Category: Abortion

Naomi Long – but why are you “personally opposed” to abortion on demand?

Last month, the leader of the Alliance Party, Naomi Long, got into a spiky back and forth with Precious Life after she – along with over 169 other MPs – signed a letter calling for their morality to be imposed on unborn children radical changes to Northern Ireland’s abortion laws. Precious Life (correctly) claimed that the letter is basically a euphemism for abortion on demand, and that (also correctly) a vote for Alliance is a vote for abortion. In response, Naomi Long called it ALL LIES before making the claim that decriminalising abortion does not force abortion on anyone. Because we all know that not forcing a certain thing on people makes the thing itself morally permissible. That’s how the logic of morality works in 2018, bigots.

Other local politicians signed the letter too, of course, but the interesting thing about Naomi is that she is a Christian. That and I genuinely like her. She’s a talented, articulate, and hardworking politician, who has displayed considerable bravery in the face of violent paramilitary thugs, and who has, in the past, spoken out against the exodus of persecuted Christians from the Middle East. It’s just a shame that she doesn’t see the violent expulsion of a human being seeking asylum in her mother’s womb in the same way.

You might be wondering, then, how a Christian could love all her neighbours bar the ones that happen to be in a certain location or at a certain stage of development or are the product of certain circumstances. Keep wondering, because Naomi’s specific beliefs on the act of abortion are pretty hard to come by. While she stated in this 2012 article that she’s personally opposed to abortion on demand, she has yet to explain, to my knowledge, why she personally opposes abortion on demand. Is it because she thinks abortion a sin? Does she think abortion takes a human life? Does she think there’s an intrinsic difference between the corpse of a child that was aborted on demand and the corpse of a child that was aborted because she was the product of rape? It’s all rather vague, which should be a concern for any thoughtful pro-life voter because it’s literally a matter of life and death.

So, how best do pro-lifers go about unpacking and engaging with the absurd contradiction of someone who claims to be personally opposed to abortion (either entirely or to a certain degree) yet is in favour of it as a matter of public policy? How do you respond to such a person? What would you say to Naomi Long if she turned up at your door canvassing and the discussion turned to abortion? What would you say to her on Talkback or the Nolan Show when she’s on arguing for choice but doesn’t explain what the precise nature of that choice is? The answer lies in these basic questions, in the following order:

1. “Naomi, why are you personally opposed to abortion on demand?”

The answer to this should be easy. She will likely say that she’s personally opposed to abortion on demand because abortion kills an innocent human being. If Naomi does not think the unborn are human then she would have no logical reason for any personal opposition to abortion at any stage, for any reason. Having an abortion on demand would be no more immoral than picking your nose on demand or having a mole removed on demand. It would require neither personal opposition nor any further thought on the matter.

2. “Naomi, does your belief that abortion on demand kills an innocent human being have any objective basis?”

This is also easy to answer because, if she’s a thinking Christian, two things will happen. First, she will tell you that the scientific consensus amongst embryologists is that the unborn is a distinct, living, and whole human being from the point of conception. Second, she will appeal to her Christian convictions and tell you that all human beings are knit together in their mother’s womb equally in the image of God, and that, as a follower of Christ with a public platform and a gift for feisty activism, she is compelled to speak out against the destruction of the powerless by the powerful, including those at risk of being dismembered with a Sopher clamp by the strong arm of a wealthy abortion doctor.

3. “Naomi, are you personally opposed to child rape?”

This should be brief. She will say “Yes” – then give you the death stare for asking such a stupid question. But it’s not a stupid question. It’s a trap.

4. The next question is obvious: “Would you be willing to impose this belief on others by banning child rape?”

In the blink of an eye, she will answer “yes”. At this point, though, you might want to remind her that preventing people from raping children is a question of objective morality rather than an issue of choice or individual conscience, as the Alliance Party puts it. It is more a case of asking whether a government should prevent terrible things from happening to a voiceless group of vulnerable human beings than the question of choosing between brown sauce or red sauce for your fry.

5. If at this point she doesn’t yet understand how absurd her position is, ask, “Why do you believe that rape is more serious than murder?”

If she still doesn’t get it at this point or refuses to answer, you can simply explain to her that she thinks it should be illegal to rape children but permissible to murder them – even though she “personally opposes” both child rape and child murder. You can now close the discussion by contrasting her muddled and inconsistent position with your clear and inclusive pro-life position that the law should ban both the rape and murder of children because both are forms of child abuse.

Ireland’s compassionate progressives celebrate the right to kill their children

In scenes resembling an orc wedding from a Dungeons and Dragons game, thousands of Ireland’s most compassionate and tolerant progressives gobbled After Eights and quaffed champagne in a festival of grotesquerie to celebrate the literal abolition of equality.

Dublin Castle was buzzing last night after the 8th Amendment – a law that afforded all members of the human family the right to life – was successfully overturned, paving the way for Irish women to dismember and poison their offspring should the need arise.

The hashtag #KillYourKids began trending as Repealers across the country expressed their unbridled joy at the door being opened to the wholesale destruction of human life – just as it proved to be after abortion was introduced in England and America. Repealers were keen to make their feelings known as Ireland moved into a more tolerant and progressive era.

“I know that throughout history the whole person/non-person argument has ended in misery and death every single time it’s been used to advance a cause, but this time it’s different. I swear” said an adult clump of cells. “#DownWithDowns” one woman from Cork tweeted. “It’s time to create a more perfect race. We don’t need those who can’t contribute to society! Abort it and try again!”

