For the Love of God: Why Christians Should Not Vote for President Obama in November

Among those Christians who tend toward either liberalism or non-traditionalism, and especially black Christians, the "progressive" Barack Obama seems like a viable candidate for president.

I am going to do my hardest to dispel that myth

I hold that President Obama has exhibited a pattern of implementing policies that inhibit, stigmatize, or otherwise go against Christian values and thus should not get a single vote from anyone who considers himself a follower of Jesus Christ.

Let me be crystal clear that this is not a pro-Romney, pro-Ron Paul, or pro-any-one-person post.

My focus is on the president and his actions.

I believe that the issues facing our country are far too grave to simply cast a thoughtless vote for any candidate who seems good enough or has a certain letter in front of his name.

I agree with the theologian Dr. Jack Cottrell when he writes:

"The only real issue between Obama and Romney is this: which one wants government to do what God wants it to do, according to Romans 13:1ff. and 1 Tim. 4:1-4? I.e., which one wants government to protect the rights of every citizen, to defend us from those who want to violate those rights, to enable us to lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity?" (emphasis mine)

And nowhere does the president more clearly fail this test than with respect to the issue of the right-to-life.

Not only are his pro-choice views outside the mainstream of American culture, but that of biblical orthodoxy, as well.

 Scripture clearly affirms the dignity of every human person, so it is verboten for a Christian to support widespread violations of that dignity.

Here are some verses that illustrate this point:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them"-- Genesis 1:27 ( mankind is made in the very image of God)

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"-- Matthew 7:12 (we are to treat people in kind with how we wish to be treated)

 "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"-- 1 John 3:17  (God's love compels is to help our brother in need)

 "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward"-- Psalm 127:3 (children are a gift from God, as opposed to a burden)

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous"-- Matthew 5:43-45 (hating another human is not a viable option for a believer)

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"-- James 1:27 (true religion cares for those in need)

 "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God"-- Micah 6:8 (God has charged us to be just and merciful)

With this in mind, how does President Obama's record on life square with the biblical exhortations to love, care for, and be merciful toward our fellow man?

 (1.) According to the Washington Post fact checker, then Senator Obama voted "present" twice on a vote to ban partial birth abortion 1997, during his time in the Illnois senate.

The partial birth or D&E method is described as such:

This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant -- or even later into pregnancy. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn baby’s leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive).

A partial-birth abortion portrayal.

  Then the abortionist jams scissors into the back of the baby’s skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby’s brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.

Does it sound caring, loving, or merciful to suck out the brains of a baby who could at that moment be delivered and survive outside the womb?

Certainly not.

Understandably, such a procedure is illegal in many states.

(2.) In 2001 Senator Obama voted "present" twice on bills that would require parental notification before a minor could receive an abortion.

Is it too much to ask that a parent be informed about a major medical procedure that could fundamentally change or even ruin the life of their under-age child and kill their grandchild?

(3.)  Even more horrifying is that twice as a senator, Obama voted "present" on a bill that would give proper medical attention to babies born alive due to an abortion procedure gone wrong.

This is simply beyond the pale.

We're not talking about a baby in the womb, but a baby that has survived a botched abortion procedure and, like any newborn, is in need of basic care.

In my state of Illinois such children were left to die, and the President, then a senator, didn't care enough about those babies to vote a simple "yes" on the bill.

 You may think that President Obama should get a pass because he voted "present" on those bills rather than "no".

However, it is common knowledge that voting "present" (especially in Illinios) was/is an admitted  political tactic to keep politicians from being marginalized and stigmatized come further elections, not a moral decision.

Will believers cast their vote for man who puts party and politics before the lives of newborn children?

God forbid it!

(4.) As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama opposed a bill that would ban abortions being conducted on the basis of sex, as we often see in China.

(5.) The Patient Affordable Care and Protection Act or Obamacare has in it provisions for tax-payer funded abortions.

