How do you refute the argument that the unborn baby is assaulting the mother?

[Needtostop]

This person admits that the unborn are humans (but insists that they are not human beings, and are not people), but insists that the unborn is assaulting the mother, therefore abortion is not murder but self-defense. I pointed out that if everyone took this point of view, then the human race would die out, and he said that wouldn’t be a bad thing.

How do I respond to this person?

 

[Trishie]

He was once a child in the womb.
Inferring from the sense you convey of him through his assertions, it may not even be helpful to ask whether or not his mother should have used the ‘self-defence’ argument against him in the womb.

This might not be a healthy friendship to pursue.
You can argue against ideas but you can’t argue against personality issues.
The bitterness and lack of caring for humans both born and unborn, does indicate that no argument may perhaps have any chance of changing his attitude.
The best thing that you can perhaps do is to pray for him and for others whose attitudes are similar to his

 

[Needtostop]

He was once a child in the womb.
Inferring from the sense you convey of him through his assertions, it may not even be helpful to ask whether or not his mother should have used the ‘self-defence’ argument against him in the womb.

This might not be a healthy friendship to pursue.
You can argue against ideas but you can’t argue against personality issues.
The bitterness and lack of caring for humans both born and unborn, does indicate that no argument may perhaps have any chance of changing his attitude.
The best thing that you can perhaps do is to pray for him and for others whose attitudes are similar to his

I have tried pointing out the to people like this that they were once unborn. It never works. They always say that they wouldn’t blame their mother for aborting them.

 

[bearer]

This person admits that the unborn are humans (but insists that they are not human beings, and are not people), but insists that the unborn is assaulting the mother, therefore abortion is not murder but self-defense.

That’s lunacy. There’s really no way to refute crazy. If there were, there wouldn’t be so many psychologists and psychiatrists out there.

I think the best thing you can do is pray for this person.

 

[Needtostop]

He was once a child in the womb.
Inferring from the sense you convey of him through his assertions, it may not even be helpful to ask whether or not his mother should have used the ‘self-defence’ argument against him in the womb.

This might not be a healthy friendship to pursue.
You can argue against ideas but you can’t argue against personality issues.
The bitterness and lack of caring for humans both born and unborn, does indicate that no argument may perhaps have any chance of changing his attitude.
The best thing that you can perhaps do is to pray for him and for others whose attitudes are similar to his

We are not friends. I met him on debate.org and we had a debate about abortion. And according to the people who voted on the debate he won, despite his ridiculous arguments.

 

[Needtostop]

That’s lunacy. There’s really no way to refute crazy. If there were, there wouldn’t be so many psychologists and psychiatrists out there.

I think the best thing you can do is pray for this person.

Maybe you’re right. I’ll definitely pray for him.

 

[Abrigham]

I wouldn’t. But I would pray to St. Jude on this person’s behalf.

 

[rebeccajohns]

Very sad to hear that someone feels this way. I will pray for this person.

 

[miguel]

This person admits that the unborn are humans (but insists that they are not human beings, and are not people), but insists that the unborn is assaulting the mother, therefore abortion is not murder but self-defense. I pointed out that if everyone took this point of view, then the human race would die out, and he said that wouldn’t be a bad thing.

How do I respond to this person?

It’s beyond absurd to claim a completely defenseless victim is assaulting a perpetrator.

 

[Needtostop]

It’s beyond absurd to claim a completely defenseless victim is assaulting a perpetrator.

 

[Needtostop]

Very sad to hear that someone feels this way. I will pray for this person.

Thanks!

 

[tabycat]

Sometimes I wonder wear he/she gets his/her ideas about humans and how to get rid of their fellow human brihgs. :takethat:

 

[DeniseNY]

That’s lunacy. There’s really no way to refute crazy. If there were, there wouldn’t be so many psychologists and psychiatrists out there.

I think the best thing you can do is pray for this person.

Agreed

 

[po18guy]

I have tried pointing out the to people like this that they were once unborn. It never works. They always say that they wouldn’t blame their mother for aborting them.

