Coat Hanger Argument to Abortion

[Neil_Anthony]

Well yes. An abortion by definition will have the same result. I guess the question people ask (and the OP asked) is whether it should result in physical damage to the woman as well. That’s what we are discussing.

No, it shouldn’t result in that damage. We need strong laws to prevent people doing things like that.

 

[thomfra]

No, it shouldn’t result in that damage. We need strong laws to prevent people doing things like that.

I guess what we (as a society) has decided (so far) by legalising it is that people will always have these abortions, so how can we minimise the risk to these women?

But ideally society should be set up so that there is no shame in being raped (to take an extreme example), or becoming pregnant out of wedlock.

Ever notice why they always cover the face/protect the identity of women who are raped on TV. if they were victims of any other crime they would show their face on TV and scream to the world what has been done to them.

Yet we (as a society) still have a hang up about a woman being “pure” etc…so this in turn creates some of the pressure to abort “unwanted” children.

If we didn’t have these hang ups, there may well be fewer abortions.

 

[mapleoak]

Well yes. An abortion by definition will have the same result. I guess the question people ask (and the OP asked) is whether it should result in physical damage to the woman as well. That’s what we are discussing.

It shouldn’t result in either the physical damage to the woman or more importantly the death of the child, period.

 

[mapleoak]

I guess what we (as a society) has decided (so far) by legalising it is that people will always have these abortions, so how can we minimise the risk to these women?

We should not condone, support, or otherwise aid in any way the process of abortion.

But ideally society should be set up so that there is no shame in being raped (to take an extreme example), or becoming pregnant out of wedlock.

The shame is not the state of being pregnant out of wedlock.

Ever notice why they always cover the face/protect the identity of women who are raped on TV. if they were victims of any other crime they would show their face on TV and scream to the world what has been done to them.

How does this make it okay to kill someone?

 

[elvisman]

“According to the World Health Organisation, unsafe abortions kill more than 66,000 women worldwide every year.”

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_johnson/article3255912.ece

I don’t think this argument can be totally dismissed. I am not arguing whether it is “right” or “wrong”. But one needs to be realistic and accept facts should one engage in dialogue.

And, “clean, safe” abortions account for more than 30 million annually (worldwide).

The only difference is that the babies never had a choice in the matter - the mothers DID.

 

[jmcrae]

Why do you think abortion was made legal?

It’s back-door eugenics.

Notice how white, middle-class or upper class white women are never encouraged to abort or even to use birth control. (As long as their boyfriends are also white, of course!)

But Black women and other women of colour, and even white women who consort with men of all different colours, and those who are not so wealthy, must have their rights!! (Because the only way to get rid of poverty is to kill off the poor. But killing them in the streets would not be PC, so the government kills them in the womb, instead.)

 

[Oscarthecat]

Why do you think abortion was made legal?

Yes, we all know that proponents claim that abortion was made legal to protect the health of women who have elective abortions.

But the errors of the past hardly justify continuing those errors in the present.

You can sprinkle politically correct rationales on this topic all day, but it won’t change the fact that abortion is the direct and intention murder of a child.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I guess what we (as a society) has decided (so far) by legalising it is that people will always have these abortions, so how can we minimise the risk to these women?

But ideally society should be set up so that there is no shame in being raped (to take an extreme example), or becoming pregnant out of wedlock.

Ever notice why they always cover the face/protect the identity of women who are raped on TV. if they were victims of any other crime they would show their face on TV and scream to the world what has been done to them.

Yet we (as a society) still have a hang up about a woman being “pure” etc…so this in turn creates some of the pressure to abort “unwanted” children.

If we didn’t have these hang ups, there may well be fewer abortions.

Speaking of victims, the Church teaches that there are two victims harmed by every abortion-

you’ve identified one of them- the mother.

why don’t you feel the same compassion for the other victim?

Do you even know who the other victim of abortion is?

Here’s a hint- what happens to the unborn child in the commission of an abortion?

 

[buffalo]

Why Can’t We Love Them Both?

 

[Spirithound]

Well like it or lump it, this particular argument is based on fact, so I don’t think there is any hypothetical "well that’s like if I said… " which will counter it. This is what makes these issues difficult I suppose.

Haven’t you read the previous posts? It is not based on fact.

Well yes. An abortion by definition will have the same result. I guess the question people ask (and the OP asked) is whether it should result in physical damage to the woman as well. That’s what we are discussing.

No, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether a woman actually WOULD stick a coathanger into her vagina and uterus (a little more unpleasant to spell it out, isn’t it?). The numbers point to a staggering NO.

 

[Newbie2]

I often wonder why a successful “Adoption, not Abortion” mantra has never caught on with us Pro-lifers. Usually the argument stops at “It’s wrong to have an abortion”, but perhaps it’s a matter of getting past the pro-choice’s argument of “It’s a woman’s right”.

