1.  
  2. 13:01 25th Jun 2014

    Notes: 744

    Reblogged from by-grace-of-god

    image: Download

    by-grace-of-god:

southern-conservatism:

hunterhayesandhishair:

lolatprolife:

I like how anti-choicers try to pretend they aren’t racist pieces of garbage, but they’re perfectly fine with posting these comics that look exactly like caricatures of black people from the 1940’s.
I see you, shit bags.

Oh my god.
How embarrassing this must be for you.
Political cartoonists accentuate features. It’s not racist.
Look at a political cartoon that makes fun of a white. It’s the same thing. But of course… If it makes fun of a white, it’s not racist to you, right?

typical pro-abortion liberal. they completely ignore the point and change the subject. crying RACIST at the drop of a hat to try to make us the bad guys. dont make me laugh. 

It is eerie how perfectly and tragically Obama’s words regarding lives lost at Newton apply to the lives lost to abortion. That cartoon has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with hypocrisy and lack of respect for human life. This video makes me yearn for the day when Obama’s words will mean something.

    by-grace-of-god:

    southern-conservatism:

    hunterhayesandhishair:

    lolatprolife:

    I like how anti-choicers try to pretend they aren’t racist pieces of garbage, but they’re perfectly fine with posting these comics that look exactly like caricatures of black people from the 1940’s.

    I see you, shit bags.

    Oh my god.

    How embarrassing this must be for you.

    Political cartoonists accentuate features. It’s not racist.

    Look at a political cartoon that makes fun of a white. It’s the same thing. But of course… If it makes fun of a white, it’s not racist to you, right?

    typical pro-abortion liberal. they completely ignore the point and change the subject. crying RACIST at the drop of a hat to try to make us the bad guys. dont make me laugh. 

    It is eerie how perfectly and tragically Obama’s words regarding lives lost at Newton apply to the lives lost to abortion. That cartoon has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with hypocrisy and lack of respect for human life. This video makes me yearn for the day when Obama’s words will mean something.

    (Source: uranuslol)

     
  3.  
  4. 16:03

    Notes: 69

    Reblogged from prolife-and-proud-deactivated20

    One of the problems with the pro-choice position, aside from the fact that abortion unjustly kills an innocent child, is the fact that it places the will of the parents over the needs of the child, when in fact it should be the other way around
    —  Clinton Wilcox (blog post on secularprolife.org)
     
  5. 13:02

    Notes: 47

    Reblogged from by-grace-of-god

    Abortion: Confusing human VALUE with human FUNCTION

    by-grace-of-god:

    WHY would sentience determine human value? Determine personhood? Determine whether or not a human can be killed in the womb?

    Short answer: It does not. Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or lose during their lifetimes.  If you deny this, it’s difficult to say why objective human rights apply to anyone.

    Scott Klusendorf explains this with lucidity, in his SLED acronym of non-essential differences (Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency) between an embryo and a person outside the womb. 

    L = Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than the adults they’ll one day become. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

    Klusendorf explains it in greater detail here (Mistake#4):

    Abortion advocates like Mary Anne Warren claim that a “person” is a living entity with feelings, self-awareness, consciousness, and the ability to interact with his or her environment.  Because a human fetus has none of these capabilities, it’s not a person. Warren makes two assumptions here, neither of which she defends.  First, she doesn’t say why should anyone accept the idea that there can be such a thing as a human being that is not a human person.  What’s the difference?  I’ve never met a human that wasn’t a person, have you?  Second, even if Warren is correct about the distinction between human being and human person, she fails to tell us why a person must possess self-awareness and consciousness in order to qualify as fully human.  In other words, she merely asserts that these traits are necessary for personhood but never says why these alleged value-giving properties are value-giving in the first place.

    In his article “Why Libertarians Should be Pro-Choice Regarding Abortion,” Libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson makes points similar to Warren.  His larger purpose is to tell us who is and is not a subject of libertarian rights.  He argues that humans have value (and hence, rights) not in virtue of the kind of thing they are (members of a natural kind or species), but only because of an acquired property, in this case, the immediate capacity to make conscious, deliberate choices.  Because fetuses lack this acquired property, they have no rights.  A woman’s choice to abort, then, does not negatively effect the fetus or deny it any fundamental liberties.

    But this can’t be right.  Newborns, like fetuses, lack the immediate capacity to make conscious, deliberate choices, so what’s wrong with infanticide?  What principled reason can Narveson give for saying, “No, you can’t do that?” 

    Peter Singer in Practical Ethics bites the bullet and says there is none, that arguments used to justify abortion work equally well to justify infanticide.  Abortion-advocates Michael Tooley and Mary Anne Warren agree.  For example, if the immediate capacity for self-consciousness makes one valuable as a subject of rights, and newborns like fetuses lack that immediate capacity, it follows that fetuses and newborns are both disqualified.  You can’t draw an arbitrary line at birth and spare newborns.  Hence, infanticide, like abortion, is morally permissible.

