Can someone help me destroy these 5 common arguments from Pro-Choicers?

[Ben_Sinner]

Here are five “zingers” that Pro-Choice people use to try to put Pro-Lifers in an awkward spot with their anti-abortion argument.

1. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. The child is a part of her body that is formed by her…to say she can’t abort is to say she can’t choose to do what she wants with her body.
2. If the woman was raped, that can cause psychological problems and will cause her to have flashbacks at the sight of the child and will also likely lead to the mother abusing/hating the child. Most women who were raped and had an abortion feel a since of relief after getting rid of the “rape baby”
3. If it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor can think for itself, it’s not alive, so its not murder.
4. Adoption is a poor option. Statistics show that foster care here in America is very bad and the child will suffer abuse, neglect, etc. It’s better that they aren’t born at all then put in foster care.
5. Why should a child be forced to be birthed by a mother that is going to abuse, neglect, hate, and psychologically damage it?

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Here are five “zingers” that Pro-Choice people use to try to put Pro-Lifers in an awkward spot with their anti-abortion argument.

1. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. The child is a part of her body that is formed by her…to say she can’t abort is to say she can’t choose to do what she wants with her body.
2. If the woman was raped, that can cause psychological problems and will cause her to have flashbacks at the sight of the child and will also likely lead to the mother abusing/hating the child. Most women who were raped and had an abortion feel a since of relief after getting rid of the “rape baby”
3. If it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor can think for itself, it’s not alive, so its not murder.
4. Adoption is a poor option. Statistics show that foster care here in America is very bad and the child will suffer abuse, neglect, etc. It’s better that they aren’t born at all then put in foster care.
5. Why should a child be forced to be birthed by a mother that is going to abuse, neglect, hate, and psychologically damage it?

The answers to all the questions regarding the mother doing a bad job is adoption. There is a huge number of parents on the waiting list. No reason to think the kids would end up in foster care. But even if they did, it smacks of eugenics to suggest they would be better off dead and it is rather dispairing of the abilities of people who were once in foster care to make something of themselves as adults.

Scientifically life begins at conception. Although if they believe life begins when the heartbeat begins then they should be outraged because by their definition a lot of babies are being murdered. The thing is that there is no other clear point aside from conception at which you can say ‘aha! This baby just became a human!’. If you set fire to a building and you don’t check if someone is inside you get charged for manslaughter. If you aren’t sure if it’s a baby at any given point during pregnancy, you err on the sideof caution.

A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. But pregnancy is a special case: the woman has a living thing with its own unique dna inside her. Its not like getting a tattoo. The fact is you are killing a growing human. Is it ok for a siamese twin to kill its twin because it’s attached to its body?

 

[MaryHelp777]

Here are five “zingers” that Pro-Choice people use to try to put Pro-Lifers in an awkward spot with their anti-abortion argument.

1. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. The child is a part of her body that is formed by her…to say she can’t abort is to say she can’t choose to do what she wants with her body.

Thou shalt not kill.
Murder is a great evil.

1. If the woman was raped, that can cause psychological problems and will cause her to have flashbacks at the sight of the child and will also likely lead to the mother abusing/hating the child. Most women who were raped and had an abortion feel a since of relief after getting rid of the “rape baby”

Adoption gives the Child a chance of a life.
“You cannot do evil to do good.”
Thou shalt not kill.

1. If it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor can think for itself, it’s not alive, so its not murder.
   Life is from the moment of Conception, from the moment of conception that child is a human being, with soul.
2. Adoption is a poor option. Statistics show that foster care here in America is very bad and the child will suffer abuse, neglect, etc. It’s better that they aren’t born at all then put in foster care.

Thou shalt not kill.
That is euthanasia. Which is also murder.

1. Why should a child be forced to be birthed by a mother that is going to abuse, neglect, hate, and psychologically damage it?

Number one human right; “The right to life.” No other right is more important.

