“But they might be poor!”

There are lots of bad pro-abortion arguments, but one of the worst is that the unborn might end up poor.  Here are a few things wrong with that.

1. Even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, that uses the wrong definition of poor.  There are very, very few truly poor people in this country.  Most of the poor (who, as Roxanne notes, are only poor because someone has to be on the left side of the Bell curve) live better than even royalty did 200 years ago.  Some people are so “poor” that they can’t afford to work because they’d be taking a pay cut from their benefits.

That definition of poor would mean that 90% of the world should have been aborted.  Ask anyone using that argument how many Third World countries they have visited.

2. Even if they really would be poor their entire lives and even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, note the word “might.”  It is the sadly pessimistic but false view of Liberals that once your family is poor that you always stay that way.  But people often move between economic classes.  Hey, just graduate high school and don’t have sex out of wedlock and you are very unlikely to be poor, even by the U.S. definition.

Killing them because something “might” happen sounds like Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons (“Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.”)

3. As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, it ignores the right to life of the unborn.

4. Using that logic we could do poor people a favor by killing them outside the womb, too.  After all, the size, location, level of development and degree of dependency have no bearing on the value of a human being.  The world just rationalizes it so they can kill unwanted human beings.

Sadly, many of those using this argument claim the name of Christ.  A woman in a Bible study once used that as her justification to be “pro-choice,” even though she had been in church her entire life.  The notion that the author of life (Acts 3:15) would be pro-abortion is ridiculous.

If you want to help poor people, that’s great.  But killing them is a dubious way of going about it.

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.

Dear Catholics who voted for Obama,

Does this bother you at all?

  • The Democrats consider anyone who holds Catholic views on marriage to be “haters.”  The Pope himself would not be eligible to speak at Obama’s inauguration.
  • The official platform of the Democrats is to have unrestricted abortions funded by taxpayers.  They aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.
  • They are forcing your organizations to pay for birth control, including abortifacient drugs, and to permit same-sex couples to adopt children.  They would rather your hospitals and adoption clinics close down rather than relent on these issues.

If you vote for Democrats you should quit calling yourself Catholic.  They strenuously oppose your organization on the key social and moral issues of the day, and are working overtime to take away your religious freedoms.

Note: There is a reason I’m not Catholic — actually, 95 of them — but I have always appreciated their pro-family, pro-life views, and I know many “bad Catholics” who hold to the Protestant (i.e., biblical) view of justification.

Life still begins at fertilization

This is a great example of “sibling rivalry”* in action.  Just because some people question whether the unborn are living human beings doesn’t mean they have any facts on their side.  Pro-lifers have all the embryology textbooks to support their view, not to mention concessions from leading pro-abortion people (see this link for a lot of examples of both).

Dream all you like about finding life elsewhere in the universe, but don’t be anti-science and ignore the logical and scientific fact of human life in the womb.

“Sibling rivalry” is a phrase used by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason to describe the situation where people hold opposing ideas at the same time.

Sometimes objections come in pairs that are logically inconsistent and therefore oppose each other. I call this “sibling rivalry” because they are like children fighting.

Pro-life response of the week

Or month, or whatever. Sometimes I like to turn comment replies into post. Here’s one from the Great pro-life display post.

Hi Mary Kate,

Thanks for visiting and commenting. I hope you reconsider your views. For any pro-choice-to-kill-an-innocent-human-being-in-the-womb argument, ask the same questions about that rationale for human beings outside the womb. Can a woman kill a toddler due to economic, career, romance, etc. concerns? Of course not. So the only question is, “What is the unborn?” The scientific fact is that a new human being is created at fertilization.

Having said that, let’s consider your arguments:

I think that if this country would put some effort into safe and effective birth control, there would be a lot less abortions.

Possibly, but I see a couple problems with that. First, this country does not have a birth control shortage. It is been getting pushed for decades, and the false sense of security it provides has led to tens of millions of diseases and countless abortions.

More importantly, that’s like saying that we won’t make murder outside the womb illegal because there are things we could be doing to reduce murders.

Furthermore, I believe the entire issue should be handled between a woman and her physician.

That ignores the third human being in the equation. How about the unborn and her physician? And could the woman and her physician kill a toddler without consequence? Again, the question is, “What is the unborn?,” and I answered it above.

Everyone else should mind their own business.

Like you are minding your own business here? What about the unborn child’s business? Again, the question is, “What is the unborn?,” and I answered it above. I doubt you’d make the “mind your own business” claim if someone was trying to kill an innocent but unwanted human being outside the womb.

