How to frame the Abortion discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPolo

Guest
I have a comment on how I hear Catholics (and pro-life non-Catholics) framing the discussion on abortion.

I often hear radio commercials on Relevant Radio or from Father Pavone (to whom I gave much respect in his role during the Schiavo tragedy) reaching out to pro-choicers.

The method I usually hear used to discourage abortions includes detailed descriptions of what happens to the baby, the medical risks involved, side effects, when the heart starts beating, and the like.

While this method has proven effective (testimonials of women who have seen photos of aborted babies can attest to the effectiveness), it seems such a framing of the discussion can lead to problems if those medical risks ever are eliminated. Pro-lifers who focus on medical consequences render themselves vulnerable to “changing the argument” if those consequences ever vanish.

To me, we must always include the inherent immorality of the act. It should be the foundation of the discussion. It should be discouraged morally, whether there is a heartbeat yet or medical consequences or not. No advancements in medical science can ever disarm the pro-lifer who sticks to this point.

Opinions??
 
The problem is that these days people feel morals are “debateable”. What is right to one person may not be right to another. We as Catholics know this is bunk, but we must meet the pro-choice people where they are.

That’s why so many people use heartbeats (if it has a heartbeat, it’s hard to say it “isn’t really a living baby yet”) and health concerns (if a woman isn’t concerned for her child, maybe she will at least be concerned for herself). Those things are indisputable.

Of course I never thought I’d hear anyone say “It doesn’t become a baby until the mother decides.” :banghead: Gee, I’m 47 and I’d sure wish my mother would get around to deciding I’m a person! :banghead: Sort of disproves “survival of the fittest” if these people are procreating! :banghead:

:gopray2: :gopray2: :gopray2:

❤️
 
I agree that focusing heavily on the medical consequences is not the most effective approach. I’m heavily pro life and yet I roll my eyes listening to some of the arguments, because they are so clearly exaggerated. Exaggeration and embellishment result in a loss of credibility.

I think the focus should always be the fact that abortion kills an unborn child. That’s why it’s immoral. That’s why our local PP had a fit when someone was trying to open a free sonogram clinic next door to the local abortion clinic. Once you’ve seen a sonogram of even a 5 or 6 week infant, it becomes very hard to convince yourself that abortion is anything but murder. The inevitable medical science advancements will just further support this as we learn more and more about fetal development.

I also think the pro-life movement could use less emphasis on religion. Face it, more and more people have decided to opt out of religion in favor of spirituality or whatnot. Telling people who don’t believe in God or Christ that abortion is a sin gets a big “so what?” response. Pro-life can be equally justified on pure natural law or rational grounds. As my fervent, pro-life atheist friend says, religion doesn’t corner the market on morality. She says she opposes all murder – and abortion is just one form of murder.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I have a comment on how I hear Catholics (and pro-life non-Catholics) framing the discussion on abortion.

I often hear radio commercials on Relevant Radio or from Father Pavone (to whom I gave much respect in his role during the Schiavo tragedy) reaching out to pro-choicers.

The method I usually hear used to discourage abortions includes detailed descriptions of what happens to the baby, the medical risks involved, side effects, when the heart starts beating, and the like.

While this method has proven effective (testimonials of women who have seen photos of aborted babies can attest to the effectiveness), it seems such a framing of the discussion can lead to problems if those medical risks ever are eliminated. Pro-lifers who focus on medical consequences render themselves vulnerable to “changing the argument” if those consequences ever vanish.

To me, we must always include the inherent immorality of the act. It should be the foundation of the discussion. It should be discouraged morally, whether there is a heartbeat yet or medical consequences or not. No advancements in medical science can ever disarm the pro-lifer who sticks to this point.

Opinions??
Click to expand...
People close their minds when you start telling them what is right and what is wrong. That’s our relativistic society for you. You have to reach those on terms they can understand. There are pro-life atheists out there who use such arguments, and I suspect that, in some ways, they help the pro-life cause (by their actions, obviously not by their prayers) more than those who are religious.
 
It’s been a long time since I’ve heard the “it’s just a blob of tissue” argument. Is it just my locale, or has it faded away? I was thinking that with the medical advances telling us more about the early stages of fetal development that argument had been abandoned.

At any rate, I have actually heard people admitting the real reason for the pro-choice movement. Quite simply, if a woman doesn’t have the right to abort her child and thereby control her reproductive freedom, then women will never have equal rights. The rest of the argument is unspoken: even if it’s a child, not a blob of tissue – women must have this choice. No matter what the consequences to others, women’s right to control her reproductive freedon is paramount. This is the argument which needs to be refuted.

As a woman, even without any conscience consideration of my faith, this strikes me as wrong on so many levels. It implies women are incompetent to manage their lives without a backup plan allowing them to destroy someone else. It therefore necessarily implies that women aren’t and never will be truly equal anyway, if they are incompetent on such a basic level. It implies that there are justifications for the taking of human life outside of the traditional self-defense or defense of others.

