Abortion - Recovering the Conversation

[lambofabraham]

So, long story short I have an old friend who recently posted the following short article (chron.com/news/article/Neb-high-court-nixes-teen-s-request-for-abortion-4869315.php) on her Facebook wall. Her friends had replied with anger and very intense pro-abortion posts. I replied with, what I thought, was compassion and understanding about the girl in the article’s situation, but also pointing out responsibility, consequence, and healing. The backlash on Facebook was… extremely intense.

Anyway, that public forum discussion really went nowhere. However, the friend who had posted the article offered to have a non-aggressive discussion with me through private messaging. I feel like… I may have mucked things up with the public forum. I would really appreciate anyone’s advise on how you would engage in a discussion with someone like this. The following is the message which my friend sent to me:

I think we both are coming from the place of wanting what is best for mothers and children. Where I feel like we diverge is that, in my experience, there are so, so many children who are not wanted and do not receive love, and the effects are so, so deleterious on them as people, that it is a much greater wrong, in my view, to keep people who don’t want children from being able to make that choice. I wish that was not the case. But in my professional capacity as a social worker I see it every day. In my personal life, I’ve seen it far more often than I’d like.
I also can’t look past the woman in question. I believe as a first principle that women know what’s best for them with regards to children. They know if they’re in a place to parent well. I see a woman seeking an abortion because she doesn’t believe she’ll be able to parent well as being deeply responsible. In the Nebraska case, we have no idea how the girl in question became pregnant. Interestingly, it’s not part of the court filings. But even if she is someone who had consensual sex and consensually chose not to use protection - which I would agree is a dumb choice - the consequences of that - her having a child - are not on her alone. They are on the child, who may be raised by someone who doesn’t want it and is in no position to provide for it. I personally don’t even see value get into the moral and ethical side of abortion because the practical costs of disallowing it are far, far too vast, and too concretely harmful to both women and children, to make it a theoretical question.
Also, there’s the fact that without legal abortion far more women die horribly. That’s huge for me.

 

[MaryT777]

Where does adoption fit into this picture? Is that even considered an option for some?
Mary.

 

[Evania]

Where does adoption fit into this picture? Is that even considered an option for some?
Mary.

I agree.

 

[nodito]

They know if they’re in a place to parent well. I see a woman seeking an abortion because she doesn’t believe she’ll be able to parent well as being deeply responsible.

Suppose a woman comes to this realization that she is unfit to parent a year after her baby is born. Is it “deeply responsible” to terminate her child at that point? Otherwise, the child will suffer the consequences of being raised in an unfit home with a parent who is incapable of providing what the child needs. Suppose we could kill the child in his sleep, without his feeling any pain, or even being aware that it will happen; is it moral then?

There are a great number of children suffering from neglect and abuse in this country, but you don’t recommend killing them, even though this would end their suffering. The solution to the problems of poverty, suffering, abuse, etc is not to kill the children involved but to change the circumstances that they find themselves in. Support homes for women in crisis pregnancies, lobby for better adoption laws, help us create a culture of love and life. Life begins in conception and we must support the women who are struggling against unfavorable circumstances while pregnant, not recommend abortion.

 

[jmcrae]

I think we both are coming from the place of wanting what is best for mothers and children. Where I feel like we diverge is that, in my experience, there are so, so many children who are not wanted and do not receive love, and the effects are so, so deleterious on them as people, that it is a much greater wrong, in my view, to keep people who don’t want children from being able to make that choice. I wish that was not the case. But in my professional capacity as a social worker I see it every day. In my personal life, I’ve seen it far more often than I’d like.

How is killing someone “better than” any of these other outcomes? Surely being killed is the worst thing that can happen to someone?

In an abortion, it is a sure thing that the child will be killed.

In letting the child live, these other things may or may not happen.

I am sure during your life you have had a bad day now and then. Would you want to be killed in order to avoid having a bad day, or would you rather that someone help you learn how to avoid having a bad day, so that you can experience happiness?

I also can’t look past the woman in question. I believe as a first principle that women know what’s best for them with regards to children. They know if they’re in a place to parent well. I see a woman seeking an abortion because she doesn’t believe she’ll be able to parent well as being deeply responsible.

She does not have to be alone. There are other options, including adoption for the child, and other kinds of help - day care, parenting classes, and so on. She should not be required to choose between killing her child and raising her badly.

