Tag Archives: anti-abortion

Gender-selection abortion bans: Good for the cause of life and good politics

Nearly all gender-selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female.  It is the ultimate misogyny.  Of course, all abortions (except those that save the life of the mother) are immoral, but any time we can limit any abortions that is a victory.

Via South Dakota lawmakers ban abortion for gender selection.

The South Dakota Legislature has given final approval to a bill that bans abortions sought because of a fetus’s gender.

. . .

The bill would make abortions sought because of a fetus’s gender illegal. The measure would make it a Class 6 felony, carrying a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $4,000 fine, for a doctor to knowingly perform or attempt an abortion sought because of a fetus’s gender.

Supporters say a pregnancy should not be terminated because parents don’t like the gender of a fetus.

But opponents say the measure is unconstitutional.

Live Action and Lila Rose have done a great job of exposing how gender-selection abortions are done not just in China and India but in the U.S., all with the blessing and support of “feminists.”

Even if this is overturned because of faux Constitutionality reasons, this is still great politics.  It highlights that abortion kills real human beings, and how some are deemed worthy of life and others are not.  And it especially exposes the false “war on women” meme when the pro-aborts aggressively fight gender-selection abortion bans.  It is hard to claim you are pro-women when you fight for the right to kill them.

We should put forth similar legislation banning abortions that would kill gays or those with a predisposition to be gay.  Yes, I know they aren’t “born that way,” but there is nothing wrong with using the false arguments of the Left against them.  Interestingly, when I’ve asked Leftists if they would support such a ban they have always chosen abortion over gays.

Passing even selective bans on abortion, such as those against women or gays, is a great opportunity to highlight who really has the best interests those people at heart.

Let’s continue to be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents when protecting innocent human life.

—–

P.S. Also remember that abortionists like Planned Parenthood hide statutory rape, incest and sex trafficking. Is it good for women if you hide these crimes so you can make money off abortions?

Opposing late term abortions is good morality and good politics

Republican politicians have a bad habit of either ignoring abortion or saying stupid things about it.  I addressed easy ways to fix the stupid things problem in How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections.  But that was more about making proper arguments when asked about the issue.

But does that mean they should otherwise avoid the topic?  Not at all, especially when considering issues like late term abortions, where 70% of people agree with us.  Remember, the Democrats are on record as pro-abortion extremists.  I say that without hyperbole.  Taxpayer-funded late term abortions are right there in their 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.

Via A Winning Issue: Abortion and Pascal’s Wager, check out the impact of taking this issue on in Virginia, where Ken Cuccinelli found out too late how to take on Terry McAuliffe..

What moved the voters most was an attack on McAuliffe’s positions on abortion; a single phone message emphasizing McAuliffe’s support for unrestricted, late-term, and taxpayer-funded abortions shifted support a net 13 to 15 points away from McAuliffe and toward Cuccinelli. The cost per vote here was a remarkably cheap $0.50 per additional vote, and even less expensive still when targeting the most persuadable segment of the electorate.

. . .

Essentially, this paper presents the abortion issue as a political version of Pascal’s Wager. For a GOP candidate running for office and ignoring abortion is not possible. You have to decide to be either a sufficiently virulent variety pro-abort that makes it impossible for you to be attacked by Planned Parenthood or you have to be vocally pro-life and attack the issue head on.

The decision should be easy.  Abortion is criminal. There is no medical reason for abortion. Late term abortion is indistinguishable from infanticide. Abortion has nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with how we value the most vulnerable members of our society. Every culture that has embrace abortion has inevitably moved on to embraced post-partum infanticide and euthanasia.

There is no reason our candidates should refuse to take a stand against abortion, but especially against late term abortion. It is not only moral, it is good politics.

So be prepared with sound arguments and don’t avoid the topic!  Again, the Democrats are on record as pro-abortion extremists.  Republicans should remind people of that all day, every day.

P.S. Opposing all abortions is good morality and good politics as well, if you do it right.

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.

Actor Proud of His Mother for Aborting His Sibling

Yep.  Like most pro-abortion reasoning, it sounds like it was written by a child — although most children would be reflexively pro-life if you described to them what an abortion does.  Via Actor Mark Ruffalo Proud of His Mother for Aborting His Sibling:

 “Ruffalo called his mother’s experience a “relic of an America that was not free nor equal nor very kind””

But like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, he ignores that an innocent but unwanted human being is literally destroyed by abortion.  What is free, equal or kind about that?

“. . . his views about a woman’s legal right to decide if, when, and under what circumstances she will have a child.”

