Tag Archives: Pro-Life

News

Republicans advancing pro-life legislation in red and purple states

Leave a comment

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

As the media debate the reason abortions declined over the last few years, pro-life voices say the record number of new laws restricting abortion played a role. The year 2014 is already shaping up to follow the trend of substantial pro-life legislation.

Arizona

Abortion facilities will no longer receive advance notice of state inspections, if the governor signs a proposed law. The state House of Representatives passed the measure, allowing unannounced health inspections of abortion facilities, by a vote of 34-22.

Florida

A woman tricked into ingesting an abortion-inducing drug that killed her child wants legislators to make sure that never happens to another woman. Remee Jo Lee testified that, unless lawmakers pass a new statute, Florida will have no state ordinance punishing offenders who harm women the way her boyfriend hurt her, physically and emotionally. “I’m still here but a big part of me is missing,” Lee told the House Judicial Committee. “I miss my baby every single day.” The committee passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 13-3 on Monday. It would allow prosecutors the discretion to try a criminal for a separate murder if he kills an unborn child, even if he did not know the woman was pregnant.

Oklahoma

The Oklahoma House passed a bill requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their office, by a vote of 73-9. Similar measures have closed nine abortion facilities in neighboring Texas, as well as other states where admitting privileges were allowed to be enacted. The Senate must now pass the bill.

West Virginia

Abortion restrictions inched closer to acceptance in the Mountaineer State, as the state Senate Health and Human Resources Committee approved a ban on abortions at 20 weeks. Delegate Joe Ellington, a pro-life OB/GYN and Republican, said the bill actually goes into effect 20 weeks from conception, not the way most medical specialists count weeks. Therefore, it should really be viewed as a ban on abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Violators could be fined $4,000. The bill then passed the Judiciary Committee. It will now go to the full state Senate for a vote.

Missouri

Women in Missouri may have more time to consider whether abortion is the right decision for them. The state House passed a bill to increase the waiting period for an abortion from 24 hours to 72 hours by a 115-37 vote on Wednesday. Nine Democrats joined the chamber’s Republican majority. It must pass the chamber a second time. However, Senate Democrats launched a filibuster against the Senate version of the bill on Wednesday.

More good news from a different Life Site News article.

Excerpt:

The ever-decreasing number of abortion clinics continues its decline with the announcement of the closing of abortion clinics in Texas, Florida, and California.

Whole Women’s Health announced this week that its surgical abortion clinics in McAllen and Beaumont have permanently closed due to the new law passed last year that requires abortion facilities to meet minimum safety requirements, including hiring only abortionists that maintain local hospital privileges. The McAllen location had “temporarily” closed in January.

Operation Rescue had lodged complaints about the Whole Women’s Health clinics in McAllen, Beaumont, and Austin after discovering they were improperly dumping “identifiable” aborted baby remains a during an undercover investigation in 2011. This led the Austin and McAllen locations to be heavily fined.

In addition, the North Florida Women’s Health & Counseling Service in Tallahassee has announced in public notices that it will be closing permanently on March 31. That surgical abortion clinic has operated continuously since 1981.

Surgical abortion clinics are not the only ones closing. Planned Parenthood’s office in Sunnyvale, California, which offered only medication abortions (RU-486) shut down in January.

“We are on track to see another great year. Every time an abortion clinic closes, lives are saved because women have a greater opportunity to seek other means of coping with the challenges they face. This is great news for women and their babies,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.

Also out of business for good is Lester Minto’s Reproductive Services in Harlington, Texas. Minto stopped abortions in November due to the new Texas law, but continued to see abortion patients who had taken abortion pills procured in Mexico or other locations. This week he announced onMSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show that he has closed his clinic permanently and is selling his building.

Minto’s clinic joins real estate market along with the former New Women All Women abortion building in Birmingham, Alabama, which was put up for sale this week.

So far in 2014, seven surgical abortion clinics in four states have announced closure with one abortion pill clinic closing. Those states are California, Florida, Texas, and Iowa.

It seems like such a strange thing to me that some people get up and go to work, and their job is killing unborn children for money. But I guess that’s why we Republicans have to pass these laws. It’s a good signal to people that they need to be more careful about the consequences of their own behaviors. Basically, Republicans are saying to people that your freedom to do as you please ends when you brush up against someone else’s freedom, no matter how small that other person might be. At least in some states, there are people looking out for the protection of those little unborn people. Sometimes, it seems to me as if the whole world is going away from morality and personal responsibility, but then I look at this legislation and I think “at least somebody is doing something right”.

By the way, Life Site News also had a good article about how the Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is putting a stronger emphasis on pro-life voters. I think he’s probably making the case to pro-lifers that this issue matters to Republicans and that they are advancing legislation to do something to protect unborn children from adult who want to skip out on their responsibilities.