(6.) In addition the Obama administration's Health and Human Services mandate would force religious institutions, such as Christian hospitals and schools, to cover the cost of abortion inducing drugs.

To recap:  The president opposed bills that would...

  -Allow infants born alive after a botched abortion procedure to   receive medical attention.

  - Ban the grisly partial birth abortion procedure 

  - Grant parents the right to be informed of and give consent for their minor's abortion.

  - Ban sex-selective abortions.

And instituted legislation that would...

-Force tax-payers to fund abortions and embryonic stem cell research.

 - Force religious institutions to cover the cost of abortion causing drugs.

This abject disregard for human life cannot be reconciled with the God's high view of human dignity.

The two are totally contradictory.

I thought long and hard about other issues that I could write about that show President Obama's disregard for Christian faith and values, but if believers cannot be persuaded to not vote for a man who's moral compass would not compel him to speak or vote against infanticide then nothing will.

Whether it be his irresponsible use of drones in the Middle East, his derision of traditional marriage, his restricting of religious freedom in the military, or open mockery and misrepresentation of the Word of of God, this President has shown himself to be an enemy of those who seek to better know and follow God and who wish to see themselves fairly represented at the highest level of the U.S government.

And so armed with this knowledge, we have a choice before us this election: to support life and liberty or President Obama.

Our Christian belief extends to all areas of our life, including politics, which means even our vote must be brought under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

So if you love the Lord and His commands,  I pray you will abstain from casting your vote for President Obama this November and encourage other believers to do the same.

For God's sake and for the sake of all of us, who will reap the repercussions of for more years of President Barack Hussein Obama.

Now I Lay Me Down: In Defense of the Afterlife

"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

 The surest fact about our existence is that it will end.

Sooner or later everyone will die.

You and I will die.

This is our shared terminal diagnosis.

The only question left is whether death serves as the end of human existence or an entrance into the "afterlife"?

As a Christian, I am firm believer in life after death and I hold that we have good reasons to believe in this central theistic doctrine.

The theme of this post was inspired by a Youtube video I watched by Youtuber Mr. Repzion (Daniel Sulzbach?)

Mr. Repzion is a former professing believer and is contemplating issues of death, the soul, and the hereafter.

I pray this post will challenge seekers and encourage my Christian brothers and sisters who eagerly await the resurrection promised us by the grace and power of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Dualism as Evidence for the Afterlife

 The philosophy of substance dualism states that humans have a mind (or soul) independent of and non-identical to our body/brain, which forms one part of our dual human nature (ie: body and soul) .

Dualism stands in direct contrast to physicalism which asserts that only physical entities exist (ie: those things that can be described by the language of physics and chemistry) as well as property-event dualism which holds that the human brain contains and causes all mental properties.

If substance dualism is true then it lends itself nicely to hope of life after death because if the mind exists apart from the body then the mind can "go on" after the body is dead.

So why should we prefer substance dualism over physicalism?

I've "tampered" with 4 reasons to reject physicalism that were given (among others) in the book "Philosphical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" in order to make them more accessible for the reader.

 

REASON 1.  While an outsider may have access to all of our physical properties, at least some of our mental properties are only privately accessible.

A doctor can ravage a human body, probe its brain, and come away knowing all about it's physical properties, but at least some of it's mental properties (ie:  experience of sensations, propositional attitudes etc.) must be divulged.

REASON 2: In addition, while one may always be mistaken about the physical, one cannot always be mistaken about the mental.

For example, if I see a white sheet flapping in the wind and I think it's a ghost, while I am most certainly mistaken about the nature of the sheet (physical object), I could not be mistaken that I, at least, thought I saw a ghost (mental state).

Therefore, It may be said that I can know at least some of my thoughts incorrigibly or without error.

REASON 3: While being of or about something means nothing to physical properties, it does mean something to mental properties.

While my thoughts can be about or of Glee's Naya Rivera, such as 'Naya is simply stunning!', this relationship means nothing to my brain or any of my other physical properties.

 

So we can say that ofness or aboutness is unique to mental properties.

