Tag Archives: Abortion debate

I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice

pro-choice-baby.jpgThe shirt says, “Now that I’m safe I’m pro-choice” ==>

One of my favorite techniques to use when debating pro-choicers is to highlight how pro-life views are in concert with science and how their views are not.  It is easy to demonstrate the scientific fact that life begins at conception.  They may try to argue that but will look pretty foolish when confronted with all the mainstream embryology textbooks that state otherwise (not to mention common sense as well as concessions of the point from so many people on their side).

Then they may shift to “personhood” arguments (i.e., “OK, the unborn are human beings, but they aren’t persons yet so abortion is morally neutral or even a moral good”).  Then you just point out that they are using philosophical arguments – and weak ones at that – and have ignored the clear facts of science.

You, on the other hand, are firmly on the side of science.  Note all the good things you’ve accomplished:

1. It bursts the myth that you’re anti-science.

2. It bursts the myth that you just are just pushing your religious beliefs on them.  You haven’t even mentioned Jesus (Though if they want to talk about him you’d be glad to).

3. It shows them how they have taken an anti-science position on this vitally important topic and have completely abandoned the “we only trust what science tells us” falsehood.

Remember that these are powerful arguments.  Don’t use them in a heavy handed way . . . unless you are dealing with a really irritating person on a blog.  Just kidding!  Probably!

Seriously, politely weave them into the conversation and see it if resonates with them.  Remember that members of the media are 90+% strongly pro-abortion so people have gotten away without being challenged on bad pro-abortion reasoning for a long, long time.  It may take them a little time to see the light and admit their errors.  At a minimum you’ve given them something to think about and disarmed them of some of their favorite bad arguments against you.

Just calmly tell them, “I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.”

P.S. Yes, I’m aware that my critics will respond with comments like this one.

You’re “too pro science to be pro choice.” Well, sure. Science agrees with you on that topic. Funny how science goes out the window on others, though.

I reject the bad philosophy* that perverts one sub-branch of one of the dozens of branches of science.  That does not make me anti-science.  Neither does questioning the power-grabbing / subject-changing politics of “climate change.”**

As always, remember that forgiveness and healing are possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.

I’m also too pro-science to be pro-porn.


*Atheist scientist Richard Lewontin’s quote is a classic example of Darwinist question-begging philosophy — that is, assuming what they claim to be proving:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

** Greenpeace founder on “global warming.”

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

“But they might be poor!”

There are lots of bad pro-abortion arguments, but one of the worst is that the unborn might end up poor.  Here are a few things wrong with that.

1. Even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, that uses the wrong definition of poor.  There are very, very few truly poor people in this country.  Most of the poor (who, as Roxanne notes, are only poor because someone has to be on the left side of the Bell curve) live better than even royalty did 200 years ago.  Some people are so “poor” that they can’t afford to work because they’d be taking a pay cut from their benefits.

That definition of poor would mean that 90% of the world should have been aborted.  Ask anyone using that argument how many Third World countries they have visited.

2. Even if they really would be poor their entire lives and even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, note the word “might.”  It is the sadly pessimistic but false view of Liberals that once your family is poor that you always stay that way.  But people often move between economic classes.  Hey, just graduate high school and don’t have sex out of wedlock and you are very unlikely to be poor, even by the U.S. definition.

Killing them because something “might” happen sounds like Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons (“Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.”)

3. As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, it ignores the right to life of the unborn.

4. Using that logic we could do poor people a favor by killing them outside the womb, too.  After all, the size, location, level of development and degree of dependency have no bearing on the value of a human being.  The world just rationalizes it so they can kill unwanted human beings.

Sadly, many of those using this argument claim the name of Christ.  A woman in a Bible study once used that as her justification to be “pro-choice,” even though she had been in church her entire life.  The notion that the author of life (Acts 3:15) would be pro-abortion is ridiculous.

If you want to help poor people, that’s great.  But killing them is a dubious way of going about it.

“Entitled to every single solitary operation”

If you vote for Obama/Biden you are voting pro-abortion and anti-religious freedom.  Not pro-choice, but pro-abortion — more abortions, funded by all taxpayers. From the Democrats’ 2012 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.

