ban them.

What about the right to love who you love?

The Constitution has never said anything about who you can love. Oh, you mean whether oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is enshrined in the Constitution? Yeah, hopefully, they’ll get rid of that silly ruling as well.

What about trans rights?

“Trans” rights? Sure, I suppose you have the legal right to be delusional and mock God’s created order. I’ll defend those rights. But you don’t have the right to push your perversions on children or to force me to lie and say that people can change genders. I won’t violate my conscience that way. And no, the Constitution said nothing about “trans” rights.

Oh, but you can still own an assault rifle and that’s all that matter right???

Yes, because that is in the Constitution! Thanks for noticing.

This ruling won’t end abortions, only the safe ones.

They are never safe for the child you murder. And we are under no obligation to make it safer for you to murder your child. And make no mistake: It will reduce abortions. Every life counts.

This ruling is not a ban on abortions, it’s a ban on women.

LOL that’s just stupid. Yeah, we’ve now banned women. They disappeared.

Sorry but we aren’t going to revert back to being worth less than a man.

So if you can’t legally kill your children you are less than a man? That’s some pretty low self-esteem you have there.

It’s time to fight back.

Too bad the 50,000,000 children you murdered couldn’t fight back.

__________

Pro-abortion: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament! (Also: “If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube!”)

Anti-abortion: If men could get pregnant, it would be wrong for them to murder their unborn children.

P.S. You seem transphobic, but thanks for conceding that men and women are different and that men can’t have babies.

__________

PA: If you don’t have a uterus, you don’t get to speak on this!

AA: We can speak any time we like when people are being killed without adequate justification.

So on your logic, we should overturn Roe v Wade because it was decided by men?

Over 50% of abortions kill females, and nearly all gender-selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female. Don’t their uteruses get a say?

Women are more pro-life than men. Go figure.

P.S. You seem transphobic, but thanks for conceding that men and women are different and that men can’t have babies.

__________

PA: But the children might be poor!

AA: Using that logic, you should kill your toddlers or other children who are poor. Also, compared to the U.S. definition of poor, 99% of the people who have ever lived anywhere should have been aborted.

__________

PA: If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one!

AA: If you don’t want people to kill their toddlers, don’t kill your toddler.

Can you see how childish your argument sounds when you ignore the child murdered in the abortion?

__________

PA: Abortions are completely moral acts! They are not sinful.

AA: Do you realize that you are telling everyone – including friends, any children and grandchildren you have, and yourself — that it would have been completely moral to crush and dismember them in the womb rather than letting them live? I pity the children and grandchildren who hear that message!

Seriously, picture someone saying this: “It is very important to Grandma that I fight for the right for mothers to be able to have their children killed. You are safe now, but I wanted your mother to have the right to kill you up to your first breath.”

Yes, I know no one would say it like that, but that’s exactly what their message is.

__________

PA: Girls born today will have fewer rights than those born 50 years ago!

AA: But they will be born.

__________

PA: But the child could impact the woman’s career/love life/education/etc.

AA: On that logic, she could kill her toddler with impunity. None of those reasons are adequate justification to kill her child.

__________

PA: But the children might turn out poor or become criminals.

AA: You could say the same thing about many toddlers in this country, but that wouldn’t justify crushing and dismembering them.

__________

PA: She’s not ready to be a mother.

AA: She’s already a mother; the question is whether she’ll have her child murdered.

__________

PA: Pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born!

AA: We are remarkably consistent: We oppose murdering children regardless of their location – inside or outside the womb.

More here:

__________

PA: A woman has a right to choose!

AA: If you are talking about school choice, or whether to own a gun, homeschool your children, take vaccines, get married, etc. then I’m with you. But you need to complete the sentence: You think women have a right to choose to murder their unborn children. There is a reason you don’t finish the thought.

__________

PA: It isn’t a child, it is a blob of cells!

AA: Your problem is with the nice folks at Dictionary.com, not me.

Child: 4. a human fetus: My sister miscarried with her first child at seven months. [Although in the pro-abortion case, their definition could have said, “My sister killed her first child at seven months.”]

And Joe Biden agrees with me! Joe Biden says abortion would “abort a child.”

I’ve been encouraging people to use “child” instead of “baby” because the former is more precise.

Also, even Planned Parenthood always knew what abortion does. From their 1964 ad:

Is it [birth control] an abortion?

