My Featured Blogger this week is Vernon Miles Kerr of the same-named blog site. Vernon and I don’t agree on everything (for one thing, I am a Jesus follower and Vernon is agnostic). But for some time now we’ve followed one another’s blogs because we appreciate each other’s reasoning. Vernon is a student of logic and rhetoric (as well as drama, poetry and fiction) who has studied under some notable teachers, including S.I. Hayakawa and Manfred Wolf.
I chose to reblog this particular post because of the way in which Vernon thoughtfully and persuasively counters the notion that virtually all arguments against abortion are either religious or misogynistic (anti-women).
It was, in fact, an atheist woman who first convinced me that my pro-choice views on abortion were wrong.
Read, think, and consider.
The Cognitive Dissonance of Abortion “Rights”
© 2019 Vernon Miles Kerr, vernonmileskerr.com
There are three intellectual fictions, which must be accepted in order avoid cognitive dissonance in supporting the concept of a “right” to abort one’s own fetus, on demand, and without the mother’s own life being endangered by a full-term pregnancy. The first fiction is that an unborn child is part of a woman’s body and therefore is in her complete purview and control. The second fiction is that a fetus’s protections under society’s homicide laws can be decided by arbitrary agreements on when a fertilized egg becomes a human being. And the third fiction is that the laws, which do indeed protect an unborn fetus from negligent or criminal homicide, should not apply when a Medical Doctor kills the fetus. We will examine each of those fictions in order.
Fiction 1. The Fetus’s Right to Life is within…
View original post 846 more words