This page has moved to a new address.

<$BlogTitle$> <$BlogItemTitle$>

Candle in the Night

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Pro-Life Answers

Wow, it’s been a long time since I last posted and this one is going to be a doozy!  I recently became engaged in a debate regarding a hot topic in our country, especially right now as election season draws near.  The topic of abortion.  I want to preface this with a story.  I’ve been asked many times how I became involved in the pro-life movement.  I’ve always been pro-life and have always voted pro-life, but I really wasn’t all that involved until the past couple of years.  Brian and I attend a church that is VERY pro-life.  As a church, they attend vigils, preach pro-life messages, and try to be involved in pro-life organizations.  Brian and I thought all these things were good, but we’d never been incredibly active and were fairly passive about being on the front lines.  Whenever a prayer vigil would come up, we’d think, “Oh, we should go to that,” but then would forget or something “more important” would come up.  Then, one evening, we were headed out to eat dinner and came to an intersection where we saw people standing on the sides of the road holding signs.  The realization came over both of us that it was our branch.  I ducked low and we hoped the light would change quickly.  I guess that wasn’t God’s plan because we were spotted.  Our fellow church members smiled and waved and we waved back.  We decided then and there to never miss a vigil again.  It’s grown from there, and we really feel God’s calling to be on the front lines fighting for the rights of the unborn. 

That leads me to this debate.  I want to share with you some of the pro-choice arguments that are widespread and some solid pro-life answers, but first I want to give a bit of advice. Pray.  Pray every day that when you come in contact with people who are pro-choice, you’ll have an opportunity to discuss their stance on the issue.  And pray for guidance in every word you speak.  Only God can change hearts and we need to be in earnest prayer that He will do so. 

Pro-Choice Argument: There’s no proof of when a soul enters the body.

Pro-Life Answer: The issue of the soul is really irrelevant to the abortion argument.  There really is no “proof” aside from scripture, but if you are debating with a Christian, here are some solid arguments. 

As a Christian, I have all the evidence I need of when the soul enters the human body.  Scripture tells us that it is at conception.  Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she would (future tense) conceive.  She then hurried to get to Elizabeth. John the Baptist (who is in the sixth month in Elizabeth’s womb) responds to the presence of Jesus within Mary by leaping for joy.  Allowing for travel, Mary would have been no more than 8-10 days past conception.  Jesus was not even fully implanted in Mary’s womb when John responded to His presence.  (Luke 1) This along with many other scriptures about God forming us in the womb clearly shows how God feels about the matter. 

Pro-Choice Argument: No one can prove that what is inside the womb is human.

Pro-Life Answer: The fact that the being in the womb is human and should be given all the rights of any other human being can be made from a secular, scientific point of view as well as a philosophical standpoint.  Really, science can’t tell us to value human life and when; we have an obligation in society to make those philosophical decisions.  Science just provides us with the data we need to make those decisions.  Many on the pro-choice side will argue that a child is simply part of the mother.  This is false.  Science tells us that as soon as fertilization takes place, a new being is formed.  That being has DNA totally separate from the mother and father.  It is a living, self-directing being.  The only thing it needs to survive is nutrition and a suitable environment.  Just like you and me!  There is really no question in the world of science when human life begins.  The question is a moral one as to when we value that life.  Many people look at the words embryo and fetus and see them as calling the being non-human.  This isn’t the case at all.  It is just another phase of human development.  Just as there are babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, and adults.  A zygote is the first stage of human development, followed by an embryo, then fetus, then infant, baby, toddler, child, teenager, and adult.  These stages can be broken down further, but this illustrates an important point.  Calling someone something other than a human being doesn’t make it so. 

Although science shows us that at fertilization, the being is human, for the sake of argument, I’ll go one step further.  The heart of a baby in the womb begins to beat at 21 days past conception.  There are brainwaves at about 42 days past conception.  Abortion literally stops a beating heart.  That is how a person (outside the womb) is pronounced dead.  Also, even if you doubt science, which calls the being a separate entity at fertilization, no one can doubt that this beating heart and these brain waves are not yours.  Let’s not be silly.  You did not grow yourself a new brain or a new heart in your uterus.  They grew from a totally separate being. 

