Tag Archives: roe v wade

Exodus 21 and abortion

Pro-abortion “Christian” Leftists and other abortion advocates often refer to a passage in Exodus 21 to support their views.  Don’t let them get away with such terrible and deadly reasoning.

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)

The short version is that the key word of the passage is, in rare circumstances, not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.”  They conclude that if it is “just” a miscarriage and the perpetrator only got a fine, then what’s the big deal about abortion?

It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.  But the pro-aborts (rotten) cherry-pick a translation they can twist to justify murder to the child’s first breath.

But that is just one of many problems with their use of this passage.  Here is a full list:

1. They get the text wrong.  This is a pro-life passage, not a pro-legalized abortion passage.  If Moses wanted to say “miscarriage” he could have used a much more specific word for that.

2. They ignore or rationalize away other Biblical texts that they don’t like, such as Leviticus 18:22 (ESV – You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.)  So why do they find Exodus 21 so authoritative?

They ignore passages like Romans 1 where Paul explicitly declares homosexual behavior to be sinful because they think Paul didn’t know enough about biology and psychology (and they unwittingly tip their hand that they don’t believe any scripture is truly inspired by God).  But if Paul is so ignorant and scripture is un-inspired, why trust Moses to know key scientific facts?  They should dismiss the “miscarriage” term even if it had been in the original text because he didn’t have access to the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

3. They don’t even agree with the other teachings of Exodus 21, such as verses 23-25.

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.

They are almost exclusively anti-capital punishment.  So why do they rationalize away the destruction of over a million innocent human beings per year in the U.S. based on a poor translation of a single word and then ignore the rest of the passage which is much more clear?

4. They ignore the endless pro-life passages in the Bible.

In summary, Christians (the uninformed kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) who use Exodus 21 as support for abortion on demand fail on many levels.  If it weren’t for people like them Roe v Wade and the destruction that followed would not have happened.

More here:  The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates by John Piper.

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.

Q. If Obama likes abortion so much, why won’t he say the word?

A. Because deep down we all know it is murder.

From his recent statement celebrating the Roe v. Wade verdict that has led to the slaughter of 57 million innocent but unwanted human beings.  Count how many times he says the A-word (hint: zero).

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

That commits the most common pro-abortion fallacy, which is ignoring the unwanted human being killed during the procedure.  What about her choices, her body and her health?

We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.

Never let them get away with the Orwellian term reproductive freedom.  It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization, so all abortions kill human beings who have already reproduced.  

And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

If you really want safe communities for children you should stop killing them.  Make abortion illegal and you’ll cut down on a few million murders per year.

Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

 

Everyone?  How about the unborn?  It takes a special kind of evil for him to say that while fulfilling the Democrats’ dream of increased abortions via taxpayer funding and no restrictions.  From 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 Obama Celebrates 41 Years of Abortion: Roe an “Opportunity to Fulfill Dreams” | LifeNews.com.

Roundup

The NSA is doing in-depth spying on Americans and the IRS is guilty of aggressively targeting Obama’s “enemies” (aka citizens of the United State).  But they would definitely never use the NSA information to target his enemies . . . right?

Norma McCorvey of Roe v. Wade Abortion Case Makes First Pro-Life TV Ad — She spoke at our Care Net banquet a few years ago.  Great lady and quite a character!

I don’t like Facebook memes that start off with, “You probably won’t re-post this, because you are a selfish jerk and hate the military and kids with cancer and puppies” themes — and especially the “Christian” ones that basically say, “If you don’t re-post this you are worse than Judas.”  If people would stop succumbing to a chain-letter mentality then those memes would cease.  I never re-post those.

How to Write a Hugely-Popular Piece for Huffington Post Religion – The author makes some good points.   And if you want to get kicked off HuffPo as a commenter, wade among the vile anti-Christian comments and offer polite but clear comments that make it clear that the authors should not be considered Christians. And use Bible verses in context. They hate that.

In the same way that you wouldn’t take a bacon-loving, Jew-loving, Koran-denying, Mohammad-denying “Muslim” seriously, those authors shouldn’t be considered authentic Christians.

Static Snapshots Reveal Nothing About Economics.— True.  It is only in the cynical, hopeless worldview of Liberalism that “currently poor = will always be poor” and “currently poor = always someone else’s fault.”

UK: Half a million new STI [STD] infections in 2012 —  My guess is that their sex ed isn’t truly comprehensive and fails to mention the benefits of following God’s plan.