If you really are worried about children, then volunteer to help teenage mothers, adopt orphans, teach children to be responsible and consider the consequences of their actions, teach them how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and support the family planning efforts of groups like planned parenthood, who prevent far more unwanted pregnancies than any other group among people who can’t afford health care.

I address that more fully in Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born?, but please answer this simple question to yourself: If 3,000 toddlers per day were getting crushed and dismembered because they were unwanted, could you oppose that without being obliged to care for them to adulthood? Or would that mean you didn’t care for them?

Protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims. If you agree with the line that pro-lifers don’t care about the unborn after they are born or that we have a “fetus fetish” or other made-up malady, answer me this: If the gov’t wanted to reduce homelessness by destroying homeless people, would you have a “homeless fetish” and be a raging hypocrite if you protested that but weren’t willing to house them all yourself? Remember, the issue isn’t whether human beings are out of the womb or not but whether it is legitimate to protest an act if you don’t plan to fully fund the consequences of stopping it.

Do you have to be willing to take complete responsibility for human beings you are trying to protect? Can you protest the abuse of the homeless, spouses, children or pets without having to care for them all? (As noted in the link, pro-lifers do a great deal with their own time and money to help women and families in need. I’m just pointed out how fallacious the pro-legalized abortion argument is).

Prevention is the antidote to abortion, not legislation.

Is the prevention of murder, drunk driving, gay-bashing, etc. the answer to all those ills rather than legislation? With that reasoning we wouldn’t need any laws.

Again, the question is, “What is the unborn?,” and I answered it above. “It” is an innocent human being deserving of protection.

The “Republicans are against birth control” meme is as choreographed as any ballet

And the Democrats and the mainstream media are the choreographers. It is a pathetic ploy to shift attention from the disastrous state of the economy. Should we worry about our insanely high debt levels or whether people with jobs have to pay $10 per month for birth control?

They realize that people on average, and especially the youth, are increasingly pro-life but still want people to have access to birth control. You might be thinking, “So what? Who opposes access to birth control?” Even the Catholics aren’t trying to make it illegal.

Do we oppose funding of Planned Parenthood? Of course! But not because they give away condoms. We do it because they are the largest destroyer of innocent but unwanted human beings in the country, they hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they aggressively promote the sexualization of children and much, much more.

But that doesn’t mean we want there to be less access to birth control. If PP quit receiving tax funding then Liberals would be welcome to give to them directly, just as they are today. Hey, for $480 you can donate to a Kenyan charity that will give food, clothes and education to four children for a year or you can help PP give a free abortion to kill a child here. Your choice!

Read this and the first link above. Note how people like Stephanopoulos seem to be early adopters of the weird script they’ve been given. Don’t be fooled by the ploy by the Left, and be sure to point out these facts to others. The Leftists won’t be persuaded, but that doesn’t matter. They are voting for Obama no matter what. It is all about the independents.


I wrote last week about a theory put forth by Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that abortion proponents were shifting strategies to focus on contraceptives rather than abortion, the reason being their own polls show abortion is no longer a winning issue with young people and women, but contraception is.

This week Republican strategist Dick Morris pitched the same theory onHannity, adding some corroboration:
Morris:Obama did not make a mistake in this mandate. It’s a deliberately calculated move on his part. The Democrats realize that abortion is no longer a winner for them. It used to be ten points more pro-choice than pro-Life, now it’s ten points more pro-Life than pro-choice possibly because of the publicity of the anti-abortion people, possibly because of the aging of the population. But the point is that it’s a loser issue.

So what they’re trying to do now is replace it with contraception. So the first piece of evidence was after Santorum won Iowa, the first controversy was, “Do you think states should have the right to ban contraception?” Where did that come from?


Morris: Then you remember that ABC debate with that paid Democratic hitmanGeorge Stephanopoulos went after Romney trying to… pin him down on, on contraception? And Romney kept saying, “George, nobody wants to make contraception.” “No, but do they have the theoretical power to do it?” Remember, it was five minutes, people were laughing at him, booing him. Well that…

Hannity:You think he was doing this under direct orders?

Morris:Under orders. And I think, and now he comes out with this thing on contraception. They want to create the idea, and it’s no coincidence, that he came out with it after Minnesota and Colorado which was Santorum’s victories. They want to create the impression that the Republicans will ban contraception, which is totally insane, but they’re floating it out and they’re bringing it out there. And this move on Obama’s part was part of injecting that issue.

The good news about this is that it shows how desperate they are.