In the Nebraska case, we have no idea how the girl in question became pregnant. Interestingly, it’s not part of the court filings. But even if she is someone who had consensual sex and consensually chose not to use protection - which I would agree is a dumb choice - the consequences of that - her having a child - are not on her alone. They are on the child, who may be raised by someone who doesn’t want it and is in no position to provide for it.

Again, how is being killed better than that?

What if someone you depend on comes up to you with a knife and says, “I have to kill you because I don’t have enough money to support you, and besides I want to continue my education.” Wouldn’t you want to suggest alternatives? Wouldn’t you want him to know that it’s not all up to him?

Also, there’s the fact that without legal abortion far more women die horribly. That’s huge for me.

Making abortion legal doesn’t actually make it any safer. It’s still an incredibly dangerous operation.

 

[josh987654321]

So, long story short I have an old friend (…) my friend sent to me:

I think we both (…) I personally don’t even see value get into the moral and ethical side of abortion because the practical costs of disallowing it are far, far too vast, and too concretely harmful to both women and children, to make it a theoretical question.
Also, there’s the fact that without legal abortion far more women die horribly. That’s huge for me.

Hi, lambofabraham.

I find this issue really quite simple, as I like what Pope Francis said.

The pregnant woman doesn’t carry a toothbrush in her womb, nor a tumor. Science teaches that from the moment of conception, the new being has all the genetic code. It’s impressive. It’s not, therefore, a religious question but clearly a moral one, based on science. - Pope Francis

It is as simple as this, I find pro-choice supporters always try to obscure this obvious truth in order to justify or defend such actions.

Those who promote abortion or abortions that seek to snatch from the Author and Lord of life His legitimate and sole rights… those who under the slogan that “a woman has the right to decide about her own body”, are concealing the “right” to kill, which will never be a right.

I believe they are trying to defend the indefensible, to justify the unjustifiable.

Prodigal_Son I believe said it well on another thread.

Prodigal_Son:

One question for you: can you tell me the difference between a 24-week gestational age premature baby outside the womb and a 24-week gestational age fetus inside the womb? In terms of law, a person can legally kill the latter child, but will be tried and perhaps sentence to life in prison for killing the premature child. What sense does this make?

Ravi Zacharias had another good way of trying to persuade those who advocate abortion in this short youtube clip.

Ravi Zacharias Q & A: Abortion and Free Will

I also believe Cirdan XII explained it well on another thread when he was replying to those who try to justify it by a “kind deed” of allowing euthanasia.
Cirdan XII:

That logic is the first step on a dangerous and slippery slope. If it is preferable to kill a child than to let it grow up in poverty, then what right do many others have to life if they are poor, disilussioned, handicapped, disadvanted. Jesus said “what you have done for the least of these, you did for me”. Would you have killed Jesus if he came knocking on your door poor and destitute? If you are rich, it is your duty to help the poor, not to help them kill their children.

I hope I have helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[stephe1987]

There are children living in abusive homes, and parents need to stop being selfish and give up their parental rights so the kids can be placed elsewhere. (Foster kids often cannot be adopted because the parents won’t sign their rights away, even though they’re abusive and/or on drugs and do not want their kids.) It’s a very narcissistic mindset and we need to teach women to think about what’s best for the child and not what they want.

Adoption is the loving option. There are thousands of couples on waiting lists to adopt. Even something like 7,000 on lists to adopt babies and children with disabilities. Infants are easiest to find homes for. Why not give a family the child they’ve always wanted but can’t have on their own, or add to their family (if they already have kids either by adoption or natural children).

I think destigmatizing adoption would also be good. So many women who claim to be pro-choice, are bashing on women who choose to place their babies for adoption because they can’t care for the child (too young, not married, still in school, etc.). And then there seems to be this message that adopted kids will turn out to be criminals or something (it’s rare, and it’s not like there have never been criminals who were raised by their biological parent(s) anyway). It’s very sad.

 

[bzkoss236]

Also, there’s the fact that without legal abortion far more women die horribly. That’s huge for me.

Actually, this is not fact, only conjecture. And a bad one at that.

 

[ClearWater]

Also, there’s the fact that without legal abortion far more women die horribly. That’s huge for me.

I, likewise, disagree with that statement.