Definitely not.  An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.  Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.

Every related scientific discovery made since then, plus tools like ultrasounds, serve to further that point.

I concede that technically it is a fetus and not a baby, even though that’s what Planned Parenthood called it. I don’t correct people who euphemistically call them babies. But they are human beings at a particular stage of development who have a right to life.

__________

PA: We don’t know when life begins!

AA: Then you should err on the side of life.

Oh, and we do know when life begins: Fertilization. It is basic science and common sense.

__________

PA and some AA people: Women are the victims of abortion, too!

AA: No. If you take out a contract to have someone killed, under no circumstance are you the victim. You may be in a very complex situation and might be getting pressured to do something wrong, but I won’t infantilize you and say you didn’t know what you were doing. If you were killing your toddler for the same reasons no one would consider you a victim.

Many pro-lifers either fear women or are condescending to them by pretending they don’t know what abortion does. The writers of the Hippocratic Oath — which was written well over 2,000 years ago — knew exactly what abortion did, and as late as the 1960s Planned Parenthood said that abortion kills “babies.” And feminists encourage people to “shout their abortions” out of pride for what they have done.

__________

PA: What about victims of rape and incest?

AA: Are you saying that you’d support making all abortions illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?  If not, then why are you exploiting rape victims to make your case for unrestricted abortions?

Feel free to punish the rapist, but don’t kill the innocent child. Using your logic, a woman could kill her toddler conceived in rape if it reminded her of the trauma.

Also, abortion is often used to hide the vile crimes of rape, incest, and sex trafficking. What better way to destroy the evidence? Yet Planned Parenthood, which pretends to care for women, has been caught hiding these crimes countless times.

__________

PA: You just want to take us back to the bad old days!

AA: Even the “restrictive” laws of states like Mississippi are more liberal than any European nation. Only North Korea and China have abortion laws as barbaric as those in the U.S. When Europeans think your abortions laws are over the top, you might want to lay off the child-killing just a bit.

But yes, we want to go back to the days when it was illegal to murder your children in the womb.

__________

PA: You are just forcing your religious views on us!

AA: The non-religious Hippocratic Oath, written hundreds of years B.C., was explicitly anti-abortion.

If you saw a toddler being murdered, would you be wrongly “forcing your views” by intervening?

Are the pro-abortion “Christian” Leftists “forcing their religious views” on others when they lobby for abortion to the child’s first breath? If not, then stop using that fallacious argument inconsistently.

I can argue against child murder all day long without referencing the Bible, but I’ll be glad to tell you about how Jesus can forgive all of your sins if you’d like.

__________

PA: You are anti-science!

AA: Science and common sense completely support our foundational premise that a new human being is created at fertilization. Go check out any mainstream secular embryology textbook. What else would two human beings create?

I’m too pro-science to be pro-abortion.

__________

PA: Why do you oppose reproductive healthcare for women?

AA: Abortion kills children who have already been reproduced. Otherwise, there would be nothing to kill. “Reproductive health” is a deadly and illogical euphemism. You should stop using it.

__________

PA: You are anti-women!

AA: More than half of abortions kill females. Nearly all gender-selection abortions kill female children for the sole reason that they are female. Seems misogynistic to me. Our policies would save their lives.

__________

PA: You are anti-choice!

AA: Why, yes, I am anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings. Thanks for noticing.

__________

PA: Women will still have just as many abortions. You’ll just be forcing them to have dangerous illegal “back-alley” abortions.

AA: Cold, hard truth: Society has no obligation to make it easier for you to kill your children, regardless of their location.

Are you conceding that if you ban guns people will still get them illegally?

Sadly, even if Roe v Wade is overturned, you’ll still be able to legally have your child murdered in many states. California is already planning on lots of “abortion tourism.” Now that’s Satanic.

Abortions skyrocketed after Roe v Wade, and Leftists concede that outlawing abortion would “decimate” hook-up culture. Laws greatly influence behavior. Just because laws against stealing don’t stop all stealing, it doesn’t mean we don’t keep the laws on the books. It is the same logic for child murder.

The statistics showing women dying of abortions were wildly overstated pre-Roe v Wade, and even those were typically due to a lack of antibiotics.

Pro-abortion groups aggressively fight safety standards, and pressure law enforcement to ignore the ones in place. See Kermit Gosnell.

__________

PA: That’s so mean to call these women murderers! And it is inaccurate because abortions are currently legal.

