ZERO TOLERANCE:
The most highly used excuse to allow abortion, at no time in the history of the United States have rape or incest ever exceeded five percent of abortions. The main fault with this argument is that it starts out by saying that at conception a preborn human is protected under the Constitution but because his father is a rapist or incestor that his Constitutional rights are either revoked or ignored. Try that argument with any other situation. Example: You are the produce of a rape pregnancy; does that mean that you have no right to life? That is, if someone were to shoot you in the head fifty times, would they be violating the law? If you have no "right to life", then there would be no crime committed (at least not murder) and the Liberals would suggest that such a thing would be preposterous, but that is EXACTLY what they are proposing, unless they concede that simply because your father was a rapist, you still have a right to life.
Now let's get to why you are really reading this; to look at the other side, the Pro-Choice camps. Always refer to them by their chosen name even though you might not agree with the name; it only makes you look bad if you refuse to even acknowledge their self appointed title; not that you can't use their name against them at times, but since you wish to be referred to as Pro-Life, you should refer to them as Pro-Choice; believe me, it will help in the long run. The Pro-Choice camp has even more situational "what-ifs" than the Pro-Life side. I will list the arguments that have been given to me over the years as why abortion is justifiable:
My response is that I don't know of a single scientist that would declare a preborn as anything other than alive (even at conception if they are cornered since at conception it is not dead and it is not non-life (like a rock for instance) and if it isn't human, of what species is it? Are they really arguing that there is a species change in the womb? Specifically when does this occur? Let's get real! And if you hear (and you will) that "no one can determine when life begins", simply ask them on what grounds then do they condone abortion; don't they know they could be killing human life especially since they don't seem to know? Science is supposed to err, if on any side, to that of caution. An archaeologist will, if in doubt, gingerly dust a worthless relic to that of a legitimate artifact; simply because he doesn't know whether what he has is worth any value.
This is the most popular of all reasons to allow abortion. That the unborn baby cannot survive outside the mother's womb. This argument has a great deal of support among people who consider themselves Pro-Choice and haven't even thought about why. At face value, it even seems reasonable, but has some major problems, such as:
1. If viability is THE determining factor on whether something that genetically is considered human, then under those same standards, people in comas or unable to care for themselves would not be considered human and, again, should be able to be legally scalded to death, killed by tearing their limbs from their body or crushing their skull and sucking their brains out. Does anyone literally believe this? (TLDS) Of course not, so they have to attach another "reason" to allow abortion, or go to another tactic or start calling you names you insenstive man you! (And if you're a woman, they will say that you have not had your eyes opened or some other esoteric phrase that attempts to make all your comments worthless.
IOW: Viability is not a legitimate issue since it would also place people who are already BORN within the same "non-human" status of a pre-born. And if they are claiming viability, they must take the bad portions of this "logic" against what they perceive is the good.
2. Viability keeps getting moved to earlier and earlier periods in the pregnancy. What will happen when technology makes it possible to save a pregnancy from any stage, even immediately after conception? Viability goes out the window, but don't worry; they've got a million excuses.
B. AGE
C. QUALITY OF LIFE
This is the one that puzzles me the most, especially from Liberals who go out of their way to link themselves with the poor; this basically says that the baby, if allowed to be born MIGHT be abused, or might not have a good quality of living. So? Even IF that were so, who gives me, you or anyone else the ability to kill someone because they don't live up to your standard of what "quality of life" is? Can we all thank God that someone with the level of wealth of Donald Trump or Bill Gates doesn't decide that? We'd all be without Constitutional protection of life.
D. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION
Not to try to oversimply it, but the abortion debate comes down to location. If the preborn is located in a different location (outside the womb) ALL debate comes to an end whether it is protected by law or not.
For more information on abortion and the Conservative standpoint (this is not just a Christian issue as much as they would love to make it because then they could ignore the issue itself and then attack you because Catholics at one time were running governments or whatever they wish to push off on you.)
Back to The Last Witness' Home Page
tlwitness@juno.com