Conversation on Iowa Abortion Bill

Earlier this month, Iowa Governor Kim Reynold signed into law "the heartbeat bill" which prohibits doctors from performing abortions after they've detected fetal heartbeats in pregnant women. This is a great step in removing the scourge of abortion in our country! Of course, the bill is being fought by many, but at the very least, it allowed for some conversation to be had on the subject.

On social media, one news organization asked readers whether or not the "heartbeat bill" was a good thing or not. Discussion on a friend's social media account ensued, and it's helpful to see at least a little headway made with the second of two people I dialogued with. My words will be in blue, one interlocutor's in red, the other in green, and other commenters in various colors.

Tom: Can’t get behind a bill that says what a woman can do with her body and decisions.

Nicholas: I wouldn't get behind a bill that says that either. What the bill proposes is the protection of the female's (or male's) body that lives in a mother's uterus from outside harm. As for "decisions", there are certain "decisions" that should not be protected by the law.

François Riss- Lullaby

Dialogue With a Pro-Choice Bodily Autonomist

I feel myself forced to agree with something many people (at least in the Catholic world) have observed: dialogue is dead. or at least, it's nearly dead. If one isn't devolving into personal attacks, then they're going in a hundred different directions, or ignoring legitimate questions in the course of a discussion. Below is a prime example of such a "dialogue".

Rare is the person who can be intellectually honest and actually have a legitimate conversation. It has happened before, in my experience... but man alive, is it rare. What you will read below stems from a meme that was posted on social media. The pro-choice person went on many different tangents, so I'll only include relevant portions of the thread. His words will be in red, mine in blue, and other persons' in varying colors. As you'll see as you're reading, I post this (and kept engaging this person) because some people may have encountered his arguments in the past and not known what to say. As this Facebook page gets a lot of traffic, I at least wanted to reply for their benefit, if not my interlocutor's, so as to show how ridiculous his position is. That fact will become increasingly clear as the conversation progresses.

The meme in question

Tom: I didn't realize you were being forced to have abortions.

Harriet: Each baby is forced to die without a choice in the matter.

Tom: "Baby"? I thought we were talking about fetuses. Do people abort babies now?

Harry: Oops, Tom has apparently swallowed the lie that fetuses aren't also babies.

It's Time To Stop Treating Abortion As a Religious Issue

Too often, we see people, either on the political right or left, make abortion out to be a religious issue. It's something I've grown tired of hearing about, that is, that "my faith informs me that abortion is wrong". Yea, it does. But so does reason. My Catholic faith informs me that rape is morally wrong. Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this heinous act as an "intrinsically evil act." Since this is a tenet of my religious faith, would it be wrong to "impose my morality" and hope that the state declares this action to be a criminal offense? 

Well, if we follow the logic of many politicians, and really, many people all over the Western world, it would be wrong since this is the argument they give to continue defending such legislation as Roe v. Wade. But of course, we all know that our reason also informs us that abortion and rape are intrinsically evil acts, and the victims of both crimes (because they are crimes against humanity whether or not they are recognized as such by law) should be protected under the law.I think a case study in this unfair punting of the issue of abortion to the realm of only religious belief would be the Vice Presidential debate last year between Senator Tim Kaine and Vice President Mike Pence. Both politicians decided to make abortion strictly a religious issue, and I remember the whole time, as I watched, I could only pound my head on the wall as Pence had horrible arguments to counter Kaine's horrible arguments. Kaine played the "personally pro-life but politically pro-choice card"; a position that is so contradictory that anyone who subscribes to it should be ashamed of themselves; especially Kaine who remarked in the debate that "I try to practice my religion in a very devout way and follow the teachings of my church in my own personal life. But I don’t believe in this nation, a First Amendment nation, where we don’t raise any religion over the other, and we allow people to worship as they please, that the doctrines of any one religion should be mandated for everyone."

Let the Little Children Come Unto Jesus- Carl Bloch

Essay on Alternatives to Planned Parenthood: Why Pro-Lifers Are Against PP

I recently had the opportunity to write a guest article for the pretty awesome website Secular Prolife. These people are dedicated to protecting the unborn, and while we hope for their conversion one day, they are secular and typically agnostic. This sit has proved to be a great starting point for talking to people who think that all pro-lifers are only of such an opinion because they are religious. Rarely, if ever, have I used a religious argument to voice my opposition to abortion. Anyone can do so using natural reason, as the wonderful people at Secular Prolife have. Below is a link to my first essay with the site. A short selection can be found below:

Here’s the thing that those who support Cecile Richards and her associates need to know about their pro-life friends. Even if we were to accept the bogus claim that only 3% of the services done at Planned Parenthood are abortions, how could one in good conscience support an organization that purposefully ends the lives of human beings? Even if that number was 1% or .5% of the time, the percentage would be too high. Why? Because the vast majority of people in this world consider the purposeful and willful killing of a member of the human race to be immoral and wrong.

