“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.

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.

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.

“It isn’t black and white”

The title is one of the most common excuses I get when presenting pro-life reasoning.  I often hear it after making these two simple claims:

1. Scientific claim: The unborn are human beings from fertilization.  Therefore, abortion kills an innocent human being.

2. Moral claim: It is immoral to kill innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortion (i.e., everything except to save the life of the mother).

The reasoning is simple and sound, and I always invite them to explain where they are in error.  That is when I typically get the “it isn’t black and white!” cop-out.

I’ve noticed that they never use the “black and white” claim when advancing same-sex marriage, trashing religious freedoms to force employers to pay for birth control and abortifiacients, pro-union propaganda, anti-school choice, universal health care, etc.  That tells me that they aren’t arguing on principle but are merely wedded to their pro-abortion worldview.

What brief conversation made these people consider the Gospel and do a 180 on abortion?

Please watch this, then share it, then considering using this approach yourself.

In 33 minutes it covers a lot of important ground in a powerful way. It shows how people are often ignorant of history (Adolph Hitler and the Holocaust) and how carefully framing what abortion really does can quickly change hearts and minds. There is also an excellent example of how to share the Gospel with people in a simple, compelling and accurate way.

WARNING: Viewer discretion advised — not for little ones.

Kudos to Ray Comfort and all those who put this together. It is very well done.

Abortion, capital punishment and Troy Davis

Given all the news about the Troy Davis execution (and the relative lack of news about the execution of James Byrd’s killer - -where are his defenders, by the way?), I thought it was time to re-run this simple pie chart.  (First, though, be sure to read Ann Coulter’s piece about Davis, which has a lot of specific, accessible facts that anyone is welcome to try and refute.  Oddly, none of the mainstream media pieces I’ve seen on him mention any of her facts.  It is almost as if they have an agenda . . .)

My main point here is to note that if the people complaining about Davis’ alleged innocence were remotely consistent, they would be going insane over the “capital punishment” of roughly 20,000 innocent human beings in the U.S. this week.  Their crime?  Being unwanted by their parent(s).  And they are completely, indistiputably, 100.00% innocent of any capital crimes.  But they get no trials, no t-shirts and no sympathy from the mainstream media or the Left.  They are just destroyed and forgotten.

Oh, and on the capital punishment / racism angle, remember that the abortion rate for blacks is 3 times that of whites.  Yet the Left reflexively plays the race card on the Right?!

pie_chart-abortion_and_capital_punishment.jpg

I was once asked why I am pro-life but not anti-capital punishment (I am in favor of capital punishment, but only if it is applied in a Biblical model). The pro-life / pro-capital punishment view is often ridiculed in the media and entertainment, and I have heard many Christians mock it as well.

The main reason I find the pro-life movement to be more important is shown in the pie chart above. Since the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision, there have been over one million abortions per year. I rounded down to a million and then calculated the weekly amount of 19,231 human beings killed per week. Then I graphed the average of 1 (one) death via capital punishment per week (actually, the average is about 0.65, but I rounded up). It took almost thirty years to mark the 1,000th execution since the Supreme Court ruled it was legal again.

So what you see is a rather odd pie chart. The capital punishment slice of the pie is almost invisible.

In a given week in the U.S., there are 19,231 deaths of completely innocent humans versus 1 death of a convicted murderer who survived an average of over 14 years of appeals, and whose guilt is virtually certain. (And this doesn’t even take into account the shattered lives of the  women/boyfriends/husbands/parents who live with the pain of having the abortions or encouraging someone to have one). That is why my energy would still be directed to the pro-life movement even if I thought that capital punishment was un-Biblical.

Actually, I am OK with unrestricted access to abortions - provided that the unborn get the same 10+ years of appeals that condemned killers do.

Or, to paraphrase Randy, I’m pro-choice as long as the unborn human being is the one making the life or death decision.

More on capital punishment here.

Responding to the “pro-lifers just want to control women’s bodies!” sound bite

It is a common mode of attack for pro-legalized abortionists to put pro-lifers on the defensive by accusing them of wanting to control women, but the charge is false.

First and most importantly, we want to protect the body of the unborn, not control the body of the mother.

Also, consider the inconsistency of the Liberals who lodge that claim.  They typically want to control everything about your life: Your wallet (i.e., taxes), education, how you discipline your children, what goes into Happy Meals, your speech, the car you drive and more.

And at least 50% of all abortions and nearly 100% of gender selection abortions kill females, so the pro-legalized abortionists aren’t just controlling those bodies, they are complicit in destroying them.

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

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.

Consciousness and abortion–two simple arguments to remember

One of the common pro-legalized abortion arguments is that the unborn don’t have consciousness, so they do not have a right to life.  Here’s a good response by Christopher Kaczor (Hat tip: Life Training Institute <== a superior pro-life training organization.  Check ‘em out.):

Requiring actual consciousness renders us non-persons whenever we sleep. Requiring immediately attainable consciousness excludes those in surgery. Requiring the basic neural brain structures for consciousness (but not consciousness itself) excludes those whose brains are temporarily damaged. On the other hand, if potentiality for consciousness makes a being a person, then those sleeping, in surgery, or temporarily comatose are persons, but so also would be the normal human embryo, fetus, and newborn.

Also note this great response (it is either a paraphrase or a direct quote from Roxanne):

To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious you must demonstrate that there is little or no hope of recovery and that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious. Abortion fails on both counts.