Also present at the celebration was Sinn Fein leader Michelle O’Neill, who addressed the gathering by quoting the famous Republican mantra: “Our revenge will be the laughter of our children!” before adding her own caveat, “Yunno, the ones we don’t abort”. The crowd then erupted into chants and howls, prompting nearby stewards to toss them some newborns to satiate their craving for innocent blood.

Science proves the real archaic law to be the 1967 Abortion Act

One of the biggest fallacies of the Northern Ireland abortion debate is the argument that since the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is old, it must therefore be wrong.  You’ve heard it many times: “NI abortion laws are archaic. They’re from the middle ages or something!” This, of course, is a type of GCSE-level reasoning known as ‘chronological snobbery’ or a ‘current year fallacy’. A law should live or die on its own merit, not on how old it is.

Which brings us on to the British Medical Association (BMA).

Tomorrow, the BMA will vote on whether or not to completely decriminalise abortion. While a vote in favour will not change the law, it will send a clear and terrifying message that the current medical zeitgeist does not believe in the equality of every human life – much to the delight of the chronological snobs. It’s 2017, you see, and protecting all human life is so, like, 1861.

But if the law were to change in light of this, say in some sort of hellish dystopian future where the Green Party have come to power, then the abortion limit will be increased to 28 weeks and practices like sex-selective abortion, as advocated by the appropriately-named Dr Wendy Savage, would be perfectly legal. #TrustWomen indeed. The ones that are allowed to be born, that is.

However, for anyone who is concerned with right reasoning, no such vote is necessary. The issue of abortion, while emotionally complex and culturally divisive, is actually a straightforward one. The only question that needs asked is the following:

What is the unborn?

The answer to this question trumps all other considerations because if the unborn is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. Abortion would be no more immoral than having a tooth or a tumour removed. However, if the unborn is a human being, then no justification for abortion is good enough.

In other words, an unborn human’s right to life is more important than its unwanted-ness, the right to choose (whatever that means), financial hardship, its gender, its skin colour, its disability, or any of the other reasons you’ll regularly hear given for abortion. If the unborn is human, then the BMA voting on whether or not to criminalise abortion would be like Starbucks voting on whether or not to slay their least productive coffee farmers.

So how do we know if the unborn is human or not? This is how: science.

It’s amusing how the religious are charged with being anti-science, yet when it comes to abortion (and other cultural issues like how many genders there are), there’s no shortage of secularists and/or atheists willing to beclown themselves by claiming that a fetus is not human (or that there are six million genders) – despite established science saying otherwise.

As far back as 1970, when ultrasound technology was in its infancy, and three years before Roe vs. Wade introduced wholesale abortion to the US, the editorial in California Medicine put it plainly:

“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra-or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalise abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”

The humanity of the unborn is also affirmed by leading embryology textbooks,¹ that establish, in no uncertain terms, that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings – like this one. Of course, for the abortion-choicer, the denial of science and use of subterfuge is wholly necessary because otherwise, they couldn’t call themselves ‘pro-choice’.

Interestingly, there are some abortion-choice supporters intellectually honest enough to embrace the science. Ronald Dworkin, a prominent American philosopher and abortion advocate, in his book Life’s Dominion, simply said: “Abortion deliberately kills a developing embryo and is a choice for death”.

Faye Wattleton, a former President of Planned Parenthood (!), writing in Ms. Magazine, put it this way:

“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.”

So – here’s a former President of Planned Parenthood, an organisation that is to abortion what Ikea is to furniture, saying that its entire support base (pretty much) is deluded. I’ve yet to hear or see any abortion rights campaigner concede that abortion is killing, have you? Yet here is an abortion industry leader saying just that. Perhaps the rank-and-file abortion activists would be better off spending their time reading up on embryology instead of prancing about in vagina hats.

So we know the unborn are human, not because Scripture tells us (it does, by the way – Ps. 139:13 & Luke 1:41) or because we’re all misogynist pigs (ad hominem!), but because science has weighed in and told us so. That means — it follows necessarily — that if it is wrong to take an innocent human life, and abortion takes an innocent human life, then abortion is wrong. This is true even if a fertilised human looks like a clump of cells, or if you can’t afford it, or if its father is a criminal. It is true even if the BMA vote in favour of decriminalising it.

So when someone accuses a pro-lifer of supporting an ‘archaic law,’ a moment’s reflection should reveal how absurd this is. “You oppose a law that tries to protect all human life, and yet you support a law that seeks to destroy human life, even for the flimsiest of reasons?” OK, then. Which law is the medieval one again?

¹See T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998),pp. 2-18. O’Rahilly, Ronand and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.
pro-life belfast both lives matter

Actually, Labour Alternative, both lives do matter

Abortion advocates are in a rage at the moment.

Nothing new here, of course, they’re always raging about something, but this last month their rage has been more apoplectic than usual.

Their anger climaxed when Both Lives Matter, a new pro-life group set up in Northern Ireland, launched a billboard campaign claiming that 100,000 lives have been saved due to NI’s laws on abortion.

The billboard was vandalised shortly after going up.

Nothing says “tolerance” like the tearing down of a different opinion.

Normal people will find it odd that anyone could become outraged at the mere suggestion of people being alive today because they weren’t aborted, but this is the type of people we’re dealing with. Truth is to abortion fans what direct sunlight is to vampires. This is why, when faced with the light of truth and goodness, their eyes and faces began to burn so badly that they had to literally destroy the billboard for fear of bursting into flames.

Sean Burns, South Belfast candidate for the abortion-choice Labour Alternative, put it this way:

This campaign is an insult to women who have had an abortion for whatever reason (for instance, if the mother didn’t want a girl — Bigot). It is also a blatantly untrue (sic) to say our backward laws are saving any lives. In fact, this archaic denial of the right to choose puts the lives of women as risk, as we saw in the South with the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar.”

