How do I respond to this pro-abortion person?

[101405]

This is what she said.

Actually, there are three other differences. [between born and unborn babies; I said the only differences are size and development] One is viability. A 1st term embryo/fetus is not viable and may never be viable due to natural reasons. The second is that it cannot feel pain. It is far worse from an objective stand point with the concept of unnecessary suffering for a dog to burn alive in a fire than an embryo to simply perish. If this is not the case then why aren’t people disturbed by the fact that over 50% of zygotes/embryos/fetuses die naturally. If they were fully developed born babies dying at an alarming 50% rate or if a few people were going around burning 50% of animals alive then people would be disturbed and panicked. The fact of the matter is this. You don’t value embryos the same as born people either. Otherwise, you would be disturbed by these natural deaths the same way if 50% of children were dying from the flu. You know it and I know it.

There is no reason for me to compare the value of child to that of a teenager. There is no conflict of rights there. The analogy doesn’t apply. [analogy is, that since the only differences between born and unborn child are size and development, if the unborn are not people, then that must mean that toddlers are less human than teenagers] Secondly, abortion used as a method of birth control wouldn’t apply to fetuses in later stages either b/c it is not necessary. The woman has a window at the beginning to decide. *

Lady, when abortion was illegal many women committed suicide or bled to death from having unsafe abortions. Besides, women are going to have abortions anyway. Statistics show that women in countries where it is illegal have more abortions than ones where it is legal. You can’t stop it. And making it illegal provides no value to society it all. It is actually harmful.

If you give embryos equal rights as other citizens you will make it dangerous FOR ALL WOMEN to be pregnant. I already gave you real examples. Yet, you have yet to show any harm to society as a whole in making abortion legal. [Actually, I did point all the harmful side effects abortion has on women, such as cancer and suicide caused by guilt, but she ignored that too] Little babies have not been devalued through laws. [Again, I told her that people actually tried to get a law passed to let babies who survive be left to die of neglect, and I told how this happens illegally anyway] It is still illegal to kill them. Fact, legislation has become stricter in protecting children since Roe vs Wade passed.

Secondly, if you allow the government to restrict a woman’s right to her own body * in case of abortion then what is preventing a future government from mandating her to have one. We just can’t have it. If you allow the governemtn to ignore the right to her own body then what is preventing the governent from forcing people to have medical procedures or donating their kidney? Sorry. We just can’t have that.

Besides, we have freedom of religion in this country. We don’t allow one religious group to force their religious views on others. Otherwise religious freedom equally is impossible. The role of the government is not to legislate morality. The role of the gov’t is to protect us from one another and uphold rights equally as laid out in the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is, abortion is not murder. If you want to believe it is based on your own moral code then fine. I am not going to argue with you about the morality of abortion. That is subjective and your opinion. However, you are not above other people to dictate to them through laws what they can and cannot do. [This is the second time she brought this up. I then used her except words except I used rape instead of abortion for the example, to show her how ridiculous the argument is, but she just said abortion has nothing to do with rape, (although other times she has said that banning abortion is like rape) and then said nothing else about it] That just starts a war. And if you look at the history and oppressiveness of religion then you should agree that a theocracy is not good. And women have been the worse victims of religion and still to this day. 500 years of witch burning by Christians should give anyone pause.

Should I just ignore that last statement, because it is entirely irrelevant to the topic of discussion?

How do I respond?

Or considering the times she outright ignored what I said because it refuted her arguments, should I just give up arguing about it with her, and just pray for her?**

 

[s_schaffner]

I’ve had similar discussions,and I have to keep reminding myself, that God is in always in control. Prayer is the most powerful way to get to someone. I have to remember to love these people and pray for their conversion. Focus the conversation on the beauty and sanctity of life and not about rights being taken away. Women are being manipulated today by an abortion industry that have average clinics making $60,000 a day profit on abortions.

