Discussing Abortion: Is Civility the Best Approach?

[Leek]

Or horrifically, they are actually pro life and love their unborn child and feel they have no other choice!

The anger and hostility will not change one mind. And will probably make the opposite side more firm. Abortion is part of women claiming control over their own bodies(unfortunately) so ensuring that it’s really not needed is the best idea. Keep in mind that it’s only recently that women themselves were considered people under the law.

The first thing you need to look at is how much do I know what I’m taking about? Have I brought a life into the world? How many days of sickness, pain, lost work did I have, how many birth injuries did I endure? How many trips to the ER, invasive scans, blood lost? Or are you a heath care professional who works with pregnant woman. If you know what this means then you have a position that doesn’t need hostility because you know some of the difficulties and know what it takes to overcome them and can give encouragement /or possible solutions instead.

If a pregnancy was not supporting a human life there would never be a reason to go through with it! They matter enough for this sacrifice but the mother has to have the strength to get them there, and everyone has a point where they fall. Being a pregnant human has never been an independent prospect.

 

[Riman643]

You’re not the first and certainly won’t be the last Catholic to use this example in order to self-justify righteous anger and excuse away any words or actions resulting from it.
But the fact is, we’re not Jesus.

You are right. I am not even claiming that I am correct in my assessment. I am just trying to say that it is possible to be righteous while also not being civil, as Jesus has shown us. Seeing how rare Christ used this tactic it may not be the best course of action to take in many situations.

So if legislation isn’t the answer, and civility isn’t the answer, in your opinion, what is?

Legislation is the answer long term, but we can only ever influence that decision of 2 and 4 years at least in the States. My opinion on the short term, correct catechesis among the faithful. If you ever look at polling among the faithful in the United States it is clear that catechesis is poor. I think the USCCB needs to make this priority #1. We need a unified voice among Catholics. After this I think changing the language of the “pro-choice” crowd is needed. The word softens the real stance they hold which is the point. If we referred to their stance as ‘pro-child murder’ then it reveals their real stance. It is offensive, but that is the point. They can no longer stand behind a innocuous “choice” but really have to defend their stance. Finally, I believe as Catholics we need to out-populate the secular society. Birth rates are dropping in the western world and so I think now is a great trend to buck that trend and be fruitful and multiply. The larger majority we can get, the easier it will to create change. But we need to be a unified force!

 

[Riman643]

Or horrifically, they are actually pro life and love their unborn child and feel they have no other choice!

I forgot to add in my other response: Donate to charities that help pregnant women! That way if someone feels like they don’t have a choice they would at least be able to know there is someplace for them to feel safe and supported.

 

[MPat]

I disagree for a number of reasons and maintain that we should remain civil and charitable when trying to reach pro-choicers.

As it has been pointed out, it is not all that clear what “civil and charitable” actually means.

Second, while supporters of the genocide of born people act out of anger and malice, pro-choicers genuinely believe that the unborn aren’t human and that they’re truly helping women.

How exactly do you know that?

If that “civility” mostly means assuming that your opponent is blameless (honest etc.) without proof, that seems to be a very bad idea.

After all, in at least some cases that assumption is likely to be false.

And one of our main allies here is the conscience of our opponent. It is a very bad idea to help him silence his conscience in any way.

So, it is better to avoid making assumptions one way or another. Instead, use an opportunity to get your opponent to consider if he is truly honest, should it arise.

First, an opponent is more likely to dismiss your perspective if you come at the person with anger or rudeness. This only results in bruised egos and hurt feelings, not in any progress toward convincing the opponent.

Have you considered “Good cop/bad cop” as a tactic?

After all, that seems to be what we end up with anyway.

You end up playing “good cop”? Great. But try to avoid helping your opponents to deal with your allies playing “bad cop” in any way.

Remember: you are on the same team as “bad cops”. You should try to help them (although it might be a good idea to make that unobvious to our opponents), not to sabotage their work.

This only results in bruised egos and hurt feelings, not in any progress toward convincing the opponent.

Convincing the opponent is not the only goal.

Sure, it would be nice if at least some of our opponents would switch sides, and we should be always be welcoming and forgiving to the ones who do so.

But it is probable that many of them will not do so. And in that case we should try to make sure they end up with as little power, as possible.

Thus, if we can’t convert them, but we can make sure they are out of political office, demoralised (for example, reluctant to defend or voice out their position), that is also a good result.

 

[ImJustPro]

I started that thread. I should’ve known it would cause a ruckus.

I agree we should be civil. After all, if a crowd of people is watching a debate between someone who is pro-life and pro-choice and the ladder is being rude, which side will people be interested in?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If that “civility” mostly means assuming that your opponent is blameless (honest etc.) without proof, that seems to be a very bad idea.

Civility does not mean that at all. It means being respectful and keeping calm.

Remember: you are on the same team as “bad cops”. You should try to help them (although it might be a good idea to make that unobvious to our opponents), not to sabotage their work.

The bad cop is already sabotaging their own work.