A couple of points: firstly, notice how he doesn’t even bother to engage with the ‘100,000 lives’ claim. He merely asserts that it’s untrue without offering any compelling counter-argument. This is a standard pro-choice tactic. By dismissing you, they don’t have to defend their position. And if they don’t defend their position, then nobody will find out how vacuous and fallacious their arguments are. Instead, they get to stay in their Safe Spaces, eat chickpea curry and conduct a memorial service for Harambe. Then, when it’s safe, they creep out under the cover of darkness to tear down any message that doesn’t agree with crushing the skulls of unborn human beings.

But here’s where their argument defeats itself: if there’s such a huge demand for abortion in NI — as pro-choice groups are constantly telling us — then it’s reasonable to assume that there have been at least 100,000 women in NI since 1967 who have wanted an abortion but couldn’t — and subsequently didn’t — have one. Therefore, it is perfectly plausible that those former unwanted pregnancies are now alive and part of society. Who knows, some of them might even make up the dozen or so people who vote Labour Alternative.

However, if there isn’t a huge demand for abortion in NI, and our abortion laws don’t save lives, then pro-choice groups are lying. Which is it?

Secondly, abortion advocates need to stop using Savita Halappanavar and other hard cases to score political points and disguise their true position of abortion on demand. An independent enquiry concluded that Savita died of sepsis – something an abortion could not have prevented – and medical misadventure.

The fictitious “women will die” argument gets rolled out anytime there’s an attempt to defend NI’s abortion laws, despite thousands of lives necessarily being saved, and not a single death ever resulting from a lack of abortion. Pregnancy is a horrible disease, they scream, and abortion is the only cure.

Well, I’m with the Dublin Declaration on this one; there is never any medical justification for the intentional killing of an unborn child. Sadly, there may be situations where a baby doesn’t survive the medical intervention needed to save the life of a mother, or the baby may need to be delivered early, but the additional step of maiming, poisoning, and carving the baby up before throwing it in a bin, is never needed. The vast, vast, vast majority of abortions are carried out on healthy women with healthy pregnancies resulting from consensual sex. Everyone knows this.

Burns continues, “Nor does it stop women having abortions. It just means thousands of women are forced to travel to Britain at great expense.”

Of course, laws against abortion won’t stop abortions. Just like laws against rape don’t stop rape. That’s not the point. Laws are deterrents, not absolute guarantees. This is how it works: if something is illegal, people generally won’t do it. If something is legal, people generally will do it. This is basic stuff. Any serious politician ought to know this.

The question we should be asking is, “Are NI laws against abortion good?” Well, abortion is the intentional act of killing a live human being – a description that begs no questions – so, yes, they are.

Finally, and predictably, Burns invokes the Twin Towers of modern Leftist ideology — censorship and name-calling:

I will be submitting a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about this inappropriate, inaccurate and offensive campaign but, more importantly, we need an active movement which is prepared to take on these bigots and win abortion rights for women in Northern Ireland.

If you have no good arguments, then why not whisper in the ear of power to silence your opponent, or call them a bigot? And that’s what Labour Alternative are doing here. But what is a bigot? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a bigot is: “A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions”. Who does that sound more like? The people making a plausible claim that anti-abortion laws save lives, or the people who make sweeping character judgments and tear down speech they don’t like?

Just when you think things couldn’t get any more asinine, East Belfast Labour Alternative candidate, Courtney Robinson, speaking in her capacity as self-appointed representative of all women, said this:

The anti-choice campaign Both Lives Matterhas been masquerading as a human right groups (sic) but it is nothing of the sort. They not only insult women here but also the heroic Black Lives Matter movement in the United States which has been challenging racist violence and inequality.

The world has become accustomed to irrational and hysterical Leftist snowflakery in recent times, so it should come as no surprise that someone would take offence at the name ‘Both Lives Matter’. Just a hunch, but I’m guessing they went with ‘Both Lives Matter’ because ‘Both the Mother’s Life and the Baby’s Life Have Intrinsic Value and an Unalienable Right Not to be Dismembered or Poisoned Alive’ doesn’t have the same ring to it. Nor would it get their point across in time before someone tears down the billboard. Seriously, wise up.

‘Both Lives Matter’ is a fundamentally equal statement. By opposing it, Courtney Robinson is actually aligning herself with inequality. If Courtney Robinson really believes that black lives matter, she’s more than welcome to join the pro-life movement in condemning the biggest killer of black lives in America – abortion. Nothing keeps the black population in check like abortion, just as eugenics-enthusiast Margaret Sanger dreamed it would when she founded Planned Parenthood. There is a reason why there are more Planned Parenthoods in poor black neighbourhoods than anywhere else; aborting blacks is big business.

Courtney continues:

This group is totally out of touch with ordinary people. So are all the main parties, none of which support the right to choose despite 55% of people wanting to see the 1967 Abortion Act extended to Northern Ireland. Fifty years after women in Britain won the right to choose, women in Northern Ireland are still being criminalised for exercising control over their own bodies. In the upcoming election, Labour Alternative will continue to campaign unapologetically for abortion rights and provide an alternative to the dark-age politics of the main political parties.

These are just shameless diversion tactics. An appeal to the masses doesn’t make something right. And the age of a law – any law – is completely irrelevant in determining whether it’s a good law or a bad law (by the way, if you want to see something from the Dark Ages, take a look at the instruments they use to perform abortions with).

The only thing that matters here is the nature of the unborn. If abortion doesn’t take a human life, no justification is needed. Abortion at any stage, for any reason, I say. If abortion does take a human life, as science confirms, then no justification is good enough — regardless of how many people agree with it.

