Tag Archives: plan b

When “pro-lifers” make pro-abortion arguments

Rachel Held Evans is a “progressive Christian” who argues for the anti-religious freedom aspects of Obamacare via Privilege and The Pill.  Along the way she makes several arguments on behalf of the pro-abortion lobby, such as this comment about when life begins:

Rabbit trail: The fact that a woman’s body naturally rejects hundreds of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises some questions in my mind about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote. Do we count all those “natural abortions” as deaths? Did those zygotes have souls? Will I meet them in heaven? Honestly, the more I learn about the reproductive system, the harder it becomes for me to adamantly insist that I know for sure the exact moment when life begins. And it’s even harder for me to insist that everyone else agree.

But with arguments like that, “pro-lifers” like Held hand ammunition to the pro-abortion forces.  That’s a great argument, unless your opponent has the ability to see the difference between A and B:

A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb)

B. Human being has skull crushed and limbs ripped off by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)

In other words, deliberate abortions are vastly different than fertilized eggs dying of natural causes, just as murders are vastly different from grandma dying peacefully in her bed.

Held and Co. also ignore the scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization.  They have no excuse for missing that.

And even if we didn’t know when human life begins, shouldn’t we err on the side of life?  If you thought that what you are about to do might destroy an innocent human life, shouldn’t you stop what you are doing? The “we don’t know when life beings” fallacy naturally leads to abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

She was also wrong about abortions and “morning after” pills:

Andrew Walker and I have published a response over at the First Things website, and we argue that her essay is mistaken on a number of levels. For instance, Evans denies that “morning-after” pills have an abortifacient mechanism. Yet somehow she misses that the FDA label on Plan B’s package says otherwise. But you don’t have to believe me. You can read the label for yourself. Notice the second sentence in bold underneath “Other information” . . .

The pro-life movement does not need any help from faux-lifers like Held who make the arguments of pro-abortionists for them.

Plan B pills available to 15 year old kids? This has enormous implications.

Once again, the illusion of consequence-free sex trumps parental rights, medical risks and more.

President Obama, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the radical Left are in favor of all children having unrestricted access to the “Plan B morning-after pill,” though for now the limit is 15 because one judge picked that age.  But what if another judge says it is 14, or 10?  Elections matter, and this is what you get when you stay at home or don’t understand the worldviews of those you are voting for.

Not only is this terribly dangerous for the children, but it aggressively usurps parental rights.  They are saying that as a parent you have no right to know if your kids are having sex or taking powerful drugs.  If it is legal for 15 yr. old children to buy them over the counter, why won’t adults buy be able to buy them and give them to kids in schools?

Like so many other birth control methods, this will give a false sense of security and increase pregnancies, abortions, diseases and emotional damage.

In nearly every other area of life and health 15 yr. olds are treated as not having the ability to make important decisions: Voting, alcohol, smoking, military service, whether to go to school, whether to take Advil at school without parental consent, drive, get tattoos, curfews and more. Yet the Left wants this powerful drug available to your daughters and sons and grandchildren.

I’m waiting for statutory rapists and pedophiles to use this and similar Leftist actions as a blanket defense. If 15 yr. old girls are mature enough to consent to sex with those 17 or younger and to purchase strong medicines by themselves, what is morally significant about their partners being 18 or over?  “But your honor, the State considers the 15 yr. old to be mature enough to consent to sex with a 17 yr. old and to buy these powerful drugs.  Why isn’t she mature enough to consent to sex with an 18 yr. old, or a 21 yr. old, or a 31 yr. old?”

And note that sales aren’t limited to girls.  Just think about all the guys who will buy these pills and use them as part of their seduction schemes. “Just take this pill tomorrow and there will be no consequences” — right?!

Worse yet, many of the extremists don’t want an age limit at all.  And in a sense they’ve already achieved their goal.  Since 15 yr. old children can’t drive they typically don’t have identification, so pharmacies will ultimately have to take their word for it.

Also see Thoughts on Plan-B – Sifting Reality and Hyper-sexualized, asexual America.

.