Sticker shock: Pro-abortion slogans may sound profound to some people, but they add up to nonsense

WORLD ^ | 1/17/04 | Justin Taylor

[Caleb1411]

STARING AT THE BACK OF A CAR DURING A RED light can be a mundane experience—or it can be an opportunity to think through the logic of a worldview. I recently noticed a bumper sticker that read: "AGAINST ABORTION? DON'T HAVE ONE!"

We can smirk at the logic or think through how we'd respond. This argument works when dealing with preferences. "Against broccoli? Don't eat it!" It doesn't work, however, with claims of objective morality. That's why we don't see bumper stickers that read: "Against genocide? Don't commit it!" Or: "Against rape? Don't do it!" Those slogans confuse categories. Pro-lifers are not simply expressing preferences; they are making arguments that abortion is an objective moral wrong.

The same car had another sticker slapped onto its bumper: "IF YOU CAN'T TRUST ME WITH A CHOICE, HOW CAN YOU TRUST ME WITH A CHILD?"

The virtue or vice of a "choice" is dependent upon its object and outcome. Choosing to punch a pillow is rather innocent; choosing to punch a woman is contemptible. Choosing to elect a president is good; choosing to kill him is evil. The logic of this bumper sticker makes perfect sense if you assume that the "choice" has two legitimate, positive outcomes. When that is the case, we rightly implore: "Trust me." But we don't say that when one of the choices entails something evil. Which is why we wouldn't think it profound for a young man to say: "If you can't trust me with the choice of beating my fiance, how can you trust me with marrying her?"

Christians have our own fair share of bumper stickers with faulty logic. As Christians, we are called to mature reasoning, not childish thinking (1 Corinthians 14:20; 13:11). On the issue of abortion, the moral, legal, and scientific facts are on our side. We must master them and consider how and where and when to share them.

It has now been 31 years since the Supreme Court issued its landmark Roe vs. Wade decision. Over half of Americans think that some abortions should be legal. But virtually no one thinks that unwanted newborns may be murdered. So here's the crucial question that we should ask: Why should newborns have a right that pre-borns in the womb do not? Why should we protect one and not the other?

Scott Klusendorf of Stand to Reason, citing the work of Stephen Schwarz, has pointed out that there are only four differences between a pre-born and a newborn. They can be remembered through the acronym SLED and turned into insightful questions:

Size: Does how big you are determine who you are? Is Arnold Schwarzenegger more of a person than Gary Coleman?

Level of development: Does how developed you are determine who you are? Is the burly football player more of a person than a prepubescent boy?

Environment: Does where you are determine who you are? Does sitting inside a house make you more or less a person than one sitting outside a house?

Degree of dependency: Does dependence upon another determine who you are? Is a diabetic on kidney dialysis less of a person than those who do not need such support?

None of these differences determines whether or not you are a person. As Princeton philosopher Peter Singer writes, "The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right." One must either go with Mr. Singer's chilling conclusion—that "human babies ... are not persons" and that infanticide can be justified!—or reason that since there is no morally relevant difference between a pre-born and a newborn, and since a newborn has a right to life, then a pre-born has a right to life.

This is the key to answering questions like: What about rape? What about incest? What if the baby is deformed? What if she is unwanted? The best way to respond is to ask these questions about a newborn. Would any of these situations gives us a reason to kill the newborn? Of course not. But then we have returned to the original question: What is the morally relevant difference between a pre-born and a newborn?

Arguments like this cannot be easily expressed on billboards or bumper stickers, but they are key tools if we are to cultivate, by grace, what President Bush has called "a culture of life in America." Perhaps the next time you have an opportunity, you'll pray for grace, take a risk, and—with humility and hope— start a conversation.

[Paleo Conservative]

Oh just let the pro abortionists abort their offspring. Eventually pro abortionists will be outbred by pro life supporters. Why do you think the pro abortion side is losing ground among the generation of young adults today?

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
7	Michigan	1,110.00	9	123.33	373	2.98	95.00	9

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[CyberAnt]

The best bumper sticker I ever saw was this:

SMILE! YOUR MOTHER CHOSE LIFE!!

[Erik Latranyi]

The easiest way to point out the hypocrisy of the anti-life movement is as follows:

(1) Most states charge a murderer with TWO homocides when they kill a pregnant woman.

(2) Every mother who has a miscarriage cries.

[Straight Vermonter]

Against wife beating? Don't beat one.

[pogo101]

My other bumper-sticker pet peeve is the "Darwin fish."

Although clearly meant as a response to the "Jesus fish" many cars have, the fact is that there is no contradiction whatsoever between (a) the message of the Jesus fish and (b) a belief in Darwinian natural selection.