That means they favor:

  • 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester and “partial-birth” (aka infanticide) abortions
  • Taxpayer-funded abortions.  That means that pro-lifers will be forced to pay to have innocent but unwanted human beings killed.  That’s not pro-choice, that’s pro-abortion.
  • Increased abortions — They think that there aren’t enough abortions today, so society as a whole will improve if we make them “free” to the mothers.  Giving abortions away seems like a peculiar way to make them rare.
  • More dead black babies relative to whites — Abortions in the black community are already three times that of whites, and they know that figure will increase with taxpayer-funded abortions.  It is the ultimate racism.
  • Restrictions on religious freedoms — It is inevitable, and already evident with Obamacare, that they want to force religious groups to fund abortifacient drugs and abortions.

Now Joe Biden expands on this, saying:

Maybe where Romney is most sketchy is on women’s rights. I got a daughter and lost a daughter. I’ve got four granddaughters and Barack has two daughters. And this is to our core. Our daughters and our granddaughters are entitled to every single solitary operation, every single solitary opportunity!

Click the audio to see how pro-abortion he and his supporters are.  You see, abortion is an opportunity and an entitlement to them.  And if they are entitled to abortions then that means you are obligated to provide abortions.  (Side note: Joe misses the morbid irony that those daughters and granddaughters wouldn’t exist if the mothers had opted for the abortions they were “entitled” to.)

Note that these “pro-women” pro-aborts oppose a ban on gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which kill females for the sole reason that they are unwanted females.

Note what extremists these people are.  Even the majority of self-identified pro-choicers oppose what the Democrats’ platform pushes.  Never let them get away with labeling pro-lifers as extremists.

It is un-Christian and un-American to not only permit the killing of innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb but to force others to participate.  Destroying religious freedom is also un-Christian and un-American.  No Christian should vote for the Democrats.

Responding to a pro-abortionist

I barely have time to blog so I really don’t have time to address all the irrational comments that get left here. But now and then I like to analyze one to show just how extreme many of the pro-abortion people are.  Here’s a comment from my latest post.

Abortion may be a personal moral issue, and you are free to think of an abortion you might undergo to be an ‘evil’. But you have no legal right to impose your morality into the legitimate health care concerns of others – others just as capable as you in understanding the moral concerns of these decisions – without undermining the rights you yourself enjoy.

All laws are tied to morality, so the “don’t force your morals on others” slogan is intellectually bankrupt.

And of course, he forgets about the “others” that are crushed and dismembered because of these “rights.” It is ironic that those who supposedly champion “human rights” ignore the most fundamental right of all: The right not to be chopped up in pieces just because someone more powerful than you doesn’t want you around.

Look, if you want to reduce the impetus to use abortion as a method of birth control, then support those methods that reduce unwanted pregnancies.

I do. I support truly comprehensive sex education, which would include:

  • Abstinence is the best policy — see here and here.
  • The scientific fact is that a new human being is created at fertilization.
  • If you don’t have sex out of wedlock and you get a high school diploma then you are very unlikely to be poor, and you are likely to be poor if you do the opposite.
  • Planned Parenthood systematically hides the evils of statutory rape and sex trafficking.
  • Marriage is a union of a man and woman, and is the only combination that can create a child and that can provide a mother and a father to child (the obvious ideal).
  • “Over 70% of poor, cohabiting teenagers using condoms will be pregnant within a year.” — a fact from Planned Parenthood’s stats.
  • Most birth control methods offer offer zero protection against STDs.
  • Birth control offers zero protection against emotional issues.
  • The pill and other methods of birth control can have serious side effects.
  • Surveys demonstrate that married couples have the most satisfying sex lives.
  • Sex is “God’s wedding present” and great when used as designed.
  • It is absolutely ridiculous for schools to dispense birth control. It sends the implicit and explicit message that you expect kids to have sex and that the adults say you should use birth control. Guess which message they will listen to and which one they will ignore?
  • Parents need to supervise their kids. Giving kids unrestricted time alone with the opposite sex is virtually guaranteed to turn out badly.
  • Gays have syphilis and HIV rates over 40 times the rest of the population.
  • Teach the truth about the “hookup” culture, where kids barely know each other and have sex. Girls participating in “hookups” are basically acting like free prostitutes. They have all the risks of pregnancy, disease, crushed self esteem, etc., but they aren’t making any money! Somehow they convinced themselves that they are proving their equality by acting like guys do. And of course there is the associated drug and alcohol abuse required to numb their minds to what they are doing. Sad.
  • Sex is Like Duct Tape — great illustration about chemicals, bonding and the pain of out-of-wedlock sex.
  • Abortion is a terrible thing to do, but it is forgivable through Jesus. Go see your local crisis pregnancy center for free post abortion trauma counseling.
  • Post-abortion trauma is real.
  • You are much more likely to divorce and be in abusive relationships if you have sex out of wedlock and especially if you live together.
  • And more facts just like that!

