« If God Cannot Be in the Presence of Sin, How Could Satan Have Approached Him? (Video) | Main | Webinar with Greg »

September 10, 2013

Comments

First, I point out how I can use secular arguments to show how immoral abortion is (many learned at STR, of course).
---

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact -- http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq -- (and basic common sense) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization (check out any mainstream embryology textbook). 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.

Nearly all pro-abortion arguments ignore the unwanted human being destroyed in the abortion. Try it and see what I mean.

Please note that I didn't use any religious arguments, although I'd be glad to share the biblical view on the sanctity of human life.

---
Also, when people play the "You're forcing your religious views on me" card is to ask them to point me to anywhere where they have been equally strident in opposing the religious Left. After all, if "forcing religious views" was such a horrible thing, they should be actively protesting the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, all the denominations pushing taxpayer-funded abortion and oxymoronic "same-sex marriage," increased taxes, etc.

Perhaps God does not see the torture on earth as we do? Maybe after fighting hell he thinks the real torture is in hell not in the earth. The earth and all of its lifeforms are strangely parts of the good Gods weapons. Why else are humans here? Humans, willing or not, are apart of the good God's military machine vs. the evil God's hell. Hell is the worst of evil things forever, so how could the pain in the earth compare? So, stop complaining about how hellish life and war is because God is protecting us from the worst of hells.

eMatters, when someone says "you're forcing your religious views on me", you need to turn the table. Here's how i would respond:

When a woman has an abortion, she, her husband and the abortionist are forcing their (religious and non-religious) views on the unborn child. And their using deadly force to force their views on that child. Since you oppose forcing views on others, you should join me in opposing abortion.

False dichotomy, as if religion was on one hand and science and reason was on the other. My positions on social issues are informed by all of the above in interaction. Like the abolitionists and first-wave feminists, I have no problem with my religious views influencing my political stance.

US CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A person is an individual human being.

All human beings begin life as single cells or zygotes. Each living human zygote is a distinct individual human being from completion of fertilization. Any living human zygote that begins its life within the USA is a citizen of the USA in the state wherein that person resides.

It is a violation of the 14th amendment of our Constitution to deprive these persons of life and to deny these persons the equal protection of our laws.

Most states have laws that strictly punish those who cause the death of an unborn child. Even here in California, Scott Peterson was convicted on November 12 of 2004, and subsequently sentenced to die for the first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the child she carried.

It is a great injustice and inequity to punish a person like Scott Peterson for killing his unborn son, yet allow or even assist mothers in the contract murder of their unborn children by “doctors”.

Our state clearly has a compelling interest in its unborn children. It must be made to see that these persons are in fact deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law by denying them equal protection of our laws.

Please download and listen to 'Compelling Interest' by Roger Resler, available at ChristianAudio.com.

I would like to point out that Bernard Nathanson, a staunch pro-lifer, was an Atheist when he came to the conclusion that abortion was immoral.

Plus, even if a person who is "religious" opposes something for religious reasons, then should their idea automatically be thrown out? Should we throw out laws regarding murder or theft since those things are in the Ten Commandments?

One other thing I would like to say is that the statement does nothing to show that abortion is moral. In fact, is the person supporting abortion just because he is a non-Christian?

Personally, I would ask: "Ok, why should a person support abortion?"

I would answer the question by shouting a resounding "You bet I'm against abortion because I'm a Christian!" That's not to say that someone can't be against the murder of innocent babies while not hold to Christian views, but my position against this infanticide is grounded the Scriptures.

The Bible makes it absolutely clear that what we have going on today is nothing short of the systematic, government sanctioned, genocidal murder of innocent babies. Even pro-abortion activists are admitting now that the life growing inside a mother's womb is in fact human life. Taken in that context, there's absolutely nothing wrong with supporting the sanctity of life by turning to Scripture; in fact, it's preferred!

Here's how Alan should have responded:

"No, that's a nice try, but that's not what I said."

Aren't you against abortion just because you're a Christian? You talk about abortion as if you're objectively evaluating the morality of it. But in reality it's your religious views that make you against abortion, not science and not neutral unbiased rationale

If a person in the US was against armed robbery, wouldn't it be just because it's against the law? Would they not be talking about armed robbery as if they're objectively evaluating the morality of it when in reality it's their socio-political views that make them against armed robbery, not science and not neutral unbiased rationale? Or, would it be because they see intrinsic value to a person and believe it would be wrong to do harm to that person (in this case, to rob them of them possessions)?

So, if they would believe AR is wrong based on a belief in the intrinsic value and worth of a human being and their rights to their possessions and their right to not be robbed, could it not also be true that I see intrinsic value in an unborn human being and therefore feel that abortion is morally wrong?

I also object to abortion because I am a rational, moral human being.
Science cannot inform us about the morality of an action.
Science tells us that human life begins at fertilization, but it cannot tell us that it is wrong to destroy human life.
The morality of abortion must be based on rationale not science.