The message of the Jesus fish, to state it briefly and as I understand it, is simply invoking what was once a secret sign -- in ancient Roman-occupied areas -- to mark meeting places for early Christians who, if discovered by authorities, would become lion food. (The reason they chose that symbol is because it hearkened back to Jesus' instruction to his apostles to be as "fishers of men.") All the symbol is saying is, "Attention, Christians: I am one of you (us)."

What it's NOT saying is, "I am a Biblical literalist and therefore believe that God literally created Earth and the life upon it in 6 days, much less than billions of years ago. I don't believe in evolution by natural selection."

Plenty of Christians believe in Darwinian evolution, whether or not that phenomenon is at least occasionally given a supernatural helping hand. Darwin was a NON-lapsed Christian when he wrote The Descent Of Man, for gosh sakes.

Yet all these "Darwin fish"-bearing car's owners think they're being soooooooooooooo clever. In fact, they're showing me that they're idiots -- and I'd know that even if I were an atheist.

[Paul Atreides]

Last night, I checked across Spike tv and they were showing the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode in which Troi is impregnated by a presence. The next day, they are all having a meeting, discussing the pregnancy. On one of the monitors is an image of the fetus (how anyone can deny that it isn't a living person is scandalous). Then, they all decide whether it is a threat to the ship. The suggestion that the child be aborted is strongly suggested. Although Troi announces that she will have the child, a surprising pro-life message (how did they get by with that one?!), I could not help but think that the Enterprise crew is one that will make every effort to kiss any hostile alien's backside, yet is all to willing to abort a child. It reminds me of the murderer-coddlers and animal-rights wackos.

[mc5cents]

Our country was founded on the right to life. The Declaration of Independence proclaims it with these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I believe that the SCOTUS was completely wrong in Roe v Wade, it completely ignored the principals that this country was founded on and stood for up to that ignominious day. IMHO.

[Carry_Okie]

You know, as much as I disagree with abortion, this author makes an appeal to reason, and then, by omission, proves himself incapable of it. He asks the question:

What is the morally relevant difference between a pre-born and a newborn?

without acknowledging the key distinction:

A pre-born is inside another human being, possessing Constitutional rights as a US citizen. The newborn is a separate individual, legally declared to be a US citizen.

[muir_redwoods]

I love the slogan "Abortion is a dead Issue". "Issue" is a legal term-of-art for children and I am fond of telling peole that I am pro choice, on guns. You know, as in, "Against Guns? Don't Buy One"

[mc5cents]

A pre-born is inside another human being,(a redundancy, if you are pre-born you are by definition "inside another human being") possessing Constitutional rights as a US citizen.(Who owns the Constitutional rights? The pre-born or the container, or both?) The newborn is a separate individual, (And the pre-born is, what exactly then?) legally declared to be a US citizen.

What is the point you are trying to make here? That the container has rights as a US citizen but the pre-born does not? Once you are "delivered" you have "rights" but as long as you are in a container you have none?

Explain please.

[Let's Roll]

I saw the two bumper stickers below on the same car at the same stoplight on two different days. Both times the driver was a young woman, running her mouth to the extent that she didn't even see the light turn green. Oblivion is obviously her name as she apparently also doesn't see the conflict in her bumper stickers.

Keep Your Laws Off of My Body          Repeal the Death Penalty

[Carry_Okie]

You are either playing word games, pretending ignorance (which is dishonest), or unaware of what the 14th Amendment says (which I doubt).

[mc5cents]

You are either playing word games, pretending ignorance (which is dishonest), or unaware of what the 14th Amendment says (which I doubt).

XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, what does that have to do with the question? Is that pre-born a person, or not? Do you have to be a "citizen" to have the right to life? Is that not a "catch 22" question?

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[swilhelm73]

I'm still wondering when the "Keep Your Laws Off of My Body" types will get around to fighting to legalize prostitution and pedophilia. I mean aren't those laws stunning examples of the government forcing its views of morality on others?

But then feminism is based on nothing if not hypocrisy. Women and men are the same, but women are better then men. An unborn child isn't a child, but his/her father is liable for child support even if he doesn't want the child before it is born. Men have no right to decide abortion laws, but we must fight to the death to save Roe v Wade the all-male decision legalizing abortion in America. I could go on, but I think this makes the point rather obvious.

[swilhelm73]

Do you have to be a "citizen" to have the right to life? Is that not a "catch 22" question?

You realize murdering resident aliens is against the law, right? So it really isn't a catch 22 question at all.

Abortion is illegal, as murder, throughout America, but we've allowed seven old men to overturn those laws by fiat for some bizarre reason that certainly has *nothing* to do with the US Constitution.

[Robert A Cook PE]

My bumper sticker says,

"Abortion? The Supreme Court also declared slaervy legal."

[Robert A Cook PE]

'Course, they also spelled "slavery" right ... 8<)