Posts Tagged ‘ Anti-Abortion ’

Only Pro-birth? Ad hominem Attacks on Pro-life

Round 3!

A regular attack on those who are pro-life is that we are really only “pro-birth,” that we do not really care about the mother or child after birth.

Is this true?

We do have the biblical commands to take care of orphans, widows, and the poor and needy …

… for example:

You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child.
Exodus 22:22

He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing.
Deuteronomy 10:18
(So, yes, we should also take up the cause of many immigrants. Sorry, Conservatives.)

16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
17 “You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge, 18 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.
19 “When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over them again. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. 21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not strip it afterward. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.

Deuteronomy 24:16-21

 do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart
Zechariah 7:10

And from the New Testament:

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
James 1:27

There are more, but you get the point.

I Also Know People

People I know personally disprove the idea that pro-lifers are “only pro-birth.”

Two friends of mine – a little older, but I still call them kids from time to time – are dating. They regularly volunteer their time with ministries that serve widows, orphans, single parents (not just mothers), and foster children.
Further, she is in the process of taking care of her grandson, because this boy needs someone in his life who has not abandoned him in one way or another.

No one can claim these two are only pro-birth.

I have friends who run “alternative centers” (usually called something like Crisis Pregnancy Centers, though one of these friends changed hers to “Pregnancy Resource Center” to remove the stigma of a crisis) that do not offer abortion to mothers.
They have counselors to help young mothers before, during, and after birth. There are regular drives to get supplies needed for young parents and babies (through teenage years).

Further, they and their spouses tend to be involved in end-of-life care and counseling (especially seeing as those spouses are pastors).

No one can claim they are only pro-birth.

Other friends are adoptive and foster care parents, some of them even going out of their way to get special needs children.

No one can claim they are only pro-birth.

It is rude at best, disingenuous and flat out wrong at worst to offer a blanket statement that pro-lifers are “only pro-birth.”

I know people who are pro-abortion but anti-assisted suicide or death penalty. (That is a different argument for another time!) This tells me it is unfair to say “Everyone who is pro-choice is really pro-death!”

It is inconsistent, though, especially for the Christian.

(And to take a moment to call out situations of those like Pastor Carl Lentz of Hillsong NYC, who at first responded otherwise (and thankfully changed his answer later), abortion is sin. It is not a gray area that is dependent on each person’s conscience. That is why we need a Savior. But each sin is equally bad in God’s sight, so thanks be to God He offers salvation for those sins through Jesus Christ.)

Real Life X-Men Stories … or Why Evolutionists Should Be Pro-Life

Welcome back, folks!

READY FOR SOME CONTROVERSY!

In my last video, we discussed the “unanswerable question” for “anti-abortionists” from Patrick Tomlinson.

Today, I am looking at something a little different. (And I am a little hesitant to share this theory, as I do not actually believe it but it could take hold …)

We know why Christians are pro-life. The biggest reason being we believe we were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1) and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, knit together in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16).

Well, I want to argue for why atheists, or rather evolutionists, should be pro-life … or at the very least anti-abortion.

Seeing X-Men played out

In the X-Men comics, cartoons, and movies, we see an ongoing battle between regular, ol’ humans and mutants. The mutant humans are being fought because their mutant genes have given them super-human powers. They are the next evolutionary step, and the current strain of humanity is trying to keep them from taking over.

What if we are seeing this in real life?

The teaching on evolution is that there are missing links between different types of creatures. Such led to the rise of humans from an ancient ape-like creature (not to be confused with current monkeys and apes that would have come from the same ancestor). This takes several generations if not hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

There is a theory that the missing links may never be found, because perhaps evolution happens in bursts, virtually overnight (in the grand scheme).

Another theory running around is that perhaps human evolution has stalled or stopped.

What if that is not the case?

In Iceland, it is being claimed that they have nearly eradicated Down Syndrome. In truth, they have not, instead they have been aborting pregnancies in which Down Syndrome is detected.

