The Bible is the Only Real Answer to Abortion

Read the following article here:

http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/no-pro-life-fanatic-could-ever-possibly-dispute

Here is my take on this work.

Number 1 presupposes that person being argued with believes in parental responsibility.  But it is obvious that she does not.

I disagree with numbers 2 and 3 because these are based on arguments which presuppose that the baby was conceived through consensual means (i.e. not by rape).  But it is just as wrong to intentionally kill an unborn baby conceived by rape as it is to intentionally kill any other innocent human being.  These arguments only have the ability to convince a murderer to murder fewer people.

I disagree with number 4 because, what if a baby were implanted in the mother's uterus by artificial means (in vitro fertilization, cloning, etc.)?  It would be just as wrong to kill that baby as it would be to kill a baby conceived by natural means.

Number 5 is a good point, but again, suppose that a baby could be removed from the mother's uterus and left to die without "actively" killing the baby?  Again, it would be just as wrong.

Number 6 makes the assumption that other person doesn't actually believe in absolute bodily autonomy and that it has found a counterexample.  But some extreme libertarians actually would go that far--to the point that parents can simply abandon their children knowing that that would result in their deaths.  The author offers no reason why this is immoral as an argument against such extreme libertarians.  And the argument that he does use might even drive a reprobate like the one he is arguing with to conclude that such an extreme position is reasonable. 

Number 7 has the same flaw as number 6.  It presupposes that the person that he arguing with would find late term abortions unacceptable.  This is even more unlikely to work than the abandonment argument.

Number 8 is basically the same as number 6.

Number 9 is an example of what an extreme libertarian would permit as long as the man was not trespassing on private property.  Furthermore, this is not an example of someone being forced to do something (which was the crux of Rachel's argument), but rather a prohibition.

Number 10 is a simply a generalization of all the previous arguments.

You can find similar (moderately) libertarian pro-life arguments here:

http://www.l4l.org/library/index.html

But none of these arguments would work on someone like Murray Rothbard and some might even be persuaded by these to become more like him.

When it comes right down to it, the Biblical command to put people to death for murder (Genesis 9:6) is the only sure fire argument.  If someone does not accept the Bible as God's Word, then they most likely will not accept any other argument no matter how clever or well thought out, and even if they do, they will still be unbelievers who we should "come out from them and be separate" and with whom we should not be "unequally yoked".  A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.  There are places in the Bible where God gave commandments to kill infants.  God can make any exception to any rule He wants and therefore any set of arguments would necessarily have to take God's Sovereignty into account, but Matt Walsh's arguments do not.   

I sincerely hope that Matt Walsh's arguments will convince some of their hypocrisy and inconsistency so that they will come to the knowledge of Yahshua Messiah (Jesus Christ).  But spiritual things cannot be discerned by the natural mind until the person is regenerated.