Sunday, October 01, 2006

“Pro-Choice” Distortions Kill Human Beings



Today is Life Chain Sunday and Life Chains will be on the streets of our nation, as well as the United States, witnessing to the sanctity of human life. As a participant in the Big Blue Wave Pro-Life Blogburst, organized by Suzanne at Big Blue Wave, my goal in this posting will be to expose the evil distortions of pro-abortion "logic."

Mention the word “abortion” to most people and chances are they’ll think of anything except what abortion actually is. The word has lost almost all its meaning because “pro-choice” advocates have succeeded in crafting half truths, slogans and emotional appeals to move the focus away from the central question raised by abortion.

So what is the central question we need to ask?

Stand To Reason, a California group devoted to clarifying the important issues of our day, uses the following illustration to identify that crucial question.

If your child comes up behind you while you’re working and asks, “Mommy/Daddy, can I kill this?” what one question must you ask before you can answer his question? Think carefully for a moment. Before you answer the question “Can I kill this?” you must first ask the question “What is it?” If it’s a spider or a cockroach, you might say it’s ok to smash it. If it’s the funny looking boy down the street, you’ll need to sit down for a long talk with your child.

This illustration plainly cautions that before we can determine whether or not it is moral to kill something, we must know what it is that we are killing. Abortion kills something that was alive. Is it right or is it wrong? Again, we must answer the question, “What is being killed?” i.e. what is the unborn? If the unborn is not a human being, if it’s simply an extraneous blob of tissue, an optional part of a woman’s body like the appendix, or even a “potential” human, then we needn’t be concerned with justifying the killing. Go ahead and have the abortion. In fact have as many as you like provided medical care ensures your continued good health.

However, this is precisely where the pro-abortion lobby is incoherent. They defend abortion on the basis of choice, privacy, economics, “It’s my body,” unwanted children, physical defect, rape, incest, etc., such defense resulting last year in the violent deaths of over 100,000 unborns in Canada alone. Nonetheless these justifications are irrelevant because they avoid the real issue, abortion itself, and the question “What is the unborn?” The people at STR once again put things in perspective for us with the following imaginary dialogue.

Abortion Advocate (AA): Abortion is a private choice between a woman and her doctor.

Pro-Lifer (PL): Do we allow parents to abuse their little children if it is done in private?

AA: That’s not fair. The children you’re talking about are human beings. I’m talking about a fetus.

PL: Then the issue isn’t really privacy, but rather whether the fetus is a human being.

AA: But lots of poor women can’t afford another child.

PL: Let me ask you a question. When human beings get expensive, can we kill them?

AA: Well, no, but aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a human being.

PL: So, once again, the real question is “What is the unborn?” Is the fetus a human being?

AA: Why do you insist on being so simplistic? This is a very complex issue involving women who are forced to make agonizing decisions.

PL: The decision may be agonizing for the mother, I admit that. But it’s not a complex moral issue. It’s wrong to kill innocent human beings simply because they’re in the way and can’t defend themselves.

AA: Killing defenseless human beings is one thing. Aborting a fetus is another.

PL: So we’re agreed: If abortion actually killed a defenseless human being, then the issue wouldn’t be complex, right? The question we still need to answer is, “What is the unborn?”

AA: Enough with your abstract philosophy. Let’s talk about real life. Do you really think a woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world?

PL: The homeless are unwanted. Can we kill them?

AA: But it’s not the same.

PL: That’s the issue, isn’t it? Are they the same? If the unborn are truly human beings, like the homeless, then we can’t just kill them to get them out of the way. We’re back to my first question, “What is the unborn?”

AA: But you still shouldn’t force your morality on women.

PL: You’d feel very comfortable “forcing your morality” on a mother who was physically abusing her two-year-old, wouldn’t you?

AA: But that’s not the same.

PL Why not?

AA: Because you’re assuming the unborn are human, like a two-year-old.

PL: And you’re assuming they’re not. You see, this is not really about privacy or economic hardship or complexity or unwanted children or forced morality. It’s about whether the unborn are human beings. Answer the question “What is the unborn?” and you’ve answered the others.

And if the unborn is a real human being, then abortion kills an innocent child simply because that child is in the way and can’t defend him/herself. And if the unborn child is as fully human in his or her essential nature as you and I, then he or she deserves the same legal protections as you and I.

And let's be very clear about this: Science, philosophy, and moral common sense, to say nothing of two thousand years of Christian teaching and tradition, convincingly argue in favour of the full humanity of the unborn.

Beware of the confused logic of abortion advocates who must first destroy the humanity of the unborn before extinguishing their bodily life.

5 comments:

Angela Messenger said...

That interview you quoted really shows how stupid the "choice" side is. Thanks for sharing that!

gideon said...

Thanks Angela, the "pro-choice" position is a totally "poor-choice" failure.

Angela Messenger said...

Poor choice - wow! I am going to use that one!

SUZANNE said...

THAT IS PRECISELY THE ISSUE!

This is why I think we should call it the "fetal rights" issue, not the abortion issue.

gideon said...

Hmmm, "fetal rights"... you might be onto something there Suzanne, since the word "abortion" has lost practically all its meaning.