Last weekend our congregation received a shock from the pulpit:

In RI, prostitution is legal if conducted indoors.

I had no idea. From the look on the faces, many in the church couldn’t believe it either. I spent some time last night researching the topic to provide a quick snapshot.

Only two states allow this, and in Nevada it’s legal only within a few counties. So RI is developing a unique statewide free market enterprise zone – sexual pleasure for sale.

Remarkably, prostitution defenders call it a viable profession to make ends meet. Disregard the moral decay or the irony here regarding the state discouraging marriage while encouraging single motherhood to discuss the primary side effect of this law: sex slavery.

While pimping is illegal, it’s almost guaranteed where prostitution flourishes. Remember supply-demand? It creates a nice cauldron of addictions and violent demands. Vice is vicious.

Now organized crime is importing sex slaves (which may include US citizens) and hiding behind privacy and an embedded bureaucracy that defends prostitution. The indoor practice covers up numerous activities, obstructing who is being chosen, masking whether this is consensual or demanded. Statutory rape? Who would know? Fetishes are being expansively entertained, bringing with them the potential depravity of snuff films. Is your skin crawling yet?

Gay sexual availability is a controlling factor and is a vehemently defended “right” . Few officers want to enter this area to enforce regulations. The violence and disease must be overwhelming, but untraceable, due to HIPPA laws.

I’ll give you an idea of where all this goes.

I’m adamantly pro-life (maybe an understatement). Logically, rationally, reasonably I can argue against abortion-choice arguments. However, one case of abortion usually done in sex slave situations inverts all reasoning.

If a female sex slave gets pregnant, the slavers don’t want her to abort – they keep her pregnant. In some cases, they will impregnate her on purpose. When she delivers, they use the child as a living ball and chain to hold onto the mother, preventing her from escaping. Later, her child is pressed into generational sex slavery.

Now you have the odd situation where abortion is considered both freeing of this depravity and merciful to the child.

It’s not consensual, it’s not her free choice, it’s not right. Birth is used as a tool of control over the enslaved woman.

Calling it “human trafficking” is too clean, too antiseptic to describe this filth, this slavery.

This evil needs to be purged from our state – and from all nations.

Human Rights abortion, Political

Fr. Pavone has an excellent observation about love and the sacrifices one makes.

Human Rights abortion, love, sacrifice

The fetus, at all gestational stages, from conception to birth, is a human being who deserves the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My argument is made in two portions: 1) what is the substance and; 2) is there moral agency?

For discussion purposes I’ll use the word “fetus”, which has two meanings: 1) child/offspring;  2) a medical descriptive for the maturation stage of gestation after organ formation has completed. As most pro-choice advocates argue using “fetus” in a general sense, I’ll use it in that manner to mean offspring of either embryonic or fetal stages of gestation.

If you plan on arguing, you must present objective reasons which are descriptive of the “object” of the fetus, otherwise your commentary is merely opinion.  Past commenters have called my valid reasoning “opinion” without supportive reasoning of why they thought it was subjective.  Please don’t do that – I’ll address thoughtful arguments.  If you want to bleat talking points, do so elsewhere.

1. What is the substance?

Abortion undeniably destroys and removes human flesh and blood.  Photos and scientific evidence testify to the presence of human flesh and blood as the fetus.  

1. The living fetus is a self-organizing, growing, human being (homo sapiens) – scientifically the law of biogenesis shows that two human beings pro-create after their own kind, so each human fetus has both a mother – the pregnant woman, and a father. (Note present tense.)
2. Each human fetus has a unique flesh/blood identity (DNA & chromosomal patterns, including gender).  This flesh and blood is not an organ of the woman’s body. It is a separate human being.  I could provide numerous scientific & medical references that speak to the human nature of the fetus which explain sperm and oocyte joining through development to birth. Feel free to consult a solid medical embryology text.  From an intellectually honest standpoint, one must concede that the substance of the fetus, being flesh and blood, is indeed a living human being of the same substance basis as all other human beings, otherwise one must provide solid evidence to the contrary.

2. Does this human being have moral agency?

Philosophically, should the fetus be regarded as a human being when it comes to rights and responsibilities? 

While scientific fact validates the fetus as a human being as far as flesh and blood is concerned, a valid argument must be made that the pre-born are not human being with an intrinsic right to life, to which all other human beings claim possession.  Do not present Blackmun’s circular and irrational Roe opinion.  (We need not answer the difficult question of when life begins…).  As everyone was once a pre-born human being, the burden of proof rests upon the pro-choice camp in denying their own rights during some portion of their own life. If you wish to detach your “person” from your body (in effect splitting one human being into two or more elements) you must explain why destroying your own body would not destroy your person – the test you are establishing for the fetal human being.  

