« The Early Power of the Press | Main | Timothy Keller Sermon Archive on Logos »

November 14, 2013

Comments

Is there a positive correlation between increased access/use of contraception and increased abortion?

This response was really helpful to me. The strange thing is, about three weeks ago I had come across this article in my searching for pro-choice arguments. This article was well written and I really had to stop and think about it. The conclusion that was presented in the article was not convincing to me, but the facts that she used were disturbing to be. The reason I was doing that is because I wanted to become familiar with most every argument against the pro-life view; equipping myself with knowledge. But that article just hit me in a strange way that I I'm not even really sure about... It didn't shake my conviction or deal with the scientific or philosophic grounding of my view, but it bothered me in the sense that it was a challenge to the entire approach to the abortion issue. So I just want to thank you Mr. Shlemon for offering this response and giving me a strategy for answering this objection. Very well done and I won't be stumped by this again!

Aarontj95,

What was the article?

RonH

Aarontj95,

Don't be "disturbed" by such things. Logical lines of connect the dots have been used to unlove both life itself and love itself in all sorts of intellectual gamesmanship. In the end the lies fall and life's sanctity rises stronger inside of love's landscape of e pleuribus unum.

Permitting slavery hoping that slaves will, from the inside, end slavery may have credible lines.

But so what?

Stick with love's necessarily triune e pleuribus unum and, like MLK, know that dark cannot drive out dark. Only light can do that.

Aarontj95,

Apologies. By "MLK" I meant Pastor Martin Luther King Jr., and, the spelling error should be corrected to: love's necessarily triune e pluribus unum .

So... The way to respond to the challenge is to pretend that the facts presented in the challenge don't exist? What sense does this make?

1. Making abortion illegal doesn't dramatically decrease abortion rates. Fact.
2. Increased use of contraception does, and the pro-life movement is largely anti contraceptive (think the entire Roman Catholic Church and many fundamentalist evangelicals). Fact.

This challenge response is nothing more than an artful dodge.

If our ontological end of regress is Love’s E Pluribus Unum, then the destruction of life stands as something inside of the Outside, on definition. Hence all the OT’s brutality is thus defined by Scripture itself.

If aborting a life is therein part of the Outside, we find good reason to sanction against it, rather than employing its legalization on the grounds that such a commission may lead to more omission.

I know few pro-life folks who are set against condoms. They are against (most, not all) post-contraception aborting of life.

I see no facts that most pro-life folks are against condoms. The Catholic Church may be, but, most Catholics I know are not……just like most Christians I know, and I know many, are not in favor of making condoms illegal.

Yet even if we grant such, this whole line of argument that it is okay to employ violence against life in order to reduce violence against life is, as Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us, insanity, for, darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hence his refusal to employ such.

On Love’s ontological grounds of the necessary E Pluribus Unum, we find coherence in these line, and, thereby we see that none of it is a dodge, on definition and ontological necessity.

It is a commitment to the sanctity of life, and a commitment to the factual nature of the darkness found in violence against it.

If you disagree with definitions or ontology, that is fine.


But you’ll find no incoherence herein.

Hmmm…..autocorrect and weaknesses at it again…. Let’s try this again without the typos and so forth:


If our ontological end of regress is Love’s E Pluribus Unum, then the destruction of life stands as something inside of the Outside, on definition. Hence all the OT’s brutality is thus defined by Scripture itself.


If aborting a life is therein part of the Outside, we find good reason to sanction against it, rather than employing its legalization on the grounds that such a commission may lead to more omission.


I know few pro-life folks who are set against condoms. They are against (most, not all) post-conception aborting of life. Wombs. Intensive Care Units. Whatever. Normal care and feeding. Unbroken chain. Care. We let go. We don’t take.

I see no facts that most pro-life folks are against condoms. The Catholic Church may be, but, most Catholics I know are not……just like most Christians I know, and I know many, are not in favor of making condoms illegal.


Yet even if we grant such, this whole line of argument that it is okay to employ violence against life in order to reduce violence against life is, as Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us, insanity, for, darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hence his refusal to employ such.


On Love’s ontological grounds of the necessary E Pluribus Unum, we find coherence inside of these lines, and, thereby we see that none of it is a dodge, on definition and ontological necessity.

It is a commitment to the sanctity of life, and a commitment to the factual nature of the darkness found in violence against it.


If we disagree with definitions or ontology, that is fine.


But we find no incoherence herein.

“The way to respond to the challenge is to pretend that the facts presented in the challenge don't exist?”

The ‘facts’ presented were asserted without actual data. The actual reduction in the number of abortions by increased use of contraceptives obviously cannot be known, but can only be hypothetically extrapolated from anecdotal evidence with a large amount of logical reasoning thrown in to lend credibility.

Likewise, the ‘fact’ that making abortion illegal does not drastically reduce the number of abortions is another assertion without data. But this assertion runs contrary to the logical reasoning that making an action illegal reduces the occurrence of the action. If lotteries were made illegal, how many people would buy Powerball tickets? Of course this would not stop people from other means of gambling, it would just reduce the number of occurrences.

Dodge this Mr.Gulker:

Contraception does not prevent a living human being from being killed in the womb. Contraception merely prevents the sperm from entering the egg and thereby prevents the creation of a new human life. Pro-Life is pro-contraceptive, not by the killing the new life at some arbitrary stage of development, but by preventative methods like abstinence, marriage, and prudence which ensure that the sperm is not allowed near the egg without good reason, desire and dedication.

The question that Alan asked in the challenge response is a nice, polite way to reason with the challenger over the logical errors, but it would probably be a waste of time as the whole statement is indicative of pro-choice rhetoric.

The direct response would be to reject the assertions, ask for the data and ask the ‘one question’ before proceeding.

Ron H,

Sorry for the late reply. The article was linked to in the original challenge, but the full article can be found here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

And to scblhrm,

Thanks, I like that quote from MLK, a great observation, thanks guys.

I often hear pro-choicers use the argument "Outlawing abortions increases the incidence of 'back-alley' abortions." In other words, they contend that women will abort regardless of what the law says. In light of this assertion, they say that, regardless of your views on abortion, you should want it legalized so that you don't endanger the mother's life too. Anyone else encountered this? If so, how did you respond?

Jesse,

This is something that is spouted quite often in pro-choice circles. However, Mr. Shlemon has addressed this in one of his other challenge responses. Here is the link: http://www.str.org/videos/women-will-die-from-back-alley-abortions-if-abortion-was-made-illegal#.UsHzM7R1EYI

The comments to this entry are closed.