So, when it comes to casting your vote this election, be aware that Labour Alternative don’t really care about women. They only care about preserving sexual freedom, one of the pillars of liberal and Leftist ideology.

If Labour Alternative really cared about women, they’d speak out against the millions of females aborted yearly simply because they are female. They’d speak out against abortion as the tool of abusive and unscrupulous men, who use it to destroy the evidence of rape and incest to avoid responsibility and commitment and to use more women for more sex. But they don’t speak out against these things because they are moral cowards. They don’t care about women. It’s not possible. You can’t support abortion and be pro-woman.

So, instead of virtue signalling, Labour Alternative, why not make a stand for actual equality? Make a stand for all the disabled, black, and female unborn human beings annihilated daily simply for being disabled, black, and female. Make a stand for both lives.

hitman abortion northern ireland

‘Medieval’ NI murder law needs updating, say assassin campaign group

A group of assassins have called for Northern Ireland’s “medieval” murder law to be brought up to date.

Although assassinations do occasionally happen, the group said it is “almost impossible” for contract killers to eliminate a human target in this country.

A spokesperson for the Assassin’s Brotherhood of Reforming Terminations (ABORT) said the law needs to be brought up to date.

The intentional killing of a human life is wrong, said the Northern Ireland government.

Currently, there are only a handful of contract killings carried out in Northern Ireland each year.

For scores of Northern Irish hitmen and hitwomen, however, this means a trip to Russia or China – where contract killings are less frowned upon – to look for work.

A hitman who wanted to remain anonymous said he turned to paid homicide after losing his job selling orthopaedic shoes when British Home Stores folded.

“I told the job agency that I was a big fan of Steven Segal and I wanted to become a hired gun, and they said, ‘No. You can’t choose that’. I was devastated. I had grown a ponytail especially for it and now I just look ridiculous.”

He added: “There is no other option than to get on a plane – or sometimes a speedboat – to find work in parts of the world where assassinations are less stigmatised. We’re not in the 1800s – it’s medieval.”

A second assassin spoke about the “financial burden”.

“I got myself into debt because I had to buy winter clothes – Russia’s freezing – and then customs confiscated my £3,000 samurai sword.”

“Flying back from Russia was the worst part. I was worried the briefcase containing my polonium and silencers wouldn’t make it through security at George Best airport. Thankfully, I remembered to label the briefcase as “gift” and it went through OK – but it was touch and go. I should never have had to leave home in the first place”.

‘Choice issue’

ABORT’s founder, and part-time assassin, Xavier Denim said: “We want equality for Northern Irish terminators. We don’t want assassinations on demand or for the sake of convenience, but it’s a choice issue. People should have the right to terminate inconvenient and costly human beings. The law needs bringing up to date.”

The Contract Killing Act 1987 is still the law governing Northern Ireland. It allows for assassinations on a number of grounds such as failure to pay your TV license, or putting out the wrong colour of bin on collection day.

But campaigners believe the “burden of proof to meet these criteria is such that it can be almost impossible for an assassin to terminate their target”. The act was brought in to update the existing, and even more archaic, 1872 Criminal Code – which made the act of killing human beings illegal.

How not to argue for abortion

One thing that has become clear in the debate about abortion in Northern Ireland (and everywhere else) is that, in lieu of a single convincing argument, abortion proponents like to carpet-bomb the conversation with multiple terrible arguments in the hope that quantity will make up for quality. This is because abortion-choicers have already decided that pro-lifers are ignorant women-hating rubes who wish to impose their religious views on everyone else, so why even try and come up with a convincing argument?

Exhibit A: This Belfast Telegraph Facebook thread on Liam Neeson’s abortion-choice advocacy. There are too many awful abortion-choice arguments here, so I’ll respond to the best of the worst.

don't like abortion, don't have one

The common “don’t like abortion, don’t have one” argument confuses objective claims with subjective claims. When a pro-lifer says abortion is wrong, they’re making an objective claim that abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenceless human being. In other words, abortion is objectively wrong for everyone, regardless of whether one likes it or not. It misses the point entirely, like saying, “Don’t like wife beating? Don’t beat your wife!”

Subjective claims cannot be deemed right or wrong as they are matters of personal taste. You cannot reasonably argue that cheese and onion crisps are objectively better than ready salted crisps. But objective claims are different. They can be evaluated as true or false based on the evidence. “Every successful abortion intentionally ends an innocent human life” is an objective claim based on evidence. If you think it’s wrong, prove it with science and facts. Anything else is intellectual laziness.

“Shut up, you silly man!” is basically what this comment is saying. Instead of defending the abortion-choice view with facts and reason, this person is trying to censor the pro-lifer by attacking their gender (but, oddly enough, not Liam Neeson’s gender). But: arguments have no gender.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a “woman’s perspective” on abortion that trumps all rational inquiries into the issue. Feminists – let alone women in general – have no single view on abortion. The ability to bear children is irrelevant. And who says men can’t physically bear children? This is 2016!  Oh, the transphobia!

bad abortion arguments

Two terrible arguments for the price of one here. Scientifically, we know “Embryos, zygotes and foetuses” are distinct, living, and whole human beings. It doesn’t matter what names we give them. Sure, they differ in appearance but not in nature. This is such an obvious truth that not even abortion providers deny it. Faye Wattleton, a former President of Planned Parenthood, said: “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing”.

Philosophically, there are only four differences between the embryo you once were and the individual you are today: size, the level of development, environment, and degree of dependence. None of these are value-giving properties. Humanness determines human value. And the unborn are human beings.