The UK has some of the most aggressive and early sex education of any Western country. But all of this effort to educate young people hasn’t reduced the amount of sexual activity at all. When young people learn about the mechanics of sex, and are taught that recreational sex is normal and healthy, then they have more of it. Young people aren’t able to assess risks like adults can. They think that nothing will happen to them. No amount of sex education can cure youthful recklessness.

Three minutes of acts and wisdom on the alleged 77% female/male pay ratio.

If we redefine marriage, then what will the schools teach our children about it? — The LGBTQX lobby knows the answer, but sadly, too many naive people haven’t thought it through.

World Congress of Families Endorses Russian Bill Banning Homosexual Propaganda to Minors — Good for them.  They are learning from our mistakes.

Washington DC is ruining our health (but we can reclaim it) — Political payoffs cause all sorts of problems, including food and health areas.  I like using the Fooducate app to understand what is really in the foods we buy (though it can be a bit of a buzzkill sometimes).

Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General is corrupt and incompetent.  Why is he still employed?

  • Holder blowing off and ending the New Black Panthers voter intimidation issue
  • All the agencies involved with Fast and Furious, including the DOJ at the top, were run with Holder as the boss, yet he knew nothing, and stonewalled, and is still stonewalling, Congress. Not too mention the hundreds of dead Mexican citizens and 2 US federal agents
  • Revealed the identities of 9 CIA interrogators.
  • His departments spying on the AP, and he knew nothing
  • Spying on James Rosen and people associated with him, forgetting that he signed off on the warrant, and still he knew nothing
  • Retaliation against whistleblowers, who he is supposed to protect as the nation’s top cop
  • Going after Arizona and other states that passed immigration tightening laws (and admitting he never read the massive 10 page Arizona law), while simultaneously ignoring sanctuary cities which blow off federal law
  • Failing to apply federal law to Colorado and their legalization of marijuana, a federal Schedule I drug
  • Lawsuits against states which violate the 10th amendment
  • The aforementioned prosecutorial misconduct in the Ted Stevens case.
  • The FBI comes under the DOJ: what took them to get so long to Benghazi?
  • As the nation’s top cop, being head of the DOJ, his seemingly inability to have any knowledge as to what goes on in the DOJ, which is known as “incompetence”.
  • And more.

If gun registration is required, it is only a matter of time until they are confiscated.  Don’t be naive.

I’ll be glad to buy a few of these for people who quality . . .

Words matter: The Democrats are pro-abortion, not pro-choice

I’ve mentioned this before and will probably only mention it six or seven more times, so please read carefully.  Do not let the pro-abortion people get away with using terms such as pro-choice or reproductive choice.  It is easy to show how false those are.  And don’t let them call you anti-abortion or anti-choice without taking the time to explain why they are correct on that claim.  You can take what they mean as a personal attack and use it to our advantage.

I used to try and be charitable and refer to pro-abortion people as pro-choice.  I preferred to get into the facts and logic and didn’t want to get people distracted by thinking we were just calling them names.  But with the latest platform of the Democratic party the most accurate term for them is pro-abortion.  

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.

We should take the time to explain why pro-abortion is the correct term.  If you insist on taxpayer-funding of abortions, that is the opposite of choice.  Your are forcing pro-life people to pay for abortions.  And you are claiming that we don’t have enough abortions and that society will be better if we have more.  They don’t want them to be rare, they want more of them.  Those claims aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.

The majority of those who identify as “pro-choice” agree that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, that women should have a 24 hour waiting period before having the abortion, that parental consent should be required for teens and that taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund abortions.  That makes Obama and anyone supporting the Democrat’s platform the extremists.

Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the Democrats’ platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).

Regarding “reproductive choice” or “reproductive health,” just point out the irrefutable scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.  Therefore, abortions are designed to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Perverse organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice have self-refuting names.  It may seem subtle, but explaining how their pet terms are false undermines their credibility and helps point to the science and logic that are on our side.

These suggestions may seem unimportant, but they can make a big difference.  The Left uses terms to their advantage all the time, such as “marriage equality” and the pro-abortion phrases noted above.  Don’t let them get away with it.  By politely pointing out how pro-abortion their policies are and how “reproductive choice” is about birth control and not abortion we can plant seeds and persuade the middle ground about the truth.

Also, use verbal Judo and turn attack phrases such as “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” back on them.  Just say, “Why yes, I am anti-abortion.  Abortions kill innocent but unwanted human beings without adequate justification, so I oppose them.  Thanks for noticing!  You should oppose them, too.”  I’m beginning to prefer the term anti-abortion over pro-life.  It is accurate and it spells out the word they hate to say: Abortion.

