When it comes to my body, “leave the choosing to me”
‘Baby killers’—no offense taken
He knows my voice?
21 January 2005
The main feedback was a criticism of a previous feedback Offended by the term ‘Baby killers’, which provides another reason to explain the necessity of the pro-life view. But in contrast, a lady who had resorted to an abortion agrees that the term was justified, and shows the power of forgiveness through the Gospel. A third writer applies an article on alleged ape communication to the genuine ability of his unborn son knew his voice.
As it was my choice to surf onto your website, it is also of my choosing to do with MY body what I desire. Being an atheist 20 year old virgin who attends a Jesuit University, I am in a unique position to argue against your male, … heavily reliant on story (i.e. the Bible), And positively ignorant views. Your example replacing a two year old with an infant is sickening, and absolutely off base for how pro-choice activists feel. The essence that a two year old contains can not be compared or contrasted in any way, shape or form to a blastocyst, zygote, embryo, or fetus that is unable to sustain life on its own. I find the use of a fictional story such as the bible to justify your views morally repugnant and educationally offensive. Obviously you have your set views and I have mine, but your ignorance is not ignored by me. The highly offensive “baby killer” remark that somehow parlayed its way into the sequence of death of a two year old, is one of the reasons i will never believe in your God. No God would “create” others in his imagine to be so vulgar and offensive to dissenting opinions. leave the choosing to me.
As it was my choice to surf onto your website,
Are you sure you have choice? If you’re really just rearranged pond scum, then your thoughts are really an epiphenomenon of the motion of atoms in the brain obeying fixed laws of chemistry.
it is also of my choosing to do with MY body what I desire.
You can choose what you like—as long as you don’t harm anyone else! And that is the issue at stake.
Being an atheist 20 year old virgin
Well, remaining a virgin until marriage is the best way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. But “family planning” industries don’t want this too widely known, because it would put the lucrative abortion mills out of business.
who attends a Jesuit University,
Why on earth would an atheist want to attend a Catholic university? Oh I know, many of them are CINO (Catholic in name only), and are notorious for honoring pro-abortion CINO politicians (e.g., Kansas Catholic Bishop Says No to Pro-Abortion Politicians at Events). One CINO university law school has even allowed pro-abortion groups and gay student presidents while refusing to recognize a Christian pro-life group (see God and Man at Gonzaga)!
I am in a unique position to argue against your male,
Actually, arguments don’t have Y-chromosomes, so you’re making a category mistake here, smacking of the genetic fallacy. Of course it would make no difference whether a male or female made those arguments. In fact, many females have appreciated and used those very arguments. But then, the radical feminist movement, while claiming to be for women’s choice, detests and insults women who make the choice to be conservative, Christian, pro-life or stay-at-home moms.
Also note that half the aborted babies would be female, on plain probabilities. Actually, many more than half, because in places like India, many parents test the sex of their unborn and abort girls. Feminists often rail against this, yet “abortion on demand” means just that, for whatever reason, and they can’t logically turn around and say that unborn girls deserve protection without wrecking their whole bankrupt philosophy.
… heavily reliant on story (i.e. the Bible),
I rely only on true stories, or rather historical accounts such as the Bible (and see also Should Genesis be taken literally? for how to treat different literary genres in Scripture). I noticed no attempt at refutation of the excellent reasons to trust the Bible as the written Word of the true God.
And positively ignorant views.
You have demonstrated no fact of which I am unaware, as opposed to formulating an alternative interpretation of said fact instead of the materialistic story. As I show in Antidote to abortion arguments, I am well aware of the facts of embryonic and fetal development and the arguments of the abortion industry.
Your example replacing a two year old with an infant is sickening,
Personal revulsion doesn’t sound like a rational basis for rejecting an argument.
and absolutely off base for how pro-choice activists feel. The essence that a two year old contains can not be compared or contrasted in any way, shape or form to a blastocyst, zygote, embryo, or fetus that is unable to sustain life on its own.
As always, pro-abortionist zealots go out of their way to miss the point of the parallel. Yet it’s a real feat to miss, because we said
Just assume for the sake of the argument that it is a real human baby and that intentional killing of innocent humans is wrong. … 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 … 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 [and pro-bestiality and pro-euthanasia] 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.
So, if that wasn’t clear enough, the point was to get back to the real issue, which is the nature of the unborn being. The fact that you have had to challenge its humanity is precisely the point. My arguments show how asinine the usual pro-abortion rhetoric is, when it ignores this key issue. The same applies to CINO politicians who claim to be “personally opposed”. 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?