The second bad argument here is the absurd idea that in order to be against abortion, you must first care about already-born children. This is like some sort of ultimatum a movie villain might make: “If you care about the hostages, you’ll give me the gold bullion”. Or, “If you care about animal rights, why aren’t you adopting all the turkeys this Christmas?”

Maybe pro-lifers do care about already-born children, maybe they don’t (they do). But I don’t see how an alleged unwillingness to care for a child justifies the deliberate killing of one.

bad abortion arguments

The idea that personhood begins at birth (or that a “person” and a “human” are separate things) is not an argument, but an arbitrary and unqualified assertion. When pushed, the pro-choicer will probably respond by defining “person” as a self-conscious, thinking, and intelligent being. It is these qualities, say pro-choicers, that give human beings the status of “person” and therefore the right to life.

There are a couple of serious problems with this, though.

First, why is a capacity for thought, self-awareness, and intelligence value-giving in the first place? And why a particular degree of development? Why not full development? Is an adult human with an IQ of less than 40 a non-person? If not, why not? Says who? These are questions that abortion advocates never adequately address.

Second, and rather scarily, all of these qualities don’t happen until after birth, meaning newborns are also disqualified. After all, infants are not self-aware and cannot make conscious decisions until (at least) a few months after birth, so what’s wrong with infanticide? Same goes for comatose patients, dementia sufferers, and the sleeping.

It is true that “Being against abortions will not stop them,” and, “Having abortions illegal will not stop them”. So what? By that logic, should we legalise murder, domestic violence, and burglary? After all, being against those things and making them illegal doesn’t stop them. Nonsense. The core question is the status of the unborn: Are they human beings? If so, we should legally protect them like any other vulnerable group.

“I will hunt you down, I will find you, I will kill you” – said the abortionist to the unborn child.

In sharp contrast to the lazy and ill-thought out pro-choice arguments above, the pro-life position is robust. It stands up to scrutiny. Pro-lifers contend, based on philosophy and scientific facts, that no human being, regardless of how developed they are or where they’re located, should be excluded from the community of human persons. It is an inclusive view open to all, especially the weak and powerless. Pro-life means equality, in the truest sense of the word.

Pro-life rally meets pro-choice rally: five observations

This was interesting. On 2nd July 2016, Belfast city centre hosted both a pro-life rally and a pro-choice rally. This has never happened before – not in my lifetime anyway – but I’m glad it did, because it gave us a unique insight into how both sides espouse their views.

As expected, thousands turned up (approx. 1,000 pro-choice, 2,000 pro-life), proving that this is an issue people are passionate about. Of course, it’s not about numbers or which side is more passionate; it’s about which view is right. This is why seeing both rallies side by side, especially for those undecided on abortion, helped to point a few things out. Here’s five of them:

1. More people are pro-life than the media will have you know

Ok, I’m contradicting myself here. Numbers do matter. Not in a “we have more people, therefore that makes us right” kind of way, but to dispel the liberal myth that most people in Northern Ireland are in favour of abortion.

speech

If you ever listen to abortionistas like Dawn Purvis or Goretti Horgan, you’ll continually hear the abortion-choice mantra that young people, particularly women, are all for abortion. They’ll tell you that liberal values are tolerant and cool and groovy. They’ll talk about the pro-life movement being the invention of religious old men and crusty politicians, whose only purpose for a woman is to have her sweep the fireplace and clip their cigars. 

But then you look at this year’s Rally for Life, and it was jam-packed with hundreds of vibrant, happy, young people – especially women. In fact, the whole pro-life movement in Ireland (and afar) is fuelled and run by women. Yet the media image is of the complete opposite. How strange.

2. Pro-choice campaigners don’t understand science (or at least pretend not to)

It is an established scientific fact that human life begins at conception. This fact is the rock that the pro-life cause is built on. In response, the pro-choicer has two options: accept the humanity of the unborn but continue to support abortion anyway (like this honest pro-choice writer), or simply ignore the science. If the pro-choice placards on display were anything to go by, they choose the latter.

As one anti-science placard profoundly and poetically put it: ‘Not every ejaculation needs a name’. Yeah, no. Somebody wasn’t paying attention during biology class. Sperm cells are not human beings. No pro-life advocate argues that sperm is sacred and in need of protecting (or a name). Sperm is a byproduct of a larger human entity, like skin cells, hair follicles and spit – it is not in itself a human life.

Ignore the maverick spacing; the sperm cells look really accurate.

It’s true: NoT EVERY E  JACULATION NEEDSANAM.

By contrast, the unborn – from embryo to nine months – are confirmed by science to be distinct and whole living human beings. Taking the life of a distinct and whole human being is a radically different action from not naming your sperm. Besides, if you name one sperm, you would have to name them all. And that could take all weekend.  

3. Pro-choice campaigners have a fetish for scary symbols and ideologies

One much-photographed banner present at the pro-choice rally featured the hammer and sickle. Another one extolled the virtues of anarchism, while another said: “Making feminism a threat again” beside a big picture of some knuckle dusters.

Maybe I’m missing something, but if your campaign claims to be about freedom, fairness and equality for women, why would you align yourself with symbols of violence, chaos, and, in the case of the hammer and sickle, an ideology responsible for the deaths of millions? It’s not like abortion has ever… oh, wait… abortion has killed millions. Carry on.

pro-choice hammer and sickle

13537685_1335789916449668_212650790308169358_n

If anything can bring the politically disparate communities of communism and anarchism together, abortion can. Beautiful.

