Help with Abortion Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobolink
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dranu said:
I’ll try to give you what little advice I can muster.

Kreeft’s argument from the four possibilities of procuring an abortion are rather interesting, I have never thought about that before. Whenever I have argued the abortion issue I always try to do some of the following:

**1.) **Inquire into definitions, especially of human life, personhood, and murder (as one must in arguing).

2.) Set up the circumstances in which the person believes killing is always wrong (murder).

3.) Stay very clear from religion unless they consider themselves Catholic.

4.) Make sure to distinguish that abortion is different from contraception if they bring up the ol’ “Oh and I bet you believe using a condom is wrong because it kills the sperm, etc.” Note the term Contraception.

Now this following “argument” has never failed me once (convincing is another issue since man’s will and intellect often contradict). It requires a little bit of ingenuity (via Socratic Method) to apply it to particular cases. I originally heard it from a wise Catholic poster on another forum and have since put it to the test. When testing their definitions of personhood remember these two criteria:

Either:
A.) A definition of personhood given post conception fails in application of a definite criterion. For example one millisecond prior or one cell less than the said point, would not be sufficient to distinguish personhood from non-personhood. If not this, then we can keep going back until we find that fine particular that draws the line, but this will go on to one second, an hour, day, two cells, twenty cells, etc. So if you remove that one cell or development at some later time (given all else remains the same) are they human?

B.) **The definition of personhood could be applied to people that they would not deny personhood too. ** For example if one defines it as the mature activity of the nervous system, one could point to people who have brain surgery, paralytics, people with Parkinson’s, mental disorders, etc., and deny their personhood. This will force the person to make some redefining which will likely now violate A again, and so on. Often they will say something along the lines of: “well some of those people have had a fully mature system once, and therefore they are still human”. However, If you are defining it by an empirical thing, then that defining criterion is utterly lost once the person loses the empirical thing. Only a soul could continue that or a re-working of the definition. Of course saying when a person has a soul amounts to a sort of ‘he is a person because I sayz so’.

I can see a way around this, but only with some very sick and twisted views on who is a person and who is not. People who are in that category need some other reworking before you can ever convince them about abortion being wrong.

Also note, in the end we really do not really know for certain when personhood starts, but in truth we really do not know anything. Conception just seems the most reasonable (as it is definite, and does not run into B’s problem either), just like eating seems the most reasonable thing to do when one is hungry.
Click to expand...
^ I like this.
 
Veritas, I forgot to say, I don’t know anything about the abort73 forum.
 
"bobolink:
a tadpole (even frogspawn) is not a frog. Describe a frog. 4 legs,Amphibian etc Tadpole-not a frog. But is potential to become a frog. If i killed a tadpole,i killed a tadpole,i didn’t kill a frog. I killed a potential frog. I kill a bunch of cells,i didn’t kill a human. Thats my opinion.
Click to expand...
bobolink said:
I said:

humans more important than animals?

I am not quite sure how to proceed!
Click to expand...
If you squish a frog or a tadpole, you’ve still killed something from the Order Anura. This is the importance of using precise language. Even though frogs and tadpoles look different, they are the same animal.

Regarding your second point, I wouldn’t proceed. Honestly I’ve only read the first page of this thread, and I can see that you know the only important point in an abortion debate, that a fetus is a living human, and thus should not be killed. To proceed with your argument is to argue with relativists, and quite frankly, at least they have the intellectual honesty, more or less, to acknowledge that they really don’t think humans are any better than animals, but it will still be an exercise in futility.
Pray, my friend.
 
Dale_M said:
I think you are right.
Click to expand...
Except that is not the heart of the argument that abortion absolutists make: many claim the right to kill the unborn child right to to the moment of birth, and some ever afterwards. The specious notion of viability was used by Justice Blackmun, but many “pro-choice” advocates do not think it wrong to deny medical aid to a child capable of living after being aborted, even if he is older than many preemies. The claim is the absolute right of “the woman” to decide that the child should die. They claim the right to “execute” the child within their womb by expelling him, or simply killing killing him in the womb. This ia analogous to claiming for the state the right of any person who is a potential danger to the wellbeing of the state. ** The same coolheartedness that justified the locking away of jean Val Jean for years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family is at work in the Pro-choice moment.**
 
Hortense said:
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?
Click to expand...
No…A skin cell will not grow. It is only a part of the person who has that DNA in the rest of their cells.
 
RobbyS said:
The same coolheartedness that justified the locking away of jean Val Jean for years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family is at work in the Pro-choice moment.
Click to expand...
As you mention in your post, some pro-choicers are extremists. But we shouldn’t tar the entire pro-choice movement with the views of the most extreme members.

