More of the Same Fallacies From an Abortion-Choice Advocate

I was pointed to an article by Alan Levinowitz called "Why Do Pro-Life Advocates Only Seem to Care About Unborn Lives?" Of course, the real reason is because abortion-choice advocates are too lazy to do any real research into what people in the pro-life movement actually do. But that would make for a very short article.

Levinowitz starts off by saying he uses abortion as a case study in his comparative ethics course. Considering how rife with fallacy his article is, it actually does give me concern for his students. He is apparently drawing his students away from the pro-life argument not based on logic or reason (which is essential for coming to conclusions on ethical questions) but based on emotion and logical fallacies. There is a silver lining here -- Levinowitz does recognize that abortion-choice advocates can't take the "moral superiority" of their position as granted and should seek out challenging dialogue partners to discuss it further. So if Levinowitz happens across this article, please get in touch with me. I'd love to discuss this further with you. We could even set up a debate on this issue, if you'd be game for it.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Is Philosophy Useless in the Pro-Life Argument?

Last week, LiveActionNews published an article from Olivier Lindor called "Four Non-Religious Reasons to be Pro-Life". In that article, Lindor made the claim that science is all you need for the pro-life argument. Philosophy is (presumably) unreliable as a source of truth. Science is the only reliable source of truth, so science should be the standard we turn to when we make public policy. He gave three other arguments, but my purpose for this article is to specifically respond to Lindor's first argument from science. To be clear, I enjoy LiveActionNews. This is not a diatribe against them, but merely my intention to respond, as a pro-life educator, to an idea that I find detrimental to the pro-life argument and worldview, in general.

Lindor is right that there is a significant non-religious portion of the pro-life movement. He is also right that we do not have to specifically present a religious argument to justify the pro-life stance. However, he does not have to throw philosophy under the bus to do so.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

Responding to a Video From Bill Nye, the Anti-Science Guy

I've seen a video being shared on Facebook from a website called Big Think, in which Bill Nye (heralded as "The Science Guy" because he plays one on TV) condescendingly tells pro-lifers that we should not tell women what to do, and that the pro-life position is based on "outdated" science. That is, the science that Alan Guttmacher, in 1933 said is "so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge" (see Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation). The science that every embryology textbook of the 20th and 21st centuries supports. This science is "outdated" to Bill Nye. Perhaps most egregiously he tries to pit science against religion in this video, which belies a severe ignorance of how science actually developed.

Read the rest at the Life Training Institute blog.

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!

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 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.

Philosophy in the Abortion Issue, Part II

Now that we’ve learned what goes into making an argument, let’s talk about how to respond to an argument. First, a bit about why philosophy is necessary.

What is RU486?

This is an article that I wrote for the Life Network Australia website. You can see the article here.

Most people who are familiar with the abortion issue are familiar with surgical methods of abortion (such as D&E). But what you might not be as familiar with is RU486, which is essentially an abortion in a convenient pill. RU486 is also known by its more generic name, Mifepristone. RU486 can be effective on its own, but it is usually followed up with a second drug, Prostaglandin, to induce the uterus to contract and expel the shriveled corpse.

Is Abortion Permissible in the Hard Cases? Part III

One of the most tragic things in life is when a woman or a child dies during pregnancy or childbirth. Thankfully, technology has advanced to the point where the death rate from a pregnancy-related complication is extremely low. Less than 1% of pregnant women die from a pregnancy-related complication or in childbirth. [1]

Is Abortion Permissible in the Hard Cases? Part I

Now we get to the really tough questions about abortion. Can we justify abortion in the really hard cases? Some might say that certain situations are so bad that even if we grant that the preborn are full human persons, we should still allow abortions to be legal, either for the sake of the woman or because it is assumed that a child would not want to grow up in one of these situations.

Responding to an Article About Pro-Life Atheists

There's an article I was recently made aware of about pro-life atheists using unsound science, written by Marco Rosaire Rossi. You may want to read it first or this article won't make much sense.

Pro-Choice Graphic

There’s a graphic that’s been going around trying to illustrate that the unborn are not persons. There are four panels: the top-left panel has an egg on a plate to illustrate that it’s not a chicken, the top-right panel has an acorn to illustrate that it’s not a tree, the bottom-left panel has a caterpillar spinning silk to illustrate that it’s not a dress, and the bottom-right panel has a sperm fertilizing an egg to show that it’s not a person.

Response to a Logical Argument for Abortion

This is a response to a video on YouTube I came across entitled Is Abortion Murder? The Logical Answer! by video blogger DixonRants.

What is the Unborn?

Before you can even answer the question of whether or not abortion is moral, you must first decide what the unborn is. For as Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason observes, if the unborn is not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. It would be no different from having a mole removed or a tooth pulled. But if the unborn is human, then no justification for abortion is adequate.