Support free access to birth control.

Democrats assume that includes abortifacients, but those aren’t contraception, they are abortions. Technically, abortions might be considered “birth control” but only in the most morbid and perverse way imaginable.

Free birth control does not reduce abortions. Look at Planned Parenthood’s own stats and see how high the failure rates are for teens vs. adults.

Support the use of contraceptives. Support educating our youth on these matters.

I do support education, as noted above. I just tell the truth and the whole truth, while you spread lies, pain and disease.

Support open and free access to women’s reproductive health care.

Abortion isn’t reproductive health care. The humans have already reproduced.

Support maternity leave.

Who says I oppose that? Moms should stay home with their kids, at least until they are in school.  But I am not obligated to fund that.  Protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims (even though pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help women and children).

Support free health care and income supplements for these mothers with young children.

It is never really free. Once again, Liberals fail at basic economics.

The list goes on. And the reason why the anti-choice crowd needs to put their collective regressive head in a paint shaker and turn it on is because these methods actually WORK to reduce unwanted pregnancies while insuring the best possible health care coverage to mothers AND their young children.

Why do you insist that we get so intimately involved in the lives of others? If you didn’t teach people that they could do whatever they wanted without consequences then they would make better decisions.

And yes, I am anti-choice — that is, anti-choice to kill innocent but unwanted human beings.  And you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion, because you want to force your extremist views on others and force them to pay for abortions.

But, of course, when push comes to shove, the anti-choice crowd doesn’t want to pay the price for their imposed solution: they want young vulnerable women to pay the price for the anti-choice crowd’s religious tyrannical zealotry while hiding behind such notions as ‘protecting’ the Bill of Rights while advocating to undermine it in the name of divinely inspired morality.

Please preach more to me about vulnerable people!  You seek to destroy the most vulnerable of all

Unborn baby scheming about early church traditions

Streep calls you on it, on this hypocrisy in action, this coercive push to impose misogynistic practice on women.

Yeah, I’m so misogynistic that I oppose gender-selection abortions and you support them. You know, the ones that kill females for the sole reason that they are female.

And you help Planned Parenthood hide statutory rape and sex trafficking. Tell me more about my misogyny.

And I donate time and money to crisis pregnancy centers that help women in need. Tell me more about the misogyny of all the female workers and volunteers at the clinic.

What is astounding is just how insidious the coercion of the anti-choice position when other women try to reduce the rights of their sisters thinking themselves pious rather than the incredibly stupid, arrogant bullies they really are.

Bullies? Heh. Abortion is the ultimate bullying: Literally destroying the weakest members of society. And you are the worst kind of bully: Baiting young people into the physical and emotional pain caused by out of wedlock sex, then forcing pro-lifers to pay to kill the unborn. That’s a special kind of sickness you’ve got there.

Life still begins at fertilization

This is a great example of “sibling rivalry”* in action.  Just because some people question whether the unborn are living human beings doesn’t mean they have any facts on their side.  Pro-lifers have all the embryology textbooks to support their view, not to mention concessions from leading pro-abortion people (see this link for a lot of examples of both).

Dream all you like about finding life elsewhere in the universe, but don’t be anti-science and ignore the logical and scientific fact of human life in the womb.

“Sibling rivalry” is a phrase used by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason to describe the situation where people hold opposing ideas at the same time.

Sometimes objections come in pairs that are logically inconsistent and therefore oppose each other. I call this “sibling rivalry” because they are like children fighting.

A Facebook conversation on abortion

I had an extended-play discussion with someone on Facebook that I didn’t want to go to waste.  It was fairly classic reasoning from someone on the pro-legalized abortion side, and it remained civil throughout.  I hope people will take the time to go through it and see how to navigate through these conversations.  It takes a little practice but we’ve got the science and logic on our side (and the word of God, if they are interested in that!).  The other commenter used the same arguments and tactics (i.e., changing the subject) that professional pro-aborts use.


