politically correct dëath review

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Hey Everybody!

The below article is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/reviews/beckwith.asp, and I thought it was quite a good article. Thanks to Joel for showing it to me! I don't fully agree with everything in the book reviewed, but it still deserves reading.

Antidote to abortion arguments

by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

A review of Politically Correct
by Dr. Francis Beckwith
Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1993

Summary

An indispensable work for anyone concerned about the number of babies killed in their mother’s womb, refuting just about every “justification” for this politically sanctioned and taxpayer-funded slaughter of the s. It is unfortunately out of print.

Introduction

Abortion has been one of the most important ethical issues in Western society for the last three decades. Many people, sadly including many Christians, think abortion is a difficult and controversial issue. But there should be no difficulty or controversy at all—there are only two issues to consider:

1. 
   

   Is the unborn child (“fetus”) a human being?

   
   
2. 
   

   If so, is it ever acceptable to kill the unborn?

The answer to both questions is clear from the Bible, starting in Genesis. Genesis 25:21–22 states: “and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; …” Note that Rebekah’s unborn twins, Jacob and Esau, are referred to as “children” (the Hebrew word used, banim, is the usual word for sons after birth). Unborn babies are not disposable clumps of tissue, despite the claims of many proabortionists. And they are always human right from fertilization, because all the DNA coding needed to build each individual’s physical features is there in the fertilized egg. It is absolutely false that the developing human goes through any fish or reptile stage, despite some blatantly fraudulent evolutionary claims (see “Fraud Rediscovered” for the shocking truth, with photographic documentation). No, the Bible, supported by science, teaches that the unborn baby is a human child (see also Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:41–44).

The second question is also answered consistently throughout Scripture, again starting from Genesis. Genesis 1:26–29 and 2:7–23 make it clear that man was created distinct from the animals, made in God’s image. Only one generation later, Cain committed the first murder, a destruction of this image, thus a grievous affront to God. After God judged mankind’s in the global Flood of Noah’s day, God instituted the penalty for precisely because it destroyed this image of God (capital punishment is outside the scope of this review, but see JP Holding’s outline at Life for a Life).

Right throughout Scripture, —that is, the intentional of humans—is regarded as a heinous sin (Exodus 20:13—for explanation that the basic meaning of the Hebrew ratsach is in the manner of a predatory animal, see Thou Shalt Not What? See also Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9). Since abortion kills an human being, it is nothing less than .

The book

This book by an eminent Christian philosopher, Francis Beckwith, supports the traditional Christian pro-life position based on those two main premises: that human life begins at conception (fertilization) and that it is wrong to take this life except where the mother’s actual life is in danger.

Beckwith thoroughly refutes proabortion arguments, both the popular rhetoric in the media and political circles, as well as the sophisticated philosophical arguments by more intellectual abortion advocates (who are contemptuous of much popular proabortion “reasoning”). He knows how to use logical arguments to show that pro-abortionists use both false premises and invalid reasoning from both false and true premises to support their view. There is even a chapter refuting an article purporting to be “A Pro-Choice Bible Study”, which makes most of the same fallacious arguments at those so called “religious tolerance” persons (who are actually intolerant of biblical absolutes) and the assorted bibliosceptics who are refuted at Aborted Exegesis. Finally there is a fictional Socratic dialogue aimed to support nonviolent civil disobedience such as Operation Rescue.

By focusing on the key issues, Beckwith shows how all the usual “hard cases” pushed by pro-abortionists fall flat. We should likewise return to the key issue, of the humanity of the unborn, which Beckwith defends. Since we’ve established that the unborn really is human, we can show how horrific the usual proabortion arguments are as we legitimately substitute “unborn baby” with a two-year-old (“2yo”) in the following arguments, therefore undercutting the gut-wrenching heart tugs that pro-abortionists use (the technical term for this informal logical fallacy is argumentum ad misericordiam, or Appeal to Pity):

A 2yo is so disruptive and causing such heartache for his solo mother that she wants him killed, and people support her “right to choose” to kill her own child in the following ways (paralleling many “pro-choice” arguments):

• 
  

  How dare you pass judgment on the woman, when you have no idea what she’s going through?

  
  
• 
  

  You’re a male, so you have no right to comment.

  
  
• 
  

  It’s the right of every 2yo to be wanted.

  
  
• 
  

  No one’s forcing you to kill your own 2yo.

  
  
• 
  

  Keep your church out of my home!

  
  
• 
  

  We’re not pro–killing-2yos, we’re pro-choice.

  
  
• 
  

  We want to make 2yo-killing safe, legal and rare.

  
  
• 
  

  If we make laws against this, then those who are rich enough will be able to hire a hit man to kill the toddler, while the poor could not afford this, so such laws would discriminate against the poor.

  
  
• 
  

  Unless you are prepared to adopt this child, you have no right to tell the mother that she should not kill her.

  
  
• 
  

  If we don’t make it possible for the mother to kill her 2yo safely, then she’ll do it unsafely and possibly put her own health in danger.

  
  
• 
  

  Laws against 2yo-killing would violate the woman’s right to privacy, which judges tell us is in the US Constitution.