I guess it’s never going to be an easy political route to be pro-life, but I’ve always thought it’d be worth a try for the first words out of our mouths to be “adoption”, instead of being forced to formulate an argument against “the woman’s right”.

Wishful thinking, perhaps…

 

[Oscarthecat]

I often wonder why a successful “Adoption, not Abortion” mantra has never caught on with us Pro-lifers. Usually the argument stops at “It’s wrong to have an abortion”, but perhaps it’s a matter of getting past the pro-choice’s argument of “It’s a woman’s right”.

I guess it’s never going to be an easy political route to be pro-life, but I’ve always thought it’d be worth a try for the first words out of our mouths to be “adoption”, instead of being forced to formulate an argument against “the woman’s right”.

Wishful thinking, perhaps…

The quick response from most abortion proponents regarding adoption is that women shouldn’t be “forced” to bring a child to term that they don’t want to keep because it is too emotionally and physically taxing.

From there, they’re right back onto “freedom of choice”-

They’ll also claim that adoption is unfair to the child- more unfair than killing them, apparently.

 

[thomfra]

Yes, we all know that proponents claim that abortion was made legal to protect the health of women who have elective abortions.

But the errors of the past hardly justify continuing those errors in the present.

You can sprinkle politically correct rationales on this topic all day, but it won’t change the fact that abortion is the direct and intention murder of a child.

Hi, I am not saying I think it should be legal. I am merely asking why *you *think it was made legal. You are reading too much into my question.

 

[thomfra]

Speaking of victims, the Church teaches that there are two victims harmed by every abortion-

you’ve identified one of them- the mother.

why don’t you feel the same compassion for the other victim?

Do you even know who the other victim of abortion is?

Here’s a hint- what happens to the unborn child in the commission of an abortion?

Again, you are jumping to conclusions - I am merely trying to rationally explore both sides of the debate. I am not debating *you *per se. We do that on other threads

 

[thomfra]

We should not condone, support, or otherwise aid in any way the process of abortion.

The shame is not the state of being pregnant out of wedlock.

How does this make it okay to kill someone?

you missed the point.

 

[mapleoak]

you missed the point.

Nope. Point made with emphasis that any such arguments which draw attention away from the fact that abortion kills innocent babies is a smokescreen. You seem to be suggesting that we should provide “safe” ways for women to kill their babies since they are going to kill them whether it is “safe” or not.

 

[Calliso]

Nope. Point made with emphasis that any such arguments which draw attention away from the fact that abortion kills innocent babies is a smokescreen. You seem to be suggesting that we should provide “safe” ways for women to kill their babies since they are going to kill them whether it is “safe” or not.

In that particular post I donlt think he was. If anything he seemed to be wanting an answer to how we can help reduce abortions. And one way might to reduce the stigma society still puts on women pregnant out of wedlock and so on.

 

[mapleoak]

In that particular post I donlt think he was. If anything he seemed to be wanting an answer to how we can help reduce abortions. And one way might to reduce the stigma society still puts on women pregnant out of wedlock and so on.

It certainly sounds like it. The following post seems to say “Since abortion is legal, how can we help women have an abortion without hurting themselves?”.

I guess what we (as a society) has decided (so far) by legalising it is that people will always have these abortions, so how can we minimise the risk to these women?

To which the only appropriate response is: We cannot in any way condone, aid, support, or help women to kill their children, whether in a safe way or not, period.
I do not see how I am missing the point. It is pro-abortion smokescreen, pure and simple.

 

[thomfra]

It certainly sounds like it. The following post seems to say “Since abortion is legal, how can we help women have an abortion without hurting themselves?”.

To which the only appropriate response is: We cannot in any way condone, aid, support, or help women to kill their children, whether in a safe way or not, period.
I do not see how I am missing the point. It is pro-abortion smokescreen, pure and simple.

If you want to argue that I am “pro-abortion” and “smokescreening” you can do it until your hearts content.

But it will not make it true.

The point is, the country in which you live has legalized abortion. Fact.

The question I have asked was “why?”.

Why is there a need/percieved need for abortion, which has led to it’s legalization?

If you can’t remove yourself from this blinkered mode of thinking you will never come any further to solving a difficult issue. It’s not as simple as “they don’t value human life, they are evil”. It’s just not.

 

[dmelosi]

If you want to argue that I am “pro-abortion” and “smokescreening” you can do it until your hearts content.

But it will not make it true.

The point is, the country in which you live has legalized abortion. Fact.

The question I have asked was “why?”.

Why is there a need/percieved need for abortion, which has led to it’s legalization?

If you can’t remove yourself from this blinkered mode of thinking you will never come any further to solving a difficult issue. It’s not as simple as “they don’t value human life, they are evil”. It’s just not.

It is either they don’t believe it is human life or they don’t value human life. Which is it?