Indefensible logic supports many an argument. My mentor noted a few years ago his Seminary education, even is college experience, would have been better had it included a good dose of logic. I agree. My friend Greg Horton helps Freshmen and Sophomore college students think through their arguments in his Composition 2 classes. Maybe we would all be helped if we addressed this need in Senior English in High School. I suspect it would help some arguments, even some of my own.
Marty Duren offers his post introducing Protecting Infants with the title, Infanticide: the old barbarism is new again . Last month I offered an introduction of my own here.
Marty closes his post with this,
In an essay last year in Slate, William Saletan admits what defenders of children have long argued: there is no logical difference between the killing of an unborn child and a born child. Says Saletan regarding the euphemistically termed “after-birth abortion”:
The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.Yes, William, it does.
I would add it also challenges you to own it and admit it. Your ilk has long said pro-lifers only care about unborn children, not born ones. It is clear now that those who support the infanticide called after-birth abortion care about neither.
If you have not already, click over and give Marty’s post a read and be sure to watch the video. Then, head over to Protecting Infants. New content will be added in the days ahead.