abortion arguements

Below are two prolife songs by Phil Keaggy. WARNING!! Both contain pictures of aborted babies
GRAPHIC!

Not for little eyes or for the faint of heart.

One might add to Alcorn's remarks that there is without question considerably more scientific evidence for life beginning at conception than there is for global warming. Yet the president earnestly supports protection of the environment and dismisses the need for protecting the unborn. Is that reasonable?

"If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life," says Alcorn. "If a hunter is uncertain whether movement in the brush is caused by a person, does this uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but we're not sure, what is the best policy -- to assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?"

What faith group or atheists would honestly say go ahead and fire at the unknown object behind the bush, go ahead and drive into the dark and unknown figure on the road, or even walk away from the person that has questionably fallen dead or alive -- even if it's me?

Whether a person of faith or not, the right to life is not something theoretical or hypothetical -- it's personal and fundamental to all...and an unjustifiable or careless breach of that right is universally agreed to be a crime.

Discrimination is another matter considered deplorable by today's standards. Yet the argument that a woman should have the right to an abortion because the fetus resides within her body is an act of discrimination. Alcorn rightly contends that to be inside something is not the same as being part of it. Furthermore, human beings shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their residence.

"One's body does not belong to another's body merely because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. A loaf of bread is not part of the oven in which it is baked," writes Alcorn. "A person is a person whether she lives in a mansion or an apartment or on the street. She is a person whether she is trapped in a cave, lying in a care center, or residing within her mother."

Such principle, which is clearly accepted by the masses, is certainly not "religion specific." One might even argue that it has nothing to do with religion. Thus abortion is, at the least, an egregious act of death by discrimination based on where an individual lives.

What's more, where is it generally agreed upon by people of every background that an individual's right to choose trumps the protection of innocent life?

Alcorn writes: "When I present the pro-life position on campuses, I often begin by saying: 'Yes, I'm pro-choice. That's why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it's his body -- and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He's free to choose, and it's none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.'"

Certainly this position is not "amenable to reason" or even slightly agreed upon by any. Yet the same principle is thoughtlessly accepted when it comes to a woman's so-called "right" to choose an abortion.

Obviously, there is absolutely nothing reasonable or humanitarian about the pro-choice position. Whether godless or a person of faith, by the president's own standard alone the practice of abortion should be summarily rejected and opposed -- not supported and advanced.