The official Rally for Choice poster displayed some interesting design choices, too; an angry fist against an ominous black and white background, with the silhouette of what looks like a baying mob. It looks more like an advert for a Leni Riefenstahl film than a call to do something good and meaningful. 

rally for choiceThe Rally for Life poster, on the other hand, couldn’t be more different; smiling young people (all female), bright colours, and a clear message – choose life. And what exactly does #TRUSTWOMEN mean anyway? Which women? 

rally 4 life

4. The pro-choice rally had very few children in attendance

One of the most striking aspects of the pro-life rally was the amount of children present. I mean, there was lots and lots and lots of them. They seemed to be having a great time, too, getting their faces painted and blowing up balloons. It was a proper family-friendly affair.

In stark contrast, the pro-choice rally looked like a scene from a Mad Max film. Any child that had the misfortune of being there looked either lost and bewildered or terrified. Of course, they’re not at all to blame, they’re just kids, but it is telling. What child wants to hang around with humourless communists and anarchists, stomping around with their clenched fists and knuckle dusters, on a Saturday afternoon? And not to mention the overtly sexual placards.

A baby worriedly looks on, grateful that she's already been born.

A nervous baby politely reminds an abortion-hungry protestor that he has already been born.

And what exactly do you tell a child at a pro-choice event anyway? I imagine it would go something like this:

“Mummy, what’s pro-choice?”

“Well, eh, you know when you were in my tummy?”

“When I was a baby?”

“No, when you were a foetus. Well, some women choose not to have a foetus in their tummy, so they have an abortion.”

“Is an abortion like giving birth?”

“Sort of. But instead of being born, the foetus gets poisoned by a doctor. Or if it’s too big, dismembered with a giant set of forceps with metal teeth, and thrown in a bin.”

“Mummy, can I have an abortion?”

“… Eh, it’s bed time now. Mummy wants to watch Orange is the New Black.”

5. Abortion sets the stage for every other cultural battle

This is perhaps the most important observation of all. As the huge turnout showed, abortion is one of the biggest defining issues in our society, because it gets right down to the very core of who you are and what you believe. 

A person’s position on abortion informs and guides every other position they take on every other subject. This is why one side had militant artwork, anarchists and communists, and the other side had joy, positivity, a hopeful message – and colours other than black and dark purple. If we cannot first establish that life matters, then nothing else matters. Anarchy, in other words.

Make no mistake, juxtaposing a pro-life cause with a pro-choice cause was extremely helpful, because it highlighted just how much the world needs us to be pro-life. People need to know that all human life has intrinsic value. This is the pro-life position. And it’s the right position.

abortion law relax

Liberal Christians say the darnedest things – a response to Rev. Lesley Carroll’s comments on abortion

By Dinosaur Dave.

In light of the recent abortion pill court case – brought against an unnamed women who bought drugs on the Internet to procure her own abortion, then left the resulting body in a bin – you would think that the spotlight would have been shone upon the guilty party. Like, you know, what normally happens when human remains are found in a bin.

However, as society continues to sink into subjective moral madness, even some Christians are confused. Instead of standing up for the weakest and most defenceless members of the human race, as Christians are called to do, some Christians – media darlings of the liberal kind – are stepping off the bench to bat for Team Abortion. The media darling, in this case, happens to be Rev. Lesley Carroll, styled by the newspapers as a “senior Presbyterian cleric”.

As part of the research carried out by the Belfast Feminist Network, Rev. Carroll said:

“While I am not in favour of a blanket extension of the 1967 Act, I do think there needs to be more discussion with an emphasis again on choice and on the fact that we can draw lines where we want them to [sic].”

When pressed by the News Letter on her beliefs regarding whether life begins at conception, Rev. Carroll replied:

“These are very technical debates, but we are already in a situation where women can go and get the morning-after pill. So we’ve already made that judgement, if you like. Society has already made that judgement even by allowing the morning-after pill.”

Now, I know I’m a regressive old dinosaur (a Theolosaurus Rex, to be exact), but I happen to know that science establishes human life begins at conception (more on that later). It matters not what society judges. And her views, despite what some liberals will have you believe, are at complete odds with Christianity in general. Indeed the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Rev. Carroll’s own denomination, was moved to issue this statement on the following Monday morning, reaffirming:

“[T]he Presbyterian Church in Ireland holds a strongly pro-life position. We believe that the current law attempts to protect both the life of the mother and the unborn child.”

There are numerous reasons why the vast majority of churches take this stance, namely the compelling scientific and philosophical arguments in favour of the pro-life position, but since Rev. Carroll claims to be speaking for Christianity, let’s look at what the Bible says. Now, I know Rev. Carroll prefers to go by what society says, and society, mostly, couldn’t give two crusty fossils about what the Bible says, but I’m going to quote from it anyway:

“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”                                                                                    

– Psalm 139:14-16

In addition, the New Testament writers believed that the unborn were fully human and valuable. The birth of Jesus and John the Baptist were examples of this (Matthew 1 and Luke 1).

But if Rev. Carroll isn’t persuaded by the biblical arguments, she should take a look at what cold, hard science has to offer. Hymie Gordon (BSci, BM, BSurg, MD, FRCP), professor emeritus of Medical Genetics at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said this at a US congressional hearing on individual life:

“But now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or the purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”

And in the stages after conception, even leading abortionists admit that abortion kills a human being. Dr. Warren Hern, author of Abortion Practice – the medical text that teaches abortion procedures (!) – told a Planned Parenthood conference:

“We have reached a point in this particular technology [D&E abortion] where there is no possibility of denying an act of destruction. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

The science is crystal clear, even for a regressive old dinosaur like me. Science has placed a window into the womb and given us indisputable evidence for the humanity of the unborn. It is a fact that a fertilised human ovum is wholly human, because, from the very moment of fertilisation, all genetic information needed for an individual human being is present. It is also a fact that abortion ends that human life. The abortionist who informs all other abortionists says so.