Planned Parenthood’s Abby Johnson was someone who would argue the points you mentioned, until she actually helped perform an abortion and saw the baby trying to save itself inside the womb. Lets pray that ultra sounds are more prevalent, and women look at the baby as a life and not just a choice. I really feel pretty good being on the right side of things, because no matter what any pro abortion person says, deep inside they know its wrong to kill an unborn baby, and it is their way of convincing themselves that its not really a life.

Be at peace knowing you are on the right side of the argument and continue to pray.

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is what she said.

Actually, there are three other differences. [between born and unborn babies; I said the only differences are size and development] One is viability. A 1st term embryo/fetus is not viable and may never be viable due to natural reasons. The second is that it cannot feel pain. It is far worse from an objective stand point with the concept of unnecessary suffering for a dog to burn alive in a fire than an embryo to simply perish. If this is not the case then why aren’t people disturbed by the fact that over 50% of zygotes/embryos/fetuses die naturally. If they were fully developed born babies dying at an alarming 50% rate or if a few people were going around burning 50% of animals alive then people would be disturbed and panicked. The fact of the matter is this. You don’t value embryos the same as born people either. Otherwise, you would be disturbed by these natural deaths the same way if 50% of children were dying from the flu. You know it and I know it.

Philosopher Jane English who is a moderate on abortion says

… the similarity of a fetus to a baby is very significant. A fetus one week before birth is so much like a newborn baby in our psychological space that we cannot allow any cavalier treatment of the former while expecting full sympathy and nurturative support for the latter… An early horror story from New York about nurses who were expected to alternate between caring for six-month premature infants and disposing of viable 24-week aborted fetuses is just that—a horror story

… these beings are so much alike that no one can be asked to draw a distinction and treat them so differently

Problem with the viability argument is that it is based on medical technology. When abortion was legalised in 1973 viability was at about 24 weeks but now many babies have survived at 20 weeks. There are abortion clinics killing babies who are living and breathing in a hospital at the same gestation it not earlier

If nobody felt pain does that mean it would be morally permissible to kill or stab them? No. There is evidence babies can feel pain at 8 weeks gestation but the pro life argument does not depend on whether unborn can feel pain but that unborn babies are human beings and killing human beings is wrong. Some babies are born with nervous system that does working properly so they can not feel pain but when they get older thry still need to be careful around hot cookers so they do not injure themselves.

There is no reason for me to compare the value of child to that of a teenager. There is no conflict of rights there. The analogy doesn’t apply. [analogy is, that since the only differences between born and unborn child are size and development, if the unborn are not people, then that must mean that toddlers are less human than teenagers] Secondly, abortion used as a method of birth control wouldn’t apply to fetuses in later stages either b/c it is not necessary. The woman has a window at the beginning to decide. **

Whether abortion should be legal should not depend whether if the baby can survive outside of the womb, otherwise people would argue that born children would be allowed to be killed until they can live on their own because their parents have to take of them. Both a born child and unborn child are at a different stage of development, it does not mean neither is a human being. A baby is delivered the baby and it is attached to the unblical cordm not self sufficent. Neither is a breast fed baby? A born baby needs the help of somebody else to change their diaper, feed them etc. What about a child, teenager or adult that needs who needs care of others? Who is truly self sufficient? Very few

Lady, when abortion was illegal many women committed suicide or bled to death from having unsafe abortions. Besides, women are going to have abortions anyway. Statistics show that women in countries where it is illegal have more abortions than ones where it is legal. You can’t stop it. And making it illegal provides no value to society it all. It is actually harmful.

