Science Can't Prove the Unborn aren't Human Beings so I'll Turn to the Bible

State News columnist Shane Krouse, whose previous column on abortion displayed such incredible ignorance of fetal development it was possibly the worst pro-choice column I've ever read, is back in the saddle today claiming that the "Bible Supports Abortion Rights."

It's hard to say but I think this column might be even worse than the previous one. His attempts at logic are so poor, I'm requesting the State News force its columnists to take basic junior high logic courses before allowing them to have something printed.

Krouse starts by writing,

As some Christians deny scientific evidence, which can be proven, I will fight them with their own book of knowledge.

This from someone who claimed "During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells." So basically, Shane knows his ignorance of fetal development and biology was displayed in full force and now he has gone to some pro-choice web sites in an attempt to back his laughable arguments with the text of the Bible. He knows he has no scientific evidence to prove the unborn aren't living human beings so he's forced to attempt to misconstrue the meaning of scripture to arrive at the conclusion (the unborn aren't living human beings) he's already preordained.

Krouse argues human fetuses are property (another argument he made in his previous column) because there were slaves in the Bible and he thinks the Bible can be interpreted to say wives are the property of their husbands. Krouse then concludes that therefore human fetuses can be property. Yeah, I'm shaking my head in bewilderment as well.

Krouse then lists the usually verses pro-choice people list when trying to argue the Bible condones abortion with the usual out-of-context pro-choice theology. Scott Klusendorf has previously taken the time to examine some of the verses Krouse attempts to manipulate.

Krouse also lists Luke 1:35 as being a pro-choice verse. It's tough for me to even fathom how a verse which describes the unborn child Jesus as holy could be construed as pro-choice but Krouse is using the King James version which describe the unborn Jesus as a "holy thing." Krouse then reasons Jesus was a thing and therefore not a human (even though the verse never says Jesus isn't a human) and since Christ was only a thing (somehow "thing" and "human" are mutually exclusive terms in the Bible) until birth therefore all human fetuses aren't human until birth.

Krouse's columns come off as the writings of one fervently enthralled in the pro-choice mindset yet in the comments of my post on Krouse's first column, Krouse said he "only supports abortions during the first trimester." No reason was given to how that first trimester "wad of cells" which the "Bible supports" the killing of somehow becomes an entity which he doesn't support killing the day it enters the second trimester.