Read the full article here. 

Discussion on Abortion and "Personhood" With a Utilitarian

Recently, the ever-awesome Secular Pro Life posted a guest blog by a woman who suffers from turner Syndrome. An excerpt from the article is below:

"Instead of turning 30 reminding me that I'm getting old, it reminds me I'm living—and it's a wonderful feeling. I will wear every grey hair and every wrinkle as a badge of honour. I get to enjoy a life that's all too often left to 'choice' and deemed 'not worth living'—without even being given a chance. 

"My mom is 'pro-choice' and believes it should have been up to her whether or not to abort me if she had known. I'm so thankful that my diagnosis was safe with me in the womb and that I'm alive—instead of my life being reduced to a statistic."

A heart wrenching reality this woman has to live with, that her mom would actually say these things to her own daughter. But what really disturbed me was one of the commenters on the article. This man, from the UK, was a self-professed utilitarian. This was the first time I really was able to get into a deep conversation with one such person. While his ideas are scary, perhaps even monstrous, my interlocutor was pleasant throughout our discussion, never threw any personal attacks, and explained his point of view in an intelligent manner. But it's his worldview that is problematic. While reading through this dialogue, one will see that not only does he reject the personhood of most life in the womb, but also of some people who may be in a vegetative or comatose state, as can be seen by him saying they "often resume personhood". His comments will be in red, mine in blue, and various other commenters in different colors. My interlocutor's initial reply to the article itself is below:

Tom: This is merely confused counterfactual thinking. She'd never have suffered with the thoughts of having not existed or regretted her missed existence had she have been aborted in the first-trimester do it's a moot point.

If Planned Parenthood Is Defunded, Will FQHC's Be Affordable For All Women?

Recently, Live Action posted a story on their website exposing the myth that has been circulating around pro-choice circles. That myth is that if Planned Parenthood (PP) is defunded, women will not be able to get accessible healthcare, and the alternatives will be too expensive. Of course, we have to define healthcare, as I (and many others) would argue that abortions and contraceptives are not healthcare. But the biggest issue here, of course, is abortion. Several lively conversations ensued on public social media, and I interacted with two people. Well one, I suppose would be more accurate. And even that one wasn't interested in having a conversation of much substance. What I noticed, in the replies to this story, was that many Americans who are pro-choice and/or support PP are incapable of rational discourse; they are incapable of interacting with ideas other than their own, and instead throw around ad hominem attacks, or simply dismiss any point made with a wave of the hand since they can't come up with a rebuttal. For if they did offer a rebuttal, that would mean they would have to consider the points made by their interlocutor, and it appears that it's too much for many people to contemplate for even a second that they're position on a matter as grave as abortion is wrong.

Christ Blessing Little Children- Marie Ellenrieder

The first "exchange" I had was in response to someone simply posting a meme in reply to the article. In response to my and others' comments, all the person could do was dismiss everything said by saying a condescending "Oh honeys!" This is where intelligent debate dies. Less and less it seems that two people can exchange ideas and have a thoughtful conversation, and instead immediately dismiss the opposing sides thoughts. This is different from finding your opponents logic in actual error. We can't just dismiss someone's opinion, no matter how ridiculous we find it. We still have to interact with it, and not just declare "you're wrong", but prove and demonstrate why this is so.

The other dialogue took place with a woman who felt that Live Action was spreading "lies" and that women would never be able to afford visiting an FQHC (Federally Qualified Health Center). She was mistaken. I'll post my response to the first young woman, followed by pseudo-dialogue I and others had with the second woman immediately after. My words will be in blue, my interlocutor's in red, and other people in various colors.

Abortion Is Safer Than Childbirth?

