Responding to religious pro-choice arguments

Pro-choice arguments by religious types, many of whom claim the name of Christ, are generally similar to those offered by pro-choicers.  Nearly all of them ignore the innocent but unwanted human being destroyed by abortion.  The difference with the religious types is that they insist that God is also pro-legalized, unrestricted abortion.

Here’s a prime example by a false teacher named Chuck Currie, who preaches at both UCC and UMC denominations: People Of Faith Must Defend Choice.

The title itself is a tipoff: As usual, pro-choicers can’t finish a sentence.  A choice to do what?  Where to go to college, whom to marry, what career to choose?  Of course not.  He means “People of faith must defend the choice to kill an innocent but unwanted human being.”  Sounds different, doesn’t it?

Todd Akin’s recent comments about rape were reprehensible

Hey, that’s what Mitt Romney and countless other Republican leaders said!  Welcome to the club.

- and so is the GOP platform, modeled after legislation put forth by Akin and Paul Ryan that would ban all abortions…even in the case of rape – but it is clear that Akin isn’t alone.

Just because Akin said one dumb thing doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to protect innocent but unwanted human beings from being destroyed.

Chuck goes on to insist that women can get pregnant from rape, which is what all of Akin’s critics concede.  The irony is that Chuck was acting as if his side had a monopoly on science, when they are the ones who ignore the scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.

And Chuck seemed oddly hostile to the children of rapists and fights aggressively for the right to kill them.  I’d entertain the death penalty for the rapists, but I can’t see how that is just for their children.

Abortion is often used to hide the crimes of rape and incest. If they really care about rape, then they should protest Planned Parenthood and how they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking.

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has long maintained that:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …

Note how they ignore the well-being of the unborn human being.  Just because killing a human being appears to improve the well-being of another human being it still isn’t justified.

Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole; …

That sentence is gibberish.  First, it doesn’t define “social justice.”  Did the government give unwanted artificial insemination to these women?  What injustice made people have sex?  Being relatively poor compared to those in your country (not to mention being simultaneously very wealthy compared to the rest of the planet) is not an excuse to kill unwanted human beings.

And what could more unjust than destroying an innocent human being merely because she is unwanted?

Does parenting under “highly stressed circumstances” justify killing children outside the womb?  Of course not. So why is it valid inside the womb?

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;

That is the biggest and most disingenuous lie of all.  Again, it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization, so under no circumstances can they claim to “affirm the sacredness of all life” while justifying the destruction of over  3,000 lives in the U.S. each day.

Worse yet, these people advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions, which means they think that one of our problems is that there aren’t enough unwanted human beings destroyed each day.  And they claim Jesus is on their side!

encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;

That is where they talk in circles.  They want to act as if abortion is sort of bad — not bad enough to be illegal, but bad enough to want to consider other options.  But if it doesn’t kill innocent human beings, why would they prefer other options?

upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services,

Watch out for their deadly euphemisms like “family planning” services.  If you are pregnant, then that human being is part of your family.  Killing her doesn’t change that.

and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others; . . . People of faith must stand up and defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.

Another deadly phrase: “health care decisions.”  That is right up there with “reproductive rights,” but remember that abortion kills a human being that has been reproduced.

 It shouldn’t be left up to Todd Akin, Paul Ryan or other politicans.

The lives of the unborn shouldn’t be left up to fake Christians like Chuck, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc.

It is morbidly ironic that Chuck’s most frequently quoted verse is from Matthew 25: “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”  Yet he opposes any restrictions to abortions and thinks we need more of them via taxpayer-funding.

Finally, consider how this is one of the rare topics where Liberals don’t play the race card (there is a recent notable exception that I’ll post about separately).  Why is that?  Perhaps because the abortion rate for blacks is three times that of whites, and for Hispanics it is two times that of whites.  And they know that taxpayer-funded abortions would increase those rates.  Actively supporting policies that kill minorities at such incredibly higher rates seems kinda . . . I don’t know . . . racist.

Jesus is the author of life (Acts 3:15).  False teachers like Chuck deny the divinity of Jesus (and therefore the Trinity), the exclusivity of Jesus (He is the only way to salvation and they teach the opposite), the authority and accuracy of scripture, and so much more.  Their position on abortion is just one more example of them being wolves in sheep’s clothing.

People of real faith should be anti-abortion.

Boomerang.

