Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate
September 25th, 2009 by 
gkroeger
Yesterday I attended a presentation by Scott Klusendorf one of the leading pro life speakers in the Country today. Scott has debated many pro choice people and his speech yesterday was centered on the differences in thought between the opposing sides in this ongoing controversy.
Scott’s explanation as to why this debate continues to rage is because of our society’s indifference to truth. We tend to accept relativism instead of a definite truth. Instead of seeking what is true, we accept some middle ground that allows us to do what we would not do if we knew the truth.
If we truly believed that an embryo was human, we would not permit it to be destroyed.
Scott started his talk by outlining a few of the points his opponents make in their argument for a woman’s right to choose abortion.
- Pro life people do not have the right to impose their opinion on others
- Every person has the right to “choose”
- Abortion is a choice between a woman and her doctor. No one else’s business.
- Restricting abortion for the poor who cannot afford more children is unfair.
- Women should have the right to abort their pregnancy at any time though out the nine months of pregnancy.
- Women should not be required to give birth to an unwanted child that may be subjected to abuse, poverty, or illness.
- Abortion should be permitted in all cases of rape or incest.
Scott surprises his opponent and his audience by agreeing with these arguments. He agrees with every aspect of their arguments; IF, the fetus is not human.
Scott’s point is that the whole controversy boils down to “is the fetus human?” Virtually no one would use any of these arguments to kill a 2 year old toddler. So, the question really is, “is the fetus human?” If the fetus is not human then all of the pro choice people are correct and we pro life people concede the right of a woman to have an abortion. The reason however, that we continue to oppose abortion is that all scientific evidence supports the fact that the fetus is human. If we were however, to concede for arguments sake that we do not know when the fetus becomes human; does that alone permit us to morally kill the fetus? If there is a doubt should we assume the fetus is human or assume it is not human? To illustrate this point, Scott uses the analogy of hunting with a friend and you see a bush rustling, and you are not sure if it is the deer you have been pursuing or your hunting partner, do shoot hoping it is the deer, or do you not shoot until you know it is a deer?
The pro choice people seem to take the position that since they do not know if the fetus is human or not, It is okay to accept this as an unknown and an excuse to do what is convenient. The fact that they do not know does not mean there is no truth or correct answer. There was a time when people were not sure if slavery was right or if the world was flat or round, but there always was a correct answer, as there is for this question. We should always error on the side of morality.
Some pro choice people like to make this an argument about religion. Religion has nothing to do with if we have the right to kill another human being. The most devout atheist does not believe we have the right to kill another human being. The religion argument is nothing but an attempt to change the subject and not face the real issue.
Some pro choice people like to use the argument that the fetus is not fully human by using the well known argument of the laboratory fire. This argument goes like this; you are in a laboratory that is on fire, in one corner are several frozen embryos, in another corner is a 2 year old toddler, you have time to save only the embryos or the toddler, which do you save? Because most people would choose the toddler, the pro choice argument is that even you pro life people do not believe that the embryos are human. Scott’s rebuttal is that emotional feelings do not change the fact of what is human and what is not. His example was if his 8 year old daughter was in the auditorium with us and a fire broke out and he had the choice of saving his daughter or all of us, we would all be “toast”; this does not prove that none of us were human.
Over the years of dialog I have had with those supporting the right to “choose” I have always been intrigued by the fact that they, almost without exception, have not watched, and refuse to watch any picture, video, or image of an actual abortion. Of course the excuse is always, “I refuse to watch such gory pictures” because they are offensive to me. Interestingly, these same individuals will pay good money to go to a movie which contains more graphic images then the abortion images. So, what is the real reason they do not want to see the images of an abortion; maybe, because they don’t want to subject themselves to the reality of abortion?
This link will take you to a short video of not an actual abortion but the after math; if you have not seen these images, you need to see them at least once, once will be enough. If these images do not convince you that the fetus was human, I don’t think anything will.
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish.
~Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta
Posted in FYI, Thought of the Day | 
No Comments »