This person does not so much need words, as prayer. His problem is spiritual, and it is in that realm that he will receive comfort.

 

[tarboy]

How do I respond to this person?

He is disingenuous and manipulative, since he knows he is abusing language. After reading the below definition, the babies are the victims of assault. Babies lack intent

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim’s head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

This person admits that the unborn are humans (but insists that they are not human beings, and are not people), but insists that the unborn is assaulting the mother, therefore abortion is not murder but self-defense. I pointed out that if everyone took this point of view, then the human race would die out, and he said that wouldn’t be a bad thing.

How do I respond to this person?

Don’t even try. There is no arguing with smug, self-centered, selfish idiots.
Many of those who argue such things are paid, professional abortion apologists.

 

[Rudy_Baga]

Please read carefully and do not take this response out of context.

So, my first question is which is greater, getting this person to change belief systems or healing your wounded human pride for apparently losing the argument on a forum? Is it possible that this person felt you were a unyielding religious fanatic (not saying you are) and so went about the business of pushing your buttons to make you appear to be. Falling to this strategy weakens your position and strengthens his/hers. Why even argue this ludicrous position? It is a foolish debate.

On the other hand, take the lesson of Saul. How many people prayed for him either to be converted or annihilated. His treatment of early Christians was barbaric and bazaar. And yet he has become one of the greatest teachers of the church. The true lesson here is whether or not you can see beyond the words and find the perfection of God in this person even in spite of this proposed position on abortion. Find and pray for that aspect of this person that the expression may become more in alignment with the truth that God has created him/her from. Admit within yourself that God has the ability to take and elevate people such as this to very high causes and we may all be learning from them one day. Use these people and situations as a chance to grow in your faith that God can and does have a plan for everybody even if we cannot understand it at any given point. Do this and you’ll find that this person and their outlandish position will have served to increase your own faith. Then you will be better equipped to respond to the important debates.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

This person admits that the unborn are humans (but insists that they are not human beings, and are not people), but insists that the unborn is assaulting the mother, therefore abortion is not murder but self-defense. I pointed out that if everyone took this point of view, then the human race would die out, and he said that wouldn’t be a bad thing.

How do I respond to this person?

When does human life begin? Everybody agrees that a newborn is a human with legal rights. Let’s move backwards then. Many pro-choicers would say life begins at birth. So then we compare the instant just prior to birth and the instant just after. Everybody would have to concede that there is no fundamental difference between the two. Keep moving backwards, on and on in the pregnancy, and you will see that if you compare the instant before some event, such as the development of the heart, or of the brain, that there is never a discreet difference in the baby before and after. There is only one point in time at which there is no possibility of gray area–one point where before there is no human life and afterwards there is human life. That point is conception. Before conception, there is an egg and a sperm, and after conception there is human life.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

This person admits that the unborn are humans (but insists that they are not human beings, and are not people), but insists that the unborn is assaulting the mother, therefore abortion is not murder but self-defense. I pointed out that if everyone took this point of view, then the human race would die out, and he said that wouldn’t be a bad thing.

How do I respond to this person?

In some minuscule way the person is correct in believing that the baby is assaulting the mother. If you completely deflect their argument like most of the posters have done, they will think you are evading the questions. Let me clarify.

The baby needs the mother’s resources. All things being equal, the mother would have been better off health-wise if she were not pregnant. Therefore, you could classify the baby as having some attributes of a parasite. I use the term parasite here completely in its technical, scientific form and not in any way in any derogatory manner.

So in some minuscule way the baby is “assaulting” the mother. I would never use that term, but it by conceding some ground biologically you may gain a lot of ground in the next part of your argument which will be centered on morality and in simple logic (see my last post).

 

[RobbyS]

This person admits that the unborn are humans (but insists that they are not human beings, and are not people), but insists that the unborn is assaulting the mother, therefore abortion is not murder but self-defense. I pointed out that if everyone took this point of view, then the human race would die out, and he said that wouldn’t be a bad thing.

How do I respond to this person?

How does one respond to an insane person?