Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
Creation magazine print - 1 yr new subn


US $25.00
View Item
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $9.00
View Item

Feedback archiveFeedback 2001, 2006

Offended by the term ‘Baby Killers’

12 February 2001; reposted and updated 25 August 2006

This week, we are revisiting a negative feedback from B.P. of England, because the abortion issue has been in the news recently in a number of countries. The letter is printed first in its entirety then with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Don Batten, interspersed as per normal email fashion. We have also updated with some new information about 4D (real-time) ultrasound and some further responses to this one.


I was saddened to read the euthanasia and abortion section of your site. Using emotive terminology such as ‘Baby Killers’ is very disrespectful to those who do not share your views and those who have had to go through the ordeal themselves, as a friend of mine has done.
Your judgemental attitude is blind and unfeeling for people who claim to be supporting human rights. To arrogantly assume you have the right to choose what people in circumstances you do not even know should do is disgusting. I don’t even care what your reasoning is, you should allow people to decide for themselves and not add to the hugely traumatic ordeal that having an abortion is. This sort of ignorant propaganda is the type that encourages people to stand outside abortion clinics and tear into the poor women who have been forced to make this terrible choice. Please re-write your sites material with concepts such as compassion and understanding actually considered.
Yours Sincerely
B.P.

Human unborn baby in the amniotic sac. Photo courtesy Eden Communications ©

Human unborn baby in the amniotic sac.
Photo courtesy Eden Communications ©

I was saddened to read the euthanasia and abortion section of your site. Using emotive terminology such as ‘Baby Killers’ is very disrespectful to those who do not share your views and those who have had to go through the ordeal themselves, as a friend of mine has done.

It is simply stating a fact. Abortionists are killing human babies. They are not chopping up jellyfishes! Alas, pro-abortion propaganda conveniently forgets that there is another person involved (right).

[With 4D ultrasound, it has become even harder for the lucrative abortion industry to hide the fact that they butcher babies. But the hard-core abortionists will ignore even this latest graphic evidence, since the root of abortion is an anti-biblical denial of the sanctity of innocent life.]

Just assume for the sake of the argument that it is a real human baby and that intentional killing of innocent humans is wrong. Then it would follow that no amount of psychological trauma for a pregnant woman would justify taking an innocent life, especially in the horrifying ways that this life is taken—which no animal-rights activist would tolerate even for a laboratory rat. So we respond: ‘You have no right to be so judgmental of our euthanasia and abortion section when you haven’t been through the horrific experience that millions of unborn babies suffer every year.’

This can be expanded: if the unborn really is entitled to protection from being murdered, then for a moral argument we can substitute ‘unborn baby’ for, say, a two-year-old (‘2yo’), and see what follows if we apply pro-abortion rhetoric:

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 killing 2yos only because you’re a religious fanatic.
  • Males should keep out of the 2yo-killing debate (aka ‘If men had to look after 2yos, then 2yo-killing would be a sacrament’)
  • The child was conceived by incestuous rape, 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.
Ultrasound of baby at 30 weeks

Ultrasound of baby in the womb—30 weeks

If these arguments seem horrific (which they are), then put yourselves in our shoes, who believe that the unborn baby is human, when we hear the parallel statements from ‘pro-choicers’ to justify abortion. And don’t think that such arguments won’t one day be applied to older children—the notorious pro-infanticide philosopher Peter Singer was recently appointed to a personal chair at Princeton University, and was the invited author of the Encyclopædia Britannica’s article ‘Ethics’. It’s ironic that the academia of the Allied nations are now right behind Singer, while in Germany, Singer’s lectures are always attended by mass protests by people in wheelchairs and those with other disabilities, and other lectures have had to be cancelled as a result of such protests—presumably Germans know neo-nazism when they see it, and don’t want it to happen again! So let’s get to the real issues, whether the baby is human and whether killing innocent humans can be justified.

I say ‘disprove’ the claim that the unborn really is a human baby, which is backed up by Scripture and science. It is not enough to say ‘we don’t know whether it’s human.’ A hunter is criminally liable if he shoots towards a movement in the bush, not knowing whether a human or deer caused the movement. And an explosive engineer is criminally liable if he blows up a building, not knowing whether there are any people inside.

Your judgemental attitude is blind and unfeeling for people who claim to be supporting human rights. To arrogantly assume you have the right to choose what people in circumstances you do not even know should do is disgusting. I don't even care what your reasoning is, you should allow people to decide for themselves and not add to the hugely traumatic ordeal that having an abortion is. This sort of ignorant propaganda is the type that encourages people to stand outside abortion clinics and tear into the poor women who have been forced to make this terrible choice. Please re-write your sites material with concepts such as compassion and understanding actually considered.
Yours Sincerely
B.P.
England

Yes, the abortion industry is a horrible business that leaves women with deep emotional scars and much guilt over what they have participated in. Killing unborn babies is not the solution to anything and only brings more trouble on those involved. It is a sign of a very sick society that any woman feels that she has to abort her child—a society that has abandoned God (just as in Israel in the times of the kings when people abandoned obedience to God, they sacrificed their babies on the altar of the detestable god Molech). Many Christians are involved in providing support to women so that they can cope with all that bearing a child involves—many active creationists have been involved with Crisis Pregnancy Centers, for example. Many have been thankful of such support. Others have found forgiveness for the guilt for what they have done through Christ, since He died to bear our guilt before God. I suggest your anger should be directed at the abortion industry, not those like us who oppose this tyranny being paraded as ‘freedom of choice’. By the way, like most pro-life organisations, we do not condone or encourage violence towards anyone—that would be quite inconsistent with our biblical stand. At the moment, nothing in your letter has persuaded us to change anything on euthanasia and abortion section of our website.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Don Batten

Related feedback responses

  • Feedback 21 January 2005: The main letter is by a young female atheist at a CINO (Catholic In Name Only) university, ‘When it comes to my body, ‘leave the choosing to me”’, which objected to the comparison with 2yos. But it missed the point: there is no point arguing about subsidiary issues and ignoring the nature of the unborn. It is also a chance to expose the hypocrisy of the CINO politicians who claim to be ‘personally opposed’ to abortion but who support ‘choice’. But why be personally opposed if it is not a baby, but if it is a baby, then how can it be a matter of ‘personal choice’ to kill her?
    This page also includes a letter from a woman who once had an abortion but agrees that it was indeed baby killing, but now has the good news that Jesus died for all her sins, including abortion.
  • Feedback 18 March 2002 comes from another woman who was offended by this one, but again fails to address the key issue. So there is a further reminder, as well as refuting the charge that pro-lifers do not care for the mothers.
  • Feedback 20 August 2004 further refutes the liberal sham of ‘I’m personally opposed to abortion but …’ — compare ‘I’m personally opposed to slavery but slaveholders should have the choice about whether to own slaves.…’ This leads onto the fallacy of ‘imposing your morality’ whereas the real question is whose morality is imposed.
  • Feedback 22 February 2005: this was a response to ‘Antidote to abortion arguments’, enquiring about the very rare case of abortion to save the mother’s life. The response explains the ethical principle of double effect and the role of foreseen v. intended consequences.

Julie I. wrote: “Thank you so much for this site! I am very blessed already. I appreciate you sharing all these helps and resources. Especially the free ones. We are grateful!” Keep the free stuff coming. Support this site

Copied to clipboard
3315
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.