LifeMinded: Think Life » pro-choice rhetoric

Men shouldn’t have a say about abortion…What?

lynne — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:02:03 +0000

“Men shouldn’t have anything to say about abortion – it’s a woman’s issue.” This ad hominem attack ignores the issue of abortion and attacks the gender of the pro-lifer. This attack is hardly relevant, since arguments and ideas don’t have sexual organs. Gender has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. This reply, usually heard from the most militant and out of touch baby boomer feminists, is sexist, pure and simple. If this statement were valid, then should women be silent when men molest children? Interestingly, the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand in 1973 was decided by male judges…”who shouldn’t have a say because they don’t have to carry the baby.” It’s also interesting that most abortion providers are men. The argument that men don’t have the right to hold or speak their opinion on abortion, has no substance. (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

It is only a potential life

lynne — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:35:22 +0000

Pro-abortionists commonly dehumanize the unborn in order to justify abortion by referring to the unborn as a “potential life.” But calling an unborn child a “potential life” is just a clever rhetorical trick. There is no such thing as a “potential life.”

There are two options. First, we can potentially create life, that is, create a potential for life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex, there’s potential in their conduct for life to be created. Second, we can create a life with potential, one that has the possibility of developing into something good or noble. But that’s the end of our options. We either potentially create a life or we create a life with potential. We never create a “potential life.”

This line of thinking is the same as saying, “I just had a potential thought.” What could that possibly mean? You either had a thought or you didn’t. You could have the potential for a thought, or you could have a thought with potential. But you never have a “potential” thought. In the same way, pregnancy doesn’t create a potential life. If it did, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion, not a potential one, is needed to end pregnancy, a real life must be involved, not a potential one. (Excerpted from “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion”)

Abortion is Not Health Care

lynne — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:36:30 +0000

Women in the US can terminate their pregnancy at any time during the usual nine months of fetal development–for any reason–or no reason at all. Often, pro-choice proponents say that abortion must be kept legal because of all the cases where the mother’s life is in danger.

But did you know, according to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, only 6% of the 1.37 million abortions occurring annually in the US are because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child? Of that 6%, you could safely assume about half are directly due to a threat to the mother’s life. That’s about 3%.

But think about it. Even in the cases of, for example, an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, where both mother and baby cannot both survive, the “choice” is obvious and medically necessary, and any OB/GYN would perform the necessary surgery to remove the embryo – no abortion clinic needed. In fact, all OB/GYNs are trained to perform the procedure involved with a pregnancy termination, called a D&C, and medically it is the same procedure you would have if you were suffering a miscarriage. However, it is an individual doctor’s choice whether they wish to perform an elective pregnancy termination, i.e. an abortion, and most of them do not. Why? Because abortion is not health care.

Abortion: the Antidote for Child Abuse

lynne — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:43:19 +0000

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.

Just the Facts

lynne — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:49:05 +0000

“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”)