Does Pro-Choice = Anti-Child Support

This is just a question that I have to ask. It may not be well received, but I am curious. If you are pro-choice, are you anti-child support? Based on your reasoning, you would almost have to be. Here are some of the arguments I often hear for abortions, in no particular order:

1. Can't financially take care of a baby.
2. In cases of rape and incest.
3. Birth control failed.
4. Baby will have birth defects.
5. Too young.
6. Baby is simply not wanted.
7. If you don't have a vagina you have no say in abortions.

There are a lot more reasons for abortion, but I want to address reasons number 1, 6 and 7. If a women has a baby that the man "simply doesn't want" and he "can't financially take care of it" why should he have to if she gives birth to it? What entitles courts to make him to have to pay child support on a baby he doesn't want? The courts can't make her give birth to the baby if he is against the abortion of his child. But the court steps in, and he is now saddled with a baby that is a burden on him financially that he never wanted. How is that fair to him? 

If the women doesn't want the baby, she can do whatever she wants to do. Abort baby or birth baby. The man has no choice in the matter. That seems to be a double standard! So why, if she wants to keep her baby and the man wants nothing to do with the baby, should he have to be financially responsible? Well obviously, based on several of the arguments listed above he should not have to pay child support. And ladies, before you comment I need you to remember one thing; If you don't have a penis, you have no say in the matter. Sorry, but those are the rules.

So, given the arguments for a woman choosing to abort, does that work for a man. It may be her body that has to carry the baby for 40 weeks, tis true. But it is his body that has to work for the next 18-25 years (depending on whether the "nuisance" goes to college) so that he can pay child support for something he never wanted to begin with. Just sounds like a jacked up system to me.

In closing, why should society be able to force their morals and ethics onto somebody else? After all, it is his life, his body, his money, his choice...........period!

P.S. - To clarify, I feel that all men should always support their children, with no exceptions. I am happy to pay child support for my son. Also, I was pro-choice until after I had my first child. That event has made me pro-life. I cannot imagine how colorless the world would be without my son in it. Finally, regardless of your viewpoint on this topic, I am grateful that your mother made the decision to give birth to you.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 13 Just the Facts, Ma'am

This chapter is named after a quote by Detective Joe Friday in the old television police drama, Dragnet. It was used frequently by him when questioning a witness. Detective Friday meant that he did not want to hear assumptions or other people's statements. He only wanted to hear the facts as the person knew them. This is exactly what we should want from others, too.

In order to do this, we must only demand two things. First, is to be aware that many challenges to Christianity are simply supported by bad information and spurious claims. Second is that you know the facts yourself. The last is not a necessity, since most of us have the internet on our phones and can look up the information itself. So, let's take a look at two examples Mr Koukl uses.

The first is, "More wars have been fought and more blood shed in the name of God  than any other cause. Religion is the greatest source of evil in the world." For starters, since chaos and oppression are not duties Christians have nor do they come from apply Christ's teachings logically you cannot blame violence done in the name of Christianity. Also, if you find an older Guinness Book of World Records and go to category "Judicial" under the subheading "Crimes: Mass Killings" you find carnage of horrific proportions. YOu find 66 million murdered under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev; 32-61 million Chinese under the communist parties since 1949; 1/3 of the Khmers (2.7 million) in a 4 year period in the 70's under communist Khmer Rouge.

Dennis Prager says that in the 20th century alone, "more innocent people have been murdered, tortured and enslaved by secular ideologies - Nazism and communism - than by all religions in history." It would appear that the greatest evil and atrocities come not from people who follow gods, but instead from people who believe there is no God to answer to.

The next claim is, "The country of America was not founded by Christians but deists." The Founding Father's is a proper noun that is used to identify the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Thre were 55 people that made up the core. There were "28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown and ONLY 3 DEISTS - Williamson, Wilson and Franklin." The caps are mine. So 93% of our Founding Fathers were Christian. Hard to dispute those facts!

