In last week’s Louder with Crowder, Lila Rose of Live Action made suggestions as to how pro-lifers could get involved in the pro-life movement. If you’re not already involved, it can be daunting to get started, especially since pro-choice people are bullies who use intimidation to “get their way.” They also like to use catchy phrases like “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries,” to which the pro-life movement hasn’t yet answered. Maybe “Your baby’s alive, let it thrive!” will catch on. Who’ll write the music?
Where a lot of pro-life people get hung up (no, that’s not an allusion to the fake wire-hanger myth) in an argument with a pro-choice person is accepting the premise of the pro-abortionist in the first place. But those same abortionists crumble to pieces when the argument is turned around on them. Because facts to a liberal are like a soap circle around an ant crawling on your counter. No, I never did that…
Because if you’re against abortion, you’re not extreme. It’s not extreme to think that babies should like, totally be born and stuff, and not get chopped to bits and auctioned off because…well for whatever reason. It’s the act of killing the baby (at any point in the pregnancy) that’s the evil problem. The problem is not you and your silly, narrow belief that babies are people too. You weirdo.
In a debate about abortion, reject the “pro-choice” premise. Always. Watch Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina reject the pro-abortion premise and hold firm to the pro-abortion bullies.
Every pro-choice talking point is a distraction. Is it helpful to have facts? Always. Here’s one you may not know: the definition of pregnancy was changed from fertilization to implantation, so many forms of contraception wouldn’t be classified as abortifacients. Whoa, the left changing definitions of words to fit their agenda!? Hopefully you were sitting down for that bombshell. The pro-abortion movement isn’t about facts. Abortionists rely on emotion and focus on the circumstances of a pregnancy, never about the killing of a baby. Bring every argument with a pro-abort back to the killing of a baby.
When a pro-choice person runs through the litany of Planned Parenthood talking points, ask that person (since they support abortion) to defend abortion. And watch them squirm. And bounce around the soap bubble looking for a way out.
Five questions you can and should ask your pro-abortion advocate:
- Have you seen the recent undercover Planned Parenthood videos or have you seen an abortion?
Many will answer no to either. But how can they support something but are unwilling to see it? Seeing an abortion will make it intolerable regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy. - What happens in an abortion procedure? Describe it.
Since they’re the ones who support abortion, they should know what it is and what it does. They often won’t know anything at all, and here’s where you can dash in with a few little facts. Either describe an abortion to them, or direct them to a video like this: a non-graphic video explaining each abortion procedure. - Why do you think it’s okay to cut up a baby and suck it out of her mother’s uterus?
Whoa, that escalated quickly, didn’t it? But that’s the evil truth of “choice.” Give the baby a gender, because it has one. And cutting and sucking a baby out of the uterus is what happens in an abortion. Frame it that way. Babies are humans, not ingredients in a casserole. - If it’s not a human life, what is it?
It has human DNA. It can only be a human and a person with rights. They pro-choicer might try to dance around this one a bit and claim that the human has human DNA, but they’re not a “person.” Welcome to the symantic gymnastics. Try not to contort yourself into a human pretzel of WTF. - If life doesn’t begin at conception when does it begin? And if you don’t know isn’t it dangerous to presume?
Science has answered this question: life begins at conception. Period. Of course that means abortion always ends a life. If the person insists they don’t know when life begins, ask them about making a such a dangerous presumption. After all, you wouldn’t perform an autopsy on someone without confirmation of death, would you? I mean, you’d at least tell the “dead” person a joke before sticking them with a scalpel, yes? Or give them a tickle under the chin?
Being against abortion puts you in the moral right, not in the wrong. Even if you don’t have the rhymed catch phrase down pat. But bear in mind that many pro-choice people are clouded by evil. They will fully support the killing of babies, regardless of the science. That’s a scary reality that many of us need to accept. Not long ago, slavery was supported in the same way abortion is supported today. Slavery was legal. People could see with their own eyes that slaves were people. Clear as day. Those “other” people didn’t matter to the left then, just as these “other” people don’t matter to them now.
The fight for life is not over. Yes, the new undercover Planned Parenthood videos are big steps forward in the war against abortion, but the movement still needs ground troops. Mainstream media is still doing its best to hide the truth about Planned Parenthood. And mostly because it’s about profit. You know, that evil word the left pretends to hate.
