When your opponents’ arguments are this bad . . .

. . . it actually gives you hope.

One Troubling Chart Shows How Many Times Politicians Regulated Men and Women’s Bodies in 2014 tries the typical emotional “anti-women” pro-abortion arguments, but they are worse than usual.

We’re only halfway through 2014, and state legislators have already introduced a whopping 468 restrictions intended to limit, control or otherwise regulate women’s reproductive rights.

How many comparable bills have been introduced to regulate men’s reproductive health care during this period? Zero.

Something’s very wrong with this picture.

 

The main thing that is wrong is that the baby-killing industry conflates birth control with killing innocent human beings.  Those are two very different things.

“Reproductive rights/health/etc.” are false, Orwellian terms.  They apply to birth control, not abortion, because abortion destroys a human being who has already been reproduced. That is a scientific fact confirmed by any mainstream embryology textbook and basic logic.  It is a deadly and evil phrase.  Yes, they have a right to reproduce, but no, they shouldn’t have the right to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.   Like most pro-abortion arguments, this post ignores the body killed during the procedure.

 The benefits of family planning are undeniably far-reaching

Abortion isn’t family planning, it is killing an existing member of the family.

Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies.

I’m actually encouraged when pro-aborts use such horrible logic.  Vasectomies don’t kill human beings.

“Force men to see a sex therapist before getting a prescription for erectile dysfunction

That’s the best they’ve got?  As if mainstream people can’t see the difference between birth control vs. killing an existing human being.

Hat tip: Mike

“Forced birthers?”

One of the most popular personal attacks that pro-abortion extremists like to use against pro-lifers is “forced birther.”  They appear to like the rhetorical impact of pretending that we are forcing something on someone rather than protecting innocent life.  You have a few options when facing that challenge.

The first, and possibly best, is to just ignore them.  Sometimes letting the pro-abortionist extremists talk as long and loudly as possible does the most good for the anti-abortion cause.  When they talk of babies as intruders, parasites, etc. to justify abortion it exposes their evil to the middle ground.

But you can also turn it around on them by referring to them as “forced deathers.”  After  all, the human being is coming out of her mother one way or another — dead or alive.  She doesn’t just disappear.  We aren’t forcing anyone to give birth, we are just saying that you shouldn’t kill unwanted children in any location — even if, in warped pro-abortion extremist logic, they claim to be doing it for the child’s own good (“they might be poor, abused, etc.”).  They are the ones forcing death.

And you can also point out that anyone using the “forced birther” ad hominem argument is pro-”partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide).  Since even the majority of those identifying as pro-choice oppose that procedure then those who use that silly term will out themselves as the extremists that they are.

Another item for the “I am not making this up” category

I was getting lots of links to this piece from a couple years ago so I thought I’d re-post it.  The moral schizophrenia of our society knows no bounds, as evidenced by the circumcisions are barbaric but abortions are fine positions of these folks on the Left.

Via Russell Crowe: Pro-abortion Foreskin Man, we have another person to add to the original post below (plus the pro-legalized abortion San Francisco folks wanting to ban circumcision).  These folks think it should it be against the law to cut away a tiny bit of flesh but completely legal to destroy the same human being.  Moral schizophrenia: They’re doin’ it right.

But then Crowe got stupid. His very next tweet, after “stand[ing] for the perfection of babies”?

The absurd illogic is almost too obvious to point out. But I must.

Removing a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp from a newborn baby is “barbaric and stupid,” the logic being that “[b]abies are perfect,” but suctioning that same baby’s brains out to kill him moments before birth is not, the logic being it’s “a woman’s choice”?

The “forced motherhood” line is an emotive canard used reflexively by pro-legalized abortionists.  They ignore the obvious fact that the woman is already “with child” — unless he thinks the government forced her to get pregnant.

I’ll bet that these people are pro-legalized partial-birth abortion, where they think it should be legal to stick a fork in the baby’s head when he is 90% delivered and suck his brains out, but would oppose the right to perform a circumcision at the same point and let him live.

Again, how can someone talk about and defend  the perfection of babies and then advocate abortion?  What a bizarre world.  Read more below about a guy who was really mad at his parents for having him circumcised as an infant but thought they should have had the right to kill him in the womb.