There's been a lot of confusion going around the interwebs in recent months regarding the safety of childbirth. Thanks to a ridiculously deceptive and patently false video, several pro-choicers now believe that having an abortion is actually safer than giving birth. Let that kind of logic sink in for a minute. Well, it would take longer than a minute... seeing as the assertion is anything but logical. Somebody quoted this "revelation" in response to a post on social media regarding a woman who died from complications following an abortion. The following is the short conversation that ensued, with the person making the claims in red, my thoughts in blue, and the thoughts of others in the conversation in various different colors:

Are Religious Objections the Only Objections to Abortion? Hillary Clinton Seems to Think So

I was struck by an article that had floated onto my webpage recently where presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested that too many women are denied abortions. In her comments on the matter, she said:

"Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced... Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

How ridiculous is this? Bill Donahue of the Catholic League was right on the money when he said in response, "Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion. It’s time for Hillary to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge." But I also think it's ridiculous for another reason. Mrs. Clinton really seems to believe that the only real objections to abortion are those that stem from a religious or cultural basis. That couldn't be further from the truth, as seen by the myriad of secular and feminist pro-life groups. But sometimes, some Christians really push away those that are non-religious and pro-choice with their rhetoric. It's pretty easy to know that abortion is wrong with out being religious, and I think it's time that all those that are pro-life use more arguments that are strictly secular at certain points, as the science is certainly behind us on the pro-life side, and not on the pro-choice side.

March for Life Berlin 2012

Are Emergency Contraceptive Pills Also Abortifacients?

It seems like abortion is going to be a pretty big issue in this year's upcoming election, thanks in large part to what was happening with the Planned Parenthood sting. Recently, I was talking with someone about emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) such as Plan B and RU 486. The idea was advanced that it would be better for a woman to use ECPs following a rape instead of waiting several weeks to do an abortion that would involve "sucking out" the baby. It would be better, so the theory goes, because a pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. Of course, it's a scientific fact that life begins at conception. ECPs disrupt the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. Thus, an abortion occurs. Below, I'll post some exerpts from my discussion. I found a lot of interesting information that I wasn't aware of, and answered the question that had been burning in my mind for some time now: When do certain organizations (like the Food and Drug Administration) declare that a pregnancy begins? The answers may or may not surprise you. Relevant links to the information I cite will also be provided.

The Child Jesus Sleeping on a Cross- Cornelio Schut

Pope Francis and His Words on Contraception

I have to say, I've grown so tired of hearing of the overreaction that stems from Pope Francis' papal airplane interviews. Eye of the Tiber has a great blurb on this, which pretty much sums up my feelings in the most sarcastic way possible. Do I wish His Holiness would stop giving these "off-the-cuff" interviews, such as these? Yes, I do. It is sowing some confusion; I myself was confused until I did a lot of my own digging, and I have to admit, it shouldn't be that difficult to get to the bottom of things. However, many people on the ultra-traditionalist side take it too far and start condemning the Pope has a heretic, that he's a false pope, and whatever else sedevacantists like to say. But on the flip side, many liberal and left-wingers are doing the same thing. They are calling the Pope a heretic as well by declaring that "Pope Francis Says Contraception Can Be Acceptable in Regions Hit by Zika Virus". Pardon my French... but what is this bullcrap? That headline is from the Wall Street Journal. it's apparent that the mainstream media (MSM) no longer does its homework, because the Pope DID NOT say that, and by saying this accuse him of not following Catholic teaching. I guess they always forget that quote of his: "I am a son of the Church." A true son of the Church does not openly defy the teaching of the Church's Magisterium. Pope Francis has not done this.

Pope Francis

"Spiritual" Baptism of Aborted Babies?

With the March for Life a pretty big success yesterday despite the impending blizzard along the Northeast, there was plenty of buzz from my pro-life friends and family on Facebook. One post in particular caught my attention, but not in the most positive way. The post contained two prayers, and the second one really caught my eye. I'm sure it'll catch yours too. Read below:

PRAYER FOR THE BAPTISM OF ABORTED BABIES
Heavenly Father, Your love is eternal. In Your ocean of love You saved the world through Your only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Now look at Your Son on the Cross who is constantly bleeding for love of His people and forgive Your world. Purify and baptize aborted children with the Precious Blood and Water from the Sacred Side of Your Son, Jesus Christ, who hung dead on the Cross for their salvation in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. May they, through His wounds be healed and through His Precious Blood be freed; there to rejoice with the Saints in Heaven. Amen

SPIRITUAL BAPTISM OF THE UNBORM
I believe in God (Here you should recite the Apostles Creed, continuing with...)that all who were born this day dead may reach everlasting life through Jesus Christ, Mary, Joseph, John and the Saint of the day ______. (I looked it up and here are 2-St. Vincent Pallotti and Bl. Laura Vinuna)
I Baptize you -(Sprinkle Holy Water to the North, South, East and West of your home or church) "IN THE NAME OF THE FTHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY GHOST"
One our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory be to the Father.

