Five Facepalm Inducing Pro-Choice Arguments

Have enough conversations about abortion and you’ll start noticing patterns.  For the most part, the arguments you hear for abortion following these forms:

• Here is a slogan I’ve been taught to repeat: “[insert slogan here]”
• The fetus lacks physical trait [XYZ], and therefore doesn’t count as a true human.
• The autonomy of the woman allows her to do whatever she wants to the baby within her body.
• Here is a tragic circumstance which I think justifies keeping every possible instance legal.

But sometimes you’ll run into arguments which astound you with their lack of sense.  They’ll make you wonder if the supporter of legal abortion is trolling you for fun…  or if he/she really is that clueless.

Here is my list of the 5 dumbest Pro-Choice Arguments: (Yes, I've encountered them all.  A lot.)

Answering the "Unanswerable" Clinic Dilemma

Dear Apologist, I was asked a question about having to choose between saving frozen embryos or saving a toddler from a burning building.  I want to choose the two year-old, but I think this undercuts the pro-life assertion about life beginning at conception.  Help!

If I was Pres. Trump's Speechwriter...

I learned earlier today that President Trump (still feels surreal to write that) will be addressing the March for Life.  

What might he say?  Or perhaps… if I was one of his speechwriters, what would I put in front of him? 

It would need to be heartfelt, honest, compassionate, and still retain a good bit of polemical zing.  And - let's face it - the thing would need to be a bit self-congratulatory to sound genuine. 

So here’s what I’d float across President Trump’s desk:

Defusing Pro-Choice Bible Proof-Texts

The other day a friend sent me a clip from the TV show “The Young Pope”.  In it, the Pope discusses the morality of abortion with one of his cardinals.  I could critique the clip all day long, but I want to focus on the Scriptural discussion they have.

Sometimes you’ll run across a person who claims the Bible supports a “Pro-Choice” worldview.  Today I want to run through the three passages which are used to support that claim.

Can We Know When Life Begins?

Discussions about the ethics and legality of abortion tend to follow certain patterns.  One of these patterns works like this:

• The defender of abortion legality (called "Pro-Choice") will admit that the debate hinges upon when an individual human life begins.  

• However, he/she will assert that this knowledge is totally obscure, subjective, and unknowable. 

• Thus, he/she concludes abortion should remain legal.

In fact, that is the very logic used in Roe vs Wade when the court decided upon a constitution right to abortion.  Justice Blackmun wrote:

"When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

So that's what I want to look at today.  Is this really the case?  Or are folks just trying to deny an inconvenient truth?

Three Principles for Opposing Euthanasia

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) are two issues which are quickly emerging in the Western world.   They present us with a very troubling moral dilemma.  It is typically given to us like this:

"Suppose you had a person who was slowly dying of some incurable illness.  But his death is slow and agonizing.  Would it be so wrong for that person to be given a pill so that he can die more quickly and painlessly?  Wouldn't the Golden Rule have us end that person's suffering, or at least allow him to end it himself?"

It sounds like the truly empathetic position - perhaps even the Christian position - would be to embrace euthanasia and PAS.  Any yet you have the Catechism of the Catholic Church insisting the following:

"Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable." - CCC 2276

Today I wanted to look at three principals which I use to explain why I am opposed to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

How should a Pro-Life Candidate Respond: Late-term abortion

The topic of abortion – particularly late-term abortion – came up at the final US Presidential debate.  When the question was posed to Hillary Clinton regarding her support for late-term abortion, she appealed to heartbreaking instances of children who won’t survive outside the womb.

Since then I’ve been thinking about how Candidate ACTS Apologist would have replied.  Can we come up with something which responds politically, ethically, and compassionately?  Let’s give it a shot:

Pro-Life Presentation 2: Answering Objections and the Hard Cases

Earlier this year I began posting the Pro-Life lectures I was presenting to the local youth ministry.  Unfortunately, the audio for the second one was not usable.  So I finally sat down and recorded it again.

