|
|
 As usual, there is a lot of misinformation flying around about the Stupak Amendment, so I went straight to the source to find out what the amendment actually says and does. Here are direct quotes from Rep. Stupak:
“Under the amendment, individuals receiving federal subsidies for health care coverage are prohibited from using those subsidies to pay for abortions or to purchase insurance policies that cover abortions. The amendment does not prevent private insurance plans from offering abortion services nor does it prohibit individuals or states from purchasing abortion coverage with non-federal matching funds. The amendment specifies that even those who receive federal subsidies may purchase a supplemental policy with private money to provide abortion coverage.
The language in the Stupak amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde amendment which has been in place since 1977 and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law currently prohibits federal funding of abortion in all federal health programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). My amendment simply applies current law, the Hyde amendment, to H.R. 3962, health care reform.”
Even though currently legal, I believe abortion is morally wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human being. Naturally, I would be outraged if the Federal government were to force me to pay for abortions via either tax funded abortion services or tax funded insurance policies covering abortion.
You can learn more about the amendment and H.R. 3962 at http://www.house.gov/stupak/.
Ever heard this from pro-choice advocates?
It seems like abortion advocates assume that right and wrong is different for different people. This assumption manifests itself in statements like, “You have your truth; I have my truth. Therefore, we should be tolerant of all views. Maybe abortion is wrong for you, but it might be right for others.” This flaw turns the pro-life moral claim about abortion (“Abortion is wrong”) into a preference claim (“I don’t like abortion”). Of course, this misses our point entirely. Twisting objective claims into subjective claims is known as “moral relativism”—the view that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, only personal preferences, like tastes in ice cream.
This is one of the most common ways that abortion advocates relativize the pro-life position. They treat our view as a mere preference that we’re forcing on others. However, it’s not that we don’t like abortion and would prefer that people not have one. We think abortion is wrong, whether we like it or not. This argument confuses our moral claim with a preference claim. (Excerpted from “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion”)
Want to learn how to defend your pro-life views and answer pro-choice rhetoric? Join me at LifeMinded and learn from the best materials available: “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion” by Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf
I was recently talking to a pro-choice friend of mine about the Tim Tebow ad. After expressing how hypocritical I thought it was of the so-called women’s advocacy groups to be so negative about Pam’s “choice” to not have an abortion (see my post “Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad = Free Speech”), and after graciously listening to me for a little while, my friend responded by saying, “But, there are so many unwanted and abused children in the world.” What she didn’t say, but was clearly implied, was that abortion solves this problem.
Although I sincerely believe my friend has just not thought this through, her defense actually implies an unthinkable moral equation… Killing a child is less offensive than neglecting, abusing or not wanting him, and any of these scenarios is thought to be more evil than murder. In fact, many pro-choice advocates offer killing the child through abortion as an antidote for abuse. The pro-choice slogan “Every child a wanted child” misses the point. The message should be “Every child a valued child.” This makes us responsible for valuing the human beings in our care instead of discarding them when they become inconvenient or unwanted.
Want to learn how to defend your pro-life views and answer pro-choice rhetoric? Join me at LifeMinded and learn from the best materials available: “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion” by Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf
 What a revealing response we’re seeing from so-called women’s rights organizations to the Tim Tebow ad that will be running during Super Bowl XLIV. For instance, Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center, stated in her interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, that the reason these groups are upset is because CBS has changed its long held position of not running advocacy ads. But isn’t CBS, or any other media group, perfectly within their rights and discretion to change their minds? Most likely, it was a purely economical decision on their part, but I’m glad CBS has changed their policy even if that means pro-choice ads may be aired during future games. Fundamentally, this argument is about free speech, and I would argue that the real point of contention is not about the medium but about the message.
Continue reading Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad = Free Speech
“I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t want to impose my view on others”
 Just the facts please This relativistic response is known as the “modified pro-choice” position. Though this view may seem difficult to oppose, it’s actually very easy to help the person who holds it to see the problem, if you ask the right question. If you aks them, “Why do you personally oppose abortion?” Invariably they will reply, “I oppose it because I think abortion kills a human baby or an innocent life, but that’s my own personal view.” At that point, repeat their words back to them, but take the spin off it: you might say something like “Let me see if I understand you. You actually believe abortion kills a human child, but you think women should be allowed to kill their children if they want to.” If they object to your wording, ask them what part of their view you misunderstood. The fact is, that is the view they hold. You just helped them carry it out to its logical conclusion.
Would these same people argue that if they personally opposed slavery, they still would not protest if a neighbor wanted to own one? This was precisely what Stephen Douglas argued in his debates with Abraham Lincoln. This argument did not work with slavery, and it will not work with abortion. Either elective abortion kills a defenseless child or it does not. If it does, we should not tolerate it. (excerpted from “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion”)
Want to learn how to defend your pro-life views and answer pro-choice rhetoric? Join me at LifeMinded and learn from the best materials available: “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion” by Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf
There can be no doubt that the last 50 years we have seen an enormous cultural shift from the Judeo-Christian world-view to a post-modern, post-Western cultural consciousness that completely denies absolute or objective truth. In his article, Transforming Culture: Christian Truth Confronts Post-Christian America, Dr. Albert Mohler Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, declares “moral relativism has so shaped the culture that the vast majority of Americans now see themselves as their own moral arbiter. Truth has been internalized, privatized, and subjectivised.”
In other words, we now live in a society where moral questions have been relegated to personal preferences, like choosing your favorite colors, rather than objective realities (think gravity) that are true for everyone. Continue reading A new paradigm for the pro-life movement
|
|
