The Abortion Debate is Only Meant to Divide Us

I don't agree with the title of this post. Those are the words used by a friend of mine following a Facebook discussion about abortion. This is my response.

Debate is not meant to divide us. The nature of debate is not divisive. On the contrary, debate is healthy. It is how we arrive at the truth; not your truth but THE truth. Debate is a conversation.

What is divisive is instituting ridiculous travel bands on states that pass strict abortion laws or those that pass same-sex bathroom restriction laws! What is divisive is kicking people out of your restaurant because of political differences! What is divisive is forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay couple!

What is divisive is the manner in which people on one side of a debate treat their debate partners. For example: Efforts to stifle debate through straight-up banning of speakers i.e. college campuses or dismissing those with differing opinions by refusing to answer simple questions or stooping to character assassination by disparaging and degrading those with whom you disagree, questioning their intentions with shallow, strawman arguments and name-calling. In my experience, those who end a debate in this manner know in their heart that they cannot win it and rather than be pushed to challenge their beliefs, they in essence, forfeit or surrender in order to avoid the possibility that their world view may need some deeper reflection.

The abortion debate is no different. When someone says, the abortion debate is only meant to divide us, this implies one of two things:

#1 – “You should just shut up and agree with me!” or
#2 - “I cannot win this debate on its merits, therefore, the debate must end.”

Assuming that, “the abortion debate is only meant to divide us” statement was uttered by a pro-abortion advocate, the only alternative is to agree to disagree, remain silent and allow and accept the practice of ending innocent lives to continue and, of course, everything will be hunky-dory because we will no longer be divided.

Or here are some alternatives: How about we continue the conversation? Let’s call it a “conversation” rather than a debate so we won’t be divided. So let’s continue the conversation until the pro-abortion advocates can persuade enough Americans that there is nothing wrong with the practice of ending innocent human life.

Or let’s continue the conversation until pro-abortionists answer the following questions in an intellectually honest, non-filibuster manner.

• Is murder wrong? If yes, what is your definition of murder? 
• Is life worth protecting/preserving? If yes, what is your definition of life? And when does life begin? 
• Are you in favor of partial birth abortion? If no, why? If yes, why? 
• What article and clause in the Constitution grants women the right to an abortion? 
• What article and clause in the Constitution enumerates the federal government the power to dictate abortion laws? 
• Are you opposed to an overturning of Roe v. Wade? If so, why? 
• Are you opposed to each state passing their own abortion laws? 
• And most importantly - What about the baby? 

Let’s discuss morality, not worse case scenarios of rape and incest.

Let’s discuss the baby, not the woman’s right to choose.

Let’s discuss when life begins and whether it is worthy of protection, not throwing platitudes about men trying to control women’s bodies.

Let’s discuss the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, not make ridiculous arguments claiming that human dignity and human rights are being violated when abortions are restricted.

If the abortion debate makes you anxious or uneasy to the point that your best option is to end the debate, I don’t think it is much of a stretch to assume that you, of all people, should continue your quest for the truth about this life or death issue.

Tale of Two Altars

American liberals continue to win the fight to make killing babies in the womb as easy as possible.

They opposed a Texas law that required abortion clinics to have admitting rights to area hospitals - ostensibly making abortions safer (you know, avoiding back-alley abortions that Nancy Pelosi is always talking about). 

Why did they oppose the law? Because it reduced the number of abortions! 

Why is reducing the number of abortions a bad thing? Because abortion is the altar at which American liberals worship. What about the baby?????

On the other hand, the Pro-Life camp opposes abortion because the altar at which we worship finds that all life is made in the image of God and, therefore, is valuable and worth saving. 

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT

Another Typical, Flawed, and Intellectually Dishonest Pro-Abortion Op-Ed

Another typical, flawed, and intellectually dishonest pro-abortion op-ed offered by obstetrician-gynecologist, Matthew Zerden, M.D.
 

I am a doctor. I know better than you.
I call this the "Expert Witness Defense." Zerden infers that, since he is an expert (a doctor), his opinion carries more weight than others. Pro-abortion women sometimes invoke this defense in the abortion debate. Since men cannot give birth, their opinion on the subject should be discounted.

Also consider the fact that Zerden makes his living partially off of performing abortions. He has a vested interest in the practice being continued!

Abortion is safe. We must continue to focus on keeping the patient safe.

"As a physician, my No. 1 priority is my patients’ safety. Abortion is already extremely safe."

d more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/12/16/4408254_nc-needs-to-continue-to-let-patient.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

The pro-abortion argument never mentions the baby! How safe is the abortion procedure for the baby whose life is being ended? For their argument to succeed, they must dehumanize or ignore the baby.

You pro-lifers are so insensitive! Did you know that one in three women have an abortion over their lifetime? "That is someone you know and love."
If Zerden were intellectually honest, he would cite where he got this outrageous statistic. But let's play along with him! He infers that because this repulsive act, one that murders babies in the womb is routinely performed, we should sit down and shut up because we may hurt the feelings of a women who had an abortion. Carrying his logic further, we are surrounded by these women; it is impossible not to encounter one of them. One in three! Really?