Pro-Choice Argument: If you believe there is a human baby in the womb, it is your responsibility to prove that, otherwise we don’t have a responsibility to protect it. 

Pro-Life Answer: Many on the pro-choice side cling a lot to the idea that the burden of proof lies with those on the pro-choice side of the argument.  Their thinking is flawed here.  The burden of proof always lies with the one who wishes to destroy. In the case of slavery, the slave holder must be the one to prove that the one they are enslaving is less than human.  (The slave holders in our country wanted to prove that their slaves were less than human.  Obviously they could not as their premise was false, and great injustice was done until government and society intervened.)  The same is true with killing someone because their “quality of life” is not good.  We must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a prisoner is heinously guilty before they are executed.  We must prove that a patient is brain dead before the plug is pulled.  If a building demolisher came to you and told you they were about to demolish a building and they’re pretty sure there’s no one inside, that wouldn’t be good enough.  They would have to prove absolute vacancy before they demolished the building because if there was someone inside, it would be murder.  Also, I believe that most people would try to stop the person and convince them that the burden of proof lies with them.  They must prove the building is void of life before demolishing it.  The same is true in this situation.  You must prove with 100% certainty that the baby is not a human being if you want to destroy it.  If you’re not sure where life begins, it is still your duty to protect the life that could possibly be in the womb or prove that it is not life at all. 

Pro-Choice Argument: Women have rights.  They have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” and the matter inside them shouldn’t take away that right.

Pro-Life Answer: They are right in that every being has the right to “the pursuit of happiness”.  But life is the first right.  You need life to have liberty.  You need liberty to be able to pursue happiness.  The least right cannot overwhelm the greatest or else societal chaos ensues.  That thinking is incredibly dangerous.  It is saying that your happiness trumps someone else’s life and unalienable rights.  You cannot kill to satisfy your happiness.  

Pro-Choice Argument: Abortion is legal.  States can’t make laws against it. 

Pro-Life Answer: This is a big one right now as many states are currently working to place regulations on abortion clinics.  Yes, currently federal law does state that you can kill your unborn child.  In our country, we have faced unjust federal laws before and these laws have been dealt with in the same manner as what this law in Virginia is doing.  Slavery was allowed under federal law.  Some states chose to implement slavery and other states put restrictions so slavery could not be allowed.  Eventually, federal law was changed and a war ensued.  The point here is that abortion, like slavery, is federally protected, but states still have the right to enact legislation that puts restrictions in place.  Even if a state wanted to say, “Yes, this is murder. Let’s all agree it’s murder,” they have only one option at this time.  That option is to put regulations in place that make it more difficult to perform the murder.  This is the right of each individual state until the states lose their rights which will not happen as long as the constitution is upheld. 


Special thanks to my pro-choice friend who provided a stirring debate and got me thinking about my answers to all these questions.  Also, to my wonderful brother-in-law whose words I may have used several times as he has a way of putting things that helps them to make sense and be meaningful.  Also, I must give credit to the 180 movie.  I use some of the same analogies they use because I think they are so powerful.  I pray these words will touch your hearts.  It's time some progress was made in the pro-life movement.  


Labels:

1 Comments:

At February 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>Pro-Choice Argument: No one can prove that what is inside the womb is human.


Pro-Life Answer: The fact that the being in the womb is human and should be given all the rights of any other human being can be made from a secular, scientific point of view as well as a philosophical standpoint.<<<


Your PC friends make crappy arguments, LOL! As a PCer, myself, this was the only one worth addressing.

Going on purely secualar reasonings, there is a decision called "Shimp vs McFall" which states no one person has the right to be biologically supported by another person, even if it causes the death of the person in need. This was a case of a man that backed out of donating an organ to his cousin. So, even born persons do not have the right to use the bodily fluids and organs of another person to survive. How would you argue that the unborn, which are not even legal persons, should have a right that born persons do not?

I'll come back in a few days to check out your response.

BTW, I am glad that you take the time to really think about the arguments presented to you and try to think of logical rebuttals. Not a lot of PLers do that.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home