I’m sure there are more implications and errors in the argument, but it’s late and I’ll stop rambling.
 
I think it depends on the context of the discussion.

If it’s a more academic debate, then I’d approach it on natural law grounds.

If you’re trying to convince someone not to have an abortion, that person is likely to be acting based on emotions and a more emotive or personal exposition of the truth could be appropriate.

Of course, never deny the intrinsically evil nature of the act.

I also believe that many pro-choice people believe that abortion is wrong but are trying not to recognize it because of some pain or fear. They may argue adamantly in favor of abortion as a way to cope with whatever trauma they’ve experienced in that area.

As always, people need the message of the Gospel, that Christ has defeated sin and death so that we can be free to love God. More than that message, people need Christ himself.
 
When people say abortion is about a woman’s right, I say that is like saying that slavery was about property rights.
 
Interesting replies. I agree that when dealing with athiests and the moral relativists and such, we must include rationality they understand. However, I would stress that we must include the morality, even if it is the end-road from which the other medical arguments lead.

If the athiest insists he is against murder then we must frame that the first zygote is human. A zygote must be the earliest stage of human development, and that is self-evident. By this we maintain the moral foundation of the argument. “It” is human, therefore it is immoral to terminate “it.” The medical consequences of the mother and the eventual heartbeat, etc… are of course further valuable supplements to this argument.

My point is, I think we must frame the argument such that it does not have to ever change. The pro-lifer’s argument must be self-contained.

On the other side, the pro-choicer who argues against humanity finds himself in a fleeting position as the very science he adores reveals human encoding in earlier and earlier stages of development.

Certainly some of those pro-choicers will forever remain pro-choicers. Some people are beyond reason. But the firm stance of the pro-lifer, if it unwavers through the years, will prove more and more powerful a testament to the preservation of human life.
 
Quite simply, if a woman doesn’t have the right to abort her child and thereby control her reproductive freedom, then women will never have equal rights. The rest of the argument is unspoken: even if it’s a child, not a blob of tissue – women must have this choice. No matter what the consequences to others, women’s right to control her reproductive freedon is paramount. This is the argument which needs to be refuted.
Click to expand...
I could not agree with you more! Abortion is the Holy Grail of the feminist movement. The suffrage movement of the early 20th century sought equal rights but never accepted the abomination of abortion. The radical feminism of the 60’s and 70’s, in a desperate attempt to achieve not equal rights, but POWER, decided that a woman who was enslaved to her womb could never achieve like a man. Hence, she must have a “right” to do anything necessary to maintain control of her ability to reproduce (this after the fact that she did not maintain enough control to keep from getting pregnant). It is the most insidious and evil lie perpetrated on our society. Until women are convinced that what they have achieved is the legal right to murder their own babies, we will never see the end to abortion.
 
There is a great deal of misconception, lies, word engineering, etc. about abortion and it all needs to be denounced I think.

The Church and Fr Pavone I believe always state that Life is sacred from conception to natural death. That should be the only framing needed. The world being as it is needs more convincing.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I have a comment on how I hear Catholics (and pro-life non-Catholics) framing the discussion on abortion.

I often hear radio commercials on Relevant Radio or from Father Pavone (to whom I gave much respect in his role during the Schiavo tragedy) reaching out to pro-choicers.

The method I usually hear used to discourage abortions includes detailed descriptions of what happens to the baby, the medical risks involved, side effects, when the heart starts beating, and the like.

While this method has proven effective (testimonials of women who have seen photos of aborted babies can attest to the effectiveness), it seems such a framing of the discussion can lead to problems if those medical risks ever are eliminated. Pro-lifers who focus on medical consequences render themselves vulnerable to “changing the argument” if those consequences ever vanish.

To me, we must always include the inherent immorality of the act. It should be the foundation of the discussion. It should be discouraged morally, whether there is a heartbeat yet or medical consequences or not. No advancements in medical science can ever disarm the pro-lifer who sticks to this point.

Opinions??
Click to expand...
There is only one way of framing the the question of abortion. It is always immoral and murder and grievious sin.
Abortion is not a termination of pregnanacy it is the killing of a human person in his or her earliest stages of growth. There is no framework apart from that. Dont be deluded.
Graceangel.
 
dwc said:
It’s been a long time since I’ve heard the “it’s just a blob of tissue” argument. Is it just my locale, or has it faded away? I was thinking that with the medical advances telling us more about the early stages of fetal development that argument had been abandoned.

At any rate, I have actually heard people admitting the real reason for the pro-choice movement. Quite simply, if a woman doesn’t have the right to abort her child and thereby control her reproductive freedom, then women will never have equal rights. The rest of the argument is unspoken: even if it’s a child, not a blob of tissue – women must have this choice. No matter what the consequences to others, women’s right to control her reproductive freedon is paramount. This is the argument which needs to be refuted.