For a link to the presentations, click [here]

Also:  Lecture 1  and Lecture 3

Five Questions I'd Ask Pro-Choice Catholic Politicians

American politics is full of bizarre things which ought not be.  Foremost among them are people who identify themselves as "Catholics" and yet act against the Church on matters of grave importance. 

It is one thing to debate whether a Catholic should support private school vouchers, increases to the capital gains tax, or what constitutes a fair immigration system.  The Church offers some guiding principles but no specific ruling on those.

However, when it comes to the legality of abortion, the Church could not be any more clear.  In his encyclical letter "Laudato Si", Pope Francis said:

"Concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?" - Laudato Si, 120

And the Catholic Catechism states:

"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.  The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority."  - CCC 2273

However, many Catholic politicians, for reasons I dare not speculate upon, insist on supporting the institution of abortion in America.  Their refrain is always the same:

"I personally oppose abortion, but I think the law should allow a woman the right to choose."

Reporters hear those words and nod piously, never following up with hard questions.

So today I want to look at 5 questions I would pose to Pro-Choice Catholic politicians.

Is the Church Contradicting Itself by Banning Abortion AND Contraception?

As pretty much everybody knows, the Catholic Church stands firmly against abortion.  What often confuses people is how the Church could then go on to be against contraception too.  Every now and then I'll hear a person say:

"If the Church was really  against abortion, it would be the biggest proponent of contraception.  Properly used, contraception has the power to prevent unwanted pregnancies - thus eliminating the need for abortion.  So it is working cross-purposes in banning both."

That's what I wanted to look at today.

Can We Legislate Morality?

Have you ever heard a person say:

"You can’t legislate morality…”

It’s a sort of truism, a motto that is repeated whenever a discussion enters the touchy realm of the “culture wars”.  But is it true?

Well, its true in the sense that you cannot pass a law coercing people's private thoughts on morality.   But that is not what we're typically talking about.

When someone says "legislating morality", what is meant is coercing people to act in accordance to a certain moral code.

Is that off limits?

Two Paths Away From "Pro-Life"

The term "Pro-Life" emerges from the debate surrounding the legality of abortion. In its most basic form it means the following:

 “The right to life – the right to not be unjustly killed - is a basic human right.  It should be protected by law for everyone from the beginning of life to its natural end.”

Since the above position does not entail any particular economic worldview, a wide array of perspectives can fit under the umbrella of the Pro-Life cause.

You could be a Libertarian (someone who favors a minimalist view of the role of government) and affirm it because maintaining non-violence is a legitimate role of the State.  You could also be a Socialist who thinks the State should take care over everyone's needs.  Or many worldviews in between.

So Pro-Lifers might disagree wildly on tons of stuff, but they should be united on one thing:  The conviction that pre-birth babies are real human beings and the legal institution of abortion is a human rights violation which needs to end.

Sometimes, sadly, the reality of American politics leads people astray.  That's what I want to look at today.

How Should Pro-Life Candidates Respond: Assault Cases

In the United States, the debate surrounding abortion is contentious and ongoing.  The public is pretty evenly divided.  However, most of the print and broadcast media is staffed by people who defend the abortion industry and see it as normal.  As a result, Pro-Life candidates are often asked detailed ethical questions about their stance on abortion.  The most common of which is how Pro-Life legislation interacts with the case of rape.  

Unfortunately, many Pro-Life candidates cannot be bothered to prepare for these inevitable questions and end up making fools of themselves when answering these questions on air.  In 2012, Candidate Todd Akin of Missouri infamously responded by theorizing about female biology.  Candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana decided to mutter something about the will of God.  Both saw their political careers go down in flames.

So what should Pro-Life candidates say?

Here is a response which I think Pro-Life candidates should practice in front of a mirror:

 (It can be recited at a conversational pace in 2 minutes 45 seconds)

Is the Church Inconsistent on Family Planning?

In 1967 Pope Paul VI released encyclical called Humanae Vitae.  The document upheld the perennial (and traditionally Christian) teaching that contraception was contrary to the moral law.  However, the same document goes on to endorse "natural means" of postponing the conception of children.

