Abortion debate - help required

[treefrog8]

Tree fog 8 posted:

I don’t see how you can. Take God out of the equation and it is not just the unborn who are ‘just a bunch of cells’, every human being meets that criteria.

Better not to argue as you are never going to convince them and they are unlikely ever to be reconciled to your point of view. It will only lead to you getting hurt and upset.

Far better as someone has suggested: to make a dignified withdrawal and pray for them

yeah you are right.

I was just wondering - do you think that by trying to argue my POV I will alienate him from the truth, or do you mean he will never come round to my way of thinking anyway, so no point arguing anyway?

 

[Sixtus]

treefrog8

I don’t see how you can. Take God out of the equation and it is not just the unborn who are ‘just a bunch of cells’, every human being meets that criteria.

Better not to argue as you are never going to convince them and they are unlikely ever to be reconciled to your point of view. It will only lead to you getting hurt and upset.

Far better as someone has suggested: to make a dignified withdrawal and pray for them

yeah you are right.

I was just wondering - do you think that by trying to argue my POV I will alienate him from the truth, or do you mean he will never come round to my way of thinking anyway, so no point arguing anyway?

You have a right to your point of view and should not withold it if that is how you really feel. But it is unlikely he will ever become reconciled to your point of view if he does not believe in God.

We see the world as we do because God in His infinite mercy has allowed us to become aware of Him.Someone who has not [yet] experienced God, cannot possibly see the world through the eyes of one who has. That is a physical impossiblity. In God, you are just too clever for him.

Trying to argue the point if he cannot see your point of view will only lead to you getting hurt by what appears his insults and arguements but is really his inability to see your point of view because he does not have God in his life.

You might wish to leave him on the note that ‘surely 1-billion Catholics cannot be wrong’. But that is up to you.

God bless you…

 

[AnubistheJackal]

How do I convince him that human life begins at conception and that every human life is precious?

Life does begin at conception.

What is in dispute, what is unclear is when does that life become a person.

I could contend when that life is viable, capable of living outside the womb, then that life is a person.

It would be inaccurate to equate the human fetus to a germ, but most people believe that what a woman should do with her body should be between her and her doctor and that no person should be forced to carry another living organism inside their body against their will.

 

[shannyk]

In the end he said we cannot know absolute right or wrong

If he truly believes this, then he will have to admit that he might be wrong and that life might begin at conception. If it is impossible to know (per his own statement) doesn’t it stand to reason that one should err on the side of protecting life? Meaning, if he doesn’t know when life begins, how can he know that it would NOT be taking one in the very earliest stages of pregnancy? See if that argument phases him.

Also, remind him that the terms ‘blastocyst’, embryo, and fetus, are descriptors of a stage of development of not only humans but all mammals. I know many people who say “it’s just an embryo”. But what ‘kind’ of embryo are we talking about? A human one.

Now hopefully, he is not one of those people who see no difference between animals and human beings…

Now, as for the alienating him part, if you are arguing in favor of life, you should make sure that you are living in a way that echoes your argument. Are you sexually involved with this GF? Using ABC? Do you live the morals that you are trying to argue for? If not, then you might be contradicting yourself and he will pick up on that for sure. “Speak the truth and when necessary use words” as St. Francis so wisely said

 

[pprimeau1976]

I am debating abortion with a friend. But I am not very good at it.

He views the early stages of human life as ‘just a bunch of cells’.

How do I convince him that human life begins at conception and that every human life is precious?

He doesn’t believe in God, certainly not the conception of God that we as Catholics have. He doesn’t believe in the authority of the bible or the Church or Jesus Christ.

I’d appreciate links to excellent websites, and also any tips you can use in discussions with such individuals.

This same individual would object to me swatting a fly, but won’t grant the same protection to the unborn child, particularly those in the earliest stages of development, to which he refers to as no more than ‘germs’.

Thanks in advance,

tf

I would ask your friend questions rather than make statements. This would make him conclude for himself of your position.

For example:

At what stage of development does a grouping of cells become a person? I assume that he at least believes that partial birth abortion is wrong. Emphasize that development continues outside of the womb as well.

Shouldn’t there be an objective time in which abortion should be banned? Emphasize to him that current trimester cutoffs are unreliable because dating the moment of conception is unreliable.

Isn’t the group of cells unique from the mothers and have it’s own DNA? This is an indication that this is not a part of the woman’s body and if tissue samples were done, a pathologist would assume that they were two different people.

Isn’t conception the best known time in which two cells that are not human therefore become a human?

Also, ask him if a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same species. If so, why isn’ t a fetus a human?

 

[Spirithound]

A doctor many/several years ago said something to the effect that if a fertilized egg is not a human, then it never will be, because nothing is added to it after that time.

 

[edwest2]

Just tell you friend that everyone alive today began as an embryo, a unique cluster of cells that will always result in a unique human being. It is scientific fact. (They’ve got pictures of the sperm joining with the egg, perhaps that will help.)

