Those who seek to defend the indefensible have to resort to increasingly bizarre argumentation and twisted thinking to make their case. A prime example of this is the attempt to justify the killing of unborn babies. Some of the most inane and vacuous reasoning can be found coming from the pro-abortionists.
Consider a piece found in the Saturday Age (why are we not surprised?). Jane Caro, a “spokeswoman for Pro-Choice NSW” had one of the more ludicrous pieces I have seen for some time now. The foolishness begins even with the title: “New wave of anti-abortion laws punish sexually active women”.
How incredulous is that? How does standing up for the right of unborn babies to live punish anyone? And why is being “sexually active” something which should be promoted and endorsed? It is little more than a euphemism for promiscuity.
It is the punishment of unborn babies that we should all be concerned about here. But Ms Caro seeks to make the women having the abortions to be the victim, not the babies. Sure, we need to help women in this and any other situation in life, but killing a baby is helping no one.
She mentions some US states where those considering abortion must see an ultrasound of the baby, and hear a description of what the baby is like. She is furious that women should have this full disclosure. She seems to hate the fact that women must actually be informed as to what they are doing, and who is the subject of their choices.
In any other important medical procedure full disclosure is essential. How can a real choice be made unless it is a fully informed choice? But here the pro-abortionists want to keep women in the dark, and deny them vital information about what they are doing.
Consider also this bizarre remark: “No one wants to have an abortion. It is not something women take lightly, but sometimes they decide it is the lesser of two evils.” One could write an essay on all the logical fallacies found in this one sentence alone.
First of all is the usual pro-death comment that “no one wants an abortion” and that it is never “taken lightly”. No one wants an abortion? Then why are entire industries devoted to ensuring that women can have abortions? If no one wants them then why are 45-50 million of them performed every year?
If no woman wanted an abortion, there would be presumably far less than these millions a year. And do women take these seriously? Some do, but many obviously do not, since for many women abortion is simply an after the fact form of contraception.
Indeed, if this is simply a “blob of tissue”, then why even bother to take it seriously? If the pro-death camp is intent on persuading us that abortion is no different than having your tonsils out or clipping your nails, than why should any moral angst arise from this choice?
Indeed, how in the world can she go on about abortion being “the lesser of two evils”? Is clipping your toenail evil? Of course not. Given that the pro-death camp wants to convince us that just a mass of cells is being removed, then why the moral panic? It only makes sense to describe abortion as evil if in fact the pro-life camp is correct: every abortion kills an unborn baby, a very young member of the human race.
Is Ms Caro conceding that this is the case? If so, she should join the pro-life camp. If not, she is being disingenuous to even speak about various evils, or hard choices. Clipping a nail is never a hard choice, and we do not have great moral debates about it. So either Ms Caro must consider that killing an unborn baby is far different than nail clipping, or she should change her tune.
She quotes a US news item saying, “Already, one of the three abortion clinics in Oklahoma is reporting that women are so upset about the sonogram procedure they are leaving the clinic crying.” Yes, it is called seeing the reality of your choices.
Just as those who make money off of clubbing baby seals to death do not want gory, graphic images of their work splashed all over the world, so too the abortion industry desperately does not want the truth of what they are doing made public.
They certainly do not want their dirty little trade secrets advertised to the women who are paying big bucks to avail themselves of these services. That is why the pro-death camp has always fought full disclosure, and has always hyperventilated about the new technologies which show us what the unborn baby is like, and how he or she fares with these barbaric procedures.
Consider also her closing paragraph: “Women are not simply portals through which other human beings enter the world. They are thinking, breathing, sentient beings, as human as any man. Therefore the only moral way to decide what should occur in the unfortunate and fraught case of an unwanted pregnancy is to allow the person most directly affected to decide.”
To see how empty her rhetoric is here, all we have to do is substitute a few words: “Unborn babies are not simply objects which other human beings can dispose of at will. They are thinking, breathing, sentient beings, as human as any woman. Therefore the only moral way to decide what should occur in the unfortunate and fraught case of an unwanted pregnancy is to allow the person most directly affected to decide.”
