The truth hurts but an illusion can kill

I am unashamedly pro-life! Even further than that, I truly believe that abortion is the cruelest form of murder and should not only be illegal, for justice to prevail it should bring the death penalty! This rather long blog is my simply rebuttal to a reposted list that some leading pro-abortion websites call the top ten arguments for abortion. Obviously just from stating my strong stance, you, the reader, can already tell I am not going to hold nothing back and my blunt, somewhat sarcastic, responses are definitely harsh, but I feel that speaking the truth is the least I can do to dismantle the lunacy behind their sick attempts to justify murder.

Their (pro-abortion) list is numbered 1-10 and my (pro-life) responses are lettered A-J

1. Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe. The number of women who get abortions does not change when it goes from being legal to illegal, or vice versa. The only thing that changes is more women die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions.

A. First off, if I used this same argument for anti-gun control the Liberals would flip! Also a gigantic, obvious flaw in this argument is their 78k statistic that they use to support their claim when baby-murder (abortion) is legal in every state, so therefore, all those dead women are a result of legal abortions, not illegal ones. So they admit to legally killing women, while claiming to be for women’s health. To be usable, this stat would have to zero deaths for legal and 78k for illegal. This is typical liberal ignorance.

2. If people want to stop abortion, they should turn to methods that do work. These include comprehensive sex education and safe, affordable contraceptives. Unfortunately, as illogical as it sounds, the people who are most against abortion are also often most against these preventative measures. If they truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions that occur, they would embrace these methods.

B. This is just false information. There is no viable claim made and that is because there is none to make. Pro-life people are not anti birth control, and they do support these methods. In fact, the argument of sexual personal responsibility is a pro-life stance. Pro-baby murderer’s slogan is that they are pro choice, but in reality they only mean that they support the “choice” to “correct” their mistake. My question is why don’t they exercise their right to choose to take responsibility for their actions. They act as if they have no choice whatsoever to over the actions it took to result in an unwanted pregnancy, but then demand the privilege to choose to destroy the evidence of their uneducated, unrestrained, willful choice that put them in that situation.

3. The politicians pro-lifers so ardently support are only after one thing: self-interest. The majority of them are not “pro-life” because they agree with you; they are because they know you will continue to vote for them—and they know that making women remain pregnant not only takes away their power, but it also keeps them busy, in line, controlled, as well as a baking factory for their failing economy. The more people they have to rule over, the more they have to work and buy. Period.

C. This argument is idiotic. It basically says “because there are corrupt politicians, I must be allowed to commit legal murder”. I am certain that there are those that pretend to stand for what is right only because of self-serving motives, but that does not in any way justify standing for something that is blatantly wrong. Period.  

4. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one’s daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave—all things that are promoted in religious text.

D. This one is really dumb. Where, in their little, convoluted, humanistic world, do they think any of our laws, even our freedom of religion law, came from?  If not for the moral absolutes of the Bible, then we would not have the basic premise for any society, especially ours. Just a casual study of American history should convince even the most ignorant amongst us that our nation was modeled after, founded upon, and strictly adhered to the principles and precepts of the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Also, to extract various, unrelated excerpts from different religious texts to make your point only opens the door for the reverse argument that  nearly every anti-religious text has unsavory, immoral practices in it and are they really promoting that animalistic, survival of the fittest world?

5. Reproductive restrictions do not end with abortion. Many people also argue that contraception itself is wrong—another mainly-religious philosophy—and will deny women the protection they need based on this belief. There are legislative acts that allow actual pharmacists to deny women their birth control because of their beliefs; does this not violate the Hippocratic Oath, especially if thousands of women are on birth control because their very lives depend on it (see #9)? Also, since it is my belief that men should not rape women, if I were a pharmacist, would I have a right to deny a man his Viagra just in case he uses it to rape? You never know.

E. Once again this is misinformation and distorted opinion. I think it is necessary here to ignore the anti-religious slander and flawed premise that most anyone who’s pro-life is trying to subjugate women into slaves and to deal with the root of this argument. The main drive of this stance is guilt brought on by the moral code of the Bible that is against an unrestricted promotion of promiscuity. While it is obvious that the pro-baby murder crowd is in direct opposition of these wholesome and beneficial precepts, they must use this type of anti-woman propaganda to misdirect the attention from their truly immoral lifestyle. Women are not sex objects. By disillusioning them into murdering their own offspring through touting it as a reproductive right, all the while promoting the degrading, anonymously promiscuous lifestyle that leads to unplanned unwanted pregnancy is downright evil.

6. Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant. If a law would never, in any circumstance, apply to a man, a man creating that law is preposterous. It is akin to men creating laws that ban women from voting, owning property, or showing skin in public—only much more deadly.