That’s more bad reasoning.  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization.  It is common sense and supported by any embryology book you pick up.  She already has a child, she is just in a unique location.

“she lived her life as a mother who chose when she would have children”

No, she killed one of her children.

“There is nothing to be ashamed of here except to allow a radical and recessive group of people to bully and intimidate our mothers and sisters and daughters for exercising their right of choice. ”

I think killing unwanted human beings is radical.  And I support a woman’s right to choose all sorts of things: Husband, career, own a gun, health insurance, to home school, etc.  But I don’t support the choice to kill her child inside or outside the womb.

“Or design legislation that would chip away at those rights disguised a reinforcing a woman’s health.”

That ignores the health of the unborn.  He might have had a sister.  Nearly all gender-selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female, yet “feminists” support those as well.

“I invite you to find your voice and let it be known that you stand for abortion rights and the dignity of a woman to be the master of her own life and body.”

What if the female is in the womb?  What about her body?

“I invite you to search your soul and ask yourself if you actually stand for what you say you stand for. Thank you for being here today and thank you for standing up for the women in my life.”

What if his mom aborted a female?  She would have been a woman in his life.

Wrong on multiple levels

This is a touching video of a couple who chose not to abort their child despite recommendations from “health care” providers.

There are a couple lessons from this that our morally schizophrenic and overly litigious society needs to learn.

1. Don’t kill human beings because they might have something wrong with them.

2. Don’t kill human beings even if they do have something wrong with them.

I’ve come across many people who were told by their doctors that they should abort, yet they have healthy kids today.  Who knows how many have been killed who were perfectly healthy?  And even if they weren’t healthy, they shouldn’t have been killed.  We don’t do that to human beings outside the womb, so we shouldn’t do it inside the womb.

We didn’t bother with the amniocentesis with our daughters because there is no way we would have aborted and there was nothing that would have helped with our preparations for them if they had been diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

Hat tip: The Bumbling Genius (who is much more genius than bumbler).

The anti-science pro-abortion lobby visits MSNBC

Via MSNBC Talking Head Calls Babies “Things That Might Turn Into Humans” — a pro-abortion “expert” made the following anti-science claims:

Oh, no. That might be bad. I seemed to have popped open the fertilized egg. We’ll put that back together. But the very idea that this would constitute a person, right? And that some set of constitutional rights should come to this.  Look, I get that that is a particular kind of faith claim. It’s not associated with science. But the reality is that if this turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?

The video didn’t show the response of the MSNBC hosts, but I doubt they told her how spectacularly she wrong she was on the scientific facts.

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization.  It is 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.

“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Note that we didn’t use religious reasoning there, though I’d be glad to share with her what God has to say in his revealed word!

She plays the typical pro-abortion word games of de-humanizing the unborn by claiming they aren’t persons, as if there was a meaningful distinction between human beings and persons and the distninction meant that the mother could have one killed but not the other.

per·son  [pur-suhn] noun

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

My guess is that if you asked her if “people of faith” were anti-science she’d probably agree.  But who is really opposed to basic science and logic?

Guns vs. abortions

This post about Purchasing A Gun vs. Purchasing An Abortion made some excellent points about the many inconsistencies in how the Left approaches the Constitution, regulations and life issues.  Hat tip: My favorite blogger

Let’s take a look at the differences and similarities between purchasing a gun and purchasing an abortion.

Both guns and abortions are goods or services which are produced and purchased on the free market.

When a gun is purchased, there’s a 99%  chance that gun will never result in the death of a single individual. When an abortion is purchased, there is a 99% chance the abortion will result in the death of an individual.

My tax dollars aren’t used to purchase a gun for someone who can’t afford it. My tax dollars are used to purchase an abortion for a woman or a girl who can’t afford it.

You can legally use a gun to kill an attacker in self-defense, if your life is threatened. You can legally use an abortion to kill a baby for any reason, including the mother’s life being threatened by the baby.

You can get suspended from school for drawing a picture of a gun. Read here. You can get the morning after abortion pill from the school nurse.

There is a background check and a waiting period in order to purchase a gun. There is no waiting period or back ground check to purchase an abortion. For a girl under 18 there are 6 states that require at least one parents permission 24 to 48 hours before the abortion.

. . .

On the one hand the left worked to create and expand a nonexistent right, which forced their morality concerning abortion on the states and the people, and on the other hand, they want to restrict and take away a clearly stated right concerning fire arms, which would also force their morality on the states and the people.

I guess the lesson to be learned is, the left wants to force their morality on us through government coercion, rather than trying to persuade people to accept their morally superior ideas as gospel.

I encourage you to read the entire post to pick up the points about the Constitution..