United States of Abortions

Strategies pro-lifers use to argue against pro-abortionists are not limited to one sole argument. There have been many arguments represented my multiple pro-lifers. In this case, for this week's assignment, I have to stick with the "Trot out the Toddler" tactic. I say this because if I were arguing for abortion, then I would be most convinced of my wrongness through this tactic. Whatever the question, whatever the situation, whatever the time period, using "Trot out the Toddler" in my opinion is most affective. This argument does work and the only way that I could see how someone could leave the conversation without a change of heart would be if the question of when life begins is brought up and there is no proven answer. The tactic allows people to think logically about what they are supporting and whether or not what they are doing is morally correct. I do not see how someone could believe that killing a two year old child could be morally correct, but hey these days you never know. If people want to marry their animals, then I guess there are people out there that would think this tactic is a bunch of nonsense. As much as I believe that all of the other arguments presented are reliable and adequate, this argument seems like it would have the most positive results.

I could go on for hours about my position on abortion, but if I had to summarize it into a paragraph or two it would go a little something like this: The idea of abortion has been in place for over thirty years. There have been numerous cases of women who have accidentally become pregnant whether married or unmarried that do not want to bare the child. Unfortunately our government has decided that abortion is an "okay" thing to do because it involves the woman's choice. Many people who are for abortion believe that abortion is okay because a child is not a child until a certain stage or that an unwanted child should not be brought into this world. When I first heard that, I was almost in tears. I could not believe that people in this world truly wanted that and thought that. In no way should a child not have the chance to live because of a greedy parent that is simply unfair. There are better ways to go about this; adoption.

There have been laws made, posters scattered across the halls of colleges and schools, campaigns across the nation, and lectures within classroom about the topic of abortion. From my knowledge, I know that there is a better way than abortion. Women who become pregnant out of wedlock, women who are raped, and women who did not want a child, have other options beside abortion. If they are concerned about what people will think about them, that is the least of their worries. Having to live for nine months with embarrassment compared to living a lifetime of guilt...which one seems better? By choosing to abort, women are not giving the baby a chance, they are being selfish and unfair to the being living inside of them. There is no wrong in adoption, but a lot of wrong in abortion.

How is it exactly that abortion is acceptable and the fetus is not considered human to the majority of our nation, but infanticide is a crime? So, for example if a woman three months were to go out today and have an abortion because she is unmarried and does not want to go through the questions and embarrassment from her family and friends, then she could and it would not be considered immoral or wrong. If that same woman were driving in a car on the freeway she was involved in a head-on collision and killed, the man responsible for that crash would also be convicted of a crime for infanticide and second degree murder. There are two contradictions presented there. One, that it is acknowledging that the pregnant woman indeed has a person living inside of her, and that the killing of this woman and child is completely immoral and wrong. What is wrong with this?! Our laws contradict themselves at times.

As much knowledge as I do have about this topic, I did learn that the rate for abortion is even higher than I expected. It makes me so sad and sick inside to know that there are women in the world who cannot have children, and yet there are women who can who are abusing their privilege and killing the children. The idea of that is hard to think about, even if someone is as tough as a Now and Later candy.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9438MS.asp

This link allows people who argue against the fetus being a child, to see that even in the medical world, the medical professionals believe that life begins at conception. This would be a good article to help people realize that they indeed are killing a living being.

I am praying for those who accept the views of a pro-abortionist, for I grieve for their hearts.

"All Abort!" said the Pro-Abortionist

The author of this article is a phenomenal writer in my opinion. His words are so true, aren't they? As I read it aloud to myself and family I realized just how true this article is. The assumption of pro-abortionists is correctly stated, "It is not human, it is only a fetus." He nailed it right on the dot! That is the question that pops up for every argument abortionists present.
When the idea of an unwanted child comes up, or possibly a rape case, what's the answer to that? That's when pro-lifers pull out the "trot out the toddler" tactic and begin asking questions particularly by using the "if you had a two year old...". In any abortion argument, there is always a way to make the opponent think long and hard about their answer without sounding ridiculous and repetitive. The tactic helps the argument along by coming to the same question over and over again, "Is the fetus the same as a human being?" or "What is the unborn?" In most cases, the opponent will not have a logical or reasonable answer.

"It's unfair for an unmarried woman to have to face the embarrassment of pregnancy."

In my opinion, that is a bunch of hooey. First of all, it is her fault for being so irresponsible. If she did not want a child, than she should have thought about messing around as an unmarried woman. If a woman does not want to face the embarrassment of pregnancy, than she should think about whether or not it is worth it to sleep around with a load of different men. If that same woman has a two year old toddler, would it be fair for that toddler to be killed because it is embarrassing for the mother?

