Prolife Rebuttals to Common Prochoice Lies

sdksdfkdf“It does not matter what you say! No one will ever be saved through debate.” It is true that arguments do not change a person’s heart. God does that. Nevertheless, arguments are utilized to tear down strongholds, correct lies, and expose the darkness. Apologetics is about giving a defense for what we know is true. It is the handmade of evangelism because eventually someone is going to ask some important questions: why, who, what, how, etc. Some Christians treat apologetics as unnecessary or even pointless. This is unfortunate because there’s a firm biblical basis for the task. Scripture directly commands that Christians be ready to give an apologetic for the hope they have within (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). There are numerous examples in Scripture (examples we should emulate) of the people of God engaging in Christian apologetics (Jer. 10:1-16; Matt. 22:30-32; 2 Cor. 10:5; Luke 1:1-4; Acts 17:16-34; Rom. 1-2). We give a reason for the hope we have and also for a reason why that hope is superior to all other false hopes. There is a sense in which apologetics is building up and tearing down. Paul himself often used apologetics (Acts 17:2, 17, 18:4, 18:19, 20:7, 9, 24:25) when talking with people about the lordship of Christ. It was Paul who wrote “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. (1 Cor. 11:1).” That’s a command.

I think one avenue of apologetics that is overlooked in the local church is prolife apologetics. I say in the local church because there’s a plethora of books and websites aimed at reducing and preventing this evil. What is prolife apologetics? Apologetics that is aimed specifically at the preservation of human life. From whence does the prolife position come? The imago dei. Christian theology teaches that humanity is specially created in the image and likeness of God himself (Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1-3, 9:5-6; Psa. 8:3-8; 1 Cor. 11:7; Col. 3:8-11; Jas. 3:7-9). Because of this reality, humanity has tangible and objective worth, value, and dignity. Any activity that destroys human life and diminishes human dignity should be shunned and opposed. Abortion, among other things, is an affront to the value and dignity of life. The Old Testament is replete with verses affirming that what is inside the womb is a person (Job 10:8-12; Isa. 44:2; Psa. 51:5, 71:5-6, 100:3, 22:9-10; 139; Gen. 25:22; Jer. 1:5). The NT also teaches the same (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:39-44; Gal. 1:15; Rom. 9:11). One key and irrefutable example that Scripture considered what’s in the womb to be just as much of a person as what’s outside the womb comes from Luke’s gospel. The physician (Col. 4:14) writes, “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Luke 1:41) “For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.“ (Luke 1:44) The writer uses the Greek term breafos (βρέφος) that’s translated “baby” in our English versions. What’s interesting about the text is that what is in the womb is assumed to be a baby. Later in chapter two Luke writes, “This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” (Luke 2:12) … So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger. ” (Luke 2:16) Guess what Greek word is used? βρέφος. What was in the womb is in the same category as what is outside of the womb. The writers of Scripture were clear that what was in the womb is a person.

bgfbfBelow are some responses to typical prochoice lies. Some might object saying “this is unloving…we need to meet people where they’re at…you’re not taking into consideration how difficult a situation women are in.” I hear that and I understand those sentiments. But, at the same time, we are called to stand up for what is right. No one should be rhetorically bullied into virtual silence and submission by those outside and even inside the church because they themselves are too cowardly to articulate the truth. Truth is too important to kill in the streets for the sake of peace and what is at stake is of mammoth proportions. We do not fight against people. We fight to illuminate the truth. Paul writes in 2 Cor. 10:4-6, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.” It is my belief that the prochoice position is one of theological cowardice, moral bankruptcy, and logical inconsistency. It is a hypocritical stance and deserves to be exposed for what it is. To that end, this blog was penned.

The Government has no right to legislate a woman’s body.

rgvrGovernment exists primarily for two reasons: to guarantee its citizens their constitutional rights and to militarily protect those citizens from harm. A secondary purpose of government is to advocate social goods. This is why we have such governmental agencies such as the FDA, the department of education, or the U.S. department of agriculture. The government commonly involves itself with various junctures of life surrounding its citizens. Furthermore, there’s a host of things the government legislates that have direct effects upon your body. The government does not allow you to do the following: use recreational drugs, sell or buy sex, go fully nude in public, satisfy a nicotine addiction in a public place, numb your body with alcohol where you please, sell your organs to the highest bidder, have sex with children, and the list could go on and on. No one typically has a problem with the government legislating those things. In fact, many who are prochoice inconsistently say “you have no right to legislate a woman’s body” while denying people the right to do many things including drinking a certain amount of soft drinks in New York.

