How would you defend Life in light of the following situation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bruised_Reed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bruised_Reed

Guest
A married woman with 5 children is pregnant. She has been advised to abort because her health and life is in jeopardy. She doesn’t want an abortion and has the baby. But the woman dies leaving 6 children without a mother. Unfortunately, the father of the children is kind of a deadbeat; he drinks and doesn’t care for the children. Ultimately, the minor children end up in foster care (not in the same home).

Keeping in mind this tragic situation how would you defend the pro-life position.
 
Bruised Reed:
A married woman with 5 children is pregnant. She has been advised to abort because her health and life is in jeopardy. She doesn’t want an abortion and has the baby. But the woman dies leaving 6 children without a mother. Unfortunately, the father of the children is kind of a deadbeat; he drinks and doesn’t care for the children. Ultimately, the minor children end up in foster care (not in the same home).

Keeping in mind this tragic situation how would you defend the pro-life position.
Click to expand...
Just curious your point. Here is a sad reality. You do not have to get a license to have children. The majority of foster children have BOTH parents–they are in fact called “Orphans of the Living.” So the children might well have ended up in foster care anyway. IOW I think this is a rather silly scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with pro-life issues.

However, twisting and torturing logic I’ll attempt an answer. One, the child who was born has a CHANCE to have a good life. If aborted he had NO chance. Would you rather have a chance or do you think we should review each parent’s parenting skills and abort babies if mom and dad don’t measure up?

Second, the foster care situation will very likely be temporary. If the children are taken into custody due to neglect the state WILL work with the father (unless he willingly terminates his rights which is very unlikely) to re-unite the family. Dad will get treatment for his substance abuse problem, he’ll get parenting classes, he may well get household help and child care until he is ready to take care of his kids.

Quite honestly I dealt with a similar case. Mom was a drug addict and impossible to locate. Kids with bio dad who was a deadbeat and a drunk. With some assistance dad quit drinking, learned to deal with one of his kids who’s medically fragile, and had household help to deal with the rest of his four kids. He’s doing great after a year.

Again your story might well be true but it sure doesn’t justify killing the baby. The mom could have been hit by a bus and died.

Lisa N
 
Bruised Reed:
A married woman with 5 children is pregnant. She has been advised to abort because her health and life is in jeopardy. She doesn’t want an abortion and has the baby. But the woman dies leaving 6 children without a mother. Unfortunately, the father of the children is kind of a deadbeat; he drinks and doesn’t care for the children. Ultimately, the minor children end up in foster care (not in the same home).

Keeping in mind this tragic situation how would you defend the pro-life position.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t think you CAN defend life in that situation. You should get a razor-sharp machete and go in there and slash all those children to death. Dismember them and wade in their blood.

Have I made my point?
 
vern humphrey:
Oh, I don’t think you CAN defend life in that situation. You should get a razor-sharp machete and go in there and slash all those children to death. Dismember them and wade in their blood.

Have I made my point?
Click to expand...
You’re right Vern. Save the taxpayers a lot of money that way.
Lisa N
 
vern humphrey:
Oh, I don’t think you CAN defend life in that situation. You should get a razor-sharp machete and go in there and slash all those children to death. Dismember them and wade in their blood.

Have I made my point?
Click to expand...
No, not really. I think that response makes prolifers sound heartless. At least I would have seemed heartless if I had said this to the foster mother.
 
Lisa N:
… The mom could have been hit by a bus and died.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
True,but that would have been accidental and not the mother’s choice. bIn this case the older children are angry that the mother decided to have the baby, died as a result, thereby abandoning them.
 
Bruised Reed:
I don’t care about irony. It isn’t helpful here. I’m trying to defend the prolife position to someone who thinks that the mother did the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
How do you know it wouldn’t be helpful? Have you tried it?

Have you considered that what I said is EXACTLY how the abortion would have been carried out? The child would have been dismembered in the womb.

Once someone is shocked into looking at their own pro-death position for what it is, they often understant why aboriton is wrong.
 
Bruised Reed:
True,but that would have been accidental and not the mother’s choice. bIn this case the older children are angry that the mother decided to have the baby, died as a result, thereby abandoning them.
Click to expand...
Do they actually tell their sibling they literally wished they never were born? Chilling.
 
40.png
Almeria:
Do they actually tell their sibling they literally wished they never were born? Chilling.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if they do, but I think asking the foster mother that would acheive what vern humphry suggests above.
vern humphrey:
How do you know it wouldn’t be helpful? Have you tried it?
Click to expand...
I don’t have to to know it won’t work with this one. I also think irony would be lost on pro-choicers who think prolifers are heartless anyway.
 