St. Nicholas Mystikos Baptizes Constantine VII

Discussion With Pro-Choice Advocates on the Beginning of Life

As many are probably aware, today was the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. Even with the impending blizzard coming upon the Northeast, thousands of people from all over the nation came together calling for an end to the horrors of abortion. I even heard that popular stars such as Kelsey Grammer made an appearance. Anyways, I recently had the opportunity to have a bit of dialogue with someone who calls herself pro-choice in a Facebook com-box post. 

I jumped into the conversation a little late, where a few pro-lifers were already responding to this woman's objections. The main objection among them, was that life did not begin at conception, and when pressed, it was really hard to find out when exactly life does begin... that is, objectively and not subjectively. The discussion began from a meme talking about how a mother was showing her daughter her own pre-natal photos, while the mother referred to the daughter as a "clump of cells" Until she decided at birth she was a "human being". So the question of the whole meme was "When does life begin?" Our conversation starts with the pro-choice woman's answer. I've edited the conversation for brevity and have changed names (except my own, still Nicholas) and have also labeled each person by color. My posts will be in blue, Jo's will be in red, Mary's in green, Tom's in orange, and Anne's in purple.

March for Life 2013

Another Reason Why Surrogacy Objectifies Women... and Denies Personhood to Children

Sometimes I have the urge to look around secular news sites. I know, it's an urge I shouldn't give into as much as I do; there's only so much drivel from Yahoo! News a person can take. Usually something catches my eye that disgusts me as I try to keep abreast of current affairs in our country and across the world, but this story in particular made me absolutely sick. Apparently, as publications such as the Washington Post and Time Magazine report, a surrogate mother carrying the triplets of a single father was threatened to abort one of the fetuses growing inside her, or else suffer the consequences of legal, monetary damages. How sad is this?!

To think, in a world where we often hear cries of "My body, my choice!"... we know have a woman who realizes what's inside her is a life. A human life. And she does not want to extinguish that life. Save me the notes about how she may have "signed a contract" and now she's "legally obligated" to have one of the babies aborted. Is someone really going to force this woman to have an abortion? Is that really what our country has come to? Fortunately, in this case, the father has decided to respect the surrogate mother's wishes after threatening legal action, and at least for the time being claims that he will raise all three children. But how sad is that? Let it sink in a minute... this dad wanted to kill one of his children. Specifically the one that was not a twin, because one of the embryos split into two, making identical twins next to their fraternal triplet sibling.

Saint Joseph and Child Jesus- Robert la Longe

But has that sunk in? How will that father look at his child? What will happen if that child learns that their father wanted to kill them in the womb? Or perhaps the more important question is, how can any father arbitrarily decide which of his three children are murdered? This has happened in cases where all the fetuses are fraternal siblings as well, and this is where we get the PC term of "embryo reduction. It's like we're living in some dystopian sci-fi novel... but even authors like Ray Bradbury and Walter Miller could have never predicted the sheer inhumanity of people in what was their near future.

And then this all brigns up the thorny issue of surrogacy in the United States. Obviously, I think it should be illegal in all cases, but we have to be realistic here in a society that often sees nothing wrong with "helping" a couple. But then again many countries, including some from Europe, have actually banned all surrogacy, such as Pakistan, Iceland, Finland, France and Italy. At the very least, the wombs of our women should not be for sale. Many countries only permit "altruistic surrogacy", meaning that the surrogate mother cannot be paid for her services. Some countries that allow ONLY altruistic surrogacy include Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. Countries like India and the US are the most liberal. Even though some states in the US ban surrogacy (such as Michigan), many states are safe havens. Why can so many other countries realize what a bad idea surrogacy for pay is, yet the US just keeps on trucking, even with horrible cases like the one in question? Perhaps prayers for conversion are our best bet. But maybe if more stories like this keep coming up in the news, our lawmakers will have to take action sooner rather than later. One can only hope, because the lives and dignity of both women and children are at stake.

Why Should Pro-Lifers Be on the Defensive?