 

[porthos11]

Here are five “zingers” that Pro-Choice people use to try to put Pro-Lifers in an awkward spot with their anti-abortion argument.

1. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. The child is a part of her body that is formed by her…to say she can’t abort is to say she can’t choose to do what she wants with her body.
2. If the woman was raped, that can cause psychological problems and will cause her to have flashbacks at the sight of the child and will also likely lead to the mother abusing/hating the child. Most women who were raped and had an abortion feel a since of relief after getting rid of the “rape baby”
3. If it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor can think for itself, it’s not alive, so its not murder.
4. Adoption is a poor option. Statistics show that foster care here in America is very bad and the child will suffer abuse, neglect, etc. It’s better that they aren’t born at all then put in foster care.
5. Why should a child be forced to be birthed by a mother that is going to abuse, neglect, hate, and psychologically damage it?

There are so many wrong premises, were do we begin.

1. It’s not the woman’s body. It’s the baby’s body. The proof is that it already has its own DNA organs, etc.
2. So let’s see. If a mother has a psychological problem AFTER the child is born, is it fine to murder him? If not, given #1, why should his being inside the womb vs. outside define whether a woman has a right to murder a child just because she doesn’t like what he represents? If she can’t keep him for any reason, he can be given up for adoption.
3. An unborn child has a heartbeat from an early stage, and there are signs that he already has mental processes. But still, this is an arbitrary and false premise. Should we murder the insane, simply because he can’t think straight?
4. “It’s better…” is a false premise. Being placed in foster care is TONS better than being murdered.
5. Because a child has a right to be born and to live. He does not deserve to be abused, neglected, hated, psychologically damaged. Or murdered. Murdering a child to prevent him from being abused, neglected, hated, and physically damaged is just twisted logic.

And yes, I used the word “murder” several times.

If this is the kind of logic pro-“choicers” use, then boy. Evil indeed takes many forms.

 

[Debbie_Keefe]

#2 Since she’s not allowed to kill the rapist who is guilty, why should she be allowed to kill the baby who is innocent?

 

[pensmama87]

I would say rather than trying to “destroy” the argument, understand that many people who consider themselves pro-choice do not have a good understanding of embryology or fetal development (it’s shocking, but lots of people believe the ‘clump of cells’ lie and I did too until I heard my son’s heartbeat at my first prenatal checkup). They also tend to have a great deal of compassion for a woman especially in a “hard situation,” which makes them feel like no restrictions are possible because they want the wiggle room.

Only a few people are really, truly, die-hard on abortion, and these people are just not persuadable. But lots of people who are open to learning become closed when they are made to feel defensive or stupid. Pro-lifers need to show compassion for women who are faced with hard choices. We need to be able to discuss resources for pregnant women both before and after birth, including but not limited to adoption agencies, and we have to honestly be able to say we support them. We have to be clear about the science of how babies develop in the womb, and we should be able to calmly and without resorting to overly emotional or harmful language describe how abortions work. We have to be able to say, “There is a difference between an early induction of labor when survival rates are low, and actively killing the fetus.”

We should also know where a woman who wants to grieve her child lost through abortion could go for help.

We refute these arguments with love.

 

[josh987654321]

1. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. The child is a part of her body that is formed by her…to say she can’t abort is to say she can’t choose to do what she wants with her body.

The child in the mothers womb has their own DNA distinct from the mothers, it’s not simply ‘her body’ and if it were, I suspect they would be a little more concerned about stopping a beating heart.

1. If the woman was raped, that can cause psychological problems and will cause her to have flashbacks at the sight of the child and will also likely lead to the mother abusing/hating the child. Most women who were raped and had an abortion feel a since of relief after getting rid of the “rape baby”

What about when the baby is already born? if a woman’s husband is abusive, and they already have a son together, there’s a chance the son could remind the mother of her abusive husband, but it would be grossly wrong to kill the son because of that.

Not even the rapist gets the death penalty and the child in the mothers womb has not committed any crime.