An unborn baby is as much a member of the human race as any other person. And it is exactly because they cannot defend themselves and are at the mercy of others, that they should have the full protection of the law. The mother’s womb should be the safest place on earth for the unborn baby. Instead it has become a slaughter house.
One can see why the pro-abortion camp is so bent out of shape about all this. The world is beginning to see just what an unborn baby really is, and that is causing some radical re-thinking of the issue. This was true when people got to know blacks, and realised they are also human beings deserving of full equal rights, and should not be enslaved and treated as second class citizens.
Whites used to regard blacks as mere property to be treated without any dignity and respect. The unborn are today’s black, who are considered to be the mere property of adults. The new colour 3-D ultrasounds and other technologies are stripping away these lies.
And the pro-abortion camp can’t stand it. That is why their ravings become ever more irrational and disjointed. Eventually the real world catches up to their twisted logic and barren rhetoric. Just as when slavery was coming to an end and the slave-owners became ever more desperate and extreme, so too here.
It seems that there is light at the end of the tunnel for the unborn. The lies of the pro-death camp just do not wash any more. Therefore expect to see more such gasps of pro-abortion hysteria as the tide further begins to turn.
One argument often used by the pro-abortion side is that if abortion is not made easily available through legal abortion clinics, women will risk their lives by resorting to “back yard abortionists”.
So… perhaps we could also get the police department to mug tourists who wander into risky neighbourhoods. These “muggings” would be non-violent of course and as the proceeds would be handed over to criminals, violent crime would decrease. Such a civilized solution…
Matt Puusaari
Good gracious, Bill.
That has to be one of the worst articles I have read on the topic.
“Those who escape such anxious hours and days without having their worst fears confirmed know it is often good luck, not good management, that has saved the day.”
The mentality of the woman daring to think that pregnancy is the “worst fear”!
John Angelico
Bill, please don’t stop being a counter voice against these pro-abortion articles that gets published so regularly. The more I read about it and consider what it is in essence, the more I realise how ridiculous and sick us humans are to allow these killings.
Servaas Hofmeyr
Interesting:
“It is one thing to hold strong personal beliefs, but quite another to impose them on others, particularly those who will have to suffer the consequences, while you bask in a warm righteous glow.”
In another context, you would wonder if she is talking about her own views. Here we have a woman that doesn’t believe that other women should be subjected to seeing the potential consequences of their own actions.
Yet believes that she has the right to impose her beliefs on others (unborn children) who are “particularly those who will have to suffer the consequences”.
John McKay
Thanks John M
Yes quite right. Those who denounce others for sharing their concerns in public are usually the first to push their agendas on others. Her entire article was one long case of imposing her views on others!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Matt Puusaari draws our attention to the old argument about ‘modern safe abortions’ and ‘old backyard abortions’. We are told that the business is much safer today and that lives (women’s lives that is) are no longer at risk. It is worth looking at the figures from 40 years ago and those of today. Women’s lives are still at risk and that does not take into account the after effects, physical and mental, to many.
Karen Bos
The whole article is totally upside-down, but the same sentence caught my eye too, John. Did this woman even read what she wrote? The irony is astonishing. I feel like saying, “You advocate killing the most defenceless people in society, Jane – I think they might ‘suffer the consequences’, hey?” Yet she claims to hold the high moral ground? Unbelievable!
Also she wheels out that tired old ‘bad old days backyard alley abortion’ argument (Well, what pro-abort essay distortion would be complete without it?) Pro-lifers should know that this is not a valid argument, in fact, it is emotional grandstanding of the highest order. Just remember this word – antibiotics. http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/Newsletters/2005/backtard.html
If nothing else, young Christians especially should be educated on what kind of blindness falls onto a human being when they embrace a lifestyle contrary to God’s commands. This woman actually thinks agonizing about the ‘choice’, and yet still going ahead with it, justifies the act! I’m sure it makes no difference to the unborn, and that is all that matters when their lives are at stake. An unborn child aborted by a mother agonizing about the decision is aborted just the same as one who is disposed of for convenience. The act is still wrong.