So the Democrats are going to run with the “Akin’s gaffe applies to all Republicans even though almost 100% have denounced it” theme at their convention and they are going to trot out Bill Clinton to speak there and in swing states?  Please feel free to remind people of the following:

• A President who abused his power to have sex with an intern doesn’t make the best pro-women role model — especially when he was in the process of completely destroying her before he found out about the dress.
• Just because he was President in the 90′s doesn’t mean he gets credit for everything good that happened then.  Remember that two of his better moves — welfare reform and NAFTA — were more Conservative than Liberal and that the Republican Congress stopped him from doing a lot damage with healthcare reform and more.  He should send New Gingrich a thank-you note every year.  Oh, and there was that little thing called the PC Revolution / Internet Bubble that did marvelous things for the economy in general and tax revenues in particular.  Clinton got the bubble and Bush got the damage when it burst.  But I don’t recall Bush blaming Clinton.
• If Democrats really care about rape, then they should whale on people like Whoopi  Goldberg who said basically the same thing as Akin, and they should really pounce on people like accused rapist Bill Clinton.
• Clinton was (is?) a serial adulterer.  Tell me again how that is pro-women?
• Even Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was on record saying that, “I don’t want my daughter near him.“
• Democrats love abortion so much that they will ignore all the horrible things Clinton means for women as long as he lets them kill their unborn children.
• If Obama is so pro-”equal pay,” why are women underpaid in his White House?
• If the Democrats are so pro-women, why don’t they oppose gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which crush and dismember females for the sole reason that they are unwanted for being female?  It is the ultimate misogyny, fully supported by the Left.
• Remind them of Al Franken’s jokes about raping reporter Leslie Stahl.
• Remind them that unemployment has been worse for women and blacks under the Obama administration.
• If they really care about rape, then ask them why they don’t protest Planned Parenthood for systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking.  The audio and video evidence against them is overwhelming.  Start by asking them, “Are all rapes pretty much equally bad, as Akin’s critics have noted?  OK, so let’s talk about Planned Parenthood . . .”
• Also, ask them how it qualifies as pro-women to cheer at the funding losses of the Komen Foundation just because they dared to cut a tiny fraction of Planned Parenthood’s funding.
• Pretty much anything you can mention about Ted Kennedy should be effective as well.

Don’t let the Left get away with whitewashing Clinton and their anti-women policies.  Make their claims boomerang on them just like the silly dog issue (yeah, Romney had his on the roof of his car, but Obama ate a dog).  And then there’s the latest “Oh, the humanity” reaction that Romney made a birth certificate quip.  Somehow that is unacceptable, unlike accusing your opponent of being a cancer-causing felon and abandoning tradition to make waves during his convention.

The war on women – yet pandering to Islam.

Penn State & Planned Parenthood

I was glad to see that Ex-Penn St. assistant Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of sex abuse, but I’m still disappointed — but not surprised — that the media won’t connect the dots to what happens on a regular basis at Planned Parenthood (click the link for a laundry list of their evils). There are countless examples on audio and video of PP systematically aiding statutory rapists and sex traffickers by hiding their crimes. These aren’t just a few rogue employees, this is the way they operate every day.

If you thought what Penn State did was bad, then you should go ballistic over what Planned Parenthood has done and continues to do.

It doesn’t surprise me that people who kill unwanted human beings for a living would protect rapists if it meant more profit. But the Leftist media, politicians and fake religions provide cover for PP 24×7 and ignore Planned Parenthood’s crimes. That shows how far gone they all are.

They will shout the sound bites about a “war on women” just because we don’t want the government to force religious organizations to pay $10/month for things that violate their beliefs, but they ignore the very real abuse of countless girls and the literal destruction of females via gender-selection abortions.

The leaders of Penn State, including Joe Paterno, were rightly criticized and even fired for their negligence (although oddly the NCAA seems to be too busy with crimes of selling memorabilia at Ohio State to do anything about the Penn State program). Planned Parenthood shouldn’t just have their government funding shut off, they should be closed completely.

Sexually abusing anyone is evil. Doing it to minors is more evil. Planned Parenthood and its supporters are just like the Penn State people who looked the other way because they cared more about themselves than what is right.

Planned Parenthood caught facilitating gender-selection abortions and Medicaid fraud

The real war on women is killing females just because they are female. Watch the whole video and how the lady laughs about gender selection abortions and says, “I hope that you get your boy.” (Next time, of course.)