F. Statistically, there are more pro-life women than there are men, but I realize that there are plenty of irresponsible, perverted men out there that are seeking no consequences for their filthy actions. But until there is an un-biological, impossible case of a woman impregnating herself, then this will never be solely a woman’s issue. The father is the second victim of baby-murder (abortion), the first obviously being the baby. Why are a man’s rights to be a father, not even considered in this equation? When a woman consents to create this life with a man, then that same consent should imply rights of that man to claim fatherhood of that child. And if any man is decent enough to stand against the destruction of innocent lives, then he should be treated as a hero. The only thing deadly is abortion.

7. Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth, should we allow this further risk to endured on top of what has already been done? Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance? My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so much—the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children… perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much. Also, there is the fact of the matter of the more than one million homeless youth in America alone. The number one factor for a child being homeless is physical or sexual abuse at home. Perhaps these “child-lovers” should step in and care for these already-born children as well.

G. This argument is definitely ill-advised and must surely be counter-productive, if actually used to support abortion. By slanderously attacking the pro-life crowd with the moniker “child-lovers” then the only logical conclusion is to label the pro-abortion crew “child-haters”. I would think that they would have more intelligence than that, but obviously not. So basically the argument here, apart from the self-inflicted labeling wound, is that “because there is evil (rape, incest, abuse, homelessness, violence, etc.) in the world, we are compelled to commit a more horrendous evil (torturous murder of the innocent) to off-set that fact.” This is the most pathetic and wicked argument yet. Also it is a very uninformed stance, and I might ask the abortion crowd, who do they think runs the orphanages, homeless shelters, crisis pregnancy centers, abuse safe havens, adoption agencies etc. now? The child-lovers or the child-haters? Just because the child-lovers spend some funds to combat the evil of baby murder, doesn’t mean that we are not also fighting these other battles on other fronts as well. So just as we wouldn’t take a “use your funds somewhere other than seeking stronger prosecutions” plea from a rapist, the cry for less anti-baby murder effort from the child-hater crowd will most definitely fall on deaf ears.

8. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.

H. Killing another human being is not a viable solution to eliminating poverty! This “argument” alone should anger any decent human being enough to stand up against baby-murder. A person’s promiscuity and demographic should never condone infanticide. The only goal achieved by this stance is to demonstrate the true nature of the pro-abortion crowd, a mafia-like, selfish, cruel attitude that demands it’s way or else. I just wonder how society would react to hear this same argument made by a group such as the mafia. I can see it now… the Don saying “Your Honor, whacking people is the only thing that stands between a Mafioso and poverty. There are many poor gangsters that would be powerless to provide for themselves and the family if they were not permitted to do away with their unwanted blobs of tissue.” Sadly enough this exaggerated example is happening in the real world. According to the pro-death crowd, abortion is a legal way to eliminate those who can negatively affect your economic status, and no cement shoes are required.

9. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and DEATH. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.

I. This is fear-mongering and in no way true. The truth statistic is, only 650 total women, from all age groups, in the US die per year from pregnancy complications. While medically, this is still too many and shows that we do need to reform our health care even more; this number is significantly lower than the one they used to try to scare young women into committing murder. And furthermore, to put it into perspective statistically, a woman is more likely to die falling in their own home at the rate of 3000 deaths per year. After some simple research, we can see their stat includes women all over the globe, even in third world countries where medical conditions are abysmal. So for some perspective on death internationally, we can see that more than twice as many women in the world die from diarrhea than from child birth (650k compared to 289k). So while, yes, death is a possibility and that risk should make the reproductive decision all that more important and serious, that still in no way justifies committing murder to bypass risk. And this point does not even consider the serious risk of having a baby surgically destroyed and removed from your womb, which also can result in the death of the mother, therefore committing a double-homicide.

10. Doctors, not governments, should always be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.

J. This claim could not have been even remotely thought out before they wrote it! Really, anyone who would want an unregulated medical field is simply illogical and foolish. If that were the case, then I invite them to get their medical procedures done in any third-world country. As for the implied premise that the government shouldn’t be telling you whether or not you can have a procedure, I do agree that governmental regulation should be limited and true medical procedures should not be denied to anyone, but abortion is as much of a medical procedure to a baby as a cheeseburger is to a cow. Abortion is murder and should be, in any civilized society, a crime and any good government makes eliminating crime a priority, plain and simple.

Final note: to anyone out there pondering getting an abortion or even supporting it, I hope and pray that something I have said will convince you to change your mind. Please do not commit this atrocity that you will regret the rest of your life. You can be a better person, you can save a life!