Mark Rabich
I had the same discussion last year regarding embryonic stem cell research. At first he denied it was a child and then, in the next breath, he said the scientists would act very prudently with only the minimum of destruction. Well, I countered, if they are not children, then why act prudently? Why not use an unlimited amount of embryos? Why have any limits? With that, his wrath was unleashed and he let out a litany of insults towards me. Actually, that was our last exchange after years of friendship.
Kendra Mallock
As do most pro-aborts, Jane Caro has got it wrong on so many points that you would have to question why an editor would print such a misleading and harmful article.
Sr. Mary McBride whom she mentions in the article actually excommunicated herself by her actions. Bishop Thomas Olmsted did not excommunicate her. It was all her own doing. The Bishop is required to advise her of this. While she is able to attend Mass she can no longer receive Holy Communion.
Madge Fahy
Dear Bill, There is no other word to describe the way these women think but callous and heartless. At the pro-life rally last week in WA a liberal MP bravely called for women to be required to have an ultra sound before deciding to have an abortion. He wrote a column about this in Saturday’s West Australian. Next to it was a column written by a female journalist promoting the worn out argument of abortion being a woman’s choice. Unbelievably at the end of the column it said the woman had four children! I thought when I saw this how I would dearly love to ask this woman face to face this question “how can you have the audacity to look into your little children’s faces every day believing that it would be alright to have had either one of them killed before birth if you had chosen to?” This mentality is quite beyond my understanding as a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother.
Patricia Halligan
Bill,
I received a phone call from a blogging friend tonight and she mentioned that the pro-abortion advocates are Satanic in nature and the shedding of blood of the unborn babies is intended to be a mockery, and false “sacrifice” for Christ’s death on the cross for the salvation of men.
Such a thought sent shivers down my spine.
Is it not true that the death of babies through abortion end the life of the child and most often ruin the life of the would-be mother, as well? Especially when she realizes what she has done and has regrets about it for the rest of her life??
Abortion brings death to all involved. The death of the child, the death of the would-be mother’s conscience, and the death of the woman’s soul if she never confesses the sin. The death of the abortion provider can be added to the list of casualities – unless he/she confesses that sin, repents and accepts Christ as Lord and Savior!
Now, my friend mentioned contrasting all of that with Christ’s death on the Cross at Calvary. His sacrifice led to the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting to all who believe on HIs name!!
The death culture of abortion is just that – a culture of death! There is NOTHING good in such an act. It is the blackest kind of evil imaginable.
Thank you for staying bold, brave and out-spoken on this crucial issue, Bill. If true believers in Jesus Christ don’t speak out about it…who will?
In Jesus,
Christine Watson, USA
“The implacable determination by women not to give birth to children they do not feel they can adequately parent is testament to just how seriously they take the responsibilities of motherhood, and must be respected.”
Is this for real? What a profoundly poor argument. To start with, this is not testament to how seriously, “young sexually active women” take the responsibilities of motherhood, rather testament to the LACK of responsibility when it comes to engaging in the act of sex. It is outright, total disrespect towards the act of sex.
Based on the argument provided, it should be justification for a parent who can no longer afford to feed her child, to just kill it. If you reserve the right to abort ‘before’ the child is born, why should you not have the same right “after’ the child is born? Where is this going to end?
Bennett Donelly
Thanks Bennett
Yes exactly right. Indeed, this argument can be used everywhere. Is a city getting overcrowded? Not to worry -just kill a bunch of the residents. Is a nation struggling financially, like Greece? No problems, just start knocking off enough citizens until you can pay the bills. Does a hospital not have enough beds for all its needs? Easy, just start killing surplus patients.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
There are a couple of comments I would like to make concerning those old furphys the pro death camp trot out when referring to their “safe” abortions. No abortion is safe, certainly not for the person most affected – the baby. The other is the continual argument that the “back yard” abortions, of years gone by, were not safe, but today so-called “safe” abortions may be legally performed in “doctors” surgeries. I have it on impeccable authority from someone in medicine that the so-called “backyard” abortions were not performed in anyone’s backyard, but rather, illegally in doctors surgeries. The reason deaths occurred resulted from the fact that antibiotics were not discovered at that time. Also I’m pleased you used the terminology “pro-death”. That is accurate, our opponents are NOT pro-choice.