AA: As Abraham Lincoln noted, even if you call a dog’s tail a leg, it still has just four legs. Calling something the wrong name doesn’t change reality. In God’s eyes, taking human life without adequate justification is murder.

But there is good news! Abortion is forgivable if only people will repent and trust in Jesus.

__________

PA: Opposing abortion is racist!

AA: Abortion kills blacks at a rate over three times that of whites. If that isn’t an example of “systemic racism,” then nothing is. And that rate isn’t an accident. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an extreme racist. With our policies, the percentage of black people in the country would be higher. How is that racist? And most abortionists have traditionally been white males getting rich by killing black children.

Bonus answer: Pregnancy resource centers are funded and staffed with mostly whites and they serve mostly non-whites. How is that racist? Same thing for prison ministries.

__________

PA: Women have bodily autonomy! My body, my choice!

AA: That right ends when it comes to destroying the body of another human – especially when it is your child. You have a wildly different obligation towards your own child versus a stranger.

Examples such as the “violin argument,” forced blood or organ donations, etc. are unnatural uses of your body, whereas a uterus is designed explicitly to nurture an unborn child.

Ninety-nine percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on women who chose to have sexual intercourse.

Abortion is not just letting an innocent person die, or taking them off of life support. Abortion is an active, violent form of killing.

P.S. You said that about vaccine and mask mandates as well, right? I’m sure you didn’t cheer when people got fired for being unwilling to take the vaccine or when schoolchildren were forced to be masked.

__________

PA: It is between a woman and her doctor!

AA: A woman and her doctor can’t kill a toddler for the reasons given for abortion. So the question is, what is the unborn? Factually speaking, they are human beings. I don’t care if Dr. Mengele is on board or not, you shouldn’t kill the child.

__________

PA: Keep the government out of our bedrooms!

AA: One role of government is to address the wrongful taking of human lives, regardless of location. And most children are killed at abortion clinics, not in bedrooms.

__________

PA: Pro-lifers show those awful pictures of abortions. That is wrong!

AA: What could be more relevant to a debate than images of the procedure in question?

Is it OK to kill unborn humans but wrong to show pictures of the practice?

Which is worse, letting children see those pictures or letting them be in those pictures?

__________

PA: Pro-lifers are extremists!

AA: Killing your own children up to their first breath and without anesthetic, and wanting others to be forced to pay for it, seems extreme to me.

And who are the real extremists? The abortion debate seems to be a 50/50 split until you ask more specific questions. Then the Leftist view becomes the extreme one.

Pro-choice views (Gallup, 2011)

Make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester – 79%

Make abortion illegal in the 2nd trimester – 52%

Ban “partial-birth abortion” – 63%

Require parental consent for minors – 60%

Require 24 waiting period – 60%

__________

PA: But Jesus said nothing about abortion (or LGBTQX, etc.)!

AA: Logic of those who use this argument: Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible. In the “red letters” (direct quotes of Jesus) He did not specifically condemn abortion. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

But the “red letters” also didn’t specifically mention slavery, drunk driving, child sacrifice, gay-bashing, and many other wrongs.

The “red letters” did call murder a sin, and when the Israelites sacrificed their children to Molech and others, God denounced it in the strongest possible terms.

Jesus is divine and agrees with the entire Bible (Matthew 4:4 and more).

In Luke 1, which many people hear every Christmas, 2nd trimester John the Baptist reacted to 1st trimester Jesus. They were both persons in the womb.

The Israelites viewed children as a blessing and abortion wasn’t a major issue in 1st century Palestine.

__________

PA: But your God performs the most abortions! [i.e., miscarriages]

AA: Dying early doesn’t make you non-human. Abortions aren’t miscarriages.  Can they see the difference between these?

  • Human outside (or inside) the womb dies of natural causes
  • Human outside (or inside) the womb killed by a third party

In other words, grandma dying of natural causes is different than grandma being bludgeoned to death.

__________

PA: The book of Numbers shows that God is pro-abortion.

AA: What verse in Numbers 5 says the woman is pregnant? What verse says she has a miscarriage? (The NIV has a mistranslation of the original text, but other, more accurate versions make it clear). Even if she had a miscarriage as a punishment for adultery, how would that mean that God is OK with abortion at any stage for any reason? More here.

__________

PA: Exodus 21 supports abortion because it says that a miscarriage is less valuable than a woman’s life.

