Disecting a No-Choice thinking process

Why Question the Anti-abortionists?

1) Because in their speeches, proclamations, literature, and web sites, the anti-abortion leaders are noted for declaring their unprovable, religious beliefs to be facts.. They will often rattle off a whole chain of assumptions, ”ifs,” fantasies, and religious beliefs and then tack on an absolute-therefore-conclusion. They then attempt to dictate secular law based on their unprovable, religious proclamations.

2) Because most listeners don't questions authority figures. They simply accept what they hear as being true.

3) Because, other than the Pro-Truth Team, nobody in the mainstream media is publicly demanding that the anti-abortion leaders prove the reality of their proclamations.

For this analysis we have chosen to focus of the web site of By Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke and their on-line book, We Can't Love them Both."

The information on this site clearly demonstrated the mind set and the thinking processes of the anti-abortion leaders.

Their mindless logic is challenged.

Their unprovable assumptions are challenged.

Their declarations of reality are challenged.

Their anti-abortion message is taken apart and seen from
a different viewpoint.

Much of the evidence is simply left out of their statements, declarations
and conclusions. That missing information is added and its
implications are discussed.

Fantasy is fine when it’s confined to one's own personal life; however, when the fundamentalist Christians attempt to force their religious beliefs onto others by way of government laws, it’s nothing short of religious tyranny.

www Abortion Facts www Abortion Facts ...

Abortion facts.com

http://www.abortionfacts.com
By Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke

By the name of their web site, the Wilkes are off to a great start. By using the name, Abortion facts, they're tacitly declaring that everything on the site is a fact. (i.e. actual verifiable reality) So, be a good Christian and don't question their opinions because they're not opinions. All of their statements are undisputable facts.

The Willkes obviously like themselves and think their rather highly talented. Here's their own description of their on-line book, Why Can't We Love Them Both?

"This book is the greatest single resource of educational information on abortion and related issues in the world."

In their description, if we substitute the word "fiction" for "educational information," we could be approaching accuracy. But then, please don't believe me. Read the analysis below, read their book, read the other evidence on this web site, read some anti-choice web sites, and then you decide what's real and what's fantasy. It's your choice to believe whatever suites you and then relate to abortion in whatever way you choose. That is, after all, what the God-granted right of self-determination is all about?

Two Core Questions

The first set of questions relates to the legal and technical aspects of abortion: This aspect of abortion controversy is getting all the media attention. This part deals with opinions, with beliefs, with laws, and with the effort of the fundamentalist Christian leaders' to force their ways onto the rest of us. It deals with questions like, "When does life begin?"

The second set of questions relates to the present-day, physical reality, to the ethics of behavior, and to the consequences of the anti-abortion war: These are the day-to-day, practical aspect of the controversy and can be summarized in one simple question:

"How do we save the most innocent lives with the least cost in terms of money, time, effort, misery, and loss of life?"

We'll start with the legal/ technical questions.

The Core Legal Questions:

The core questions in the legal aspect of the abortion controversy revolve around answering unanswerable questions such as: What is a human being? What is a person? What is life? What is the source of life? How has life arisen? What is a soul? When does life begin? Did a human being exist before conception? What happens when the body dies? For a more complete list of key, abortion-related questions, please go to the page titled: Questions Without Answers

Here are some Willke-style "undisputable facts" relating to the answers for the above unanswerable questions. (If you consider fairytale answers such as those quoted below, you could say the unanswerable question are actually answerable.)

What is a Person:

In Chapter Two of their on-line book, "Why Can't We can't Love Them Both," they offers us the definition of a person:

"DEFINE PERSON: Person is defined in at least a dozen different ways, according to the field or discipline in which you define it. In theology it usually means when the soul is created."

Can somebody please tell us where the facts are in that definition?

Counting Oranges as Apples:

The above, so-called definition of "person" immediately drags us into Christian theology by implying that a person is something separate from God and that its existence begins when this separate something is created by God. The anti-choice people believe that the existence of each human being begins at conception and lasts forever. They also believe that humans live only once on Earth and then go to heaven, to hell, or into "God's Cosmic Trash Bin" forever.