REASON 4: While our minds do stand in a causal relationships with our bodies (imagine your mental state after being roundhoused by Chuck Norris!) not all of our mental properties are conditioned by the physical.

I am typing this blog, not because of any physical property, but because I exercised a will or purposing to do so.

For these reasons we can conclude that the mind is not indentical to the brain. 

 Now why should we reject property-event dualism?

Well, If mental properties are produced by the brain (much like fire produces smoke) and controlled by physical properties, as is the case on PED, then human beings have no free-will, moral responsibility, ability, or accountability.  

We are simply bodies responding to stimuli.

This idea is, of course, false.

Not only because (1.) moral intuition and general experience give strong testimony to the reality of free-will, moral responsibility, ability, and accountability, but (2.) PED implies universal causal determinism which cannot be rationally affirmed and is thus self-refuting. 

So much more could be said about all of this, but I think we can rightly conclude that substance dualism is indeed a true representation of the human composition.

 Given this fact, it is perfectly acceptable to hold that the human mind need not to die with the body, but can live on after the body is dead.

The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

As a believer, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely central to my faith and my belief in the afterlife.

For if Jesus was indeed who said he was and was raised from the dead as he said he would be, then certainly we may have the hope of such a resurrection too.

I don't care who you are; that is an exciting prospect!  

 The argument is as follows:

1. There are four established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazereth: his honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and
the origin of his disciples’ belief in the resurrection.

2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.

3. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” entails that God exists.

4. Therefore God exists.

 While this is an argument for the existence of God it is clear that, if true, the argument proves the reality of life after death.

  Now many natural explanations have been invoked to try to explain the facts surrounding Jesus' death:

"The disciples stole the body"

"Jesus wasn't really dead"

"The disciples made it all up"

"Jesus never really existed"

  
 But all of these reasons fail in explanatory scope and power.

If the disciples made the resurrection up, why did they go to gruesome tortuous deaths for this belief.

Not to mention, the concept of a risen Messiah was completely foreign to the Jews at the time (and still is to many today!).

In addition, it is highly improbable that Jesus survived Roman crucifixion, but even if he did, a half-dead "Messiah" in desperate need of doctor would not engender lifelong support from hundreds of Jews who were expecting a conquering hero that would defeat the Romans.

The belief that Jesus never existed is not to be taken seriously.

And on and on it goes.

If we look at the facts honestly and in view of the arguments for God's existence, I think we can see that the best explanation of the facts concerning Jesus' death was that he was indeed raised by God from dead, which entails the existence of life after death.


              Closing thoughts


I will reiterate that there is much more that could be said about all of this.

I welcome and invite on-point comments and please feel free to send me an e-mail about any pertinent questions you have or leave them in the comment box below.

If Mr. Repizon or anyone else who may be struggling with idea of the hereafter is reading this, I pray the you will continue your search for truth.

Don't give up, for I believe that resurrection which Jesus underwent is available to you on behalf of a loving God!

Bill Nye the Confused Guy: A Response to Bill Nye on Darwinism.

While this post may be "a day late and a dollar short", I finally got around to watch the "controversial" Bill Nye the Science Guy video by "Big Think" on "evolution deniers" and decided to offer some thoughts on the video.

Bill makes writing a response to the video difficult because he refuses to define his terms and let the listener know just what exactly he's talking about.

When he says evolution does he mean simple change over time (which all sides agree is indicative of life) or the idea that life on earth originated from a primordial common ancestor and has progressed by way of billions of years of random mutation dictated by natural selection (an idea of which there is debate).

Here's the video: 

At one point in the video, Nye says that "your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution" and then precedes to put forth a line of evidence that has nothing to do with proving Darwinian evolution, but is best suited showing that the earth is not young.

He references things like "deep time", "ancient dinosaur bones", "radioactivity", and "distant stars" and then says "[these things] explain so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview just becomes crazy".

Certainly Nye does not equate disbelief in Darwinian evolution with a belief in a young earth, for such an assumption would be hopelessly false.

