Recycling: Good for newspapers, bad for lousy pro-legalized abortion arguments

Last week I taught a session on pro-life reasoning and the biblical basis for the sanctity of life to a group of Care Net volunteers.  One of the points was debunking the canard that pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born.

With perfect timing, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie (who is pro-legalized abortion and wants taxpayer-funded abortions but hypocritically mentions Jesus’ concern for the “least of these” in many of his posts, including this one) published “The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies”.  Apparently Charles M. Blow (is that a real name?) and the NY Times thought they could get some more mileage out of that fallacious reasoning.

The GOP – the “pro-life” party – has shown their hypocrisy on the political wedge issue of abortion with the adoption of the GOP-controlled House budget.

Some may use it as a wedge issue, but many people authentically disagree with Chuck and other pro-abortionists who believe it is completely moral to crush and dismember innocent human beings just because they are unwanted — and worse yet, that Jesus is pro-legalized abortion.

And false teacher Chuck and the author don’t anticipate the obvious counter-title: “The Democrats’ Dead Babies.”

To recap, the argument used by the pro-aborts fails in three ways (And yes, if someone is pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer-funded abortion then I refer to them as pro-abortion.  I wouldn’t consider someone to be pro-choice on slavery if they thought slavery should be legal but didn’t want to own slaves):

1. Objecting to a moral evil doesn’t obligate you to take complete ownership of it forever.  Can these pro-aborts protest infanticide without having to adopt all of those children?  Can they oppose spousal abuse without having to marry all the women?  Can they oppose the (hypothetical) destruction of homeless people without having to personally house them?  Can they oppose animal abuse without having to adopt all the cats and dogs?  And so on.  It is ridiculous to claim that pro-lifers have to go along with every nanny-state proposal for those outside the womb to avoid the hypocrisy charge.

2. In addition to the irrefutable logic of item 1, pro-lifers do a lot more for the unborn with their own time and money than the pro-aborts do for the women before or after they are born.  There are more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and most operate completely on donations (the Care Net Pregnancy Center where I am a board member refuses to take taxpayer funds).

And it is well established that Conservatives give more than Liberals, especially when you check the “giving” of people like Obama, Biden, Kennedy, etc.

So even though we aren’t obligated to help outside the womb just because we oppose abortion, we help because we want to.

3. Unless someone concedes to being truly pro-abortion (i.e., they expect women to always have abortions or raise the children with no help from the public), then the pro-choicers are obligated to adopt the children as well.  Either that, or give up espousing their pro-choice views.  After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.

—–

If false teachers like Chuck, the UCC and other pro-abortion organizations really cared about women and children they’d be funding their own crisis pregnancy centers (they couldn’t volunteer at Care Net because our statement of faith requires that they believe the Bible and hold pro-life views, among other things).  But why couldn’t they use their own money to carry out their goals and to reduce the abortions as they claim they want to?  That’s what the pro-lifers do!

Another irony in the faux compassion of the pro-aborts is that they want to spend the money of people who can’t vote or aren’t even born yet.  We have to borrow every dollar that they want to spend.  It is just irresponsibility piled on irresponsibility.

Here’s another example of the morbid irony of the false teachers pretending to hold life sacred:

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ, which has taken pro-choice positions on the issue of abortion, is also deeply concerned about life.  Our General Synod has affirmed, for example, “the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular”

You can’t claim to care about the sacredness of all life and wanting to defend human life “in particular” if you favor legalized abortion, including partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-funded abortions and if you fight crisis pregnancy centers.  But that’s the shameless hypocrisy you’ll get from them.

Don’t let people use the lousy arguments that pro-lifers don’t care about those outside the womb.  That is a recycled cheap trick that pro-aborts use over and over to silence us.  Get informed and set the record straight.  We give our own time and money before and after birth to help, whereas they support killing the unwanted with the taxes of pro-lifers and they want to confiscate your money to “give” to their pet projects.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s