    …In short, IF humans have value only because of some acquired property like skin color or self-consciousness and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees.  Do we really want to say that those with more self-consciousness are more human (and valuable) than those with less?  As Lee and George point out, this relegates the proposition that all men are created equal to the ash heap of history. 

    Philosophically, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.  Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or lose during their lifetimes.  If you deny this, it’s difficult to say why objective human rights apply to anyone.

     
  6. 19:01 23rd Jun 2014

    Notes: 56

    Reblogged from by-grace-of-god

    image: Download

    by-grace-of-god:

Everyone can agree there is never a moral reason for homicide - abortion is no exception. 
Does hardship justify homicide? Ask yourself this tough question today and pray for those who are facing the same issues. Pray God’s love and unbounded grace are made present to abortion-minded parents despite any hardship they may be facing.

    by-grace-of-god:

    Everyone can agree there is never a moral reason for homicide - abortion is no exception. 

    Does hardship justify homicide? Ask yourself this tough question today and pray for those who are facing the same issues. Pray God’s love and unbounded grace are made present to abortion-minded parents despite any hardship they may be facing.

     
  7. 16:03

    Notes: 118

    Reblogged from prolifeapologist

    "Even if we outlaw abortion, people will still get them."

    prolifeapologist:

    "Laws against rape don’t stop all rape, but we still have laws against it. Laws against car theft don’t stop all car theft but they do stop most of them. The law is a moral teacher." -Scott Klusendorf

     
  8. 13:01

    Notes: 10

    Reblogged from floaccount

    The crusader, on the other hand, will hear none of it. He’s out to score debate points. He appeals to the hard case of rape, but his appeal is flawed because it is not entirely truthful.

    Here’s why. The abortion-choice position he defends is not that abortion should be legal only when a woman is raped, but that abortion is a fundamental right she can exercise for any reason she wants during all nine months of pregnancy. Instead of defending this position with facts and arguments, he disguises it with an emotional appeal to rape. But this will not make his case. The argument from rape, if successful at all, would only justify abortion in cases of sexual assault, not for any reason the woman deems fit. In fact, arguing for abortion-on-demand from the hard case of rape is like trying to argue for the elimination of all traffic laws because a person might have to break one rushing a loved one to the hospital.1 Proving an exception does not prove a rule.

    — Scott Klusendorf - The Hard Cases Objection: Does Rape Justify Abortion?
     
  9. 19:01 22nd Jun 2014

    Notes: 175

    Reblogged from by-grace-of-god

    image: Download

    by-grace-of-god:

Is the unborn a member of the human family?  If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong.  Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.  
Philosophically, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today.  Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be.  The simple acronym SLED can be used to illustrate these non-essential differences:
Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant?  Do we really want to say that large people are more valuable than small ones?  Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights.  Size doesn’t equal value.
Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I.  But again, why is this relevant?  Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings?  Some people say that the immediate capacity for self-awareness and a desire to go on living makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings.  Infants do not acquire distinct self-awareness and memory until several months after birth. (Best case scenario, infants acquire limited self-awareness three months after birth, when the synapse connections increase from 56 trillion to 1,000 trillion.)  As abortion advocate and philosopher Dean Stretton writes, “Any plausible pro-choice theory will have to deny newborns a full right to life.  That’s counterintuitive.”
Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are.  Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed?  If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human?  If the unborn are not already valuable human beings, merely changing their location can’t make them so. 
Degree of Dependency: If viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them.  Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.
In short, although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal (and valuable) because they all have the same human nature. 
~ Scott Klusendorf

    by-grace-of-god:

    Is the unborn a member of the human family?  If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong.  Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.  

    Philosophically, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today.  Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be.  The simple acronym SLED can be used to illustrate these non-essential differences:

    Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant?  Do we really want to say that large people are more valuable than small ones?  Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights.  Size doesn’t equal value.

    Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I.  But again, why is this relevant?  Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings?  Some people say that the immediate capacity for self-awareness and a desire to go on living makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings.  Infants do not acquire distinct self-awareness and memory until several months after birth. (Best case scenario, infants acquire limited self-awareness three months after birth, when the synapse connections increase from 56 trillion to 1,000 trillion.)  As abortion advocate and philosopher Dean Stretton writes, “Any plausible pro-choice theory will have to deny newborns a full right to life.  That’s counterintuitive.”

    Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are.  Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed?  If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human?  If the unborn are not already valuable human beings, merely changing their location can’t make them so. 

    Degree of Dependency: If viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them.  Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

    In short, although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal (and valuable) because they all have the same human nature. 

    ~ Scott Klusendorf

     
  10. 16:03

    Notes: 418

    Reblogged from by-grace-of-god

    image: Download

    by-grace-of-god:

"If our right to live depends on how anyone feels about us, then none of us are on a firm foundation." — Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life

    by-grace-of-god:

    "If our right to live depends on how anyone feels about us, then none of us are on a firm foundation." — Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life