The “pro-choice” crowd isn’t very good at handling the humanity of abortion’s targets, or recognizing the choices of those who contemplated abortion, but decided to bring their children into the world. They invest much effort in confusing the unborn with the unliving. It is wise to mistrust an argument predicated on ignorance of the obvious.
~ John Hayward, Human Events, January 23
[Photo via kasamaproject.org]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Of course they do these things. This reminds me of a piece I read recently saying that all pro-life arguments were framed around the unborn, as if that was a bad thing. It makes sense that the oppressors want to make the oppressed invisible. If nobody sees the ones being oppressed then who is going to care? We shouldn’t be surprised when the abortion apologists try to drive the conversation away from the unborn. They don’t want to be faced with the victims of their ideology.
Alice, that’s so true.
I’ve never had a conversation with a pro-choicer that didn’t either dehumanize and downplay the humanity of the unborn or disregard them altogether.
And I also find it interesting that every single time we use science to support the fact that the unborn ARE human, pro-choicers suddenly grow philosophical, pondering “what actually makes us human??” I’ll give you a big DUH – it’s called DNA. Anyone who questions that has an agenda for oppression.
Kel–preach it, sister!
While this picture and quote are very true – we must remember not to act like this, ourselves.
There was a group of young boys at the March yesterday – college aged, I think – who were chanting against the pro-aborts saying “We can’t hear you, We can’t hear you!” over and over.
Not mature.
But later they chanted “We love you and so does your mom.” I thought that was sweet :)
I must second Amber on this one.
While we must naturally be wary of arguments that, from their outset, found themselves on obviously false premises, ignoring them is an entirely different matter.
We must keep in mind that their views, as warped as they may be, are still earnestly held by many people. I dare say that many of these people have never heard a confidently-delivered rebuttal to their position.
Just as with the poor and the sick, we must be prepared to meet people where they are instead of merely calling them from a distance.
Besides, as I’m sure many of you have experienced, it’s fittingly common that pro-abortion arguments (especially when presented by groups of people) have a tendency to upend themselves when they’re clarified and applied to life in general, so encouraging pro-aborts to attempt to articulate their position can often be a very effective method of opening their eyes to the evil that has deceived them.
“If you never allow people to speak their minds, how can you ever hope to change them?”
Kel, Maestro: isn’t it frustrating? I JUST had that conversation with someone and pointed out that unequivocally, a new individual of a sexually-reproducing species comes into existence at union of sperm and egg. Whether that be a human, a fish, a dog, or even plant species, that is what occurs. Every science textbook without wavering asserts that. And of course, the argument shifts to the philosophy of being ‘human’. How does a doctrine of philosophy change what is objective truth established by science? Philosophy is as fickle as the wind, and can change at a moment’s notice. Philosophy was used to justify denying women the vote, denying freedom to slaves, and denying life to Jews during the holocaust. All because those prevailing ‘philosophies’ declared that each of those classes was somehow ‘less human’ than another class. I’d rather base my observations on objective science, instead of a doctrine that at any given moment could change and render me a sub-human being. Philosophy is ever-changing. Science, and what it determines to be a life or even a human life, never will.
Lyssie - actually you can’t make a complete pro-life argument based simply on biology, because what biology lacks is an understanding of intrinsic value. For that you do have to turn to philosophy – which is effectively a logical, rational world-view.
I explain these two parts using the acronym BioSLED. Bio – Biology, SLED = Size, Level of development, Environment and Dependency. Here’s a link to the complete argument:
http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument
BTW – in order for arguments to be true, they have to depend upon physical, concrete truth – that is all arguments must rest upon physical reality, and what happens in the real world. This visible (objective) aspect doesn’t change because someone plays semantics, or tries to twist it into something which cannot be observed. Doing so only creates invalid/irrational arguments.
Scientific truth claims can be corrupted, but facts are incorruptible. The pro-life argument presented via BioSLED is completely valid – meaning other claims are false.
Don’t be afraid of taking on someone else’s skewed world-view.
Thanks, Chris. But the point I was trying to make is that they wouldn’t even acknowledge the biological truths that a new organism comes into existence in a sexually reproducing species when the two gametes come together. I couldn’t even GET to the intrinsic value of humanity portion of it because they wouldn’t even accept the FACTS as facts, because they treated them as mere opinions. They then, because they refused to address the biological arguments, moved onto philosophy to argue that ‘being a human organism doesn’t mean being A human being’ because….*insert inconsistent bullsh*t here*. They proceeded to list all sorts of arbitrary characteristics that they happened to believe creates a human, but of course, not one of them agrees at which point a human organism attains being a human being. Fickle philosophy. I don’t disregard philosophy as a whole, because you’re right, that’s what allows us to determine that human life has intrinsic value. But I do regard philosophical positions that result in classes of humans being labeled ‘less than human’ for the purposes of killing them electively as absolute crap. Thanks again, I will bookmark the link. :)
Agreed Lyssie – groundless philosophical views are worthless. There is little sense discussing the issue with someone who fails to consider reason and facts and merely wants to trumpet their own ideas despite ample sound evidence to the contrary. I sometimes forget to refrain from engaging them, and when I do they will twist what I say beyond recognition.