Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
The game is designed with an agenda…
Click to expand...
It certainly is. It’s to find out if you consider a baby to have more value than an embryo.

I generally find that those who refuse to answer these type of questions don’t like the what they know will be the follow up question. Because let’s face it. Unless you want to play Devil’s Advocate, the answer is obviously ‘save the baby’. But then would come the question why.

And you don’t like the suggestion that a baby has more worth than an embryo. But to answer the question, you’d have to agree to that.

But as you say, it’s not compulsory. Not answering doesn’t exactly hide anything. But feel free to ignore it.
 
joyfulandactive said:
I am Pro-life but always find these discussions disturbing and many Pro-life statements generally in their complete ignoring of the mother. A baby is not becoming a human at any stage without a mother. Without talking about the woman you talk of babies and embryos as if they are in stasis. A baby always has a mother, you cannot have one without the other. I would like to hear every time abortion is discussed just as much love and concern directed at the mother as the baby, otherwise it is completely alienating.
Click to expand...
Nobody argues that the mother doesn’t have rights.

Yes, they should receive support up till birth and after if they raise the child.

I also feel for a woman pregnant through rape.

However nobody has the right to kill an innocent human being. And on hearing my sister talk about how my niece responded when she was pregnant with her, reading shout my abortion and listening to Abby Johnson I’m finding it harder to sympathise with women who murder their babies.

I’m seeing, that at least on some level, they know that that’s exactly what they are doing.
 
Wozza said:
And you don’t like the suggestion that a baby has more worth than an embryo. But to answer the question, you’d have to agree to that.
Click to expand...
No. Those of us that would save the born baby see it as no different to choosing to save our own child over more unrelated children.
 
This is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that babies are always part of their mothers and cannot be here without their mothers, therefore please be as respectful and kind to the mothers as to the babies.

It’s this kind of rhetoric that alienates women. I already stated very clearly I am pro-life. If you want women to keep their babies then I suggest you speak to them and talk of them with love. Just as Jesus speaks to us.
 
joyfulandactive said:
This is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that babies are always part of their mothers and cannot be here without their mothers, therefore please be as respectful and kind to the mothers as to the babies.

It’s this kind of rhetoric that alienates women. I already stated very clearly I am pro-life. If you want women to keep their babies then I suggest you speak to them and talk of them with love. Just as Jesus speaks to us.
Click to expand...
As far as I’m concerned your way has been tried and failed miserably.
 
I am not sure what you mean. Loving people is what Christ asks us to do and ultimately how we will be judged. Don’t forget Mary’s community would have stoned her without Joseph’s protection.

When a women finds herself pregnant the circumstances are as different as the women. Treating a woman with love and respect is how she may have the courage to step forward into motherhood when maybe everyone around her is encouraging her to abort, including the father of her child.

If she is hearing frightening rhetoric (and she may be very young) she is unlikely to approach the people talking like that for help. If we want more babies to be born then we need to talk respectfully of their mothers. And it does work, I have been witness to it working.
 
I have personally asked women not to abort their babies and they have gone on to have them. People are called in different ways to protect life. I have been able to befriend people and talk with them one-on-one and been there for them when they decided to keep their child. One of them was my brother’s girlfriend when they were both 17. Their son is now 30 and serving in the Navy.

Women are very frightened and vulnerable. Being outside clinics is one way to reach them, but hopefully we can reach them before they go to the clinic.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
Wozza:
And you don’t like the suggestion that a baby has more worth than an embryo. But to answer the question, you’d have to agree to that.
Click to expand...
No. Those of us that would save the born baby see it as no different to choosing to save our own child over more unrelated children.
Click to expand...
This is frustrating…

That wasn’t and isn’t the option. It is foetus v baby. Not yours v someone else’s. It cannot be too subtle a hypothetical. Surely not. We are determining if someone considers that which a woman carries in the first few weeks of a pregnancy as valuable as that which she is carrying at term.
 
It could just be that humans can increase in value, in which case abortion still isn’t moral.
 
EZweber said:
40.png
Wozza:
That would be a no.
Click to expand...
I’m not asking if they do exist. I’m asking if the concept of an immaterial being is contradictory.
Click to expand...
You asked me if I accepted that they exist. The answer to that was no.

If you ask me if they actually exist, the answer is still no.

If you are now asking if the term is contradictory, then you need to tell me what it is that you think it might or might not contradict. It certainly contradicts everything we know about the physical world. But it doesn’t contradict belief. Lots of people believe in gods and spirits.

Not sure where this is going. But carry on.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
It could just be that humans can increase in value, in which case…
Click to expand...
…in which case it might have been the wrong decision not to save the baby. Nothing more and nothing less. That is all. The baby had more value than the embryos. That’s what everyone answers. That’s why you thought to try the alternative to see where it went. But then you found that you felt you might need someone to defend your views.

Nobody would need a defence team if the baby was saved. Why do you think that?
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
But then you found that you felt you might need someone to defend your views.
Click to expand...
The value of an embryo is still being debated. I’m not quite sure what the point of this exercise is since it doesn’t prove that abortion is moral. Sure value systems, but that’s not really important.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
It certainly is. It’s to find out if you consider a baby to have more value than an embryo.

I generally find that those who refuse to answer these type of questions don’t like the what they know will be the follow up question. Because let’s face it. Unless you want to play Devil’s Advocate, the answer is obviously ‘save the baby’. But then would come the question why.

And you don’t like the suggestion that a baby has more worth than an embryo. But to answer the question, you’d have to agree to that.

But as you say, it’s not compulsory. Not answering doesn’t exactly hide anything. But feel free to ignore it.
Click to expand...
How tantalizing you must believe this bait to be.

You can ascribe whatever motivation you wish to those that will not answer. The fact is, it is a straw man argument.
You do not know the motivation behind those that will not play the game.
You only know what you would like their motivation to be. That would make it easier to defeat.

From my perspective, you have built a fiction driven by an agenda, and then try to parade a straw man on those that do not play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top