Must see:

Human Rights abortion, abuse, planned parenthood victimization

Planned Parenthood supporters are more concerned with the bunny than the human child.

Play the video – you’ll understand why.

Human Rights abortion, defund planned parenthood, planned-parenthood

Last night I did something I haven’t done in a long time – engaged in an on-line abortion debate on twitter, using hashtags like #Prochoice and #Abortion. Yes – crazy, I know, but I was doing it with a purpose. I wanted to test some insights I gained over the last year. I laughed when some of my followers couldn’t make sense of what appeared to be a very bizarre conversation.

Yesterday was BlogForChoiceDay promoted by NARAL, formally National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws – then National Abortion Rights Action League – and now no longer an acronym – just NARAL. Abortion advocates play loopy semantic games, distancing themselves from the word “abortion”. It’s easy to see why – with legal defense for partial-birth abortion, and madmen like Kermit Gosnell the people of the United States are beginning to understand abortion is like a bad addiction we can’t control.

Given the upcoming anniversary of the Roe vs Wade decision, Jill Stanek decided to confront NARAL with a “Ask Them What They Mean By ‘Choice’ Blog Day”. I’m happy to say advocates of life stepped out in force – to address the evasive rhetoric.

I’d like to think reasoned response would be effective, but that requires reasoning on the other side. There was simply no sign of that. Words and rationale have become meaningless to many young abortion advocates. They make statements like “Prochoice is Prolife”. They throw infantile slurs at you. One even claimed she never was a fetus. She was being serious.

When confronted directly about why they advocate abortion – if it’s because they had one – they are evasive. If abortion were beneficial as they claimed, then why cover-up or deny it? I have no problem telling people I had a lower abdominal hernia repair. If you are advocating what you’ve never personally experienced, why should your advice be accepted as credible?

Every woman who has personally shared with me indicated the adverse impact abortion has had upon her life. How could you not? It’s unnatural to have any medical implement shoved deep inside you or to take a regimen of pills to bleed out the developing child. Women suffer from miscarriages. To deny women don’t suffer from abortion is crazy. It is most likely the word “crazy” came from the Greek word “akrasia”.

Selection of words is powerful – it can change minds, particularly your own. But that’s not always a good thing – particularly for the post-abortive. The lesson I walked away with last night was my need to choose my words carefully – treating each prochoice advocate as post-abortive. Responding maliciously would have driven them further from the path of reality, and further into dark despair.

Denial is a painful thing – the lash-outs, the warps and twists of logic, the evasiveness, the defense of the indefensible, the abandonment of reason and rationale doesn’t call for our condemnation – it’s evidence of a need for compassion and enduring love.

The most telling indicator in our arguments last night – all respondents fell silent, confused when confronted with love. That’s what’s lacking when they take their child. That’s what’s missing when they promoted abortion of other children.

That’s what we need to provide for them and towards them.

Human Rights abortion, NARAL, prochoice, prolife

How to apply BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice against those who insist a mother’s “right to bodily autonomy” justifies abortion. This is a brief, rapid response while the original response to this argument can be found here.

Over the last few years I’ve run into an increasing number of very hard core abortion supporters who make statements like this:

Not that whether or not a fetus is a child should matter to the debate. Child or not, no one has the right to use a person’s body against his or her consent.

and from another:

Human beings may not occupy another human body unless they are welcome there.

This is a variant of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s violinist argument supported by Eileen McDonagh, David Boonin et al.

It’s an absolute absurdity in circular reasoning. Do they really expect the embryonic human being to change their own environment/development process?

By rejecting developmental differences of human beings, one stage of human development is equated with every other. “Being a child doesn’t matter”, thus they assume a pro-life premise: all humans are “equal”. Time doesn’t matter.

Yet, they reject the child’s critical development time within the womb – that’s the reason for the abortion! So time within that environment does matter to them.

You can’t avoid the absurd contradiction. Either time as a child present within the environment of the mother’s womb matters or it does not.

Thompson, McDonagh, Boonan, et al. obfuscate this critical premise.

If this issue was irrelevant to the abortion argument, both humans would have the same legal “rights”. So, if mother and daughter swapped places (putting the mother into her daughter’s womb), then the daughter would have the “legal right” to abort her mother. (?!)

If you say no she doesn’t have the right to abort her, you’ve just contradicted yourself, because there’s one body within the other. If you say yes she can, you’ve also contradicted yourself because you’ve now upheld the bodily autonomy of the daughter. What’s it gonna be?