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Bill,
I do not disagree with your statement ” the pro-abortionists want to keep women in the dark, and deny them vital information about what they are doing” as it refers to women seeing the unborn baby.
But it should also be mentioned that women are also kept in the dark about the possible future health dangers to them from having an abortion. It seems that pro-abortionists don’t tell the woman that there are adverse health affects, often much further down the track.
Many women think having an abortion solves their problem short-term. But maybe if they were given information about effects on their health, as well as the fact that there is a sentient being growing inside, they would be able to make a truly informed choice, and come to the conclusion that abortion is NOT the answer.
Pam Renton
Thanks Pam
Quite right.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
If women are not portals through which other humans enter the world then I suggest for those who think that way that they should get their ovaries removed and shut their portal down permanently. Trouble is most change their mind when they grow up.
If so many women are convicted with remorse when they see the ultra sound then it belies the arguement that they are properly informed in the first place
If you are sexually promiscuous then I suggest you use the pill correctly. If not its possible the one you may need to take later could kill you.
If you are sexually promiscuous then for the sake of your own health (be a pro-choice thinking being) get the guy to use a condom or keep the portal closed.
Finally Dear Jane if the womens body is not a portal for other humans to enter this world, Where exactly did you come from? Could it be from a real woman & mother who loved you so much that she couldn’t bear to see you callously and selfishly murdered? Oh! and lets not forget the man, husband & father without whom you would not exist.
Dennis Newland
The lesser of two evils? No way! I would invite anyone of you to come and pray with us and view the horrible sight of women leaving the abortion mills, invite you to witness the “so called safe procedure” (resulting in the death of their baby!) Hunched over, head down, legs staggering, still suffering the effects of the anaesthetic with the numb realisation of what has occurred in the suffocating room they have just left! O my God, how cruel! No way is this the lesser of any evil!
Praise God Bill, that we have someone like you to speak up for the most vulnerable and tiniest little people in our world! Tiny little babies crushed and killed and their beautiful mothers ruined and destined to great suffering!
Jane Byrne
Bill, the Vatican is preparing a document on the effect of abortion on women which is well and good, (cathnews, some may like to look it up).
In most cases, stories on this issue will never be known although there are some on record.
In many instances the women submitting to the abortionist’s knife have been defeated, disorientated and pressured to remove the visible sign of unfaithfulness and prevent scandal.
This needs to be said.
Lynne Newington
One argument often used by the pro-abortion side is that if abortion is not made easily available through legal abortion clinics, women will risk their lives by resorting to “back yard abortionists”.
So… perhaps we could also get the police department to mug tourists who wander into risky neighbourhoods. These “muggings” would be non-violent of course and as the proceeds would be handed over to criminals, violent crime would decrease. Such a civilized solution…
Matt Puusaari
Good gracious, Bill.
That has to be one of the worst articles I have read on the topic.
The mentality of the woman daring to think that pregnancy is the “worst fear”!
John Angelico
Bill, please don’t stop being a counter voice against these pro-abortion articles that gets published so regularly. The more I read about it and consider what it is in essence, the more I realise how ridiculous and sick us humans are to allow these killings.
Servaas Hofmeyr
Interesting:
“It is one thing to hold strong personal beliefs, but quite another to impose them on others, particularly those who will have to suffer the consequences, while you bask in a warm righteous glow.”
In another context, you would wonder if she is talking about her own views. Here we have a woman that doesn’t believe that other women should be subjected to seeing the potential consequences of their own actions.
Yet believes that she has the right to impose her beliefs on others (unborn children) who are “particularly those who will have to suffer the consequences”.
