A couple of weeks ago, a journalist from the Montreal newspaper La Presse, Patrick Lagacé, wrote a scathing article on Cardinal Ouellet for this pro-life stance, even in the case of conception through rape.  Lagacé was the one who wished that the Cardinal would die a slow and painful death.

I just sent Lagacé an email in which I challenge him to examine a series of 12 logical propositions that progressively lead to the conclusion that abortion, even in the case of rape, is a grave injustice.  No need to refer to the Bible or any divine revelation.  I’ve challenged him to tell me which of these propositions is false.  I’ll keep you posted of his response.  The 12 propositions are copied below.

By the way, I personally know two women who were victims of rape.  I accompanied them for several years as they tried to put their lives back together.  From the depths of their anguish, they still had enough common sense to realize that an abortion could not undo the rape they suffered.

I encourage all of you to write an email to Lagacé to respectfully express your disapproval of his views.  If he wants to start smearing our beloved Cardinal Ouellet, he’s gonna have to pay the price and take some heat from displeased readers.  You can email him at this address:  plagace@lapresse.ca

Demonstration that aborting a child conceived through rape is a grave injustice

  1. Every species on Earth can only reproduce after its own kind (for example, rabbits can only give birth to other rabbits, dogs can only give birth to puppies, etc.).
  2. Therefore, a fetus is of human nature.
  3. The fetus is clearly alive, as witnessed by its continual growth, its need for nutrition and hydration, its beating heart, its brain waves, etc.
  4. From 2 and 3, we deduce that the fetus is alive and human.
  5. The fetus has a distinct and unique human DNA, different from its mother and from any other human being.
  6. The fetus has all the components to develop into a complete and independent human organism.
  7. From 4, 5 and 6, we deduce that a fetus is a living human being distinct from its mother.
  8. Intentionally ending the life of an innocent living human being is a grave injustice.
  9. Abortion ends the life of the fetus.
  10. From 8 and 9, we deduce that abortion is a grave injustice.
  11. While rape is a grave injustice towards the woman, this tragedy does not alter points 1 through 10.
  12. Therefore, we deduce that aborting a fetus conceived through rape remains a grave injustice, as per 10.

Q.E.D

3 Responses to “Challenging a La Presse journalist on the logic of his pro-abort stance”
  1. SUZANNE says:

    I think Patrick Lagacé is a waste of bandwidth.

  2. Rob H. says:

    A sperm is a living cell.

    Likewise, so is an egg or ovum.

    Are we to hold funerals every time a man has a wet dream or a woman menstruates. Both hold the “potential” of human life.

    But the argument goes, they don’t have the potential to, individually, become a human.

    Neither does a fertilzed egg unless carried inside the mother much farther along that the first trimester.

    And what is the point about DNA being distinct? Are we to then conclude that identical twins, or better yet, cloned human beings would be expendible?

    In any event, not every loss of human life is an injustice – because you say it’s so, doesn’t make your argument more convincing. So, in my mind, point number 8 has just lost your whole argument, even assuming I buy into points 1 to 7.

    When a doctor and family opts to end the suffering of a seriously afflicted senior, without functioning consciousness, me and millions of others see that as merciful.

    When the state, in order to protect it’s citizens or others, engages in war and civilians are killed in the act of war, that is a necessar evil to combat evil and is not a grave injustice.

    So.

    Now that we have accepted that the cessation of human life is acceptable in some circumstances, it simply becomes an issue of drawing lines in places that are socially acceptable.

    While I wish you well in sharing your point of view with others, and champion your right to try and convince others to see your point of view, as a pro-choice conservative, if the Conservative party ever adopts a theocratic approach to governing, that will be the day I will vote Liberal.

    At the end of the day, anti-choice arguments are theological in origin. And theology is for the church and for the family – but have no place in my notion of government.

    I don’t want Muslims telling me how to live, and I don’t like it any better when it’s a Christian.

  3. Steve G says:

    Thanks for commenting. You present some interesting arguments. Allow me respond.

    Are we to hold funerals every time a man has a wet dream or a woman menstruates. Both hold the “potential” of human life.

    Not a good example. A sperm cell or an ovum in isolation has no more capacity for life than a skin cell or muscle cell.

    But the argument goes, they don’t have the potential to, individually, become a human. Neither does a fertilzed egg unless carried inside the mother much farther along that the first trimester.