EMatters:  And he [Obama, at the recent prayer breakfast] spoke of speaking up for those who can’t speak for themselves, yet he’s the most pro-abortion President ever.

Other person:  how is he any more pro choice than clinton?

EMatters:  Obama wants taxpayer-funded abortions and even opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. When you are so pro-choice that you read the Constitution and see a right to a dead baby, even if she survives the abortion, then you are pro-abortion.

Other person:  no one is pro abortion. you can skew the argument all you want. Its Pro Choice

EMatters:  If someone supports taxpayer-funded abortions then I think it is fair to refer to them as pro-abortion. Think about their premise: “There should be more abortions than there are already, so we need taxpayers to fund them — many of which are pro-life.” If wanting to increase abortions isn’t pro-abortion I don’t know what is.

EMatters:  Having said that, I don’t care if someone is “just” pro-choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings. It is still wrong to take innocent human life for 99% of the reasons given for abortions.

Other person:  you have every right to have that opinion. as i do mine.

Other person:  but you still havent made the case for this president being the MOST pro abortion president ever.

EMatters:  Show me one who was pro-taxpayer funded abortions and who fought against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

EMatters:  Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I never thought otherwise. I encourage people to base opinions on facts and logic. Here’s mine: It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq). And most people agree that you shouldn’t kill an innocent human being just for reasons of economics, romantic life, education, career, etc. Therefore, abortion is immoral in 99% of the cases (the exception being to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic).

You can have a different opinion on whether the unborn are human beings, but I have all the embryology textbooks on my side.

You can have a different opinion on whether innocent but unwanted human beings can be killed as well.

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony  www.abort73.com  A new human being comes into existence during the process of fertilization.

Other person:  http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Abortion.htm  Clinton actually used a number of executive orders to undo some pro-life legislation. i dont believe obama has.  if its so cut and dry then why did the supreme court rule the way they did…..or with their conservative advantage overturned it. Why hasnt congress drafted legislation to ban abortion if its so apparent

EMatters:  Re. Clinton — I assume you don’t think I’m a Clinton fan ;-). He was bad on abortion as well. That is a contest no one should be proud to win. Obama has also done his best to export abortion.

EMatters:  I encourage you to study Roe v Wade and how Justice Blackmun was pressured to make it happen. It doesn’t get overturned (yet) because of all the money involved. Planned Parenthood and the other aborts make huge $$ and funnel it back and forth to politicians.

Interestingly, Blackmun conceded that if if we knew life began that would change things. He made a major scientific error there. Even PP used to be pro-life and knew when life began — http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e — that is, until they realized how much money they could make.

Having said all that, I don’t follow your point about it not being cut and dried. My scientific fact and simple logic are there to criticize, if you like. But there existence of an opposing view doesn’t mean there is no morally correct view.

The issues surrounding abortion are psychologically complex. I do pregnancy center ministry and can attest that the pressures on women are severe (often from boyfriends pushing them to “choose” to abort). But there is moral simplicity: You shouldn’t kill an unborn human being for the reasons given for abortion.

Other person:  there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for. There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right

So eMatters: , let me ask you, are you pro capital punishment? What do you think about us killing Bin Laden? Are you in the “all life is sacred” camp or do you pick and choose which already “birthed” people deserve to live?

EMatters:  Re. capital punishment, there are questions of practice (e.g., Can you get a fair enough trial given our lax treatment of perjury?) and questions of principle (i.e., is it always wrong to use CP?). Your question was about the principle of CP, and I’ll answer it with a question.

Do you see any difference between A and B?

A. Completely innocent human being — no record of any crimes, ever — being put to death for being unwanted, with no appeals.

B. Human being guilty of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt who survived 10+ years of appeals.

EMatters:  ‎”there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for.”

I conceded that abortion situations are psychologically complex. In fact, if there weren’t some factors that made the situation psychologically complex I doubt anyone would consider an abortion. So that isn’t the question.

The question is whether feeling ill equipped to care for a baby is justification to kill her.

For every situation you come up with to rationalize abortion, I encourage you to ask the same question with a toddler plugged in the example. What if the toddler is causing economic / romance / career / education problems? Can you kill her for those reasons? Most people would say no.