As long as this tragedy is covered up, it will continue to take the lives of babies in the name of “choice.” What progress.
I appreciate the message of this post, however I still disagree with the position. There are several reasons to disagree regardless of what political afiliation you belong to. The fact is that pro-life advocates are trying to use government to use force in order to limit the accessibility to abortion procedures. Government has no place to be involved in this…period. To utilize government as a vehicle for this agenda is hypocrisy at its best since the same argument is used with any government social intervention (ie. OBAMACARE) which I completely agree with.
Further, if two people especially the female in any given situation can create life by choice, then they should be able to destroy it as well as gruesome as that sounds or is. We’ve all heard the saying that goes, “I brought you into this world; I can take you out!”. Although it is usually from a pissed off dad, it applies in this scenario. We cannot allow government to intervene into the bodies of its citizens regardless of the righteousness of the cause. We should however be educating each other through church or other private means so that individuals can choose to be pro-life as an individual choice not as an act of force from government.
I think legally, since the government only recognizes its citizens from the second they are born, it is also unreasonable to argue that individual rights apply to an unborn fetus. The fetus life will be determined by really only one person and that is the mother. She controls almost everything in regards to the fetus, so really the only rights the fetus has is given to it by the mother.
This is an extremely divisive topic, and I understand both sides. However, it should also be recognized as a difficult choice for those who have to make it. As long as conservatives continue to grip on to this topic, it will be nearly impossible to bring this country back to its greatness by allowing many people who would side with them on things that the government is supposed to do. I think it is more important for our nation to come together rather than to use government to shame one another for doing certain things. Additionally, I think it is also important that zero tax dollars should fund any organization involved in abortion regardless if those funds apply to abortion or not. I’ll even take a step further and say that tax dollars should not fund any social programs because it is not the reaponsibility of government to do so and has failed time and time again as we have seen with welfare, education subsidies, and corporate subsidies.
Wrong wrong wrong, how many times do we have to explain it to you pretend libertarians who just don’t get that this is exactly why we have a government at all? The government has told one segment of society they can kill other people just because they feel like it, because it’s a politically expedient thing to allow. That’s as big as big government gets. If government shouldn’t be involved in this then it shouldn’t be involved in murder, and therefore we should just go back to the law of the jungle.
I would like to answer your 5 questions about abortion.
1: I have never witnessed an abortion I also have never witnessed a hip replacement, but if I needed one I wouldn’t be against it.
2: I don’t know specifically what happens during an abortion, once again I don’t know what happens in a hip replacement but if I needed one I would still get one.
3: so is your major concern the methods used in abortion and not abortion itself?
4: if you consider it human because it has human DNA then isn’t every stem cell a human also. I mean you can grow stem cells into anything you want so don’t all stem cells have rights. AND if you do assume it’s a baby then do you also agree that a human should have the right to a woman’s body without her consent.
5: by saying isnt it a dangerous assumption couldn’t we just as easily say we’ll if you don’t know for a fact that cars emit greenhouse gasses that will destroy the environment then we should be cautious and get rid of cars?
“Being against abortion puts you in the moral right, not in the wrong. Even if you don’t have the rhymed catch phrase down pat. But bear in mind that many pro-choice people are clouded by evil.”
I’d argue that many, especially younger people, are willfully ignorant, but not evil. I would certainly refrain from accusing pro-abortion supporters of being evil (this excludes the people in the undercover videos) because that’s no way to convice others that abortion is unjust.
Excellent story.
Unfortunately, I think many pro-choicers concede that it IS a human baby- because with today’s technology they would just look foolish to deny that. They know that, yet feel that it is acceptable to end a “pregnancy” because the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced or challenged in any way (despite her CHOICE to have sex when not in a position to have a baby) trumps the child’s right to life. And they are so bold and indignant in their beliefs, treating the child as and adversary or enemy- hence the meme of “forced motherhood.” Such misplaced priorities.
