Sunday, May 24, 2009

Do your homework!

So while I love reading up on ways to argue with pro-aborts, one thing I've noticed is most pro-life handbooks say the same thing.
Consistency is certainly a good thing while arguing. But you know how in geometry class, you had that teacher who only explained how to do proofs one way? When it came time for you to prove why (x-3)8+y=32, you knew what to do, but you were just...stuck. [By the way, I totally made up that problem. I couldn't solve it if I wanted to...]

Well, that's kindof how pro-life arguing was for me for awhile. I mean, the basics were don't call it a fetus because that dehumanizes the child, talk about how you're not "forcing" women to have babies, that is the natural termination of a pregnancy, at 24 days there's a heartbeat, etc...

And when I argued, I wasn't getting anywhere- they'd heard it all before.

Then my sister bought me a book for my birthday called, The Third Time Around: A History of the Pro-Life Movement from the First Century to the Present. It's about how the Christian Church, largely the Catholic Church, has always historically been pro-life. I think I'll send a copy to Nancy Pelosi.
At any rate, the author, George Grant, explains the history of abortion, as well as the pro-life movement that mirrored it.

It has opened up so many new debating points.
For example, I found a reporter named Augustus St. Claire's investigations of the booming underground abortion industry in the early 1900's. During the Victorian Era, when chair's legs were covered for being too suggestive, women sought out abortions- and not in sordid back-alleys- but in lavish, well-furnished penthouses of well known doctors.

I also found out Stalin was the first to legalize abortion in modern Europe. Call me dumb, but I had no idea. That's always a good point, I've found. Knowing Nazis and Communists found life to be a mere commodity, you can tie the disgust of their regard for human life with abortionists. People do think on that for a while, too.

And then the trusty historically pro-life feminists. Pointing out that our sister suffragette's believed that abortion was man's way of objectifying a female [which, it is...] is a stong arguing point as well. Also, pointing out that men headed the "Pro-Choice" movement - Alan Guttmacher, Bernard Nathanson, Larry Lader...even the NOW's VP was male...helps get across the idea that abortion is a way for men to manipulate women.

This book has done so much for me. And it provides the documentation and sources, which is always trusty when in a heated discussion with a pro-choicer.

One more thing I suggest while researching - yes, research this topic if you want to argue sensibly- is bringing up health risks abortion poses to women. By the time I was twelve, I had about twenty-some pages of factual, well-documented and medically credible risks and statistics involving abortion.

Is the main point lost in this? Do using methods other than addressing the child's personhood make the arguement ego-centric and superficial? Maybe. Generally, however, when people accept that they've been lied to in one case, they'll find abortion to be what it truly is: A web of falsehoods. They come to realize that an abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother- as Alan Guttmacher said in 1967. They come to realize that it is incredibly unhealthy for women- spiritually, physically, emotionally and mentally. They then discover the biggest lie of all- that "blob of tissue" is really a human being.

All in all, make sure to do your homework and research different aspects of abortion, so that you will know how to counter any arguement thrown at you. Knowing where our cause has been will help give it direction and meaning- and so I highly recommend knowing the history of the pro-life movement. Read and find out why our movement is on The Third Time Around.

No comments:

Post a Comment