Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 34 results found
The SLED Test is a simple argument against abortion. The pro-life view is that the unborn are human beings just like you and me. That’s why it’s wrong to kill them. Although many abortion-choice advocates agree the unborn are human, they deny they are valuable human beings. They think this distinction justifies killing the unborn. Often they use personhood language to express this view. They say the unborn might be human, but it’s not a person.
Alan's monthly letter for March 2010 Dear Friend, Why would an alcoholic father, strapped for cash, sell his son and daughter for $30? Why would pediatricians at the University Medical Center of Gronigen kill 20 disabled newborn children each year? Why is it legal in Oregon and Washington for your doctor to help you commit suicide? These acts of injustice are possible because of a subtle, yet profound shift in how we value human beings. Our culture is abandoning intrinsic value for instrumental value.
The public reaction to John Paul's recent encyclical on critical moral issues reveals the new rules of political discourse.
We are in the process of redefining what it is that has inherent worth in our culture from human beings just simply because they are humans that have worth, to states of existence having worth.
No one asked the important question: Is it wrong? Why not? Valentine's evening "20/20" on ABC did a short piece on the now well-known Dr. Death, Dr. Jack Kervorkian. He's been making headlines because he assists patients in committing suicide and he's invented a machine to help him out. He does the preliminary work, inserting the hypodermic needles and so forth, and then the patient pushes a button that allows a deadly drug to flow through the hypodermic and into the veins. Of course, this rapidly kills the patient.
There's a growing taboo infecting crisis pregnancy centers around the country. Pro-lifers are getting tight-lipped on abortion. Here's why even CPC's are shying away from speaking frankly about the moral crime of the century. The last few years have witnessed a stunning development in the pro-life movement. More and more crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) refuse to discuss abortion. A new wave of pro-life leaders insist that victory will not be gained in the court of public opinion if the debate centers principally on the morality of abortion.
If the California state statutes use the term "murder' to describe the killing of a fetus, then why can't pro-lifers use the same language? Certain kinds of objections come up every time violence is perpetrated against an abortion provider. Though pro-lifers are, almost to a person, against the bombing of abortion clinics, most use the term "murder" to describe what goes on there. The use of this terminology makes some observers wonder how pro-lifers can be against abortion violence when it allegedly stops murder.
Most issues raised in the abortion debate are red herrings that drag us off the track of the pertinent questions.
Greg finds disturbing similarities between the viewpoint that abortion can be justified and reasons used to justify past genocides. You know, it's amazing how many people who are seemingly intelligent, moral, ethical, and level-headed are adopting a frightening point of view. They're willing to admit that abortion does indeed take the life of an innocent, defenseless human being, but still they think abortion is justified in many cases.
The "coat hanger" argument is one of the most emotionally compelling appeals of pro-abortionists, yet the whole line of reasoning collapses because of the single element deified by pro-choicers: choice. "We're Afraid For Our Daughters," the headline read. The ad was hard to miss, filling an entire page of my local paper. "Could it really happen?" it continued. "Could our daughters be forced into back alleys and illegal abortions? We need your help. For our daughters, our wives, and our friends, please help keep abortion safe."