 

[marydaze]

Where does adoption fit into this picture? Is that even considered an option for some?
Mary.

exactly. I think it boils down to, not only does the person not want the child, she doesn’t want the inconvenience of being pregant

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Some things that you may wish to think about, as you will be faced with many of the standard talking points that people use to justify the taking of a life.

**“A woman is the best judge of what to do with her own body” **- No woman has two spines, or four eyes, or two hearts. The child has, from conception, his or her own unique DNA. That DNA dictates from early on whether the child is a boy or a girl. Thus, the mother is carrying another human life inside her whose life and safety has been entrusted to her. She has no more right to end the child’s life before the arbitrary dividing point of passing through the birth canal than she does afterwards through infanticide or abandonment in an alley. A child cannot survive unattended as an infant any more so than as a fetus, so mere physical dependency on the mother, whether via umbilical cord or the provision of food, water and warmth, is not a valid argument for the mother’s right to end a life.

"Every child should be wanted. A child shouldn’t have to grow up (unwanted / deformed / poor / a product of rape / etc.)." While appearing to come from a place of concern for children, this argument is in fact commonly used to justify the unsaid argument that “No woman should have to raise an unwanted / deformed / poor / product of rape.” It is not the place, of any of us, to decide if a another person’s life is justified based on any of those issues. The simplest answer to this is to ask if they know any people who were unwanted or unplanned by their parent(s), or who have a disability, or grew up very poor, or even those who were the product of rape, who honestly and continually wish that their parents had aborted them. While such people may lead lives that are sometimes unhappy, very few of any of us wishes we had not been born, nor would we allow anyone to make the decision to end the life of someone (a 7-year old child, say) based on those issues. The gift of life and consciousness is the greatest gift we can have. I grew up dirt poor (and probably unplanned) but am glad my mother would never have even considered aborting me. Thank you, Mom, and thank you, Catholic Church.

"It’s only a fetus, it’s not a human being." Fetus is just Latin for “offspring.” It is a description of a stage in human development; to use it is to recognize that the child is, in fact, human. It doesn’t mean that you develop until you achieve “humanity;” it means that as a human, you develop. To say otherwise is just an attempt to repurpose a perfectly good scientific term to deny a human being his or her inherent rights by redefinition.

"Men should have no say in abortions - only women can give a valid opinion, as they are the ones who have to carry the pregnancy." I would probably be okay with this argument if no male doctor was allowed to provide abortions, no male could try to convince his girlfriend she should get an abortion, no male could be on the board of Planned Parenthood or advocate for abortion, and no male legislator was allowed to vote in favor of abortion “rights.” We’d actually see a lot fewer abortions in this country if that were the case. What this argument really is trying to say is that, “Only males who agree with me should be allowed to give an opinion.”

**“You can’t tell me that a woman should have to carry a child after she has been raped!” **This argument is usually addressed poorly - by attempting to argue that conception is unlikely after rape - I have no idea if this is true or not, but legislators who have used it as an argument look like idiots. It also doesn’t address the central issue - if the developing child is human, he or she has rights and dignity, whatever the circumstances of his or her conception. As many of those who favor abortion also oppose capital punishment, it can be helpful to examine whether they think rape should be a capital crime, and if not, then why should state allow the innocent child produced by the rape to be killed when the guilty rapist cannot be? Even if a woman feels a rapist should be executed by the state for his crime, should a rapist be executed simply on the woman’s word that she was raped? If not, why should a child’s life be ended simply on the word of the mother that a rape had been committed?

"Who can say when life begins? Scientists and theologians disagree, so each woman should be able to make her own decision." Until Roe v. Wade, no obstetrics textbook ever claimed that life did not begin at conception. The current belief that science has no say in this matter is a political stance, not a scientific one. If we believe that there is even a possibility that the developing fetus is human, simple common sense should tell us that we should not risk endangering that life, anymore so than we would allow someone to shoot into a home because there* might* not be anyone inside.

 

[vz71]

Some things that you may wish to think about, as you will be faced with many of the standard talking points that people use to justify the taking of a life.

