Words Regarding Abortion

pregnant woman with an illustration of a baby inside of her belly


This was slated for inclusion in the most recent blog, but these thoughts about abortion proved to be lengthy enough to be a stand-alone post all of its own.


Inconsistency:  Sign of a Failed Argument

If Christ-followers are to play a part in abolishing human abortion, we need to (with self-control) deal with people making Leftist arguments, demonstrating why their evil logic is both spiritually and morally wrong.  If done well, we might just witness the effects of a truth bomb on fifty years of propaganda against innocent babies in the womb.  These young defenseless people in utero have been dehumanized, seen as nothing more than “intruders” who’ve invaded female bodies.

Our demeanor in this debate should remain calm, not losing composure in the face of demonic thinking, not giving in to fleshly anger, raised voices, or lack of level-headedness.  We do better to aim instead at the irrationality of the murder-advocates’ own statements.  The Left says abolitionists look to impose their morality on others, but ironically they’re clearly okay with imposing their morality on the child within the womb.

When one drills down to the basic argument, they’re basically saying the woman’s body is more important than the baby’s life – that the mother’s right to choose ending her baby’s life supersedes the baby’s right to life.  One of the most troubling aspects of these interactions is that so many pro-murder people are influential educators holding to ungodly values which are almost entirely disconnected from simple logic and morality.  These drones are entirely brainwashed and devoid of critical thinking.  Their views are based on mere emotion and social training.  It’s a very dangerous and perilous road our society’s been forced to travel with them.


“Pro-Life” Isn’t the Same as “Anti-Murder”

It’s not enough to be pro-life.  That’s a strategy that clearly won’t work because it’s based on the idea that murder is a political issue to be settled at the ballot box.  Pursuing this strategy was and is a grave error.  Murder shouldn’t be an election season issue to be resolved by majority vote (or even by judges legislating from the bench).  “Pro-lifers” must join the movement which aims to totally abolish human abortion – embracing an “anti-murder” stance.  Christians should lead the way.  This leadership must reject the sad and disturbing justification that’s been uttered far too often by “evangelicals” suggesting the murder of an unborn child isn’t all that terrible because aborted children are better off in Heaven.

If your ears have been spared the offense of this nonsense, you need to be made aware – there are apologists for murders who maintain that, “It’s hard to make the case that this life is preferable to heaven.  Besides some people aren’t destined to have much time on this Earth.  So, we can’t force someone to love another person, and we can’t force someone to complete a bodily function that takes place inside their body unless you’re a tyrant.  If you argue that it’s right to force anyone to comply with your demands upon their body, then you want to violate their liberty.  Individual liberty in this nation takes precedence over religious objections to abortion.”

I haven’t invented the quote above.  It’s a transcription of words directly passing through the lips of a spirit-of-the-ager.  I’m perplexed by the “liberty” argument.  If officials from the government protect the life of a helpless and innocent victim, this is tyranny?  Please!  Let’s not neglect the rights of the child and his/her body.  The unborn child has forty-six chromosomes, unique from the mother.  The unborn child also has his/her own heartbeat, blood type, brain waves, nervous system, and finger prints.  Stick the child with a pin, the mother doesn’t feel it.  Stick the mother with a pin, the baby doesn’t feel it.  The two are clearly separate people.


Babies are Victims of Ageism

The unborn baby isn’t part of another human’s body.  The mother and the baby have entirely different bodies.  Hence, the comments about DNA, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.  This same set of facts is true of a toddler; does the mother of a two-year-old have the LIBERTY to kill her child so she can experience FREEDOM from the responsibilities of raising the child?  A mother needs to give consent for the inconvenience of pregnancy, but the child doesn’t need to give consent for the inconvenience of being killed?  That’s a very odd moral framework.

Equality between males and females is important.  So is equality between the old and the young.  Because the mother is older, does she have more rights?  The unborn child has a body, too; what about his/her liberty?  Should the state not have laws against committing murder?  Some call unborn children “invaders”.  It’s an invasion?  Now the baby is an invader?!  Following the pro-abortion logic, how can the baby be an invader if the baby isn’t even a person?  (Incidentally, during the time you’ve spent reading these remarks approximately 475 babies were sadly aborted worldwide).