Pro-life responses: Easier than you think.

This pro-abortion site reflexively
used three transparently false arguments. You’ll hear them
from many pro-choicers, even those who (sadly) claim the name of
Christ. Either they know they are false and use them anyway, or
they have used them without thinking critically. Here are
some simple but accurate responses to use when you hear them. 1.
“Pro-lifers oppose the bodily autonomy of women” –
That ignores the bodily autonomy of the human being that is going
to be crushed and dismembered.
The argument plays on
the emotional “conservatives want to control women!” theme.
It would only work if it wasn’t a scientific
fact
that the unborn are human beings from conception.
The “personhood” argument used to
de-humanize the unborn is a heaping does of philosophical FAIL, but
even if it wasn’t it commits another fallacy by equivocating
between body and personhood. 2. “Pro-lifers oppose
reproductive rights” — Uh, but abortions occur when they have
already reproduced a human
being
(there’s that pesky scientific fact
again). We don’t oppose women exercising their right to
reproduce. We oppose the destruction of the human beings they
have already reproduced. 3. “Pro-lifers have a fetus
fetish,” which is a variant of the
pro-lifers don’t care about kids
after they are
born

fallacy.
Simply ask the person making that claim,
“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
provide unlimited 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. Also, unless the pro-choicers
are advocating forced abortions, the same burden to care for the
babies allowed to live falls on them. But the pro-choice
argument fails even if we didn’t help out.

When pro-choice really means pro-abortion

More and more I see that those claiming to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion.  A typical example is shown by false teaching “Reverend” Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.  He really shows how pro-abortion he is in “Fake Clinics: Stop Preying on Women.”

You see, if someone was truly pro-choice — and especially if that someone claimed to be a Christian — he would not oppose and would probably support Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs).  They do many great things for women and families in need, all for free.  We realize people have legal choices, and we’re merely trying to help them choose life.  Oh, and we share the Gospel if they are interested, another thing that a real Reverend would be thrilled about.

So on to the claims made in Currie’s post.  First, make no mistake: People who make lots of money  killing babies don’t mind lying to protect their business.  No kidding!  So I would never take their claims at face value.

A common misperception is that the “Christian position’ on abortion is anti-choice.

Yes, we are anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings.  Like most pro-abortionists, Chuck just doesn’t know how to finish his sentences.

The truth is that many Christian denominations support the right of women to make their own health care decisions.

Double fallacy: No one opposes women making “health care decisions.”  We do oppose women killing their unborn children, who are distinct human beings.  What about health care for the unborn, Chuck?  Why don’t you support their right to make decisions?

I recognize that the issue of abortion is a difficult one and that good people can come to very different conclusions concerning this issue.

But why is it difficult, Chuck?  Please explain.  I know why it is wrong: Abortion kills an innocent human being.  But if you disagree with that fundamental scientific fact, then why is the issue so difficult?

My own belief is that government shouldn’t be in the business of making these kinds of decisions for women.  Women should have a choice.

Tired old fallacious sound bites.  Chuck, should women have a choice to kill their toddlers?  Hopefully not.  So this isn’t about women having choices in any generic sense.  It is about a very particular choice: To have her unborn child killed.

He wants the government to make all sorts of decisions for our lives.  Shouldn’t the primary role of government be to protect human beings?  The government wouldn’t making a choice for the woman, it would be making a choice to protect innocent human life  and protect the “least of these.”

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has said:

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

Yes, it is a social justice issue: You shouldn’t kill innocent human beings.

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;

But if the life of the unborn is sacred, why not protect her?  There is no question that it is a human life.

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

But one of Chuck’s objections is that their are dangers with pregnancy.  If abortions aren’t immoral, then with Chuck’s logic they are safe and effective methods of birth control.

  • upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;

Please explain how an abortion can ever be safe for the unborn human being.

  • urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.

A reporter from The New York Times who recently visited a Crisis Pregnancy Center notes that she was provided with a pamphlet “about the risks of abortion” that “mentioned breast cancer, a link the National Cancer Institute has refuted, and something called post-abortion syndrome, for which the American Psychological Association, among others, says there is no evidence. As for the physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth? There was no pamphlet to discuss them.”

Gosh, the NCI and the APA would never buckle to political pressure, would they?  And people who kill babies for a very profitable living would never lie about it, would they?

Hey, come to think of it, Chuck is a well documented, serial, unrepentant liar.  Since when did he get so passionate about the truth?  Oh, when it advances the pro-abortion cause.

And Chuck obviously has never met many post-abortive women.  One of the many things offered by CPCs is post-abortion trauma counseling.  We have the great news of hope, forgiveness and healing in Jesus.  Too bad Chuck can’t offer that.

And of course, in his “Christian” counseling he’d tell them that killing their unborn children was blessed by Jesus.  What blasphemy!

Some authentic Christians might be pro-choice, though they are deeply, wildly, embarrassingly on the wrong side of the issue and almost universally uninformed about the key issues.   One day they will deeply regret that their laziness and refusal to be involved were the reasons abortion was made and kept legal. But you can know for sure that nearly 100% of Christians who oppose CPCs are fake.

CPCs save lives today and for eternity.  Fake Christians like Chuck and Co. are tools of Satan trying to destroy lives today and for eternity.

P.S. It is a very, very well documented fact that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape.  If he is so concerned about the truth, why doesn’t Chuck blog about that?