Being uncivil does seem to be how rights have been won though. It took the civil war to end slavery WW2 for the Jews. I don’t think the suffregetes were seen as civil either.

That’s not a good way to win support now and that’s not a viable strategy.

 

[Uriel1]

We are duty-bound to instruct the ignorant and counsel the doubtful, but we are forbidden to go on to judge the soul of another.

This is our job in a nutshell

 

[ontheway1]

I disagree for a number of reasons and maintain that we should remain civil and charitable when trying to reach pro-choicers.

Is it possible to discuss abortion? Are we discussing the issue with -
a. person planning to have an abortion
b. person not planning an abortion - but a staunch supporter of the “woman’s right to …”
c. a mob, or throng if you prefer, of pro-abortion activists, suporters, etc.

If trying to discuss the issue with person A who is having an abortion, one could discuss options, life issues, etc. A person to person discussion is probably possible.
A discussion with person B - the woman’s right to choose, woudl likely be more difficult and not productive
Discussing abortion with a mob of pro-choice zealots (yes, they are zealots) would go nowhere, as reasonable argument woudl be met with derision.

So, is discussion possible at all? Maybe, on an individual basis. Here, civility would be of utmost importance.
Civility would be important in the other cases as well, but the results are predictable.

 

[blackforest]

Legislation is the answer long term, but we can only ever influence that decision of 2 and 4 years at least in the States.

I actually agree. I don’t even bank on the Supreme Court changing anything. That’s why I no longer place all of my eggs in the pro-life-candidate basket. We’ve been trying for over 50 years with this strategy, and it may be time to find a new one.

Civility would be important in the other cases as well, but the results are predictable.

I think there’s a civil approach to all three of your categories, believe it or not. With A, absolutely. Civil and compassionate. With B, even still . . . even if they go off the rails. With C, just walk away. Was it Oscar Wilde who said to never wrestle with a pig because the pig loves it, and you both get dirty? You can’t convince those who are too entrenched in their beliefs. Instead win the hearts and minds of those more open to discussion.

But yes, I agree with you that the context will vary. On CAF, it’s important to stay civil. And I need to remind myself of this constantly because the abortion threads can get pretty heated.

 

[Riman643]

That’s why I no longer place all of my eggs in the pro-life-candidate basket. We’ve been trying for over 50 years with this strategy, and it may be time to find a new one.

Don’t get me wrong. I will only vote, and I would hope every other Catholic would vote, for candidates who oppose child murder. If anyone is culpable for the slaughtering and genocide of children it is the people in power who think it is okay. We as Catholics must still be united against that. The Catholic vote should be 100% for pro-life candidates. It’s the only way to make it a bi-partisan issue instead of a single-party issue.

You didn’t really comment on my other points. Catechesis reform, rephrasing the oppositions stance correctly, having larger Catholic families. What are you thoughts on those?

 

[Freddy]

That’s why I no longer place all of my eggs in the pro-life-candidate basket. We’ve been trying for over 50 years with this strategy, and it may be time to find a new one.

Hands up everyone who thinks that abortion can be stopped completely? You know, abortions available up until Friday and then zero allowed from Saturday onwards. Anyone? Well there may be one or two living in some alternate reality that might think that. But there’s no switch one can throw which will end it completely. Or abruptly. OK, that’s that sorted out.

Now, is there anyone who thinks that people have abortions because they enjoy having them? That they wouldn’t take any opportunity to go back and correct the mistake they made in getting pregnant in the first place. No-one? Good.

Next. Is there anyone who thinks it wouldn’t be a good idea to reduce the number of abortions? Great, we’re making progress.

So…what practical suggestions does anyone have for reducing them. Not just in your town. Or your state. Or America as a whole. But everywhere. Maybe someone would like to post some information as to why women have abortions in the first place. Obviously because they don’t want a child, but what is the reason for not wanting the child. Can we investigate what the socio-economic backgrounds of the women has in the decision making process? Can we investigate why they gor pregnant in the first place? Maybe look at different age groups. Different beliefs.

Maybe we can do all this in a reasonable manner whilst avoiding terms such as slaughter and genicode.

 

[Pattylt]

As an anti abortion agnostic, I have had many discussions with the atheist community which is predominantly pro choice.
First, let me assure you they know it is human. They have various opinions as to whether it’s a person before it has a brain that is developed enough to consider using the word personhood and very few think of it as “just a clump of cells”.

One thing that is a factor for me in discussing this issue with them is that neither of us have to resort to religious arguments…those only work with those religious to begin with. Here is what the argument boils down to…

There are two rights that are in opposition to each other regarding a pregnancy and it ONLY occurs in pregnancy. The right to life versus the right to self determination. With religion, the right to life takes precedence so with a religious person, this is what you argue from. For the non religious, however, the right to self determination overcomes the right to life in cases of pregnancy. The woman is the sole determinator of what takes place inside her body. Arguing for the right to life will not win this argument. It just won’t.