So, for the Christian, Psalm 139 is no glib quotation of Scripture – science backs it up. The words of Psalm 139 are an old-fashioned way of confirming that the frame of our body, our characteristics, our being is all contained in the secret place of the womb, under the sight of God – the God that Rev. Carroll claims to believe in.

For the good of human life, then, the spotlight must swing back from abortion-choice to pro-life. If it is wrong to take the life of a born human being in the name of ‘choice’, then it follows that it’s wrong to take the life of an unborn human being in the name of choice. A human being’s geographical location (the womb) is irrelevant. Human value is not determined by location (or any other arbitrary criteria), it is determined by humanness.

But Rev. Carroll disagrees. She thinks that society gets to decide. She claims that the question of when life begins is a “very technical debate”, despite what science and scripture says. She believes there should be “more discussion with an emphasis again on choice”. In Rev. Carroll’s book (which I don’t think is the Bible), human life is not necessarily fearfully and wonderfully made.

The only thing that Rev. Carroll seems to believe is truly fearfully and wonderfully made is her own opinion. I don’t know about you, but this dinosaur thinks she’s scientifically and, crucially, biblically wrong.

abortion pills northern ireland

People of NI – if you find a body in your bin, should you call the police?

In today’s postmodern world, nothing is black and white. ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ are manmade categories, and truth is not absolute. It’s understandable, then, that when a body was found in a bin, Northern Ireland was thrown into a state of moral conflict and confusion. Some believe that reporting the body to police was the right thing to do, others think it was the worst thing imaginable to do.

So what should someone do if they find human remains in a bin? Go to the police. Just kidding, only a woman-hating religious fundamentalist tyrant would do that. We live in a tolerant and progressive society now. The answer is campaign relentlessly – using half-truths and made-up non-medical terms like “fatal foetal abnormality” – to change the law so that professionals can throw the body in a bin for you.

Sure, some people will say, “there’s nothing wrong with a law that stops you from taking an innocent human life and throwing it in a bin”. Well, you can tell those people to shut their oppressive faces.  Firstly, that “law” dates back to 1861. Secondly, it was probably written by a man. Any tolerant person knows that a law predating Twitter and / or written by a man is obviously wrong. (Except the laws against rape and child labour, which were also written ages ago and by men).

The same regressive nut jobs will also claim that the body found in the bin belonged to a person, but of course us enlightened people know better; it was a foetus, not a person. The unenlightened might say that that’s a fallacy known as ‘making a distinction without a difference’ – a bit like saying, “jogging isn’t exercise, it’s physical exertion” – but don’t listen to their silly rhetoric. If they accuse you of poor logic and Newspeak, ridicule them by calling them a dogmatic dinosaur on social media.

Besides, you don’t need to appeal to science; the difference between a foetus and a person is blatantly obvious. Foetuses are not alive and they’re not human persons. Well, they’re kind of human and sort of alive, but they’re not persons. We know this to be a fact because some highly-educated, scientifically-minded freethinkers invented a special category for humans that aren’t persons called “Lebensunwertes Leben”. If you look up the meaning of this phrase, you’ll find it describes the foetus perfectly.

Now, I know some of you are concerned about the reports that this particular foetus had features and limbs consistent with what most sane people would consider to be an actual human being. That’s just lies from the mouths of our patriarchal dinosaur overlords. How can a blob of cells have limbs and facial features?! It’s absurd! And you can definitely ignore the claims that the foetus was male. These days, ‘sex’ is something that gets assigned at birth. How can it have a sex if it hadn’t even been born yet!

Most important of all, if there’s only one thing you take away from reading this, make it this: you need to ignore the fact that procuring your own abortion and dumping the corpse in a bin is illegal in backwards Northern Ireland. If you know someone who breaks this law, even if you are the one who discovers the human debris in the bin, don’t ever inform the police. And if someone does tell the police, you must hold them responsible instead of the person who broke the law.

So, no, if you release yourself from the bonds of coherency, science, logic, truth, and the law, you don’t need to tell the police that you found a body in your bin.

gay foetus

Answering five common pro-choice arguments

After I wrote this article a few weeks back, I hadn’t intended on writing about abortion again for a while. It’s too depressing and grizzly and wicked. But, alas, abortion is back in the news again in Northern Ireland (is it ever out of it?) – and with that comes all the usual arguments and rhetoric in its defence.

Let me start by saying that there are no good arguments in favour of elective abortion. Not one. But abortion arguments are often delivered with such force and emotion that it can be easy for the pro-lifer to be steamrollered into submission by them.

Thankfully, forceful and emotional arguments do not necessarily make good arguments. In fact, many pro-choice arguments are so bad, and so absurd, that it makes me wonder if those saying them are even being serious. 

So, from ‘gay’ fetuses, to cleansing the world of poor people, here are some answers to five common pro-choice arguments doing the rounds today. 

1 – “Don’t like abortion, don’t have one!”

This argument tries to be clever by shifting the emphasis from abortion being an act that is objectively wrong, to an act that is merely about personal taste – like so: “Don’t like pineapples, don’t eat pineapples”. This, of course, is ethical tomfoolery; there are no moral questions to be asked in the eating of a pineapple (unless you stole it). Abortion, conversely, is a moral minefield. That’s why it’s strictly regulated with timeframes and medical consent. Even Marie Stopes knows this.

So let’s take the logic of this argument out for a test drive: “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave.” “Don’t like wife-beating? Don’t beat your wife.” “Don’t like child abuse? Don’t abuse children”. When you reduce something that is objectively wrong to something that is a matter of personal taste, you completely miss the point as to why people disagree with those things in the first place.