Most Americans support abortion in the first trimester. Support for second trimester abortion drops way down, and third trimester abortion has rock bottom support.
 
RobbyS said:
Except that is not the heart of the argument that abortion absolutists make: many claim the right to kill the unborn child right to to the moment of birth, and some ever afterwards. The specious notion of viability was used by Justice Blackmun, but many “pro-choice” advocates do not think it wrong to deny medical aid to a child capable of living after being aborted, even if he is older than many preemies. The claim is the absolute right of “the woman” to decide that the child should die. They claim the right to “execute” the child within their womb by expelling him, or simply killing killing him in the womb. This ia analogous to claiming for the state the right of any person who is a potential danger to the wellbeing of the state. ** The same coolheartedness that justified the locking away of jean Val Jean for years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family is at work in the Pro-choice moment.**
Click to expand...
Would it do any good to post what you wrote above on that thread?

I’d just like to point out that the frog comments above (post #84) were not written by me, though that of course will be obvious.
 
I am pressed for time (getting ready for Divine Liturgy), but a couple of things:

It is possible for a mother to have a reaction with a baby with a different Rh factor (I think that’s the problem, it’s been a while since I had kids), which they test for. This possible rejection shows that it is not a part of the mother’s body. From conception, the infant has their own unique set of genes. Any other definition of the start of life is arbitrary, as nothing changes.

Partial birth abortion. Why not legalize infanticide? In the Roe v. Wade decision the “justices” cited that the Hippocratic oath was influenced by Phygarean beliefs on the sacredness of life. What they omit that he was writing in a society in which abandonment of infants and childern was acceptable: it plays a large part in many myths (e.g. Oedipus). In Sparta, every child was inspected and those which didn’t fit the definition of the state on fitness were thrown off a cliff outside of town, no matter the parents desires on the matter. In Rome the pater potestas (head of the family) had the right to put to death any member of his family, regardless of age.

Abortion survivors. This will be on the news hopefully more, because Obama here in Illinois was all for exposing infants who survived abortion (in Britain they were used for medical experiments). One of these survivors is running a commercial now against Obama.

There was a case 10 years or so back, where the mother was suing for custody of the couple’s frozen embryos, which the father wanted destroyed. The prodeath people vilified her, not approving of her choice. In this case, and in the case of the snowflake babies, there is no question of it being a part of any women’s body (in vitro, so outside) nor forcing any women to become a mother. The prodeath people can’t take cases like this, because it exposes their “arguments” for the lies they are.

Remind them that Roe, of Roe v. Wade, is a memeber of the prolife movement (and the Vatican’s Church now). She has stated that the prolife and Christians have always treated her like a person, whereast the prodeath people treated her as a thing to be trotted out at ralleys.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I am pressed for time (getting ready for Divine Liturgy), but a couple of things:

It is possible for a mother to have a reaction with a baby with a different Rh factor (I think that’s the problem, it’s been a while since I had kids), which they test for. This possible rejection shows that it is not a part of the mother’s body. From conception, the infant has their own unique set of genes. Any other definition of the start of life is arbitrary, as nothing changes.

Partial birth abortion. Why not legalize infanticide? In the Roe v. Wade decision the “justices” cited that the Hippocratic oath was influenced by Phygarean beliefs on the sacredness of life. What they omit that he was writing in a society in which abandonment of infants and childern was acceptable: it plays a large part in many myths (e.g. Oedipus). In Sparta, every child was inspected and those which didn’t fit the definition of the state on fitness were thrown off a cliff outside of town, no matter the parents desires on the matter.

Abortion survivors. This will be on the news hopefully more, because Obama here in Illinois was all for exposing infants who survived abortion (in Britain they were used for medical experiments). One of these survivors is running a commercial now against Obama.

There was a case 10 years or so back, where the mother was suing for custody of the couple’s frozen embryos, which the father wanted destroyed. The prodeath people vilified her, not approving of her choice. In this case, and in the case of the snowflake babies, there is no question of it being a part of any women’s body (in vitro, so outside) nor forcing any women to become a mother. The prodeath people can’t take cases like this, because it exposes their “arguments” for the lies they are.

Remind them that Roe, of Roe v. Wade, is a memeber of the prolife movement (and the Vatican’s Church now). She has stated that the prolife and Christians have always treated her like a person, whereast the prodeath people treated her as a thing to be trotted out at ralleys.
Click to expand...
That is most interesting.
 
Hrvoje said:
I don’t think this was posted before… If it was, forgive me. If it wasn’t, well, it’s about time to post it…

Peter Kreeft’s apple argument…

…and the “person-human” relation essay.