Anyone read or see Handmaids Tale. The premise is that some environmental factor makes almost all women unable to conceive. All of a sudden, being able to get pregnant is the most valuable thing that can happen to a woman and the value of babies becomes all consuming. While we aren’t anywhere near that point, we are in an unprecedented point in history where, in the West, we aren’t replacing our population. This can’t continue forever. At some point, our value of babies will undergo a paradigm shift. If/when it does, abortion will likely become moot. We don’t kill something of high value and if you think we currently have a high value of babies, you’re wrong. Of course, some of us do…but, we often don’t act like it.

Right now, millions of women will consider abortion because they know…later down the road…they can make another when they want one. Society doesn’t act like it values babies very much either. Women fear being fired, unable to obtain healthcare pre and post birth. Women fear being housed, affording basic necessities and losing status at work for needing more time off. Workplaces often don’t even have 6 weeks of leave time after giving birth…all these messages say babies aren’t really THAT valuable.

So, how do we change that perspective? Charities do some amazing work but they can’t reach everyone that needs them. They can’t afford the costs of reaching them all and it’s uncoordinated care. They need all encompassing help…even those that can afford the basics often can’t get the emotional help they need.
Cont…

 

[Pattylt]

Cont…
The law will most likely never be changed. The Supreme Court has even stated that it’s a settled issue and I think pouring any effort into overturning Roe v Wade is wasted energy. Heck, women don’t even need doctors for abortions now. It can be completely accomplished with medication. Where we need to direct our energies is changing the values we place on children and I sure hope we don’t wait until we have a Handmaids Tale to have it happen.

We have to start with our own children, instilling a value upon babies to a much higher degree than our current society does. And society has to start acting like babies are one of the most precious and important contributions that a woman can give. THATS where we need to focus. Thanks for letting me vent!

 

[Riman643]

Hands up everyone who thinks that abortion can be stopped completely? You know, abortions available up until Friday and then zero allowed from Saturday onwards. Anyone? Well there may be one or two living in some alternate reality that might think that. But there’s no switch one can throw which will end it completely. Or abruptly. OK, that’s that sorted out.

What is even the point of this? No one here is claiming that no abortions is possible. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be illegal. Murder is still illegal. This is horrendous logic and maybe the worst argument I have ever heard about abortion.

Now, is there anyone who thinks that people have abortions because they enjoy having them? That they wouldn’t take any opportunity to go back and correct the mistake they made in getting pregnant in the first place. No-one? Good.

It doesn’t matter if they don’t want an abortion. I’m sure there are a lot of murderers who wish they didn’t murder. Doesn’t change the evil of the action or that it should be legal.

Next. Is there anyone who thinks it wouldn’t be a good idea to reduce the number of abortions? Great, we’re making progress.

Yes, actually there are. The entire government of China, global warming activists, disabled genocide advocates, people who deny personhood to children in the womb. There are many groups who think abortions are good.

So…what practical suggestions does anyone have for reducing them. Not just in your town. Or your state. Or America as a whole. But everywhere.

Making it illegal first of all. Abortions skyrocketed since legalization. Treating it for what it is, murder, is what we need to do.

Maybe someone would like to post some information as to why women have abortions in the first place. Obviously because they don’t want a child, but what is the reason for not wanting the child. Can we investigate what the socio-economic backgrounds of the women has in the decision making process? Can we investigate why they gor pregnant in the first place? Maybe look at different age groups. Different beliefs.

Many someone would like to post some information as to why people murder and rob in the first place. Obviously they don’t want to rob and murder, but what is the reason for not wanting to rob and murder. Can we investigate what socio-economic backgrounds of the people have in the decision making process? Can we investigate why they robbed and murdered in the first place? Maybe look at different age groups. Different beliefs.

See how ridiculous it is to try and justify crime? Adoption is always an option. ALWAYS. The reason women get abortions is because they see as an extension of birth control and don’t see a fetus as a person. Tell them it is a person what you are left with is selfishness and the inability to take the consequences of your actions.

Maybe we can do all this in a reasonable manner whilst avoiding terms such as slaughter and genicode.

It is slaughter and it is genocide. And there is no “reason” to the murdering of children. We need to call it what it is.

 

[StudentMI]

How is it genocide?

 

[Riman643]

How is it genocide?

Genocide , the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people.

Clearly it is a deliberate and systematic destruction of unborn persons. In China specifically, the deliberate and systematic destruction of unborn female persons. In Iceland the deliberate and systematic destruction of disabled persons.

 

[StudentMI]

Okay. Those instances make sense. Just not sure genocide applies to all abortion cases.

 

[Riman643]

Just not sure genocide applies to all abortion cases.

Why? Is abortion not a deliberate and systematic destruction of unborn people? Because it definitely is. It’s a hard truth but that is what it is.

 

[StudentMI]

Genocide is usually defined as the attempted extermination of a group of people for religious, ethnic, racial, or even political reasons. What unifies all abortion cases is they are human beings. No one’s saying exterminate the human race through abortion.

 

[Riman643]

They are exterminating “unwanted” unborn people. If you fit into this “unwanted” group you will die a horrible, violent, and gruesome death.