1. If it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor can think for itself, it’s not alive, so its not murder.

Can’t think for themselves? who determines that and on what grounds? someone who is unconscious can’t ‘think for themselves’

Not only that, but the children who are aborted in their mothers wombs all have heartbeats.

1. Adoption is a poor option. Statistics show that foster care here in America is very bad and the child will suffer abuse, neglect, etc. It’s better that they aren’t born at all then put in foster care.

So disadvantaged and poor people should be killed? because it’s better they die than live in poverty? and who decides the quality of life they ‘might’ have and that it’s not worth living?

Imagine if someone else decided the quality of your life and said it’s not worth living so I’ll just put you out of your misery?

One of my favorite all time speechs - youtube.com/watch?v=I0Wwgh7kdKM

1. Why should a child be forced to be birthed by a mother that is going to abuse, neglect, hate, and psychologically damage it?

Because that mother I believe should give her child up for adoption if she does not want him/her.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Wesrock]

It all hinges on 3 and whether the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human person (it’s relationship to the parents is always “child”. If him or her is a human person, the others are easily addressed. I’m tempted to quite flippantly, from killing children because they cause stress to the mother to killing children with disabilities and in foster care to save them pain.

It is the mother and father’s child from the moment of fertilization; it’s own unique person. Age doesn’t’t affect his relationship to his parents, and it’s clearly a distinct life from the mother even if dependent on her. Parents have a duty and responsibility towards their children, and no parent should ever countenance murdering her own child. Pro-choice advocates frame the argument such that the child’s life doesn’t start until birth. Why bring it into a painful world? Because at the point you’re considering it, it already is your child and is in the world. You’re not talking about preventing it from entering the world as a hypothetical, you’re talking of intentionally removing it by murder.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. The child is a part of her body that is formed by her…to say she can’t abort is to say she can’t choose to do what she wants with her body.
She has every right to keep her legs closed. After that, it’s too late and it is another body she is making a “choice” about. Keeping her legs closed is respecting herself and not recklessly gambling on a pregnancy she knows she doesn’t want. To me, it’s like overeating and then complaining that you’re putting weight on. If you don’t want to put weight on, don’t eat. Sex isn’t that marvelous that you can’t do without it. It is worth staying away from if you know you’re not in a position to have a child, or just don’t want one. A woman always has every right to do what she wants with her own body, when it still is her own body.

If the woman was raped, that can cause psychological problems and will cause her to have flashbacks at the sight of the child and will also likely lead to the mother abusing/hating the child. Most women who were raped and had an abortion feel a since of relief after getting rid of the "rape baby"
Is that child going to have “Rape Baby” attached to her all of her life? Could she help how she was conceived? Why blame her, and not her father? She is her own person, will most likely never know her father, and is half the mother. Why not think of it that way? Think of that child as being a part of the mother, because she is. That woman who has been raped is not carrying a miniature version of her rapist. She can also let that child live, as her God given right, and then give her away so she’ll never have to look at her. It would be awful for a child to have a mother who can only think of rape when she looks at her. Give her to someone who will never have to know how she was conceived, if it’s something that no one can get beyond. No child deserves to be tainted and shamed for something she certainly couldn’t help.

If it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor can think for itself, it’s not alive, so its not murder.
No. This is just politics and science, and not at all the way God sees it. That in and of itself should stand strong. They are not God. Who are they to decide? And this just proves they know it is wrong if they have to try and justify this hideous, hellish horror.

