Since people generally have short attention spans, quick sound bites like these pictures are effective marketing. Also the number of logical fallacies I detect in her arguments in this one picture is astounding. I miss nuanced reasoning and I wish I could bring that back into vogue.
Lindy says “Anti-choice people are not trying to stop abortion.” Framing the discussion this way does a great disservice to people who are fighting for the rights of pre-born humans to live.
It is true that people fighting against abortion are trying to legislate who can and can’t have abortions, because that is one way we can reduce the number of abortions that occur: writing laws that restrain or qualify the conditions in which an abortion should occur.
The rightness of fighting abortion does not depend on the character of conservative politicians. This is a red herring.
Are there conservative politicians who have wives, mistresses, and daughters who may get an abortion somewhere? Maybe. Their hypocrisy may undermine their credibility, but the moral rightness of protecting the lives of unborn children still stands.
People generally agree that honesty is a good thing to pursue. But people who promote this virtue may still lie. Does that negate the fact that honesty is a worthwhile virtue to pursue? By no means!
The apostle Paul made a similar argument: “What if some [Jews] were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.””(Romans 3:3-4)
Lindy continues: “All Anti-choice rhetoric does is keep people trapped in poverty for generations. That’s the goal…”
From a purely pragmatic perspective, yes, abortion prevents people from having to pay for childcare, diapers, baby food, milk, cribs, clothes, dental and healthcare, car, and college education.
But we would not counsel low-income families to kill their own children just to save money, and since pre-born humans are just as valuable as children in low-income families, their lives are worth protecting too. That’s the goal.
I vigorously disagree with how Lindy defines what the goal of “pro-lifers” is when she is making a straw-man argument.
Also, to make the goal of protecting viable pre-born humans from being killed through medical procedures contingent on spending time and money on comprehensive sex education, free birth control, and free contraception is terrible.
I basically hear this statement as “We will keep killing babies in the womb so long as we do not get comprehensive sex education, free birth control, and free contraception.”
Contraceptives are fine, birth control methods that are not abortifacient, are fine, but people should really pay for these things on their own if they wish. To make these things “free,” means using taxes, which are ultimately other people’s money. In a sense, we would be forcing other people to pick up the bill for your own sexual decisions.
Abstinence is still a viable option for people. You can say no to sex for any reason ranging from saving yourself for marriage to making a political statement against the patriarchy. We are not slaves to our sexual desires. We can exercise self-control to a degree. We are also not entitled to sex. We can find pleasure in romance and in life in other ways.
As for comprehensive sex education, if by this we mean teaching students basic human anatomy about our genitals, that’s a good start. If we start stretching the definition to include conversations revolving around our gender identity and sexual orientation, that’s a different story. There is a place for talking about them since we do have people who experience gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction, and the least we can do is acknowledge that these realities exist and to do what we can to protect people from experiencing bullying and harassment.
But while these options Lindy proposes are something to consider, the goal of protecting pre-born humans from being murdered in their mothers’ wombs in arbitrary fashion remains important independently of those options.
Jesus says, ““When evening comes, you say, ‘The weather will be fair, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but not the signs of the times.” (Matthew 16:2-3)
He spoke to the Pharisees and Sadducees as if they have the capacity to understand His words as thinking, reasonable people, but that they do not apply their reasoning skills consistently.
That is what I am trying to do here.
People who are dead in their sins still have a moral compass, but they apply it inconsistently. More often than not, they call evil good and good evil. They know God’s righteous decree that those who kill humans in the womb deserve to die, but they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it – the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
From where I stand, both the left and the right would benefit from repenting and believing in the gospel. To get out of your respective echo chambers, see things with God-given grace-enabled Spirit-empowered eyes, and come closer to a common middle ground together as both sides stand united in Christ.