I’ll now begin turning the corner on this blog; I hope it’s helpful to you.  As I’ve already highlighted, I know people who open their pro-murder position with, “Individual liberty in this nation takes precedence over your religious objections to abortion.”  Then they add, “The government has determined it’s legal.”  This certainly catches my negative attention.  But then, ironically, I see that I have many areas of agreement with these pro-murder types.  For instance, they say, “I’m pro liberty.”  Me, too.  They say they stand for equality under the law.  Me, too.  They say they seek to engage in debate without resorting to name-calling and disrespect.  Me, too.  However, there’s a critical area of disagreement, and that revolves around the question of the unborn child’s humanity.


Maddeningly Vicious Circular Reasoning

The child-sacrifice contingent holds their position passionately (which is to be respected in a morbid sort of way), but they defend their position incoherently.  They might first argue that, “It isn’t a child until it is free of its host.  Until then, it lives off of the host and is an appendage of the host’s body.”  In response, I point out (as mentioned above) that the unborn child has DNA, heartbeat, blood type, brain waves, nervous system, finger prints, etc. which are unique and separate from the mother’s body.  They then often seek to clarify that, for them, when determining an individual’s humanity, the key factor is lung function (later expanding this point to include other bodily functions).  In response, I point out that some adults have no lung function (being fully dependent on an iron lung).  I also point to the example of newborns on life support, unable to support their own bodily functions.  Often the pro-murder types agree that individuals needing an iron lung are human (despite their lack of lung function), but only because they’re not “part of another person’s body”.  They extend this same point to also cover for other examples (including babies on life support).

This sort of argumentation is maddeningly circular, as they return to points which had already been refuted.  They generally add that, for them, it’s a question of liberty and freedom for the mother, to which I ask them to consider the liberty and freedom of the child.  But, like clockwork, they regularly emphasize the issue of consent, saying that the mother has “the right to give consent to continuing the pregnancy”.  So, I point out this ignores the right of consent that belongs to the child, especially since the baby never asked to be inside that uterus.  But they’ll nearly always return to pressing their point on consent, saying it’s an issue of equality between males and females.  Hence, I revisit the point that this paradigm ignores the issue of equality between the young and the old.  When pressed in this manner they’ll essentially attempt to bypass the ageism angle, drawing attention instead to the rights of the woman with regard to her body.  In answer, I again clarify that the child has a body, too, to which he/she also has rights.


Cultists Embrace Illogic

In the end, the pro-murder folks boil down the issue (from their point of view) to that of forced consent, saying the woman shouldn’t be forced to consent to continuing the pregnancy.  Yet, they remain silent on the problem of the baby being forced to “give consent” to being killed.  Complicating their argument, as has been mentioned, they sometimes refer to the unborn child as an invader.  This creates a problem of logic, since the supposed “invader” isn’t even a person according to their view.  Their attempt to have it both ways brings a self-defeating incoherence to their position.  So, they then focus on defending the legal merits of abortion, saying, “As long as it’s in the uterus it’s not a person under the law.”  This is viciously circular reasoning.  Their answer, essentially, is “It can’t be illegal because it’s legal.”  This sort of argument is, of course, nonsensical and dishonest.  As with all cultists, the blindness to reason is all too real.

The feticide fanatics recurrently center their argument on the unborn child residing in the uterus of the woman.  As with real estate, their argument majors on location, location, location.  They’ll slip into discussion about respiration, bodily functions, and dependency – but when all these points are refuted, they fall back on the idea that “the woman has this other person inside her body, and she has a right to get it out of there”.  I appreciate the power such a perspective holds over devoutly deluded people, so I don’t expect my typed words to automatically change the perspective of those who disagree with me.  Therefore, I end with one final thought, for now.

I’ve had numerous exchanges with people just like what’s outlined above.  Toward the end of one such dialog the other person said, “What part of ‘all are created equal’ is hard to understand?”, then added, “I defer to God in this matter.  You can’t make me believe you’re a better option than God for me to defer my understanding on this issue.”  And further, “I’m comfortable leaving this to God, until you convince me there’s a human arbiter better qualified.”  I take all of this to mean the person claims to be a believer in the God of the Bible.  Assuming as much, at least for the sake of argument, I humbly and earnestly ask people who think in like manner to read the following passages – then meditate upon this question:  What’s more important, the woman’s right to evict her “unwanted tenant” or the child’s right to remain alive?  (Genesis 25:21-22, Second Samuel 11:5, Job 31:15, Psalm 22:10-11, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 127:3-5, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Hosea 12:3, Matthew 25:40 and 45, Luke 1:41-44, First Corinthians 6:19-20, Galatians 1:15).


Many blessings to you,

Pastor Troy Skinner