What Nye fails to grasp is that all of those things mentioned above only imply an old earth and can be rationally affirmed apart from belief in Darwinian evolution.

Nye also suggests that adults who "deny evolution" are living "in a world that is completely inconsistent with everything we see in the universe."

I beg to differ.

In his ground breaking new book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly Wrong" Dr. Thomas Nagel (B.A. Cornell 1958; B.Phil. Oxford 1960; Ph.D. Harvard 1963) lays out the case for why  Darwinian evolution cannot adequately explain the most integral parts of human experience.

The book description is as follows:

  

 The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.

Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative...

(emphasis mine)

And in Nagel's own words, taken from chapter one of his book:

In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. 

Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair. (emphasis mine)

I'm sure that Nye would not dare condescend to a man who has a far more impressive educational background than himself.

In addition, Nye makes this claim about doing biology without believing in Darwnian evolution: 

"It's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates: you're just not gonna get the right answer; you're whole world is just gonna be a mystery instead of an exciting place". (emphasis mine)

Can a person not believe in Darwinism and still do science or, more specifically, biology?

 Dr. Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe", who rejects Darwinism and believes in progressive creationism says yes!

 In an article titled "Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs Biblical Creation" Dr. Ross compares biblical creation and Darwinian evolution to see which paradigm’s predictions hold up to recent scientific discoveries concerning the origin of life and he shows conclusively that the "biblical creation" model comes out on top.

I highly recommenced the article!

 

Furthermore, Nye tells us that "evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science".

During the past 200 years uniformitarianism (the belief that the earth is shaped by slow, gradual processes, as opposed to catastrophic events) was the reigning paradigm in geology. 

However, a new paradigm was introduced in 1980's that suggested catastrophic events can generate significant alter the earth, on occasion (ie: catastrophism)

Scientific paradigms are dynamic and not static because they change, adapt, and grow over time as we learn more about our universe.

The eminent archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe spent the majority of his career working under a specific paradigm used to develop a time history of prehistoric Europe and then killed himself during the advent of radiocarbon dating because of the threat it posed to his life's work.

We love the romantic idea of men in white lab coats searching for the truth wherever it may be, but sadly this idea is a fantasy and when we reflect upon the example of Mr. Childe we can better understand why some people will fight tooth and nail to see that any and every challenge to their scientific paradigm is demonized and dismissed as nonsense despite any evidence to the contrary.

At the end of the video Nye comforts listeners by saying that "in another couple centuries" the worldview that denies Darwinism "will not exist".

Maybe Nye is right and a hundreds of years from now no one will deny Darwinism, but I think he understands that current trends in microbiology and philosophy are spinning a different weave.

When scientific paradigms can no longer be challenged and are held up as the "be all end all" of a particular scientific discipline, you can be sure that we've stopped doing science and stared doing theology.

I believe that Nye is speaking out because he knows that a certain life science paradigm will disappear in the decades to come.

The only question is whose paradigm will it be?

   

Deflating 25 Pro-choice Arguments, Slogans, and Talking Points.

In preparation for the bi-annual "40 Days for Life" campaign, I've written a blog post concerning the issue of defending the pre-born right to life.  

Below I've listed 25 common pro-choice arguments I've heard and some responses thereof.

I hope the reader will read with an open heart and rationally consider all the evidence and arguments.

And I pray the pro-lifer will be inspired and

encouraged to defend the pre-born with increased enthusiasm and determination.  
For more information about the "40 Days" go here: http://www.40daysforlife.com/

  The fall campaign starts September 26.     
             
                      THE ARGUMENTS:

1. Since a "fertilized egg"/embryo/zygote/fetus is not human, abortion cannot be considered murder.

  The word fetus is a Latin term that means "little one", "offspring" etc.1 and is used to refer to a specific point in human development (8 or 9 weeks up to birth)2. 

  As with "fetus", the terms "zygote" and "embryo" also refer to human development from the earliest stages of conception3.

