New Stanek column on WND: “Pro-abort PBA paradox”
When exactly is a pregnancy terminated?
Abortion proponents attempting to answer that question should run into a problem. By trying to protect one flank, they’ve exposed another.
To be consistent, the abortion industry’s definition of when a pregnancy begins should agree with its definition of when it ends. But the two don’t jibe.
For over 30 years, abortion proponents have maintained pregnancy begins when an embryo implants in the uterus and ends after a completed delivery.
According to pro-aborts, a fallopian tube carrying a newly created embryo has no bearing on pregnancy. It merely provides the portal of entry into the uterus.
How then can they claim the portal of exit, the birth canal, has anything to do with pregnancy either? Once the baby is outside the uterus, they should consider the pregnancy over, terminated. This becomes problematic when considering partial birth abortions.
Read my column today, “Pro-abort PBA paradox,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
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.
You know, feminists just may adopt this black widow logic as well.
I must go hide the hammer now. I see your point, yet please do not let my wife know.
Talk about opening Pandora
Hi, Jill:
Liberals don’t THINK, ergo, they are not persuaded by logical arguments, such as the one you presented.
You must manipulate their emotions to persuade them, appeal to their emotions.
Well, that’s hard for reason-driven folks to do. Liberals are expertly trained in using emotions to “win” an argument, because it comes
naturally to them, having had little or no training in THINKING:
http://foundersamerica.blogspot.com/
The BIG MISTAKE pro-lifers make is using liberals’ terms in the abortion debates. For example, pro-lifers use the term “abortion,” rather than to conceive and use a term representative of what’s actually occurring, such as “killing wombed babies.”
Yeah, it’s a bit laborious to keep using that three-word description, but it would – eventually – change the public’s consciousness towards supporting an end to the KILLING OF WOMBED BABIES.
Ed, Deac:
I know pro-aborts could care less about consistency or logic. My hope would be to force them to defend their dichotomy in court.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Excellent logical observation. This is a good example of illustrating facts, which undermine the abortion vocabulary.
I believe that a solid and well defined vocabulary could be an awesome tool in the battle for life. It is, after all, truth we are attempting to clarify and communicate. Good communication is most often simple and repeated.
Credibility comes with well thought out and clearly articulated points that serve as examples and which are always supported by these well defined fundamental tenets.
Keep up the good work and God bless you and yours!
Funny thing… IMHO, libs DO believe in the death penalty… for the terrible crime of being “unwanted” (the unborn), or the handicapped (Terri Schiavo). Those who commit the crimes above are NOT entitled to years of appeals.
Minor offenses such as murder and rape, must NEVER be punished with death.
Go figure????