Ask her to show evidence that women in countries where abortion is illegal have more abortions than in countries where it is legal

Dr Mary Calderone, president of Planned Parenthood said in American Journal of Health 1960 article that 84% to 87% of illegal abortions in 1958 were done by licensed physicians shown by Dr Kinsey. Dr Calderone said that

 

[_Abyssinia]

If you give embryos equal rights as other citizens you will make it dangerous FOR ALL WOMEN to be pregnant. I already gave you real examples. Yet, you have yet to show any harm to society as a whole in making abortion legal. [Actually, I did point all the harmful side effects abortion has on women, such as cancer and suicide caused by guilt, but she ignored that too] Little babies have not been devalued through laws. [Again, I told her that people actually tried to get a law passed to let babies who survive be left to die of neglect, and I told how this happens illegally anyway] It is still illegal to kill them. Fact, legislation has become stricter in protecting children since Roe vs Wade passed.

I do not understand her argument

Secondly, if you allow the government to restrict a woman’s right to her own body * in case of abortion then what is preventing a future government from mandating her to have one. We just can’t have it. If you allow the governemtn to ignore the right to her own body then what is preventing the governent from forcing people to have medical procedures or donating their kidney? Sorry. We just can’t have that.*

An unborn baby is in not part of her body, but it is inher body. Moment of conception a baby has her/his own unique genetic code and own DNA and neither s possible if he is part of mother’s body

Besides, we have freedom of religion in this country. We don’t allow one religious group to force their religious views on others. Otherwise religious freedom equally is impossible. The role of the government is not to legislate morality. The role of the gov’t is to protect us from one another and uphold rights equally as laid out in the Constitution.

Laws legislate morality for murder, rape etc. Saying abortion should be legal is legislating mortality

There are people of no faith and all faiths in the pro life movement and see abortion as a human rights issue because of modern science

The fact of the matter is, abortion is not murder. If you want to believe it is based on your own moral code then fine. I am not going to argue with you about the morality of abortion. That is subjective and your opinion. However, you are not above other people to dictate to them through laws what they can and cannot do. [This is the second time she brought this up. I then used her except words except I used rape instead of abortion for the example, to show her how ridiculous the argument is, but she just said abortion has nothing to do with rape, (although other times she has said that banning abortion is like rape) and then said nothing else about it] That just starts a war. And if you look at the history and oppressiveness of religion then you should agree that a theocracy is not good. And women have been the worse victims of religion and still to this day. 500 years of witch burning by Christians should give anyone pause.

Should I just ignore that last statement, because it is entirely irrelevant to the topic of discussion?

How do I respond?

Or considering the times she outright ignored what I said because it refuted her arguments, should I just give up arguing about it with her, and just pray for her?

90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians

Dr Bernard Nathanson, co founder of NARAL and has become pro life admitted that he and others in the abortion movement fabricated numbers of women who allegedly died from illegal abortion

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible

US Bureau of Vital Statistics said 39 women died from illegal abortion in 1972. Any death is a significant loss but compare this number to the 1 million plus humans who are killed annually in America alone

 

[mommy_k]

Human life begins at fertilization. If a fetus or embryo does not feel yet due to an undeveloped nervous system, it does not make the fetus less human. The argument that it’s okay to murder an embryo at this stage is like saying it’s ok to murder anyone with a nerve disease because they can’t feel it.
Yes, it is the womans body. God made women specifically to give birth. Abortion is a convinience and many will argue until they are blue in the face about it, dragging anything into it to make it seem less like murder.
What we can do as Catholic mothers, aunts, grandmothers etc. Is let the younger generation know that 1-please abstain from sex until marriage, tell them abortion is murder, and that if ever, ever, they get themselves or girlfriend’s pregnant to realize every baby is a blessing.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Actually, there are three other differences. One is viability.
Viability isn’t a condition used by scientists when classifying an animal as a member of one species or another. It’s also a poor condition to use when classifying if a person is a person (there are a lot of people around today who can not be viable with the aid of medication or medical tech (those who require a dialysis machine are not viable).

It is far worse from an objective stand point with the concept of unnecessary suffering for a dog to burn alive in a fire than an embryo to simply perish.
Poor comparison since she is using a developed dog and an embryo. Her point falls apart when she uses a correct comparison- embryo dog and embryo human.