AA: Here’s the passage in question:

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 key word of the passage is sometimes not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” If 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 that pro-aborts make with this passage.

__________

PA: These abortive women have terrible situations!

AA: That may be the case, but don’t confuse psychological complexity with moral complexity. Their personal issues may be complex, but the morality is simple. You shouldn’t kill toddlers for the reasons given for abortions, so you shouldn’t kill unborn children, either.

__________

PA: But the unborn aren’t persons yet!

AA: That is an artificial and false distinction. Using that logic, you could kill infants as well. The size, level of development, environment, and dependency of human beings don’t dictate whether you can kill them.

Whether they have consciousness is irrelevant. Neither do people who are asleep or in comas. To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious (abortion fails on both counts):

  • You need to demonstrate that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious
  • That there is little or no hope of recovery.

__________

PA: Christians are just repressed sexually, hate women, are greedy, are insane, etc.

AA: Compared to non-Christians, we adopt more children, have better sex lives, are more generous, have better mental health, and treat women better. Oh, and we have been completely forgiven and will spend eternity in Heaven with God. Please seek Jesus for yourself while there is still time! More at 5 Statistics Reveal Christianity Is Good for the World.

__________

PA: You are just against women’s freedom!

AA: We are all for freedom to own guns, home school your children, not take vaccines, etc. If we make it illegal for them to murder their children, they are still free to destroy their lives with all the soul-destroying, disease-spreading illicit sex that they like. I advise against that behavior, but we aren’t legislating it. Just don’t complain to us when they are miserable and unmarriageable cat ladies.

Side question for the PAs: Is Islam correct about women? Asking for a friend.

__________

PA: Abortion is health care!

AA: No, healthcare is when you don’t crush and dismember one of the patients.

__________

PA: It is better to destroy one life than three! [i.e., abortion will destroy the life of the child, but letting her live will destroy the lives of her and the parents]

AA: You’ve used a different definition of destroy in those cases*. Destroying the life of the child means the literal crushing and dismembering of a human being. Destroying the life of all three implies that all of them will now have bad lives, but they will still be alive. And you falsely assume that all of their lives will be ruined**. There are countless stories of lives turning out well. Consider adoption instead of abortion.

Side note: A guy used that exact argument with me. He had pressured his daughter to kill his grandchild. It destroyed their relationship for a time and he was in deep denial over what he had done. By the grace of God, he later repented of it and restored his relationship with her.

* Logical fallacy: Equivocation

** Logical fallacy: Begging the question

__________

PA: Adoption is hard on women.

AA: Perhaps, but at least they can always know they gave their child a better life instead of crushing and dismembering them out of selfishness.

And abortion is hard on the child getting slaughtered.

__________

PA: If women have to bear children, then men have to take equal responsibility!

AA: Short answer: OK.

Longer answer: We already have laws on the books to address that concern. More than that, the deck is so stacked against men that paternity fraud goes unpunished and men can be liable for 18 years if they sign birth certificates for children that aren’t theirs. If you want fairness, get rid of those laws.

__________

PA: Pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but being pro-capital punishment!

AA: That’s a great argument, provided you can’t see the difference between a completely innocent human child and a convicted murderer who survived 10+ years of appeals.

Actually, I am OK with unrestricted access to abortions – provided that the unborn get the same 10+ years of appeals as condemned killers. I’m pretty sure that at that stage they won’t want to be crushed and dismembered. As Ronald Reagan said, all the people who support abortion have already been born.

P.S. If you will agree to ban abortions then I’ll agree to ban capital punishment. Deal? Yeah, I didn’t think you’d agree to that.

__________

PA: You are anti-choice!

AA: You got to make your choices: to meet men, to have sex, not to use birth control, and to get pregnant. You got to make all kinds of choices. No, what you’re complaining about is that now you have to live with the consequences of your choices: which you’ll have to do even if you do murder the life that now grows in you.

AA: You got to make choices. The man who got you pregnant got to make choices. The life that now lives in you won’t get to make choices – but will thrive or suffer based on your choices.

__________

PA: It is just a clump of cells! (Or blob of cells, etc.)

AA: You’re still a clump of cells — just a much bigger one. I guess your life can be taken, too! Or are you simply discriminating against people who are smaller clumps than you? Does Shaquille O’Neal have more of a right to life than the rest of us?

