I recently shared a post about how the movie “Unplanned” is coming to Canada, after much opposition and boycott. I felt it would be educational to summarize the excessive comments.
First — it’s clear that people are passionate about the issue of abortion, no matter what side they are on. While I didn’t share this post to start a debate or get into the merits of abortions, that’s the rabbit hole that was followed...
Just to clarify, I don’t hate anyone. I love human beings (even the rude, vile & condescending ones haha). I love all human beings, no matter their size, age, or where they reside.
I’ll be honest, the negative response from the pro-choice, pro-abortion supporters was vile, to say the least. However, there were a few people who are “pro-choice” who were able to contribute positively, charitably and fruitfully. To you few—thank you. It was pleasant to discuss this issue that’s dear to so many hearts in a reasonable & charitable fashion. And though I know we didn’t change each other’s mind, I do feel we understand each other with more clarity. That’s always a good thing, and perhaps a good way to move forward.
Here is a summary of the major pro-abortion arguments raised in the comment threads from the post announcing the movies’ debut in Canada:
“It’s my RIGHT, it’s the law” — pro-abortion advocates said they are entitled to abortion because it’s their right, and it’s law. We’re not debating whether its law or not. We are discussing the merits, reasonableness and morality of abortion. Remember, slavery was legal too...
“It’s not human” — pro-abortion advocates said they should be able to terminate the fetus because it’s not “human”. But if it’s not human, what is it? A dog? A cat? It has human parents. It has human DNA. It’s human species.
“It’s not living” — pro-abortion advocates claimed the human fetus inside the womb is not living or alive. Yet, elementary biology states when cells begin to divide and grow, it’s a living thing. If a human fetus is not living, why do they need an abortion to kill it?
“You’re a man, therefore you can’t speak for women” — pro-abortion advocates claimed men should have NO say over their reproductive rights. That’s kind of like saying because I’m white, I cannot advocate for the rights and personhood of blacks, or because I’m a man, I can’t advocate for women to have voting rights... What this argument glaringly overlooks is that the Supreme Court judges on Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion rights for women in the US, were PREDOMINANTLY MALE. If your argument is that men can’t speak for women, then you can’t have it both ways.
“My body, my choice” — pro-abortion advocates claimed it’s a woman’s body, therefore it’s her “choice”. But let’s go back to the science. It’s NOT a woman’s body. A distinct, living, growing, human fetus is not simply another body part of the woman, it’s a distinct, living human being/entity/organism. Which leads us to the next argument...
“Bodily autonomy” — pro-abortion advocates suggested they have absolute right to bodily autonomy. Basically, they have full right to do whatever they wish with their body. But is that true? A large man who sits down on your wallet, could use this argument to suggest he doesn’t need to move for you to retrieve it. Someone exercising freedom of speech could yell “fire” in a crowded mall for no reasoning, causing mass panic. A person could urinate in public, or expose themselves indecently to children, because after all it’s their body. We do not have absolute bodily autonomy, and the protection of the right to life should be prioritized over all others, as it’s the most fundamental of all human rights.
“Not viable” — pro-abortion advocates suggested that if the baby isn’t viable outside the womb its just ground to terminate its life. But is an infant viable, a toddler, or even young children? Without life sustaining assistance, and without the use of someone’s bodily autonomy (in some capacity or another), they would die. Why is a pre-born human being any different?
“It’s just a collection of cells”— pro-abortion advocates suggested abortion is just because a fetus is simply a collection of cells. Yet mucus is also a collection of cells. Born adults are a collection of cells... the point here is that we need to define which “collection of cells” is permissible to terminate (such as mucus, or blood cells, etc.) and which are not reasonable or moral to terminate. Obviously not ALL collections of cells are permissible to terminate (ie. born humans), but why are smaller ones? Or younger ones? Or based on where they reside?
“You’re a Catholic!” — pro-abortion advocates kept wanting to bring up my faith and religion. Yet, I never once mentioned my faith, religion, or beliefs at ANY point in the discussion. In fact, it was ONLY the pro-choice advocates who kept trying to bring God into the discussion. I don’t think its even necessary to allude to faith or religion, to determine the merits, morality and reasonableness of abortion.