**“A woman is the best judge of what to do with her own body” **- No woman has two spines, or four eyes, or two hearts. The child has, from conception, his or her own unique DNA. That DNA dictates from early on whether the child is a boy or a girl. Thus, the mother is carrying another human life inside her whose life and safety has been entrusted to her. She has no more right to end the child’s life before the arbitrary dividing point of passing through the birth canal than she does afterwards through infanticide or abandonment in an alley. A child cannot survive unattended as an infant any more so than as a fetus, so mere physical dependency on the mother, whether via umbilical cord or the provision of food, water and warmth, is not a valid argument for the mother’s right to end a life.

"Every child should be wanted. A child shouldn’t have to grow up (unwanted / deformed / poor / a product of rape / etc.)." While appearing to come from a place of concern for children, this argument is in fact commonly used to justify the unsaid argument that “No woman should have to raise an unwanted / deformed / poor / product of rape.” It is not the place, of any of us, to decide if a another person’s life is justified based on any of those issues. The simplest answer to this is to ask if they know any people who were unwanted or unplanned by their parent(s), or who have a disability, or grew up very poor, or even those who were the product of rape, who honestly and continually wish that their parents had aborted them. While such people may lead lives that are sometimes unhappy, very few of any of us wishes we had not been born, nor would we allow anyone to make the decision to end the life of someone (a 7-year old child, say) based on those issues. The gift of life and consciousness is the greatest gift we can have. I grew up dirt poor (and probably unplanned) but am glad my mother would never have even considered aborting me. Thank you, Mom, and thank you, Catholic Church.

"It’s only a fetus, it’s not a human being." Fetus is just Latin for “offspring.” It is a description of a stage in human development; to use it is to recognize that the child is, in fact, human. It doesn’t mean that you develop until you achieve “humanity;” it means that as a human, you develop. To say otherwise is just an attempt to repurpose a perfectly good scientific term to deny a human being his or her inherent rights by redefinition.

"Men should have no say in abortions - only women can give a valid opinion, as they are the ones who have to carry the pregnancy." I would probably be okay with this argument if no male doctor was allowed to provide abortions, no male could try to convince his girlfriend she should get an abortion, no male could be on the board of Planned Parenthood or advocate for abortion, and no male legislator was allowed to vote in favor of abortion “rights.” We’d actually see a lot fewer abortions in this country if that were the case. What this argument really is trying to say is that, “Only males who agree with me should be allowed to give an opinion.”

**“You can’t tell me that a woman should have to carry a child after she has been raped!” **This argument is usually addressed poorly - by attempting to argue that conception is unlikely after rape - I have no idea if this is true or not, but legislators who have used it as an argument look like idiots. It also doesn’t address the central issue - if the developing child is human, he or she has rights and dignity, whatever the circumstances of his or her conception. As many of those who favor abortion also oppose capital punishment, it can be helpful to examine whether they think rape should be a capital crime, and if not, then why should state allow the innocent child produced by the rape to be killed when the guilty rapist cannot be? Even if a woman feels a rapist should be executed by the state for his crime, should a rapist be executed simply on the woman’s word that she was raped? If not, why should a child’s life be ended simply on the word of the mother that a rape had been committed?

"Who can say when life begins? Scientists and theologians disagree, so each woman should be able to make her own decision." Until Roe v. Wade, no obstetrics textbook ever claimed that life did not begin at conception. The current belief that science has no say in this matter is a political stance, not a scientific one. If we believe that there is even a possibility that the developing fetus is human, simple common sense should tell us that we should not risk endangering that life, anymore so than we would allow someone to shoot into a home because there* might* not be anyone inside.

There is little doubt that the argument is won.
Logic and science are on the side of life.

But ultimately it is a human decision and a human heart that must be turned.
And all of the logic in the world is not enough to sway the human heart.
Only the truth and compassion of God can do that.

 

[lambofabraham]

Thank you all for your help! I really, truly appreciate it.
Thank you for your insights both long and short, and thank you vz71 for poetically posing the ultimate truth of the matter.

Peace and blessings to all of you!

 

[Muze]

So, long story short I have an old friend who recently posted the following short article (chron.com/news/article/Neb-high-court-nixes-teen-s-request-for-abortion-4869315.php) on her Facebook wall. Her friends had replied with anger and very intense pro-abortion posts. I replied with, what I thought, was compassion and understanding about the girl in the article’s situation, but also pointing out responsibility, consequence, and healing. The backlash on Facebook was… extremely intense.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of emotion around these issues.

