This is Sick

It looks like the pro-choice crowd is so pleased with having the ability to end a human life on a whim that they are actually celebrating the 38th anniversary of the day they were granted that “right.” January 21st is the sixth-annual Blog for Choice Day.

It’s not going to stop with blogs, either. Pro-choicers are called to use Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites to get the pro-choice message out.

Jill Stanek has announced a counter-initiative called “Ask Them What They Mean by Choice Day” for the same day. Each time a pro-lifer encounters pro-choice rhetoric, we should (as the name suggests) ask them what they mean by “choice.” Of course choice is code for “kill the baby.” Just like the term “reproductive rights” is code for “right to decide if my child lives or dies.”

Last I checked, the power of death and life belonged only to God, not to us. Short of saving the mother’s life (and even then I can still see a serious moral dilemma, but we live in a fallen world where sometimes choices like that become necessary), I can’t think of a single justifiable reason to abort a child that doesn’t use a lot of wild suppositions and far-out “what if” statements. Like, “What if the baby doesn’t get adopted and ends up in an abusive foster care home?” Or, “What if the baby is born with a terminal disease?” And so on. Those just dodge the issue.

Look for a post this Friday refuting some pro-choice positions that try to use the Bible against our pro-life stance. Under consideration will be Numbers 5:11-31 and 2 Samuel 11:15b-23. I’ll also contrast some philosophical details with scientific details of life.

About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on January 19, 2011, in Morality, Pro-Life Issues and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. We are pleased, of course, that we have ended the slavery of women to their reproductive organs… and to men.

    I don’t believe for a moment you care one whit for the “unborn child”. I don’t see that you really care about the life, health, happiness or well-being of *born* children. I think you just hate and fear women and want to keep them as slaves.

    • I think that you just threw out a litany of unproved assumptions because my post has stirred an emotional response in you. I further think that you are trying to get a rise out of me, and nothing more. That would fit with my definition of “trolling,” which I laid out in my comment policy.

      It’s been a while since I’ve had a troll. This might be fun.

  2. Well clearly your mind’s made up. Anyone in the mood to go kill some babies?

  3. “Last I checked, the power of death and life belonged only to God, not to us.”

    I have a very good friend who suggested this blog to me. While reading, I just wanted to clarify something. Based on the sentence above, are you also against capital punishment/death penalty?

    • Capital punishment is different, believe it or not. This isn’t special pleading on my part.

      Special pleading violates the Principle of Relevant Difference. If I can rationally explain why one group (unborn children) should be treated differently than another group (death row inmates), then I am justified in selectively applying an otherwise inviolate rule. If I’m unable to rationally justify the difference, then it is the fallacy of special pleading. Let’s take a moment to understand the difference.

      First, understand that all humans possess a right to life. In an abortion, the mother of the child unilaterally has decided that this child doesn’t deserve a chance to live. In our society, humane and nonviolent alternatives (like adoption) exist. In the vast majority of abortions, the expectant mother just doesn’t want to be pregnant (experiencing discomfort, limitation on activity, and having to abstaining from alcohol and follow a special diet) and give birth (experiencing the hours of pure pain, exhaustion, and punishment). In other words, it’s more convenient to end the pregnancy (i.e. kill the child), that way Mom just continues to live a normal, unfettered life. She made the choice to lie down with a man and experience some sexual pleasure, but she gets to duck a potential consequence at the expense of an innocent life.

      There are cases in which an abortion may be justified. For example, if the pregnancy will kill the mother if carried to term. But cases of rape, incest, or genetic abnormality do not qualify as a justified abortion. Rape is obviously something that couldn’t be avoided. Though the sickness and fragility that comes with pregnancy weren’t desired by the mother at this juncture, nonetheless they should be paltry compared to knowing that a baby is coming and will live the best life mom can engineer, and in cases of rape that will likely mean adoption so mom doesn’t have a constant reminder of her night of terror. Some forms of incest can be avoided, and I remember a thread on an atheist blog (that has an even more liberal extreme than most) that said incest laws ought to be done away with if the parties consent. So, if a child comes from incest, then that child ought to be reared by his or her parents. Saying, “Well, I had a baby by my first cousin, and that’s gross, so let’s abort” would definitely be a case of special pleading. Avoiding copulation with a first cousin would be the more appropriate (and saner) method to employ.

      I heard once that 99% of abortions are done as a matter of convenience; i.e. the mother of the child just doesn’t want the hassle of being pregnant and the pain of giving birth, let alone be “punished” with a baby for the next 18+ years, all for a night of amazing sex. In other words, “I want the pleasure and the fun, but not the baggage that could go along with it.” This is the same mentality that justifies the abortion of babies with potential genetic abnormalities.

      Capital punishment for murder isn’t the same as an abortion, not by a long shot. Killing an unborn child, one that hasn’t made a single moral decision, is as wrong as a murderer who kills another person who just happens to be in the murderer’s way. Get it? Abortions occur because the baby is somehow “in the way,” which is the same mentality as the financially strapped husband who murders his wife for the insurance money.

      It boils down to what I mentioned earlier: right to life. The hypothetical husband has violated his wife’s right to life because he needs extra money. We would both agree that financial gain is no reason to murder a spouse. So, in that case, I can justify taking his right to life.

      Being in favor of capital punishment is still consistent with a pro-life stance because treating convicted murderers differently than unborn children can be rationally justified without resorting to the fallacy of special pleading. It would only be an inconsistent position if I couldn’t provide a rational justification for the difference.

      • I completely understand your argument, and the differences between abortion and capital punishment. However, based on the explanation that you gave, you should be careful how you word certain things. The sentence that I pointed out in your post is not a true statement.

        Your argument for being in favor of capital punishment proves that the power of death and life does not belong to God alone. There are extreme circumstances that allow for humans to control the power of death for those who deserve it. Also, based on your argument, I can also conclude that the humans can control the power of life in situations where a cancer patient can receive medication to help extend their time on this earth. I do agree with both of these points, however, I am merely trying to point out the fallacy of the sentence in question.

        In conclusion, your use of the sentence, “Last I checked, the power of death and life belonged only to God, not to us.” is not a true statement, because there are situations in which the power of death and life do NOT belong only to God.

  4. Last I checked, the power of death and life belonged only to God, not to us.

    Oh, so there *is* a place where we can check, and get a publicly-verifiable answer? Or are you placing authority for the question in human-written scripture?

    • Scripture, sir. You and I have a very, very different idea of what is meant by human-written Scripture. Check the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy here. That will give you a better idea of where I’m coming from.

      • Not publicly verifiable, then. An appeal to the authority of the humans who wrote the scripture, and an appeal to the authority of whoever chooses which scripture is authoritative.

        So, “last I checked, any non-Muslim will spend an eternity in the flames of hell” has just as much authority as your statement.

  1. Pingback: Ignorance of Pro-Choice « Josiah Concept Ministries

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: