Revisiting the Bodily Rights Argument

I've recently met a pro-choice blogger by the name of Deanna Young, who runs a blog called Restringing the Violinist. She has written a couple of articles defending the right to refuse argument, one in which she has linked to my article, so I'd like to take the time to respond.

Abolish Human Abortion's Revisionist History

I have previously written a response to Abolish Human Abortion's article The Difference Between Pro-Lifers and Abolitionists. I don't wish to specifically re-hash the arguments here, but I do want to address AHA's revisionist view of abolitionist history.

A Response to the Spectrum Argument

In my last article, I looked at blogger Bob Seidensticker's article regarding five emotional arguments for abortion. In this article, I'll respond to what Seidensticker has referred to as the "Spectrum Argument" for abortion.

A Response to Five "Intuitive" Arguments for Abortion

I was made aware of two articles by pro-choice blogger Bob Seidensticker on the Patheos blog. This article will be written in response to Seidensticker's article Five Intuitive Pro-Choice Arguments. My next article will be written in response to the second article.

Being Pro-Life Means Respecting Human Dignity

We all know that the reason we consider ourselves pro-life is because we believe in respecting the life of the unborn. The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, so that is the right that holds the most weight in the moral equation. But did you know that the pro-life position is also the position that respects human dignity?

AHA: Unfounded Rumors and Actual Arguments

So it's time for another post about Abolish Human Abortion. My reason for this post is two-fold. First, there's a rumor floating around about them that I want to clear up. I am interested in truth, and in the interest of truth any unfounded rumors need to be quashed. Now it needs to be said that they really make it difficult to want to help them, because even in the course of damage control, they still couldn't resist the opportunity to take pot-shots at pro-life people like me, who believe that incrementalism is the most tactical way that abortion will be stopped, and they insist on this artificial distinction between "pro-life" and "abortion abolitionist."

Should Christians Support Abortion Because Aborted Babies Go to Heaven?

This is a rather barbaric argument that I occasionally come across from a pro-choice person who wants to score rhetorical points against a pro-life person. The statement, of course, would only work against a pro-life person who believes in Heaven. The argument goes like this: Babies go to Heaven. The unborn are babies. So we should allow abortion because it sends them directly to Heaven, rather than letting them grow up and risk going to Hell? The argument is obviously made by someone who has absolutely no understanding of Christian theology.

Abortion Quote of the Day 05

I've been encountering a lot of people lately who deny the biological humanity of the unborn. Here's a pro-choice philosopher who understands human biology:

"Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development."
--David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 20.

Return of the Scourge, Part II

In the previous part of this series, I addressed empirical objections that Ord anticipated. Now I will respond to his anticipated philosophical objections. See here and here for the first two parts in this series.

This Week's Recommended Post 05

For today's recommended post, I'd like to highlight my friend Timothy Brahm's essay in which he adapts the "love chapter" of the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, into an appeal to the pro-life movement to make love of the pregnant woman and pro-choice advocate, on top of love for the unborn humans we are trying to save, the hallmark of their outreach. It's really a marvelous piece. Check it out:

Memorized and Meaningless? A Fresh Look at 1 Corinthians 13

20,000 Views

So my blog has now reached 20,000 views! A big hearthy thank you to everyone who reads, and I'd like to continue to encourage you to leave comments. I love to hear feedback, whether positive or negative, and if negative then I'd love to talk more about what you disagree with. I actually reached 20,000 views, but I didn't want to post before my article Why I Am Pro-Life went live so that the article could be my 100th post on this blog.

Why I Am Pro-Life

Now for a moment of rare and complete candor from me. I've been wanting to write this article for a while now, so I feel that it's time to set out to explain exactly why I'm pro-life. I believe that the arguments for the pro-life side are much more powerful and have greater explanatory power than pro-choice arguments. But that's not the whole story as to why I'm so passionate about saving unborn human beings.

Why Pro-Life People Need to Become Amateur Philosophers, or Why I Don't Think the Current State of the Pro-Life Movement is as Effective as it Could Be

Today, on a very special episode of...wait, no, that doesn't work. I've decided to post an article on a special day, Saturday, because of something disturbing that I witnessed last night (and for a few weeks now). I've titled this article Why Pro-Life People Need to Become Amateur Philosophers, or Why I Don't Think the Current State of the Pro-Life Movement is as Effective as it Could Be. Longest. Title. Ever.

10 Reasons Not to Have an Abortion

As I mentioned in my last article, I would compile a list of reasons not to have an abortion. This is to counter Mommyish's article 10 Reasons to Have an Abortion (even though she only came up with nine). So without further ado, here are ten reasons not to have an abortion, in no particular order and without images to distract from the arguments.

Abortion Quote of the Day 04

This quote comes from Mary Anne Warren, whose article, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, I recently critiqued and dismantled. A common argument in support of abortion is that if abortion is made illegal, women will resort to back alley butchers or use coat hangers. Warren recognizes that this is not an argument in support of abortion.

"The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it."
--Marry Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," in Joel Feinberg, et al, The Problem of Abortion, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984), p. 103

10 Reasons to Have an Abortion?

So I've been made aware of an article on a website called Mommyish, 10 Reasons to Have an Abortion -- Illustrated by Adorable Cats, and written by Eve Vawter. Let's be honest here. Most of her reasons are without substance, so the cat pictures are there to make her argument more emotionally compelling so that you don't notice the flawed reasoning (after all, why would you post cat pictures in an article talking about the death of human beings in an attempt to be "cute," especially if you recognize that most women don't make the abortion decision lightly and since most of the cat pictures don't even illustrate the reason they are included with?). While I think a parenting website is hypocritical to celebrate parenting and support abortion, I agree with Ms. Vawter that one can be pro-choice and be a good parent. As she indicates, the two are not mutually exclusive.

This Week's Recommended Post 04

This week's recommended post is by my friend and pro-life mentor, Josh Brahm. The post in question talks about an argument that many pro-life people haven't utilized but is shaping up to be a very effective and powerful argument when shared with the average pro-choice person. Check it out:

The Most Undervalued Argument in the Pro-Life Movement

AHA Is At It Again

I've written two articles on Abolish Human Abortion (AHA), so I guess you could consider this take three.

Return of the Scourge, Part I

As my conclusion, I will now respond to certain objections that Ord anticipated. I was hoping to get this done in one part, but due to the length, it will contain two parts. See here and here for my previous parts.

This Week's Abortion Quote 03

This week's quote comes from Dr. Jerome LeJeune, a pro-life geneticist from France who discovered the genetic cause of Down syndrome:

"The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."
--The Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Report to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, First Session, 1981

Big News

So a quick double post for today. Last week I alluded to the fact that I have some important news to share. That news is that I have just been brought on to the Life Training Institute team. I'll be blogging for LTI, and answering questions submitted to their website, and I'll be assisting them with classroom presentations to Protestant and Catholic students.

A Response to Blogger Libby Anne's Pro-Choice Conversion

A year ago yesterday, blogger Libby Anne wrote a piece called Why I Lost Faith in the "Pro-Life" Movement (notice the term pro-life is in scare quotes). Yesterday I linked to a much better article by Jennifer Fulwiler which was a response to this article. The difference is that Fulwiler became pro-life after learning the truth about the unborn entity, and Libby Anne became pro-choice because of misinformation and due to the fact that she didn't know the facts about the unborn entity. She claims she believed that fetal personhood began at fertilization, but she clearly didn't have any reason for believing that, other than possibly that she was raised believing it. Otherwise the fact that she perceived others didn't really believe that way would not have affected her views on fetal personhood. It's a classic red herring. So while I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong on this, and despite Libby Anne's assertion that she wants to convince people like me otherwise, the fact is that she doesn't make a single cogent argument against fetal personhood.

This Week's Recommended Post 03

In today's recommended post, a former pro-choice person explains why she lost faith in the pro-choice movement.

There's a stark difference between the pro-life argument and the pro-choice argument. The pro-life argument has a definite point at which all human beings attain value, so that we can answer, with all assurance, the question of when rights begin and where the mother and unborn child lie in the moral equation.

The pro-choice argument does not offer any distinct time at which human rights begins, only that it happens at some vague, arbitrary point during human development (with the exception of a few pro-choice philosophers, who actually do make an argument but still differ on when that point is), but despite that vagueness we can know with assurance that the pregnant woman has *more* bearing in the moral equation than the unborn human being.

The pro-life movement has much to gain and the pro-choice movement has much to lose by the information regarding what an abortion is. Check out this blog post by Jennifer Fulwiler.

Why I Lost Faith in the Pro-Choice Movement

The Scourge Strikes Back

In my previous article, I responded to a thought experiment that was meant to parallel miscarriages. In this article, I'll respond to his arguments regarding what he sees as absurdities that result from the pro-life position.

Unhappy? Euthanasia?

Today's article is a guest post by Daniel Rodger, who runs a blog called Mind the Evangelical.

Abortion Quote of the Day 02

This week's quote of the day comes from none other than Planned Parenthood themselves. Did you know they used to be honest about what an abortion is? Here's a quote from them in the 60's, before abortion was legalized in 1973. Here's a source for the quote, as well.

"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."
--Planned Parenthood ad from 1964.

This is as opposed to birth control, which they used to consider as different from abortion (even though abortion is, technically, birth control so this is a bit of a misnomer, as it should be considered contraception), because birth control postpones the beginning of life.

This Week's Recommended Post 02

This week's recommended post comes from fellow blogger Wintery Knight. On this blog, I tend to focus on arguments that can appeal to both religious and non-religious alike, though I do occasionally talk about the Biblical case for the pro-life position and against abortion. This post explains beautifully how a reasoned secular case for abortion can actually help your Christian witness. Without further ado, here is the article:

How Pro-Life Apologetics Helps Strenghten Your Evangelism

Some More News

I have some exciting announcements here in the next few days. One I'm going to reserve for Wednesday, so I won't tell you what it is.

What I will tell you is that I've secured a domain name for my own website. Once that goes live, I'll provide a link to it. I'll probably continue to post my new articles here as well as on my personal website, for those who still come across my blog here. Included on my website will be articles that I've written, as well as links to organizations I work with and support, dates of my upcoming speaking engagements, and other things. So stay tuned for that.

I'm also planning on incorporating my first guest post this week. I want to reserve Wednesdays for guest posts (I've had a couple of other people request posting a guest post to my blog), but since I have to wait for Wednesday for this piece of news, I'm going to post it on Friday. All subsequent guest posts will be posted on Wednesdays, provided nothing more pressing is needed that week.

So stay tuned for Wednesday's announcement, as well as the link to my personal website.

Thought Experiment: The Scourge

Philosopher Toby Ord wrote an article called "The Scourge: Moral Implications of Natural Embryo Loss" (The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(7): 12-19, 2008). This is an argument that comes up somewhat regularly, but Ord concocted a thought experiment to illustrate the argument. The argument usually goes as follows: Some 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, which means that thousands of "unborn humans" die naturally. So to be consistent, you should advocate that doctors try and find a cure for miscarriages so that you can save all those lives that are lost. Ord begins with a thought experiment:

Abortion Quote of the Day 01

Like the Recommended Post on Tuesday, I'm going to start giving a Quote of the Day on Thursdays, in an attempt to bring as much new content as possible. This quote comes from pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf in her essay "Our Bodies, Our Souls," from New Republic, October 16, 1996, p. 32.

"The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics...[But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted with them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view is unworthy of feminism."

Naomi Wolf is a pro-choice feminist who understands that it is not wrong to show these graphic images, as long as it is done respectfully. I actually believe that Wolf's essay is one that both pro-life and pro-choice people should read. What's worse, the images that show an evil that is being done, or the evil itself? The images that pro-life people use are merely meant to give a face to the child killed by abortion. By looking these aborted children in the face, it is no longer an abstract concept but it becomes real, in the minds of those who look upon it.

40 Days for Life

So 40 Days for Life is in full swing. For anyone unfamiliar with it, for forty days Christians go to their local Planned Parenthood and spend time praying for an end to abortion. It's essentially a peaceful prayer vigil. And the great thing is that many unborn lives are saved as a result of this ministry. If you haven't been involved yet, it's not too late as it runs through November 3rd.

This Week's Recommended Post 01

In my desire to bring you as much new content as possible, I'm going to start posting a recommended post every Tuesday. This is a post that I've either stumbled upon, or know the person who posted it, and I really think you ought to read it. I will be posting a "quote of the day" on Thursday, as well, so watch for that. I will continue on a schedule of posting meaty content on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

So for my first recommended post, this comes from J.W. Wartick, an examination of an argument by Dietrich Bonhoeffer that shows that no Christian is justified in supporting abortion. Check it out:

Abortion Violates God's Will

A Critique of Paul D. Simmons' Biblical Case for Abortion, Part II

In part one of this series, I responded to some philosophical arguments that Dr. Simmons had against fetal personhood. This article will respond to his claims regarding what the Bible says about the fetus. You can find Dr. Simmons' original article here.

Does the Right to Life Exist? (Part Two)

Continuing my brief discussion on the right to life and what it entails, I will look at a few more statements from people I encountered who were trying to argue that a right to life does not exist. You can find part one here.

Is the Right to Life a Fiction? (Part One)

This is something that I don't encounter often, but recently I've encountered a few people who don't seem to even understand the concept of rights. I've encountered people who believe that a right to life doesn't even exist, which is just a bizarre view to hold. Apart from the fact that these arguments belie a misunderstanding of rights, these arguments can also be used to argue that the right to bodily autonomy doesn't exist, which pro-choice people need in order to justify their claim that abortion is morally permissible.

The Value of Asking Questions

I would like to write a follow-up to my recent article about an event that happened while I was at College of the Sequoias for a pro-life outreach, which was picked up at LifeNews. So I wanted to take a moment to explain exactly why I believe that asking questions is so important to having good discussion.

Consistency from Pro-Life Advocates

One objection I sometimes hear is that if you're pro-life, you must also be vegetarian, and/or you can't support capital punishment or war. These objections usually stem from a philosophical problem: the person raising these objections is just not thinking clearly about the issue. More nuanced thinkers understand that there are differences between types of killing, and that there are issues which affect the moral equation.

Who Bullies the Bullies?

Okay, so not quite as meaningful a title as the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode I patterned the title after, but I wanted to draw attention to a horrible pro-choice site. They have a list of pro-life people (most, or probably all, of whom are peaceful advocates), calling them bullies and giving their actual addresses and phone numbers. The site is VOChoice. It never ceases to amaze me how inconsistent pro-choice people can be in their own ideology (giving out peoples' private information against their will), as well as how uninformed pro-choice people can actually be (under the guise of being the informers). One of my friends was on their "bully list" (which are really just people who protest peacefully in front of abortion clinics, such as for the 40 Days for Life campaign which is currently in full swing), but after complaints he was apparently taken off their list. This is just truly a low thing for anyone to do, on any side of the issue.

A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Part V

I have spent four parts in this series responding to Warren's argument that the unborn cannot be considered persons. Warren wrote her essay in 1973 in a publication called The Monist, but in 1982 she re-published the essay with an added postscript. One of the objections she was receiving to her paper is that it would also justify infanticide as well as abortion. She sought to reply to this claim in her postscript.

Who Robs Whom of Their Humanity?

I was asked to give my analysis of the views of Ann Furedi, a pro-choice advocate in England for an upcoming debate she's going to have with pro-life advocate Gregg Cunningham. I'd like to talk about one article in particular that she wrote, in which she argues that not allowing women the right to have an abortion is essentially robbing her of her humanity.

Is Pregnancy Like Getting Into a Car Accident?

I would like to respond to a claim that I hear somewhat frequently. A fellow blogger wrote an article posing this analogy, that a woman finding herself pregnant is like someone getting into a car accident. I'll quote the relevant portion from her article: "The fact that pregnancy MAY happen doesn't mean you should willingly suffer it. Just like you may be injured if you drive recklessly, but that doesn't mean you should punish yourself by not getting medical treatment."

Why I Hate (Most) Memes

You've likely seen them, pictures going around Facebook with a phrase that's supposed to ridicule someone who disagrees with you. The word "meme" actually originates from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene (1976), as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. But now the term has taken on a life of its own on the internet, being used as images meant to ridicule the other side or to try to give a brief argument for your position.

New Digital Pro-Life Magazine Hits the Interwebz

If you're not aware yet, a new pro-life publication has hit the internet. It's called Pro-Life Magazine, and the editor is Brett Attebery. This first issue contains interviews with my pro-life mentor, Josh Brahm, as well as the president Secular Pro-Life, Kelsey Hazzard. In addition, there are interviews from embryologist Dr. Maurine Condic and pro-life philosopher Christopher Kaczor, both of which have had huge influences on me as a pro-life philosopher. The magazine is also available on iTunes, but if you don't use Apple you can find it for free on-line at the link provided in the second sentence.

A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Part IV

In part one, I examined Warren's claim about humanity, in part two I examined Warren's qualifications for personhood and showed why the unborn qualify, and in part three I examined Warren's two questions about personhood and showed that her position fails to disqualify the unborn from personhood. In this article, I will examine her argument about potentiality.

A Critique of Paul D. Simmons' Biblical Case for Abortion, Part I

I'd like to now turn my attention to an essay written by Paul D. Simmons, called Personhood, the Bible, and the Abortion Debate. Nothing saddens me more than when a self-professed Christian calls him- or herself pro-choice and actually defends the abominable practice of abortion. I'm not actually sure whether or not Dr. Simmons considers himself a Christian. I couldn't find a decent biography of him on-line. But an honest perusal of the Scriptures will show that God loves children, and would consider abortion nothing less than child sacrifice. Simmons' article is rather lengthy, so I'll be splitting it up into parts.

Ten Books Every Pro-Life Advocate Should Read (And Own)

As a little bit of a lighter post for today, I'd like to present the ten books that I believe every pro-life advocate should read and own. These are all books that I have read and studied, and if you take the time to do the same you will be prepared to address just about any argument that a pro-choice person would present you with.

PZ Myers on Scott Klusendorf on PZ Myers

Internet atheist celebrity and biologist PZ Myers has recently gone on a podcast called Issues, Etc. to talk about abortion. Pro-life philosopher and advocate Scott Klusendorf later appeared on that same podcast to talk about Myers' arguments and give a response to them. I haven't heard much from Myers on abortion, except when he spoke up during a Q&A section during a debate between my friend Kristine Kruzelnicki and another internet atheist celebrity, Matt Dillahunty, in which he chided Kristine for her argument that embryologists are in agreement that human life begins at fertilization (at about 1:07:00 in the linked video). The problem is Myers is wrong and Kristine is correct. Embryologists are in agreement. Myers is just one in a long line of scientists who conflate scientific claims and philosophical claims, and don't seem to realize there is a difference between the two. The experts agree on when human life begins biologically. Where they disagree is at what point does the unborn human being become one that possesses inherent rights and value. In other words, basic rights like a right to life.

Stretton Debunked: A Response to Dean Stretton on Frank Beckwith

In part one of this series, I responded to an article by Dean Stretton responding to an article by Peter Kreeft. In this article, I'll be responding to Dean Stretton's response to a series by Frank Beckwith, called Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights. Again, it would be best to read Beckwith's articles, then Stretton's article, then my article for the full discussion. You do not have to read all of Beckwith's articles. Stretton does not use the fallacious arguments that Beckwith outlines in the first two parts, so you can skip ahead to the third part (though the first two parts are definitely worth reading).

A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Part III

In part one of this series, I examined Warren's definition of human, and in part two I examined her argument about what a person is and showed why the unborn certainly qualify. This article will be the third part of five, in which I'll examine Warren's claims about the right to life.

The Importance of Civility

I spent the weekend of August 24th speaking and mentoring at a seminar in Visalia, CA, then at two days of pro-life outreach at College of the Sequoias. I am a mentor and speaker through Right to Life of Central California's (RLCC) Justice For All (JFA) program. RLCC is the organization that holds the seminars and puts together the outreach. RLCC and JFA decry abortion-related violence in any form, be it against the unborn, against pro-life or pro-choice people, abortionists, abortion clinics, etc. Everyone who is out at the outreach signs a form that states that they denounce all forms of violence in the abortion issue.

Stretton Debunked: A Response to Dean Stretton on Peter Kreeft

This will be the first in a two-part series in which I respond to pro-choice philosopher Dean Stretton. Stretton wrote two essays responding to articles by pro-life philosophers Peter Kreeft and Frank Beckwith. I will respond to Stretton's argument against Kreeft in this article, then respond to Stretton's argument against Beckwith in the next part. Dean Stretton is actually the philosopher that I referenced when responding to the pro-choice thought experiment of the Burning IVF Facility.

A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Part II

In part one of this examination, I showed that the pro-life position is not logically incoherent in considering the unborn to be human beings, both in the genetic sense and the moral sense. In this article, I'll examine her criteria for personhood and show how the unborn certainly qualify.

A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Part I

I recently gave an in-depth critique of one of the most important articles ever written on the abortion issue. I would like to turn my attention now to another popular essay written by Mary Anne Warren called On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Whereas Thomson argued that pro-choice people can assume the unborn are full human persons and still justify abortion, Warren argued that the unborn certainly are not persons because they don't fulfill the qualifications of personhood.

Reflections on the Dialogue/Debate with Chet Gaines, Part II

This will be the second part of my reflection from my debate last year with pro-choice person Chet Gaines. In part one, I reflected on the first half of the debate. In this part, I'll focus on the second half.

Reflections on the Dialogue/Debate With Chet Gaines, Part I

Previously I posted a discussion I did with Chet Gaines. He did say that he wanted to keep it to a discussion, and I was decidedly in debate mode. So I could have discussed a little more and debated a little less, but here are my reflections on the debate. I'll cover the first part of the podcast in this article, and cover part two in the next.

Abortion Dialogue/Debate: Chet Gaines

Last year I briefly alluded to a debate I did against pro-choice person Chet Gaines. Here is the debate, in its entirety, with transcript. For my next two articles, I will give my reflections on this debate. I'm still relatively new to debating so I understand there are some areas I need to improve upon. If anyone has any other suggestions, please don't hesitate to give them in the comments section!

In Support of Our Atheist Colleagues

Live Action News recently printed an honest and heartfelt article by pro-life atheist Sarah Terzo. Her article was in response to something that Shawn Carney, who began the 40 Days for Life campaign, said on the Life Report podcast.

Should We Encourage Three Parent Embryos?

This is a sort of follow-up to my last article. In fact, this is the topic that inspired it. There was an article written by Alex B. Berezow, a microbiologist, arguing that we should support the creation of three-parent embryos. The United Kingdom is drawing up regulations for this procedure. Now, In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is a controversial and currently immoral procedure because excess embryos are always created and destroyed. Since human life begins at fertilization, creating excess embryos and terminating them is wrong. But moral issues pertaining to IVF aside, is creating three-parent human beings wrong?

On Parental Responsibility and Who Qualifies as a Parent

I would like to address an issue I see as rampant in the abortion issue, the question of what a parent is and who qualifies as a parent. This question is an important one because parents have special obligations to their offspring that strangers don't have, including the obligation to provide the basic necessities they need to survive and thrive: food, water, shelter, clothes, etc.

The So-Called "Bro"-Choice Movement

So with the recent controversy over common-sense bill in Texas HB2, I've been hearing a lot about it. Of sexually-explicit signs being held by teenage girls and now a pro-choice slogan gaining ground, "bro"-choice (hilarious). Though I do love a good pun, there's been a lot of controversy over this term.

What You Say vs. How You Say It

The recent debacle over HB2 in Texas was pretty heated. It even caused me to write about it with an emotional fervor that is usually lacking in my articles (since I try to write with a clear head, using logic rather than emotion). To be honest, I don't think any of the pro-choice people there distinguished themselves as clear thinkers on the issue. There were many signs that were just really bad, the result of poorly thinking through the issue. There's one sign in particular that has really caused an uproar that was created by 14-year-old pro-choice advocate Tuesday Cain, which stated: "Jesus Isn't a Dick, so Keep Him Out of My Vagina."

Broke 10,000 Views!

So as of yesterday, this blog has broken 10,000 views. So thank you to everyone who's been reading, and thank you to the organizations like LifeNews, Secular Pro-Life, the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, and others who have led to more awareness of this blog. I'm also going to commit to writing two blog articles a week, one to post on Monday and one to post on Friday. This one doesn't count, as I do have a new blog article slated for tomorrow.

Will the Strawmen Never Cease?

This article is written in response to Josh Craddock’s recent article on the PersonhoodUSA blog. Since there is a disclaimer at the bottom, I don’t know if Craddock’s position on Erick Erickson is shared by anyone else at PersonhoodUSA, though I do know that Craddock’s views on the all-or-nothing approach are shared by PersonhoodUSA. This article will be a response to Craddock specifically, though it is applicable to the larger organization if they share his views on the matter.

A Pro-Choice Dilemma

There are basically two types of rights that you possess: those of a human being and those of a particular government(s) you belong to. These are called natural rights (or basic human rights) and legal rights. Discussion of rights often gets confused in discussions on abortion so it’s important to keep these terms straight.

Picked Up By LifeNews Again

I've had another article featured on LifeNews, which they've re-titled to Debunking the Pro-Choice Argument that Masturbation is Mass Murder. You can find it here. The formatting kind of went awry in the transition, but try to over look that.

This makes my second article to be featured by LifeNews. The first one was called Philosophical Arguments Destroy "Pro-Choice" Case on Abortion, which you can find here.

A Shameful Display by Pro-Abortion Advocates

If you’re not aware, there was a very shameful display by pro-abortion advocates in Texas yesterday. Legislators were meeting to vote on SB5, which was pro-life legislation aimed at, essentially, forcing abortion clinics to clean up their act. This shameful display only showed how far pro-abortion advocates are willing to go to bully others, even lawmakers. No one would stand for it if it were pro-life advocates acting like this, but it’s okay because they were on the side of abortion. It's worth pointing out that I rarely ever get political, and I certainly don't talk about politics much on this blog. But this really ground my gears, so I need to get this out.

Bad Pro-Choice Arguments: Is Masturbation Mass Murder

As a conservative Christian, this is a topic that used to embarrass me. Five years ago I never would have even considered writing an article on this topic, but ever since becoming a pro-life advocate, it was a topic that I’ve had to become comfortable with. Mostly because this is an argument that just doesn’t seem to go away.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part V

For part one of this series, you can go here. For part two, this is where you should be. For part three, follow this link. And here’s part four.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part IV

For part one of this series, go here. For part two, this is the place to be. And for part three, mosey on over this way.

How Pro-Choice People Tend to Corrupt the Abortion Debate

The abortion debate certainly has a tendency to become emotional. There are many logical arguments used to argue for and against abortion, but these can be largely ignored in favor of appeals to emotion (such as trying to argue that pro-life people are trying to take away an important “choice” for women to make). Now, I’m certainly willing to talk to my own side and illustrate ways in which pro-life people make bad arguments in the hopes that they’ll make better ones (I credit my friend and pro-life mentor Josh Brahm for helping me see the value in treating both sides fairly, as well as my friend and pro-life philosopher, Steve Wagner, through my work with Justice for All).

A Philosophical Response to Abolish Human Abortion

This will be a follow-up to my previous article on Abolish Human Abortion, which you can find here. Specifically, I’ll be responding to their article “I Argue from Science, Not Religion...” written by AHA member Brian Biggs.

A Fundamental Flaw Behind Abolish Human Abortion

This will be the first of two articles regarding pro-life activist group Abolish Human Abortion.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part III

For part one of this series, go here. For part two of this series, go here.

Response to a Pro-Choice Opinion Piece

I was recently made aware of a pro-choice opinion piece (and, let's face it, it's not a very informed opinion) by a blogger who feels that the term "pro-life" is a misnomer. The article is called "Pro-Life" is a Lie, Here Are 10 More Accurate Descriptions That They Won't Like by Matthew Desmond.

Empathy in the Abortion Issue

I’m taking a bit of a break from my critical series on Thomson’s famous essay, A Defense of Abortion, to present an article that was inspired from a conversation I had with my friend, Linda, on Facebook. I am a speaker and mentor for Justice for All, which is an organization that trains people to make the pro-life case persuasively and effectively (by making good arguments and avoiding bad ones while avoiding the common pitfalls the people tend to fall into while discussing controversial topics, such as yelling and name-calling, and have good, respectful dialogue). So I have a vested interest in helping pro-life people make good arguments and avoid bad ones, including helping them see the other side as people and not as any manner of unkind thing they may think about pro-choice people. This article will be a bit of a departure from my normal output, as this will be a bit more personal.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part II

For part one of this series, click here.