See Planned Parenthood overview for more of their evils, such as hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking victims.  They have the most brilliantly evil marketing team on the planet, positioning themselves as helpers of women and the Komen Foundation as enemies.

Then again, their payoffs to politicians and the 90%+ pro-abortion mainstream media probably help.  Just watch and see how the mainstream media handles this.

Here’s the unedited video in case you’ve heard PP fans claims that anything was out of context.

Great pro-life display

Warning: Graphic images.  As always, remember that forgiveness and healing are possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.

This was on display at the college that my youngest daughter attends.  I hope that it changed some hearts and minds.  Some people object to graphic images, but I think they are appropriate on a college campus.  Other groups wouldn’t hesitate to use them to advance any other cause.

They addressed key themes such as “gendercide,” Down Syndrome children, authentic feminism vs. “you must have the right to kill your own children to prove you are equal with a man” feminism, what if homosexuality really was genetic?, and more.

Good for them to take devote their time and money to advance the cause of life!

Bonus: See a secular case against legalized abortion.

Satan is evil, not stupid

And he doesn’t mind being a hypocrite.

Here’s an example that gets repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times per day: Via his useful idiots in media, education and apostate churches, Satan tempts women to get abortions by filling their minds with all sorts of lies about how killing their unwanted children will solve their problems.

Then right after the abortion he’ll be glad to tell them how awful and unforgivable they are for killing their own kids.  He’ll remind them of that as often as he can for the rest of their lives.  Hypocrisy?  Sure, but what does he care?  He has helped kill another human being made in the image of God and distanced another person from God.

He’ll even entice women to have a 2nd abortion even though they feel guilty about the first one.  Why?  Because they believe the lie that anyone who had an abortion doesn’t deserve to be a mother.  Illogical?  Yes, but again, he doesn’t care about consistency.

I heard of one couple who knew they had done wrong in having an abortion, but thought that meant they couldn’t go to church.  Whose idea was that?  By definition, churches should welcome lost sinners who want to repent and be healed.

But there is good news and hope: Even people who have been involved in abortions can get forgiveness and healing through Jesus.  One of the best things that Pregnancy Resource Centers do — besides savings lives today and for eternity — is offering post-abortion trauma counseling to women who desperately need it.  And they all need it, whether they know it or not.

If you were part of the abortion process, don’t let Satan win and keep you from God.  Help is out there from people who truly care.

Super creepy, but perfectly consistent with the pro-choice worldview

See Customized Kids: Parents Abort Twin Boys in Quest for Daughter for the logical conclusions of the pro-choice worldview.  Of course most pro-choicers wouldn’t do this, but that isn’t the point.  Their justifications for abortion have already laid the foundation for the “ethics” of doing it.

A couple in Australia — already parents of three sons —have announced they have aborted twin boys in their quest to replace their baby daughter, who died soon after birth.

. . .

It’s not that the woman doesn’t love her sons; she does, but she says she is griefstricken over the loss of her daughter.

Translation: I’m grief stricken over my daughter, so I’m going to kill two sons.  Keep in mind that most of the reasons justifying abortion would let her kill her sons “soon after birth” as well.

Conceiving a girl has become an obsession “that has become vital to her psychological health.”

There is a reason pro-aborts work the “health” exception into laws.  Pro-lifers are on board with exceptions for the life of the mother, but the health exception is so deliberately vague that it allows craziness like this.

The case is stirring up plenty of discussion Down Under, where one doctor — described as an IVF “pioneer” — lined up behind the couple to express his support.

I can’t see how it could harm anyone,” said Gab Kovacs.

”Who is this going to harm if this couple have their desire fulfilled?”

I’ll tell you who: The two male human beings that will be crushed and dismembered.  This is why everyone needs to know the scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.  Then you won’t say foolish, anti-scientific things like this doctor did.

But a leader of a group that opposes genetic manipulation presented the opposite viewpoint. If society okays one such case, the floodgates would swing open. 
”I’m sorry they lost their daughter but, in the interests of society as a whole, they should seek some counseling for their grief and look for another way of getting a daughter into their family,” said Bob Phelps, executive director of Gene Ethics.

”They sound like good parents and could offer a home to a child who needs one.”

Yea for sanity!

I was glad to see the article close with this:

Satirists have weighed in too, in The Australian, where Stephen Lunn penned a deadpan Q&A between a physician and a hypothetical parent of three boys seeking assistance with sex selection:

Parent: My Honda dealer can customise my SUV, I can get my kitchen remodelled to incorporate a cappuccino maker and I want you to make our No 4 to be just right.

