This post is a response the following article by Annie Reneau, entitled, "It Is Possible to be Morally Pro-Life and Politically Pro-Choice at the Same Time: Click Here.
1. The author starts with the
premise that the belief that life begins at conception is a religious
belief, not scientific fact. This is patently false. Here is an article
outlining how life at conception is established scientific fact: https://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/
2.
She then argues that one should be able to abort a child if that child
has a disability, which she does not specify, but merely says that the
child would have a "short, pain-filled life." If the parents love their
child, as she claims, but the child's life is truly going to be short,
why kill it--in a painful abortion--early? Do we do this for
already-born children? If your one-year-old is diagnosed with spina
bifida or cerebral palsy, should we then legalize chopping her to bits? And what moral right does one person have to determine the life
value of another person? If I see you going through a terrible
depression, should I then have the right to end your life to "spare you
from pain and suffering?" Certainly not. Killing innocent human life is
never justifiable for such reasons.
3. She says that
women experiencing miscarriages or stillbirths are harmed because they
are "forced to carry dead babies inside them" because of abortion
restrictions. Again, a patently false statement. These kinds of medical procedures were happening prior to Roe v. Wade, they happen now (and are not called abortions, btw), and they will continue to happen after Roe V Wade is overturned.
4.
She argues that the government "should not serve as judge and jury to a
woman's decisions." Taking this argument to its logical conclusion would
mean anarchy in its severest sense. Because morality itself is about
our ideas of how human beings should behave in a fair and equal manner,
ALL laws are based on morality. So if no one has the right to legislate
the behavior of another person based on moral principles, then rape and
murder and incest and theft and selling drugs and sex-trafficking and
slavery and every other evil deed imaginable should be legal.
Essentially, she is saying, "even if abortion is murder, it should be
legal." Why?
5. Her last argument claims that
making abortion illegal doesn't prevent abortions from happening and
keeping it legal doesn't mean more abortions. Again, this is just
another lie. Abortion has NOT been steadily declining since Roe v. Wade.
Since then we have killed over 50 million babies, and this number is
low because many chemical abortions are not counted and several states,
such as California, are non-reporting.
6. She says
that making abortion illegal will just push it underground and make it
more dangerous. By that logic, all murder should be legal. Rape should
be legal. Selling drugs and sex-trafficking should be legal. But these
things are illegal--regardless of the fact that they keep
happening--simply because they are blatant human rights violations.
Abortion should be illegal because it is murder, not because making it
illegal will make it stop. And murderers should not be able to practice murder "safely"!
So, is it possible to be morally pro-life but politically pro-choice at the same time? Only if you are in a state of logical contradiction or are simply ignorant about what abortion is, what abortion laws are about, and what it means to be "pro-life." If you say, "Abortion is murder, but it should be legal," then you are not pro-life, you are pro-abortion. Just admit it.
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things
deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also
approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:32