Your rationale is no more unbiased and neutral than mine.

You suggest that abortion is merely a subjective matter, as if there is no life destroyed in the process. Yet we know scientifically that the life of the child is terminated in abortion. In fact, that is the very definition and purpose of abortion.

So, is the destruction of innocent human life not an objectively immoral action?

Is it immoral if I pay you or another person to kill me?

Is it immoral if I pay you or another person to kill another human being?

What is the rationale that your answers are based upon?

Please be neutral, unbiased and scientific in your responses.

I (as me, not Alan) also object to abortion because I am a natural (born) American citizen that could have been legally killed at any time before birth right here in the good ol’ USA. I was accidentally conceived within my mentally impaired mother on June 14th, 1967, the same day that California Governor Ronald Regan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act. When my mother went to see her doctor in August of ’67, he recommended that she abort me. Thankfully, she decided not to take the doctor’s advice.

The US CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 14, SECTION 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

    nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      A person is an individual human being. (Encarta)

      All human beings begin life as single cells or zygotes. Each living human zygote is a distinct individual human being from completion of fertilization.
      Any human being that begins its life within the USA is a citizen of the USA in the state wherein he or she resides.

      It is a violation of the 14th amendment of our Constitution for any state to deprive these persons of life or to deny these persons the equal protection of our laws.

      Most states have laws that strictly punish those who intentionally cause the death of an unborn child.
      Even here in California, Scott Peterson was convicted on November 12 of 2004, and subsequently sentenced to die for the first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the child she carried.

      How can we punish a person like Scott Peterson for killing his unborn son, yet allow or even assist others to dispose of their unborn children?

      Our state clearly has a compelling interest in its unborn children. It must be made to see that these persons are in fact deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law and by denying them the equal protection of our laws.

I wouldn't bring religion into the conversation at all. I would begin by saying that everyone has a purpose on this Earth. Who are we to tell somebody that you don't matter and because of my mistake you can't exist? I would also ask him or her that millions have died that could've made a difference in this world. What if we aborted the genius that cures cancer or AIDS? A leader like MLK Jr? A singer that touches your soul? Everyone deserves a chance to live out their life.

>> it's your religious views that make you against abortion, not science and not neutral unbiased rationale.

The argument to make science and neutral unbiased rationale (whatever that is) sole arbiter on ethical issues can be destroyed in two words: war technology.

The implements of war developed for the Civil War was astounding if not horrifying. The minie bullet, the lever-action repeating rifle, explosive shells, rudimentary torpedo, improvements of the Colt revolver, ironclad warships. Fast forward to WWI. Mustard gas, machine gun. Modern tank. WWII and the Manhattan Project and the technology that fueled the Final Solution. And the weapons of mass destruction that flavor the air of Syria. It is not the work of rabbis and monks, neither is it better living through chemistry.

You see, it is never the science that matters, but the scientist. I value the researcher whose work is towards the improvements of life, but I concern myself over the politics and ethics that deem whether that goal is achieved by finding the cure for cancer or working towards the culling out of the "undesirables."

I am in total agreement with the posts of Scott Richardson. Well expressed. I would add one more inconsistency to his list. If abortion is an ethical medical practice that advances the cause of womanhood, why shouldn't the medical community promoting it do all this work pro bona? Not a shekel from public funding or private endowment. Science cannot advance abortion without a conflict of interest.

DGFischer, that is another great point that should be made!

Abortion has long been seen as prohibited or at least a conflict of interest among the medical community.

The ancient Hippocratic Oath that Doctors swore allegiance to for hundreds of years stated:
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.
Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

That oath has only recently been abandoned and replaced by:

Whatever it takes, whatever works, or whatever we can try.

Bio-Ethics are now seen as unscientific and impedance to progress and the pursuit of knowledge.

This philosophy naturally leads to experimentation and human rights violations.

It reduces most human beings to expendable products, tools, and statistical data sources while it elevates Doctors to godlike beings.

This is another reason I object to abortion.

It makes Doctors into adversarial agents of death, instead of compassionate custodians of and caregivers to all humankind.

There is yet another reason I object to abortion. It is damaging to the parents of the aborted child.

Instead of the natural loving caregivers of their children, abortion makes mothers and fathers into murderers.

Many abortive parents suffer lifelong regrets over the death of their child, with annual reminders like missed birthdays ever haunting their minds.

Nothing can truly take away the horror of realizing that abortion gruesomely dismembers and destroys a child that could have experienced a lifetime of love, joy, pain and pleasure within familial and social relationships.

Here's a poll

Who says having an abortion is morally wrong?

75% of 'white evangelical Protestants'
25% of 'unaffiliated'

Pretty much explains it.


(100% answered in italics)

To which scientific, neutral, unbiased rationale would the challenger appeal to launch his robust case for a pro-choice position?

Hint: "Women should have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies" does not satisfy the criteria.

The comments to this entry are closed.