I’ve never slaughtered a cow myself or seen one slaughtered…. but I still enjoy a good cheeseburger..or chicken strip…and bacon..etc etc etc. I’m sure its absolutely awful how the animals are killed. That would be my answer to the 1st 2 questions. Life for me begins when the baby takes its first breath of air, on its own. Personally and this will probably sound terrible, but I think the world could use a little more abortion. Especially from the bottom feeder class, minorities, lifetime welfarer users, food stammpers..non tax payers and overall non contributors to society. Good riddance Help save the next generation by not bringing more broken children into this world.
IF abortion is not murder, why are people charged with murder or manslaughter when a pregnant woman is killed?
Ron – they are not! This answer is ignorance crystallized. Look this up.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for providing medical textbook quotations. It amazes me how the left touts the all-mighty science yet when it comes to abortion they do their best to turn it in to a philosophical debate. Secular science has known for a long time now that human life begins at conception. For every argument about consciousness and nerves the same can be asked about fully formed individuals. Is a toddler less human because it lacks an adults reason? Some have said yes! Am I less human when unconscious then when conscious? If surgeons amputate a limb am I less human? If my literal nerves are shot and I no longer feel pain (like Darkman!) am I less human? If I am in a coma, feel zero physical sensation, and have no arms or legs, am then less human?
The question I would pose to pro-choicers is, “Do you believe human life is sacred?” I wager most peoples morals more utilitarian than they realize.
A few problems with the approach:
“If it is human DNA, it is human” well, how about a tonsil, a wart, a cyst, a tumor, etc all human DNA but without personhood.
The argument also assumes that if one is not certain whether the fetus is human or not, err on the side of protecting the fetus. Sounds deceptively “good”. Protecting rights is an obligation but which rights trump the rights of the other? For example, does “mom”s” right to do with her body trump the uncertain right of the possible person known as fetus? BTW, if the fetus is assumed to be human and mom does something to cause a miscarriage is she to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter? Until one knows for certain is it best to protect the right of the potential mother?
So many questions.
I wonder why the anti-choice movement always talks as if a fully formed baby is what’s being aborted, as if most women who terminate do so in the second or third trimester? In the first 7 weeks, the “baby” being “sucked out of the uterus” is a curled-up grain of rice with its rudimentary spine on the outside. It has no nerves and no brain, and thus it is physically impossible for it to feel pain.
Why is early abortion wrong? Is it because the embryo is a sentient being? It’s not, and this argument would hold a lot more water if all anti-choicers were vegetarians who don’t kill bugs.
Is it because it’s human life, and human life is somehow more special than animal lives? Okay, but the mother is a human, too. Does her (very sentient indeed) suffering not count?
I would also like each and every anti-choicer to talk to at least three women who have placed a baby for adoption. When you blather on about “post-abortion syndrome” and emotional repercussions, you very conveniently ignore that adoption also has life-long consequences for mental and emotional health.
But there’s no article called “five questions to ask an anti-choicer,” because you don’t respond to reason. It would be nice if the world were black and white, purely right or purely wrong, but it’s not.
I encourage you to exercise your intellect and your imagination and make an honest try at understanding the other side’s point of view. Give it a try. It won’t hurt you. Try to imagine yourself as a very poor woman, an unmarried woman, a woman without enough education to get a great job, a woman who was raped, a woman who is in the very early stage of a pregnancy she doesn’t want. Put your knee-jerk reactions and judgments on the back burner for a moment and try to imagine. Bonus points if you consider science and not propaganda. I’ll wait.
No, you filthy harpy, the mother’s minor inconvenience for up to nine months does not count.
Take your disgusting lies and non-sequitur straw men and go straight to hell. You are the only “anti-choicer” here. You’re evil and I’ve spent far more time on you than a piece of murdering garbage deserves.
You don’t need to have an abortion. It’s not necessary. If rape, disability, poverty, and unwantedness is not an excuse for murder outside of the womb, why is it an excuse inside the womb. There are always adoptions. If you don’t want to see the baby make it a closed adoption. If you still want to be there for the child but not have full care of it, there’s open adoption. And another thing people try to use is “What if she physically cannot carry the child?” Well less than 1% of abortions are done for absolute, legit health problems. Did you know babies can feel pain at 8 weeks? And that 90% of America’s abortion clinics will do abortions after 8 weeks. I’m sorry for rambling on, but come on people, if this isn’t murder, what is?