  From zygote to embryo to fetus to infant and on, scientists and medical professionals observe an organism that is whole (not a part like a cell or an arm), has human parents, human DNA, and a developing human anatomy and physiology.

   Human life is a continuum of development and to suggest that two human parts (gametes) can come together to form a non-human "thing" (embryo, zygote, or fetus), which then develops into a human at some arbitrary point in time is both unscientific and untrue. 

Note: The term "fertilized egg" is largely considered unscientific and is itself an oxymoron. You either have a gamete or a new organism, but there is no such convention as a "fertilized egg"4. Furthermore, there are no grounds for using the term in an attempt to dehumanize the unborn child, as is often the case.

2. An unborn child is only a potential human being/life, not an actual one.

  Something doesn't become human as it ages and grows. 

  Either something is human or it is not and we know that from the very earliest stages of development the pre-born child is whole, displays human DNA, human parentage, and a developing human anatomy and physiology. 

  This leads us to conclude that the organism in question (ie: unborn child) is an actual human being/life not a potential one.

3. The fetus is simply a parasite and, as such, does not have a right to it's mother's body, though the mother has the right to remove the fetus (ie: parasite).

  The first problem with this argument is that parasitical relationships involve two different kinds of organisms, while in the case of the the child/mother relationship we have two of the same kind of organism. 

   Secondly, it is incorrect to call a non-foreign entity a parasite5  and since the unborn child originates from it's mother's own body and, thus, is not foreign, it cannot be considered a parasite.

  Not to mention that exciting new studies in mice suggest the relationship between mom and baby is mutually beneficial from a health standpoint6.

   For these reasons and others, we can conclude that applying the label of "parasite" to an unborn child is inaccurate and, consequently, not a valid reason for killing the child.

4. The fetus is part of the woman's body and a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body.

  This argument betrays a profound ignorance of the human body. 

  From conception, the organism in question has its own set of DNA, its own gender, which may be opposite that of its mom; and it's own developing anatomy. 

  The umbilical cord begins developing somewhere between the fourth and eighth weeks of gestation7 and in no way makes the fetus part of its mother.

  A woman may have a right to do what she wants with her own body, but she does not have the right to do what she wants with someone else’s body, including her unborn child.

5. Since the fetus isn't yet sentient or self-aware it cannot be considered a person.

  To answer this argument I want to quote directly this rebuttal from Christian Answers.net (it's a little technical, but helpful nonetheless):

 To claim that a person can be sentient, become nonsentient, and then return to sentience is to assume there is some underlying personal unity to this individual that enables us to say that the person who has returned to sentience is the same person who was sentient prior to becoming nonsentient. 

But this would mean that sentience is not a necessary condition for personhood. (Neither is it a sufficient condition, for that matter, since nonhuman animals are sentient.)

Consequently, it does not make sense to say that a person comes into existence when sentience arises, but it does make sense to say that a fully human entity is a person who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to sentience. A presentient unborn human entity does have this capacity. Therefore, an ordinary unborn human entity is a person, and hence, fully human.

  I want to add that base self-awareness is not present in humans until 4 or 5 years old8. It is then okay to kill a toddler because he is not yet self-aware?

6. Abortion is acceptable because the fetus cannot feel pain.

  Ashlyn Blocker of Patterson Georgia has a rare disease known as CIPA or congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrohis which leaves Ashlyn and other sufferers of the disease with an inability to feel pain9,10.  

  Be that as it may, no one would argue that it is then morally acceptable to kill Ashlyn or any other person with CIPA because they, from birth, cannot feel pain. 

  Simply because one cannot feel a harmful act being perpetrated upon them, does not mean they are not being harmed or that it is okay to harm them. This concept is self-evident.

  For this reason, one in not justified in killing an unborn child at the stages where it cannot feel pain, simply because it cannot feel pain.

  7. Life begins at.....birth/x weeks/ when it takes a breath.

    To contend that human life begins at any time other than conception is contrary to scientific study and is fundamentally absurd.