Spotting faulty facts can be difficult at times. In order to have Just the Facts Ma'am work, you need to follow a two-step plan. Step one is to ask yourself, "What is the claim?" Take a few seconds and pinpoint the point being made by the other person. Write it down, if need be. Remember that assertions and opinions are frequently hidden under clever verbiage. For instance, saying that one has no right to oppose abortion unless they were willing to care for the babies. For starters, that is comparable to saying that you cannot oppose someone beating their wife unless you are willing to marry them. Look at the claim being made and see if it is valid.

Once we have identified the claim, we can then put step 2 into action. "Is the claim factually accurate?" Using the example about pro-lifers needing to care for the babies. A quick internet check will reveal over 4,000 national and international service providers that are pro-life who are founded on insuring the well-being of mothers in crisis and insuring they and the babies have housing, clothing, access to medical providers, food, adoption services and even counseling for women who are post-abortion. All at no cost.

A final example is when we are told, "Do not judge others. The bible says that if you judge others, you will be judged likewise." The Bible verse Matthew 7:1 is called upon by Christians and non-Christians alike. A closer look will show that Jesus was against hypocritical and arrogant judgements, but not all judgements. In fact, He says that we must first remove the plank from our own eye so that we can see clearly to take the mote out of your brother's eye.

So, in closing this week we have found that we should do two things when we hear a challenge. Ask ourselves, "What is the claim?" and once identified we ask ourselves, "Is the claim factually accurate?" If we do these two things we will better be able to see whether or not the claim is based on shoddy facts, opinions or if it is truly valid. From there, we can continue the discussion. See you in two weeks as we conclude the book Tactics. 

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 10 - Taking the Roof Off

Not all points of view commit suicide such as the ones we have looked at in the past couple of chapters. Some of them work against themselves by leading to absurd conclusions if they are broken down. These will not work against themselves as those that commit suicide will, but if we use just a little bit of our brain power we can relate how these points too just do not pass the muster test.

To do this you first must take the other person's point of view. Reduce it to it's most basic assertion. Then you try the idea out and determine if you were to use that view to guide you, where would it take you. Mentally take their view for a test drive. Finally, if it takes you to a place that seems a bit unusual, you point that out to whoever is using that viewpoint.

This method is called Taking the Roof Off by Mr. Koukl. Another way this is know by is reductio ad absurdum. This is a phrase in Latin that means reducing a point to its furthest conclusion. If when doing this you see that the outcome is incoherent or absurd, then you help the person who has that point of view see the faulty logic it ends in.

Take moral relativism, for example. Most who believe in moral relativism don't mind practicing it as long as it is not practiced on them. To believe that cruelty and non cruelty are equal in Hinduism would mean that there is no difference between evil and good, ultimately. How is someone helping your wife broke down on the side of the road the same as someone killing her intentionally? Obviously, that is an extreme example, but those tend to work best to make the point.

Someone who "denies God is living on borrowed capital. He enjoys living as if the world is filled with morality, meaning, order and beauty, yet he denies that God whose existence make such things possible."

There are several different examples given in the book of ideas that are ripe for having their roof taken off. He hits on two very hot topics here, one of them being homosexuality and the other being abortion. These are two very hard topics for many to broach, and he does it well in the book by looking at the arguments given today for these two topics.

In homosexuality it is currently popular to say, "I was born this way." That is all that many feel is needed in order to stem the moral criticisms for homosexuality. The basic argument is that since homosexuality is natural it must be moral. What if scientists some day found a racism gene. Would these same people who reason that homosexuality is natural so it must be  moral feel the same way about gay bashers if that too proved to be a naturally occurring gene. Instead, they would probably argue that they should fight the influence of that gene.

Just because an impulse is natural does not mean it's moral. Substance abuse has been found to be genetic. There are many of us who are hardwired to be addicts and alcoholics. That does not give me the right to inject methamphetamine and drive drunk for the rest of my life. I know that it is morally wrong and due to that I have been clean and sober for over 3 years (by the Grace of God!).

