How do I respond to this pro abortion argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tapiocapudding
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
i address only this, because i stand by everything else i said.
lol… even the thing about absolutes? So can g-d can exist and not exist at the same time?
its simple: i was adopted
Isn’t it ironic that if your biological mother wanted to get an abortion, I would have been the one telling her to keep you, and you would have been the one telling her to abort?

Adoption is a great thing…

I think deep down inside (very deep) you don’t really agree with abortion… I know you’re gonna say, “Its the mother’s choice! Its legal! etc” but I have hope that one day you’ll admit abortion is wrong…

I also hope that you take the time to more objectively evaluate the nature of law, and the flaws of the legal system. Please read up on aboriginies in Australia, and/or segration laws in South Africa (past and present)… I’m sure that this will destroy your view of law as a moral norm 😉
 
and it maight get treated like it was the result of a rape, and be neglected, or beaten and live on to become a horrible human being. why do you insist on playing “what ifs”?

and having an abortion would not change the fact that she was raped, true, but it would give her some of the control she lost back, and it would mean that she is no longer pregnant because someone forced her to become pregnant.

just a question here. how many of you have been raped?
I think you posted this message on Catholic Answers Forums, not on Rape Victims Forums. how would killing your unborn child give you control? that kind of control, the ability to control whether or not someone lives, is not a good kind of control. no different than a murderer has control over his victim.

just say she was raped and the baby was born, and at around the age of 2, the mother murdered her child. when asked to explain what she had done, the mother says “I thought the child might be treated like a product of rape and be abused, so rather than abuse this child, which was possible, I decided to kill him”. That’s bad reasoning. lots of people might potentially be abused, in fact it’s pretty common. should we kill all the high-risk people in this category?
 
BECAUSE
IT
IS
LEGAL
point being that it is not legal in any other situation, to murder an innocent child because you are the victim of a crime. in no other situation in the justice system, is the victim given the right to kill an innocent bystander.
and if she kills her rapist after shes raped, it would be investigated, and more than likely thrown out, unless youre talking about years later,
if her rapist is turned around and walking out the door of the event and she shoots him, it is still legally murder. sure there are mitigating circumstances, she may claim, but she can still be prosecuted, it is still immoral, she didn’t shoot him to defend herself at that point, she killed him for revenge. and still the child is innocent of the rape.
when she could easily get a half decent lawyer to say she snapped, and then at least get jury nullification.
getting away with a murder doesn’t make it right. you still killed someone.
but yes, lets keep comparing crimes to something completely legal, because that is a totally rational and sensible thing to do!
first, abortion is nowhere near completely legal, there are a great many restrictions on its practice.

second, it is not legal anywhere, for any reason to murder an innocent bystander of a crime.

thats the point we are discussing, how do you tell someone it is still wrong to murder a baby, because another individual raped you.
 
Isn’t it ironic that if your biological mother wanted to get an abortion, I would have been the one telling her to keep you, and you would have been the one telling her to abort?
i think you need to listen to less alanis morrisette because thats not what irony is.
secondly, go back to reading class.
i never said i was in favor of abortion, in fact i said the opposite, in my VERY FIRST POST in this thread, i also said that i believe its a womans choice to do so if she wishes, because again, its her choice to do so, under the law. im also against the westboro churches disgusting practices, but yknow what? theyre very careful not to break the law so hey, they can do what they do if they want, but i dont agree with it.

listen to this VERY carefully, as im done with this thread. just because i dont agree with something, doesnt mean i have to condemn it, and it doesnt mean i need to victimize someone because of a choice they make.
 
second, it is not legal anywhere, for any reason to murder an innocent bystander of a crime.

thats the point we are discussing, how do you tell someone it is still wrong to murder a baby, because another individual raped you.
an embryo is a after effect of rape, not a bystander.
and you dont tell someone its wrong to abort a baby caused by rape, because 1) you werent the one raped and impregnated, and you are not the one who judges. even if they ask, and you know you hold volatile archaic beliefs, then you should have the common sense or at least the decency to say, i cant give you an unbiased answer, so i should say nothing.
 
