Linda, the "pro-life" propoganda as you refer to it, is simply protection of the unborn child. We are not "selling" anything accept life. Concelling services are provided for these women by pro-life to help them through their pregnancy and to carry the unborn baby full term. The truth is provided, scans are provided. If you are against "informed choice" and ongoing support via pregnancy so the unborn gets a chance to live? then something is very wrong.
This is what pro-life is about "informed choice" if the Mother, after she sees the scan of her child and understands what's involved in an abortion, still wishes to make her choice and abort the baby, then there isn't much anybody can do. Nobody takes her away in handcuffs as abortion is legal.
The quotes I gave backed up by the names of those involved and where they come from. Had they been a lie or a twisted version, the people involved could be sued. They would not get away with this in the face of the fact the information where they came from is given.
You can of course continue to live in denial of what is going on to the unborn even with the abortion pictures given. I'm sure you could also tell yourself that they were faked or perhaps "touched up" as well. Certainly it wouldn't matter what was put up, if someone wants to justify this atrocity, they will.
Even PWCCA still tries to justify it by saying that he wouldn't want to be born to someone who wanted to abort him in the first place.....yet then goes on to say he is pro-choice (pro abortion). So he's making an admission that anybody wanting to terminate in the first place is not the kind of person you would ever want as a parent. But then supports abortion at the sametime. Never once referring to adoption by the many childless people crying out for a child. Again, this mentality shows something is very wrong and the preference for death, rather than life and adoption is clear. Yes we know that every parent having an abortion (unless pressured) does not want the child or cannot cope with having a child. Which would tell us the child is better off right? I know toddlers who are unwanted, they're all over the world. Perhaps we ought to kill or anaethetise them? I know plenty of parents that have reached that point many times with their kids (and teens).
An unwanted child is not an excuse for taking the child's life. Much abortion goes on simply because the Mother has not been fully informed of the procedure, the baby and what goes on.
See, 93% of abortions are for social reasons, not rape or illness. It is the same kind of game playing they use when they give their negative actions a "positive" name. Using "Pro" behind everything. It is a form of brain washing and say it often enough, even in the face of taking human life, and people will often believe it.
Christians can pull out numerous quotes from the bible to explain why abortion is intrinsically evil and fellow Christians would nod in agreement. However, this falls pretty flat in debating this issue with those those of a very different belief. Which you have pointed out PWCCA. However, I would not hesitate to remind any pro-abortion "Christian". lest they die and be judged on how they treated the weakest and most vulnerable of human life.
The pro abortionist must try and lessen, or take away the humanity of the unborn in order to justify this action (at least in his/her mind). I think the following exposes the typical accusations pretty well, taken from
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/valley/6221/debate.html "IS THE CHILD HUMAN?" Scientifically there is no question that the unborn child is indeed a living human being. That the child is living is clear. If she were not alive, no abortion would be contemplated. Pro- abortionists like to say that the child is only a "potential" human. That the child IS something is obvious. Calling her a "potential" human doesn't say what she is, it only speaks to what she will be. I have never heard a pro-abortionist say what the child IS. The reason for that is obvious. They know the answer and that answer is that the child is human. No person or animal has ever been observed to change into some other kind of creature during their lifetime. If something is a cat, it has always been a cat, and will always be a cat. If someone is a human being then they have always been and will always be a human being.[/b]
Here is another comment made by some abortionists:
ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO STOP OVER-POPULATION: This argument sounds strong since we have heard for years that the world is becoming too crowded. There are two serious problems with this argument. First is that dealing with a problem by killing an innocent person is simply wrong. Secondly, the world is NOT overcrowded. If each person in the world were given 2500 square feet, the entire population of the world would cover less than 538,000 sq.miles. Texas alone covers 262,134 sq.miles. Yes, some countries are more crowded than others but the problem is typically a resource problem not a population problem. And in those countries where resources are especially scarce, populations tend to grow more rapidly as a protection against the scarcity of resources. Parents have as many children as they can so that they will be provided for in their old age.