As a woman, even without any conscience consideration of my faith, this strikes me as wrong on so many levels. It implies women are incompetent to manage their lives without a backup plan allowing them to destroy someone else. It therefore necessarily implies that women aren’t and never will be truly equal anyway, if they are incompetent on such a basic level. It implies that there are justifications for the taking of human life outside of the traditional self-defense or defense of others.

I’m sure there are more implications and errors in the argument, but it’s late and I’ll stop rambling.
Click to expand...
I have difficulty accepting this argument. If I’m a banker and I suddenly decided not to honor my commitments to my investors’ money because I want to exercise my “freedom” to act in any way I want, that would spell the end of my career in banking. It’s never about equality, or exercising ‘control’, etc. It’s all about being able to face up to our commitments or in that case facing up to the consequences of our past decisions.

And I’m not talking about religion here. Just being a human being. But it’s now becoming unclear what being a human being means.
 
Stick to science.

At the moment of conception… when the egg and sperm unite… a completely NEW and UNIQUE set of DNA is formed.
It is so unique that there has never been, and never will be, another one exactly like that set of DNA.

That DNA does NOT change during the course of fetal development.

That HUMAN DNA is present at the MOMENT of conception and can be scientifically defined as MORE than “a blob of tissue”…

Human DNA is human DNA. I’ve never had anyone argue against that point.
 
Human DNA is human DNA. I’ve never had anyone argue against that point.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I’ve had arguments with protestants where I’ve asked them how they can be pro-choice. Their response is that until the fetus has a soul it is only a potential human being. This of course is unknowable and unprovable and is why the abortion debate will never end. No one can authoritatively say when a human being becomes a human being. For me, I believe a child has a soul and is fully human at the moment of conception; but this is based on my faith. I can’t convince anyone that this is an irrefutable fact.

Also, a large portion of the pro-choice movement doesn’t care if the child is human or not. To them, even a child is expendable if it advances their agenda.
 
dwc said:
Yes, but I’ve had arguments with protestants where I’ve asked them how they can be pro-choice. Their response is that until the fetus has a soul it is only a potential human being. This of course is unknowable and unprovable and is why the abortion debate will never end. No one can authoritatively say when a human being becomes a human being. For me, I believe a child has a soul and is fully human at the moment of conception; but this is based on my faith. I can’t convince anyone that this is an irrefutable fact.

Also, a large portion of the pro-choice movement doesn’t care if the child is human or not. To them, even a child is expendable if it advances their agenda.
Click to expand...
True… and that’s where the heart of the debate lies…
Heartbreaking and heartwrenching debate…
😦
 
dwc said:
Yes, but I’ve had arguments with protestants where I’ve asked them how they can be pro-choice. Their response is that until the fetus has a soul it is only a potential human being.
Click to expand...
This is strange reasoning. It means they have already determined that the fetus has no soul. To use a familiar Protestant question: “Where is that in the Bible?”
 
Chancellare said:
This is strange reasoning. It means they have already determined that the fetus has no soul. To use a familiar Protestant question: “Where is that in the Bible?”
Click to expand...
Good point. Or it means they aren’t sure if it has a soul, but they will abort anyway. The tree is known by the fruit that it bears! It isn’t about “life” for many of them…it’s about personal convenience.
 
I’m so glad to have found this thread because a similar question has been bothering me.

Some recent threads and the news articles have seemed to use sensational incidents (e.g a mother had life-threatening complications from abortion or a baby born on the edge of viability who survived) to bolster support for the pro-life view.

My problem with that is:
  1. What do the ‘complications’ of an abortion in the mother have to do with the fact that abortion is intrinsically evil. There are risks with everything in life, abortion included; that has nothing to do with the fact that a baby is being killed. If the procedure could be carried out without complications ever occurring (totally impossible) would that make abortion less wrong?
  2. What does a 20-something week baby’s survival (wonderful as that is) have to do with abortion being wrong? To my mind, using that example to argue against abortion just strenghtens the mindset of those who think the baby is only human when it can survive outside the womb. How does highlighting early survival help protect a six-week pregnancy that has no hope of survival outside the womb?
  3. Using such examples to convince people not to abort may work in the short term but will prove ineffective in the long run. If a woman chooses not to abort because of a beating heart on ultrasound, the next time she’s pregnant, she may do the deed before a heartbeat can be seen!
My firm belief is that abortion can only be defeated by evangelisation - bringing people to know God and to acknowlege His sovereignity over creation. Only then can they understand the concept of the intrinsic value of human life at every state - even the invisible.
 
Pregnant women aren’t thinking about the baby. They’re thinking that their boyfriend will leave them, or they can’t finish school, or their parents will kick them out, or they can’t afford another child.
I think a good approach is often to emphasize what the effect will be on the mother: so many are falling prey to depression, physical problems, inability to have more children. The Silent No More campaign is a case in point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top