How do I respond to this pro-abortion person?

[edwest2]

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.

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?*

“500 years of witch burning”? OOOOOOOK.

1. Women were lied to just prior to 1973.

1969

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

1. From the Declaration of Independence:

Excerpt: “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

So, if you’re killed in the womb, no other rights are possible for you - a unique individual.

1. Most abortions occur for two reasons: (A) Contraceptive failure. Go ahead, read the fine print on that box of condoms. And The Pill? “…without missing any pills, the chance of becoming pregnant is approximately 1% (1 pregnancy per 100 women per year of use).”
   Source: drugs.com/pro/ortho-novum.html
   (B) Consensual sex where no birth control is used, improper use of birth control, or a woman guesses/hopes that she is infertile at the time of intercourse

A woman’s control over her own body? What? She got pregnant by herself? Most sex is by consent. And who decides when you have sex? The Church? The State? No. You do.

Self-control anyone?

I would not reply to someone who believes that Christianity is evil in the first place. Prayer would be good if you decide to reply or not.

Can’t legislate morality? How about legislating lies?

Peace,
Ed

 

[silenced]

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

**“Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.” ~ Lee, S. J. (2005). “Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence”. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (8): 947.

Hope this helps.**

 

[Lochias]

**“Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.” ~ Lee, S. J. (2005). “Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence”. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (8): 947.

Hope this helps.**

Doesn’t matter if a 3-week-old human being can feel pain or not. Murder’s still murder.

 

[RocketRM]

This is what she said.

…] 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.

I really don’t like the “no pain” argument (well to be truthful I don’t like any pro-abortion argument).

So killing is acceptable if the unborn baby feels no pain? This logic concludes that “pain” is the moral objective line between acceptable and unacceptable. Well what about a 20 year old suffering from Congenital analgesia (this condition does not allow the patient to feel any pain). Since that person cannot feel pain would be be more acceptable to murder him/her compared to a 20 year old who can feel pain?

Clearly the answer is no just as it is with the unborn baby. The reason - the 20 year just like the unborn baby is a human being… PERIOD.

I will pray for this person and all others who support the murder of children that they will see the light and throw away the errors of their ways.

God Bless all!

 

[silenced]

Doesn’t matter if a 3-week-old human being can feel pain or not. Murder’s still murder.

And vacuum aspiration of tissue is still vacuum aspiration of tissue.

If it doesn’t matter, why is there reason for posters to lie about it?

 

[Lochias]

And vacuum aspiration of tissue is still vacuum aspiration of tissue.

If it doesn’t matter, why is there reason for posters to lie about it?

Not sure what you’re getting at here. What’s the point you’re trying to make?

 

[ccmnxc]

And vacuum aspiration of tissue is still vacuum aspiration of tissue.

If it doesn’t matter, why is there reason for posters to lie about it?

If someone suffering from congenital analgesia ends up dying because they are ripped apart, it is still a horrific way to die, even if there is no pain. The fact that the fetus is being killed in such a way (or killed at all) is the big issue here. Also, I don’t like the term “tissue” in reference to the fetus. Every human being is “tissue,” but that doesn’t mean I can kill them.