Help with Abortion Argument

[cargau]

Hello,

I was wondering if I could ask anyone who is good at debating/discussing abortion to help me with a thread on another forum.

I am Catholic, but I need help!

The website is an Irish Discussion Forum. It has an extremely anti-Catholic, anti-Life flavour. The people there have very hardened hearts.

I need someone to help me who can argue against abortion on non-religious grounds, since these people do not believe.

So the link to the site is here:
boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055379945

I am Ultravid. The thread is only just beginning, but you can see there is a good opportunity here to make a difference, I’m just not so sure I am up to the task so I need some help.

I promise this is a genuine request and an opportunity for a sharp arrow to make an impact on this very spiritually dark forum. They try to shut down all discussion on abortion, using various excuses.

In Christ,

Martin

PS If you want to PM me, you can.

Hi Martin,

Sometimes (for the sake of argument) it is wise to concede a point to make a point. Pro-choice people often make the argument that clearly, life exists at conception, but it is not human life.

Ask if they value the dignity of life when it does becomes human. If they say yes, follow up with…well, if the embryo is life but not human, at what point does it become human? (There is no good or consistent argument as to when life begins if not at conception.)

If the response is vague, ask, if we don’t know exactly when human life actually begins, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution at least until science can refute the assertion that life does, in fact, begin at conception.

I should point out the the pro choice agenda is not morally or philosophically driven, rather it is agenda driven. That is why they are often not open to opposing arguments that are rational.

And to all those that think that there are other more pressing problems in the world that need solving…If we keep aborting, we are destroying the very resource that could solve those problems.

How much human ingenuity has been aborted. If we treated the environment that way, those people would be outraged!

 

[Veritas248]

I say use the “don’t know, don’t shoot” argument.
Peter Kreeft’s Quadrilemma(sp):

1. Abortion is murder and you know it is murder and do it
2. Abortion is murder and you don’t know and you do it
3. Abortion is not murder and you know and you do it
4. Abortion is not murder and you don’t know and you do it

The only one justifiable is the third, because the first would be murder, the second would be manslaughter, and the fourth would be criminal negligence. Like a rustling in the bushes.
It could be a deer and it could be your fellow hunter

Ask them if they can find irrefutable proof that abortion is not murder. The key is knowledge, not belief.

If you can’t get them with science, confuse the heck out of them with philosophy.

 

[bobolink]

Thanks guys, I will try those suggestions!

 

[wanner47]

Ask them when human beings should get rights.

If they say at the moment of birth, point out Connor’s Law, and ask why a person can be convicted of two counts of murder if s/he murders a pregnant woman.

If they say human beings should only get rights from, say, viability, ask them to define when viability is. Right now, babies can be saved as early as 21 weeks. How can we determine when a human being should get rights if viability isn’t an objective standard, given how technology progresses?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Well, if human life is not worth anymore than animal life, then I should be able to go hunting on Wall Street and take me home some investors for dinner. Would murder be ok, since it’s not murder to kill animals? When the argument becomes that stupid “humans are nothing special” argument, that is when the pro-aborts have gotten so desperate that they have to downplay ALL human life rather than just the unborn because they realize they have lost that debate.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[bobolink]

Well, if human life is not worth anymore than animal life, then I should be able to go hunting on Wall Street and take me home some investors for dinner. Would murder be ok, since it’s not murder to kill animals? When the argument becomes that stupid “humans are nothing special” argument, that is when the pro-aborts have gotten so desperate that they have to downplay ALL human life rather than just the unborn because they realize they have lost that debate.

In Christ,
Rand

Indeed it has gotten ridiculous! These people will argue black is white if they think it might help their argument.

 

[Wirraway]

HI,
Out of all the innocents that have been aborted, could it be possible one of these innocents may have had the cures for many illnesses and deformaties ?

Just imagine all the possabilities that could have been there and some are willing to throw them away

yeah. just a warning: that’s not a strong argument. imagine all the hitlers, stalins, maos, pol pots, that never were.

 

[st_lucy]

yeah. just a warning: that’s not a strong argument. imagine all the hitlers, stalins, maos, pol pots, that never were.

But just imagine all the good that could have happened. As humans we cannot kill someone saying that they might have been …

We just should not kill someone.

 

[Hortense]

How about pointing out the fact that at the moment of conception a whole new set of DNA is formed that will show that the this is in fact a human being.

This is aweak argument since each and every cell in a human being contains excatly that same set of DNA. Does that imply that a skin cell in a dish is a human?

 

[Dale_M]

This is aweak argument since each and every cell in a human being contains excatly that same set of DNA. Does that imply that a skin cell in a dish is a human?

While I don’t agree with St Lucy, I do see her point. The fertilized egg will, given nutrition and a protective enviroment, grow into a person. A skin cell will not do this, no matter how much you nurture it.

 

[Hortense]

I never bring up religion when debating abortion unless I am talking to another Christian. That is because the second religion comes up the pro-abort has ammo to disregard anything you say as “religious fanaticism”.

Stick to science when debating abortion. Simply point out the fact that every single science book written on the subject of human embryology (the ones that are used to teach the people who are studying to become doctors) says that human life begins at the moment of conception. That is the best argument because then they can’t tell you that you are just trying to push your religious beliefs on others because you’re arguing from science. It is scientific fact that human life begins at conception and at no other time. abort73.com has some good quotations out of science books that you can post.

In Christ,
Rand

Everyone agrees the egg, sperm, and fertilized egg are alive. They also agree they are of the human species. Does anyone know of anybody at all who says they are dead? Pro-choice people do deny the newly fertilized egg is deserving of all the rights of a born human because it has not developed to a state where they choose to recognize such rights.