Adoption is a poor option. Statistics show that foster care here in America is very bad and the child will suffer abuse, neglect, etc. It’s better that they aren’t born at all then put in foster care.
No. You don’t kill a child just because there is a vague possibility that someone will neglect it. Abortionists themselves are child abusers. I can think of no worse cruelty to a child than burning her alive inside her own mother’s womb, or butchering her slowly. They aren’t ones to talk about caring about children at all. I don’t think an abortionist should ever be trusted with a child, not even one they “think” is “alive.”
Maybe the social workers are too lax and don’t really put their effort into making certain that child is going into a normal, loving household.
**
Why should a child be forced to be birthed by a mother that is going to abuse, neglect, hate, and psychologically damage it?**
Why should anyone think a mother is going to hate her own child? I’ve never even heard of such a thing. It seems, in all of these cases, the innocent child has to be the one who suffers, doesn’t it? The least at fault of all. It is a no win situation for these poor, tiny, creatures of God. They are a hated inconvenience, so they must die. They are a “Rape Baby”, so they must die. They might be neglected or abused, so they must die. They aren’t “alive” yet, so they must die. Just left out in the cold, no matter which way you look at it. Sickening.

 

[josh987654321]

Pro-choice advocates frame the argument such that it’s life doesn’t start until birth. Why bring it into a painful world? Because at the point you’re considering it, it already is your child and is in the world. You’re not talking about preventing it from entering the world as a hypothetical, you’re talking of intentionally removing it by murder.

Well said.

God Bless You

Josh

 

[MaryT777]

It all hinges on 3 and whether the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human person (it’s relationship to the parents is always “child”. If him or her is a human person, the others are easily addressed. I’m tempted to quite flippantly, from killing children because they cause stress to the mother to killing children with disabilities and in foster care to save them pain.

It is the mother and father’s child from the moment of fertilization; it’s own unique person. Age doesn’t’t affect his relationship to his parents, and it’s clearly a distinct life from the mother even if dependent on her. Parents have a duty and responsibility towards their children, and no parent should ever countenance murdering her own child. Pro-choice advocates frame the argument such that the child’s life doesn’t start until birth. Why bring it into a painful world? Because at the point you’re considering it, it already is your child and is in the world. You’re not talking about preventing it from entering the world as a hypothetical, you’re talking of intentionally removing it by murder.

Well said. Murder is not the answer.

 

[John_Martin]

In addition to knowing that it is an individual being with individual DNA which would be destroyed, sound reason in a mother and father would say that the body is naturally busy keeping the new individual alive, grabbing it in its free-fall and attaching it to the uterus, forming a protective covering around it and supplying it with a life protectant environment of embryonic fluid, supplying nutrients, warmth, shock protection, etc.

So, stopping a natural body function that is not answerable to “reasoned choices”, would be like putting a bag over your mouth to stop breathing - breathing is not subject to reason, and neither is uterine activity of the body. Therefore it is contrary to sound reason to cause defect to the uterine movements of the body, just as it is contrary to sound reason to cause defect to the cardio-pulmonary activities of the body. These are activities not subject to the sensitive appetites nor the intellectual appetite (the will). Abortion is not just causing defects in the new body so it ceases to be able to live, but it is causing defect to one’s own body’s present activity of keeping this being alive.

Abortion, then, is not what the mother’s human body wants at all, but it is hating one’s own body’s natural movements.

The sensitive and intellectual appetites do sense that something is being done by their bodies to keep this being alive within, and it results in happiness of the present event, or results in fear of what it will mean, or it results in anger over a supposed injustice that has been done to me, to the way things should be for my enjoying life. But the body protecting the new “other’s body” is the whole thing perceived

• “Why is there a fetus?” is not the whole picture, but “Why is my body holding and keeping and protecting this new body?”

Sex itself is different - it is an activity of the body that is subject to reason’s decision, because it is dependent on the coordinated movement of many bodily activities that are moved by the will, and therefore by reason’s understanding and judgement about their truth and goodness (or lack of goodness).

Both abortion and contraception are attempts to make natural bodily functions defective, not by simply “willing not to happen”, as can be done with movements such as walking or talking, but by intervening in a kind of violence to the natural movement.

True human choices are about activities that are “willed activities”, activities of the body that require the choice of the will to actually happen at all or not happen. But, sadly, we see around us a generation trying to “will” the modification and destruction of what is not subject to will or to choice because of its perceived opposition to pleasures being sought.