Obstetrician: You do realise thousands of women undergo the often painful and emotionally draining IVF procedure and never manage to conceive. Just to get a pregnancy is considered a miracle for many couples.

Parent: Blah, blah, emotional blackmail… how early can you test for IQ? Unless she’s smart, I’m not interested.

Obstetrician (loudly): Nurse!

Parent: Also, I want my daughter to be pretty, but not too pretty. I don’t want her life defined by her looks. And I want her to be confident but not boorish, bookish but not boring. And musical, let’s not forget musical.

Obstetrician: You don’t see any merit at all in the notion of life being a gift in itself and children being glorious uncertainties?

Me: Well, it’s not really about them, is it? It’s all about me.

Hat tip: The Wintery Knight

Pro-capital punishment = pro-life

I received a comment on this old post so I thought I would re-run it.

First, the comment.

I could only get through about the first few paragraphs before getting bored of the same old hypocrisy.  If killing people is wrong, then killing anyone is wrong. And that includes killing those that kill.

My reply:

Can you see the difference between A and B?

A. Innocent but unwanted human being crushed and dismembered in the womb with no appeals.

B. Convicted rapist / murderer put to death in least painless way possible after surviving 10+ years of appeals.

If you can’t, then rational dialog here will be impossible.

Too many people confuse the principle of capital punishment and the practice. There is nothing wrong with capital punishment in principle: A life for a life. There can be things worth debating about CP in practice.

There are 20,000+ abortions in the U.S. per week and one capital punishment. If anyone thinks CP is unfairly applied then they are welcome to oppose it. But if they are pro-legalized abortion then I will mock them until my fingertips are raw.

The original post

Huh?  How can a pro-capital punishment position be considered pro-life?  OK, I’ll concede that it isn’t particularly pro-life for the one receiving the death penalty.  But it is pro-life for the rest of us.  For what it is worth, I do prison ministry and know more murderers than most people do.  I’m not all hot-blooded about killing people, I just don’t like to see bad arguments on either side of the issue.

I realize that the media, pro-choice people and comedians like to mock the alleged inconsistency of pro-lifers who are also pro-capital punishment (“They oppose killing in the womb but don’t mind it for those outside the womb!  Ha!”).    I’ve heard many Christians poke fun at it as well.

But that argument is just a foolish sound bite, as it assumes that killing an innocent unborn human being is morally equivalent to killing a convicted murderer.   One is innocent, the other guilty.  If they want to argue against capital punishment then they need better reasoning than that.

Capital punishment is pro-life in that it regards the taking of innocent human life as the greatest crime, and thus deserving of the greatest punishment.  It also recognizes the deterrent effect as well as the prevention of future murders (executed criminals hardly ever kill again).  Therefore, it seeks to preserve additional innocent lives.  This is consistent with the pro-life view that abortions are permissible if the life of the mother is at stake.

If people want to make jokes about inconsistencies, a better example would be those who don’t mind the crushing and dismemberment of innocent human beings (without anesthetic) but protest when a convicted murderer is to be executed and who want to ensure he dies as painlessly as possible.

As always, I am pro-choice provided that the unborn get the same 10 years of appeals that convicted murderers do.

Perhaps we should just call capital punishment ”123rd trimester abortions.”  Then the pro-choicers would support it.

Finally, consider how many pro-legalized abortionists wax philosophical about how we just don’t know when life begins.  Aside from the scientific fact that life begins at conception, they never consider erring on the side of caution.  If you aren’t sure where life begins, wouldn’t it be prudent to err on the side of life?  But here’s the bigger irony: While they ignore that rather obvious point, they have no problem saying we should never use capital punishment because we might be executing someone who is innocent.

I realize that there can be legitimate concerns about whether capital punishment is always applied fairly, but that is a topic for another day.  Just for the record I do have concerns about how it is applied in the U.S. If we used a Biblical model for justice (i.e., two eye witnesses and punishments for perjury equivalent to the crime in question) then I’d be more comfortable with it.

Also see ineffective arguments against capital punishment and somewhat effective arguments against capital punishment.

Pro-abortion lawmakers too clever for their own good with Viagra stunt

See Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access and notice how they trip themselves up in their copycat attempts to be clever.  When people talk about this news topic, just point out some of the transparently true things below.

Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner is the third female lawmaker to introduce a bill that would limit men’s access to Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs to make a statement about the dozens of anti-abortion bills that have passed statehouses around the country over the last year.

Question number one: How many innocent yet unwanted human beings are destroyed when Viagra is taken?  Answer: Zero.

Turner is opposed to a proposed bill that would prohibit abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Yep.  Most abortions stop beating hearts.  All of them kill innocent human beings.

The Dayton Daily News reports that Turner’s bill would mandate that men seeking Viagra be “tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about ‘pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.’”

No problem with counseling about side effects.  My guess is that the doctors already ask about heart problems.

Turner said on MSNBC Monday that the bill is about showing “men as much love in the reproductive health arena as they have shown us over the years.

Bzzzt.  Reproductive health is about birth control methods that prevent fertilization.  Anything that operates post-fertilization is abortive and kills a human being that has already been reproduced.

My Senate Bill 307 is all about the love and making sure we look out for men’s sexual health.”

. . .

Turner is one of several female Democratic state lawmakers who are wielding the power of sarcasm to protest a wave of anti-abortion legislation.

In January, Virginia state Sen. Janet Howell introduced an amendment to the state’s controversial ultrasound bill, which required women seeking abortions to first undergo a vaginal ultrasound. The amendment, which failed, said that all men seeking Viagra would have to first get a rectal exam.

Wow, these pro-aborts sure are funny.  Do they protest Planned Parenthood for the vaginal ultrasounds performed before abortions are done?  Shouldn’t they be the ones pushing for these ultrasounds to ensure that the abortions are “safe?”

Missouri state Rep. Stacey Newman, a Democrat, introduced legislation that would allow men to get vasectomies only if their life depended upon the procedure, which was similar to Georgia state Rep. Yasmin Neal’s bill.

They are so full of the LOLs!  Abortion is funny!

According to the abortion rights group the Guttmacher Institute, a record-breaking 92 new abortion-restricting laws were passed in 2011. Two of those laws mandated that women have ultrasounds and look at the images before being allowed to get an abortion.

That’s great news!  Think of all the lives saved.

The logical consequence of aborting those with Down Syndrome

See Portland-area couple sues Legacy Health for $3 million for ‘wrongful birth’ after child born with Down syndrome for a clear example of where pro-choice logic will lead you.  If it is legal to kill human beings with Down Syndrome in the womb — and even a virtue, if you follow the logic of the Left and people like former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders — then why wouldn’t parents be able to sue if a prenatal test failed?

Isn’t it ironic that the “dear child, I really, really wish I would have had you killed in the womb” folks and their ideological partners are the ones who claim the mantle of compassion?

Good news for these moral freaks: If you follow the logic of “ethicists” then the reasons to kill the Down Syndrome child in the womb are just as valid once she is outside it.  So why not just commit infanticide?

I really hope that stories like this make pro-choicers reconsider where their views lead.

Providing care to pregnant women – Houston Chronicle

I was glad to see Providing care to pregnant women in the Houston Chronicle, which was co-written by the director of the Pregnancy Resource Center where I’m a board member.  These centers save lives today and for eternity.  Be sure you know the contact information for your local center so you can send people there.  It is a matter of when, not if, you’ll know of someone in a crisis pregnancy.

Here are a few things they provide:

1 Ultrasounds, one of the free medical services, allow a woman to hear the heartbeat and see the baby while a nurse walks her through the stages of fetal development. Additionally, ultrasounds indicate the viability of a pregnancy, and the fetal age, which is critical information for a woman who is contemplating her options. PACN statistics indicate that 72 percent of clients seriously considering abortion choose life for their children after an ultrasound.

1 Relationship classes help teach couples about how to deal effectively and safely with anger and use healthy communication skills. For men and women who are victims of past physical or mental abuse, these courses can provide the foundation for functional, healthy relationships and decrease the likelihood of family violence. A report issued by the Texas Council of Family Violence found that in 2009, 196,713 family violence incidents occurred, and 111 women were killed. More than 70 percent of Texans say they have been a victim of domestic violence, or have a family member or friend who has been abused.

1 Childbirth and infant care classes help moms and dads know what to expect during the labor and delivery process – and how to care for themselves and their babies afterward. And many centers offer self-paced education programs where clients can learn about parenting techniques, child and adult health, child safety and the warning signs of postpartum depression. Some centers can assist each month with diapers, formula and baby food – and even with baby furniture items.