If you claim the mother daughter swapping places is absurd and could not happen – then you’re validating that the mother-child relationship is unique and cannot be compared to non-parent relationships. In fact, to reduce the parent relationship to one of simple physical dependency is to eliminate the most essential aspect of the relationship!

So claiming abortion is justified by bodily autonomy is an argument that commits suicide via absurd circular reasoning.

You can’t escape the reality of the sequential, biological and ever growing basis of life.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED, bodily-autonomy, Debate

Recently I drove past the local Planned Parenthood. On one side of the building was a vinyl banner that said something like:

I believe reproductive choice is a human right.

I’m curious – what exactly does Planned Parenthood mean by that? If it’s “reproductive choice”, they must mean we’re talking about human beings. Humans reproduce after their own kind (heredity and all that). And “choice” seems about whether you willingly want to reproduce – that is, create another human being.

So is this banner about consenting to sexual intercourse? After all, if someone forced reproduction upon someone, that wouldn’t be a choice. It would be rape, which is the use of force.

And we know human beings shouldn’t be forcefully victimized by other human beings.

All human rights are based on the right to life. If that right can be denied, then what other rights matter?

Is this banner about abortion? Not if what is being “reproduced” is a human being.

However that statement only works if you also believe that “might makes rights”.

In other words, defenseless innocents can be killed by those they depend upon for mercy.

Prior to 1973, the reproductive “right” to abortion did not exist. This is called a “positive right”, created by a government or other body.

Since when does a positive right override the inalienable right to life?

It doesn’t.

Human Rights abortion

We’ve reached the point of absolute insanity in the United States.

The House Healthcare bill does what the title says.

Download it here and search for “abortion”.

Time to choose America.

Human Rights abortion

Human Rights abortion

Here’s some questions to ask your US representatives:

Does the proposed healthcare bill allow distinctions between wanted and unwanted human beings?

Isn’t subjective actions against human beings based on various physical features discrimination?

Clearly, it wouldn’t be reproductive health without a child, and I don’t believe you’re saying pregnancy coverage would be excluded from the bill.

We also know that to some, it’s clearly a baby, while to others – an unwanted fetus (Latin for offspring-child).

You’re asking taxpayers to support paying for violent mortal discrimination against a particular class of innocent human beings.

Do you truly believe in choice?

If so, who are you to tell me and every other American who stands for life that we have no choice when it comes to our tax dollars being used to support predatory, discriminating violence in the form of elective abortion, abortive birth control or any other term you use to avoid describing the destruction of innocent human beings?

Because if you don’t exclusively stand on the principle that the life of each human being is immeasurably valuable, then you must believe each life is of some utilitarian value, meaning subjugation of the weakest by the strongest human beings.

That being the case – where do I and the remainder of your constituents stand in that regard?

And why would we want a representative who doesn’t consider us equal?

Human Rights abortion, healthcare

This is the best rational argument against abortion in it’s most basic form.

As a culture, we uphold the just, moral principle that innocent human beings ought not be intentionally killed. (”ought” is legal for “any, at all, under all circumstances”.)

So —

1. It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being;
2. Elective abortion* intentionally kills an innocent human being;
3. Therefore: elective abortion is morally wrong.

*performed for any reason other than saving the life of the mother.

There’s only one question in the abortion debate:
What is “it”?

Few argue it’s okay to kill innocent human beings. Most agree something is killed, and virtually all agree some sort of human flesh and blood is destroyed.

So what is destroyed during an abortion? Is that an innocent human being? If it is an innocent human being, and we agree with the 1st premise, then one cannot reasonably uphold abortion as a right.

Reasoning: Every abortion-choice person depends on others identifying them as a innocent, immeasurably valuable, living human being, and respecting their inherent right to life. Rejection of the 1st premise leaves only subjugation of the weakest by the strongest.

When advocating life, we need to identify the unborn as human beings by showing they share a universal biological human nature with the abortion-choicer, then affirm the moral principle by explaining why it’s always applicable despite human physical variations. In effect upholding the moral principle of non-discrimination.

There’s one, easy to remember acronym that summarizes the technique we use to advocate life:

BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice.

Remember, the objective is not to win the argument, but to win-over the other person.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED, Debate, pro-choice

Ever need access to human embryology textbooks with accurate scientific, medical facts?

• Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human
• Larsen’s Human Embryology
• Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology
• O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.

Some are available from Amazon as paperbacks for very reasonable prices, but if you want the definitive text, be prepared to shell out $445 for the O’Rahilly and Mueller.

These texts are invaluable when you use BioSLED to defend life. They provide the “Bio” – logical scientific portion of the argument.

Human Rights abortion, HESCR