Otherwise, you would be disturbed by these natural deaths the same way if 50% of children were dying from the flu. You know it and I know it.

1. She needs to ask someone who has actually suffered through a miscarriage. My wife and I have, we suffered and we mourned. Our mourning was less for our child than it would be for one of our older children because we trust in God’s Perfect Mercy.
2. Her point her boils down to a human life only having value based on how that life affects other human lives. That’s horrid.
3. Other groups subject to “termination” if we follow her criteria above- the abandoned elderly, the homeless we only notice so we can avoid them, the mentally unfit sent away and never visited, the physically deformed cast out by their families. The list of the not missed and not mourned is long. Under her criteria, none meet the standard for life.

Lady, when abortion was illegal many women committed suicide or bled to death from having unsafe abortions. Besides, women are going to have abortions anyway.
Rapes are illegal, they happen anyway, spousal abuse is illegal, happens anyway, child abuse (physical and sexual) is illegal, happens anyway, murder is illegal, happens anyway, theft is illegal, happens anyway, slavery is illegal, happens anyway. Guess we need to legalize all these so that they can be done in a safe environment.
Statistics show that women in countries where it is illegal have more abortions than ones where it is legal.
Proof? Do these academic studies take in to account the availability of ABCs?
You can’t stop it. And making it illegal provides no value to society it all. It is actually harmful.
Academic proof?

If you give embryos equal rights as other citizens you will make it dangerous FOR ALL WOMEN to be pregnant.
Academic proof? Like an academic paper that proved how pregnant women were at greater danger when abortion was illegal in the US and that this increase in danger was because it was illegal.

Secondly, if you allow the government to restrict a woman’s right to her own body We just can’t have it. If you allow the governemtn to ignore the right to her own body then what is preventing the governent from forcing people to have medical procedures or donating their kidney? Sorry. We just can’t have that.
Government already restricts what a woman can do with her body- can’t sell it, can’t “rent it”, can’t put certain drugs into it without a RX, can’t put certain drugs into it at all, can’t sell parts of it (like a kidney), can’t kill it on purpose, in prison- can’t tattoo it, restricted sex, military- limited ability to tattoo it, restricted sex, and you can’t eat it or sell it as food. Also, her argument is a slippery slope.

Besides, we have freedom of religion in this country. We don’t allow one religious group to force their religious views on others. Otherwise religious freedom equally is impossible. The role of the government is not to legislate morality. The role of the gov’t is to protect us from one another and uphold rights equally as laid out in the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is, abortion is not murder.
Legal fiction not supported by science and frankly not well supported by the legal system (murder a pregnant woman and in some states you face 2 murder charges, have an abortion after X day of development and it’s murder, force a woman to have an abortion against her will- murder charge, the court can order the father to pay medical expenses for the entire pregnancy, not just the pregnancy after the “magic” X day)
If you want to believe it is based on your own moral code then fine. I am not going to argue with you about the morality of abortion. That is subjective and your opinion. However, you are not above other people to dictate to them through laws what they can and cannot do.
But apparently she is above other people by dictating abortion should be legal; and apparently so was the SC when it changed the law.
[This is the second time she brought this up. I then used her except words except I used rape instead of abortion for the example, to show her how ridiculous the argument is, but she just said abortion has nothing to do with rape, (although other times she has said that banning abortion is like rape) and then said nothing else about it] That just starts a war. And if you look at the history and oppressiveness of religion then you should agree that a theocracy is not good. And women have been the worse victims of religion and still to this day. 500 years of witch burning by Christians should give anyone pause.
She needs to do some serious research here. The status and condition of woman in Christian Rome and Christian Europe was a lot better than it was in pre-Christian Rome or Europe. She also needs to figure out that women being singled out as victims (the witch thing) isn’t limited to Christianity or religion. It’s a common theme throughout history and cultures.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I had to cut out a lot of the OP’s first post for my above comment due to space limitation.