Couple these two, and you have an unbreakable argument.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, the article on personhood was posted by me just now on boards.ie. I’m finished with that site. But I hope and pray many were touched and will study the arguments and check out the websites and come to know the truth. Thank you all for your help and guidance!

God bless you.

M.
 
Someone asked me a good question and I am stumped:
Okay, Ultravid, since you forever demand answers in what comes across as rather triumphant ways (only to then dismiss or ignore these answers), maybe you can answer something for a change:
Click to expand...
You keep claiming that an embryo or fetus is the very same as a human being that is already born. How come, then, that society does not organise funerals for those misfortunes that nature decided were unfit for life and, thus, aborted very soon after conception, say the first 12 weeks (as this is the time in which most natural abortions occur)? You know, full blown funerals, with wake, mass, burial. I mean, in your opinion, surely the death of an embryo or fetus that young is to be mourned in the same way, if not more, as anyone else’s? So, why do you think society doesn’t really seem that bothered?
Click to expand...
How can I answer this? Please help me!

EDIT: I had a look on Catholic Answers, found some useful stuff - most of it was pretty obvious, but if anyone wants to say anything else, I would welcome it!
 
Ask him this: Why on earth would the society who “doesn’t know whether the fetus is a person or not” (Roe VS Wade), but allows abortion, therefore practically admitting that they don’t consider the fetus a person (a position which needs to be changed fast) organize funerals for those who it doesn’t give the right of personhood?
If he is asking why don’t Christians and pro-lifers organize such funerals, show him this or this.
 
Okay, Ultravid, since you forever demand answers in what comes across as rather triumphant ways (only to then dismiss or ignore these answers), maybe you can answer something for a change:

You keep claiming that an embryo or fetus is the very same as a human being that is already born. How come, then, that society does not organise funerals for those misfortunes that nature decided were unfit for life and, thus, aborted very soon after conception, say the first 12 weeks (as this is the time in which most natural abortions occur)? You know, full blown funerals, with wake, mass, burial. I mean, in your opinion, surely the death of an embryo or fetus that young is to be mourned in the same way, if not more, as anyone else’s? So, why do you think society doesn’t really seem that bothered?
Click to expand...
Wow, the pro-choicers don’t seem to be much for logic. Tell him “society” is wrong, it’s as simple as that. He should realize the obvious fact that not every person in society agrees. Therefore, the people who do recognize a fetus as a human *do *give funerals, and those who don’t, don’t. Ask him why he bases his opinion of what is right and wrong on the actions of society. (Also, remind him that society was, until recent years, anti-abortion. That has been lost in the name of political correctness.) He’s being a hypocrite: there’s bound to be some subject with which he disagrees with society on. I suggest you press him on this, for two reasons. Firstly, by pointing out his inconsistency, you’re pulling down his argument. He’ll have to find a new one. Also, people like this usually do well on the offensive, but can’t defend their own arguments. (That’s because they’re not built on logic. ;)) So instead of letting them bombard you with stuff like the above quote, go on the offense. It’ll save you time. 🙂

One more thing: ask him if he’s ever been in a graveyard. If you look, there are almost always graves for babies, including those that never even had life outside the womb.
 
Great posts people. Sadly the thread has been closed because one of the moderators insulted me in my absence, and they closed the thread! I suspect an inside job. But whatever, the thread had run its course and I hope many people were touched in some good way by it. Thanks again for all your (name removed by moderator)ut.

God bless you all,

M.
 
bobolink said:
Great posts people. Sadly the thread has been closed because one of the moderators insulted me in my absence, and they closed the thread! I suspect an inside job. But whatever, the thread had run its course and I hope many people were touched in some good way by it. Thanks again for all your (name removed by moderator)ut.

God bless you all,

M.
Click to expand...
Bummer. I think you’re right, it sounds like they couldn’t stand hearing the truth any longer. 😃 Bravo for trying to help them, though.
 
Feste_1242 said:
Bummer. I think you’re right, it sounds like they couldn’t stand hearing the truth any longer. 😃 Bravo for trying to help them, though.
Click to expand...
We have another discussion thoug, started by a pro-choicer, with a specially rigged poll, which nonetheless shows that aobut 30% of folks on this particular forum actually oppose the legalisation of abortion in Ireland. Which is interesting.

Please pray folks, since both N. Ireland and Ireland are at risk of the legalisation of abortion in the coming months and years respectively.

The issue for N. Ireland can be read about here:

www.preciouslife.com
 
I just presented the refutation of the Pelosi scandal using this: catholidoxy.blogspot.com/2008/08/pelosi-on-mtp-catholic-tradition-vague.html , but now this has been given to me on the thread:

religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm

How to refute the second article, especially the timeline at the end?

This is troubling if true:
Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top