Universal (not religious) Values

In his "Call to Renewal" speech, Obama said:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

So, let's skip the religious argument for this blog.  Let's leave God out of the abortion argument just this one time.  Let's use a completely secular approach to abortion that is "amenable to reason" — an approach that seeks to show that abortion "violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all," just as the president insists. Can we make an argument against abortion that is reasonably strong?

I think the answer is "Yes"!  Here's why;

In his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, Randy Alcorn notes a number of completely secular arguments for why abortion should be prohibited by law.

First, he says, medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians' testimonies to Congress have asserted this scientific fact.  Most pro-choicers love science until it comes to conception.

I believe one could argue without question that there is more scientific evidence for life beginning at conception than there is for global warming. However,  the president adamantly supports protection of the environment and dismisses the need for protecting the unborn. Is that reasonable?

My brother is a hunter.  He spends hours planning, practicing, and making sure everything is in place for when that huge buck comes past his deer stand.  However, if he is uncertain whether movement in the brush is caused by a person, does this uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? I guarantee with 100% certainty that Matt would not fire if there was any doubt whatsoever.

You're not a hunter? How about an example that we can all relate to.  If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be an animal (or a child) , but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? I think it is safe to assume that you would brake.

If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but we're not sure, what is the best policy — to assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?  Entire medical careers, practices, equipment, and industries are built around saving a person's life if there is a remote possibility of saving them.
Whether a Christian or an atheist, I believe it is safe to say that, with the examples listed above that the vast majority of society would always choose life.  "Whether a person of faith or not, the right to life is not something theoretical or hypothetical — it's personal and fundamental to all...and an unjustifiable or careless breach of that right is universally agreed to be a crime".  Want proof? Remember the anger just a short time ago regarding the Casey Anthony trial? 

Want another argument that is "amenable to reason"?  Nearly everyone I know believes discrimination is deplorable. Yet the argument that a woman should have the right to an abortion because the fetus resides within her body is an act of discrimination. Alcorn contends that to be inside something is not the same as being part of it. Furthermore, human beings shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their residence.

"One's body does not belong to another's body merely because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. A loaf of bread is not part of the oven in which it is baked," writes Alcorn. "A person is a person whether she lives in a mansion or an apartment or on the street. She is a person whether she is trapped in a cave, lying in a care center, or residing within her mother."
Alcorn's reasoning doesn't seem "religion specific" to me.  The above quote has nothing to do with religion. Therefore, one can make the argument that abortion is an act of death by discrimination based on where an individual lives.

So what about the argument of individual's right to choose?  Should this right trump the protection of innocent life?  Alcorn writes:

"When I present the pro-life position on campuses, I often begin by saying: 'Yes, I'm pro-choice. That's why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it's his body — and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He's free to choose, and it's none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.'"
Certainly this position is not "amenable to reason". Yet the same principle is thoughtlessly accepted when it comes to a woman's so-called "right" to choose an abortion.

Obama urged us to "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." without pointing "to the teachings of my church or evok(ing) God's will".

Through these examples and by the presidents own standard alone, the practice of abortion should be rejected and opposed.  There is absolutely nothing reasonable or humanitarian about the pro-choice position.

Now it is time for the people of faith to step up to the plate and support the girls and women who are faced with unwanted pregnancies and help by offering loving, caring alternatives.