Regarding “anti-choice,” just ask them to complete the phrase and then agree with them: “You are using ‘choice’ in the sense of choosing to crush and dismember an innocent but unwanted human being without adequate justification, so I am against that choice.  You should be, too.  But I favor all sorts of other choices for women: Whom to marry, what career to choose, the freedom to speak out against “same-sex marriage,” whether to fund abortions of other people, whether to own a gun, what size soft-drink to consume, whether to home school, and more.  How do you feel about all of those choices?”

How to expose the false pro-abortion outrage over Kermit Gosnell

While most media outlets, politicians, pro-abortion groups and false teachers are still silent on the Kermit Gosnell infanticide case, some have realized that there is no way around it and are trying to feign outrage and hypocritically and falsely blame pro-lifers. It is your basic damage control, but they shouldn’t get away with it in the way Planned Parenthood gets a media pass when busted for hiding statutory rape and sex-trafficking.

Cases in point are the Planned Parenthood Tweet in the image below and a typical “Gosnell was so bad but it is the fault of pro-lifers” nonsense from wolves in sheep’s clothing.

So how do you “out” these people? Simple. Just point to the facts by saying:

1. Kermit Gosnell was pro-late term and “partial-birth” abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree with them, why are you and they so outraged at his actions?

2. The main horror of Gosnell was killing babies 30 seconds after it was legal. Planned Parenthood and Obama are both on record as opposing protections for infants who survive abortions. Please explain the moral significance of those 30 seconds and why one is capital murder and one is merely the morally benign or even morally good choice of the mother. Also explain whether you agree with Obama and Planned Parenthood, and why it isn’t hypocritical for PP to complain about Gosnell.

3. Kermit Gosnell was pro-taxpayer-funded abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree, then would you concede that forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions would be more of a pro-abortion position than a pro-choice position?

4. Democrats and Planned Parenthood have aggressively fought the application of health standards and inspections of abortion clinics. This political pressure resulted in even existing laws being ignored by multiple agencies. Isn’t it hypocritical to now blame the Republicans for Gosnell’s safety issues?

5. Given the complete breakdown in oversight over Gosnell’s activities by multiple agencies and that he was only caught by accident by another agency, what makes you think that all the other abortionists run clean clinics and have adequate oversight when killing innocent but unwanted human beings?

6. Given that the Left plays the race card over all sorts of made-up things, why are they ignoring the real racism of Gosnell, and, presumably other abortion clinics — not to mention the fact that abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites and that taxpayer-funded abortions will increase that ratio?

7. As bad as Gosnell was, there weren’t any documented cases of him hiding statutory rape or sex-trafficking as there have been for Planned Parenthood. They broke many laws. Should they be punished to the “full extent” for running a “criminal enterprise” as they have called for in Gosnell’s case? Should they still receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding?

Please ask those things as nicely as you can to let people have a “dignified surrender” and acknowledge how wrong they are on the greatest moral issue of our time.

Reminder: Keep Tweeting #gosnell as much as you can — such as with this post!

* If you vote for Democrats, you are now pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And not just pro-abortion, but pro-“partial birth” abortion (aka infanticide). From 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.

If you want to require taxpayer-funded to increase abortions then you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions = pro-abortion. Wanting to increase the number of abortions = pro-abortion. If you are pro-“partial birth” abortion then you are really pro-legalized infanticide.

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..

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

Etc.

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.

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.

An easy way to spot a false teacher

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 isn’t just pro-choice, he is pro-abortion, pushing 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?

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 their 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?

– 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.

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.

 

Governor stops abortions in Oregon, calls system ‘compromised and inequitable’

Oh, wait, he did that with executions, not abortions.  Never mind.

See Gov. John Kitzhaber stops executions in Oregon, calls system ‘compromised and inequitable’

But just imagine if the headlines read, “Gov. John Kitzhaber stops abortions in Oregon, calls system ‘compromised and inequitable'” instead.  The Left would go wild.

Or what if President Bush had pre-emptively not enforced Roe v Wade in the same way that President Obama decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?

After all, the rate of abortions in the black community is 3x that of whites, so the system must be racist. And the Roe v Wade opinion noted that if we knew when life began then it would matter (even though they should have erred on the side of life!).

Well, all the scientific texts tell us that a new human being is created at conception, so the Governor (or even the President) would be well served to start saving innocent lives today.