"Abortion should be allowed for a woman whose unborn baby is diagnosed as deformed or handicapped."

The only response I could possibly give besides the trot out the toddler tactic, would have to be, "Try explaining that to a family with a disabled child and see if you will come out alive." If I were using the tactic I would begin once again with the two year old. If someone had a two year old child that was handicapped would it be okay for one to kill that child solely because it was too stressful? I would hope the opponents response would be ,"No."

"If abortion is outlawed, more unwanted children will be born, and these children are likely to be abused or neglected. It is better for such children to never be born than to live such a miserable existence."

If the child is unwanted, then the mother has the adoption option. There is no reason to not allow that baby a chance to live; a chance to make their own decisions; a chance to live how they want to. If you abort the baby, you never gave them a chance, instead you killed life before it could mature and develop into someone like you. If you had a two year old and decided you did not want them anymore, would it be okay for you to kill them? If not, than what makes you think that it is okay to abort one?

My beliefs on the abortion are strong, and I will refute any pro-abortionist anyday. There is no reason for the death of a child besides someone being selfish. The woman making the choice had a right to live, so why shouldn't the child?

Response to "Stand to Reason"

As I see it, an ambassador is known to have three main skills. These skills do represent a leader, a person who can be of great influence to the many people he or she may be surrounded by. The first skill that Gregory Koukl writes about indicates that the ambassador must have knowledge. Not just any knowledge, but knowledge about HIS ruler HIS king. This knowledge cannot be merely what any man or woman would usually pertain, but instead it must exceed in a way that allows the ambassador some kind of superiority. Secondly, the knowledge must not be explained in a plain or simple way, but must be described in detail, with wisdom that gives listeners a sense of direction, purpose, and persuasive enough to the point listeners will leave thinking carefully about what was presented to them. Lastly, there is the ambassadors character and personality. In order for people to take he or she seriously, he or she must be kind, thoughtful, true, honest, wise, caring, and willing to listen not solely speak.

Now the Columbus tactic, well that is probably the most interesting idea out of Gregory's entire article. For many people who are trying to, not convert because that is not the main idea, figure out what others point of view may be on a particular topic such as religion. If I were to have a conversation with a guy my age, perhaps another student from one of the local high schools, instead of opening up a conversation with my thoughts, I would ask him what he thinks about it. That way a relationship (in the friendliest way possible) would develop and trust may be put into action. By asking questions instead of talking the whole darn time, I can get a lot further and deeper into a great conversation rather than "Sure, yea, see ya!" The point of engaging with other people and trying to make them think, open up, and ask questions, one must be willing to do the same. This is, if you may, an example of the Columbus tactic: a series of questions which lead to a conversation that allows the other to be comfortable speaking to you; makes them feel that you are willing to listen and want to know their opinion; makes them think long and hard about what exactly it is they are trying to explain and believe; allows you to communicate better in the conversation.

I recall learning about the Suicide view in my junior year Bible class, Philosophy and Apologetics. It was my favorite class last year, particularly because it solved many mysteries and introduced so many new truths that I had quit trying to figure out the years before. It can be summed up quickly and easily as "a clear picture that points out a statement that is self-refuting" such as the example that was brought up in our Bible class today, "Never say never." How true is it that we hear those sayings everyday? I didn't quite realize it until today, I hear those all the time. It is so common that people use those phrases without being serious, but when in a serious situation, it can backfire in a way that leaves you looking nothing less than stupid. What becomes more and more obvious as you study the suicide tactic, is that relativism doesn't truly exist. Really. If you take time to think about it, the suicide tactic explains it crystal clear. A relativist's main point is, "What's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me." Cool, but does that mean that you think I am wrong? Obviously they contradict themselves when they blame the pastor of a local church for being wrong and a fool for believing in what God says. Or possibly when they blame Sally, their neighbor, for believing that fairies exist and magic is in the air of the human world. You get what I am saying? Their ain't no such thing as a non-self-refuting, non-critical, relativist.

Altogether, the tactics can be a useful tool if one applies them correctly. I have always been curious is finding out what people believe and why they believe it, so now that Gregory has done such an eloquent job at explaining in detail just how the Columbo tactic can be used, I am all for using it when the opportunity arrives. In order to use it, I must first now what I believe and importantly how I can explain it myself. As far as the suicide tactic, it is genius. How true it is that so many people refute what they say! Now, we know that we can easily point that out and ask questions to have others explain just exactly how they can believe in something, yet have obviously proved that what they have just said is self-refuting. They can be used anytime any day, and I can't wait to try them out! I am ready and willing.