Next Greg talked about "Trotting out the Toddler." He said that almost every argument that supports abortion could be used to justify the killing of children that are newly born as well, if taken to their conclusion. How can a 7 inch journey magically transform tissue into a living human being? If someone says that "women have the right to choose" ask if, for the same reason given, she should have the same right to kill her 1 year old? Both are human beings, so the same rule should morally apply to them.

If you should kill a fetus to save it from future abuse or neglect, should you not also kill a two year old to save them from the same thing? After all, that is the logical implication that abortion has. Modified pro-choice is even worse.This is when someone says "I think that it is wrong for me to kill my baby. I would never do that, but it is okay for other women to do what they want." All you have to do is so, "So in effect, you feel that it is okay for women to kill babies?" Just like that, the roof is off, although it can be taken even further using the toddler line of deroofing their argument.

Greg also has many other great examples of how to take the roof off of the arguments of many more arguments in this chapter. If you want to read those, I would highly recommend that you buy the book. I know for me it has been an interesting and informing read so far. I look forward to reading chapter 11 and writing about it. Til then, have a blessed week!

Abortion, Feticide and Assisted Suicide

What am I doing? There are some things that you are not to talk about: politics, religion and abortion. It is a topic that causes too many fights! That may be true, but it appears everything starts fights these days. I already discuss religion. I figured I might as well throw abortion in, too.

I am still trying to figure out how I feel on the subject of abortion. I used to say that I had no right to an opinion since I could not get pregnant. Then I became a father. As a father I began to feel that abortion was wrong. How could some one rob me of the joy involved in raising my son, or steal from the world the joy of meeting and interacting with him? I was confused........

That was how I felt while I was an Agnostic and not a father. Since then I have had a Pauline Conversion, but you can read about that in several other of my blogs or hear/see it in my testimony. I also have a son that means the world to me and his mother. Those things have combined to change my stance. I am now pro-life and I talk about it. My conversion has probably intensified my feelings on abortion. But let us not even get into my religious reasons. My son has also made me more pro-life, but that is a matter of the heart. Let us not get  into the emotional reasons. Instead, how about the legal reason abortion would appear to be wrong.

Why is it illegal for a woman to perform an abortion on herself in most states? It should be perfectly legal for a women to induce her own abortion, since it is just a fetus and that is not considered to be a life. It is seen as, I guess I really don't know what it is seen as. It might have a heart beat, be able to feel pain and be able to move. That sounds like life to me, but what do I know? I am only a man!

Yet if a fetus is not a life, how can you charge someone else with killing it? There can be no manslaughter or homicide charge since it is just a fetus. Assault charges should apply for the attack on the woman, but murder or manslaughter charges for loss of fetus? You must be kidding! That is like me punching someone and rupturing their spleen then getting charged with murder for their spleen being destroyed.

If manslaughter or murder is a charge that can be levied against one who kills a fetus while in the mother's belly, that tells me the fetus is a life. If the fetus is a life, then a doctor should not be allowed to kill it. In most states doctor assisted suicide is illegal. It is illegal for a doctor to help you kill yourself, even if you are of sound mind and request it. How much more illegal should it be for anyone to kill a fetus, when it has no opportunity to weigh in on the subject.

If abortion is legal, then it should be legal for me to kill my own child when he is 6 weeks old. "I had sex and gave birth to him, and there is just no way that I could care for him. I am in college and this baby is inconvenient." I go to the doctor, who gives him a cocktail that ends his life and my life instantly becomes better. (Last statement not true, see below) Ultimately, what is the difference between 6 weeks in the womb and 6 weeks after birth?

I argue that they are both living, feeling, heart beat having individuals. If that is true, abortion sounds like the killing of something that is alive. Not to mention the impact abortion can have on women. I work with many women in the substance abuse field that have nightmares about abortions. Many more are carrying around depression, anger, self-loathing and guilt because of a past abortion. Abortion does not sound like the healthiest thing to do for the one who is pregnant or the fetus. What is the answer?