__________

__________

Here’s a version with audio and video if you prefer that. Bonus: Lots of Bible verses at the end!

The Hippocratic Oath and Planned Parenthood used to be explicitly anti-abortion

So what happened?

Science is clear that life begins at conception.  Just go read any secular embryology textbook.  Or use basic logic: What else would two human beings create other than a new human being? The pro-abortion forces have had to shift to poorly conceived philosophical arguments to justify the killing of unborn human beings. The alleged pro-science crowd lies and says they don’t know when life begins or what a female is.

But what did doctors and other reproductive professionals such as Planned Parenthood think about abortion before recent scientific discoveries?  Did they think the unborn were just blobs of tissue and that abortion was morally benign?  Let’s see.

First, a look at the original Hippocratic Oath.  The removal of the prohibitions against abortion in the latest revisions of the oath was done in our more “enlightened” scientific days.

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine. It is widely believed that the oath was written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, in the 4th century BC, or by one of his students. It is thus usually included in the Hippocratic Corpus. Classical scholar Ludwig Edelstein proposed that the oath was written by Pythagoreans, a theory that has been questioned due to the lack of evidence for a school of Pythagorean medicine. Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians.

The original oath:

I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

Also, consider that at late as 1964 even Planned Parenthood was publicly pro-life:

Is it [birth control] an abortion?

Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.

There you have it! Straight from the experts at Planned Parenthood. Read that again and try not to drown in the morbid irony.

So Planned Parenthood used to teach that abortion kills a baby and poses medical risks to the mother, and the “unenlightened” doctors viewed abortion as immoral for a couple thousand years.

What did Planned Parenthood and other medical practitioners learn since the early 1960s that caused them to change their stance on what abortion really does?  What do they know that Hippocrates et al didn’t know 2,000 years earlier?

Could it be scientific advancements such as sonograms and 4-D ultrasounds? No, those do more than anything to promote the pro-life view. Technology is the enemy of pro-legalized-abortionists and it always will be. They might have gotten away with the “blob of tissue” argument in the 60’s, or 400 years B.C., but not today. No, wait, even back then the experts knew better than to believe that silly lie! It took a couple thousand years to convince people to believe the unbelievable.

Could it be the studies showing the impact of abortion on women? No. Despite major political pressure, more studies continue to show the adverse impact abortion has on women – both physically and emotionally.

No, even non-Jewish and non-Christian types like Hippocrates and Planned Parenthood used to know that abortion was wrong.  It takes a lot of effort and deliberate ignorance of scientific facts to rationalize otherwise.

Video: Pro-life reasoning — The case for life & responding to pro-choice arguments

Hi all,

I’m re-running this in light of all the bad arguments the Molech-worshiping ghouls are throwing out in reaction to the Texas abortion law.

This is a video version of the PowerPoint slides I’ve shared before.  I taught this for years to volunteers at Care Net Pregnancy Center.  What was always interesting is how these great folks, who were strongly pro-life, hadn’t heard how to make the case for life and how to respond to pro-choice sound bites.  And most of them had never heard of people like Kermit Gosnell, the greatest serial killer in American history, because they got most of their news from the mainstream media that successfully hid his story.

Pro life reasoning from Eternity Matters on Vimeo.

Video: Pro-life reasoning — The case for life & responding to pro-choice arguments

Hi all,

This is a video version of the PowerPoint slides I’ve shared before.  I taught this for years to volunteers at Care Net Pregnancy Center.  What was always interesting is how these great folks, who were strongly pro-life, hadn’t heard how to make the case for life and how to respond to pro-choice sound bites.  And most of them had never heard of people like Kermit Gosnell, the greatest serial killer in American history, because they got most of their news from the mainstream media that successfully hid his story.

Pro life reasoning from Eternity Matters on Vimeo.

 

The “stay out of my uterus!” pro-abortion argument

I just realized I never came up with a standard reply to that fallacious pro-abortion sound bite.  Here’s a draft — edits welcomed.  Feel free to use without attribution.

I have no interest in your uterus. I do care about the lives of innocent human beings, regardless of their location. And it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings* from fertilization, and we should protect those human beings from being destroyed without adequate justification.

For the sake of consistency I’m sure you reject the support of pro-abortion men, because they should have no say over your uterus. And we should overturn Roe v Wade because it was passed exclusively by males.

