As any pro-life activist can attest, conversations with so-called “pro-choice” people rarely stays on point. This most often is due to the “pro-choice” person wanting to change the topic of conversation. The topic they seem to harbor on commonly are supposed major environmental concerns.
We all know the claims.
The ozone is supposedly eroding and we will soon all melt away.
The world is overpopulated and so we will suffer a worldwide food shortage. Millions of people will starve to death.
The world’s bee population or the possible extinction of endangered species are supposedly more important than the lives of human beings.
I figured I would comprise a list of four reasons pro-lifers call into question these major environmental concerns.
1. THERE IS AN INFINITE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE BETWEEN A HUMAN BEING AND ANY OTHER LIVING CREATURE
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” – Genesis 1:27
Of all the many living creatures in existence, only one can claim to be made in God’s image. That is the human being.
Humans share an intellectual capacity unmatched by any other creature. More importantly, they are the only earthly creatures to possess immortal souls.
To care for well-being of all living creatures is admirable. We just must all agree that not all living creatures share the same value.
Sounding the alarm bells over deforestation or melting snow caps does nothing to change these facts.
It is hard to take seriously someone who cares more about rabbits being sprayed in the eyes with hair spray than whether human babies live or die.
2. MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS DO NOT PERMIT MURDER
A moral principle seemingly lost on many “pro-choice” people remains this one:
Evil cannot be done so that good comes from it.
Or, in other words, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Even if I were to grant them for the sake of argument, that would not justify murdering the unborn.
All the pigs to have ever lived do not come close to matching the dignity and eternal worth of a single human life. Sorry, Peter Singer.
3. IT’S HARD TO TAKE SERIOUSLY “PRO-CHOICE” PEOPLE’S SUPPORT FOR ABORTION, WHEN THEY WON’T DISCUSS IT DIRECTLY
Anyone who advocates for, defends, or even condones such evil clearly has their moral bearings off-center.
Subconsciously, they realize this. That is why they do not bother discussing actual abortion procedures.
To claim beheading unborn babies or tearing off each of their limbs with forceps is “humane” would be diabolical.
So instead, they want to shift the debate to “rights,” to “choice,” to “freedom,” and to the death penalty. Anything and everything is open to discussion, except the abortion procedure they advocate for.
After all, abortion is indefensible.
4. IT APPEARS MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS MAY BE MERE COMPENSATION, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?
I can’t help but think philosopher and author, J. Budzisewski is dead on when he gets into the thought process of an abortion advocate. He speaks of them in the first person:
Author, J. Budziszewski likens setting up a diversion to this:
“Because I refuse to give my real transgressions, I invest other things with inflated significance and give up those things instead. Perhaps I have pressured three girlfriends into abortion, but I oppose war and capital punishment, I don’t wear fur, and I beat my chest with shame whenever I slip and eat red meat. Easier to face invented guilt than the thing itself” (emphasis added, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide. Ignatius Press: San Francisco, pg. 152).
Such moral depravity becomes apparent when someone advocates for abortion.
After all, what is surgical abortion? Why, it is the murder of an unborn human being to prevent his or her birth.
And who could ever defend that?
But they have to convince themselves, even more than you, that they are not bad people. Their hearts bleed for the animals, for the trees, for the polar ice caps, after all.
Can you agree with the items on this list?
Anything you would add?