The usual pro-life debate thread

pro-choice-baby.jpgI haven’t debated any pro-legalized abortionists online for a while, so I had enjoyed this exchange at an allegedly secular site. I say allegedly because they kept bringing religion into the debate even though I was using secular arguments, and as usual they ignored the fact that the “Christian” Left is wildly pro-legalized abortion, and even taxpayer-funded abortion (because we need to have more abortions so we can keep abortion safe, legal and . . . er . . . uh . . . rare). The topic was the Mississippi personhood proposal.

These are very typical arguments made by the pro-legalized abortionists.  Anyone can learn to refute them with a little practice.  No need to call names and use logical fallacies like they do.  Just be clear and firm.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

The thread went on even longer, so go to the link if you want it all.

Does life begin at conception? The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week that Mississippi voters can decide in November.
You don’t need to vote to decide that. It is a firmly established scientific fact.
Kieres43p· Oh really? Then pray tell why does Judaism say otherwise?
Uh, because Judaism is wrong on a scientific fact? (Did I really have to type that?). It is amusing to see (bad) religious arguments made on a secular site. It is almost as if you really, really like abortion and will use any argument you can, even if faulty and religious.I hope people read the link and realize how explicitly clear science is on the topic. So sad to see all these anti-science people out there wondering when life begins, when the facts couldn’t be more clear.
Personhood USA, like most anti-choice organizations, doesn’t give much indication of their concern for women or children, just embryos. Nowhere on their site do they discuss how they are working to make abortion less desirable, or to help women to raise children they can’t afford to support.
Anti-choice” for what? Oh, the choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings? Yes, we are glad to be anti-choice.

So women who have been raped should be forced to carry the baby to term?

Said another way, so the daughter of a rapist can be destroyed because of his crime? Does the abortion un-do the rape?

Hey, if you want to give the death penalty to the rapist I’d consider your arguments. But don’t kill the innocent offspring.

What kind of embryos are those? Human, of course, as in “human beings, at a particular stage of development.”

At no point do they boast about how many of their members have selflessly adopted unwanted children, or advocate for support of Head Start or other programs to help young poor kids.
That is one of the all-time bad pro-abortion arguments. Do you realize that unless you are requiring poor people to have abortions that you would have the same obligations to adopt these children that you are placing on pro-lifers?

By “support Head Start,” do you mean you support it with your own money, or “support” asking the government to take taxes by force to fund it? There is a big difference.

Finally, what if the government was going to “solve” homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn’t create.

Having said that, pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help those outside the womb. There are more pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and the pregnancy centers are almost always funded by donations and mostly staffed with volunteers. They give all their services for free, while the abortionists make incredible amounts of money.

ANd yet those same “pro-lifers” kvetch and moan at the thought of having to pay higher taxes to take care of all those kids.Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
Wow, so you must really go nuts over the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice! It is a bunch of highly organized pro-abortion religious people trying to force their religious views on the unborn.So, are you consistent in blasting the pro-abortion religious left, who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing? Or do you just play the religion card when against pro-lifers?
Conservatives donate more of their own time, money and blood than liberals —http://tinyurl.com/yzautg2 . What we don’t do is ask the gov’t to take from neighbor A by force to give to neighbor B and then claim it as generosity on our part.
So, Neil, you and the other pro-life crowd are willing to see your taxes jacked through the roof to pay for the children’s health care, their homes, their food, their education, right?After all..if you’re going to sit there and demand that women do what you tell them and give birth to those babies because you say so then you’re willing to pay for it, right?
That means you pay for prenatal care, their health care as kids, teens, up to adults. If the mother is working lots you’ll pay for the kids daycare right? And if the mother can’t afford to send the kids to a good school you’ll pay for that too? And you’ll also agree to pay for welfare where necessary, right?
Oh and college too..you’ll be ponying up the money for that too right?
Time for you and your fellow “pro-lifers” to actually prove that you give a damn about life after its born. So put up and pay up or shut up, Neil.
Since you keep repeating the same fallacy, how about answering my question first: Again, what if the government was going to “solve” homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn’t create.

You see, your attempted logic is that if I don’t raise the children to adulthood then I can’t complain about the immorality of them being destroyed. But you have to live by your logic as well. Could you protest the destruction of toddlers without having to adopt them and raise them?

Cute attempt at adding college to the mix.

Now, are you going to keep repeating your fallacy or are you going to answer my question?