And I said:
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.
Oh, and by the way, a two-year-old left to its own devices would also hardly be able to “sustain life on its own”, either. So again that is an odd way to support your argument that infanticide and abortion are not comparable.
I find the use of a fictional story such as the bible to justify your views morally repugnant
On what grounds? Where is the basis for your morality if we are just rearranged pond scum? Your statement can really be translated as “I don’t like what you said,” nothing more.
But once more, you need to consider carefully what we said before writing emotional replies. Please try walking in our shoes for a while.
and educationally offensive. Obviously you have your set views and I have mine, but your ignorance is not ignored by me.
But evidently you’re not willing to have your own ignorance affected by the facts.
The highly offensive “baby killer” remark that somehow parlayed its way into the sequence of death of a two year old,
No, rather the death of a two-year-old was to show how crass the pro-abortion arguments are. The two-year-old is not an adult, but it is equally human, just at an earlier stage of development. Similarly, the unborn is equally human but at a still earlier stage of development. What sort of being do you think she is? With 4D ultrasound, it has become even harder for the abortion industry to hide the fact that they butcher babies.
is one of the reasons i will never believe in your God. No God would “create” others in his imagine to be so vulgar and offensive to dissenting opinions.
Nice to know that your faith in atheism is backed up by such sound, reasoned, unemotional arguments ;) It appears that any “god” that you would find acceptable would be one of your own design, rather than the Creator of everything who will hold you accountable for your actions.
leave the choosing to me.
I choose not to ;)
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
In regard to the person who wrote that they were offended about your use of the term “baby killers”. This person was concerned about the offense someone might take who had an abortion. I am such a person. I killed my first child. B.P. said “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.” I wish someone had been standing outside with such “propaganda” when I went into the abortion clinic. My child would now be 21 years old. But the fact is that I am a murderer. And the greater fact is that I can have forgiveness through Jesus Christ. My sins are forgiven, not because of what I’ve done, but in spite of what I’ve done. Though I shed innocent blood, His blood was shed for me. While I was His enemy—Christ died for me. We are truly trophies of His grace. And like King David, I will one day be able to see that child in heaven!!– God’s mercy is so great!
“He knows my voice?”
Q: Evolutionists claim that they have taught ‘language’
to a chimp. Can they really be taught to communicate, though, as we do?
A: After years of experiments in training chimps, no one yet has ever demonstrated that chimps have true grammatical ability—much to the frustration of evolutionists.
On the other hand, it’s been shown that human babies instinctively grasp the structure of any language. This confirms that humans, but not animals, were created to speak.
A fascinating example of this ‘inborn’ language ability comes from Nicaragua, in Central America. About 500 deaf children were placed in communities.
According to Discover magazine, these deaf children began to ‘talk’ to teach other with a full sign language that emerged from nowhere! This language had the elements of grammar, a full vocabulary, and everything you’d expect in a language!
This is exactly what creationists would expect. God created the first man, Adam, programmed with a complex language—the ability to communicate with God and man. All humans have inherited this ability from Adam. We’re all wired up for it! Evolutionists can’t explain this.
Chimps will never be able to learn a language as human beings can—they weren’t created for it!
Read your newsletter on chimp communication [relevant excerpt, right]. Interesting how evolutionists spend years “teaching apes how to communicate with humans.” When my oldest son was born, the nurse took him from the OB, wiped some amniotic fluid off of him and placed him on a stainless steel pan in the delivery room. It had to be cold and startling and, as expected, he began to howl and cry. As I walked up to him I still remember my exact words to him, “Old man, you sure are making a lot of noise!” The nurse instantly grabbed my arm and said, “Don’t speak. Let him cry some more to clear out his lungs.” I was amazed and said, “you mean he knows my voice?” The nurse replied, “Of course he does. He’s been listening to it in the womb for 9 months!” The words of Psalm 139 have meant much more to me ever since. Eighteen years later he is now a senior in high school and becoming a man, yet the memory of that experience is indelibly etched in my mind. Apes don’t talk. And abortion is a hideous sin. “Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite” – Ps 147:5.
I am a Ph.D. chemist and creationist at Higher Ground Baptist Church in Kingsport, TN. I find your ministry to be of great help in teaching and promoting Bibilical inerrancy.”
Thank you for this moving account. Nice to meet a fellow Ph.D. chemist :) For an
update on primate communication, see Monkeying around
with the origins of language.