Section 1. The “extreme” pro-life view. [1]

I agree with Thomson that the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother’s life is an extreme pro-life view. I believe that abortions are justified if the mother’s life is in immediate jeopardy. [2] She does wonder how we are supposed to weigh the mother’s life against the unborn child’s when the mother’s life is at stake, but at that point her right to self-defense should be asserted.

A Cumulative Case for the Pro-Life Position

I'm taking a brief break from my current series of articles on Thomson's Defense of Abortion. Currently in Tasmania, lawmakers are considering decriminalizing abortion. I was asked to compose a letter making as strong a case as possible for the pro-life position and send it to the lawmakers, hopefully causing them to think twice about doing so. I would like to share my letter since I think it could be helpful. When I discuss or debate abortion, I tend to prefer to make a cumulative case for the pro-life position. That's what this letter has been based on. Now granted, I don't cover any pro-choice arguments in this letter, but it was getting lengthy as it is. Besides, I have written articles critiquing and responding to these arguments in the past (with more to come in the future). The body of the letter is in full below. I will add footnotes with additional information and comments that I'd like to add.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part I

Probably the most famous argument against the pro-life position is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Violinist Analogy, in which you are attached, against your will, to a famous unconscious violinist to prevent his dying from a kidney ailment. I have already responded to the violinist analogy in previous articles, but contained in the original essay this argument appeared, A Defense of Abortion, there are other arguments contained therein to argue against the pro-life position. I would like to take a look at the entirety of her essay and show why it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I’ll look at it in sections, divided up as she divided her original essay.

Does Abortion Harm the Preborn?

In my last article, I gave a discussion of various arguments against fetal personhood, including the Functionalist view. I presented a detailed analysis of why presently exercising self-awareness does not make one inherently valuable. This will be a follow-up to my last article, presenting a detailed analysis on whether the ability to feel pain or exhibit consciousness makes an entity inherently valuable, followed by a discussion on whether the unborn is actually harmed by being aborted.

Some More Appearances

Recently I made two more appearances on podcasts. First, I returned to the Razor Swift podcast to have a debate/discussion on abortion with pro-choice person Chet Gaines. I was definitely in debate mode, but he just wanted a discussion. So I do wish I had discussed more.

Arguments Against Fetal Personhood

In my previous article on Personhood, I explained that what makes us “persons” (if you must use the term) is our inherent nature as rational, moral agents. While I tend not to focus on personhood arguments unless the topic is broached by the other person, I can only see one reason for disqualifying the preborn from personhood: in order to justify killing them. Any definition for personhood given by a pro-choice advocate works equally well to disqualify some born people from that same status (most notably, infants). But most pro-choice people would not follow their definitions to the logical conclusion and support infanticide.

The Ultimate Euphemism

This post is written as part of the Ask Them What They Mean by Choice Day, which is, itself, a response to the pro-choice event Blog for Choice Day. Today is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and its sister case Doe v. Bolton. On January 22nd, 1973, abortion was essentially legalized in the United States for all 40 weeks of pregnancy, for essentially any reason.

Personhood USA

So my recent article I wrote for the Secular Pro-Life blog on fetal personhood was picked up by Personhood USA and linked to on their blog.

Jill Stanek

Pro-life advocate Jill Stanek has blogged about two of my blog entries at Secular Pro-Life (which you can likewise find on this blog): my examinations of Frank Beckwith's Substance View, and Don Marquis' Future-Like-Ours arguments. You can find the buzz in question here.

On Personhood

It’s an uncontroversial fact of science that the preborn conceived of a human male and human female are human beings (biologically) from fertilization. But does this mean that just because they’re human beings we can’t kill them? There are times when it’s almost universally accepted that it’s acceptable to kill a human being, such as in self-defense. But what if they are innocent of any wrong-doing deserving of being killed? Science can show us that something is human (e.g. you, me, infants, the preborn, etc.), but it can’t show us whether it’s wrong to kill humans. That’s where philosophy steps in.

2012: A Year in Review

I'm a few days late, but here's a year-end review for my pro-life activities.

A Future of Value

In my previous article, I examined the argument against abortion that I consider to be the strongest, the Substance View. This argument, by philosopher Don Marquis, is also a very strong argument and, when used in tandem with the Substance View, offers a very powerful cumulative case against abortion.