Category: Pro-choice

Don’t like human trafficking? Don’t traffic humans! Why we need to #TrustTraffickers and judge less

The world is full of narrow-minded zealots.

Take a look, for example, at those religious nutjobs who are against human trafficking. They’re too busy imposing their bronze-age morality on the rest of us that they fail to see that human trafficking is not a black and white issue. In fact, there are some totes amaze arguments in favour of it.

Behold:

Trafficked humans would only be living in poverty anyway

There are over 100,000 homeless people in Northern Ireland alone. If we keep human trafficking illegal, that figure will continue to increase. Nobody wants that.

Additionally, many studies have shown that when people come out of a life of being trafficked, they sink into abject poverty, don’t achieve very much, or end up in prison or dead.

Human trafficking, on the other hand, is caring and compassionate; it keeps the trafficked person alive, fed, housed, and out of prison – meaning much less crime on our streets, too.

Anti-traffickers only care about freedom, they don’t care what happens to a person once they’re free

People take up a lot of resources. As anyone who has ever had a human live in their house will testify, they’re really very expensive. From the exorbitant costs of living to the endless pile of stuff they demand, like mobile phones and tins of Monster.

So, if we take away trafficking, who’s going to give all these millions of suddenly-free people a home? I don’t see anti-traffickers queuing up to give them ALL a home, do you?

No – every free human being should be a WANTED free human being. And until anti-traffickers start caring for already-free people, they have no business telling the rest of us what to do. Unless a human being is wanted, the caring thing to do is traffic it.

Banning human trafficking does not stop human trafficking

The main reason anti-traffickers want to keep human trafficking illegal, other than to impose their morals on the rest of us, is that doing so will reduce its frequency. But the data says otherwise. According to the International Labour Organization, there were 40.3 million humans trafficked globally in 2016 – most of which were in countries where trafficking is already illegal! So obviously keeping it illegal doesn’t help. It just stops safe trafficking.

A friend of mine, Mauricio – who only wants to go by his first name because of the horrible stigma attached to trafficking, and for fear of being arrested – trafficks humans in his home village of Lambeg.

Teary-eyed, with his once immaculate three-tier ebony mullet now unkempt with the stress, he recently told me, “Restricting access to human trafficking makes no significant difference to the number of people being trafficked. Instead, restrictions on human trafficking make it more likely that poor people looking to make a better life for themselves will turn to backstreet traffickers. In 2018, this is unacceptable.”

Did you read that? Yes, it’s 2018. Therefore, any other opinion is wrong because it’s older. And older things are inferior to present day things. Don’t ask me how. They just are.

It’s morally wrong to impose your morals on someone else

I’m all for freedom of religious belief. However, when religious beliefs impede on secular beliefs, then we need to ensure that secular beliefs come out on top – because secular beliefs are neutral. And that’s a scientific fact. So, religious people don’t have a right to tell other people how to behave, which is why it’s important to tell them – forcefully, if necessary – that they need to behave more secularly. Or else.

But by far the biggest problem I find with those against human trafficking – in my experience mostly Christians – is when they quote their “holy” book. Well, you can just quote it right back at them – “Judge not, that ye be not judged”.

What the God-botherers fail to understand here is that Jesus didn’t say anything specific about human trafficking, therefore it’s totally cool. And if Jesus thinks it’s cool, it’s cool. Even though I don’t think Jesus even existed.

The point is, all beliefs are good, but I believe that the religious have no right to force their beliefs on others – especially when it comes to sensitive and emotive issues like trafficking. So just stop being so judgemental, OK?

If you don’t like human trafficking, don’t traffick humans

This is the best argument for everything, ever. It is the platinum rule, not just for human trafficking, but for EVERYTHING that people disagree with you on! If you don’t like the idea of human trafficking, no one is forcing you to traffic humans. Mind your own business.

Your anti-trafficking opinion will not change the fact that traffickers traffic people every day. Old traffickers, young traffickers, poor traffickers, rich traffickers – they all traffic humans on a daily basis, and nobody’s opinion is going to change that.

In summary, anyone who values progress and empathy should support traffick rights because being pro-traffic means a lot of wonderful things – among them, the belief that trafficking should be safe, legal, accessible, entirely paid for by your taxes and carried out with empathy and non-judgement.

Only a hateful, bigoted fool would disagree. RIGHT!?!??!!

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.

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.