A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER HER OWN BODY: Probably the most frequently heard slogan of the pro- abortionists, this is also one of the weakest slogans. It is a classic example of the "Big Lie," the idea that if something is said often enough and loud enough, people will believe it. It is a very basic biological fact that the unborn child is a separate being from the mother. Yes, the child is completely dependent on the mother for his survival. Note, however, that dependence does not end at birth. Young children are completely dependent on others for their survival for years. The unborn child often has a blood type different from that of the mother. If the differing blood types were to mix, one or both of the mother and child could die. Half of all babies are male. During the pregnancy, is the mother temporarily part male? Without the protection provided by the amniotic sac the unborn child would be expelled from the mother's body as a foreign object. Clearly, the unborn child IS IN the mother's body but IS NOT PART of the mother's body.
EVERY CHILD SHOULD BE A WANTED CHILD (PWCCA's has used this one also and one that I use to believe in too, so I can relate):
The Planned Parenthood Federation loves the slogan "Every child a wanted child." There is nothing wrong with the concept. It would be a wonderful world if every child was born to parents who were thrilled to have that particular child. The simple fact is that this is not the case. The problem is that Planned Parenthood and others use this idea to justify abortion. In effect, what they are saying is "Every child a wanted child, and, if not wanted, killed." That no longer sounds very compassionate. The slogan misses the point completely. The "wantedness" of the child is not a feature of the child's make up. If the child is not wanted it shows a lack in the parent, not the child. One of the basic ideas of the civil rights movement is that one person's value should not depend on the arbitrary preferences of another person. Simply because the child is not wanted by her parents does not mean she is unworthy of life. Millions of couples are eagerly waiting to adopt babies. It is often argued that those people only want healthy, white babies. That is simply not true. Regardless of the race or condition of the child, there are people eagerly waiting to adopt.
The "wanted child" argument also ignores another fact. Just because the mother does not want her child during the eighth week of pregnancy does not mean she will not want him when he is born. Most mothers have probably felt, at some point during their pregnancies, that they did not really want to go through with it. Yet, when the child comes, those feelings are usually gone. However, not always. How many child murders have been caused by Mothers? Do we justify those and say "the child was better off, beceause clearly it wasn't wanted"? ...certainly dying is a release for any abused child, but you won't find people justifying it. Otherwise we may as well change the legal system and say that any child who is murdered by the parent was not wanted in the first place and is better off.
ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL UNTIL VIABILITY: Another common argument, this is one that causes real problems because the word "viability" means different things to different people and means different things at different times. Not too many years ago, a child born a month or two early was at risk of death. Medical technology has progressed to the point that children born three months early are routinely saved. Children have been born at nineteen weeks and survived and grown to be healthy children. Clearly viability, whatever it means, is a function of when a child is conceived.
Typically viability is defined to be the point at which the child can survive outside the womb. Why should place of residence determine whether or not a child lives or dies? I suppose the idea is that until the child is outside the womb she is completely dependent on the mother. As noted above, she will continue to be completely dependent on others for years. In fact, if "ability to survive without the aid of others" is our definition of viability, then many teenagers are not yet viable.
A hazy standard that changes as medical technology changes is a poor standard for determination of a child's worthiness to live.
Typically viability is defined to be the point at which the child can survive outside the womb. Why should place of residence determine whether or not a child lives or dies? I suppose the idea is that until the child is outside the womb she is completely dependent on the mother. As noted above, she will continue to be completely dependent on others for years. In fact, if "ability to survive without the aid of others" is our definition of viability, then many teenagers are not yet viable.
A hazy standard that changes as medical technology changes is a poor standard for determination of a child's worthiness to live.
Typically viability is defined to be the point at which the child can survive outside the womb. Why should place of residence determine whether or not a child lives or dies? I suppose the idea is that until the child is outside the womb she is completely dependent on the mother. As noted above, she will continue to be completely dependent on others for years. In fact, if "ability to survive without the aid of others" is our definition of viability, then many teenagers are not yet viable.
A hazy standard that changes as medical technology changes is a poor standard for determination of a child's worthiness to live.
WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE: The government of the United States was founded on the premise that individuals should be able to live their lives in freedom. Therefore this argument carries a lot of weight if not examined carefully. In fact, the pro-abortionists like it so much that they refer to themselves as "pro-choice" so they can be perceived as standing on the side of liberty. The problem, as with most "bumper-sticker" slogans, is the shallowness of thought displayed. Yes, we have many freedoms, but those freedoms are constantly restricted. I have the right to swing my arms around. But if in the course of swinging my arms around I hit another person I may have left the area of freedom and entered the area of assault. I have the right to freedom of speech. Yet slander is not protected. Neither am I given the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. The key is our rights may be restricted once their exercise infringes on the rights of others. As we saw above, the unborn child is a separate human being and therefore her right to life should not be infringed upon by any right of the mother's with the possible exception of the need to protect the life of the mother. This situation will be dealt with later.