 

[gatorayd]

I’ve argued with people like this a billion times. Unless there’s an audience of fence sitters, there’s no point really. I myself have only had very little success in directly convincing others that they’re wrong - but a lot more success when it’s indirect.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’ve argued with people like this a billion times. Unless there’s an audience of fence sitters, there’s no point really. I myself have only had very little success in directly convincing others that they’re wrong - but a lot more success when it’s indirect.

Sadly true.

 

[Elisabethelisa]

oldcatholicguy:

 

[Elisabethelisa]

@oldcatholicguy

 

[Newbie2]

My experience has been that dealing with the elephant in the room right away does away with much of these peripheral points:

1. First, it is undeniable that a fetus is a unique human life both from a biological and theological standpoint. It is alive, and unique from the parents. Clever folks may point out that in the case of identical twins, they are not unique, but the point is that the fetus(es) is/are unique from the mother and as such are not simply a “part of the mother’s body”.

Most Pro-abortionists will eventually come around and admit this. If they do not, there’s no point in continuing to convince them, just pray.

1. Second, it then boils down to when that embryo becomes a “human person”, worthy of all the protections of all “born” people; infants, kids, adults, elderly. Clearly, the pro-abortion folks do not accept what we Catholics do, namely that the embryo is a human person from the moment of conception.

It is rather pointless, methinks, to argue this point with them. It is not “provable” to them in any way; scripture, theology, etc. is meaningless.

So, at this point, when the elephant is pointed out, I usually say something like “I hope that you will take some time to consider just when this fetus becomes a human person (and should be protected), and just consider the idea that just maybe it happens at conception. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but just think about it for a while.”

That’s about all you can do; then pray for a change of heart for that person, and let the Holy Spirit do his job.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’ve argued with people like this a billion times. Unless there’s an audience of fence sitters, there’s no point really. I myself have only had very little success in directly convincing others that they’re wrong - but a lot more success when it’s indirect.

My experience also. The minds who spew out these sorts of arguments for abortion are locked closed, and no amount of reason will open them. They always have another point to throw out, never mind that there is hardly any truth or logic to any of their points. It’s like the old saw - “Never wrestle with a pig - you’ll both get dirty and he likes it.”

 

[101405]

I’ve argued with people like this a billion times. Unless there’s an audience of fence sitters, there’s no point really. I myself have only had very little success in directly convincing others that they’re wrong - but a lot more success when it’s indirect.

What do you mean by indirect? How can you convince someone indirectly? Do you mean through prayer? I will continue to prayer for him/her. (This is all going on via youtube, so I don’t really know the person)

 

[101405]

Thanks everyone for the responses! I just linked the person to this thread, rather that copying the arguments given. That way he/she can read them for him/herself.
OldCatholicGuy your responses are excellent! Thanks!

 

[ccmnxc]

What do you mean by indirect? How can you convince someone indirectly? Do you mean through prayer? I will continue to prayer for him/her. (This is all going on via youtube, so I don’t really know the person)

My guess would be that he meant other people would be watching the debate, and even though he isn’t talking directly to them, he is getting his message across to them.

 

[JamesATyler]

Ask her what my punishment should be if I punch her in the stomach hard enough to kill her 8 week old unborn child but do not cause her any life threatening injury. Tell her I meant to kill the fetus but hoped to do her as little harm as possible. I’m just curious what she thinks i should be charged with (if anything).

Listen to her response. If she still doesn’t think I have done murder, try to understand if its a problem with her mind or her heart. Go from there.

 

[aragonjohn1]

This is what she said.