John McKay
Thanks John M
Yes quite right. Those who denounce others for sharing their concerns in public are usually the first to push their agendas on others. Her entire article was one long case of imposing her views on others!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Matt Puusaari draws our attention to the old argument about ‘modern safe abortions’ and ‘old backyard abortions’. We are told that the business is much safer today and that lives (women’s lives that is) are no longer at risk. It is worth looking at the figures from 40 years ago and those of today. Women’s lives are still at risk and that does not take into account the after effects, physical and mental, to many.
Karen Bos
The whole article is totally upside-down, but the same sentence caught my eye too, John. Did this woman even read what she wrote? The irony is astonishing. I feel like saying, “You advocate killing the most defenceless people in society, Jane – I think they might ‘suffer the consequences’, hey?” Yet she claims to hold the high moral ground? Unbelievable!
And she should be told that the rape situation is no longer such a good pro-abort tactic as stories like this are becoming more and more widely known:
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html
Also she wheels out that tired old ‘bad old days backyard alley abortion’ argument (Well, what pro-abort
essaydistortion would be complete without it?) Pro-lifers should know that this is not a valid argument, in fact, it is emotional grandstanding of the highest order. Just remember this word – antibiotics.http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/Newsletters/2005/backtard.html
If nothing else, young Christians especially should be educated on what kind of blindness falls onto a human being when they embrace a lifestyle contrary to God’s commands. This woman actually thinks agonizing about the ‘choice’, and yet still going ahead with it, justifies the act! I’m sure it makes no difference to the unborn, and that is all that matters when their lives are at stake. An unborn child aborted by a mother agonizing about the decision is aborted just the same as one who is disposed of for convenience. The act is still wrong.
Mark Rabich
I had the same discussion last year regarding embryonic stem cell research. At first he denied it was a child and then, in the next breath, he said the scientists would act very prudently with only the minimum of destruction. Well, I countered, if they are not children, then why act prudently? Why not use an unlimited amount of embryos? Why have any limits? With that, his wrath was unleashed and he let out a litany of insults towards me. Actually, that was our last exchange after years of friendship.
Kendra Mallock
As do most pro-aborts, Jane Caro has got it wrong on so many points that you would have to question why an editor would print such a misleading and harmful article.
Sr. Mary McBride whom she mentions in the article actually excommunicated herself by her actions. Bishop Thomas Olmsted did not excommunicate her. It was all her own doing. The Bishop is required to advise her of this. While she is able to attend Mass she can no longer receive Holy Communion.
Madge Fahy
Dear Bill, There is no other word to describe the way these women think but callous and heartless. At the pro-life rally last week in WA a liberal MP bravely called for women to be required to have an ultra sound before deciding to have an abortion. He wrote a column about this in Saturday’s West Australian. Next to it was a column written by a female journalist promoting the worn out argument of abortion being a woman’s choice. Unbelievably at the end of the column it said the woman had four children! I thought when I saw this how I would dearly love to ask this woman face to face this question “how can you have the audacity to look into your little children’s faces every day believing that it would be alright to have had either one of them killed before birth if you had chosen to?” This mentality is quite beyond my understanding as a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother.
Patricia Halligan
Bill,
I received a phone call from a blogging friend tonight and she mentioned that the pro-abortion advocates are Satanic in nature and the shedding of blood of the unborn babies is intended to be a mockery, and false “sacrifice” for Christ’s death on the cross for the salvation of men.
Such a thought sent shivers down my spine.
Is it not true that the death of babies through abortion end the life of the child and most often ruin the life of the would-be mother, as well? Especially when she realizes what she has done and has regrets about it for the rest of her life??
Abortion brings death to all involved. The death of the child, the death of the would-be mother’s conscience, and the death of the woman’s soul if she never confesses the sin. The death of the abortion provider can be added to the list of casualities – unless he/she confesses that sin, repents and accepts Christ as Lord and Savior!
Now, my friend mentioned contrasting all of that with Christ’s death on the Cross at Calvary. His sacrifice led to the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting to all who believe on HIs name!!
The death culture of abortion is just that – a culture of death! There is NOTHING good in such an act. It is the blackest kind of evil imaginable.
Thank you for staying bold, brave and out-spoken on this crucial issue, Bill. If true believers in Jesus Christ don’t speak out about it…who will?
