Article by Cameron Spink

 

An article appeared today on The Punch. This was written by Babette Francis supporting the involvement of Catholic organisations in the pro-life movement. Now, I am not Catholic but I am pro-life, and I wish to write to debunk some of the many fallacious arguments from posts below Babette's article. There were claims that members from organisations like The Helpers (a Catholic pro-life group) hurled abuse at those attending the abortion clinics and sometimes even spat on those pregnant women. Here is a quote from a spokesman from The Helpers:

 

"Our primary goal is the conversion of hearts. Obviously you don’t spit on somebody when you wish to change their heart.

We mainly pray and offer assistance. We endeavour to save the life of the child. Abortion is a tragedy. But all is not lost. There is no rush to judgment. We try to alleviate that feeling that there is no other choice.

We’re under very strict standards of behaviour. The police can now issue a fine for an offensive behaviour. None of The Helpers have ever been convicted of an offence.

It’s all very well to make these accusations but there is no evidence to support it."

Spokesman for The Helpers

 

With such accusations being clarified as false (I have no reason to doubt the scincerity of the quote above) I wish to concentrate upon is the fallacy (or the poor logic) of many posters below that article. When abortion is discussed there really is no middle ground. This is probably because it is difficult for somebody to say "It is wrong, but I support people's choice to do it".

 

The first point of note is concerned with clarification. One poster said "You shouldn't refer to your movement as 'pro life', it should be 'anti-abortion'" and then went on to state that pro-lifers resort to killing people. This is obviously in reference to what is classified as incidents of "anti-abortion violence" and makes for some grime reading. If, infact, there was any rational connection between these people using violence (usually a group called the Army of God) and those who take a pro-life stance. The fact is, that I, and nearly all others in the pro-life movement abhor the violence caused by these people who masquerade as pro-life while acting with detestable hypocrisy. You can read an article here where Greg Koukl deals with some of these incidents directly.

 

So, in the first instance, I would like to refute the title "pro-choice". This is widely inaccurate. The very concept of abortion belies this name as the child is given no choice as to their existence. So if we are called to chance our movement's name to "anti-abortion" (which we won't) then the opposition should change their name to pro-abortion. Unfortunately, this won't happen. However, if it "quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...".

 

My clarification above draws out the first logical argument from the "pro-choice" side. Several posters state this and I will quote verbatim "a foetus is not a baby, despite the dishonest psychological tactics that Ms Francis and her cohorts deploy". Despite the fact that this poster seems to be playing the man rather than the ball they have enunciated the most regular defence for abortion. This argument is debunked in Randy Alcorn's book Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments. He says "[m]any people have been told that there is no medical or scientific consensus as to when human life begins. This is simply untrue. Among those scientists who have no vested interests in the abortion issue, there is an overwhelming consensus that human life begins at conception. (Conception is the moment when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, bringing into existence the zygote, which is a genetically distinct individual.)" (Part 1b, pg 39). He then goes on to list many experts who support such a position. However, to understand this argument completely you should buy his book and read through his more thorough response.

 

Usually no consensus can be met on this first argument. The thing with science is that there are always experts who support any position under the sun, no matter how irrational. So it is likely most "pro-choicers" will ignore the argument of life beginning at conception and jump straight to their second argument, which usually goes something like "I am pro-choice because I believe that the only person to have a say in my body and reproductive health is me". This argument is used in many different spheres and can be simplified to "mind your own business!". It is unfortunate that this argument has gained any credence at all and must be testament to the overwhelming selfishness of inhabitants of western nations. In the end this reasoning is found to be rather delusional. Here is Greg Koukl's take on this argument:

 

"But women have a freedom to choose." False. No one has an open-ended freedom to choose anything they want. You only have the freedom to choose morally acceptable alternatives. Killing innocent human beings because they are inconvenient is not one of those morally acceptable alternatives.

"It's my body and I can do anything I want with it." False on two counts. Even if I agreed that we are only talking about one woman's body, the law does not allow you to do whatever you want with your body. You can't do anything you want with your body. Secondly, an unborn child can have a penis and women don't have penises. That is proof that there is a separate individual human being involved. By the way, that is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party.

This kind of personal property argument was used to declare black slave Dred Scott a non-human, so you are in good company if you are arguing that way (facetiously, good company being Judge Taney). The point is, we are not talking about the woman's body. We are talking about another human being domiciled within the woman. Does the dentist become part of the woman's body when he sticks his hand in her mouth to do her teeth? No, of course not. It just goes to show how ridiculous these kinds of slogans are.

Abortion Rhetoric - Greg Koukl, Stand To Reason

 

One of the most non-sensical arguments also reared its head on The Punch's website. It goes like this "Sure, you could make it illegal - and the backyard operators will simply open up shop again". This is jaw-dropping stupidity. In news today there is growing worries that a gang-related feud is going to explode in Melbourne's northern suburbs. Now drive-by shootings and even assassinations occur enough in Melbourne to make this type of behaviour a regular occurrence. But it would be a strange argument to state that authorities should turn their backs on a very dangerous behaviour. The risk of backyard abortions occurring is unfortunate because it is dangerous for the woman. However, this does not justify legalising abortion, which is a morally reprehensible act.

 

Of course, many people feel this wording is too fierce and fire back "you have no right to try and impose your beliefs and values on others who don't share them". Well, I'll be! We're being shouted down by a group of people who don't think that anyone should impose their values on anyone else. Even putting aside the rather humorous logical fallacy of the above quote I can't help thinking why not? If abortion is the killing of human life then such an action is synonymous with murder. I have no qualms against denouncing murder so why should I spare abortion the same condemnation.

 

There was one poster who, perhaps, showed the hand of the pro-abortionists too well. He said "[a]s a scientist you'd know our planet has a disastrous human population problem.  When 'pro-life' means lack of birth control, it should be stamped out!". Thankfully, a reply called his bluff. Because, indeed, if the world has a human population problem there is something he can do to fix it. Of course, and mercifully, this poster will not follow his comments to their logical conclusion (and commit suicide). What we realise is that our existence is precious and worth fighting for. As a Christian I realise that it is not my own existence which is merely precious but everyone around me as well. So while we may have to take a beating for our stance we know that it is God who created us for His glory and we will struggle for the right of the most innocent to receive the riches of His promise.

 

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!