Therefore, the only question is, “What is the unborn?” The answer is that they are human beings that are simply at a different stage of development than the toddler, but with the same right to life.

EMatters:  ‎”There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..”

If I understood that correctly then you are making a factual error. The woman already has reproduced a human being, so she has a child. The question is about birth control (whether or not to have a child), it is about abortion (whether or not to kill the child).

“just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right”

I don’t dispute that. The fact that the pro-aborts are venomous and radical in their pursuit of the legal right to kill innocent human beings is true, of course, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether it should be legal.

Other person:  venomous and radical? i only see doctors being killed and clinics bombed by one side, my friend.

EMatters:  So we agree that killing humans is bad. Your side kills 3,000+ daily with your apparent approval. My side vehemently denounces murders and violence against abortionists, which are extremely rare. And your media apparently forgot to tell you about the pro-lifer killed a couple years ago.

Other person:  abortion is legal in this land. has been since 1973. so you statement is wrong…..legally speaking

EMatters:  Huh? We are debating whether it should be legal. The fact that it is currently legal is irrelevant. It is a fact that abortion kills an innocent human being.

Other person:  we’re getting no where here. you may want to stick to the moral arguments, because currently you dont have a legal one. You can work you elect folks to overturn Roe v Wade to change that, but you arent ever going to convince citizens who believe in choice to change their minds…..and as of today, we dont HAVE to convince to come over to our side.

EMatters:  I’ve noticed that you change the subject every time I make a point. I’d appreciate if you’d close out on a topic or let me know if you see my point. Examples:

1. Do you see the difference between aborting a completely innocent child who had no appeals (20,000 per week in the U.S.) and executing a first-degree murderer who lost 10+ years of appeals?

2. Do you see how the fact that pro-abortionists are really committed to their cause has nothing to do with whether their cause is just? (Same thing for pro-lifers, btw)

3. The reasons you are giving for abortion (women wanting to control their lives, not equipped to care for kids, etc.) would justify killing infants and toddlers as well?

4. The existence of two sides to an issue doesn’t mean neither is correct.


EMatters:  Your last comment made no sense. Saying I don’t have a legal argument is merely stating that abortion is legal. That proves nothing, because we both agree that it is legal. Do you see how anyone could make that claim as justification for keeping the status quo at all times? Using your logic, the pro-lifers were correct before Roe v Wade because the law said abortion was illegal. Therefore, they had no legal argument. Now does that make sense?

I’m arguing that abortion kills an innocent human being and that it should be illegal. Your response is that it is currently legal. But my argument assumes that already.

I hope you give this important issue more serious thought than you have to date.

Other person:  ‎1. We’ve executed innocent people. Even if they were possibly “bad” in some other way, they werent guilty of capital murder. One of these “mistakes” is one too many IMO.

EMatters:  I agree that we shouldn’t execute innocent people. You are the one whose views are in conflict. Using your logic, we make 3,000+ mistakes per day — but you are OK with those (that is, unless you are going to attempt to refute my scientific argument that the unborn are human beings).

And using your logic, capital punishment is legal, so you shouldn’t complain about it or expect it to be changed.

Other person:  ‎2. We ARENT pro abortionist. We are pro choice. Must pro choice women never make the decision to actually abort their babies. I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.

Other person:  what dont you get about my statement that I DONT THINK ABORTION ARE MURDER

Other person:  ‎3. That is a ridiculous statement. Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder

EMatters:  Right, but you aren’t offering any facts. Which do you deny, and why?

1. The unborn are human beings from fertilization. I’m claiming that as a scientific fact and offered references to 10+ embryology texts — not to mention common sense (what else would two human beings create?)

2. Abortion kills human beings.

So do you deny that the unborn are human beings or that abortion doesn’t kill something?

Other person:  why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?

EMatters:  ‎”Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder”

You are once again begging the question and assuming what you should be proving. We are debating whether unborn human beings have rights, so you can’t just claim that they don’t have rights.

EMatters:  ‎”why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?”

I’ve addressed that above (money & politics) and you’ve ignored it and once again changed the subject. I’ve answered your questions. Why do you ignore mine?

Other person:  i just answered them all. i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law

EMatters:  ‎”I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.”