Videos

A simple case for the pro-life position by Scott Klusendorf

1 Comment

Are you able to make a basic case for the pro-life view?

Here’s a short 38-lecture by Scott Klusendorf, president of the Life Training Institute.

This is a long treatment that talks about the challenge of moral relativism and the case for the pro-life view. He does show a clip of abortion in the video to the audience.

There’s also a 35-minute audio recording of Scott on the LTI web site. (H/T Apologetics 315) You can put that on your podcast player and listen to it. Listen to it a lot and soon you’ll sound like Scott.

Scott also has an article posted on the LTI web site for those who don’t have time for the video or the audio.

In the article makes three points:

  1. Clarify the issue
  2. Defend your pro-life position with science and philosophy
  3. Challenge your listeners to be intellectually honest

Here’s the second point:

Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.2 For example, Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud write, “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”3 Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,” he wrote in his book Life in the Making.4

Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be. Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address.

As Stephen Schwarz points out, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo that you once were and the adult that you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:5

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than the adults they’ll one day become. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.

Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

That’s the core of the basic pro-life case right there. There’s also a good interview of Mr. Klusendorf that I blogged about.

Advanced Objections

You can learn more by reading basic pro-life apologetics… from Francis Beckwith. You might recognize Frank Beckwith as the author of “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice“. He wrote that book for Cambridge University Press, a top academic press. But before Cambridge University Press, Beckwith wrote easy-to-understand essays for the Christian Research Journal.

Here are four essays that answer common arguments in favor of legalized abortion.

Here’s an excerpt from Part II:

Excerpt:

A woman who becomes pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest is the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare, [1] there is no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances.

[…]Despite its forceful appeal to our sympathies, there are several problems with this argument. First, it is not relevant to the case for abortion on demand, the position defended by the popular pro-choice movement. This position states that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she prefers during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape. [3] To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one’s spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not establish a general rule.

[…]Fourth, this argument begs the question by assuming that the unborn is not fully human. For if the unborn is fully human, then we must weigh the relieving of the woman’s mental suffering against the right-to-life of an innocent human being. And homicide of another is never justified to relieve one of emotional distress. Although such a judgment is indeed anguishing, we must not forget that the same innocent unborn entity that the career-oriented woman will abort in order to avoid interference with a job promotion is biologically and morally indistinguishable from the unborn entity that results from an act of rape or incest. And since abortion for career advancement cannot be justified if the unborn entity is fully human, abortion cannot be justified in the cases of rape and incest. In both cases abortion results in the death of an innocent human life. As Dr. Bernard Nathanson has written, “The unwanted pregnancy flows biologically from the sexual act, but not morally from it.” [5]Hence, this argument, like the ones we have already covered in this series, is successful only if the unborn are not fully human.

Scott Klusendorf wrote the The Case for Life, which is the best book for beginners on the pro-life view. For those looking for advanced resources, Francis Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University, published the book Defending Life, with Cambridge University Press, 2007.

I found a very polished hour-long talk by Scott on Youtube. That talk was delivered to students and faculty at Furman University.

Finally, if you want to see Scott Klusendorf in a debate with a former ACLU executive, you can see it right here.

My friend Papa Georgio sent me a post that features THREE talks by Scott Klusendorf. (H/T Religio-Political Talk)

Learn about the pro-life case

And some posts motivating Christians and conservatives to take abortion seriously:

News

South Carolina Republicans introduce bill to ban abortions after 19 weeks

2 Comments

The Sacramento Bee reports.

Excerpt:

Abortion opponents hope a proposed law banning the procedure in South Carolina beyond the 19th week of pregnancy ends up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The legislation, co-sponsored by 34 Republicans, asserts that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks old. Doctors who disregard the ban could be charged with a felony.

Rep. Wendy Nanney, the main sponsor, said as a mother of five children, she wants to protect children from pain.

“That’s what a mother does,” said Nanney, R-Greenville. Asked whether a mother should decide based on her situation, she added, “I think the child is the most important thing, and the fact it feels pain is very important to me.”

Doctors with the South Carolina chapter of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the bill’s supporters are looking only at studies that support their conclusion, while other reviews have found a fetus does not feel pain before 24 weeks. The doctors point to lethal or serious fetal problems that often aren’t diagnosed, or at least can’t be confirmed, before 20 weeks.

“Once the diagnosis is confirmed, many couples need additional time to make a well-informed and careful decision,” reads the joint statement signed by three doctors.

The proposed ban provides an exception only when the mother’s life is in danger, and in such a case, the doctor must end the pregnancy in a way that gives the fetus the best chance for survival. Asked why she made no exception for rape or incest victims, Nanney said those pregnancies are normally aborted before 20 weeks.

This bill would be similar to the one that Texas Republicans passed. Texas and South Carolina are deep red states, so if you’re looking for abortion to be reduced, then that’s where it’s going to happen. About a dozen states have passed bans on abortion at 20 weeks.