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.

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!