Here are direct quotes from pertinent science textbooks: 

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization ... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” (Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 8)

 “Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” ... “[The zygote] marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed., Philadelphia: Saunders, 2003, pp. 2,16)

“The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics, Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974, p. 17)

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material ... that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, p. 43)

“When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists.” (C. Christopher Hook, MD, Mayo Clinic, as quoted by Richard Ostling in an AP news story, 9/24/99)

and medical professionals:

“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.” (Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School)

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.” (Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania)

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” (Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes)

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” (Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic)

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception.” (Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School)

and pro-choice advocates:

“Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus from conception onward 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, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 20)

“Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 85-86)

“A human fetus is not a nonhuman animal; it is a stage of human being.” (Wayne Sumner, Abortion and Moral Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 10)

“Life begins with fertilization and abortion is legalized destruction of life.” (Dr. Arthur Morris, Jr., Abortionist, as reported in the Asheville Citizen-Times, April 4, 1976)

“We tell her exactly like it is … when they abort, they’ll be aborting a small baby.” (Dr. Arthur Morris, Jr., Abortionist, as reported in the Asheville Citizen-Times, April 4, 1976)

The consensus is clear and the evidence clearer: life begins at conception. 

8. We don't know when life begins.

See above. 

Also understand that from the earliest stages of development the pre-born child exhibits all the properties of life, including: 

1. Cellular Organization
2. Growth and Development
3. Reproduction
4. Response to Environment
5. Heredity11

9. A fetus doesn't even have a brain or a heart beat!

  
 We have shown that the fetus is human. We have shown that the fetus is living. Under the law, what is the killing of an innocent (for the fetus has committed no crime), living, human? The answer, of course, is murder. 

That is all I, the pro-lifer, needs to show. 

Because the fetus has not yet developed all of its parts and functions (brain waves present at 6 weeks12 and heart beat at 18 days13) is a nevermind.

10. Abortion simply terminates a pregnancy.

  This isn't really an argument for abortion, but a linguistical sleight of hand that makes abortion sound more respectable.

   When a pregnant woman has an abortion the baby is  terminated (ie: killed), thus violating the baby's right to life and perpetrating murder, both of which are unlawful and immoral.

  11. So what if the zygote is alive? My other cells are alive too! Do I murder when I exfoliate?

  This contention confuses the part with the whole. 

  Things like arms, legs, skin cells, and eyelashes are body parts. However, from zygote to adult, the human is a distinct and whole being, not a part. The zygote contains parts, but is itself an independent entity (see pertinent quotes from question 7).

13. Abortion is a private issue between a woman and her doctor.

  Abortion is anything but private. 

  The abortion procedure involves an innocent human being who's right to life is being completely disregarded in favor of its mother's wishes and  is in danger of being killed. 

  Putting a doctor in the mix changes nothing. The abortion procedure is still immoral, if we are all to  agree that is wrong to kill an innocent human being.

14. A woman should have the right to choose.

  Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.


  No person, man or woman, has the right to decide which innocent children get live and which ones can be killed. 

  Such is not our choice.

   Also, what about the rights of females who are killed through the abortion procedure? Where is their choice?

  Invoking an assumed "right to choose" in no way changes the immorality of the abortion procedure.

15. A woman has the right to her reproductive health and freedom.

   The unborn child, as a human, also has a right to its to reproductive health and freedom, which implies its right to life.

16. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

  This is one of many opinions in the abortion debate, but when faced with the fact that the unborn child is a distinct an living member of the human race, it is no longer enough to resort to the "safe, legal, and rare" talking point.


  Imagine saying that murder should be "safe, legal, and rare", because that is exactly what the pro-choice person is saying with respect to abortion. 

 I think we can all agree that civilized society should move away from any kind of state-sponsored  infanticide, not attempt to regulate it.

17. Abortion is a safe medical procedure and is safer than childbirth.

  This is nothing short of a red herring. 

  Whether abortion is safer that childbirth or safe at all is not the primary issue at hand, insightful topic though it may be. 

