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 – . 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’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 —… . 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.) – .


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:… />
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).

Jesus: Still the only way to salvation for everyone, including Jewish people

In Mohler to Weiner: Atone Through Jesus, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie is too ashamed of the Gospel to acknowledge that Jewish people need to hear it.  He loves himself and the world more than Jewish people, so he instinctively slams Al Mohler simply for claiming what is taught in the Bible over and over: Jesus is the only way to salvation.  If you can’t get that simple fact right, Christianity may not be your forte’.

Here’s the comment I left at the Huffington Post (which, of course, they didn’t post).

If Jewish people can be saved without trusting in Jesus, why did Paul say he wished he could give up his salvation on their behalf?

This isn’t about people being arrogant because they think they are right (that is, unless Chuck and all who agree with him are conceding to being arrogant just because they think they are right).

This is about what the Bible teaches.  And it couldn’t be more clear: There are over 100 passages in the New Testament saying that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  That isn’t what makes it true (Jesus’ rising from the dead does that), but it means that anyone claiming the name of Christ should hold that view.  Any other view is the opposite of what the Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches.

If you want to see the kind of people who find Chuck to be religiously enlightening, read the comments that they did post (Logic: They’re doin’ it wrong).  You could do a blog post on almost every comment pointing out their multiple logical fallacies and plain old ignorance.

Here are parts of Chuck’s post:

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a regular on cable television, had a message this weekend for scandal-plagued U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, which he sent, quite naturally, via Twitter, according to USA Today:

“Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective “treatment” for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

Weiner is Jewish.

Eek!  How dare Mohler share the Gospel with someone who is Jewish.  Oh, wait, isn’t that what Paul and all the early Apostles did?  (“first for the Jew, then for the Gentile . . .”)  Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, still always started off in the synagogues.

This isn’t the first time that Mohler has spoken strongly of his belief that Jews need Christ to be saved. He once compared Judaism to a tumor that needed to be removed. reported in 2003:

While Jewish evangelism is controversial today, Mohler said Christians do Jewish people a disservice by failing to confront them with the gospel. He compared it to a person with a potentially deadly tumor, who would rather have a doctor give a truthful diagnosis than say all is well to avoid offending him.In the same way, telling a Jewish person she is in danger of hell “is the ultimate act of Christian love,” Mohler said. …

Notice how false teacher Chuck tries to make it look like Mohler said Judaism was a tumor, when he was merely pointing out that a doctor that won’t tell you what is really killing you isn’t much of a doctor at all — just like people like Chuck are lousy “reverends” and “Christians.”

In addition to his comments about the Jewish religion, Mohler has also described Catholicism as “a false church” teaching “a false gospel.” He says liberal Protestants have abandoned the Christian faith. …

Note to Chuck: The Reformation happened for a reason.  Actually, 95 of them.  If you don’t think the Catholic church is false you should join it.

And liberal Protestants like you have abandoned the faith!  You proudly deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

. . .

Mohler’s views are not shared by all Christians.

Correction: His views on the exclusivity of Christ are shared with all real Christians.

In 1987, The United Church of Christ adopted a resolution that stated in part:

We in the United Church of Christ acknowledge that the Christian Church has, throughout most of its history, denied God’s continuing covenantal relationship with the Jewish people expressed in the faith of Judaism. This denial has often led to outright rejection of the Jewish people and to theologically and humanly intolerable violence. The Church’s frequent portrayal of the Jews as blind, recalcitrant, evil, and rejected by God has found expression in much Christian theology, liturgy, and education. Such a negative portrayal of the Jewish people and of Judaism has been a factor in the shaping of anti Jewish attitudes of societies and the policies of governments. The most devastating lethal metastasis of this process occurred in our own country during the Holocaust.Faced with this history from which we as Christians cannot, and must not, disassociate ourselves, we ask for God’s forgiveness through our Lord Jesus Christ. We pray for divine grace that will enable us, more firmly than ever before, to turn from this path of rejection and persecution to affirm that Judaism has not been superseded by Christianity; that Christianity is not to be understood as the successor religion to Judaism; God’s covenant with the Jewish people has never been abrogated. God has not rejected the Jewish people; God is faithful in keeping covenant.

That is how Satan works: The mistaken and unfortunate persecution of Jews is compounded by fake Christians like Chuck deliberately withholding the Gospel from them.

Mohler’s advice to Weiner reminds us that there is still a powerful divide between some Christians and Jews. Christians like Mohler see their faith as superior to the Jewish faith and the Hebrew Scriptures of lesser value and importance than the Christian New Testament.

Well, duh.  Chuck obviously knows so little about the New Testament isn’t even funny.  Has he ever studied Romans?  Hebrews?  Anything besides Matthew 7:1 and Matthew 25, which he can’t even get right?

Mohler’s view of Judaism is obscene.

Then so were the Apostle Paul’s and Jesus’ views.  I know Chuck will dismiss all of Paul, saying he was a bigoted homophobe, but Jesus couldn’t have been more clear that He was the only way and that the Jews would die in their sins if they didn’t believe in him.   In short, Chuck disagrees with God, all the while parading as his representative.

And shame on the Huffington Post for giving space to an apostate “reverend” like Chuck who can’t even find a permanent job (his gig as “acting pastor for the interim pastor” just ended, and yes, that sounds a lot like Dwight Schrute’s “Assistant to the Regional Manager” title — only not as permanent).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like Chuck Currie and denominations like the UCC which employ him.

Jesus is the only way to salvation.  I don’t care how unpopular that message is, it is the truth and I’ll keep sharing it for those who are authentically seeking the truth and desire to be reconciled with God and to live with him forever.