E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, January 15, 2016

Addressing pro-abortion objections to my letter

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

As has been my practice since 2002, I wrote a letter to the editor to inform the community about the upcoming Rally for Life, and my letter generated quite a few comments. I will address some of those objections here. Some are worth discussing, while others are common fallacies that also deserve to be refuted again.

  • Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for more than 40 years.

Yes, this is true, and slavery was the law of the land for more than twice that long. (The difference is that slavery was explicitly allowed in the Constitution while the "right" to abortion was fabricated by the Supreme Court in 1973.) It was evil to allow slavery, just as it is now evil for over one million babies to be slaughtered every year with those acts of murder protected by the federal government. The fact that something is the "law of the land" does not mean it should stay that way and certainly does not make it just.

It is also true that abortion was practiced before it was legalized, but there are a lot of things that are illegal now that are still practiced. Should we eliminate all laws? No, that would be silly. Furthermore, the number of illegal abortions performed before Roe v. Wade (and the number of mothers who died from those illegal abortions) is highly disputed and NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson admitted he knew those numbers were "totally false."

As I knew would happen (because this stupidity is always brought up) another commenter whined that natural spontaneous miscarriage is "the worst genocide against humanity ever committed." I have addressed this stupidity before. (See here and here and here and here and here.) And as I have said dozens of times (in story comments, on forums, on the blog and so forth) every single human being who has ever lived or will ever lived either has died or will die. Because God allows this, does that mean we should decriminalize drive-by shootings? After all, God "kills" more people than abortion ever has or will, so why not decriminalize murder?

No, that is stupid. Cancer does not justify drive by shootings and natural spontaneous miscarriage does not justify abortion. That is an extremely childish non-argument vomited by trolls and even some supposedly intelligent people who really ought to know better. Plus, it is extremely cruel to women who have suffered miscarriages to make light of their pain by using it as a "humorous" political argument. This so-called "argument" needs to be permanently silenced.

  • There is no "true" answer to when human life begins; the definition is ours to make.

This is a political answer based on moral relativism, not a factual one. The reality is that we know from science where life begins. That happens when sperm and egg join to create a completely new entity - a one-celled organism that resides in the mother's body but is not part of the mother's body. That new human being has a unique DNA code and only needs nourishment and shelter to develop through the various stages of life. The argument is not where "life" begins because that is settled science and has been for decades now.

The real argument, then, is where "personhood" begins. Any point after fertilization is going to be inherently subjective. One can say that "point X" is the point where we should assign "personhood" and protect that life, but what about one day before? What about one week before? Why is a human life worthy of protection at "point X" but not a mere 24 hours earlier? It makes no sense. The only logical place to protect human life is the moment that human life is created - at fertilization. Any other point is going to be a political decision, not a scientific determination.

This is because God has placed His image on mankind, and therefore He has forbidden us from ending a human life. As our Creator, God is sovereign over all human actions whether we submit to His authority or not. We have governments as agents of God, therefore, to protect the weak from being oppressed by the strong. There is no greater example of this than the wickedness of legalized abortion.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.