You're completely missing the point here, lads.

Completely missing the point here, lads.

Abortion – like wife-beating, slavery, and child abuse – has nothing to do with personal taste. When a person says “abortion is wrong”, they are making an objective moral claim, not a subjective one. Abortion is wrong because it takes the life of an intrinsically valuable human being. Whether someone likes abortion or not is irrelevant.

2 – Abortion reduces crime rates.

This argument reminds me of the Steven Spielberg film, Minority Report.  Set in the not-too-distant future, Minority Report tells the story of a guy on the run from “PreCrime”, a specialised police department that can arrest future criminals based on foreknowledge provided by special psychics.

And that’s pretty much exactly how this argument works, too. The unborn will commit crimes in the future, therefore they must be apprehended. The only differences being; the crimes committed by the unborn are based on mere conjecture, and instead of being jailed, the unborn get the death penalty. 

Ironically, the people making this argument are often the same ones who oppose the death penalty. Yet here they are calling for it before a crime has even been committed. Spare the convicted rapist-killer, execute the might-be-convicted-in-20-years-time unborn girl. Yup. Welcome to our new rational and ethical future, people.

3 – May the fetus you save be gay!

The idea here is to call out religious people who oppose abortion and (possibly) homosexuality on religious grounds. The reasoning goes like this: “Hey, wouldn’t it serve those religious pro-life crazies right if a fetus they saved grew up to be gay? That’ll teach ’em! Bet they wish she’d been aborted now! LOLZ!”

This argument has several critical flaws. Firstly, it’s a genetic fallacy – that is, it attacks a perceived flaw in the origin of a person’s claim, then uses it to discredit the claim itself. For example: “Most pro-lifers are religious. I think religion is wrong. Therefore, pro-lifers are wrong about abortion”. A person’s religion has no more to do with whether or not abortion is wrong, any more than when that person speaks out against torturing pensioners for fun. 

There's a market for abortion merchandise. Who knew?

There’s a market for abortion merchandise. Who knew?

Secondly, this argument completely ignores the growing amount of secular pro-life movements. Like this one, this one, and this one. In fact, David Silverman, American Atheists president, conceded that secular arguments against abortion exist and aren’t going away. Even revered atheist Christopher Hitchens leaned pro-life.

Worst of all, though, is its rancid hypocrisy. Each year abortion kills hundreds of thousands of developing human beings that would have grown up to be gay. It seems the pro-choice movement has no problem killing the LGBT community so long as it’s before they’re born. It is the pro-life position, however, that argues from philosophy and science that all human life should be respected, regardless of age, gender, race, social standing, and sexual orientation.

4 – “Abortion is compassionate. You can’t condemn a child to a life of poverty!”

For several long, torturous years I lived on a street full of hard-partying students. Words can’t describe their awfulness. If only I had thought of this argument to justify getting rid of them. Here’s how the chat would go between me and my community police officer:

Me: “Yunno, those insufferable students are a real inconvenience. They pee in the entry and leave half-eaten curry chips on my window ledge. I’m going to kill them all.”

Police Officer: “You can’t do that! They’re whole and distinct human beings! Science confirms it!”

Me: “Well, that’s debatable. But think about it; I’m actually doing them a favour.  They’re only going to spend their days living in poverty and squalor anyway. A diet of Cornflakes and Tennents Lager is no way to live.”

Police officer: “Hmm. I hadn’t thought of that. Here, use my gun.”

This argument is terrible and scary because it assumes that certain human beings are somehow less worthy of life than other human beings simply because of their circumstances. This is full-on eugenics. Hardly surprising, though, given that the abortion industry was built upon such ideology. Just ask Margaret Sanger.

5 – My body, my choice!

If there’s one thing the pro-abortion lobby has succeeded at, it’s in hijacking the word “choice”. Let’s dispel the myth now: pro-lifers are not “anti-choice”. They respect the right to choose. They believe, without exception, that a person should be free to choose their own partner, who to vote for, their own job, their own religion (or none), etc., etc.

However, choice has limitations. You cannot choose to skin dogs for personal pleasure, abuse children or shoot students. The very nature of those choices is abhorrent. You have no right to choose them. Nobody – bar tyrants and the criminally insane – believes they can choose to take the life of another human being with impunity.

my body my choice

Moody black and white doesn’t make it true.

To “choose” abortion, then, begs the question and assumes something about the nature of the unborn. Are the unborn somehow different, less valuable, and off our moral radar? Can we just kill and dispose of them because their geographical location is different? Or because they’re smaller and less developed? Scientifically and philosophically, the answer to all of those is ‘no’.

And there are two bodies involved, not one. We know this because of embryology and ultrasound technology. Each human being has a unique set of DNA. Embryos have a unique set of DNA. Therefore, two human beings. Then, further along in development, the unborn can develop body parts and substances that a pregnant woman doesn’t have – like a penis or a different blood type. How is this possible if only one body is involved?

Progressive discrimination

It’s funny that pro-lifers are continuously charged with discrimination. They “discriminate” against women. They “discriminate” against doctors. They “discriminate” against a tolerant society. But actually, to be truly pro-choice – to support complete bodily autonomy – involves embracing pretty much every kind of discrimination. Abortion because it’s a girl? Sexist. Abortion because it has Down’s? Disability discrimination. Abortion at 22 weeks but not at 25 weeks? Ageist. Abortion because a mixed-race child wouldn’t be acceptable? Racist. Abortion because the gay gene has been discovered and some parents don’t want a gay fetus? Homophobic.

If this is what liberals mean by “progressive,” God help us all.