  The main issue is the immoral destruction of life that comes as a result of abortion.


  However, when we understand that a person dies every time an abortion is properly executed, there is no reason to think that abortion is "safe".

18. Doctors not politicians should be making decisions on abortion.

  It is the job of the government to keep the peace and protect its citizens. 

  Abortion is a threat to many unborn babies in America, thus the government and, naturally, politicians have an obligation to get involved for the good of the citizenry.

19. Men cannot give birth, and therefore should have no say on the issue of abortion.

  This is an extension of the false idea that abortion is a women's rights issue.

  
  The right to life debate is a human rights issue, meaning that all humans, male and female, have a right and an obligation to speak on it.

20. Abortion is a painless medical procedure.

 This is non issue and deceitful at that.

It is a non-issue because the immorality of abortion is wrapped up in its destruction of an innocent human life, not that is causes physical pain.

It is deceitful because it ignore the fact that the fetus can feel pain at no later than 20 weeks of age:

. Myers, 2004, p.241, para.2, “The first essential requirement for nociception is the presence of sensory receptors, which first develop in the perioral area at approximately 7 weeks gestation and are diffusely located throughout the body by 14 weeks.⁹⁵”

Myers LB, Bulich LA, Hess, P, Miller, NM. Fetal endoscopic surgery: indications and anaesthetic management. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 18:2 (2004) 231-258.
⁹⁵Smith S.  Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience.  London: CARE, 1996.

 Derbyshire, 2010, p.7, para.2, “For the foetus, an existence of ‘pain’ rests upon the existence of a stimulus that poses a threat to tissue, being detected by a nervous system capable of preferentially responding to stimuli that pose a threat to tissue. The entire experience is completely bounded by the limits of the sensory system and the relationship between that system and the stimulus.  

If pain is conceived of in this manner then it becomes possible to talk of foetal pain anytime between 10 and 17 weeks GA [gestational age] when nociceptors develop and mature, and there is evidence of behavioural responses to touch.”

Derbyshire SW, Foetal pain? Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology  24:5 (2010) 647-655.

 (For more on this see doctors on fetal pain.com)

Also, abortion can have grave side effects that hurt women physically and emotionally14 15.

21. It is wrong to give a fetus more rights than that of a woman. 

No one is trying to give the fetus more rights than its mother.

We, pro-lifers, are trying to fight for one right to be recognized for the fetus: the right to life.


 22. Pro-life people should focus more on comprehensive sex education and alleviating poverty, than abolishing abortion.

  To borrow a concept from the Bible, "one man plants and another man waters".

  No one can do everything, but each person can do something and you will find that the respective faiths  from which the majority of pro-lifers come from have programs in place that can meet the needs of the economically impoverished without the pro-lifers "on the ground" being actively involved in said programs.   
  Also, while there are no studies that show the more you know about sex the less likely you are to have an unplanned pregnancy, most pro-lifers support some type of sex education.
 

 23. Abortion is a necessary evil and criminalizing it will only succeed in hurting women not stopping abortion.

 One can imagine there was a similar sentiment in pre-Civil War America concerning slavery. (Slavery as a "necessary evil" and the economy being damaged as a result of its abolishment.)

  Abortion is no more a "necessary evil" than is mass genocide to prevent overpopulation or slavery to increase crop production. 

  To say that abortion is a "necessary evil" is to say that we will never be able to adequately address the issues that precipitate a women's desire to abort, thus making pregnancy a "sometimes" curse that can only be counteracted by abortion.

Also, we know that abortion can and has hurt many women emotionally and physically.

You can visit the Blacknum Wall to see a list of some 300 women killed by having an abortion.

24. The world is already overpopulated and will only be more so if we make abortion illegal.

To see a concise yet scientific and mathematically sound refutation of this idea, I'll point the reader to this video by the Population Research Institute:

25. If abortion is made illegal, women will have to result to back-alley abortions and coat-hangers.

This, I think, is a scare tactic.

