Another abortion question part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a very nuanced and complicated issue.

In my experience, working in real life with women, we have to remember that culture and education have taught for decades that an early term pregnancy is not yet a child. Women are not sociopaths who want to kill a child. They feel cornered, pressured to end a pregnancy. For all of their lives, for all of their mothers’ lives, the idea than an embryo or fetus is a child has not been part of the conversation.

They are also taught that it is a kindness to terminate a pregnancy if the child will be born with deformities or illnesses.

Last thing, in my experience, everyone who vociferously defends abortion rights has themselves been involved with at least one abortion. Not all regret or feel a wound from that abortion (if they had one themselves or if it was a dear friend/family member whom they supported in the procedure) When you argue with them, those who do feel the wounds can be wounded again by the words.

One of the best articles I have read in a very long time:

www.femcatholic.com

Why We Shouldn't Call Women Who've Had Abortions "Murderers"

Prolife activists sometimes display signs saying "Abortion is murder," or even call women "murderers" for having abortions. This is wrong.
www.femcatholic.com www.femcatholic.com
 
The arguments posted here won’t change the mind of a pro-choice person. Pro-choice people don’t believe a fetus is a person. The foundational belief that at conception a human person comes into existence is off the table for them.

I just bring this up because I see it a lot here. I think you should avoid these arguments and instead work on convincing them that a fetus is the exact same as a person who has been born. It is a tall order, I know, but unless you can get them to subscribe to that belief, you are wasting your time.
 
QwertyGirl said:
The arguments posted here won’t change the mind of a pro-choice person. Pro-choice people don’t believe a fetus is a person. The foundational belief that at conception a human person comes into existence is off the table for them.

I just bring this up because I see it a lot here. I think you should avoid these arguments and instead work on convincing them that a fetus is the exact same as a person who has been born. It is a tall order, I know, but unless you can get them to subscribe to that belief, you are wasting your time.
Click to expand...
And I agree with that. If they don’t think it is a person then everything else fails
 
How come almost all these questions are kind of the same?
 
Last edited:
I absolutely agree with you @QwertyGirl. I began thinking about this after I wrote my response. Trent Horn points this out that it’s critical to first get a pro choice person to recognize the fetus IS a human. Once they see this then they’ll realize that abortion is murder.
 
SeriousQuestion said:
Mostly the medical ones.
Click to expand...
Because that’s the greatest hurdle I will probably have to face when discussing abortion, and at times I’m unsure of if someone is going to tell me that abortion is medically necessary, and give me a testimony that I can’t refute.

@SeriousQuestion what should I do in this case?
 
Last edited:
You are a Minor, correct.

It’s probable then that these conversations are with other minors. Just say it’s against the law of God. That at conception a soul is gifted. And life begins.

No point starting arguments about it. Just explain that.
And as Edward George says, where does the right to kill stop
 
Last edited:
theCardinalbird said:
how can I be confident I’m correct?
Click to expand...
I highly recommend getting the book I told you about in the last post by Trent Horn. It’s extremely airtight and will definitely boost your confidence.
theCardinalbird said:
Because that’s the greatest hurdle I will probably have to face when discussing abortion, and at times I’m unsure of if someone is going to tell me that abortion is medically necessary, and give me a testimony that I can’t refute.
Click to expand...
It reasonably isn’t bad to say that applying the proper treatment to an absolutely medically necessary life threatening condition (such as cancer or a complication with where the unborn child is growing out of the uterus). However the primary intention should be the treatment itself and if it kills the unborn child, then it is a side effect that, while not intended, might have been expected.

However this is the absolute only reason, other than this, it’s unacceptable. Pressure them on seeing if their primary concern really is saving the mother’s life or a higher agenda and ask:

“Before we discuss this particular case, would you agree with me that abortion on the ordinary basis and reason when the mother’s life is not threatened is always wrong?”

See what happens from there and their true intentions might be revealed.
 
Last edited:
www.liveaction.org

Live Action

Live Action is a 501(c)3 human rights non-profit and the digital leader of the global pro-life movement. We exist today to defend the rights of the most vulnerable and make abortion unthinkable.
www.liveaction.org www.liveaction.org

This site has a lot of info that I hope helps.

God Bless and pray for the Holy Spirit to help you find the words when speaking to others.
 
I second this. Get a copy of Persuasive Pro-Life. Read it. Then read it again. You’ll be all set.
 
theCardinalbird said:
When speaking to someone Pro-Choice, she asked something somewhere along the lines of, “why should other people have a say in how I use my body?”

“If I’m going through all the pains of creating a child, shouldn’t I have a say in whether or not I want to stop it?”

Also: “pregnancy is dangerous, why should I be put through that without a choice?”
Click to expand...
Because the pregnant woman isn’t the only one affected; the child growing inside her is also effected.

If a woman is prevented from aborting her child then she is inconvenienced for nine months. If a woman is allowed to abort her child then the child loses it’s whole life.
 
Co-signed here. Short version: an acorn is not an oak tree. A tadpole is not a frog. A fetus is not a person.
 
Knight said:
I absolutely agree with you @QwertyGirl. I began thinking about this after I wrote my response. Trent Horn points this out that it’s critical to first get a pro choice person to recognize the fetus IS a human. Once they see this then they’ll realize that abortion is murder.
Click to expand...
That’s right. Once that recognition is made then someone who is still pro abortion rights would have to admit that the foundation of what they are supporting is the death of a human being.
 
Plants are different in their biological structures so comparing them to animals might not work. Tadpoles are the larval stage of an amphibian, similar to how a fetus is a stage of a mammal. I think tadpoles are still considered part of their species. A person is a different concept to what an animal is.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
Questioner13:
A fetus is not a person
Click to expand...
To clarify, a human fetus is a human, right?
Click to expand...
As I said in the other topic there is no scientific benchmark for determining what is a person. Science cannot make that determination.

When we try to create that benchmark on our own then all kinds of problems are encountered, as anything you could say about an unborn person can easily be applied to a born person.

Not to mention that human history (slavery, Europe in the 1930s, etc) suggests that humans are very flawed in making this determination as their own absolute truth.

The unborn child certainly is a person. It’s common logical sense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top