“You’re only PRO-BIRTH!” — pro-abortion advocates criticized the pro-life efforts, charging them of only trying to prevent abortions, but not caring for women, health, or children after they are born. Well since you brought up religion... the Catholic Church, who’s teachings are emphatically against abortion, also happens to be the largest non-governmental charity on the planet, educating and providing for more people than any other. [Agnew, John (12 February 2010). "Deus Vult: The Geopolitics of Catholic Church". Geopolitics. 15(1): 39–61.] How many pro-abortion advocates support & adopt in comparison?
“You’re intolerant” — pro-abortion advocates kept labelling the pro-life position as “anti-choice”, “anti-woman”, “oppressive”, and “intolerant”. However, simply swap out “abortion” with another issue such as “infanticide” (killing born children), and we can see how these labels quickly appear ridiculous. If a woman is overwhelmed with sustaining the life of her two year old (for whatever reason, such as relationship change, economical, health, etc.) it’s unreasonable and immoral to terminate the life of that tiny born human. Yet, applying that same logic to a tiny human who is slightly smaller or younger, should warrant the same unreasonableness. However, all of the sudden this becomes labelled “intolerance”. I don’t “tolerate” infanticide. We shouldn’t tolerate everything people want the “choice” to do.
“You’re deceptive & spreading lies” — pro-abortion advocates charged the pro-life position with spreading lies and being deceptive. This is ironic as the very movie this post is about “Unplanned” is a TRUE story based on the former Planned Parenthood director who also had two abortions (seems like no better of a creditable source). Yet it’s the very contributors to the pro-choice voice on the comment threads that want to censor this information. Over and over again the same meme was shared, providing “alleged” evidence to disprove the claims of the pro-life community. The problem is, nothing in the meme is what the pro-life community is advocating for. One example is the claim brought forth from pro-abortion advocates suggesting pro-lifers want the SAME rights for pre-born babies, as adults. That’s not true. I’m not advocating they should drive, or vote, or have maternity leave (especially if they are male)... We have distinct rights even among born people. Pro-life advocates want the basic right to life for pre-born human beings and those who are born, indiscriminate of age, size and location. The pro-abortion advocates share this straw man argument either ignorantly or intentionally, but ultimately its a lie. They are not pro-choice, they don’t want women to be informed, educated or empowered by fact, science and truth. That is no more than manipulation, oppression, and deception.
The fact of the matter is a fetus inside the woman’s womb is unique (not the woman’s body, but unique DNA), it’s living and growing (cells are diving, and abortion kills something living), it’s a human entity/being (not any other species, and not simply another body part). The pro-life position simply advocates that all human life deserves the fundamental right to life, above all other human rights. “Choosing” to terminate the life of a human being is immoral, unmerited and unreasonable and in the case of abortion is simply DISCRIMINATION. Discrimination based on age, size, location, and sadly in many parts of the world overwhelmingly because of gender (women mostly) and race (blacks).
One hundred years ago blacks were not “persons” and didn’t have rights. White’s held autonomy of property, that anything on their property they could do what they please (including abusing & killing blacks). One hundred years ago women didn’t have the same rights as men, for things like voting and weren’t considered “persons”. Today, if a human being is unwanted, someone can decide that human being isn’t a “person” based on their age, size and location (womb), and tragically that they don’t deserve the same fundamental right of protection of life.
Let’s learn from history, not repeat it. Let’s advocate for all human beings.
As Dr. Seuss said, “A person’s a person, no matter how small”.
While there were some less than charitable comments from the pro-life advocates, the comments from the pro-choice community were overwhelming vile, malicious, condescending, degrading and largely unreasonable. It’s sad that we live in the culture we do today. It’s even more sad that many people are not able to discuss humanely and reasonably, even if we don’t agree. The sheer hated, hostility and vulgar remarks speak volumes of the pro-abortion agenda and their demeanour. But I do thank the few charitable pro-abortion individuals who participated fruitfully towards honest and sincere discussion.
After all that. Go see the movie, maybe your perspective will be enlightened.
You can read my original Facebook post — https://www.facebook.com/111862045521044/posts/2947781058595781?sfns=mo