Bear with me here, as this is half rant/half stream of consciousness writing; I feel that I need to put pen to paper on this... or I guess fingers to keyboard? Anyway, there's been a lot in the news in the past few days about the shooter at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado. And that's not to mention the horrible shootings that have taken place in both California and Georgia today. So now news stories are running with "three shootings this week" all across the Internet. While all three are tragic, it feels like pro-lifers are on the defensive... and why should they be?

Seeing articles in liberally-slanted publication like Huffington Post or Slate make it obvious that many people have an animus towards anyone who does not support abortion. There's no reason why those that are against abortion need to give apologies for this mad men who killed three people. One of those people were pro-life! Also, the motive hasn't been released yet, and already people need to jump on the bandwagon and say this is indicative of anyone who stands against abortion. 

I ask a question then: are all Muslims represented by the terrorists in Paris? Or those in Syria. What about those that call for the death of police officers in the Black Lives Matter movement? It's absolutely ridiculous how little logic is used by people in the information age.

Artus Wolfaerts- Christ Blessing the Children

Luckily, Trent Horn had a really good article on this whole mess. It's worth a read. It is sad that he even need to write anything on the subject, but he makes some excellent points. My favorite:

 Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-choice America, told David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, whose videos have brought world-wide attention to Planned Parenthood’s policy of harvesting baby body parts, 

"You don't get to create fake videos and accuse abortion providers of "barbaric atrocities against humanity" one day and act shocked when someone shoots to kill in those same facilities the next." 

First, the videos aren’t fake. Second, even if they were, it would still be true that abortion providers commit “barbaric atrocities against humanity.’” That’s because it is barbaric to dismember a baby, even if you don’t sell the baby’s parts for medical research. Therefore, it would not be wrong to accuse abortion providers of such barbarism, even if some people use this accusation as an excuse to commit violence. 

Third, if every social movement chose to never say anything that could become a catalyst for violence, then there would hardly be any successful social justice movements in the history of our country. For example: 

In 1859 abolitionist John Brown led a raid on a federal armory in West Virginia in order to arm a slave rebellion (three years earlier Brown had killed five slavery supporters in Kansas). Defenders of slavery argued that because Republican abolitionists endorsed the anti-slavery book The Impending Crisis of the South, and because the book was published before Brown’s raid and was associated with violence against slaveholders, it followed that abolitionists were responsible for violence against slaveholders (Michael Kent Curits, Free Speech, 274). 

In 1963 defenders of racial segregation accused Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of being responsible for violence that accompanied the Civil Rights Movement. Of course, King was one of the movement’s most vocal proponents of non-violent protest, which isn’t easy when one is facing violent opposition. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail King responded to his critics by saying, “it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.”

Obviously, those that wished for an end to segregation and slavery didn't worry much about what the actions of a few, over-zealous people did. It did not invalidate the true spirit of what was trying to be accomplished. Unfortunately, we have to be prepared for a lot more of this literally stupid rhetoric. All we can do is try our best to speak up where we can, and make our defense a good offense. Give a reasoned explanation for our beliefs on personhood, and make others question their own ways of thinking.

Facts and Brief Dialogue on the Planned Parenthood Scandal

Recently in the news, we have seen the Center for Medical Progress blow the lid off of the illegal activities going on at Planned Parenthood and how they are profiting off of abortion through the sales of fetal body parts, and in some cases, entire bodies. This hasn't been covered to widely on a national level since the initial video was posted back in July, as it seems to be getting buried under the rug by many liberal and pro-abortion media outlets. However, the ninth video as just been posted this past Tuesday, with more to follow. You can watch the most recent video HERE, and view the full length, unedited interviews here.

Abortion Protesters

Now if you recall, also during the same time all this controversy started, there was another story that made national headlines: Cecil the Lion. Believe it or not, there was more national outrage over the killing of this lion, instead of the illegal activities happening inside a Planned Parenthood clinic involving human beings. Below is a discussion on Facebook that started on a friend's wall; his words will be in blue. He wanted to show how our priorities might be a little backward when a lion gets more coverage than the sale of human body parts. Another person, whose words will be in red, responded defending Planned Parenthood. I and another person (that person's words will be in green, mine in regular black font) gave a rebuttal. Once one sees the research that I presented this person, it's hard to understand how there is still confusion and disinformation being spread on this issue. We'll start from about where I enter the conversation. The only edits below are to each participant's names: