Re-post: Two 23 Second Pro-Life Arguments

Because of considerable interest in this post and because of our nearness to the election, I have decided to repost the following:

In a few of my previous posts I have tried to challenge people by reminding them of the significance of the abortion issue and its relationship to the coming election. Since those postings, I have received a variety of responses from the non-pro-lifers- all of which, as far as they have communicated, maintain their position on abortion because of emotional beliefs, because of the politics surrounding the debate, because of their misinformation, and/or because of a worldview committment that does not admit God or divine revelation. In the midst of quite a bit of confusion, I have tried to clear away the secondary and tertiary issues in their arguments to get to what is at the core. I have not yet received nor have I read what I would call a well reasoned argument against the anti-abortion position. There has been appeals to things of pragmatic import by attempting to answer questions with such questions as: ”What do you suggest we do with all those unwanted babies? Will you take care of them? It seems to me that because the issue has been made complex in our culture (though it is not actually complex) the non-pro-lifers undoubtedly bring up the potentially pragmatic effects that would result if abortion was outlawed because they are apparently unable to rationally answer the arguments below. They try to make the issue more complex than it is because they know that if they simply answer the basic question of “what is the unborn?” in a reasonable way, their whole platform crumbles. I write this post to demonstrate the reasonablness of the pro-life position and to aid pro-life advocates in a “how to” briefly defend the life of the unborn. Up to this point, I have not advocated the pro-life position with any religious argumentation, (although if it were admitted into evidence there would be much more material to draw from). Rather, I have used philosophical and scientific reasons to make the case. The following arguments follow along with this methodolgy:

23 Second argument #1 (from Stand to Reason’s “One Minute Pro-life Apologist” by Steve Wagner)

• If the unborn is growing, it is a alive.
• If the unborn has human parents- it is a human.
• Therefore, from the moment it begins growing it is a human being. Human beings are valuable aren’t they?
• There is one equal quality among valuable human beings- human nature.
• To vindicate human rights of any kind we must base our case on human nature. Racism and Sexism are wrong for example because the focus is on external differences and not our underlying similarity- human nature.
• If human nature is the valuable thing about us and it is what vindicates e.g. women and minority rights, and if the unborn has a human nature, then we should protect the male or female unborn just as we should protect women and minorities.

23 second argument #2

1. A 1 year old post-natal child is a living growing human- Can we kill it?
2. A 5 month old post-natal child is a living growing human- Can we kill it?
3. A 3 day old post-natal child is a living growing human- Can we kill it?
4. A partially born child is a living growing human- Can we kill it?
5. An 8 month old unborn child is a living growing human- Can we kill it?
6. An 3 month old unborn child is a living growing human- Can we kill it?
7. An 1 week old unborn child is a living growing human- Can we kill it?
8. A 24 hour old unborn child is a living growing human- Can we kill it?
9. No.

Why No? Because at no stage in his/her development is the child something other than a living human being. Therefore, it seems to me that not one single argument typically offered (such as choice, unwantedness, financial issues, etc.) by the non-pro-lifers for ending the life of an innocent human being is justifiable.  Also, the only difference between points 3 and 4 above is the child’s location and a few days time- Are these acceptable differences to justify killing one over the other? If you say yes, please tell me your rational. If killing a 3 day old post-natal child is murder (a moral evil), is not killing a child through partial birth abortion murder (a moral evil)? At what point in the stage of development does it become acceptable? Some say when the baby is viable. For the sake of time, I won’t even begin to  address the problems with suggesting viability. You think about it. I’ll leave my thoughts for another day.

Now regarding the Obama ticket. It is my understanding that Obama’s platform is not Pro-life. Among other things related to this issue, he intends to legalize partial birth abortion. If this is true, then he will be promoting a clear moral evil. Rather than make every effort to decrease or limit the amount of human children being killed, he intends to make it legal in every trimester. It seems to me that a morally informed human being who values the life of human children can not in good conscience vote for a candidate who  will not stop the advance of such an atrocity (whether he realizes it or not). An atrocity that is committed over 4,000 times per day in America. Please, if you are still capable, join with me and many others in fighting for the lives of innocent unborn children- Thereby hindering the advance of evil.