And I’m sure you fight Obamacare and the like with the same sound bites. After all, if it is your uterus (and everything else) then you’d never be such a hypocrite as to demand that other people pay for its care, birth control, etc., eh?

There is nothing less attractive to me than a woman willing to kill her own child. So even if I wasn’t happily married I would never care about the uterus — or anything else — of a pro-abortion woman, regardless of her beauty or other traits.

*Go consult any mainstream embryology textbook or just read what pro-abortion leaders have conceded — http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

Molech-worshiping ghouls Sandra Fluke and the “Christian” Left demand that you to pay to kill their children

aAnd for anyone else who wants an abortion, for that matter. Despite their vapid “stay out of my uteri” sound bite she and her pro-abortion cronies really want you involved in them.  Source: Sandra Fluke: “Next Fight” for Abortion Activists is Forcing Americans to Pay for Abortions

FLUKE: Well, I’m so glad you asked because this is a huge victory for the women of Texas and so many states that were really suffering under these trapped laws. But we have an ongoing fight in many states, especially around a affordability. This is about making the right to reproductive access a reality in practice, not just on paper. And if you can’t afford to exercise this right, it’s really not as meaningful to you. So for women who are in the military, women who receive medicaid, and even women who live in states where they can’t afford or are not allowed to buy insurance that covers abortion on their state exchanges, they have major barriers to access. And that’s our next fight.

Please let me translate: “Hi, I’m Sandra Fluke. Sure, I could afford $50,000 per year for law school, but I slept around so much that I couldn’t afford condoms. And the guys I slept with (they weren’t committed enough to me to call them “boyfriends”) didn’t value me enough to pay for them. So it is the responsibility of society to pay! And if the birth control fails, or I’m just too irresponsible to use it properly, then society needs to pay to have my child killed. Because reproductive rights (uh, please ignore the fact that if I’m killing my child I have obviously already exercised my right to reproduce).  P.S. I have no idea why people call us “pro-abortion” and not pro-choice . . . I mean, just because we don’t want taxpayers to be able to choose whether they pay for more abortions . . . ”

The “Christian” Left agrees with her and thinks we should all have to pay for anyone wanting to kill their child up to her first breath.  Behold their god:

molech

 

Basic pro-life reasoning

I often use the snippet below when addressing pro-life reasoning online or in person.  One can obviously go in-depth on any number of pro-life topics and responses to pro-abortion arguments, but I like to have something short yet comprehensive handy.  Feel free to use without attribution if you would find it helpful in any way.  Hat tip to Stand to Reason for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.


 

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.

Ouch: Even Bill Clinton mocks the pro-abortion extremists of the “Christian” Left

This is going to leave a mark.  Remember that the Molech-worshiping ghouls of the “Christian” Left are loud and proud about Jesus being OK with killing children for any reason before their first breath.  Via Past abortion comments from Bill Clinton may surprise you:

Clinton had some harsh words for his fellow pro-aborts’ extremism:Clinton said that pro-choice activists “framed the question selfishly by putting it in terms of a woman’s right to do whatever she wanted,” making it seem like they were fighting for a “selfish woman’s right to crush her baby’s skull.”Clinton saw some of the pro-choice stances as extreme, such as the belief that third-trimester abortion should be legal.“I believe that if you can’t make up your mind in the first six months, you don’t have the right to have an abortion,” Clinton said according to Branch.“He said the pro-choice people have essentially allowed their own insensitivities to push them into a losing political situation and make a statesman out of Rick Santorum, which he rolled his eyes at,” said Branch.That’s all very interesting, considering Clinton vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban, and his wife Hillary defended and voted for partial-birth abortion and opposes banning abortions after five months. So, Mr. President, were you “insensitive,” too? Is your wife fighting for “selfishness”?The answer is simple: Bill wasn’t speaking from the goodness of his heart, but talking about the political inexpediency of the losing issue the abortion lobby saddled him with. Still, it’s a remarkable admission that the man reporter Nina Burleigh once said she’d give sexual favors to “just to thank him for keeping abortion legal” knew all along that partial-birth abortion “crushed babies’ skulls”…yet was perfectly willing to protect it anyway.The Free Beacon reports that President Clinton declined to comment on the revelations, which is in his and his wife’s best interest—surely they don’t want the American people thinking about whether vicious lies about political opponents and knowing support for crushing the skulls of innocent children are values they want back in the White House.