 

 

Horton Hears a Pro-life Argument

I was thinking of this post today with all the Dr. Seuss news going on. 

—

Horton Hears a Who by Dr. Seuss was written in 1954.  Did the author mean it as a pro-life book?  Probably not, as apparently he and his wife were pro-choicers. Seems like if nothing else he would have wanted more youngsters to have the opportunity to read his books.   “Pro-legalized abortion childrens’ author” seems oxymoronic to me.

But I think the book is a great metaphor for the pro-life position.  Consider the theme:

A person’s a person, no matter how small.

The ones in danger in the book were called Whos, not whats.  Horton the elephant was mocked and reviled for wanting to save the ones no one could hear.

All the rationalizations can’t change the simple scientific fact that the unborn are living human beings and the simple moral fact that it is wrong to kill them just because they are unwanted.  The size of a human being is irrelevant to her worth.  The “morning after pill” kills a human being after reproduction, as does every other form of abortion.

Matthew had a good point in the comments: The world needs a lot more defiant faithfuls like Horton – 100%!

P.S. The Foot Book was really about gun control and Green Eggs and Ham was about traditional marriage.  Probably!

Hat tip: Apologetics.com radio show

Are pro-choicers OK with infanticide?

Pro-infanticide “ethicists” are creepy but consistent.  Via Journal editor defends pro-infanticide piece: Killing newborns is already legal in Holland:

The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call “post-birth abortion”), has responded to widespread criticism by pointing out that promoting the killing of newborns is nothing new: in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced.

The reasons given for abortion (“not a person yet, a parasite, dependent on others, not as developed as others,” etc.) could also be used to rationalize infanticide.  Pro-lifers have pointed out this logic for a long time, although we draw the opposite conclusion: Abortion and infanticide are wrong because they kill innocent but unwanted human beings. (It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings.  Check out any mainstream embryology textbook.)

Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

I’ll bet the unborn and the infants would consider the authors to be guilty of hate speech — that is, if they were permitted to live.

In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently “morally irrelevant.”

Again, pro-lifers actually agree on the consistency argument, although not its application.  It is the pro-choice / anti-infanticide people who are inconsistent.

In response to the backlash, Savulescu wrote that the arguments in the article “are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris.”

That’s true.  It is the pro-choice / anti-infanticide people who haven’t gone down the logical slippery slope yet and embraced the logic of infanticide.  Sadly, it is just a matter of time.

He also observes that the paper “draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

The fact that The Netherlands already permits the killing of disabled newborns is not widely known, even by many in the pro-life movement. The practice is permitted under the so-called Groningen Protocol, which outlines the circumstances under which a physician may deliver a lethal injection to a newborn who suffers from a disability, at the request of the child’s parents.

An article published in 2008 in the prestigious Hastings Center Report about the Protocol similarly provoked outrage after the authors argued that disabled babies might be “better off dead.”

This is the height of selfishness.  Disabled people have lower suicide rates than others.  The “better off dead” rationalization to relieve oneself of an obligation leads to all sorts of evil at both ends of life.

The authors of that article also linked infanticide to legalized abortion, arguing that infanticide may in fact be the morally superior alternative to abortion.

Again, given that you are OK with killing innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb, they actually make a good point.  I know many people who were counseled to abort babies that turned out fine (even though they shouldn’t have been aborted even if they weren’t fine).

“The supposedly morally superior alternative [of abortion]…does not strike us as superior at all,” they wrote. Instead, they said, parents of a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis should wait until the child is born, when they can make a more informed decision about the chance that their child has of living a “satisfactory” life.

Yikes.  Using the “satisfactory life” criteria these loving Liberals would kill 90% of the world at birth.

. . . In his response today, editor Savulescu observed that the authors of the recent paper simply took for granted the premises that undergird legal abortion, and followed them to their logical conclusion.

Exactly!  How bizarre that we agree with these people on that.

The pro-infanticide article and the defense from Savulescu come only months after a Canadian judge employed similar arguments in the process of handing out a lenient sentence to a mother who strangled her newborn and threw him over a fence.

According to Justice Joanne Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicated that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.

See how easy abortion makes it to rationalize infanticide?

Savluescu, the director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, has made the news in the past for arguing that the requirement for organ donors to be dead at the time of organ harvesting should be removed, and that “mandatory” organ donation should be instituted. He has also argued that humanity has a “moral obligation” to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) to select the most intelligent embryos for the good of society.