 

[mikekle]

If you look at it legally, the State HAS recognized an unborn baby to be ‘a separate life’, whenever a person is charged and convicted of killing a pregnant women, 2 counts of murder are usually added, if the unborn was not a life, a separate charge could not be brought, and any defense lawyer could get it thrown out…but it seems the state wants it both ways, they will claim its a life when its their interest to do so, if its not in their best interest, its not a life…???

Another thing I do not get, whenever a young child is killed, people go ballistic, cops, judges, complete strangers, etc, everyone is absolutely shocked and stunned, all agree the killer needs to be punished to the full extent of the law, many also wish extreme violence be done to the killer, people go out of their way to ensure justice is handed out to anyone who would kill a young child…but when its an unborn, its the opposite? Why are there not many folks out claiming killing the child was the parents right and they should not be punished at all? they claim its OK with abortion, whats the difference?

Locally a year or so ago, this young mother killed her 4 month old infant, it was in the news every day, everyone I saw talking about it, wished the mother to get the death penalty, many also hoped she suffer terribly for doing this, I cant remember anyone speaking out for her right to have done this, but if she had this exact same thing 5 months prior, all those people would not have a problem with what she did…so it seems age is the factor whether or not murder is acceptable or not.

 

[jediliz]

the first one proves they failed biology class. a baby is not an organ of the woman. Does this mean a woman has male parts if pregnant with a boy? You can tell when they never had anything about reproduction in biology class. I was blessed to have a child development elective (included pregnancy and the differences between identical and fraternal twins)

they obviously want to punish the baby, not the rapist (savethe1.com/)

They know ZERO about fetal development. The heart starts to beat 21 days after conception. And if babies experience REM sleep, they have brains, too! (which are starting to form and have brain waves by 40 days)

they think adoption is some evil act. How many Hollywood actors and actresses were adopted by their parents? I know Melissa Gilbert was.

the last one would be a good reason to save the baby and place for adoption. Neglect, poverty, and the lack of an x-box would not be good reasons to kill.

 

[John_Martin]

Here are five “zingers” that Pro-Choice people use to try to put Pro-Lifers in an awkward spot with their anti-abortion argument.
Give some “zingers” in return

1. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. The child is a part of her body that is formed by her…to say she can’t abort is to say she can’t choose to do what she wants with her body.
   Your own body is working hard to keep the baby alive, feeding it, protecting it, keeping it warm and comfortable; why are you disrespecting your body’s intentions to keep the baby? Does your body have no rights?
2. If the woman was raped, that can cause psychological problems and will cause her to have flashbacks at the sight of the child and will also likely lead to the mother abusing/hating the child. Most women who were raped and had an abortion feel a since of relief after getting rid of the “rape baby”
   Wow, if rape is the father of aborted babies, there are millions of un-prosecuted rapists in this country…
3. If it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor can think for itself, it’s not alive, so its not murder.
   It is moving itself by its own cellular causation, which is life. And it is human life as defined by its DNA; It is constructing its own heart and brain because it intends to think and to have pulse. The statement shows that you are not thinking; so that must mean you are not alive???
4. Adoption is a poor option. Statistics show that foster care here in America is very bad and the child will suffer abuse, neglect, etc. It’s better that they aren’t born at all then put in foster care.
   If Foster Care is so bad according to statistics (which I doubt), then you prove the point that adoption is the best thing that can happen to a parentless child, rather than killing it.
5. Why should a child be forced to be birthed by a mother that is going to abuse, neglect, hate, and psychologically damage it?
   You have a very poor opinion of the women you want to seek abortions; do you tell all the women coming to the abortion clinics that they are such low-lifes as you have portrayed them?

This would not get you anywhere, though.
It is best for us (as Catholics) to be an “odd people” in the world, not aborting our babies but loving them, not warehousing our grandparents but honoring them with attention and listening to them, etc., and be happy in it, so that people see us and desire the type of life we enjoy, desire to be Catholic themselves.