Anyway, that public forum discussion really went nowhere. However, the friend who had posted the article offered to have a non-aggressive discussion with me through private messaging. I feel like… I may have mucked things up with the public forum. I would really appreciate anyone’s advise on how you would engage in a discussion with someone like this.

When things get emotional, especially when people are losing their minds, the first thing to do is calm everyone down.

Often a rational case only makes things worse.

The following is the message which my friend sent to me:

I think we both are coming from the place of wanting what is best for mothers and children. Where I feel like we diverge is that, in my experience, there are so, so many children who are not wanted and do not receive love, and the effects are so, so deleterious on them as people, that it is a much greater wrong, in my view, to keep people who don’t want children from being able to make that choice.

They had a choice. They consented to pregnancy when they chose to use their reproductive system as God intended.

But when they’re pregnant, they already have a child that needs love and care.

And they have another choice: When the child is born, there is a long waiting list of people wanting to adopt a newborn.

I wish that was not the case. But in my professional capacity as a social worker I see it every day. In my personal life, I’ve seen it far more often than I’d like.

Which only means that parents didn’t make the right choice twice.

Ask he why there are still so many of these kids when abortion is legal for any purpose.

I also can’t look past the woman in question. I believe as a first principle that women know what’s best for them with regards to children.

She’s either lying to herself or so segregated herself from her work that she’s delusional. Working in social work teaches you one thing: Women don’t always know what’s best for them with regards to children.

And once a child is conceived, it isn’t only about the woman anymore. There’s a child to consider.

They know if they’re in a place to parent well. I see a woman seeking an abortion because she doesn’t believe she’ll be able to parent well as being deeply responsible.

In that case, then there are many loving couples waiting to adopt newborns.

In the Nebraska case, we have no idea how the girl in question became pregnant. Interestingly, it’s not part of the court filings. But even if she is someone who had consensual sex and consensually chose not to use protection - which I would agree is a dumb choice - the consequences of that - her having a child - are not on her alone. They are on the child, who may be raised by someone who doesn’t want it and is in no position to provide for it.

Again, adoption is the best for everyone.

I personally don’t even see value get into the moral and ethical side of abortion because the practical costs of disallowing it are far, far too vast, and too concretely harmful to both women and children, to make it a theoretical question.

She’s obviously unaware of the waiting list for adoptions. And she’s obviously unaware the effect that real consequences to poor decisions have on those making those decisions.

Ultimately, banning convenience abortions is good for women and good for children.

Also, there’s the fact that without legal abortion far more women die horribly. That’s huge for me.

If we legalized mugging, far fewer people would be horribly maimed and killed. Her point?

 

[manualman]

I think analogy is the best way to approach subjects that people have trouble wrapping their minds around.

The pro-abortion arguments ALWAYS ignore the reality of the unborn child. They are always phrased in terms that suggest that abortion is a magic time machine which goes back and makes the pregnancy to have never happened. But obviously that’s not true. Abortion doesn’t undo the pregnancy. That’s just a euphemism for killing an unwanted child. Nobody makes such arguments about infants. Nobody is “unable to look past the woman” when they can see and hear the baby. Thus, their arguments pre-suppose the non-humanity of the child. This makes determination of WHAT the fetus is the defining part of the argument.

It’s always easier to kill if you dehumanize the victim first. That’s why history is full of words like Japs, Krauts, Kikes and N(can I even type it?). Such words dehumanize to make the killing easier. It’s just sad that the medical term “fetus” has come to be used in a similar way.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I think analogy is the best way to approach subjects that people have trouble wrapping their minds around.

The pro-abortion arguments ALWAYS ignore the reality of the unborn child. They are always phrased in terms that suggest that abortion is a magic time machine which goes back and makes the pregnancy to have never happened. But obviously that’s not true. Abortion doesn’t undo the pregnancy. That’s just a euphemism for killing an unwanted child. Nobody makes such arguments about infants. Nobody is “unable to look past the woman” when they can see and hear the baby. Thus, their arguments pre-suppose the non-humanity of the child. This makes determination of WHAT the fetus is the defining part of the argument.

It’s always easier to kill if you dehumanize the victim first. That’s why history is full of words like Japs, Krauts, Kikes and N(can I even type it?). Such words dehumanize to make the killing easier. It’s just sad that the medical term “fetus” has come to be used in a similar way.

Well said.