Abortion is a private matter and should be made by the woman carrying the child.

Really? The abortion doctor is counseling the individual about to terminate the pregnancy. Isn’t that violating your absolute privacy? What about the baby’s privacy? In the holy name of privacy, they violate the baby’s privacy. Furthermore, what about the father’s desires? The father apparently has no say so as long as the “piece of flesh” is in the womb yet is fully responsible for supplying child support for the fetus after it is born. Until women can have children without the sperm from a man, it seems like the man should have some rights within this decision. Lastly, no one accepts that drug dealing and child pornography are private matters. They recognize those things have societal implications. The same is true for the so-called “private” matter of abortion. Abortion results in three things: broken woman (many times), unrestrained male dominance, and dead babies. How a society treats its most defenseless is a measure of its greatest. Abortion has cheapened the dignity of our country.

A woman has the right to do with her body whatever she pleases.

I’ve critiqued this statement elsewhere. Suffice it to say that rights have boundaries. The freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want wherever you want however loudly you want. Just ask Paula Deen. The right to a woman’s body has its limits—the exact point in which the baby exists. A prochoice advocate will counter “is there any other situation where someone is forced against their will to carry an unwanted life?” Yes. Take for instance conjoined twins. Occasionally, a conjoined twin couldn’t survive on its own if he or she was to be detached from the other. Sometimes one twin literally shares the life-giving organs with another that could survive without the conjoinment. We would not allow the twin that could survive of its own the so called “right” to kill the other half because it is limiting their freedom. That one twin didn’t ask to be attached. It occurred as a result of someone else’s actions (much like pregnancy huh?).

Prolife advocates are forcing their religion on people.

tnhybgrThe problem is that, while religion plays a large role concerning morality, one does not have to be religious to affirm the immorality of killing a baby. There are atheists who are prolife. It is simply a matter of ethics. Furthermore, it seems somewhat intolerant to tell people they must leave at the door a fundamental part of who they are. “You can have an opinion as long as it does not contain religious or moral implications for other people.” The moral have no less a right to say something is wrong anymore than the prochoice advocate has the right to say “it’s wrong for you to force your morality on another.” Prolife advocates are no more forcing their religion on anyone than MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). In fact, they see it as a civic duty to protect those that cannot protect themselves. If you were to walk glibly by a lake where you saw someone drowning while you had the ability to help, you are complicit in their demise. You should have helped the individual out of the water instead of being so concerned with yourself. This applies even to abortion.

Abortion is legal, therefore it is moral.

Commonsense is lacking. Slavery was once legal. Woman not being allowed to vote was once legal. Animal abuse was once legal. Children working in unfit factory settings was once legal. You cannot argue the morality of a position based upon its legality. Let’s make prostitution, chauvinism, or child abuse legal and we’ve successfully avoided the moral dilemma. Am I right? Nope. Legality tells one who the judicial system will act. It does not always tell whether an act is right or wrong. The prochoice crowd is inconsistent. Consider the following actions that are legal but that are many times denounced by the prochoice advocates: medical testing on animals, wearing fur, capital punishment, the proliferation of pornography, or even eating a steak. The prochoice crowd no more believes legality equals moral than the prolife position.

If abortion is murder, men who masturbate are murderers.