Thirteen years before Roe v Wade was legalized the then Medical director of Planned Parenthood said this:

 “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure….whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being performed by physicians.” -- Dr Mary Calderone



We also have this data from the non-partisan FactCheck.org, of the Annenberg Foundation:

“…From the 1940s through the 1960s…the best available evidence shows a dramatic decline in abortion-related deaths occurring even before the first states liberalized abortion laws in 1967.”

 

In summation, there is no data to suggest that women will die from illicit unsafe abortions after Roe V Wade is abolished or that women died in any considerable numbers from "back-alley", "coat-hanger" abortions before this legislation.

Even if women were to rush to have illicit abortion procedures if Roe were overturned, this would only mean that we would have to work harder to alleviate that adverse conditions that might precipitate a woman's desire to abort, not keep an immoral and barbaric practice legal.

                 

                                          Conclusion

 

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but a sampling of the most popular pro-choice arguments that I have heard and some possible responses. 

 

I have found that once one has gotten a hold of the scientific evidence concerning the nature of the unborn child, one can easily navigate a debate with a pro-choice person because their arguments are usually just reincarnations of the same argument.

 

(For pro-choicers) If you don't see your argument represented above, leave me a comment below and I'll try to address it.

 

I hope the reader will consider getting involved in a local 40 Days for Life endeavor in some way, shape of form. 

               http://www.40daysforlife.com/

                                     Citations

1. "fetus". Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010. Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010. Oxford University Press. 25 August 2012 .

2. "9.1 Developmental Stages." Developmental Stages. Université De Fribourg, Université De Lausanne, Universität Bern, 15 Oct. 2007. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. .

3. "4.6 The Fertilization Is Complete. The Formation of the Zygote." The Fertilization Is Complete. The Formation of the Zygote. Université De Fribourg, Université De Lausanne, Universität Bern, 26 June 2007. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. .

4. Carnegie Institute. "00000018 Stage 1." 00000018. Carnegie Institute, National Museum of Health and Medicine, n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. .

5. "parasite." The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 25 Aug. 2012. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite>.]

6. Pritchard, Stephanie, Heather C. Wick, Donna K. Slonim, Kirby L. Johnson, and Diani W. Bianchi. "Fetal Cells Traffic to Injured Maternal Myocardium and Undergo Cardiac Differentiation." Fetal Cells Traffic to Injured Maternal Myocardium and Undergo Cardiac Differentiation. Society for the Study of Reproduction, n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. .

7. "10.6 The Umbilical Cord." Development of the Umbilical Cord. Université De Fribourg, Université De Lausanne, Universität Bern, 15 Oct. 2007. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. .

8. Rochat, Philippe. "Five Levels of Self-awareness as They Unfold Early in Life." Sciencedirect.com. N.p., 27 Feb. 2003. Web. 25 Aug. 2012.

9. "Amazing Gene Disorder: Tween Feels NO Pain." New York Daily News. New York Daily News, 6 July 2012. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. <http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-06/news/32569673_1_ashlyn-rare-disorder-abc-news>.

10. "Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhidrosis." CIPA. Genetics Home Reference, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. <http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/congenital-insensitivity-to-pain-with-anhidrosis>.

11. "N100 Ch 1, Introduction, Characteristics of Life." N100 Ch 1. IUPUI Department of Biology., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. <http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100H/notesch1.html>.

12. Prenatal Form and Function -€“ The Making of an Earth Suit." 6 to 7 Weeks. The Endowment for Human Development, n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. <http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit7.php>.

13. "Prenatal Form and Function – The Making of an Earth Suit." 2 to 3 Weeks. The Endowment for Human Development, n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2012. <http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit3.php>.

14."Abortion: Some Medical Facts." Abortion: Some Medical Facts. National Right to Life Coalition, n.d. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. <http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/>

15."Abortion Health Risks and Side-Effects." Abortion Side-Effects and Health Concerns. Contracept, n.d. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. <http://www.contracept.org/abortion-health-risks.php>.