    First, the science of this statement is inaccurate. The fertilized egg doesn’t “become” human, as you say. It’s already human from the point of conception, hence the relevance of my point on DNA.

    Leaving aside that point, your statement only proves than the fetus is dependent on its Mom. The same is true of a newborn, a 2-year old toddler or a 5-year old. None of these kids could survive without “high maintenance” from their parents. That doesn’t make them any less valuable. I’m sure you would never kill you toddler just because he/she can’t live on it’s own. Dependency is not a logical criteria to discriminate between the value of life forms because every human being must go through a period of complete and total dependency in the first years of life.

    And what is the point about DNA being distinct? Are we to then conclude that identical twins, or better yet, cloned human beings would be expendible?

    See my previous point. The point about DNA is also pertinent because feminists continue to argue that a fetus is part of their body. This is implicit in their slogans like “my body, my choice”. DNA analysis has debunked this argument forever. Since the fetus is not part of their body, feminists need to realize that a pregnancy involves the responsibility for two separate bodies and two separate lives.

    In any event, not every loss of human life is an injustice – because you say it’s so, doesn’t make your argument more convincing. So, in my mind, point number 8 has just lost your whole argument, even assuming I buy into points 1 to 7.

    I give you credit for recognizing that you disagree with point #8. Most people don’t realize it. I never said that every loss of human life is an injustice. I said that “Intentionally ending the life of an innocent living human being is a grave injustice.” There are some important words in there that make a world of difference. More on that below.

    When a doctor and family opts to end the suffering of a seriously afflicted senior, without functioning consciousness, me and millions of others see that as merciful.

    But we’re not talking about euthanasia here. Leaving that aside, consider this: look back into history and examine every instance in which governments have decided which lives have value and which don’t. You’ll see that in every instance, it resulted in disastrous abuse and discrimination. Whether it be Black slaves that could be killed at will by their owners, or Jews who could be killed by the Nazis, or Blacks in South Africa that were marginalized under Apartheid, or the ethnic cleansing of the Bosnians by the Serbs, or the extermination of Tutsis in Rwanda. We’ve had experience of this in Canada too. Remember how Aboriginals were not initially considered “persons” under the law and were treated brutally. The Québécois were also severely repressed for centuries by the English because they were considered contemptible. Even women were not considered “persons” under the law until the 20th century and had their rights repressed.

    The evidence is undeniable. Since you’re a Conservative, I’m sure you can appreciate that government often screws up big time. When you let the State decide whose life has value and whose doesn’t, it ends in severe abuse and arbitrary discrimination. It might take a century or two to realize it, but it happens.

    When the state, in order to protect it’s citizens or others, engages in war and civilians are killed in the act of war, that is a necessar evil to combat evil and is not a grave injustice.

    Comparing pregnancy to war is a huge stretch. But just for the sake of argument, remember that there are rules to war too. Civilians are not to be purposely targeted, POWs are not to be tortured, etc. Its all part of the international treatises that every civilized country has signed. When civilians are killed in war, it is a tragedy. Haven’t you seen the news headlines, how Canadians rightly bemoan the death of innocent women and children killed in war torn countries? If your wife and kids were killed in a war on our soil, would you think that’s fair? Of course, nobody denies that civilian casualties are one of the unfortunate realities of war. We’re not naive. But no civilized country likes it and no civilized country advocates it. Just read the U.N. treatises. If you’re indifferent to the death of innocent civilians, then you are on an extreme fringe.

    Aside from this, nobody denies the right to self defense. An enemy soldier who is trying to blow your head off doesn’t fit the definition of an “innocent” person as described in point #8. Let’s not get carried away and compare an unborn child with a soldier brandishing an AK-47.

    While I wish you well in sharing your point of view with others, and champion your right to try and convince others to see your point of view, as a pro-choice conservative, if the Conservative party ever adopts a theocratic approach to governing, that will be the day I will vote Liberal.

    Thank you for supporting my right to free speech. That’s what separates you from the Liberals and the NDP.

    At the end of the day, anti-choice arguments are theological in origin. And theology is for the church and for the family – but have no place in my notion of government.

    Could you please show me where I invoked any theology?

    Take care!

  4.  
Trackbacks
  1.  
Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>