Abortion via Exception

I’m not a real Republican, but I play one on the blogosphere. Out of all the organized political parties that exist, which one is most likely to pass anti-abortion legislation? I always like to go where the data leads and the data for this question would lead to the GOP. Democrats have enough political power, but no will; in fact they will the opposite. There may be a third party (or parties) out there with plenty of will, but they are impotent in terms of political power.

Speaking of will and power, the Republicans had the political power early this month to pass a bill that would have basically banned abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy, but dropped the bill in a shameful display of cowardice in the face of some protests. How many pro-abortion bills have ever been dropped by democrats due to pro-life protests?

Some of the objections to the bill revolved around the rape/incest exceptions according to this article. The bill would have offered an exception for rape victims who already reported the crime to authorities. “But some Republicans, including female members of Congress, objected to that requirement, saying that many women feel too distressed to report rapes and should not be penalized…We have to be compassionate to women when they're in a crisis situation." What about the babies facing a pending abortion? Isn't that a crisis situation for them?

You may be familiar with common argument fallacies like in the graphic below, but I wonder if accepting legal abortion based on exceptions is a kind of exception fallacy.

Some small percentage of pregnancies are from rape or incest, therefore we must be able to legally kill ALL unborn children? The objection to the house bill seems to take this kind of exception to a new level. Some small percentage of pregnancies are from rape or incest, and some small percentage of those women are too distressed to report the rape, therefore let’s drop this bill and continue the status quo killing just as we do today.

This arguing via exception fits well for those who want to make us think they are pro-life, but are really pro-choice.

• Premise: Killing unborn children is wrong.
• Exception: Some women become pregnant via rape or incest.
• Conclusion: We should be able to legally kill all unborn children.

If this makes sense for abortion, it should make sense for other things too.

• Premise: Stealing is wrong.
• Exception: Some are starving and they have a right to food.
• Conclusion: It should be legal to take food without paying when you feel you need to make that choice.

 

• Premise: Killing is OK in self-defense
• Exception: Some feel too distressed to report they were attacked and should not be penalized. We have to be compassionate to those in a crisis situation.
• Conclusion: It should be legal to kill whenever you feel you need to make that choice.

Those who display their pro-choiceness without deception will hide behind the made-up, non-scientific and nonsensical term of “non-person”. Scientifically, human life begins at conception as an objective fact. To say the first stage of one’s life or “personhood” begins at some other threshold of viability or consciousness is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational (and devious), especially when an objective and observable beginning point clearly exists.

Basing common law on exceptions is incongruous and becomes diabolical when done to justify killing. To say unborn children MUST be declared “non-persons” because of certain exceptions is like saying oranges must be declared “non-round” because we have found some oval shaped ones.

As a side, one wonders how supposedly educated people can be BOTH pro-choice AND acknowledge science, reason & human rights all at the same time.

 

Baby at 20 Weeks
We have to be compassionate to BOTH women AND babies
when they're in a crisis situation.

 

40 Days of Prayer?

The Lord says, “This is My Body”.  The priests for choice say, “This is my body.” These are the exact same words, but coming from opposite ends of the universe. The Lord continues, “…given for you”. The choice clerics continue, “…kept for me.”

This is my body

 A Planned Parenthood affiliate is conducting 40 days of prayer to “support woman”.  On the spiritual side, what evidence is there to back the premise that God approves of killing innocent human life as a personal choice that supports woman? On the secular side, one wonders how supposedly educated people can actually be pro-choice and recognize science & human rights at the same time. (see post Pro-Choice The Moral Blind Spot)

Ironically, 40 days of lent is often used to give up something, mirroring what Jesus did in the desert before starting His public ministry. Fasting and other sacrifices allow us to be more aware of our souls and put less emphasis on our bodies. This 40 Days of Prayer also comes from the opposite end of the universe, using the cry of “my body” that drowns out the soul. It seeks to hold on to something, a depraved choice, instead of letting go.

This is My Body

Some will be sincere in these prayers; some are only mocking the 40 Days for Life campaign. Looking at the big-picture, whenever we make a significant choice in life we should ask, “I’m I doing this more for God or more for myself? This is the question I pose about Planned Parenthood’s 40 Days of Prayer, since prayer is essentially about directing one’s life toward God.

The Abortion Spectrum and Biased Media

I could not say the number of times I’ve heard 100% pro-life politicians, like Rick Santorum, called “extreme” in their abortion view by the mainstream media. I do not recall one time when a 100% pro-choice politician, like Barack Obama, was called “extreme” by the same media.

Rick Santorum believes abortion should be illegal for anyone, for any reason, at any time. Barack Obama believes abortion should be legal for anyone, for any reason, at any time. In the logic of a spectrum, if one end is to be labeled extreme, the opposite end must also be extreme.

In additive light theory, the full presence of light (red, green, blue) is what we perceive as white. In subtractive light theory, the absence of light is what we perceive as black. If we were to label the complete absence of light as “extreme black”, we must then label a complete presence of light as “extreme white”.

How about this one? If 100% humidity must be called extremely humid, then 0% humidity must be called extremely dry.

Why is it then that 100% pro-choice politicians are not referred to as “extreme”? Why are they not called “anti-life extremists” if those on the other side are called “anti-choice extremists”?  A bias media is a very reasonable conclusion.

Call this man "extreme"..........if you call this man "extreme"

Pro Choice–The Moral Blind Spot

The March for Life on Monday will no doubt remind us that God is the author of life, but to pro-choice secularists this is an unconvincing pro-life argument. The reflex rebuttals are, “You have no right to impose your religion on others” and the familiar “Separation of Church and State.” At this point the dialog shuts down, but I find that secular arguments tend to re-boot the discussion.

When this issue is debated using only secular logic one wonders how supposedly educated people can be BOTH pro-choice AND recognize science, reason & human rights. In fact, this is such a harsh contradiction, one can see a need for a diabolical force to help the pro-choice movement along; something to help generate a moral blind spot.

I occasionally debate pro-choice proponents on public news forums. To be honest, they have quite a bit of difficulty breaking down the simple logic in the following post:

“Scientifically, human life begins at conception as an objective fact. To say the first stage of one’s life or one’s personhood begins at some other threshold of consciousness or viability is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational, especially when something objective is available.

Pregnancy is a case where two human lives are physically intertwined. When forced to decide if one life should be killed (permanently) vs. another life to be pregnant (temporarily), the reasonable course of action based on priority is to spare the life, because the right to be alive is the derivation of all other human rights and has the highest priority.

Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government; they are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of their humanity. The right to life does not depend on, and must not be declared contingent upon, the choice of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.”

Once past religious objections and into a human rights discussion we get immediately into this:

“What about the multitudes of women & girls pregnant from rape & incest?” As if this was the main reason abortions are sought.

And this one…

”What about all the women about to die or be maimed because they are pregnant?” As if pregnancy is a disease. As if pro-life means choosing the life of the baby over the mother.

The examples above are clearly exceptions, and basing common law on exceptions is absurd. To say unborn children MUST be declared “non-persons” because of rape, incest or danger to the mother is like saying oranges must be declared “non-round” because we have found some oval shaped ones. If a starving man steals a loaf of bread and we feel bad for him, should it then be legal to steal bread?

Stealing bread is wrong, oranges are round, unborn children are human, a human is a person...........and a person’s a person, no matter how small!