Yes, the “Christian” Left does fight for a “selfish woman’s right to crush her baby’s skull.”  Not only that, but they say Jesus agrees with them.  Because love.

When Bill Clinton has demonstrably higher moral values than you do then you should know you have a big problem.

 

No exaggeration: The most prolific serial killer in American history is a member of the “Christian” Left

And he uses the same horrifically flawed reasoning that they do to justify destroying unwanted children.

The “Christian” Left loudly, proudly and unequivocally insists that Jesus approves of abortions at any time and for any reason up the child’s first breath*.

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

The “Christian” Left* is far more extreme in their pro-abortion agenda than the average pro-choice person.  I realize how ridiculous their views sound and how many people must think I’m making a straw-man argument.  But that is just because their own words are so clear and extreme.

And they are the same words used by convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell — the most prolific serial killer in American history — to justify snipping the necks of children who had the audacity to temporarily survive his abortion procedures.

“My youngest son asked me, ‘Dad, did you do these horrible things that are in the newspaper?’ and I said, ‘Alex, I don’t want to lie to you. I really have to do a lot of reading to feel comfortable that I in fact was on solid ground in my thoughts and my approaches.’ And until I really completed my first Genesis through Revelation reading of the Bible which I did since I was incarcerated, I really didn’t feel as comfortable as I am.

Genesis begins almost – I think it’s Genesis 2:7 expresses the breath of life as the beginning of life. That God breathed breath, breathed life into Adam. The Bible to me is very clear that life does not happen until breath.

I very strongly believe in my innocence, and there are many people who believe that. There are many people who come to me who say that, ‘How could you be this terrible person and people are coming to you for 40 years?’ The story just doesn’t make sense.”

There is a movie about Gosnell coming out, so hopefully more people will learn about him.  During his trial the pro-abortion extremist mainstream media virtually ignored it.  Even when I would train new volunteers on pro-life reasoning at Care Net Pregnancy — a pro-life audience if there ever was one! — 3/4 of the people had never heard of Gosnell because of the media blackout.

*More here about how to respond all the pro-abortion reasoning of the false teachers of the “Christian” Left with full, in-context quotes from them.

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

I’m re-running this in honor of Rand Paul turning the tables on the Left and asking if they are OK with killing a 7 lb. baby in the womb.  I much prefer Cruz or Walker over Paul, but it was a great answer.  We need more of that!  

Also see Turning rocks into softballs where I offer some other tips on how to respond to the questions about rape, incest or abortions in general.  

We need to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves!

—–

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

When your opponents’ arguments are this bad . . .

. . . it actually gives you hope.

One Troubling Chart Shows How Many Times Politicians Regulated Men and Women’s Bodies in 2014 tries the typical emotional “anti-women” pro-abortion arguments, but they are worse than usual.

We’re only halfway through 2014, and state legislators have already introduced a whopping 468 restrictions intended to limit, control or otherwise regulate women’s reproductive rights.

How many comparable bills have been introduced to regulate men’s reproductive health care during this period? Zero.

Something’s very wrong with this picture.

 

The main thing that is wrong is that the baby-killing industry conflates birth control with killing innocent human beings.  Those are two very different things.

“Reproductive rights/health/etc.” are false, Orwellian 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.   Like most pro-abortion arguments, this post ignores the body killed during the procedure.

 The benefits of family planning are undeniably far-reaching

Abortion isn’t family planning, it is killing an existing member of the family.

Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies.

I’m actually encouraged when pro-aborts use such horrible logic.  Vasectomies don’t kill human beings.

“Force men to see a sex therapist before getting a prescription for erectile dysfunction

That’s the best they’ve got?  As if mainstream people can’t see the difference between birth control vs. killing an existing human being.

Hat tip: Mike

“Forced birthers?”

One of the most popular personal attacks that pro-abortion extremists like to use against pro-lifers is “forced birther.”  They appear to like the rhetorical impact of pretending that we are forcing something on someone rather than protecting innocent life.  You have a few options when facing that challenge.

The first, and possibly best, is to just ignore them.  Sometimes letting the pro-abortionist extremists talk as long and loudly as possible does the most good for the anti-abortion cause.  When they talk of babies as intruders, parasites, etc. to justify abortion it exposes their evil to the middle ground.

