3 deceptive tactics employed by abortion advocates

Protesters take part in the March for Life 2022 in Washington, DC on January 21, 2022. |

In early 2022, Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey signed a bill affirming the right to abortion into law.

The new law (a scaled down version of the Reproductive Choice Act) gives women access to more contraception, abortion services and assistance in carrying a pregnancy to term.

I watched the press conference held by Governor Murphy and Planned Parenthood. And while watching, I detected three tactics strategically employed by abortion advocates that I want you to be aware of so you don’t get tripped up by them.

Deceptive Tactic One: “All Lives Matter”

Governor Murphy begins his press conference by acknowledging those who have died from COVID. Good for Murphy to take a moment to express sincere sympathy to the many families who have lost loved ones to COVID.

However, when Murphy acknowledges the tragic death of humans to COVID, why doesn’t he show the same respect for the unborn child? The irony is that Murphy is about to enact into law the right of New Jersey women to have an abortion – even eventually!

That’s the thing with abortion advocates. They have no problem acknowledging life outside the womb – but will never admit the precious life inside the womb.

To avoid admitting that the unborn child is human, pro-abortionists accuse pro-lifers of being the ones who don’t care about life. They argue that pro-lifers only care about ending safe and legal abortions and have little regard for refugees, the poor and the incarcerated.

While caring for refugees, feeding the poor, and fighting for equal justice in our legal system are important issues, that is not the point. The immediate concern is to protect the life of an unborn baby who is about to be aborted.

It does not follow that the fact that pro-lifers defend the basic rights of the unborn child means that they do not care about other segments of the population. There are many organizations that specialize in a particular group of people. Take, for example, the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America (AFA). Would it be fair to assume that the folks at AFA who “provide support, services, and education to individuals, families, and caregivers affected by Alzheimer’s disease” aren’t really in the business of personal care?

Of course not. The AFA was created to meet specific needs related to a particular disease.

The same truth applies to pro-lifers.

Pro-lifers believe it is morally wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. And that’s what abortion does. It is the unjust taking of an innocent human life.

Now abortion advocates can dodge and deny that abortion kills precious human life. Yet, according to the science of embryology, life begins at conception. Dr. Jérôme Lejeune, nicknamed “the father of modern genetics”, confirmed: “Accepting the fact that after fertilization a new human is born is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is a simple experimental proof. . Each individual has a very neat beginning, to conception.

Therefore, it is the pro-lifers who consistently uphold the intrinsic value of every human being and treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve. Not abortion supporters.

Second misleading tactic: “Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right”

It is important to point out that nowhere in The Freedom Reproductive Choice Act is there any mention of “abortion”.

The language that abortion advocates use in place of “abortion” is “reproductive justice”, “reproductive health care”, and “reproductive freedom”. They also refer to abortion or “reproductive rights” as “vital health care”.

The International Encyclopedia of Public Health defines reproductive rights as “human rights designed to protect the inherent dignity of the individual”.

Several deceptive devices are evident in the “bodily autonomy” argument.

First, the name change efforts commissioned by abortion advocates are misleading and a blatant attempt to conceal their true agenda. Changing the term “abortion” to underhanded medical phraseology (e.g., “life-saving health care”) doesn’t make it any safer or acceptable.

Second, how is it morally right for the bodily rights of the expectant mother to outweigh the rights of a human embryo that is a genetically distinct living human being? The point is that the “bodily autonomy” argument gives women an unprecedented right to determine what life is and whether it is worth living. Not only is it presumptuous. It’s downright dismissive and mocking of life inside the womb. No human being (neither the future mother, nor a doctor, nor a politician) has the power to determine the nature of human life and its value.

Third, just because an unborn baby does not share the same traits as the mother-to-be does not mean that he is more valuable than the unborn baby. If abortion advocates want to apply this reasoning to the unborn child, it must be applied to every other human person. In other words, people with higher intelligence, skills and abilities would be of greater value than those with less intelligence, skills and abilities. But we know that is not the case. Our worth as human beings is not tied to our physical development or performance.

Fourth, substituting “abortion” for “reproductive rights” does not automatically certify it as a constitutional right, and therefore, a fundamental right. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of “abortion” or “reproductive” as a human or natural right.

Many abortion rights activists and jurists go so far as to admit that deer was an overreach of the 14th Amendment. Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this to say: “deerI believe, would have been more palatable as a judicial decision had it not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme law in court… A brutal judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved , a conflict.

Fifth, how can an abortion procedure be considered “vital care” if it endangers the life of the mother while deliberately taking the life of the unborn child?

Misleading tactic three: “Abortion is a personal choice”

The final deceptive ploy I want to point out that Governor Murphy relied on to justify his pro-abortion stance (and it happens to be the argument most used by abortion advocates) is that abortion is a personal choice – and as such, no person, creed or religion has the power to override a woman’s right to an abortion.

Governor Murphy, a practicing Catholic, said at his press conference that trying to reconcile his faith with abortion and being governor has not been easy. He said he didn’t want to impose his religious views on anyone and he certainly didn’t want to stop a woman from having an abortion.

But then Murphy adds that her faith played a vital role in shaping her beliefs and values. And it’s those same values ​​that helped him decide that advancing a woman’s right to an abortion is the greatest good.

Forgive me for saying this, but Governor Murphy speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

But that’s what abortion advocates do. They contradict themselves all the time because their whole reasoning is built on moral relativism.

Governor Murphy makes a moral judgment that he admits is not based on science, religion, or objective truth. He supports abortion because he personally believes that a woman has the right to abort her unborn child.

That, my friends, is moral relativism.

Abortion is not good or bad because someone says so.

As a pro-lifer, I don’t oppose a woman’s right to have an abortion because I find it outrageous. It’s just a matter of personal preference. I oppose abortion because it violates moral principles. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being.

Therefore, when Governor Murphy and abortion advocates like him say abortion is a “personal choice,” it’s not based on morality. It is according to subjectivity.

So don’t be subjected to the kind of nonsense pushed by abortion advocates.

I pray that you will rise up and be a voice of reason for abortion advocates and hopefully lead the way to save more unborn babies. As it says in Psalm 127:3-5:

“Behold, children are an inheritance from the Lord, the fruit of the belly a reward. As arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of his youth. Blessed be the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.”

Jason Jimenez is president of STAND STRONG Ministries, faculty member of Summit Ministries, and author of Difficult Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discussing Controversial Topics in the Church. For more information, see www.standstrongministries.org.

Source link


About Author

Comments are closed.