IF ABORTION WAS MADE ILLEGAL, WOMEN WILL STILL DO IT: (what a cop out).
This argument is put forth to let the world know that pro-abortionists believe that abortion should be kept "safe and legal." First we will consider the aspect of safety. Abortion is not at all safe, whether legal or not. At least once each year we hear about a tragic case in which a woman dies as the result of a botched abortion. I would contend that we hear of only a small percentage of the actual number of such instances.
Medical research has found a link between abortion and breast cancer. Apparently, aborting a first pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer. The reason is that during a first pregnancy, the breast changes into a milk-producing organ. Formerly undifferentiated cells proliferate and differentiate. Proliferation begins during the first trimester and differentiation does not finish until late in the pregnancy. The proliferating undifferentiated cells are susceptible to mutagenesis but after differentiation are less susceptible. If the pregnancy ends early, the process of differentiation stops. An interesting side note to this argument. Pro-abortionists insist that they want "safe" abortions but they constantly oppose legislation that would require abortionists to tell women of the potential dangers of the surgery so that an informed choice can be made.
If abortion is made illegal some women will still have abortions. That is certainly the case. But that in itself does not mean abortion should be legal. Auto theft is illegal. Yet people still steal cars. Since that law is ignored does that mean we should make auto theft legal? If it were legal it would certainly make it safer and less stressful for the thief. Of course that is nonsense. But then so is saying abortion should stay legal simply because some people would "do it anyway."
Crime does not decrease by legalising it, it increases tenfold. Legalising abortion may make it safer and sterile for the Mother, but it is still murder. It also opens the door to abortion and makes it an available option and so the flood gates open. If the Mother had to face the abortion herself, she may change her mind. But instead she can lie back and the abortionists are the ones who do the dirty work for her. It makes it much easier when someone else does it! We all know of people who pay others to finish someone else off and in a "professional" way so things don't "go wrong". Whether messy, risky, unsafe, or sterile and safer, it does not make murder "ok" nor can it justify legalising it. Taking the life inside of them is not the answer for anybody trying to get out of their pregnancy. It is understandable in desperate situations, but it is not justifiable on behalf of the unborn. Murder is murder. Desperate Mothers who kill even their children (already born) may be understood too in desperate situatioins, but it does not justify murder.
YOU CAN'T LEGALISE MORALITY: Any time a new law is proposed someone screams that the law is imposing one person's morality on the rest of us. That is essentially true. But, the question is, is that unusual? Is that bad? I challenge you to find a law that does not legislate morality to one degree or another. Why is rape illegal? Because it is WRONG! Why is murder illegal? Because it is WRONG! Why is slavery illegal? Because it is WRONG! Many people say "I am personally opposed to abortion but I do not want to impose my morality on someone else." That sounds very noble but consider the following statement. "I am personally opposed to rape but I do not want to impose my morality on someone else." "I am personally opposed to slavery but I do not want to impose my morality on someone else." Anyone who would say that publicly would be justifiably branded a lunatic. There is no difference between that statement and the one regarding abortion. The key to all of these things being wrong is that they infringe on the safety and rights of another human being. The unborn child is a distinct, separate human being. Her rights deserve protection, too. If we believe abortion is wrong or immoral then we have a moral and ethical obligation to oppose it.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY FOR ABORTIONS FOR POOR PEOPLE: This argument comes very close to advocating socialism. Many pro-abortionists believe that the government should fund abortions for any women who want one but can not afford one. If the abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother the argument carries some weight (yet is still taking one life to save another) but otherwise it fails miserably. If the mother's physical health is not seriously endangered the abortion is not something she NEEDS but something she WANTS. It is socialistic to claim that the government should provide everyone with the things that they want but can not afford. I may want a lot of things that I can not afford. Other people may be able to afford them. That may not seem fair. But, as we have all heard many times, life is not fair.
ABORTION IS SAFER THAN CHILDBIRTH: The quick answer to this statement is "It sure isn't safe for the baby." But even discounting that fact, this argument still fails. Pro-abortionists like to claim that abortion is safer than childbirth. They even have numbers to prove their point. As a college mathematics instructor, I am often skeptical of people who use statistics to prove their point. This is one case where skepticism is justified. In giving the rates of death for childbirth and abortion a cute little game is played. The number of serious injuries due to abortion is included in the number of deaths due to childbirth. That number is then divided by the number of children born. Abortion is included in deaths but not pregnancies. That is called dishonest reporting of facts.
ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN CASE OF RAPE OR INCEST: Again, a quick answer is "Why?" A woman who has been raped will not be 'unraped' after an abortion. Abortion will not take away the incestuous violation of a young girl. In fact, in the case of incest, abortion helps protect the abuser by helping to hide his crime.
Secondly, when rapists are jailed, we do not also jail their children. Killing a child who is a product of rape or incest punishes the child. It does not punish the rapist or abuser. No civilized society punishes a child with death because of the sins of their parents.
I can understand that a woman who is pregnant due to rape or incest may not want the child. However, killing the child just puts the woman in the position of responding to violence with another act of violence. There are millions of couples eager to adopt babies. There are couples willing to adopt any baby, not just healthy white babies. This allows the woman to not have to forever be reminded of her violation without having to live with the physical and psychological consequences of abortion.
ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER: This argument brings to mind the idea of a woman fighting for her very life in a situation where only having an abortion can help. If that is the case, then removing the child by caesarian section, and doing whatever can be done to save BOTH patients is a reasonable response. However, this is NOT what is meant in practice.
The problem is the word 'health.' In Doe v Bolton, the Supreme Court defined health to include physical, emotional, financial and social conditions. In other words, if the pregnancy is 'upsetting,' a health exception would allow an abortion. I find it appalling that people would advocate killing an innocent child because the mother is stressed.
Even if the mother is suffering from the pregnancy, I do not believe it appropriate to treat her sickness by killing her child. Medical science is sufficiently advanced that in the vast majority of cases the mother's illness can be handled without doing anything to the child.
ABORTIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN CASES OF SEVERE 'FETAL DEFORMITIES' Words are powerful weapons. When we want to provoke feelings of compassion we speak of 'handicapped children.' When we want to advocate killing we speak of 'fetal deformities.' Since when do we deal with a person's physical problems by killing them? If that is the case then why not advocate burning down all of the nation's nursing homes with the residents still inside?
A second consideration is that many forms of prenatal testing for handicaps are flawed and unreliable. Do we risk killing a baby for an ailment that she may not really have?
PRO-LIFERS ARE CONCERNED FOR UNBORN BABIES, NOT WOMEN AND CHILDREN: This is patently absurd. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be running crisis pregnancy centers
http://prolife.org/cpcs-online/ all over the country. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be more active in charities than the average person. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be giving help to both child AND mother during and after pregnancy. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be trying to adopt children.
ABORTION PREVENTS UNWANTED CHILDREN AND THEREFORE PREVENTS CHILD ABUSE: First, I would suggest that abortion is the ultimate child abuse. To what greater abuse could a child be subjected than be ripped piece by piece from her mother's womb?
Secondly, if this argument were true then the rate of child abuse in the country would have gone DOWN since abortion was legalized in 1973. On the contrary, though, child abuse has gone UP since then. The nonchalant way in which the nation accepts abortion has led to a devaluation of human life that has led to more abuse, not less.
MOST PEOPLE FAVOUR LEGAL ABORTION: Let us for the moment assume this is true. I still respond, "So what." Does majority support for something make it right? If it did we would still have slavery.
In any case, this argument is not true. Polls can be taken that show some support for legalized abortion. However, it is a known fact that poll results can be skewed by the way a question is answered. If people are asked "Should a women be allowed to make her own medical decisions without governmental interference?" then they typically answer yes. However, if they are asked "Should unborn children be protected from being ripped apart in the womb?" they will also answer yes. Neither question does a good job of determining public opinion. To determine public opinion, questions must be worded in an unbiased way. When people are asked "Do you oppose abortion on demand?" better than 2/3 say "YES." More than 78% would ban all but the "hard cases" (rape, incest, life of the mother).
Whilst you guys continue to debate whether the human life inside a womb is worthy of being called human or not, or figuring out any possible way to degrade or deny it (going back to conception in hopes that will be the answer), the abortions continue and every unborn child's life is under threat. You'd never wish to legalise murder in case your own person is under threat, but have no issues with the unborn. Again, I say the following: If there is ANY question mark involved in aborting a human life in the womb, the benefit of doubt should first go towards the unborn.