Imagine that I do not want to go to prison. I know that committing crimes will result in criminal charges which could result in my going to prison. Since prison is the end result I am wanting to avoid, I do not commit crimes. Now the problem is taken care of. No crimes, no prison.

Now we use that same line of reasoning with babies. I do not want a baby. I know that having sex can result in my having a baby if I were to get pregnant. Since pregnancy is the outcome I am avoiding, I do not have sex. Now the problem is taken care of. No sex, no babies.

Bottom line, if you are not responsible enough to raise a baby, you should not have sex. If having a baby is an inconvenience or financial burden you cannot deal with currently, be abstinent. Use some self-control and don't have sex. Problem solved.

In closing I just want to say thanks to my mother, who is pro-life. I would also like to thank the mothers of all who read this blog, as they chose to give birth to you instead of aborting you! Thanks Moms!!

P.S. - Some might argue about rape or incest being the primary reason for abortions, therefore abortions should be legal. The last statistics that I saw from Planned Parenthood's research affiliate the Guttmacher Institute said that rape and incest account for only 1-1.5% of abortions.

The Anniverary of Roe vs Wade: Why I Am Now Pro-Life

My son asked me a question last night. If he would have asked me the same question 2 months ago he would have gotten a different answer. He asked me to name the 5 people I love most. Two months ago the answer would have been God, Julie (my wife), him, my sister Michal and her daughter/my son's cousin/my niece Kelly. Last night, though, I told him God, Julie, him, his unborn brother/sister and my sister Michal.

Two months ago I found out that my wife was pregnant, and we were both overjoyed. At this time she was 4 weeks pregnant. She had a life inside of her. The heart of her fetus had already begun to beat. Blood was already beginning to flow through the vessels and arms and legs are already becoming visible. This is at the 4th and 5th weeks of gestation when the fetus is only 1 and 2 weeks old.

When I talked to my wife about my conversation with my son last night, she told me that yesterday was the anniversary of Roe versus Wade. It made me remember how I once felt. At one time, I fully thought that I had no right to say anything, since I was a man. Now that I am a father, however, I feel completely different. I would not even want to imagine my life without my son in it. Neither would I want to rob the world of my son, who is amazing and kind and intelligent.

I am pro-life now because I could not possibly imagine my son not living. I do not want to visualize a world without him in it. In the case of my unborn child, I could not imagine terminating a fetus with a heartbeat. To me that is murder. There is a heartbeat, and that is an innocent life. There will be some disagreements, and I will address the most recent one that I had here.

I have a friend that is an atheist, but is very involved in public service. She volunteers time with various non-profits, most of which goes to the American Cancer Society since her mother died from cancer several years ago. She and I had the discussion, because she has had an abortion.

"It did not hurt anybody. I chose to have an abortion because my mother had just died and I could not deal with raising a baby with everything else going on."

I asked her one question that stopped her cold in the conversation. "Your choice could have hurt everyone! What if the baby you terminated was going to cure cancer? What if she would have been the diplomat that forged world peace, or raised the child that accomplished it? We might aleady have a cure for AIDS and cancer if we did not abort babies."

"I never thought about it like that," was her reply.

I know that this is a very difficult issue to discuss. I am not one to cast stones at anyone. I just wanted to share my most recent thoughts on the issue. I feel that there are many things we do that are wrong ethically, morally and spiritually. Abortion is one of those things. I have heard the claim abortion doesn't hurt anyone, As a substance abuse counselor I deal with a lot of women who have carried the guilt of abortion with them for years. Simply thinking about it a decade later instantly brings them to tears, and I would not wish that kind of traumatic pain on anyone.

The truth is, there are far reaching consequences for both the person getting the abortion and the child that never got to grow. What if Martin Luther King, Jr.s mother would have aborted him? What if Marie Curie and Alexander Fleming had been aborted? What if your mother had aborted you, or the mother of your spouse had aborted them? The truth is, abortion is the killing of potential. We truly never know what could have been when abortion occurs. And "what if" is one of the hardest questions to live life without an answer for.