In Jesus,
Christine Watson, USA
“The implacable determination by women not to give birth to children they do not feel they can adequately parent is testament to just how seriously they take the responsibilities of motherhood, and must be respected.”
Is this for real? What a profoundly poor argument. To start with, this is not testament to how seriously, “young sexually active women” take the responsibilities of motherhood, rather testament to the LACK of responsibility when it comes to engaging in the act of sex. It is outright, total disrespect towards the act of sex.
Based on the argument provided, it should be justification for a parent who can no longer afford to feed her child, to just kill it. If you reserve the right to abort ‘before’ the child is born, why should you not have the same right “after’ the child is born? Where is this going to end?
Bennett Donelly
Thanks Bennett
Yes exactly right. Indeed, this argument can be used everywhere. Is a city getting overcrowded? Not to worry -just kill a bunch of the residents. Is a nation struggling financially, like Greece? No problems, just start knocking off enough citizens until you can pay the bills. Does a hospital not have enough beds for all its needs? Easy, just start killing surplus patients.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
There are a couple of comments I would like to make concerning those old furphys the pro death camp trot out when referring to their “safe” abortions. No abortion is safe, certainly not for the person most affected – the baby. The other is the continual argument that the “back yard” abortions, of years gone by, were not safe, but today so-called “safe” abortions may be legally performed in “doctors” surgeries. I have it on impeccable authority from someone in medicine that the so-called “backyard” abortions were not performed in anyone’s backyard, but rather, illegally in doctors surgeries. The reason deaths occurred resulted from the fact that antibiotics were not discovered at that time. Also I’m pleased you used the terminology “pro-death”. That is accurate, our opponents are NOT pro-choice.
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Bill,
I do not disagree with your statement ” the pro-abortionists want to keep women in the dark, and deny them vital information about what they are doing” as it refers to women seeing the unborn baby.
But it should also be mentioned that women are also kept in the dark about the possible future health dangers to them from having an abortion. It seems that pro-abortionists don’t tell the woman that there are adverse health affects, often much further down the track.
Many women think having an abortion solves their problem short-term. But maybe if they were given information about effects on their health, as well as the fact that there is a sentient being growing inside, they would be able to make a truly informed choice, and come to the conclusion that abortion is NOT the answer.
Pam Renton
Thanks Pam
Quite right.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
If women are not portals through which other humans enter the world then I suggest for those who think that way that they should get their ovaries removed and shut their portal down permanently. Trouble is most change their mind when they grow up.
If so many women are convicted with remorse when they see the ultra sound then it belies the arguement that they are properly informed in the first place
If you are sexually promiscuous then I suggest you use the pill correctly. If not its possible the one you may need to take later could kill you.
If you are sexually promiscuous then for the sake of your own health (be a pro-choice thinking being) get the guy to use a condom or keep the portal closed.
Finally Dear Jane if the womens body is not a portal for other humans to enter this world, Where exactly did you come from? Could it be from a real woman & mother who loved you so much that she couldn’t bear to see you callously and selfishly murdered? Oh! and lets not forget the man, husband & father without whom you would not exist.
Dennis Newland
The lesser of two evils? No way! I would invite anyone of you to come and pray with us and view the horrible sight of women leaving the abortion mills, invite you to witness the “so called safe procedure” (resulting in the death of their baby!) Hunched over, head down, legs staggering, still suffering the effects of the anaesthetic with the numb realisation of what has occurred in the suffocating room they have just left! O my God, how cruel! No way is this the lesser of any evil!
Praise God Bill, that we have someone like you to speak up for the most vulnerable and tiniest little people in our world! Tiny little babies crushed and killed and their beautiful mothers ruined and destined to great suffering!
Jane Byrne
Bill, the Vatican is preparing a document on the effect of abortion on women which is well and good, (cathnews, some may like to look it up).
In most cases, stories on this issue will never be known although there are some on record.
In many instances the women submitting to the abortionist’s knife have been defeated, disorientated and pressured to remove the visible sign of unfaithfulness and prevent scandal.
This needs to be said.
Lynne Newington