Using that logic, we should never condemn adultery, pornography, divorce, or having children out of wedlock since these things are so pervasive in our society!

He applauds decisions made based on science and medical evidence rather than politics.

Again, in the interest of intellectual honesty, this argument would be more accurately stated by applauding decisions made based on science and medical evidence ONLY IN REGARDS TO THE MOTHER!

Zerden completely ignores the science and medical evidence related to the baby. Such as: once the egg is fertilized, a life that previously did not exist is formed! Or perhaps Dr. Zerden could walk the reader through the medical evidence of fetal pain and fetal development? Maybe he could share with the reader pictures of an aborted baby or in utero ultrasound pictures so we can scientifically observe the fingers, toes, eyes, and heart of the non-human, clump of cells? Maybe he could show us a video of a partial birth abortion to scientifically demonstrate the lengths to which some in his profession were willing to go to make a buck?

The bottom line in the abortion debate: 
"WHAT ABOUT THE BABY?" is the question we must pose to our pro-choice, pro-abortion friends and family. They must account for the baby in their arguments!

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be Pro-Choice

I write this as an aid to Pro-Life advocates who are afraid to voice their opinion when face-to-face with proponents of abortion.

The easiest way to show even the staunchest pro-abortion advocate the errors of their way is to ask lots of questions.

Below are a few examples:

#1 - Do you agree with the following phrase from The Declaration of Independence: "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"?  

• Key points: When does life begin? Who protects the baby? If you can get them to define that, then we should protect the baby's right to liberty, freedom and pursuit of happiness from that point forward. The reason we have laws against murder is because, as a society, we believe life has innate (intrinsic) value and, therefore, must be protected. How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate (intrinsic) value of the little human being inside her?  .     

#2 - Do you believe a mother should be granted "the choice" to kill their 3-year old child? 2-year old? 1-year old? Six-month-old? One-day old? One-minute old? 

• Key point: Of course they will answer "No" to all choices. After all that would be murder! 

#3 - At what point does the mother have "the choice" to kill a fetus?

1. Any time before live birth?
2. Up until the heart beat is present?
3. The 1st trimester?
4. 2nd trimester?
5. Up until it can survive outside the womb? 

• Key point: Wherever they draw the line, ask them to explain how they arrived at that response. Keep in mind that it is arbitrary. 

#4 - Ask them if they support partial birth abortion, a procedure where the fetus is pulled feet first by the abortionist until the back of the head is visible at which point the abortionists jams a pair of scissors into the baby's skull, the scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole while a suction catheter is inserted into the hole and the child's brains are sucked out causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. 

• Key point: Anyone who supports this procedure is sick. If that isn't murder, nothing is.

#5 - Ask them to explain why they responded the way they did to that question to #4.

• Key point: It is important for pro-abortionists to articulate their stances. Most have never been challenged. The intellectual exercise of defending their position is often enough to get them to think twice. 

#6 – Ask them if they believe water-boarding should be banned as an interrogation technique for terrorist suspects. Ask them to explain their answer.

• Key point: For those who answer "Yes" to the question, if they are intellectually honest, they will begin to see the arbitrary lines they have been drawing to support their political and ethical positions. 

#7 – Ask them if they are opposed to a state or federal law that requires all women seeking an abortion to receive a sonogram examination or a mandatory waiting period prior to the abortion procedure. Ask them to explain why or why not.

• Key point: Here we get to the heart of the issue. If they answer "No", you are dealing with someone unwilling to even consider protecting life. All you can hope for is that they realize how zealous their support for abortion is given that they will not even give the mother a chance to reconsider. 

#8 - Ask them if your tax dollars should be used to perform abortions? If they answer "Yes", ask them if we can use half of those dollars or get matching funds to educate the woman about their options (adoption or keep the baby).

• Key point: See #7. 

In the end, you will find that the intellectual gymnastics required to be a proponent of abortion are quite extraordinary. The arbitrary lines in the sand, the numerous definitions of when life begins, the emotional "rights-of-the-mother" and "the-government-has-no-right-to-tell-a-woman-what-to-do-with-their-body" arguments all serve to muck up the argument. They conveniently forget the rights of the baby. 

Finally, if given the opportunity to express why you are Pro-Life, I would like to offer a couple of simple responses. 

#1 - I believe life begins at conception and, therefore, it should be protected like any other life. The reason I believe life begins at conception is because, at the moment of conception, something was created where nothing was before. That something is a human life. Human life should be valued above all else and we should do everything we can to protect it. 

#2 -  “If it is acceptable to take the life of an innocent human being on one side of the birth canal, why forbid it on the other? A 7-inch journey cannot miraculously transform a ‘nonhuman tissue mass’ into a valuable human being.” Gregory Koukl 

Do not get sucked into an argument about government involvement or the woman's right to their own body. This is not of legislative argument but one of the heart. Your goal is to simply make them explain their positions and, hopefully, stir something in their heart to reconsider their position.

Good luck.