| Offended by the term ‘Baby Killers’ |
|
|
|
Feedback archive → Feedback 2001, 2006 Offended by the term ‘Baby Killers’12 February 2001; reposted and updated 25 August 2006 This week, we are revisiting a negative feedback from B.P. of England, because the abortion issue has been in the news recently in a number of countries. The letter is printed first in its entirety then with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Don Batten, interspersed as per normal email fashion. We have also updated with some new information about 4D (real-time) ultrasound and some further responses to this one. I was saddened to read the euthanasia and abortion section of your site. Using emotive terminology such as ‘Baby Killers’ is very disrespectful to those who do not share your views and those who have had to go through the ordeal themselves, as a friend of mine has done. Your judgemental attitude is blind and unfeeling for people who claim to be supporting human rights. To arrogantly assume you have the right to choose what people in circumstances you do not even know should do is disgusting. I don’t even care what your reasoning is, you should allow people to decide for themselves and not add to the hugely traumatic ordeal that having an abortion is. 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. Please re-write your sites material with concepts such as compassion and understanding actually considered. Yours Sincerely
It is simply stating a fact. Abortionists are killing human babies. They are not chopping up jellyfishes! Alas, pro-abortion propaganda conveniently forgets that there is another person involved (right). [With 4D ultrasound, it has become even harder for the lucrative abortion industry to hide the fact that they butcher babies. But the hard-core abortionists will ignore even this latest graphic evidence, since the root of abortion is an anti-biblical denial of the sanctity of innocent life.] Just assume for the sake of the argument that it is a real human baby and that intentional killing of innocent humans is wrong. Then it would follow that no amount of psychological trauma for a pregnant woman would justify taking an innocent life, especially in the horrifying ways that this life is taken—which no animal-rights activist would tolerate even for a laboratory rat. So we respond: ‘You have no right to be so judgmental of our euthanasia and abortion section when you haven’t been through the horrific experience that millions of unborn babies suffer every year.’ 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: A 2yo is so disruptive and causing such heartache for his solo mother that she wants him killed, and people support her ‘right to choose’ to kill her own child in the following ways (paralleling many ‘pro-choice’ arguments).
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 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. 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. Your judgemental attitude is blind and unfeeling for people who claim to be supporting human rights. To arrogantly assume you have the right to choose what people in circumstances you do not even know should do is disgusting. I don't even care what your reasoning is, you should allow people to decide for themselves and not add to the hugely traumatic ordeal that having an abortion is. 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. Please re-write your sites material with concepts such as compassion and understanding actually considered. Yours Sincerely Yes, the abortion industry is a horrible business that leaves women with deep emotional scars and much guilt over what they have participated in. Killing unborn babies is not the solution to anything and only brings more trouble on those involved. It is a sign of a very sick society that any woman feels that she has to abort her child—a society that has abandoned God (just as in Israel in the times of the kings when people abandoned obedience to God, they sacrificed their babies on the altar of the detestable god Molech). Many Christians are involved in providing support to women so that they can cope with all that bearing a child involves—many active creationists have been involved with Crisis Pregnancy Centers, for example. Many have been thankful of such support. Others have found forgiveness for the guilt for what they have done through Christ, since He died to bear our guilt before God. I suggest your anger should be directed at the abortion industry, not those like us who oppose this tyranny being paraded as ‘freedom of choice’. By the way, like most pro-life organisations, we do not condone or encourage violence towards anyone—that would be quite inconsistent with our biblical stand. At the moment, nothing in your letter has persuaded us to change anything on euthanasia and abortion section of our website. Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Don Batten Related feedback responses
|
|||||
