Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.45UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.51LIKELY
Fear
0.1UNLIKELY
Joy
0.51LIKELY
Sadness
0.56LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.85LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.28UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.94LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.64LIKELY
Extraversion
0.46UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.37UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.6LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
,
Introduction
Dear Editor,
Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 there have been over 50 million legal abortions in the United States.
Of course this doesn’t account for the night after pill.
So, it is likely that there have been even more than what is estimated.
There are roughly 3000 abortions preformed in theUnited States per day.
In 2015 a survey was conducted, over 40% of the women who had an abortion identified as Christians who were attending church at the time of their abortion.
Only 7% said they spoke with someone at church about it and 76% say the church had no influence in their decision.
It is estimated that there will be roughly 4,000 abortions in the state of Missouri, even though we have only one operational clinic.
That clinic for the time being will remain open.
In a recent letter to the editor, Mr. Mitchell accused those who were for the closing of Planned Parenthood and against abortion of penalizing a hypothetical woman in need.
I have decided to respond to some of the claims of his letter with one of my own.
I will limit my response to the overall argument and a few specific points.
In a recent letter to the editor, a Mr. Mitchell accused those who were for the closing of Planned Parenthood and against abortion of penalizing a hypothetical woman in need.
I have decided to respond to some of the claims of his letter with one of my own.
In summary, the argument of his letter is
(1) the Bible doesn’t teach that life begins at conception.
(2) Poverty is worse than death.
(3) The embryo is not viable without the mother.
(4) Planned Parenthood could have saved her, but it has been closed.
(5) You forced her to have the child.
Therefore, you are worse than the absentee father.
Many of the points above commit the same logical fallacy, namely begging the question.
In making these points, Mr. Mitchell doesn’t prove their truthfulness but assumes it.
So, his argument is invalid.
His conclusion is unproven.
That said, below, I will interact with his first and third assertions.
I will then provide a list of organizations that would gladly help an expecting mother.
Body
Consider the first proposition, ‘the Bible clearly doesn’t teach that life begins at conception.’
If it is so clear as to supporting Mr. Mitchell’s claim, where is the citation proving his point?
We should expect at least one or some argumentation.
But we are left with nothing but the assertion.
Does the Bible teach that life begins at conception? Yes.
It doesn’t answer the question straightforwardly since it isn’t a medical textbook or modern political treatise.
However, by good and necessary consequence and logical inference, any reader can and should conclude that the Bible assumes a continuity of personhood, value, and dignity of the prenatal and postnatal human being (See ).
Put differently the Bible assumes that life begins at conception.
A couple of truths lead me to the above conclusion.
(1) The same terminology is used to describe both prenatal and postnatal children throughout Scripture (See ; ; , ).
(2) The value of the mother and the unborn child are equated explicitly in Scripture (See ).
(3) God is active in the formation of and relates personally to unborn humans (See ; ; ; ).
(4) The Bible sees children as a blessing and responsibility (See ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).
(5) Murder, the taking of innocent life, is universally and explicitly condemned in Scripture (See ; ).
Thus, contrary to Mr. Mitchell’s assertion, the Bible teaches that life begins at conception, and the killing of the unborn is murder.
The second proposition is ‘poverty is worse than death.’
Though he doesn’t state this out right, it is the underlying logic of the letter as a whole.
Poor people are better off dead.
My reply is simple, now insert any other “class” of people in that statement.
To differentiate between humans and persons of value is rooted in racist eugenics.
The viewpoint that some races and types of people are inherently less valuable on the basis of something outside of their being a human made in the image of God.
Furthermore, the second proposition is an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
It presumes that a poor person lacks the capacities and fortitude to elevate themselves and care for their children.
The third proposition above is, ‘the embryo is not viable without the mother.’
How does this prove that abortion is permissible?
It proves too much.
My one-year-old daughter is unable to survive without the care of her mother and me.
She is, at times, inconvenient and expensive.
Should we have the right to end her life?
No, such a notion is absurd.
Plus, comparing a fetus/embryo/zygote to a fingernail is apples and oranges.
Fingernails don’t carry a different genetic code than the person to whom they belong.
His comparison is scientifically and logically false.
Therefore, it doesn’t justify the murder of the unborn.
The fourth proposition is, ‘Planned Parenthood could have saved her, but it has been closed.’
This proposition implies a false dichotomy.
Is Planned Parenthood and abortion the only option for an expecting mother who doesn’t want to keep her baby for any number of reasons.
Also, there are over 1000 of crisis pregnancy centers that provide more services than any planned parenthood.
The fifth proposition is, ‘You forced her to have the child.’
One this is a hypothetical situation, so pro-life folks couldn’t have forced this hypothetical person to have a baby because they aren’t real.
However, lets for arguments sake say that he is speaking of a real situation.
We no more force her to have the child than we force her to keep breathing or digesting her food.
These are biologically natural processes like reproduction.
It is in the worst scenario of rape the fathers responsibility.
By making abortion safe (not possible) and legal it punishes the wrong person.
Babies aren’t perpetrators.
If a man broke into my home, stole my valuables, and left a baby that I later find would I be right in killing it.
No, instead abortion should be an illegal, unethical, and expensive option up against a myriad of other more affordable options.
Objections
Objections: Eugenics
Size
Level of development
Enviroment
Degree of dependency
Applications
Support and Serve Pro-life Crisis pregnancy centers Care-Net
Support Christian foster parents and adoptions
Become a foster parent or adopt
Have a bunch of kids
Love your children, grandchildren, and the children of your church, raising them in the fear and instruction of the Lord
Preach and protest at abortion clinics
Call upon your magistrates to outlaw abortion and protect the unborn
Conclusions
Finally, we can discuss ways to make having and raising a child cheaper.
We also can discuss how to make adoption more affordable.
However, though pregnancy, childbirth, and raising a child are expensive, it in no way justifies the killing of the child.
All humans are made in the image of God.
As such, all humans have dignity and worth.
Murder, is the taking of an innocent life and transgresses God’s law.
Abortion, takes an innocent life.
Therefore, Abortion is murder.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9