Size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency are the only factors which differentiate between one’s pre-born self and where you are now. Morally, these factors do not negate the rights of human beings, including the foundational right to life, upon which all others hang. Throughout our legal system we have laws to stop discrimination against each of these factors.  Also discriminating against pre-born humans on sentience fails when the same test is applied to other human beings.  Such arguments present a functional or utilitarian description of human beings which lend themselves to cruel discriminatory practices. 

On the moral agency factor of dependency – all rights come with moral responsibilities which cannot be rejected because we ourselves are a result of such responsibilities. Such responsibilities are upheld in law. The greatest is: do not murder, particularly those who are completely dependent upon us.  We do not allow murder of our newborn children.  Our responsibilities with regard to justice and to each other requires us to defend the innocent against their destruction at the hands of the powerful.

Disregarding the principle of defense of the weak and innocent invites brute force against them as a people group – which describes abortion perfectly. It’s also completely fallacious.

Brute force renders any question about the humanity of the pre-born superfluous – there is no reason to ask what it is if the sole intention is to destroy it.

If the fetus is an innocent human being, then no excuse, justifies their direct killing.

Human Rights abortion, fetus

This is the best rational argument against abortion I’ve found to date. Every counter-argument comes right back to these same human rights issues, and is thus refutable.

Everyone concedes abortion kills something. The crucial question is “what is killed?”

If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate. (Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, p. 7)

Morally, it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings.

We base that morality on three factors:

1. Intrinsic value of human beings – an intangible quality.
2. Common nature of human flesh and blood – biological evidence of Law of Biogenesis, uniqueness of DNA & embryological/anatomical science.
3. The equality of common physical attributes of human beings - Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency (SLED). 

If we do not morally discriminate against human beings outside the womb with these attributes (we treat them equally as humans under the law) then such conclusions also apply to pre-born human beings because:

• Size - Hillary Clinton is not less human than Shaquille O’Neal. An embryo is not less human than a newborn.
• Level of Development – Toddlers are less developed than pre-adolescents who are less developed than adults. An embryo is the organ development stage of a human being while in the next stage, a fetus’s organs mature, just as an adolescent’s organs mature through puberty.  
• Environment – Astronauts and scuba divers do not lose their human nature in non-supportive environments.  A womb is the natural environment for the pre-born at their level of development. Exposing human beings to unnatural, uninhabitable environments is an act of murder.
• Dependency – We don’t kill those who depend upon us. Infants depend upon parents/guardians for all their primary needs. Our dependencies extend to each other, and without the defense of the goodness of meeting human dependencies, none of us would be alive.

Discussing pro-life views shouldn’t be a monologue. Provide your reasoning, but also ask others questions to bring them into conversation. Seek points you agree on; ask why they are important. Establish common ground before refuting objections. Your response will then be appropriate.

Here’s how to refute two very common objections to BioSLED: 1) Non-Personhood and 2) Mother’s Rights.

1. Refuting Non-Personhood Arguments – such arguments deny the intrinsic quality of human beings by falsely assuming (petitio principii) two components (body and person), instead of one. These are a play on Level of Development. Gently ask: “Would you be willing to undergo the same destruction of your body that is performed on the unborn during an abortion, and if not – why?” They can’t prove their own personhood without referring to their own physical body, so gently question them until they do. We know scientifically from the moment of conception the pre-born also has a human body. We can’t establish tests for denying the rights of pre-born human beings that we, who also have human flesh and blood, are unwilling to take – that’s discrimination. Refuting this works best in-person, not over the Internet.
2. Refuting Bodily Autonomy Arguments (aka Mother’s Rights) – some argue gestation is a special right granted by the mother. This goes back to Dependency. We don’t kill those who are dependent upon us. Some argue biological dependency is different, but this falsely assumes (petitio principii) the responsibility to be humane can have exceptions because an innocent human being is undeniably killed. Further, such killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf. Specifically, force is appealed to based on the victim’s Environment – the natural location in the womb of the child’s mother. We wouldn’t want anyone we were dependent upon to justify killing us because we existed in an environment they claimed.

Although BioSLED is an exceptionally strong argument against abortion, it needs to be conveyed gracefully, and the best way to do that is in person in a non-threatening way. Those who defend abortion usually do so for very personal reasons. So no matter how logical, the heart has to change.

This argument is like a very sharp Japanese Samurai sword – it is not meant to be handled without great discipline, respect or care for the other person. Use it only in love.

If you find this valuable – please link to it. If you think it needs improvement – let me know in the comments. Thanks!

This argument is based on the work of Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, Francis Beckwith’s Defending Life and the SLED acronym came from Stephen Schwarz who wrote The Moral Question of Abortion.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED, Debate, pro-life

Steve Wagner provides a nice quick, one minute pro-life argument:

If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. And if it has human parents, it must be human. And living humans, or human beings like you and I, are valuable aren’t they? From conception, all that’s added to the unborn is a proper environment and adequate nutrition. But those are the same things all of us need. And not only that. There’s one quality all of us have equally that demands equal treatment: we all have a human nature. Racism and sexism are wrong because they pick out external differences and ignore the underlying similarity between men and women, blacks and whites. And my concern is for your rights as a woman, that you can vindicate them against the will of the majority, but you can only vindicate your rights if you base them on your human nature. But the unborn also has that same human nature, so shouldn’t we protect him from discrimination just like we protect minorities and women?

