Response to Kelly Scoles' "Second Opinion"

Hi again, Kelly.
I never want to misquote anyone at any time. If this should happen accidentally, I always publish a correction ASAP. You say, "I clearly did not say that I am both "pro-life" and "pro abortion. I explicitly said that I am "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as not mutually exclusive, or a contradiction". However, I have not mischaracterized your stance on abortion. You stated: "I am pro-life. But as between the living woman who holds the fertilized egg in her body and the government, the decision must be hers." (Translated:) In other words, although you, personally would not do this, you assent to this practice for others, i.e. the "choice" for others. Therefore, you cannot be pro-life, as that term is commonly understood. A proposition is contradictory when it asserts and denies the same thing, which you have done.

The central issue here: Is the fertilized egg "human life" at every stage of its gestation? Throughout 2000-years of Christian history the answer is emphatically yes. Science and logic prove this.

You correctly identify the subject here: "...this particular issue asks at what point the human soul is infused into the body." You "unequivocally acknowledged that "life" begins at conception," yet you maintain that the moment the fertilized egg becomes a "human being" (conception) is not known. I provided the science last week. The Judeo-Christian tradition tells us that there is no humanity without a soul, which is unique to human life. The reality of a soul, or eternity itself, is disputed, but not persuasively. One side says the soul does not exist: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, et al. You say, "I distinctly said that I know no one who is "pro-abortion". Let me introduce you to a real-life pro-abortion monster: "... if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” [Ralph] Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” [About whether to kill that "infant".]

Notice "The infant would be resuscitated" if desired. Keep in mind this is a born-alive child he's talking about being "resuscitated." In other words, he's keeping the child anesthetized before deciding if it should be killed - often by severing the spinal cord, or isolation in a dark cupboard. But this is not a completely heartless procedure; I found in one facility that "Mementos of the pregnancy include ultrasound pictures or footprints [can be had]. And, "...if you would like to see and hold your [dead] baby after the procedure" talk to staff.

In those extremely rare, tragic cases where the baby had to be removed to save the life of the mother this is understandable and merciful. But in conventional abortion cases, done for convenience, it would be macabre curiosity. In all cases the mother should always have access to the best possible medical care.

You are absolutely correct in saying abortion is now legal. I'm not arguing that. I'm just trying to persuade people that the practice is terribly wrong, against natural law, and should be stopped. In our American Republic we make the laws which govern our conduct, and I abide by the law. But I also challenge the law here to protect innocent human life. That's my right as an American citizen, and I condemn the practice on the strongest traditional religious grounds. You of course may do the same, on any grounds you choose, and let the law referee. Your entire argument is based upon the false premise that we are dealing with only the mother's rights. I contend that we deal with two lives, (two souls) mother and child.

Let's run this scenario backwards to see if it improves the outcome.: Starting with a newborn infant. To kill or not to kill, that is the question. No sane person can honestly argue the newborn is not a human baby. So, is it ethical to (as they do) sever its spinal cord, or place it in a dark closet alone (human contact critical for a newborn baby's survival)? Or perhaps just gas it - worked efficiently for previous innocent millions - and by all means crying must be prevented.

What about the eighth month of life, or the 7th, or 4th? Remember, absolutely nothing has changed physically since fertilization and the life-giving spark of a new soul; nothing added, nothing taken away, he or she is just growing up. Beautiful in-utero film shows the tiny person's activity, kicking, sucking its thumb, showing feeling - and attempts to escape probing steel instruments. Will this beautiful new person make it? In the year 2020, surgical abortion killed more than 40-million preborn children. That accounts for 43% of all deaths worldwide, notes the American Center for Law and Justice. (All stats from WHO). But the most important stats are found here: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Matt 10:29-31.

I know my side of the argument upsets you, Kelly. But let's see the justice in your authority for rejecting the humanity of aborted newborn human life -- when the very hairs of their heads are all numbered, and they are all now in the care of a sublimely attentive -- and avenging -- God.

Be well.