an embryo is a after effect of rape, not a bystander.
an embryo is a separate person with its own DNA, a human being in the earliest stages of development. their is no line that one can logically draw in the process of development from conception on, where one can reasonably say at this moment it is not a person, and at this other moment it now is.
and you dont tell someone its wrong to abort a baby caused by rape, because 1) you werent the one raped and impregnated, and you are not the one who judges.
as any human i have the definite right to say that you should not violate the rights of any other human, especially those who can not speak up for themselves, that child has just as much a right to its life as you or i do.
even if they ask, and you know you hold volatile archaic beliefs, then you should have the common sense or at least the decency to say, i cant give you an unbiased answer, so i should say nothing.
first they arent archaic beliefs, they are actually in the majority. even if they werent, i would still be morally required to tell the truth.

abortion is the murder of an innocent child. murder is always wrong.

in the end, abortion has no logical basis, it is entirely a matter of emotion. it does not square with the rest of our legal structure for that reason, we dont have a legal process based on emotion, or feelings, we have one based on even handed, logical administration of justice. only 9 people, in 1973, made a decision based on privacy, that is clearly wrong, one may not murder in private any more than in public. yet 50 million children have been murdered since then. if those same children had been slaughtered in the public space of a hospital nursery, 10 minutes after birth. i assure you the evil of such a thing would be obvious to all.
 
as any human i have the definite right to say that you should not violate the rights of any other human, especially those who can not speak up for themselves, that child has just as much a right to its life as you or i do.
so im assuming you stood against prop 8, right?
 
so im assuming you stood against prop 8, right?
yes, indeed. marriage is not a right.

you cant marry a kid, you cant marry an animal, you cant marry more than one other person, etc…

marriage is governed by all sorts of restrictions, ergo, its not a right by any means
 
yes, indeed. marriage is not a right.

you cant marry a kid, you cant marry an animal, you cant marry more than one other person, etc…

marriage is governed by all sorts of restrictions, ergo, its not a right by any means
In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], is a California Supreme Court case holding "that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.

that means marriage is a right, its been agreed on by several other states, and many other countries.

and if its not a right, then it shouldnt be recognized by any governmental agency, and you should derive no benefits from it. the fact that you accept tax breaks, and insurance benefits from it makes you a hypocrite, by using your right to marriage, even tho you dont believe its a right.
 
In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], is a California Supreme Court case holding "that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.

that means marriage is a right, its been agreed on by several other states, and many other countries.

and if its not a right, then it shouldnt be recognized by any governmental agency, and you should derive no benefits from it. the fact that you accept tax breaks, and insurance benefits from it makes you a hypocrite, by using your right to marriage, even tho you dont believe its a right.
Just because marriage may be a right does not mean that there is an unrestricted right to do so. for instance I cannot marry my mother, my daughter, someone who is already: married, someone who is not old enough to give their consent , someone who is not mentally capable of giving their consent or a member of the same gender I am. The fact that I am denied marriage to all these individuals does not mean I denied the right to marry.

To try to get this back on topic the convoluted thinking used to try to change the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual behavior is the same kind of convoluted thinking we see by those trying to justify the killing of children. Both start with the false premise that people have a “right” to do something they simply do not
 
Just because marriage may be a right does not mean that there is an unrestricted right to do so. for instance I cannot marry my mother, my daughter, someone who is already: married, someone who is not old enough to give their consent , someone who is not mentally capable of giving their consent or a member of the same gender I am. The fact that I am denied marriage to all these individuals does not mean I denied the right to marry.

To try to get this back on topic the convoluted thinking used to try to change the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual behavior is the same kind of convoluted thinking we see by those trying to justify the killing of children. Both start with the false premise that people have a “right” to do something they simply do not
and at this point, i see you dont actually know what youre talking about, and will let you live bitterly in your bubble.
 
In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], is a California Supreme Court case holding "that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.

that means marriage is a right, its been agreed on by several other states, and many other countries.
actually that only means that it is the opinion of the supreme court of california, that gay people can marry each other, an opinion voted down twice by the people of california.

40 or so other states outright ban it, they didnt think gay marriage is a right either.

so the if opinion is the determinate factor of what is or is not a right, than i would say that the numbers, by huge majorities, say that it isnt a right.
and if its not a right, then it shouldnt be recognized by any governmental agency, and you should derive no benefits from it
.

i feel pretty much the same way you do, government should have no business in the matter.
the fact that you accept tax breaks, and insurance benefits from it makes you a hypocrite, by using your right to marriage, even tho you dont believe its a right.
  1. what tax breaks? haven’t you heard of the marriage penalty? its usually more expensive to file as a couple
  2. What insurance benefits?
 
iamme;4660779]
and this topic is obviously lost on all of you who cant even concede that an embryo is not a baby, a fetus could be considered a baby, but just as easily might not be, and those who wont accept that after the sperm has entered the body, for the next 72 hours, using medication to block the egg from fertilizing isnt abortion.
im beyond done with this.
Well iamme, I pray you’ll eventually believe in the sacredness of life from conception. A baby is a person, just an undeveloped and unborn person, from the time he or she is conceived. A 5-day-old person, a 7-year-old person, a 12-year-old person, are all still developing, but they’re still persons.

True, it can take the zygote, a PERSON, up to 72 hours to implant onto the uterine wall. But he/she is still sacred and must be respected and protected.

It is immoral to prevent the fertilized egg, a PERSON, from being able to implant onto the uterine wall. The chemical that does this is an abortifacient … this is an act of abortion – which is murder.

So many women do not realize that abortifacients in their birth control pills are killing their babies.

If your husband cheated on you (which is obviously immortal, but not illegal) – would you feel justified in killing him, or hurting him in a grievous way, simply because you’re hurt and mad? In other words, you may be a victim of injustice (etc.) – does that justify your making him one?

If you’re tired, perhaps sick, after a very difficult day, and your children are noisy and ignoring your needs for quiet or for help, and you’re feeling “victimized” by them or merely by your bad day, is it moral (though not illegal) for you to scream and cuss at them, perhaps belittle them, thus victimizing them emotionally? I hope you don’t say yes to that one – too many people justify their actions nowadays based on how they feel, rather than what is right before God.
an embryo is a after effect of rape, not a bystander.
and you dont tell someone its wrong to abort a baby caused by rape, because 1) you werent the one raped and impregnated, and you are not the one who judges. even if they ask, and you know you hold volatile archaic beliefs, then you should have the common sense or at least the decency to say, i cant give you an unbiased answer, so i should say nothing.
People who react so strongly against the moral teachings of the Church may be volatile, but the teachings themselves are not.

“Volatile” means unstable, explosive, impulsive, changeable. The teachings of the Church have remained constant since her beginning.

“Archaic” means belonging to ancient times. The Catholic Church, the church Jesus founded, is not archaic, because the truths belong topeople of ALL time, not just to the “olden days.” Jesus taught us one set of truths – He is the Way, the Truth, the Life, and His truths do not change. Many people like to believe they do, though, because they are easily swayed by the winds of secularism, modernism, and selfishness. “How we feel” becomes more important than love and than what God wills for us.

Until the last century, all Christian faiths taught that abortion is gravely immoral – in the words of the Anglican Church (during its Lambeth conferences in 1918 and 1930, abortion is “anathema”). PEOPLE, not teachings, become volatile, and that that is what has happened this past century concerning many moral standards, including sexual and reproductive issues.

Here is a summary of what the Church teaches, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2270 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
Code:
 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, 
 and before you were born I consecrated you.73
Code:
 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was 
 being made in secret, intricately wrought in the 
 depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Code:
 You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall 
 not cause the newborn to perish.75
Code:
 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble 
 mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it 
 out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be 
 protected with the utmost care from the moment of 
 conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable 
 crimes.76

footnotes:
72 Cf. CDF, Donum vitae I,1.
73 Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11.
74 Ps 139:15.
75 Didache 2,2:SCh 248,148; cf. Ep. Barnabae
19,5:PG 2 777; Ad Diognetum 5,6:PG 2,1173;
Tertullian, Apol. 9:PL 1,319-320.
76 GS 51 § 3.
 
i think you need to listen to less alanis morrisette because thats not what irony is.
Umm…actually the use of the word ironic is board enough to cover my usage:
Usage Note: The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply “coincidental” or “improbable,”
So you wrong there…again :rolleyes:
secondly, go back to reading class.
i never said i was in favor of abortion, in fact i said the opposite, in my VERY FIRST POST in this thread, i also said that i believe its a womans choice to do so if she wishes, because again, its her choice to do so, under the law. im also against the westboro churches disgusting practices, but yknow what? theyre very careful not to break the law so hey, they can do what they do if they want, but i dont agree with it.
Wow… you are still so sensitive… You’ll note that the example I gave specified that the woman wanted to get an abortion.