And for the 3rd or 4th time I’m pointing out that you are making an illogical statement. Saying, “abortion is legal,” when I concede that and when we are debating whether it should be legal is meaningless.

Other person:  ok. so lets stick to the moral argument

EMatters:  ‎”i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law”

You stated your opinion without reasons and for the 5th time you’ve begged the question on the law issue. If that is the best you’ve got you may want to reconsider your position.

EMatters:  Yes, let’s stick to that.

EMatters:  Is it moral to kill human beings because they are unwanted?

Other person:  i dont think its moral to kill ANY human being.

Other person:  but we do for all sort of reasons

EMatters:  So you think abortions are immoral?

Other person:  in war, criminals. if they really scare us

Other person:  but we kill in war because it makes us more secure…but its not moral

Other person:  was the constitution moral? is everything in the Bible moral?

Other person:  eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? which is it?

Other person:  my point is moral is malleable. mostly shaped by the culture, the victors. Is abortion a good thing to be doing….absolutely not. but 35% of US children in poverty isnt very moral either. a large number of those babies would be in poverty

EMatters:  Interesting questions, but irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether abortions are moral, and if so, should they be illegal (we probably agree that you don’t want gov’t micro-managing every activity of our lives and assessing whether they are moral or not).

I think we agree that war and capital punishment exist, and people can debate the “just cause” theory of war and the principle and practice of CP. But we can address abortion whether those exist or not or whether they are just or not.

I will answer a side note: Of course everything in the Bible isn’t moral. That’s the point! Even Homer Simpson quipped, “And talk about a preachy book! I mean, everyone’s a sinner . . . except this guy.”

So, I’ll ask again: Do you think abortions are immoral?

Other person:  why is every point i make irrelevant to you. i think all my points form why i think the way i think. just because you dont like the points dont make them irrelevant

EMatters:  Yeah, we agree that poverty is bad, too. But using your logic, it is legal and exists, so you definitely wouldn’t ask the gov’t to do anything about that.

And I realize that societies have different views at different times. Abortion was illegal, now it is legal. But it was either always moral or always immoral. Same thing with slavery and many other ills.

EMatters:  You are welcome to your opinions, but I am free to point out whether those have anything to do with whether abortion is moral or should be legal.

Back to the topic: Is abortion moral or not? You say it isn’t a good thing. Why not? I say it is a bad thing because an innocent human being is killed with no appeals. And if government exists to do anything, it exists to protect the lives of human beings. Therefore, it should be illegal.

Feel free to use facts and logic to point out why my premises or conclusions or false.

Other person:  its not moral

EMatters:  Thanks, that helps the dialogue. Why do you think it is immoral?

Other person:  i dont think its immoral.

Other person:  i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period

EMatters:  I’m confused — did our comments get out of order? You said “its not moral” then you said “i don’t think its immoral” . . .

Other person:  i got ahead of myself. sorry….and we’l have to pick this up later

EMatters:  ‎”i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period”

Yes, we’ve established that you hold that opinion. I’m asking you to be more specific. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the mother should have the right to kill an innocent human being.

EMatters:  No problem! I need to run as well. I appreciate the charitable dialogue. I know these things can get testy so it is nice to be able to discuss it with someone who is civil. I just think it is a very important topic.  Have a blessed day!

Update: Not surprisingly, he never came back.  Hopefully it planted a seed.

Good for the Susan G. Komen organization

I was glad to see that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization is de-funding Planned Parenthood.  Some have speculated that it could be temporary, but Jill Stanek gives some good reasons that it may be permanent (such as how PP burned bridges in leaking the story and demonizing Komen).  You can see how much PP really cares about women.  More about their “scorched earth” campaign against Komen here.

I realize there are still some concerns about Komen ignoring the breast cancer / abortion link and other things, but I still encourage people to email them at news@Komen.org to applaud their decision and ask them to stick to it.

Predictably, the pro-abortion forces are in a full-scale tizzy.  As Stanek notes, this may be to frighten other organizations out of ending their support of PP.  The Komen funding was a rounding error for PP and their extravagant budgets, but PP wouldn’t want others to follow suit.  And of course the symbolism is embarrassing for them when an iconic pro-women’s group de-funds them.

The head of Planned Parenthood and various politicians lied and said that PP did mammograms, when the truth is that they do a minor amount of breast exams that anyone could do themselves at home.

