Trump @ March For Life
In case you missed the President’s speech at the March For Life…
"We are travellers…not yet in our native land" – St. Augustine
In case you missed the President’s speech at the March For Life…
I should have posted this ages ago, but here’s the speech given by the Vice President at the March For Life in DC:
The speech is (obviously) very pro-Trump, but he has some really great lines…
Since I couldn’t go to the March For Life this year, I’ve started planning my poster for next year…
For today’s entry in this series, I would like to address another comment which appeared on Facebook last year in response to my presence at the March For Life in Washington DC. One of my former work colleagues wrote the following:
“Pro life has to do with wanting people to live lives, including unborn children. But is the quality of life for both child and mother taken into consideration, or is it only about “saving” the life of the child?”
The question concerning quality of life is often raised in the abortion debate. The motivation behind it is good – we don’t want people to suffer, we want them to live the happiest lives possible.
Picking up from where we left off yesterday, I would like to continue my series of posts on the subject of abortion.
For many people, the fundamental question which must be answered in the abortion debate is this: when does human life begin? If the aborted child does, in fact, represent an innocent human life, then abortion must be recognized as immoral.
(Some would disagree with this last statement, but I’d suggest that such people are in the minority and I’ll address their position some other time).
So when does human life begin? Personally, I think it’s clear that life begins at conception. I think that this position can be defended both scientifically and philosophically since, from conception onward, you have a distinct, growing, human organism with its own unique DNA. However, for the sake of this post I’m going to set aside my own position…
You see, not everyone holds to my opinion (I know, who’d have thought it?!). The thing is that among those who would identify themselves as “pro-choice”, there are a vast range of opinions as to when the unborn child can be considered a living human person worthy of protection.
Who’s understanding should we accept? For example, some say that the child is only human after certain organs have formed. Some people point to the moment when the heart starts to beat. Others say the child should only be considered worthy of protection once brainwaves are discernible, and still others withhold protection for the unborn until the child is viable outside of the womb. Still more readily admit that they just don’t know…
Given this cacophony of opinions, we can establish that, among those who identify themselves as pro-choice, there is no consensus as to the moment from which the unborn child should be recognized be a human person and be deemed worthy of protection.
I think the uncertainty on the side of pro-choice advocates is a powerful argument against the legalization of abortion. If one is not sure when life begins, then it must be admitted that there is, at least the possibility, that abortion results in the death of an innocent human person and is therefore immoral.
As I mentioned yesterday, to mark the March For Life, this week I’m going to be posting a series of articles exclusively on the subject of abortion.
Today I’d like to outlining the two main stages I pass through when discussing the subject of abortion with those who are pro-choice.
Read more
The March For Life in Washington DC is quickly approaching, so for the next week or so I’m going to be posting exclusively on the subject abortion, even dispensing with some of my “regularly scheduled programming”, such as Music Monday and Friday Frivolity.
To kick off this series of posts, here’s a video of Catholic Apologist Trent Horn speaking with Dr. Malcolm Potts on “Issues on Reproduction”:
(Unfortunately, the audio quality isn’t good, but the content is great)