Actually, there are three other differences. [between born and unborn babies; I said the only differences are size and development] One is viability. A 1st term embryo/fetus is not viable and may never be viable due to natural reasons. The second is that it cannot feel pain. It is far worse from an objective stand point with the concept of unnecessary suffering for a dog to burn alive in a fire than an embryo to simply perish. If this is not the case then why aren’t people disturbed by the fact that over 50% of zygotes/embryos/fetuses die naturally. If they were fully developed born babies dying at an alarming 50% rate or if a few people were going around burning 50% of animals alive then people would be disturbed and panicked. The fact of the matter is this. You don’t value embryos the same as born people either. Otherwise, you would be disturbed by these natural deaths the same way if 50% of children were dying from the flu. You know it and I know it.

There is no reason for me to compare the value of child to that of a teenager. There is no conflict of rights there. The analogy doesn’t apply. [analogy is, that since the only differences between born and unborn child are size and development, if the unborn are not people, then that must mean that toddlers are less human than teenagers] Secondly, abortion used as a method of birth control wouldn’t apply to fetuses in later stages either b/c it is not necessary. The woman has a window at the beginning to decide. *

Lady, when abortion was illegal many women committed suicide or bled to death from having unsafe abortions. Besides, women are going to have abortions anyway. Statistics show that women in countries where it is illegal have more abortions than ones where it is legal. You can’t stop it. And making it illegal provides no value to society it all. It is actually harmful.

If you give embryos equal rights as other citizens you will make it dangerous FOR ALL WOMEN to be pregnant. I already gave you real examples. Yet, you have yet to show any harm to society as a whole in making abortion legal. [Actually, I did point all the harmful side effects abortion has on women, such as cancer and suicide caused by guilt, but she ignored that too] Little babies have not been devalued through laws. [Again, I told her that people actually tried to get a law passed to let babies who survive be left to die of neglect, and I told how this happens illegally anyway] It is still illegal to kill them. Fact, legislation has become stricter in protecting children since Roe vs Wade passed.

Secondly, if you allow the government to restrict a woman’s right to her own body * in case of abortion then what is preventing a future government from mandating her to have one. We just can’t have it. If you allow the governemtn to ignore the right to her own body then what is preventing the governent from forcing people to have medical procedures or donating their kidney? Sorry. We just can’t have that.

Besides, we have freedom of religion in this country. We don’t allow one religious group to force their religious views on others. Otherwise religious freedom equally is impossible. The role of the government is not to legislate morality. The role of the gov’t is to protect us from one another and uphold rights equally as laid out in the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is, abortion is not murder. If you want to believe it is based on your own moral code then fine. I am not going to argue with you about the morality of abortion. That is subjective and your opinion. However, you are not above other people to dictate to them through laws what they can and cannot do. [This is the second time she brought this up. I then used her except words except I used rape instead of abortion for the example, to show her how ridiculous the argument is, but she just said abortion has nothing to do with rape, (although other times she has said that banning abortion is like rape) and then said nothing else about it] That just starts a war. And if you look at the history and oppressiveness of religion then you should agree that a theocracy is not good. And women have been the worse victims of religion and still to this day. 500 years of witch burning by Christians should give anyone pause.

Should I just ignore that last statement, because it is entirely irrelevant to the topic of discussion?

How do I respond?

Or considering the times she outright ignored what I said because it refuted her arguments, should I just give up arguing about it with her, and just pray for her?**

Well for one the arguments are subjective and not based on science

A Danish study concluded that the embro feels pain at 2 1 and a half*weeks.
The babies blood supply is separate from it’s mother
Movement b4 2 weeks
Fingerprints 7 and a half
Heartbeat 5 weeks
Brain waves 6 and a half weeks**

• abort73.com

Hope this helps
Shalom
God bless

 

[Bill_7154]

This is what she said.