A coworker once said this to me with quite a bit of exasperated bravado. He had poor reasoning skills. One thing is for sure, what is within the womb isn’t merely a lump of cells akin much to what blows off your arm when the wind picks up. At conception, there is a union of egg and sperm; the unborn is a zygote. This is a fundamental and radical break. Two things become one. The only thing needed is time, food, water, shelter, and oxygen to survive. The zygote is by nature a person. Not a potential person, but a person that will one day possess experiences, thoughts, beliefs, and everything else associated with life. It is a distinct entity with its own genetic code, and early on in the pregnancy, it has its own heart and circulatory system. It feels pain arguably around week ten. Therefore, the fetus is technically not part of the woman’s body. To say it is part of the woman’s body so she can do whatever she pleases with it confuses the fetus being attached to the woman carrying it and being a part of the woman carrying it. We do not decide whether someone is a person based upon their ability to survive on their own. Someone who is in a vegetative state cannot survive on their own without human care and sometimes the use of machines. Are we to conclude that they’re not persons? The problem with saying it’s not a person until it can exist apart from the mother is anyone can be placed in an environment where viability isn’t possible. What about young children, the mentally handicapped, or those within a comatose state? They cannot exist without the physical help from another individual. I see no good reason to believe that position.

It is wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world only to suffer in a cruel and dark place. It will be difficult for the mother and the unwanted children are banes on society.

It’s amazing that a child is a miracle one moment and a bane on society the next. Apparently because it will be difficult, a mother gets to decide that the baby will not get to go to first grade, experience his or her first kiss, play baseball, get their mind blown in a philosophy class as a freshman, find a spouse, laugh at a million inside jokes with their friends, see their children grow up and go off to college, vote for president, create memories or grow old with their beloved. This is as much a miscarriage of justice as it is a miscarriage of a human baby.  It is wrong. Why? One reason is because God says it is wrong. Another is because of the loss of life stemming from the great value of it. Don Marquis writes:

What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim…The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.

wsdrdfghA future life is of immense value for a human being. Killing someone deprives another of a valuable future life which is wrong. A fetus through abortion is deprived of a future life. Therefore, abortion is wrong. The prochoice argument is “we should not bring children into a setting of pain, loss, and strife. It’s not far.” The logic is clear—to protect society, we must kill the weakest in society. Their quality of life would be dismal. But this is absurd! If the quality of life determined the value of life, we would be killing anyone and everyone that we deem as possessing an unsatisfactory existence. We might as well blow up third world countries, snipe all the homeless, and send all the mentally handicap to their demise. After all, their quality of life is terrible. But this brings up a valid concern, who gets to decide? Who gets to make the judgment that one life is worth having and another is not? What appears like an unfathomable hardship to one is a blessing in disguise for another. One just cannot make this case because they lack sufficient warrant. Also, how do you know that the individual cannot rise above their social setting and culture to be the next president, a talented athlete, or the scientist who cures cancer?

If you don’t like abortion, then don’t get one.

If you don’t like murder, then don’t kill someone. If you don’t like drunk driving, then don’t drive drunk. If you don’t like stealing, then don’t steal. If you don’t like rape, then don’t rape. The statement is as stupid as it is callous. We do not determine the morality of an act based upon whether or not we like it. I’m sure Hitler enjoyed sending the Jews to the concentration camps. Yet, it was still objectively wrong.

You cannot legislate morality.

????????????This is an interesting one once you realize most laws are attempts to legislate moral issues. We have speeding limits because to go dangerously above a certain set parameter could endanger another human being’s life. Furthermore, you’re not allowed to drive or high drunk off your tail because your motor skills are grossly impaired. You could kill some. That is a moral issue. John Piper rightly noted:

“Laws exist to preserve and enhance the public good. Which means that all laws are based on some conception of what is good for us. Which means that all legislation and all voting is a moral activity. It is based on choices about what is good for the public. And those choices are always informed by a world view. And in that worldview — whether conscious or not — there are views of ultimate reality that determine what a person thinks the public good is. Which means that all legislation is the legislation of morality. Someone’s view of what is good — what is moral — wins the minds of the majority and carries the day. The question is: Which actions hurt the common good or enhance the common good so much that the one should be prohibited by law and the other should be required by law?”

As long as there are laws on the book concerning murder, theft, and speeding limits, we should recognize that morality has to be legislated in some fashion. If abortion is indeed murder, then the government ought to protect its citizens and outlaw it.

Something of note that should be pointed out from the get go is that prochoice advocates think it is wrong to be told they shouldn’t have abortions. How dare you infringe upon my right to do whatever I want with my body! Most prochoice advocates are not social libertarians. They’re of a different political fashion. They use the government to protect their moral stance all the time. The question I have is “by what basis?”

For further reading, see Clarence W. Fell’s 28 Pro-choice Lies Exposed


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s