Human Rights abortion, intrinsic-value, pro-life, Steve-Wagner

Abortion =  a more expensive contraceptive.

Why install fences when you can simply convince pregnant women to abort in other countries?

Obama does want change – but it’s not what people think.

Political abortion, immigration control, mexico city policy, tax dollars at work

I awoke with this crystal clear realization this morning.  (It seems obvious, but bear with me for a moment.)

While it’s easy to grasp, this principle is incredibly hard to live out in our lives with others. Expectations and wrong doing have to be set aside, if love is to be.

It is also a profound fundamental truth which our identity as human beings is based upon: who we are – not how we function.

That’s a very simple, but elegant argument for the humanity of the unborn based on our understanding of love.

Beliefs abortion, love

…tumbling off a cliff, out of control.

All you know is you’re falling.

Yet, if you gain control by stretching your wings and going with it, you’ll find a thrill that will last a lifetime.

wingsuit base jumping from Ali on Vimeo.

Life seems to pass that fast, especially with kids, but I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

What if pregnancy resource centers and the pro-life movement introduced edgier advertising for the guys?

What if new dads were able to see life choices not as dead ends, but as an opportunity to stretch their wings and gain the excitement of watching their unborn children grow up and learn how to fly?

Reminds me of a song: Mark Harris – Find your wings   

Of course, there’s also the flip side – they might not want the child so they can go base-jumping.

It’s all in the way it’s presented: being in the moment and very real.

Making the connections:

This morning’s email introduced a new follower on twitter: @TheRobertD. Upon visiting his tweets I found him pointing to this cool video. Robert works with Andy Andrews, who I recently came across, also through twitter.  Andy is a great motivational speaker and storyteller.  Here’s a sampling of some of Andy Andrews videos so you can judge for yourself.   Truth be told, I never would have put unexpected pregnancies, base-jumping and life changing decisions together without Robert’s tweet. 

And like some of the guys in the video, I’m excited by what God has been showing me over the last few weeks.

Inspiration abortion, leap of faith, life

Back in the Fall of 2006, I had the pleasure of meeting Steve Wagner, who came to speak at the CareNet Annual Banquet on the importance defending the sanctity of life.  Recently, Steve moved over to Justice for All as their Director of Education. 

Steve has written a book called Common Ground without Compromise:  25 questions to create Dialogue on Abortion. 

I’m in the process of reading it – if reading is the right word (reflecting is more like it).  I want to borrow a tactic from the book and wait until I’ve finished reading and provided the serious consideration that the book deserves prior to giving it an intended review. 

I will hint that the direction this book is guiding is to seriously rethink my approach to debating the whole issue of human rights when it comes to life and the medical procedure of abortion.

Should be interesting to share reactions.

Human Rights abortion, review, Steve-Wagner

Jasper’s comment at Jill Stanek’s over Ilana Goldman’s refusal to answer Bob Enyarts question “What is it?” happened to coincide with an existing unpublished post of mine.

While reading through Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen’s book Embryo:A Defense of Human Life, it occurred to me so few people who argue in the abortion debates, both pro-life and abortion-choice, really understand the scientific basis for life. The biological depth is astounding, and invites a serious philosophical debate. The authors are disturbed by the diminishing level of discourse – where rationality regarding the evidence is being plainly and willfully ignored. (Ilana Goldman illustrates this irrationality so well.)

They point out various activities within the first 14 days after conception are not so easily explained. The possibilities of intercellular communication seem to be a fascinating area of biochemical research. There is sensing occurring, at a level we don’t yet comprehend. (If you think intercellular communication is not possible – you need to check out how single cell bacteria communicate.)

Some abortion-choice advocates call embryos non-sentient tissue, but their arguments are – subjective:

All human beings with rights are sentient; No embryo is sentient; therefore no embryo is a human being with rights.

If the argument is over living flesh and blood, and “what it is”, then sapience is a pre-requisite to sentience, because it is impossible to have a subjective (sentient) homo-sapien, without first having an objective one. Self-awareness does not require communicating self-insight to others, so any perceived observation of another’s self-awareness is completely subjective. It is an imposition of an external idea of awareness upon another, completely impossible without the underlying matter – the flesh and blood.

Put another way – arguments over flesh and blood rights doesn’t work if their own flesh and blood, (including their sense of self-awareness) is removed. So another approach would have been to ask Ilana – “what are you?”

How can one demand rights while denying pre-requisites underlying their own sense of personhood?

It begs the question.

Human Rights abortion, cowardice, flesh & blood