Humanity has long known that a woman's menstrual cycle has spaces of fertility and infertility.  Couples have used this fact to space out children by not having sex during the fertile periods.

In the past this was done through the "Rhythm Method".  It relied on averages and personal menstrual history to guess where a woman is in her cycle.  Its usefulness and reliability have well-known limitations.

A more modern method is called Natural Family Planning (NFP).  It also uses abstinence during fertile periods, but relies on various biometric markers to identify signs of a woman’s fertility.  This method is far less dependent on a woman's regularity and – (when practiced rigorously) - achieves levels of certainty equivalent to modern forms of contraception.

And again, this method is approved by the Catholic Church.

Some people see the Church’s approval of NFP as arbitrary and inconsistent.  They will commonly object:

“When non-Catholics want to have sex without having a baby, they use contraception.  When Catholics want to have sex without having a baby they use natural family planning.  It’s the exact same thing.”

Well... is it?

The Church, the Death Penalty, and the Galactic Emperor

The politics of American political landscape does not offer a one-size-fit for Catholics who wish to adhere to the entirety of what the Church proposes.  Politically “progressive” Catholics often subjugate their faith to politics on matters of abortion, euthanasia, and the natural family. On the other hand, politically “conservative” Catholics often feel a similar temptation in regard to the death penalty.

The Church’s stance on capital punishment is nuanced, but it generally stands in opposition to its use.  This led to a question from one my friends:

Would the Church condone capital punishment for Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars?

That's what we'll look at today.

Legal Penalties for Abortion: What Should a Pro-Life Candidate Say?

In the United States, the Republican party is one which generally opposes the legality of abortion.  However, most of the print and broadcast media is staffed by people who defend the abortion industry and see it as normal.

As a result, Republican candidates who claim to be Pro-Life are often asked detailed ethical questions about their stance on abortion.  Democrat candidates are almost never asked these questions.  This is grossly unfair, but the dichotomy is as predictable as the sunrise.  Therefore, it would be smart for any Republican who wants to run as Pro-Life to take the time to learn how to answer these questions.

Unfortunately most Republicans are dumb.  Many would rather destroy their careers than spend a day learning the basics of Pro-Life apologetics.  

Recently Donald Trump joined this prestigious group of morons when he fielded a question about the legal implications of the Pro-Life movement.  Would a victory for the Pro-Life movement mean women would be prosecuted?  

His answer was: "Yes."

Outrage ensued.  Particularly peeved were actual Pro-Life groups, who never asked to be associated with this belligerent madman.

So today I want to show how I would answer the question.  The following was mostly recited off the top of my head into a recording device.  Then I transcribed it.

Third Pro-Life Presentation Video

Last Thursday I gave the final Pro-Life presentation for the teens at our parish.  Enjoy!

First Pro-Life Presentation Video

On Thursday I gave the first Pro-Life presentation for the teens at our parish.  Enjoy!

Regarding Violence in the Name of the Pro-Life Cause...

Perhaps you have heard the story.  A somewhat deranged, middle-aged white man becomes obsessed with a massive human rights violation being perpetrated in America.  After an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement – resulting in the death of several people – he is finally captured.  His actions, in the end, did far more to discredit the cause he purportedly fought for.

I am, of course, referring to John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859.  John Brown was an abolitionist who sought to eliminate the scourge of slavery through violence.  His actions helped contribute to the tensions which gave rise to the Civil War.

My Upcoming Pro-Life Presentations

I have a mountain of writing I would usually love to do, but recently it has been put on hold.  My local parish and the leaders of the Pro-Life clubs at local high schools have asked me to put together some presentations on Pro-Life apologetics.

The course will be divided into three presentations.  The first will be on the basic arguments.  The second will focus on common objections, specifically appeals to the "hard cases".  The third will be covering basic Pro-Life facts one should have off the top of his or her head.

Here is a link to the first presentation, which covers basic arguments:  [LINK]

And the second, which covers advanced arguments:  [LINK]

And the third, which covers basic facts:  [LINK]

And the CITATIONS for the third presentation: [LINK]

Enjoy!