Actually, there are three other differences. [between born and unborn babies; I said the only differences are size and development] One is viability. A 1st term embryo/fetus is not viable and may never be viable due to natural reasons. The second is that it cannot feel pain. It is far worse from an objective stand point with the concept of unnecessary suffering for a dog to burn alive in a fire than an embryo to simply perish. If this is not the case then why aren’t people disturbed by the fact that over 50% of zygotes/embryos/fetuses die naturally. If they were fully developed born babies dying at an alarming 50% rate or if a few people were going around burning 50% of animals alive then people would be disturbed and panicked. The fact of the matter is this. You don’t value embryos the same as born people either. Otherwise, you would be disturbed by these natural deaths the same way if 50% of children were dying from the flu. You know it and I know it.

There is no reason for me to compare the value of child to that of a teenager. There is no conflict of rights there. The analogy doesn’t apply. [analogy is, that since the only differences between born and unborn child are size and development, if the unborn are not people, then that must mean that toddlers are less human than teenagers] Secondly, abortion used as a method of birth control wouldn’t apply to fetuses in later stages either b/c it is not necessary. The woman has a window at the beginning to decide. *

Lady, when abortion was illegal many women committed suicide or bled to death from having unsafe abortions. Besides, women are going to have abortions anyway. Statistics show that women in countries where it is illegal have more abortions than ones where it is legal. You can’t stop it. And making it illegal provides no value to society it all. It is actually harmful.

If you give embryos equal rights as other citizens you will make it dangerous FOR ALL WOMEN to be pregnant. I already gave you real examples. Yet, you have yet to show any harm to society as a whole in making abortion legal. [Actually, I did point all the harmful side effects abortion has on women, such as cancer and suicide caused by guilt, but she ignored that too] Little babies have not been devalued through laws. [Again, I told her that people actually tried to get a law passed to let babies who survive be left to die of neglect, and I told how this happens illegally anyway] It is still illegal to kill them. Fact, legislation has become stricter in protecting children since Roe vs Wade passed.

Secondly, if you allow the government to restrict a woman’s right to her own body * in case of abortion then what is preventing a future government from mandating her to have one. We just can’t have it. If you allow the governemtn to ignore the right to her own body then what is preventing the governent from forcing people to have medical procedures or donating their kidney? Sorry. We just can’t have that.

Besides, we have freedom of religion in this country. We don’t allow one religious group to force their religious views on others. Otherwise religious freedom equally is impossible. The role of the government is not to legislate morality. The role of the gov’t is to protect us from one another and uphold rights equally as laid out in the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is, abortion is not murder. If you want to believe it is based on your own moral code then fine. I am not going to argue with you about the morality of abortion. That is subjective and your opinion. However, you are not above other people to dictate to them through laws what they can and cannot do. [This is the second time she brought this up. I then used her except words except I used rape instead of abortion for the example, to show her how ridiculous the argument is, but she just said abortion has nothing to do with rape, (although other times she has said that banning abortion is like rape) and then said nothing else about it] That just starts a war. And if you look at the history and oppressiveness of religion then you should agree that a theocracy is not good. And women have been the worse victims of religion and still to this day. 500 years of witch burning by Christians should give anyone pause.

Should I just ignore that last statement, because it is entirely irrelevant to the topic of discussion?

How do I respond?

Or considering the times she outright ignored what I said because it refuted her arguments, should I just give up arguing about it with her, and just pray for her?**

1st trimester babies (alway use babies or human babies, not fetuses or zygotes- she can use those terms but dont’ u use them) might not be vaiable. So what? And feeling no pain? Don’t know about that. They certainly can at some point, don’t know when that is. And use pictures of babies in the womb, from early stages to late- and remember that babies can be aborted for the life and HEALTH of the mother. That includes Mental Health- “i’m going ot kill myself if I have this baby” I’m extremely deprssed b/c I am pregnant, etc are reasons abortions will be granted in later months for the HEALTH of the mother.

Peace,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

This is what she said.