—-

Original post

A commenter on at a post titled Why Pro-Choice is Losing held the following two views:

  • Strongly pro-legalized abortion
  • Strongly anti-circumcision

Here’s his comment (#54 at the link):

What do the anti-choice people in this thread propose to do to women who choose to have an abortion in the event it is made illegal? How do they propose to determine what pregnancies were purposely aborted and which ones were not? Will they put a gun to a woman’s head, force feed her, turn her into a human incubator, and force her to give birth to a child against her will? What would that do to a child who discovered he/she was brought into the world in such a fashion?

On a further note, I am circumcised and I wish that I wasn’t. In fact I feel extremely bitter against my parents every time I think about the fact that they chopped off a piece of my body against my will.

Think about that for a minute.  He wanted his mother to be able to have his whole body destroyed in the womb, but he is “extremely bitter” that a small piece was cut off outside the womb.

The circumcision, probably done within a week of his birth, was “against his will.”  But what about his will the week before when he was in his mother’s womb?

I wonder if he would have minded an in utero circumcision, since everything there is fair game?  The end state would have been the same for him, of course.

I hope his inconsistency makes him realize that regardless of how he feels about circumcision, abortion is a far worse thing to do to a human being.  If he had been aborted he wouldn’t be here to be “extremely bitter” about his circumcision.

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.

The Daily Kos makes our pro-life messaging much easier

For some reason my Yahoo! page sometimes has links to the Daily Kos site.  Normally I ignore them but this one caught my eye: Daily Kos: ‘Pro-life’ terrorists super excited about this year’s Fetuspalooza.  It was about as winsome and attractive as a protest by Democrat Fred Phelps.

I realize that those in the pro-abortion* crowd would give the author virtual high-fives, but it occurred to me that the shrill, hateful rhetoric actually helps us.  Sometimes just standing next to an out-of-control person makes you look better by comparison.

Here’s a sample:

Ah, January in Washington D.C. Bare trees, icy sidewalks, inauguration plans underway—and terrorists dressed up like sweet little grandmothers bussing to the nation’s capital, ready for their annual celebration of restricting women’s access to health care.

That’s right, it’s time for Fetuspalooza 2013!

One of the best things for the pro-life movement would be for middle-ground people to go to the march and watch how the pro-lifers behave relative to the pro-abortionists.  She can use personal attacks like “terrorist” all she likes but regular people will see that those really are sweet little grandmothers – and people who regret their abortions, and those who understand that we shouldn’t kill innocent but unwanted human beings, and so on.

Killing unwanted human beings is not healthcare.  As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, the author ignores the health of the unborn human being destroyed because she is unwanted.

And yes, we do try to protect fetuses.  Human fetuses.  As in human beings at a particular stage of development.  We think it is bad to kill human beings at any stage of development just because they are unwanted.

Ever since the Supreme Court held in 1973 that yes, women have the right to decide whether and when they want to have children—a right that has been redefined, restricted and outright denied ever since—the fetus fetishists have gathered for the “March for Life” to either celebrate or mourn, depending on just how successful their war on women and doctors has been in the preceding year. In 2012, 19 states passed 43 new laws restricting reproductive rights, so you figure there will be an awful lot of celebrating at this year’s march.

Yea for restricting abortions!  Good for those states and those laws.  That is worthy of celebration.

The author uses the fallacious term “reproductive rights.”  Anyone familiar with science or logic knows that abortion kills human beings that have already been reproduced.  Reproductive rights could apply to birth control, but never to abortion.  And even if that term wasn’t anti-science, it would ignore the rights of the unborn human being.  If you kill her then you took away her right to reproduce someday.

Sarah Kliff at the Washington Post writes about one such fetus fetishist who has devoted her life to terrorizing the Allegheny Reproductive Health Center in Pennsylvania and is very excited about her upcoming four-hour bus trip to “to spend the day with 100,000 other people who feel the same way that I do”—meaning, of course, a big group hug with thousands of other like-minded terrorists.

Well, she called us fetus fetishists and terrorists again, so she must be right.  Oh, wait, which side celebrates the destruction of over 3,000 innocent but unwanted human beings each day?

Helen Cindrich got her start in 1972, when “she saw a woman on a television talk show describing her pregnancy as a ‘parasite.’” Cindrich turned to her local Catholic diocese to find out what she could do to stop women from having non-Cindrich-approved feelings about their pregnancies. Naturally, her diocese was only too happy to help her get involved in the movement because Jesus was all about preventing women from accessing health care, even when it means they’re going to die, because that’s so lifey.

The parasite argument is very common with pro-aborts.  There are many things wrong with that, thought I actually like it when they use it.  It may fire up their base but middle-ground people will be repulsed.