God bless,
Ed

 

[Madaglan]

I second 1ke’s recommendation of Randy Alcorn’s Book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Life Questions. It’s an excellent, well-written book arranged by topic questions. I’ve found it very helpful in Pro-life ministries.

 

[Sixtus]

shannyk

remind him that the terms ‘blastocyst’, embryo, and fetus, are descriptors of a stage of development of not only humans but all mammals. I know many people who say “it’s just an embryo”. But what ‘kind’ of embryo are we talking about? A human one.

Now hopefully, he is not one of those people who see no difference between animals and human beings…

I am one of those people.

I believe and I would argue to him that that it is morally wrong to terminate any life animal or human [human after all, only a higher form of animal seeings our biological consistency internal organs and brain structures are in exactly the same place and exactly the same organisation as any other specie].

I believe and would argue that 'to willfully and deliberately terminate a life, particularly the life in the womb be it all specie of animal is morally wrong. But the gravity of the offence gets higher as the specie gets higher until ultimately the most serious crime is that of human the highest of the species.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

shannyk

I am one of those people.

I believe and I would argue to him that that it is morally wrong to terminate any life animal or human [human after all, only a higher form of animal seeings our biological consistency internal organs and brain structures are in exactly the same place and exactly the same organisation as any other specie].

I believe and would argue that 'to willfully and deliberately terminate a life, particularly the life in the womb be it all specie of animal is morally wrong. But the gravity of the offence gets higher as the specie gets higher until ultimately the most serious crime is that of human the highest of the species.

Does this mean you oppose killing pests like termites, rodents and other animals that come into/destroy our homes?

 

[Sixtus]

Elizabeth Anne posted:

I believe and would argue that 'to willfully and deliberately terminate a life, particularly the life in the womb be it all specie of animal is morally wrong. But the gravity of the offence gets higher as the specie gets higher until ultimately the most serious crime is that of human the highest of the species.
—End Quote—

**Does this mean you oppose killing pests like termites, rodents and other animals that come into/destroy our homes? **

When I was a mere street urchin and as green as grass aged 26, I saw killing in the context of training for combat: life was there to be used and taken as the law permitted. Lower specie of animal had even less moral right to exist.

As I grew older and more reflective, I realised that while the survival interests of higher specie took precedence over that of lower specie so that it was permissible to kill that which posed a threat, this decision was not to be taken lightly.

Every living creature is created by Almighty God. Therefore to Him a termite is created to exist. He wills and it exists. If that termite or rodent is a hazard to me the highests of His creation, I reasoned it is not wrong for me to kill it but the decision must not be taken lightly or killing trivialised.

I must remember that everything I kill was created by Almighty God and it is ultimately to Him that I am accountable and must one day explain my actions. I must be able to explain why I acted not as His co-creator but as satan’s co-destructor!

If something is a threat to our wellbeing then it is permissible to neutralise the threat but if it involves me in the act of killing then the decision must not be taken lightly and I may only kill in so far as is absolutely necessary and not to exess.

 

[childofmary1143]

Elizabeth Anne posted:

When I was a mere street urchin and as green as grass aged 26, I saw killing in the context of training for combat: life was there to be used and taken as the law permitted. Lower specie of animal had even less moral right to exist.

As I grew older and more reflective, I realised that while the survival interests of higher specie took precedence over that of lower specie so that it was permissible to kill that which posed a threat, this decision was not to be taken lightly.

Every living creature is created by Almighty God. Therefore to Him a termite is created to exist. He wills and it exists. If that termite [or rodent[ is a hazard to me the highests of His creation, I reasoned it is not wrong for me to kill it but the decision must not be taken lightly or killing trivialised.

I must remember that everything I kill was created by Almighty God and it is ultimately to Him that I am accountable and must one day explain my actions. I must be able to explain why I acted not as His co-creator but as satan’s co-destructor!

If something is a threat to our wellbeing then it is permissible to neutralise the threat but if it involves me in the act of killing then the decision must not be taken lightly and I may only kill in so far as is absolutely necessary and not to exess.

Are you a vegetarian? Do people need to kill animals like cattle, poultry and fish to live and survive?
[/quote]

 

[treefrog8]

Now, as for the alienating him part, if you are arguing in favor of life, you should make sure that you are living in a way that echoes your argument. Are you sexually involved with this GF? Using ABC? Do you live the morals that you are trying to argue for? If not, then you might be contradicting yourself and he will pick up on that for sure. “Speak the truth and when necessary use words” as St. Francis so wisely said

No I am not involved with anyone’s girlfriend! I just used that as a silly example. I am a good Catholic boy!

But thanks everyone for the excellent pointers.

 

[paradoxy]

Also, remind him that the terms ‘blastocyst’, embryo, and fetus, are descriptors of a stage of development of not only humans but all mammals. I know many people who say “it’s just an embryo”. But what ‘kind’ of embryo are we talking about? A human one.

Exactly. And if he insists on using a scientific, unemotional term for the preborn, ask him if it is OK to kill a newborn baby, as it is just a ‘neonate’.