Actually, there are three other differences. [between born and unborn babies; I said the only differences are size and development] One is viability. A 1st term embryo/fetus is not viable and may never be viable due to natural reasons. The second is that it cannot feel pain. It is far worse from an objective stand point with the concept of unnecessary suffering for a dog to burn alive in a fire than an embryo to simply perish. If this is not the case then why aren’t people disturbed by the fact that over 50% of zygotes/embryos/fetuses die naturally. If they were fully developed born babies dying at an alarming 50% rate or if a few people were going around burning 50% of animals alive then people would be disturbed and panicked. The fact of the matter is this. You don’t value embryos the same as born people either. Otherwise, you would be disturbed by these natural deaths the same way if 50% of children were dying from the flu. You know it and I know it.

There is no reason for me to compare the value of child to that of a teenager. There is no conflict of rights there. The analogy doesn’t apply. [analogy is, that since the only differences between born and unborn child are size and development, if the unborn are not people, then that must mean that toddlers are less human than teenagers] Secondly, abortion used as a method of birth control wouldn’t apply to fetuses in later stages either b/c it is not necessary. The woman has a window at the beginning to decide. *

Lady, when abortion was illegal many women committed suicide or bled to death from having unsafe abortions. Besides, women are going to have abortions anyway. Statistics show that women in countries where it is illegal have more abortions than ones where it is legal. You can’t stop it. And making it illegal provides no value to society it all. It is actually harmful.

If you give embryos equal rights as other citizens you will make it dangerous FOR ALL WOMEN to be pregnant. I already gave you real examples. Yet, you have yet to show any harm to society as a whole in making abortion legal. [Actually, I did point all the harmful side effects abortion has on women, such as cancer and suicide caused by guilt, but she ignored that too] Little babies have not been devalued through laws. [Again, I told her that people actually tried to get a law passed to let babies who survive be left to die of neglect, and I told how this happens illegally anyway] It is still illegal to kill them. Fact, legislation has become stricter in protecting children since Roe vs Wade passed.

Secondly, if you allow the government to restrict a woman’s right to her own body * in case of abortion then what is preventing a future government from mandating her to have one. We just can’t have it. If you allow the governemtn to ignore the right to her own body then what is preventing the governent from forcing people to have medical procedures or donating their kidney? Sorry. We just can’t have that.

Besides, we have freedom of religion in this country. We don’t allow one religious group to force their religious views on others. Otherwise religious freedom equally is impossible. The role of the government is not to legislate morality. The role of the gov’t is to protect us from one another and uphold rights equally as laid out in the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is, abortion is not murder. If you want to believe it is based on your own moral code then fine. I am not going to argue with you about the morality of abortion. That is subjective and your opinion. However, you are not above other people to dictate to them through laws what they can and cannot do. [This is the second time she brought this up. I then used her except words except I used rape instead of abortion for the example, to show her how ridiculous the argument is, but she just said abortion has nothing to do with rape, (although other times she has said that banning abortion is like rape) and then said nothing else about it] That just starts a war. And if you look at the history and oppressiveness of religion then you should agree that a theocracy is not good. And women have been the worse victims of religion and still to this day. 500 years of witch burning by Christians should give anyone pause.

Should I just ignore that last statement, because it is entirely irrelevant to the topic of discussion?

How do I respond?

Or considering the times she outright ignored what I said because it refuted her arguments, should I just give up arguing about it with her, and just pray for her?**

1st trimester babies (alway use babies or human babies, not fetuses or zygotes- she can use those terms but dont’ u use them) might not be vaiable. So what? And feeling no pain? Don’t know about that. They certainly can at some point, don’t know when that is. And use pictures of babies in the womb, from early stages to late- and remember that babies can be aborted for the life and HEALTH of the mother. That includes Mental Health- “i’m going ot kill myself if I have this baby” I’m extremely deprssed b/c I am pregnant, etc are reasons abortions will be granted in later months for the HEALTH of the mother.

Also, print out stories of adoption, including ppl who adopt babies with significant problems and how they are happy.
Peace,
Bill