 

[openmind77]

Here are five “zingers” that Pro-Choice people use to try to put Pro-Lifers in an awkward spot with their anti-abortion argument.

1. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. The child is a part of her body that is formed by her…to say she can’t abort is to say she can’t choose to do what she wants with her body.
2. If the woman was raped, that can cause psychological problems and will cause her to have flashbacks at the sight of the child and will also likely lead to the mother abusing/hating the child. Most women who were raped and had an abortion feel a since of relief after getting rid of the “rape baby”
3. If it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor can think for itself, it’s not alive, so its not murder.
4. Adoption is a poor option. Statistics show that foster care here in America is very bad and the child will suffer abuse, neglect, etc. It’s better that they aren’t born at all then put in foster care.
5. Why should a child be forced to be birthed by a mother that is going to abuse, neglect, hate, and psychologically damage it?

It is like a echo chamber in here. You wouldn’t guess from all the responses that the world population supports keeping abortions legal by an overwhelming majority (with varying restrictions) (including in Catholic majority countries like Italy and France) and that only about six small countries prohibit it entirely. But since you asked the question, let me give you some zingers which are constantly being used by pro-life people:

1. Never call those who support keeping abortion legal ‘pro-choice’ always call them ‘pro-abortion’
2. Call them all murderers
3. Better still, call them all baby-killers.

I think those three are enough to destroy all pro-choice arguments.

BTW it is interesting to note that it is ‘pro-life’ governors and legislators who are preventing three million poor, needy Americans from obtaining free healthcare through Medicaid expansion (provided almost entirely by the federal government).

Also, a note of caution, if in your zeal to ‘save lives’ you happen to make the life of desperate, unfortunate women who seek an abortion, any more miserable and difficult than it already is, you will have to answer for your actions to the Christ whose Return is just around the corner. He may not be so pleased with your actions as you may have been led to believe and you can’t really argue with him.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

All it takes is seeing one picture of a bloodied, butchered, burnt little body lying in a dumpster, and from there, anyone with a thread of caring about a child should be horrified. That such a thing was ever even considered, much less made legal is a nightmare. Many just don’t care. Not caring is different than being in ignorance. It could also be that now they are feigning ignorance. Many outright laugh about it. To me, seeming surprised to learn that a fetus growing inside of a womb is a “real baby” is just strange. From the beginning of time, if a woman didn’t bleed, she right away knew she was “with child,” didn’t she.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Also, a note of caution, if in your zeal to ‘save lives’ you happen to make the life of desperate, unfortunate women who seek an abortion, any more miserable and difficult than it already is, you will have to answer for your actions to the Christ whose Return is just around the corner. He may not be so pleased with your actions as you may have been led to believe and you can’t really argue with him.

Christ’s Return is just around the corner, you are right on that. Dead wrong, however, on the rest of it. I’m only warning you, as well you should be warned.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

1. Never call those who support keeping abortion legal ‘pro-choice’ always call them ‘pro-abortion’
2. Call them all murderers
3. Better still, call them all baby-killers.

They burn a tiny woman alive inside of her mother’s womb.
They rip a tiny woman’s tiny body into pieces until the “procedure” is finished and she is good and dead.
They turn a tiny woman around inside of her mother’s womb and pull her halfway out feet first so her tiny head can be punctured with scissors, her tiny brains suctioned out, and her tiny, deflated body thrown in the garbage.
And Christ will condemn those who didn’t do this to tiny women. I say “tiny women”, referring to all of the aborted baby girls who were to become women.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

It is like a echo chamber in here. You wouldn’t guess from all the responses that the world population supports keeping abortions legal by an overwhelming majority

It has been written that more will end up suffering in Hell for all eternity.
Don’t for a moment think that all of this abortion praising will earn an eternal reward. The only “reward” will be snakes, maggots, and a lake of scum.