I specified this because I knew that you did not necessarily agree with abortion, yet even though I specified it you’d rather look at my post to find something wrong with it, then actually think about what you believe objectively…
listen to this VERY carefully, as im done with this thread. just because i dont agree with something, doesnt mean i have to condemn it, and it doesnt mean i need to victimize someone because of a choice they make.
yawns okay whatever
 
Should I even? I belong to another message board and a lady posted a thread saying ‘all prolifers need to read this’ about how when she was 9-12 she was raped by a relative. She didn’t get pregnant but had she, she said she would have had an abortion and dared anyone to tell her she shouldn’t have thought that.
I don’t want to go there because that is a terrible painful thing she went though. But everyone else is agreeing ‘yeah, that’s why I’m prochoice’
what can I say to address it sensitively while still standing up for life?
It seems these faulty arguments are based on personal feelings and not any objective truth. Not unlike claiming I need money so I am going to rob a bank and no one has any “right” to tell me I cannot do it.

Not any good reasoning, just relativism.
 
Tapioca… you start out with…I am sorry you were brutally attacked by someone you should have been able to trust. That is terrible/sad/criminal what that person did to you and they should have consequences for their behavior. Did you ever report it to someone and were they ever prosecuted? But a pregnancy resulting from such a circumstance can be a way of having good come from bad… An innocent child is not responsible for the crimes of the father. Many times when a woman is raped she feels hopeless and suicidal and a child gives her a reason to heal and go on. In fact, women who are impregnated as a result of rape and choose to have the baby most often heal faster than those who abort.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, Blest One!! Yours is the first truly compassionate and appropriate response I have read on this thread! The others seem to have an element of condescension and/or blame toward the victim - who was A CHILD! Your response is totally the opposite - completely compassionate, unblaming, AND in favor of saving the baby…kudos!

This horrible situation happened to someone I love; she was repeatedly raped between the ages of 10 and 13, and DID become pregnant. For those who say, “Pregnancy from rape is so rare…” do you really think such blather helps anyone? No, it doesn’t, and certainly not those who have been in the situation - you re-open their wounds again and again…they don’t deserve that. I guess if you have not walked in their shoes and/or can’t find it within yourself to actually be helpful, you should flat out keep your mouth shut in this situation…quoting statistics is entirely unhelpful.

As for my loved one, the baby was born and is now a healthy school aged child. The baby’s birth mother cannot imagine ever taking a life even in the dire circumstances in which she found herself at such a young age and the adoptive parents are delighted to have a happy, healthy child - no matter the circumstance of the child’s conception. Remembering in the midst of such terible darkness that just maybe you can help make something good of it just may bring about a little healing. Many couples long for a baby and are unable to have one; if only we all were more compassionate, perhaps many more women, regardless of circumstance, would choose the very loving option of bringing the life into the world to make the world a better place.
 
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, Blest One!! Yours is the first truly compassionate and appropriate response I have read on this thread!
I agree, it was a good answer 😉
The others seem to have an element of condescension and/or blame toward the victim - who was A CHILD!
I disagree, remember this thread is about a hypothetical situation, because this person in the OP never actually feel pregnant, and secondly the fact that she was raped is irrelevant… Its an attempt to win the argument by default because nobody wants to question someone who has been raped because its a sensitive subject… But if its so sensitive then why would she bring it up on an internet forum??

Trust me, I live in South Africa (a country with real problems), and we have the highest incidence of rape in the world… I feel deeply and strongly about the poor woman who are raped daily in my country (one woman every minute in case you were wondering). However, at the same time, they are not obligated to tell anyone about their rape…If its so sensitive then they can kept it to themselves…They can argue for abortion objectively not bring in the irrelevant information (that they have been raped)…how is that relevant, if their argument is correct then it will stand regardless of whether they have been raped. The only reason it is brought up is as an argumentative tool…

I hope my response is perceived to be charitable, because that is the spirit in which it was intended…

Regards,
William
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top