My question centers on this: What if Down Syndrome, Autism, and other such anomalies in humanity are not so much defects as the “missing link” in the next stage of evolution?

What if we are seeing the evidence of evolution, those hiccups that evolutionists tell us could happen, and as a people we are wiping them out …

… we are literally living out the X-Men solution?

Think about it: many of these people tend to be savants at something or many things. There could be a jump in intelligence and other qualities of humanity.

If this were true, evolution has stalled due to our own decisions.

If this were true, perhaps evolutionists should be just as pro-life as Christians … or at least anti-abortion!

What do you think?

Is my responding thought experiment a valid option?

Am I being just as silly as others?

While this is a very serious question and dialogue to have, this is a somewhat silly approach. But it is worth asking.

At the very least, I may help the pro-life cause just a touch.

What are your thoughts?

Fallacious Choices? Am I Pro-Life?

Welcome back, interwebbers!

As we come close to the close of 40 Days for Life, it is fitting that I should focus on the topic of abortion and the like.

Honestly, this could be a long conversation covering several areas in this topic.

Today, however, I going to focus on one thing:

Choosing Which Life Is Greater?

Author Patrick S. Tomlinson feels he has asked a question, a thought experiment, “that shut down the whole anti-abortion argument.” (WARNING: unbecoming language used throughout the article)

This author feels that pro-lifers (or, as he calls them, anti-abortion) reveal they are not really pro-life, or perhaps they are inconsistent in their beliefs. And, after years of asking this question, not a single pro-lifer has truthfully and adequately answered this question.

My first thought is, “Who has he been asking?” Because I find this relatively easy to answer. And I know I am far from alone.

However, here is his question:

For some unimportant reason, you are in a fertility clinic, when the building catches fire. As you are about to run out, you hear screaming.

You run back in and find the room where the screaming is emanating. When you open the door you see a 5-year-old child on one side, fire in the middle, and a container holding 1000 viable embryos. (Just assume the container is able to preserve the embryos indefinitely.) You know you only can save one.

Which do you choose?

His argument is that if you choose the child, you prove you are not really pro-life, because you allow all of those embryos – potential humans – to die. If you choose the embryos, you are a monster for letting a child burn.

My initial response is this: Thanks for admitting those embryos are alive!

In connection with this, he and others assert that scientists and politicians can not agree when life begins.

However, all embryologists and many biologists agree that life begins at conception.

  1. There is DNA for a distinct human life.
  2. Check any biology textbook: a cell is a living thing, so they are alive.

The debate then becomes, “But does it have a soul?”

I would argue, yes! Based on:

  • Psalm 139:13-16 — We were formed in the womb and are fearfully and wonderfully made;
  • Jeremiah 1:5 — This prophet was chosen before he was even conceived, demonstrating his soul already existed at fertilization. This can be applied to all humans.

As to my answer:

I would save the 5-year-old child.

Does this prove I am not pro-life?

Not at all. In fact, I mourn the loss of those embryos, and I trust God to take care of those lost embryos in His way. But as Christians we also are called to ease suffering.

This child was screaming. Further, being a fertility clinic, this child probably has parents who were there, so I am also helping those parents not to lose a child they already have.

If we change the scenario, maybe my response would be different.

What if I was on a space station above earth or on ship to a new human colony, and the future of the human race depended on those 1000 embryos. I would probably save the embryos.

But this shows the major issue with this question: It is avoiding the point, and it does not show whether a person is truly pro-life.

It is one of those impossible situations in which any choice is not ideal.

If I were on a bus about to go over the edge of a bridge, I would save the first person closest to me. I would not look over the other 36 people on the bus and try to decide who to choose, I would just grab who was closest. I am not responsible for those others, especially if I only have time to save one. No one would question my convictions (except perhaps loved ones of the others on the bus, but most would understand).

Likewise, being in such a situation as this question suggests does not demonstrate that someone is not truly pro-life. It is the complex question fallacy, begging the question. It is basically asking, “Why do you want to let innocents die?” without properly considering other options that are clearly available.

So, what do you think?

Did I answer the question?

How would you answer?