Tag Archives: pro-life

American holocaust: What would you do?

There are some excellent questions raised in this movie.

Share/Bookmark

Abortion debate: Scott Klusendorf vs Nadine Strossen

[HT Randy Alcorn]

Abortion Debate at Westmont College from Randy Alcorn on Vimeo.

Defending Your Beliefs with Scott Klusendorf

[HT Crossway]

SFLA 2011 Scott Klusendorf from Alliance Defense Fund on Vimeo.

Making the Case for Life: Pro-Life Apologetics

Making the Case for Life: Pro-Life Apologetics from Darius Hardwick on Vimeo.

Should a woman be forced to carry a child to term?

When talking to pro-choice people I’ve often heard the sentiment that a mother’s choice trumps the child’s because of property rights. From a question I posted on Quora:

Wes, also incorrect. Society establishes just termination of human life over property as well. It’s about territory/resource more than anything else. And no, as I mentioned to Herbert, acknowledging the fetus as homosapien doesn’t negate the right of a carrier.

And to answer your question: In most all ancient cultures and laws and still today: the fetus has never trumped the carrier. We decide based on the residence. And the female’s rights will trump the fetus not because of biological category, but because of anatomy.

Here’s my response:

If the fetus were to have “infected” its mother then I could see where they would have a point. But it is well evidenced that the rape and incest only end up producing a biologically new human life about 5% of the time.

So to treat the fetus as a foreign invader when the fact is that in the vast majority of fetuses were created as a result of a deliberate choice by the mother to engage in procreative activities.

So the question should really be: Should it be acceptable to kill someone for the sole reason that their continued existence may prove to be an inconvenient result of deliberate choices made beyond their control?

In the end, I think pro-choice is merely a code word for anti-child. I believe children are easily sacrificed by people who feel it is their right to be selfish hedonists who live as they please, have junk food sex, and generally don’t have time to be bothered by repulsive children.

What Do ‘Pro-Choice’ Protesters Really Think About Abortion?

It needs to be pointed out that their attitude towards sex as a sterile, recreational activity unconnected with any biological consequences combined with their view of children as parasites are not unique. These are the predominant views of our society, pushed in all facets from politics to education to entertainment.

The future looks very bleak for any children produced and raised in the homes the people above will provide (when they choose to provide it, of course). One protester even had a sign “would you trust me with a child?”

What the above video shows is how it is socially acceptable, indeed fashionable, to spurn our biological design in pursuit of unbridled hedonism.

A story of life beginning at an abortion clinic

Wounding children

I got into a discussion a while back about the legitimacy of corporal punishment. Liberal parents are fond of labeling any form of punishment child abuse1.

Corporal punishment aside, lets look at the notion of child abuse a bit more.

Let’s say a couple has casual sex, sex outside of marriage, sex outside of a framework that is designed to facilitate the life that could result. If a life were to come about under such circumstances, I believe the couple has committed an act of child abuse by not providing a suitable environment for this newly created life.

Now the parents of this new life could decide to terminate this life. This inconvenience. This parasite. And this would be their last and final act of child abuse as far as this tiny, but no less viable, life is concerned.

But lets say they aren’t as heartless as so many millions of parents are each year. Let’s say they have actually have a bit of moral fiber in their being and decide to care for the life they have created.

If the couple does not decide to start rectifying the unsuitable environment for the new life they have created, meaning they get married and start working on building as much of a home as they can in 9 months, then they are further abusing the child by depriving it of it’s natural right to a family (which means, at minimum, a mother and father who are committed to each other and the new life they have made).

Being in a single parent home (mostly the mother) is the #1 indicating factor of childhood poverty. So when a couple decides to not create a suitable environment for the life they both participated in making, why don’t we call that what it is? It’s child abuse.

When it comes to what is commonly understood to be child abuse, that is the inappropriate application of physical pain, studies have overwhelmingly shown that the greatest threat to the well being of a child is not their biological father. It’s their mother’s live-in boyfriend.

So if people are serious about ending child abuse, why isn’t there more focus on alleviating the situations and factors that lead up to the cases commonly understood to be child abuse (like the mother who stabs her children to death in a gas station bathroom, or the mother who drowns her children in a bathtub, or the mother who shakes her child to death so she can play farmville)? Why don’t we stand up for all abused children?

Sometimes the worst abuse is the kind that leaves no visible marks at all.

  1. That discussion led to this post on the sovereign status of parents over their children. []

Easily defeat all pro-abortion arguments with a handy flow chart

[HT: Wintery Knight]

And here is the creator of the chart above, Alan Shlemon, explaining how to use the chart.