Pro-life is a TRUTH & Pro-Choice is a LIE
The following mock debate is based on issues of morality. Notice how each stereotypical candidate answers, and then compare their answers to the real answer of our true political leaders.
And from our elected officials…
She obviously didn’t check the bible about it and her understanding of the early church fathers is WAY off.
“Wikipedia” Joe forgot to check his facts as well.
Barack Obama on Late Term Abortion:
How political was that?
Paul Ryan describes a Partial Birth Abortion
And from Ryan’s website:
“I support the rights of the unborn child. Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children.” – Paul Ryan
Mitt Romney explains why he original political position WAS WRONG about abortion:
Get the connection? Why do we champion the morality of issues like rape, incest, domestic abuse, etc. and yet we refuse to acknowledge that abortion is a moral issue that affects not only the mother but the life of the human being growing inside of her?
Now, check this clip where the pro-life position is proven to be scientifically and philosophically TRUE!
If you vote for someone who is in favor of abortions and participates in pro-abortion legislation, you are just as guilty as those who choose and perform abortions.
Why is abortion the murder of a human being?
The following is from Scott Klusendorf
Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.
In other words, arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. Would anyone that you know support a mother killing her toddler in the name of “choice and who decides?” Clearly, if the unborn are human, like toddlers, we shouldn’t kill them in the name of choice anymore than we would a toddler. Again, this debate is about just one question: What is the unborn?
At this point, some of you may object that those comparisons are not fair—that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a toddler. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn, like toddlers, members of the human family? That is the one issue that matters.
We can be vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. We can support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices that we can and should fully support for women. But some choices are wrong; like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No one should be allowed to choose that.
Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.
Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be.
Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address.
Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today.
SIZE: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.
LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than adults. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
ENVIRONMENT: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.
DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.
In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.
I challenge you to be intellectually honest:
Q - Do you think that birth makes the unborn human?
A – If so, how does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn?
Q - Does brain development or higher consciousness makes us human?
A – If so, would you agree with Joseph Fletcher that those with an IQ below 20 or perhaps 40 should be declared non-persons? If not, why not?
Some of you are going to ignore the scientific and philosophic case presented for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. I remind you that if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests.
So then ask yourself – Is your position on abortion one of logic and science or one of self-interest.
This last video is of Scott Klusendorf speaking at Gordon College in Massachusetts.
BE WARNED, THERE ARE ABOUT 95 SECONDS OF VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES.
Scott Klusendorf - Speech to Gordon College
There are many of you who still have the question of victims of rape and incest. And I empathize with those who have that concern. As a Christian, I believe that the life of the unborn child is just as valid as that of the victim mother, and one cannot be give priority over the other, except where the life of the mother is threatened. We Christians have got to acknowledge that a victim is suffering and we cannot erase that by promoting the life of the unborn. However, what we should do is to show compassion and generosity towards the mother, by ensuring that she understands the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that God’s will is for her to have the baby. We should NOT EVER minimize a victim’s experiences simply because we know that her unborn child has the right to life.
In addition to the evidence presented above, I believe that the primary elemental DNA coding of life happens at conception. Everything that the unborn human will be is determined the moment the sperm meets the egg through that genetic coding. Don’t agree? Then ask why embryonic stem cells are seen as ultimately valuable in medical research.
Abortion is murder.
What’s in a name?
9 hours ago