This is a great example of the system working.  People like Lila Rose have exposed the evils of PP (beyond the destruction of innocent human life) and that is causing a lot of problems for them.  See this Planned Parenthood overview for how, in addition to being the top destroyer of human life in the country, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking (when not teaching your kids to ignore the perspectives on human sexuality that you and your religion hold).

Planned Parenthood is not good for women.  Their reaction to this situation is more proof of that.  Regardless of their real motives, I’m glad Komen stopped funding them.

An easy way to spot a false teacher

Today was Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.  So what did false teachers communicate?

Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ blog had nothing to say about the human beings destroyed around the world each day. Nothing.

That’s typical of the “social justice” crowd.  What could be more unjust than ignoring that 3,000+ human beings are crushed and dismembered each day in the U.S. alone just because they are unwanted?  What about the tens of millions of gender selection abortions that kill females for the sole reason that they are female? What about 90% of Down Syndrome children killed because they are a little different?

Wallis has a big microphone but just uses it to advance his politics-disguised-as-religion wealth redistribution schemes.

I have yet to find a pro-abortion “reverend” who isn’t a fake.  Case in point: Race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.  He and his fellow false teachers aren’t just pro-choice, they are pro-abortion, because they advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions.  These will obviously increase the number of abortions, so he can’t even play the lame “safe (uh, except for the unborn), legal and rare” card.  And his policies will certainly increase the rate of abortions in the black community, which is already 3x that of whites.  It is the ultimate racism.

See “Observe the Roe v. Wade Anniversary by Staying Vigilant and Taking Action” for a shining example.

As the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice celebrates the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the war on women rages on,

War on women?  What about gender selection abortions that have killed tens of millions of females for the sole reason that they are female?  What about the women pressured to have abortions by family members and the fathers of the children?

and we who trust women and respect their decisions

Those are empty words.  What if the women wanted to kill their toddlers?  Would you trust and respect those decisions?

must renew our commitment to protecting this landmark Supreme Court ruling. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court said, in simple terms, that women have a constitutional right to privacy to make decisions about whether to have an abortion. Because this decision involves moral as well as medical considerations, the Court ruled, a woman has the right to consider her personal circumstances and the dictates of her conscience.

Again, if her conscience permits her to kill her toddler is that adequate?  Of course not.  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  The scientific fact is that they are human beings.

It’s especially important for the pro-faith community to speak out now.

Read: Fake Christians.

For the past year, zealots in Congress and state legislatures

So trying to save the lives of innocent human beings makes one a zealot, but President Obama’s fight to be able to kill those who survive abortions is not zealotry?   Chuck seems pretty zealous about wanting to have even more unborn human beings killed, at your expense!

– many of whom preach the sanctity of privacy and freedom from government –

Can women kill their toddler’s in private?  No, so privacy isn’t the issue.

“Freedom from the government” ignores that they are protecting a human life who should be free from being crushed and dismembered.  One of the main roles of government is to protect human life.

have relentlessly waged a vicious war on women’s access to health care.

Crushing and dismembering innocent human beings is not health care.

More than 1,000 bills were introduced in state legislatures, including the Ohio “heartbeat” bill banning abortion after the 6th or 7th week of gestation, and numerous bills requiring pregnant women to have ultrasounds. In 2011, 92 anti-abortion provisions were enacted – the most in any year since Roe v. Wade was decided!

Yea!  Keep up the fight, pro-lifers!  That is great progress.

Ask Them What They Mean by “Choice” Day

When people say they are pro-choice, ask them what they mean by that.  Why don’t they finish the sentence?

Pro-choice for education?  Careers?  Whom to marry? Whether to buy health insurance?  Whether to own a gun?  Whether to home school your children?  Whether to pay for the abortions and/or birth control of others?  What size sodas to drink?  What to eat for lunch?  Those are fine.

Oh, you meant, “Pro-choice to kill an innocent but unwanted human being?”  I can’t go for that.

People who favor pro-legalized-abortion are skilled at the name game.  If you didn’t know better you’d think they didn’t know how to complete a sentence.  They will do anything to avoid the word abortion.  It is always, “choice,” “reproductive freedom,” “women’s rights,” etc.  And they call us “anti-choice.”

I’d be OK with any of those labels provided that they completed the sentence for a change:

– Anti-choice to crush and dismember an innocent human being

– Pro-choice to kill an innocent yet unwanted human being

– A woman’s right to have her unborn child destroyed (but not a man’s right)

– Pro-reproductive freedom to kill an innocent human being after she has been reproduced, up to and including partial birth abortion (and after, if your last name is Obama) [Never let them get away with using “reproductive freedom” in relation to abortion, as it is a scientific fact that abortions kill human beings that have already been reproduced.]

– and so on.

And do they really want choice, or do they want abortions?  Courtesy of Duane, read about the 14 yr. old girl who had to sue her family to prevent them from forcing to kill her child — and their grandchild!  Why hasn’t this made front-page news and lit up the pro-“choice” blogs?

A theologically liberal blogger commented on another site about choice:

As to the abortion issue, as ___ raises it, he is exactly right. That’s the whole point of being “pro-choice”. I can’t speak for anyone else, so I’ll just say that, being pro-choice means just that. Gov. Palin and her husband are to be admired for their decision, even after it was revealed the baby would have Down’s, to continue with the pregnancy and add a fifth child at such a late point in their lives. Another couple might have made another choice, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that because I do not live their lives, and cannot make their moral or family choices for them.

As with most pro-legalized-abortion arguments he ignores the obvious: The Palin’s can’t legally choose to destroy the Down Syndrom child once he is outside the womb (at least not yet).  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  Hint: Scientifically speaking, he is a human being.  So we shouldn’t give anyone the choice to kill him.

I saw this a while back: Adoption: The choice where no one dies.

Via SUNDAY! Ask Them What They Mean by “Choice” Day – Jill Stanek.

Free debating tips for pro-legalized abortionists

I probably shouldn’t help pro-legalized abortion advocates with their arguments, but our reasoning is so strong that I’m willing to aid them.  Plus, it will save us time in not having to refute so many bad arguments.

Here are some free tips.  Before you type another pro-legalized abortion argument:

  1. Ask yourself what the science textbooks affirm.  Science can be wrong, but it is so unanimous in this case that you should have strong scientific and logical arguments of your own if you are taking the opposite view — especially when the scientific argument is the opposite of the politically correct argument (I emphasized that in anticipation of the  “but you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution” claim).  If you don’t believe the fact of science that the unborn are distinct human beings then I’m not sure why you’d believe anything in science.  And it isn’t like these scientists are biased against abortion.  They probably favor it, but they have the intellectual integrity to state the obvious: A new human being is created at conception.  Therefore, skip any arguments insisting that the unborn aren’t human, are just a bunch of cells that become human later, etc.
  2. Ask yourself whether your argument would also justify killing unwanted humans outside the womb.  If so, you might want to try another angle.  This will eliminate the appeals to viability, dependency, awareness, etc. because infants and others wouldn’t meet some or all of those.  This is the “trot out the toddler” argument.
  3. Ask yourself if the argument addresses the same thing for the rights of human beings in the womb.  If not, you have assumed what you should be proving.  This will eliminate most of your arguments, such as delivering the baby could impact the mother’s economic status / education / career / romantic life / etc. Those reasons may add psychological / emotional complexity to the situation, but they don’t justify killing human beings outside the womb.  Therefore, they don’t justify killing human beings inside the womb.
  4. Remember that your “unborn humans are parasites!” argument makes you look foolish to the middle ground, it fails factually and logically on several levels and it puts you in the position of supporting the killing of fully delivered babies that are still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord (you might be in favor of that, but it isn’t the kind of thing that scores you points in front of undecided people).
  5. Don’t ever play the “most pregnancies end in miscarriage” card, because it fails mightily and contradicts your premise.  First, know that most people understand the difference between someone outside the womb being murdered versus dying of natural causes, and they also understand the difference between deliberate destruction inside the womb and a miscarriage.  Second, using your logic women should never have abortions because miscarriages would be so likely.  Why spend all that money on a risky medical procedure if it will likely happen anyway for free?
  6. Determine whether professional pro-abortionists have already conceded the points you are trying to make.  If so, you probably shouldn’t use those arguments. Here’s an example from one of the most radically pro-abortion people in the country (he even supports infanticide):

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

I hope this helps make your debates more productive!