  
  
• 
  

  It’s speciesist to give a Homo sapiens 2yo so much more protection than a chimpanzee 2yo.

  
  
• 
  

  You’re opposed to 2yos only because you’re a religious fanatic.

  
  
• 
  

  The child was conceived by incestuous , and her existence is a continual reminder to her mother of what happened, so she should die because of her father’s crime.

  
  
• 
  

  Stem cells could be harvested from this 2yo that could help cure many horrible diseases and disabilities—you religious fanatics want to stop this scientific research and cut off all hope of a cure for Alzheimer’s, heart disease, Parkinson’s, quadriplegia and diabetes.

Beckwith’s book has been very useful to me recently in my own writing projects on topics like embryonic stem cells and other articles at Q&A: Abortion, which also hyperlinks to some of Beckwith’s earlier articles on which this book is largely based. Beckwith already anticipated such specious arguments such as,

• 
  

  “Identical twins prove that life doesn’t begin at conception.” (Twinning may be a form of asexual reproduction, where one embryo divides into two, but this doesn’t mean that s/he wasn’t an individual before then.)

  
  
• 
  

  “The early embryo doesn’t look human.” (Yes it does—just the way it should look at that age. Also, appearances are defective—statues and store mannequins look human, but are not; abnormal-looking humans like the “elephant man” are still human.)

  
  
• 
  

  “Most zygotes never make it to term.” (All humans have virtually a 100% mortality rate, but this doesn’t mean it’s OK to actively someone!)

  
  
• 
  

  The Clintonian pseudo-biblical argument that the account of Adam’s creation shows that life begins when breathing starts. (First, unborn babies do “breathe” or at least respire, just not through their lungs. Secondly, the creation of Adam and Eve was a special case—“neither of them had mothers or came from an embryo, so it’s illegitimate to extrapolate from their example. It would be just as [il]logical to claim that since they began lives as s, human life today doesn’t begin till hood!)

This is easily the most comprehensive pro-life defence around, so is very important for Christians. This is not to say that it’s totally without flaws, although they are not enough to detract from a strong recommendation.

One obvious deficiency is the lack of pictures, which are often highly effective in convincing the general public of the humanity of the unborn (e.g., right).

I also think Beckwith deals unfairly with the adoption argument on p. 15. Of course, if the unborn baby is human and is wrong, this would not change even if there were no couples willing to adopt. But the point of the adoption argument is well in line with what Beckwith practises so effectively—both demonstrating the falsity of the premise(s) as well as showing that the conclusion would not follow even if the premise(s) were true. So the adoption argument is really demonstrating that the pro-death premise “there are many unwanted babies” is false, without conceding at all the inference “if a baby is not wanted, then it can be killed”.

Also there is some downplaying of the need for an objective moral lawgiver who has revealed His will in the Bible. When evolution has replaced the Bible as the authority, anything goes. This is epitomised by the neo-Nazi views of Peter Singer who supports infanticide of physically “defective” infants and elderly people with Alzheimer’s—because in an evolutionary worldview, there is nothing to say that human life is any more sacred than animal life. This is why it’s not always enough to show that the baby is human. (For an absolutely horrifying example of how low organized humanism can stoop because of their godless framework for ethics, the international Humanist values and ethics convention Australis2000 held in Sydney, Australia, invited Vern Bullough, the Humanist advocate and an editor of Paidika: The Journal of ia, as a speaker.)

But I repeat, this book is probably the single most valuable specialist defence of the pro-life view around, so is essential reading for all those who wish to stand up for unborn babies.

Another thing - Copeland is spectacular. Check 'em out if you get the chance. The song which is playing (takes forever to load, so it's not automatically starting - you'll have to go down and press play) is called "Testing the Strong Ones" and is available for download here.
"Copeland... they will change your life." - Scott Porter
Note that below this text, a little flash player should come up that will enable you to listen to a few Copeland songs so, if you are able, check them out! I would suggest you don't play both players at once, but I guess if you want to, you can! :) To listen, click anywhere in the black box, and it should change to mostly grey box, then double-click on the song you wish to hear (the choices are "Do you hear what I hear," "Another Day in Paradise," and "Take Care," the lattermost of which is on the 'Beneath Medicine Tree' album). Be patient - it may take a few seconds to load.

My box doesn't seem to be working, so see if this link works.

Love in Christ,

Ali Babua

song of the post: 'Testing the Strong Ones" -Copeland-

quote of the post: "okay see this is what happens when I try to be profound, I sound uh dumb." -Abigail Bryn Elder- (She updatelled you guys! So check it out!)

verse of the post: Psalm 37, and particularly verses 4 - 7a: Trust in the LORD, and do good; Dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness. Delight yourself also in the LORD, And He shall give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the LORD, Trust also in Him, And He shall bring [it] to pass. He shall bring forth your righteousness as the light, And your justice as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for Him; -Psalm 37:4-7a-

*Hey guys, blogger stinks, or at least mine does, and both my tagboard and my comments are not currently working, so check out me xanga at http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Ali_Babua and comment there!*

allen left to contemplate other things at 6:47 PM

allen left to contemplate other things at 10:27 PM