If you bring up religion, especially Catholic religion, they will simply ask you to show the definitive Church teachings that a fertilized egg has an immortal soul at the moment of conception. This will be very difficult to do.

If you insist it has a soul at conception, they will ask about identical twins. How many souls exist at conception? If you say there is one, they will point out that the second soul comes into being well after conception, so your principle is flawed. If you say two, they will ask if human persons can have multiple souls. Good luck with that one.

Lacking a definitive Church teaching on the soul, they will ask what a person is, and is an immortal soul a requirement for a person. If you say yes, they will point out that you have no basis even in your own Church to claim a fertilized cell has a soul. Then they will ask what is wrong with ending the life of something that is not a person because it has no soul.

There really is no argument that will work. The basis of the disagreement is difference in assumptions that each side makes, and these are assumptions that cannot be demonstrated. One side says a single cell is a person. the other says it isn’t. Science tells us nothing about this.

The fall back for anti-abortion people is an appeal to human rights. The opposition will ask for a demonstration that these exist. You can’t do it without introducing asusmptions they do not hold.

Each side argues from a different set of assumptions. You can’t win. That’s why the issue is being resolved in the political arena.

 

[Dale_M]

There really is no argument that will work. The basis of the disagreement is difference in assumptions that each side makes, and these are assumptions that cannot be demonstrated. One side says a single cell is a person. the other says it isn’t. Science tells us nothing about this.

Each side argues from a different set of assumptions. You can’t win. That’s why the issue is being resolved in the political arena.

I think you are right.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

In regards to the claims of the pro-aborts who say that human life is equal to animal life: why therefore are they not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when they are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?
These folks don’t really know how to argue and do not put up anything resembling the best arguments for abortion.

 

[Hortense]

While I don’t agree with St Lucy, I do see her point. The fertilized egg will, given nutrition and a protective enviroment, grow into a person. A skin cell will not do this, no matter how much you nurture it.

That brings up another can of worms. Suppose science learns how to clone from an existing skin cell. Would that mean the skin cell is a human person because the right set of conditions will result in a softball player? What is the principle here?

Great progress is being made in growing hearts and heart valves. Last I read, the biologists involved think they will be able to grow a heart valve from your own DNA in about five years. They have their sights set on hearts, livers, lungs, etc.

Dogs and sheep have been cloned by transplanting DNA from skin cells into a host egg shell. If this were done with human DNA from a skin cell, would that be a person?

So, I don’t at all discount the notion that science may learn exactly what conditions will cause a skin cell to begin to grow into an animal without using a host egg. Suppose we use a stem cell rather than a skin cell?

People tend to dodge the question because they say it can’t be done. However, a strong position would tackle it head on. It’s not easy.

 

[Hortense]

In regards to the claims of the pro-aborts who say that human life is equal to animal life: why therefore are they not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when they are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?
These folks don’t really know how to argue and do not put up anything resembling the best arguments for abortion.

Some are disgusted by any slaughter of animals. But most chow down on their hamburgers without giving the matter a second thought.

However, it’s interesting to test anybody’s ideas. Suppose a family has a loyal dog for ten years, then they realize they forgot to get the meat for their tailgate party barbeque. So, they slit Fido’s throat and grill him with mushrooms and onions.

In testing this question, everyone with the exception of college freshmen said that was wrong.

I would disagree that the pro-choice people can’t argue well. They can argue very well. So can the anti-abortion people. But, since each argues from a different set of asusmptions, the sides just talk past each other. It’s not strength of argument, its those basic assumptions.

 

[bobolink]

In regards to the claims of the pro-aborts who say that human life is equal to animal life: why therefore are they not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when they are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?
These folks don’t really know how to argue and do not put up anything resembling the best arguments for abortion.

That is a good point indeed. ^

Also, Hortense, your posts are very interesting. I never thought of those things that you raised.

Does the Catholic Church teach that from the moment of conception, it is a human person, or must be afforded the rights of a human person? I get confused with all this talk of human persons, human beings, etc…

CCC1703:
Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

CCC2270
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

 

[onenow1]

HI, All
Abortion is the taking of a human life, this is simply common sense. No discussin needed just honesty!

Pace, OneNow1

 

[Koopa]

There really is no argument that will work. The basis of the disagreement is difference in assumptions that each side makes, and these are assumptions that cannot be demonstrated. One side says a single cell is a person. the other says it isn’t. Science tells us nothing about this.

Each side argues from a different set of assumptions. You can’t win. That’s why the issue is being resolved in the political arena.

---

I think you are right.

I do not. If this were the case, then we truly would have no way of saying that any human being was a human person. If you accept this, then you might as well accept the entirety of moral relativism, and truth is out the window.

The only so-called “debate” possible would be whether or not every human being is a human person or just some. If only some are, then we accept that the criteria for personhood is indefinite and may be changed at will. At this point there would be no argument against the disregard of all human personhood. Since we all agree that human personhood may not be completely disregarded, then we can work backwards from this fact and come to the conclusion that every human being is a human life, starting at the beginning of life, scientifically proven to be at conception.

 

[onenow1]

I do not. If this were the case, then we truly would have no way of saying that any human being was a human person. If you accept this, then you might as well accept the entirety of moral relativism, and truth is out the window.

The only so-called “debate” possible would be whether or not every human being is a human person or just some. If only some are, then we accept that the criteria for personhood is indefinite and may be changed at will. At this point there would be no argument against the disregard of all human personhood. Since we all agree that human personhood may not be completely disregarded, then we can work backwards from this fact and come to the conclusion that every human being is a human life, starting at the beginning of life, scientifically proven to be at conception.

Quote= OneNow1

 

[bobolink]

What exactly is the difference and relationship between, a human being, a human person, and a human life?