Because of this, voicing my opinions often spawns eye-rolls and the proverbial pat-on-the-head kind of response from those who dissent. I know a lot of people--even friends I am relatively close to--don't understand the way I act and the views I hold. They laugh off a lot of the things I say because I just "do and believe whatever the church tells me." Particularly, the abortion debate comes to mind.
We've all seen the "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" sign-waving pro-choice women, and it annoys me to no end because it reminds me that we are making this WAY too easy for them. So let's get to the point: I propose we take start taking religion OUT of the abortion debate. It's getting us nowhere, especially with those who aren't Christian. It's time we start laying down the cold, hard, sciency facty-facts to drive the pro-life message home.
(**DISCLAIMER** Before I proceed and my fellow pro-life Christians jump down my throat, I'd like to address the fact that I'm NOT discounting God's role in the pro-life movement. As a Catholic, I believe abortion is a great evil, and to abolish it as a socially acceptable procedure will require prayers and God's assistance in order to change hearts. BUT. We need to lead people to this point of changing their hearts by making sure they understand logic and science. I don't think God has a problem with that. Holy crap. This is a long parenthetical disclaimer.)
(**DISCLAIMER** Before I proceed and my fellow pro-life Christians jump down my throat, I'd like to address the fact that I'm NOT discounting God's role in the pro-life movement. As a Catholic, I believe abortion is a great evil, and to abolish it as a socially acceptable procedure will require prayers and God's assistance in order to change hearts. BUT. We need to lead people to this point of changing their hearts by making sure they understand logic and science. I don't think God has a problem with that. Holy crap. This is a long parenthetical disclaimer.)
I am now going to address the three angles I believe to be the best to use when confronted with the abortion debate: Biology, ethics, and algebra.
BIOLOGY:
I think the most teeth-clenchingly frustrating argument I hear from pro-choicers is that "we can't even say for sure when human life begins." First of all: this is false. And when you call them out on that, they will swear up and down that they are right. No. Any legitimate biology book and doctor will tell you that human life begins at conception. When the sperm penetrates the egg, new life is formed, which is an undeniable fact(y-fact). It's not alien life; it's not zebra life; and, thank sa-WEET baby Jesus--it's not polar bear life. Nothing can possibly come from that "blob of cells" besides a human. Ergo: human. life. period. Once you finally pin them on this argument, they'll change the words "human life" to "personhood," which really is no good for them; they went from trying to defend abortion with a scientific term to defending it with a wishy-washy term that anyone can apply their own criteria to. There are creep-o's out there who will argue that a 2 year old is not a "person." (Google that shiz, I'm serious.) Sorry, I'm not going there. If your pro-choice counter part is, good for them. Stop arguing with them, because they are so far gone you'd lose your mind trying to convince them of anything.
BIOLOGY:
I think the most teeth-clenchingly frustrating argument I hear from pro-choicers is that "we can't even say for sure when human life begins." First of all: this is false. And when you call them out on that, they will swear up and down that they are right. No. Any legitimate biology book and doctor will tell you that human life begins at conception. When the sperm penetrates the egg, new life is formed, which is an undeniable fact(y-fact). It's not alien life; it's not zebra life; and, thank sa-WEET baby Jesus--it's not polar bear life. Nothing can possibly come from that "blob of cells" besides a human. Ergo: human. life. period. Once you finally pin them on this argument, they'll change the words "human life" to "personhood," which really is no good for them; they went from trying to defend abortion with a scientific term to defending it with a wishy-washy term that anyone can apply their own criteria to. There are creep-o's out there who will argue that a 2 year old is not a "person." (Google that shiz, I'm serious.) Sorry, I'm not going there. If your pro-choice counter part is, good for them. Stop arguing with them, because they are so far gone you'd lose your mind trying to convince them of anything.
ETHICS:
Not morals, right? Heaven FORBID we use that term. I'm reminded every day by the left that we "cannot impose morals on others." Well, actually, there are definitely morals that we, as a society, hold each other accountable to, which we tend to think of as ethical standards. The obvious one here is that it is morally wrong to kill innocent human life. Of course, there are circumstances in life that require killing, such as war, but as a general rule the understanding is that killing is wrong (unless, of course, it is done to protect the innocent). As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, 'convenience' 'burden relief' and 'fairness' have never been socially acceptable excuses to take another human life. We've already established that human life begins at conception, so why should we allow these excuses at any point afterward?
ALGEBRA KIND OF:
Not morals, right? Heaven FORBID we use that term. I'm reminded every day by the left that we "cannot impose morals on others." Well, actually, there are definitely morals that we, as a society, hold each other accountable to, which we tend to think of as ethical standards. The obvious one here is that it is morally wrong to kill innocent human life. Of course, there are circumstances in life that require killing, such as war, but as a general rule the understanding is that killing is wrong (unless, of course, it is done to protect the innocent). As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, 'convenience' 'burden relief' and 'fairness' have never been socially acceptable excuses to take another human life. We've already established that human life begins at conception, so why should we allow these excuses at any point afterward?
ALGEBRA KIND OF:
OK, so I'm not a math whiz by ANY standard. I can add in my head quickly? That's about it.
I'm really excited though because I finally found the word I've been looking for! (Thank you Google!) ASYMPTOTE! An asymptote is what I always picture in my head when people start talking about specific points in the pregnancy that they personally believe it is OK to kill a fetus. Now, it's not a perfect analogy, but stay with me:
This, is an asymptote. (Dear math geniuses, please avert your eyes while I attempt to explain this. It won't be pretty.) See how the curved line goes seems to slope down, but never quite touches the X-axis? Theoretically, this line will continue to slope downward infinitely, NEVER touching the X-axis. Now in my head, I think of the X-axis as the point of conception of human life. Pro-choicers tend to pick and choose different events that fall somewhere on this slope and say "THAT is the point where it is no longer OK to have an abortion." The funny thing is, pro-choicers can't come to a consensus about what point that is; they all have a different spot they pick on the asymptote. And if they can agree that killing innocent human life is a really big deal, this makes it a big, dangerous gamble for them.....and you should tell them that! Pro-lifers, on the other hand, can all agree that the asymptote will NEVER touch the X-axis, no matter how much pro-choicers want it to. You cannot undo conception. Our solution? Don't draw the graph in the first place; i.e. don't get pregnant!
(Da-yeesh! I really hope that all made sense.....)
The points that I indicated on the graph obviously only represent a fraction of the amazing points of human development that occur during a pregnancy. In fact, doctors and biologist are constantly discovering more and more intricate details about human development that occur closer and closer to the moment of conception, including things about the nervous system and how the unborn experience pain. Now, doesn't this make us sound just a little naive when we use terms like "blob of cells"?
OK, I'm going to have to be done. Honestly, as I kept writing, I came up with about a hundred different angles to start arguing from....but I'd better stop. I hope at least one of these explanations/arguments will help you in your endeavors to pin down a pro-choicer in an argument. Then you could be like "Ugh! Take THAT you stupid neo-feminist!" and they'll be like "Whaaa!!!! I just got facty-facted ::sad face::" and you'll be like "Yeah, the truth hurts, don't it, idiot?" But you know, you really shouldn't be name calling. Also, that was completely improper English. Shame on you.
