Category Archives: Pro-life reasoning

Video: Pro-life reasoning — The case for life & responding to pro-choice arguments

Hi all,

This is a video version of the PowerPoint slides I’ve shared before.  I taught this for years to volunteers at Care Net Pregnancy Center.  What was always interesting is how these great folks, who were strongly pro-life, hadn’t heard how to make the case for life and how to respond to pro-choice sound bites.  And most of them had never heard of people like Kermit Gosnell, the greatest serial killer in American history, because they got most of their news from the mainstream media that successfully hid his story.

Pro life reasoning from Eternity Matters on Vimeo.

 

The “stay out of my uterus!” pro-abortion argument

I just realized I never came up with a standard reply to that fallacious pro-abortion sound bite.  Here’s a draft — edits welcomed.  Feel free to use without attribution.

I have no interest in your uterus. I do care about the lives of innocent human beings, regardless of their location. And it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings* from fertilization, and we should protect those human beings from being destroyed without adequate justification.

For the sake of consistency I’m sure you reject the support of pro-abortion men, because they should have no say over your uterus. And we should overturn Roe v Wade because it was passed exclusively by males.

And I’m sure you fight Obamacare and the like with the same sound bites. After all, if it is your uterus (and everything else) then you’d never be such a hypocrite as to demand that other people pay for its care, birth control, etc., eh?

There is nothing less attractive to me than a woman willing to kill her own child. So even if I wasn’t happily married I would never care about the uterus — or anything else — of a pro-abortion woman, regardless of her beauty or other traits.

*Go consult any mainstream embryology textbook or just read what pro-abortion leaders have conceded — http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

Molech-worshiping ghouls Sandra Fluke and the “Christian” Left demand that you to pay to kill their children

aAnd for anyone else who wants an abortion, for that matter. Despite their vapid “stay out of my uteri” sound bite she and her pro-abortion cronies really want you involved in them.  Source: Sandra Fluke: “Next Fight” for Abortion Activists is Forcing Americans to Pay for Abortions

FLUKE: Well, I’m so glad you asked because this is a huge victory for the women of Texas and so many states that were really suffering under these trapped laws. But we have an ongoing fight in many states, especially around a affordability. This is about making the right to reproductive access a reality in practice, not just on paper. And if you can’t afford to exercise this right, it’s really not as meaningful to you. So for women who are in the military, women who receive medicaid, and even women who live in states where they can’t afford or are not allowed to buy insurance that covers abortion on their state exchanges, they have major barriers to access. And that’s our next fight.

Please let me translate: “Hi, I’m Sandra Fluke. Sure, I could afford $50,000 per year for law school, but I slept around so much that I couldn’t afford condoms. And the guys I slept with (they weren’t committed enough to me to call them “boyfriends”) didn’t value me enough to pay for them. So it is the responsibility of society to pay! And if the birth control fails, or I’m just too irresponsible to use it properly, then society needs to pay to have my child killed. Because reproductive rights (uh, please ignore the fact that if I’m killing my child I have obviously already exercised my right to reproduce).  P.S. I have no idea why people call us “pro-abortion” and not pro-choice . . . I mean, just because we don’t want taxpayers to be able to choose whether they pay for more abortions . . . ”

The “Christian” Left agrees with her and thinks we should all have to pay for anyone wanting to kill their child up to her first breath.  Behold their god:

molech

 

Basic pro-life reasoning

I often use the snippet below when addressing pro-life reasoning online or in person.  One can obviously go in-depth on any number of pro-life topics and responses to pro-abortion arguments, but I like to have something short yet comprehensive handy.  Feel free to use without attribution if you would find it helpful in any way.  Hat tip to Stand to Reason for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.


 

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq ) and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then 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. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.

In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Ouch: Even Bill Clinton mocks the pro-abortion extremists of the “Christian” Left

This is going to leave a mark.  Remember that the Molech-worshiping ghouls of the “Christian” Left are loud and proud about Jesus being OK with killing children for any reason before their first breath.  Via Past abortion comments from Bill Clinton may surprise you:

Clinton had some harsh words for his fellow pro-aborts’ extremism:Clinton said that pro-choice activists “framed the question selfishly by putting it in terms of a woman’s right to do whatever she wanted,” making it seem like they were fighting for a “selfish woman’s right to crush her baby’s skull.”Clinton saw some of the pro-choice stances as extreme, such as the belief that third-trimester abortion should be legal.“I believe that if you can’t make up your mind in the first six months, you don’t have the right to have an abortion,” Clinton said according to Branch.“He said the pro-choice people have essentially allowed their own insensitivities to push them into a losing political situation and make a statesman out of Rick Santorum, which he rolled his eyes at,” said Branch.That’s all very interesting, considering Clinton vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban, and his wife Hillary defended and voted for partial-birth abortion and opposes banning abortions after five months. So, Mr. President, were you “insensitive,” too? Is your wife fighting for “selfishness”?The answer is simple: Bill wasn’t speaking from the goodness of his heart, but talking about the political inexpediency of the losing issue the abortion lobby saddled him with. Still, it’s a remarkable admission that the man reporter Nina Burleigh once said she’d give sexual favors to “just to thank him for keeping abortion legal” knew all along that partial-birth abortion “crushed babies’ skulls”…yet was perfectly willing to protect it anyway.The Free Beacon reports that President Clinton declined to comment on the revelations, which is in his and his wife’s best interest—surely they don’t want the American people thinking about whether vicious lies about political opponents and knowing support for crushing the skulls of innocent children are values they want back in the White House.

Yes, the “Christian” Left does fight for a “selfish woman’s right to crush her baby’s skull.”  Not only that, but they say Jesus agrees with them.  Because love.

When Bill Clinton has demonstrably higher moral values than you do then you should know you have a big problem.

 

No exaggeration: The most prolific serial killer in American history is a member of the “Christian” Left

And he uses the same horrifically flawed reasoning that they do to justify destroying unwanted children.

The “Christian” Left loudly, proudly and unequivocally insists that Jesus approves of abortions at any time and for any reason up the child’s first breath*.

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

The “Christian” Left* is far more extreme in their pro-abortion agenda than the average pro-choice person.  I realize how ridiculous their views sound and how many people must think I’m making a straw-man argument.  But that is just because their own words are so clear and extreme.

And they are the same words used by convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell — the most prolific serial killer in American history — to justify snipping the necks of children who had the audacity to temporarily survive his abortion procedures.

“My youngest son asked me, ‘Dad, did you do these horrible things that are in the newspaper?’ and I said, ‘Alex, I don’t want to lie to you. I really have to do a lot of reading to feel comfortable that I in fact was on solid ground in my thoughts and my approaches.’ And until I really completed my first Genesis through Revelation reading of the Bible which I did since I was incarcerated, I really didn’t feel as comfortable as I am.

Genesis begins almost – I think it’s Genesis 2:7 expresses the breath of life as the beginning of life. That God breathed breath, breathed life into Adam. The Bible to me is very clear that life does not happen until breath.

I very strongly believe in my innocence, and there are many people who believe that. There are many people who come to me who say that, ‘How could you be this terrible person and people are coming to you for 40 years?’ The story just doesn’t make sense.”

There is a movie about Gosnell coming out, so hopefully more people will learn about him.  During his trial the pro-abortion extremist mainstream media virtually ignored it.  Even when I would train new volunteers on pro-life reasoning at Care Net Pregnancy — a pro-life audience if there ever was one! — 3/4 of the people had never heard of Gosnell because of the media blackout.

*More here about how to respond all the pro-abortion reasoning of the false teachers of the “Christian” Left with full, in-context quotes from them.

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

I’m re-running this in honor of Rand Paul turning the tables on the Left and asking if they are OK with killing a 7 lb. baby in the womb.  I much prefer Cruz or Walker over Paul, but it was a great answer.  We need more of that!  

Also see Turning rocks into softballs where I offer some other tips on how to respond to the questions about rape, incest or abortions in general.  

We need to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves!

—–

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.