In addition to the points in the link, I like to ask the “parasite” argument people if they would approve of killing the baby by any means once she is delivered but still connected by the umbilical cord.  After all, by their definition, the baby is living parasitically off the mother.  So to be consistent the baby could be killed with anything you’d use to kill a real parasite — hammer, gun, RAID, etc.  I have literally had people delete an entire series of their comments on Facebook after having the logical conclusions of their arguments exposed with that example.  Or they’ll do anything to change the subject.

Re. the women’s feelings — I don’t know the person she is referring to, but we aren’t in the business of approving feelings, we are trying to protect innocent but unwanted human beings.

I know countless pro-lifers and not one opposes abortions to save the life of the mother, so that objection is a straw man.

The author’s projection of extremely limited anti-abortion violence to all pro-lifers is dishonest and inconsistent.  Pro-lifers have been shot by pro-aborts, so using her logic the pro-aborts are all terrorists.  And every pro-life group and individual I know opposes violence against abortion providers.

Eight of Pennsylvania’s 22 surgical abortion providers failed to gain approval under the new law. They can offer medical abortions, using a prescription drug, but not perform surgical procedures. To comply with the regulations, abortion clinics will need to install hospital-grade elevators and have a set number of parking spaces.

Yea!  One of the many things the radically pro-abortion media doesn’t tell you is about how shoddy and unsafe abortion clinics are (and not just for the unborn).

The author goes on to call us terrorists a few more times, so again, she must be right.  This looks more like terrorism to me.

The post pretty much sums up the Daily Kos and those who agree with it.  As irritating as they are, it is impossible not to look good by comparison to such radical pro-abortion extremists.

Just keep reminding people of simple, irrefutable facts and logic:

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.

Our opponents can call that terrorism all they like, but deep down we all know it is the truth.

* I used to use the term pro-choice, but that applies to very few people now.  Anyone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions — as the Democrat’s platform does — is pro-abortion.  They think that pro-lifers don’t have a choice as to whether they should have to fund abortions, and they think that one of our society’s problems is that we aren’t killing enough unwanted human beings.

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.

Government & bedrooms

A common pro-choice sound bite is that “Government should stay out of our bedrooms.”  It is an emotional play on the theme of privacy, but the logic is poor for several reasons.

I don’t know of any abortions that occur in bedrooms.  I’m pretty sure that most take place at abortion clinics.  Rape, incest, pedophilia, murders, thefts and a host of other crimes can occur in bedrooms, but I don’t hear anyone suggesting that the government ignore those.

I realize those items were taking the claim literally, but the pro-choice reasoning also fails in a figurative sense.  Groups that claim to want the government out of bedrooms sure have cashed a lot of government checks for “educating” our youth on sexually related matters.  Planned Parenthood and the like appear to have a great deal of interest in your bedroom activities and those of your children, and they crave and receive massive government funding and do their best to destroy anyone who gets in their way — even breast cancer charities like the Komen Foundation.

If by “government out of our bedrooms” they mean “government out of our sex lives,” then Planned Parenthood supporters should ask that they refund all the money they have received (Over $4 billion since 1987) and get out of our schools.

As with most pro-choice arguments, this claim ignores the primary issue of abortion: Whether or not an innocent human being is killed.  If abortion doesn’t kill an innocent human being, then of course the government shouldn’t be involved in determining whether the procedure is legal.  However, if it does kill an innocent human being, then it really doesn’t matter where the life of the unborn started.   And of course, the scientific fact is that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization.

The government does not get involved in “bedrooms” in the sense that they dictate with whom consent adults can have sex.  But is should get involved when people want to destroy the unwanted human being created in those bedroom activities.

The Democrats want to intrude in the bedroom.  From their 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.

The greater irony and hypocrisy of the Left is that they now want government to be explicitly involved in the bedroom by forcing taxpayers to pay for birth control and abortions.  They don’t mind if that tramples religious freedom.  Pro-lifers are being consistent here: Keep the government out of the bedroom but protect innocent human beings, and respect the First Amendment.

In addition, as Glenn noted in the comments, they also want the government to get involved in the bedrooms of gays and lesbians.  By nature and design those relationships don’t produce children and can never provide a mother and a father to child, so why would they need government involvement?

If you vote for the Democrats, you are voting for taxpayer-funded abortions, less religious freedom and government intrusion into the bedroom.