Are they right? In order to correctly and conclusively answer that question, you must first answer the core questions mentioned above. The Willkes go on to say:

"In law (in the U.S.), personhood begins at birth. Other countries have ruled that it begins at different ages. In medicine and natural science, person usually means when the being is alive and complete. In philosophy it has multiple meanings and shades of meanings. We strongly suggest that no one use this term without first defining precisely what you mean by it; for, unless you do, any discussion of personhood is foolish."

Can somebody please tell us where the facts are in that statement? They appear to be using the data that supports abortion rights in order to build a case against those rights.

The authors are saying that there is no single, clear, universally accepted definition of personhood. They are also telling us that if you want to talk about personhood, first make up, decide on, or choose a definition and then that's what personhood means. Which side are these people on?

The Missing Pieces:

The Willkes' definition of a person completely ignores the religious beliefs of about two billion humans (that's Billion with a "B") who believe that creating a physical human body has nothing whatsoever to do with creating a soul.

In this area, the Willkes are in alignment with typical anti-choice literature which simply ignores anything that does not fit the Christian definition of reality. They conveniently leave out the fact that about two billion people (2,000,000,000) believe:

1) that each human is a part of God,

2) that, as eternal divine beings, they always were
and always will be,

3) that there is no such thing as "being created by God."

Easter Bunny Easter Bunny ...

Life -- According to the Willkes:

They define "alive and "human" in biological terms such as alive "means not being dead" and "a human" is something that is different from rabbits and carrots. Here are their exact words:

"Define 'Human' Human means one of the biological beings who be-longs to the species Homo Sapiens. Such beings are unique from all other beings in that they have 46 human chromosomes in every cell. Such beings do not belong to the rabbit family, the carrot family, etc."

Do you suppose the Easter Bunny had a hand in writing the above definition in order to clearly distance himself from the anti-abortionist humans?

What Is Life? Here's the Willke definition of a human life:

"DEFINE HUMAN LIFE: This is the question that must first be considered, pondered, discussed, and finally, answered. It cannot be brushed aside or ignored. It must be faced and met honestly. Upon its answer hinges the entire abortion question, as all other considerations pale to insignificance when compared with it. In a sense, nothing else really matters. If what is growing within the mother is not [an independent] human life, if it is just a piece of tissue — a glob of protoplasm — then it deserves little respect or consideration, and the primary concern should be the mother’s physical and mental health, her social well-being, and, at times, even her convenience."

Under the heading "Define Human Life" they don't define anything. They merely offer a dissertation on the importance of the question, "What is a human life?". And, unless they can provide evidence which proves that God's conception magic act is true and it really happens, then they are again making the case for abortion rights.

The Willkes offer a rather simplistic definition of life by confining their definition to biological terms only; however, their definition is about as useful in defining life as is what the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the topic. That book offers a six-thousand, four-hundred, and fifty-four-word (6,454-word) dissertation on the word "life" and the definition is still not clear.

Here are more Willke words:

"NOW THE THREE QUESTIONS There are three questions that are basic to the entire abortion controversy:

The first is: 'Is this [zygote/embryo/fetus] human life?' As we will see, the answer clearly is Yes. That answer is a medical and scientific one, for we cannot impose a religious or philosophic belief in our nations through force of law.

The second question is: 'Should we grant equal protection by law to all living humans in our nation?' or, 'Should we allow discrimination against entire classes of living humans?'

The third question is about Choice and Women’s Rights."

Question one is a take-off into the tired, old alive/human/and unique argument. Of course it's human. Like everything else in the physical universe, it's also unique And of course it's alive, but is it what we call life? Or more accurately, is it an independent life? Again we refer you to the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. We also refer you to the Willke's own words

"We strongly suggest that no one use this term [life] without first defining precisely what you mean by it; for, unless you do, any discussion of personhood is foolish."

Question two deals with common human decency and is applicable to every aspect of life. We can assume that the question also relates to abortion. If so, then it bring us back to defining "living humans." What is life? Here's the Willke's words again:

"We strongly suggest that no one use this term [life] without first defining precisely what you mean by it; for, unless you do, any discussion of personhood is foolish."

Their third question isn't a question at all. Is there anybody here that doesn't know that the discussion is about "Choice and Women’s Rights?"