There is another fallacy in your argument, namely that the children will always be poor. That isn’t the case. Oh, and I already pay lots of taxes — probably far more than you — for the 40+ million people on food stamps and such.And also answer whether you going to require poor people to have abortions (like the forced abortions due to China’s one-child policy). If you won’t require that, then you have the exact same obligation to fulfill your hypothetical example of raising the kids to adulthood.
Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
Please point out which religious argument I made that you are objecting to. Or do you not realize that your anti-religious bigotry and prejudices caused you to reflexively play your “theocracy” card even though my arguments were purely secular?

My premise is simple: Abortion kills an innocent human being. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortions. Therefore, those abortions are wrong.

I’ll be glad to discuss Jesus’ views on the topic if you like, but I typically save those for those claiming to be Christians.

And even if my religious views align with my secular views, that doesn’t discount them in any way. Or do you think that stealing, murder, perjury, etc. have to be made legal because laws against them currently agree with the Bible?

Personhood USA and many other religiously-motivated anti-choice activists want to control women’s reproductive health decisions
Sorry to be repetitive, but I must point back to scientific facts here. Abortion isn’t about “reproductive health.” The mother and father have already reproduced! If they hadn’t, there would be no abortion to consider.
Neil asks: who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing?Which would be a valid point if I didn’t have to pay for stupid wars and the death penalty. Point? We all pay for stuff we don’t like, Neil.
I don’t follow. If you oppose wars and the death penalty, then you are free to protest those. My point is simply that pro-legalized abortionists don’t want abortions to be safe (they support the substandard conditions allowed by law) or rare (they want to force taxpayers to pay for abortions, which will only increase the number of abortions).You aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. You want there to be more abortions, and you want others to pay for them. Why not just donate your own money to Planned Parenthood so you can sponsor more abortions?
Oh and by the way….no federal funding goes to any abortion.
Oh, they find ways to sneak it in — http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/201… . And the reason it isn’t more rampant is that we have fought the pro-abortionists all the way on this.You might want to bother to realize that Planned Parenthood, which is the federal funding you’re bitching about, does other things then just provide abortions.Money is fungible. Just because they do other things doesn’t mean the funds do help these abortionists do abortions. Planned Parenthood has been caught lying many times on many topics (they hide statutory rape, they don’t do mammograms, etc.) —http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p .

 

The above is being said by the person who is conveniently ignoring the fact that he doesn’t get to force others how to live.

Yes, and that was said by someone who has conveniently ignored it when I asked if you think it should be illegal to steal and murder.  So I’ll ask again: Do you think it should be illegal to steal and murder?  If so, are you forcing others how to live?  Are you forcing your religion on them because the Bible says not to steal and murder?

Here’s a challenge: Answer the questions without changing the subject again.

I appreciate you playing along.  Having a pro-abort make all these bad arguments on a secular site is like gold to me.  I just hope lots of authentically middle ground people read the thread and realize how you have dodged all my simple questions and just responded with hypocritical personal attacks.

But since you’re so interested, Neil, in science and science fact…you might want to look up this term in science: Parasite.
Ah, the parasite argument.  Right on queue!  I just wrote about that this week:http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/are-unb… />
I actually like when pro-aborts use the “parasite” argument. It may get virtual high-five’s from other pro-aborts, but it is so transparently bad that it reveals to the middle-ground folks just how perverse the pro-abort thinking is. It is like a concession speech.

Of course those who use this argument ignore pure scientific facts about the unborn being unique human beings so they can take an overly broad definition of the term “parasite” to dehumanize the unborn.  It smacks of desperation.

This doesn’t always work, but I typically point out that their view would mean that the baby could be fully delivered but still be attached via the umbilical cord and she would still be a “parasite.” Therefore, you could kill her any way you liked. Or even kill the child as she is breast feeding, since that would fit their loose definition of parasite.  They have usually painted themselves in a corner by that point and may actually agree that they’d be OK with that. Again, I’m glad to let the middle ground see that kind of immoral thinking.  People who advance that argument are extremely unlikely to be moved from their position, but they aren’t the target audience of most pro-life reasoning.

Most pro-legalized abortion arguments — and especially ones like the “parasite” argument — are based on emotions and ignore the humanity of the unborn (human zygote, human fetus, etc.). They trade on sentiments how the woman (or child) will be impacted in the areas of poverty, education, love life, etc.

When doing pro-life reasoning training I always start by distinguishing between the psychological complexity of the abortion issue (financial, educational, family pressures, etc. issues are real and powerful and need to be addressed) and the moral simplicity of it (you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings for any of those reasons, regardless of how intense they are).