I hope that pro-choicers meditate on those quotes and reconsider their views.

Bad pro-abortion reasoning: “Only the people making the decision get to discuss this”

From a recent commenter on the A Facebook conversation on abortion post:

You know I find it funny that the people talking about abortion in this are ones who will never have to make that decision.

This is like so many other pro-abortion* sound bites.  It is an emotive, fallacious bumper-sticker slogan repeated ad nauseam such that the pro-legalized-abortionists just nod their heads at it.  They never stop to think how meaningless it is.

A simple response: Debate on whether an act is moral and should be legal is never restricted to those committing the act.  Do only thieves get to decide whether stealing should be legal?

* Yes, I said pro-abortion.  People who wanted slavery to remain legal weren’t “pro-choice,” they were pro-slavery.  (And that would make another good response: “Did only those considering owning slaves get to debate the morality of slave owning?”) And there are remarkably few “pro-choice” who oppose taxpayer-funded abortions, which is obviously pro-abortion.

Shocking news: People who kill unwanted human beings for a living may break the rules

Via Hypocrisy In The UK:

Oh dear, dear me, the evils of vice and corruption! The Daily Telegraph spells out the newest moral quandary of the British NHS below.

Doctors at British clinics have been secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such “sex-selection” procedures. Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.”

Got that?  Taxpayer-funded killing of innocent but unwanted human beings is morally  acceptable for any reason except gender selection.

The Wintery Knight lists some good (by which I mean bad) quotes from related articles:

Another consultant, Claudine Domoney, who works with 132 Healthwise clinic in Harley Street, central London, agreed to arrange for a woman to abort a boy after being told that she and her husband already had a son from his first marriage. The practice is known as “family balancing”.

In a consultation room in the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, the woman, who was about 18 weeks pregnant, explained her reasons for the termination “It’s a boy, and that’s the reason, we don’t want to have a second boy.”

Scientific fact: They already have two boys.  One is just “safely” located in her womb.  They have two, but only want one, so they plan to kill the second one — at taxpayer expense, of course!  Because Liberals think it is a human right to be able to kill some unwanted human beings.

“It’s obviously taken a little bit of time to decide this?” asked Miss Domoney, in reference to the fact that the woman was 18 weeks pregnant.

Well, gee, if you took a long to think about killing an unwanted human being I guess that makes it OK.

The vast majority of gender selection abortions kill female human beings for the sole reason that they are female human beings.  This puts feminists in a quandry, but they love unrestricted abortion so much that they can never clearly denounce gender selection abortions.  They realize that fighting these would lead to an obvious question: If killing an unwanted human being because of gender is wrong, why is killing because of education, career, love life, economics, etc.?

Pro-abortion “Reverend” shocked that people could be callous towards the unwanted

This is soaked with irony, and the saddest part is that false teacher Chuck Currie doesn’t even realize what a self-parody he is.  See Statement On Ash Wednesday Shootings Of Homeless Portlanders.

I urge all Oregonians to pray today for the two men experiencing homelessness who were shot early this morning under Portland, Oregon’s Morrison Bridge in what police are calling a random attack.

I think we would all agree that you shouldn’t harm homeless people.

Violence against those who are homeless is a national epidemic, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH).

Violence against the unborn — over 3,000 crushed and dismembered human beings per day — is a larger epidemic.  Yet unlike the shooting of the homeless, which everyone except the shooters knows is wrong, we have “Reverends” like Chuck who think one of our problems is that we don’t have enough abortions (he advocates for taxpayer-funded abortions).

But this is a spiritual crisis as much as a political or economic crisis.  When we allow people living on our streets to become invisible we begin the process of dehumanization and thus we see the increase in hate crimes against the most vulnerable in our society – those Jesus would have called the “least of these.”

Just replace “people living on our streets” with “unborn” and watch your hypocrisy meter explode.  Yeah, Chuck, if you ignore the homeless pretty soon people will kill the unborn simply because they are unwanted. Oh, wait, they do that already, and you think that is a moral good.

Ash Wednesday begins the Lenten season of reflection and prayer.  Let our prayers this Lent be with those children, women and men living on our streets in the most prosperous nation on earth.

Any prayers for those human beings living in the womb, “Reverend?”

The attacks today were nothing short of a terrorist attack.  The crisis of homelessness is nothing short of sin.

The far, far bigger sin is fake Christians advocating for abortion.

As always, remember that forgiveness and healing are possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.