Another Declaration of Reality:

Their choice to define life in biological terms only, limits their discussion to medicine and biology, and nobody that this author is aware of is disputing medical or biological aspects of pregnant eggs.

In typical ant-abortion fashion, they have simply declared their belief to be reality. They have proclaimed abortion to be a non-religious issue. BUT, the Evidence points to exactly the opposite. -- that abortion is a religious issue. The overwhelming evidence indicate that abortion is also a religious freedom issue. °

By defining life in biological terms only and by declaring reality (i. e. "abortion is not a religious issue") they completely ignore the core issue again: What is a human being? What is a person? What is life? What is the source of life? How has life arisen? What is a soul? When does life begin? Did a human being exist before conception? What happens when the body dies?

Facts Versus Opinion: On their web site and immediately following the above three questions, they add a new section under the heading "COMMENT." By adding a section called "Comment" underneath their web site title "Abortion facts" implies that everything above the heading, "comment," is fact (i.e. the real and absolute truth) and not opinion.

Where Are Their Facts: Other than "this issue is very confusing," can you find any facts in their statements? Here's one possibility. Actually it's another opinion, but the evidence certainly indicates that it's also true.

"We strongly suggest that no one use this term [life] without first defining precisely what you mean by it; for, unless you do, any discussion of personhood is foolish."

I'll take the liberty of editing their statement:

"Any discussion of personhood is foolish. Any discussion of personhood is foolish. Any discussion of personhood is foolish. Any discussion of personhood is foolish. Any discussion of personhood is foolish. Do I need to continue, or have you gotten the picture.

Everybody Is the Good Guy:

Now all of the above is not written to put down the Willke's or anybody else. They, like the rest of us, are doing what they consider to be right. They do make a good case for honoring our fellow humans.

What they don't do and what they completely ignore is the evidence, or more accurately, the lack of evidence. There is no proof to support the belief that God's conception magic act is actual verifiable reality. There is no proof to support the belief that a human being is his or her physical body. There is no proof that life begins at conception or at any other time. There is no proof to support their assertion that abortion is not a religious issue.

There is no proof to support their implied declaration that reincarnation is a false belief. In so doing, they completely ignore the beliefs and the religious rights of about at least a billion of their fellow humans. There is no proof whatsoever to support their silent assertion that those who believe in reincarnation do not have the right to practice their religion. They are also in total denial of the First Amendment of the Unites States Constitution which in essence says that everyone has the right to practice their own religion.

As they so eloquently acknowledged, we simply don't have a single, clear, concise answers to numerous, abortion-related questions, questions such as:

What is a human being?

What is a person?

What is life?

What the source of life?

How has life arisen?

What is a soul?

When does life begin?

Is God's conception magic act fact or fiction?

Did a human being exist before conception?

What happens when the body dies?

In the Absence of Evidence:

So, what do we do in the absence of conclusive evidence? What do we do when we don't know the answer? Most of us take one of the three options below:

1) We make up a story and declare it to be reality. We refuse to examine any evidence that conflicts with our story. We may attempt to force others to practice our beliefs. And some can even murder those who disagree with us.

2) We examine the available evidence, create the most probable theory, continue to look for additional evidence, test the theory in our lives, and make changes when new evidence becomes available.

3) We ignore the issue and let others run our lives.

Which of these do you choose?

If you look at the basic philosophy of Christianity, and if you put the theory of reincarnation back in, the entire anti-abortion conflict disappears.

For example, in Japan, where reincarnation is a significant factor in the country's major religions, abortion is a non-issue.

Reincarnation was a common belief in the days when the Christian Bible was written. The Bible makes countless references to the cultural habits and beliefs of that era. Why then, is something so basic to the people of the day completely absent in today's version of that book? Check these four pages for the answers:

Was Reincarnation edited out of the Christian Bible?° 73

What Are the Real intentions of the Anti-Abortionist leaders?° 72

Is Christianity Being Threatened by Abortion Rights?° 66

Controversy Sells! And It's a Multi-billion Dollar Business° 66

If we actually practiced religious freedom, the entire abortion controversy would disappear. But as we all know, religious freedom is for the fundamentalist Christian anti-abortionists only.