But you can also turn it around on them by referring to them as “forced deathers.”  After  all, the human being is coming out of her mother one way or another — dead or alive.  She doesn’t just disappear.  We aren’t forcing anyone to give birth, we are just saying that you shouldn’t kill unwanted children in any location — even if, in warped pro-abortion extremist logic, they claim to be doing it for the child’s own good (“they might be poor, abused, etc.”).  They are the ones forcing death.

And you can also point out that anyone using the “forced birther” ad hominem argument is pro-“partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide).  Since even the majority of those identifying as pro-choice oppose that procedure then those who use that silly term will out themselves as the extremists that they are.

Another item for the “I am not making this up” category

I was getting lots of links to this piece from a couple years ago so I thought I’d re-post it.  The moral schizophrenia of our society knows no bounds, as evidenced by the circumcisions are barbaric but abortions are fine positions of these folks on the Left.

Via Russell Crowe: Pro-abortion Foreskin Man, we have another person to add to the original post below (plus the pro-legalized abortion San Francisco folks wanting to ban circumcision).  These folks think it should it be against the law to cut away a tiny bit of flesh but completely legal to destroy the same human being.  Moral schizophrenia: They’re doin’ it right.

But then Crowe got stupid. His very next tweet, after “stand[ing] for the perfection of babies”?

The absurd illogic is almost too obvious to point out. But I must.

Removing a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp from a newborn baby is “barbaric and stupid,” the logic being that “[b]abies are perfect,” but suctioning that same baby’s brains out to kill him moments before birth is not, the logic being it’s “a woman’s choice”?

The “forced motherhood” line is an emotive canard used reflexively by pro-legalized abortionists.  They ignore the obvious fact that the woman is already “with child” — unless he thinks the government forced her to get pregnant.

I’ll bet that these people are pro-legalized partial-birth abortion, where they think it should be legal to stick a fork in the baby’s head when he is 90% delivered and suck his brains out, but would oppose the right to perform a circumcision at the same point and let him live.

Again, how can someone talk about and defend  the perfection of babies and then advocate abortion?  What a bizarre world.  Read more below about a guy who was really mad at his parents for having him circumcised as an infant but thought they should have had the right to kill him in the womb.

—-

Original post

A commenter on at a post titled Why Pro-Choice is Losing held the following two views:

  • Strongly pro-legalized abortion
  • Strongly anti-circumcision

Here’s his comment (#54 at the link):

What do the anti-choice people in this thread propose to do to women who choose to have an abortion in the event it is made illegal? How do they propose to determine what pregnancies were purposely aborted and which ones were not? Will they put a gun to a woman’s head, force feed her, turn her into a human incubator, and force her to give birth to a child against her will? What would that do to a child who discovered he/she was brought into the world in such a fashion?

On a further note, I am circumcised and I wish that I wasn’t. In fact I feel extremely bitter against my parents every time I think about the fact that they chopped off a piece of my body against my will.

Think about that for a minute.  He wanted his mother to be able to have his whole body destroyed in the womb, but he is “extremely bitter” that a small piece was cut off outside the womb.

The circumcision, probably done within a week of his birth, was “against his will.”  But what about his will the week before when he was in his mother’s womb?

I wonder if he would have minded an in utero circumcision, since everything there is fair game?  The end state would have been the same for him, of course.

I hope his inconsistency makes him realize that regardless of how he feels about circumcision, abortion is a far worse thing to do to a human being.  If he had been aborted he wouldn’t be here to be “extremely bitter” about his circumcision.

Turning rocks into softballs

We often let our opponents silence us by bringing up tough questions.  We need to be wise and turn those around on them.  When they throw a verbal rock at you, turn it into a softball.  And then smash it.  It doesn’t require changing the subject, you just have to properly frame the issue.

A common example is the rape exception for abortions.  Leftists — and sadly, too many who claim to be pro-life — use this reflexively to shut us up and paint us as soft on rape.  As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, they take the focus away from the unwanted human being who gets crushed and dismembered because she is unwanted.  Here’s a simple response to use when people try that:

I’m glad you brought up the topic of rape.  If you want to consider 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.  Abortion doesn’t undo the trauma of rape or incest, it compounds it.  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 that you use the rape card to advance your cause?  Let’s talk about the 99% of abortions that aren’t related to rape.

See how easy that was?  Feel free to copy and paste without attribution the next time this comes up on Facebook or elsewhere.  Offer your own versions in the comments section.

Here’s a more thorough response and how all politicians should be training to address that question: How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections.

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is ascientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.