Sorry NolePaul2009 …I don’t have a ton of free time today to read the entire debate but I can offer a couple of obsevations.
The language being used is somewhat manipulative albeit subtle. The theoretical scenario is presented as a “condition caused by the woman’s pregnancy” . You might point out to your debatee that pregnancy doesn’t “cause” conditions. Usually it is the “condition” which threatens the pregnancy.
Solid rebuttals to these two parts of the argument in green highlights…
“Promiscuous sex is an unavoidable reality of human existence. It always has been, and it always will be. Legal abortion means respecting a woman’s sovereignty over her body and recognizing that teen pregnancy and other extraordinarily destructive pregnancies harm both society and the individual.”
are:
a) The DNA of the child is not the same as the mother’s DNA - so it is not her body, it is a separate human body , another entity. If they understood the intricacies of the placenta, they would know that it is not the mother’s blood which circulates in the child in her womb.
b) Pregnancies are not destructive - what human beings do with them is. Certain conditions may complicate pregnancies, but pregnancies give life - they can hardly be considered destructive. (You may not be able to get the debatee to concede that fact as long as President Obabma makes statements like" If my daughter gets pregnant I don’t want her to be punished with a baby.")
When arguments get heated , it becomes exceedingly rare that any one side will be convinced by the other; the truth becomes the casualty and winning the argument becomes everything.
It’s your debate so I can only say what I might try, but if you wanted to try a strategy that would actually make the readers and your debatee pause and think , here’s what I might try If I were the one debating them:
Start by planting a pillar that no one can move. I would state very clearly that the truth held by the Catholic Church is that a human being is present in the womb at and from the moment of conception and would suggest that anyone who chooses the life of the mother over the life of the entirely and completely human child in the womb does not understand/admit that the child in the womb is a human being - to them it is subhuman - inferior in dignity - therefore not equally entitled to life.
(Whether they admit it or not, proponents of abortion have to make that flawed adjustment in their own minds even before they can argue anything in favour of abortion). You probably won’t be able to get them to
state at what point, if at all they believe that fetus in the womb becomes a human being It is a question which the other side never answers directly. Much of the time that issue is skirted so skillfully that the one debating in favour of abortion doesn’t even realize the question has been dodged.
If I’m able to remain patient, it’s to my advantage. Sooner or later the debatee is very likely to offer a rebuttal which might attempt to counter that truth of a human being present from the moment of conception. If that opening presents itself (it will become self- evident), then I can say that what they claim directly contradicts modern genetic science … and I would present them this link
e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm
That provides us all with some pause for thought - even gives us some helpful reflection for what we believe.
(* I don’t personally do too much direct debating re abortion anymore * because when the other side tried to classify or label what I said as
paranoia or used any other derogatory terms, I often took their bait and became too emotional in my responses, or tried to “label” their response in reciprocation. You might want to avoid giving a repeat performance of my previous mistakes)
… Just a couple of ideas - I wish you well.
God Bless
*