Bruised Reed:
True,but that would have been accidental and not the mother’s choice. bIn this case the older children are angry that the mother decided to have the baby, died as a result, thereby abandoning them.
Click to expand...
You cannot do a grave wrong in hopes of making something right. Even if the mother was risking her life by continuing the pregnancy, the reality is that there was not 100% risk of death for the mother but the abortion was a 100% risk of death for the baby.

If this is a real scenario then of course the children are angry. I used to date a boy whose mom died in childbirth. She’d had six kids and there was no reason to believe she would die giving birth to the seventh. THe kids were STILL resentful of their little sister and they were in their late teens. Frankly kids are mad at their parents who die even if it’s in something besides childbirth. It’s the result of immaturity and fear of abandonment.

I still don’t see how you could justify the abortion so maybe you can present the argument more clearly. A couple of angry kids is hardly a reason to kill someone
Lisa N
 
Bruised Reed:
I don’t know if they do, but I think asking the foster mother that would acheive what vern humphry suggests above.

I don’t have to to know it won’t work with this one. I also think irony would be lost on pro-choicers who think prolifers are heartless anyway.
Click to expand...
Have you noticed that pro-abortion people are always outraged if someone tries to show a picture of an aborted baby?

Why do you think that is?

Could it be because they know if people have to LOOK at what aboriton is, they won’t support it?
 
bruised,

be careful about arguing against life by a hypothetical that you might propose. reality offers real solutions. when you hypothetically propose a situation where someone cannot imagine an outcome that is not grossly painful, don’t expect to prove that the reality of life is unmanageable.

in your hypothetical, if children were allowed to brood and fester on the pain of loss, would they have a hard time? of course. would they be in the position to testify to the sanctity of life. absolutely. but not if you pose the question in order to magnify pain.

the particulars of real loss happen in the lives of real people in real pain. death is a loss. you imagine proposing a hypothetical where people may be bitter about death and loss. yes, they will be bitter about death. but will they be bitter about life? no. people hate death because they love life. can you turn the hate of death against life. yes. the devil does it all the time.

think, and then reject the very project that this kind of question supports.
 
Let me apply Human Learning Theory here (I’ve been in the training business for more years than I care to remember, and have two graduate degrees.)

First of all, what’s the objective? To develop a generalized defense of Life applicable to all? To develop a specific defense for this scenario?

Next, who’s the target audience? Anyone who may be pro-abortion? People who may be on the fence? The foster mother? The siblings?

Next, consider the realm are we operating in. In Human Learning Theory there are three realms:
  1. The congnative realm, which embraces things like reading and writing, math and so on.
  2. The psycho-motor realm, which includes things like throwing a ball, riding a bicycle, and so on.
  3. The affective realm, which covers values, attitudes, emotions and feelings.
    Now you can’t learn to ride a bicycle just by reading a book. And your can’t learn the rules of logic by shooting hoops. Strategies designed for one realm don’t work in another realm.
Here we are working in the affective realm – people who are pro-abortion are not that way because of logical persuasion, they are that way because of deep seated beliefs

And that means we can no more “defend life” with logic and reason than we can do it by throwing a ball through a tire. We must do it by using an affective strategy – which is what my first post about the machete was doing.

Be more specific about the objective and the target audience and we can fine tune it.
 
Lisa N- I wanted to return to your first post because a light bulb went on earlier and I want to try to flesh it out.
Lisa N:
… So the children might well have ended up in foster care anyway.
Click to expand...
This is quite true, esp. if both were “hit by a bus”, were in a car accident or whatever.
Second, the foster care situation will very likely be temporary. If the children are taken into custody due to neglect the state WILL work with the father (unless he willingly terminates his rights which is very unlikely) to re-unite the family. Dad will get treatment for his substance abuse problem, he’ll get parenting classes, he may well get household help and child care until he is ready to take care of his kids.
Click to expand...
I’m being cynical but I don’t think the dad is going to get help or change.
… do you think we should review each parent’s parenting skills and abort babies if mom and dad don’t measure up?
Click to expand...
I think it’s possible the family would have had some of the same problems even if mom had lived. I hate to say this but I don’t think the family was super functional before the mother’s death. Healthy families can come unglued following a crisis but usually recover. The older children would have hopefully been taught some coping skills AND in this case I would have hoped mom and/or dad would have talked about this and had the older ones care for this baby. Not parent the baby, but share with her the love that their mom had for all of them.

So, the idea that somehow the mother choosing an abortion would have spared her children some grief isn’t guaranteed.

So now, may I ask you to come up with a short script that you would use if you were talking to, say, the foster mom.
I welcome others to offer their ideas too.
 
40.png
JustSomeGuy:
bruised,

be careful about arguing against life by a hypothetical that you might propose. reality offers real solutions. when you hypothetically propose a situation where someone cannot imagine an outcome that is not grossly painful, don’t expect to prove that the reality of life is unmanageable.

in your hypothetical, if children were allowed to brood and fester on the pain of loss, would they have a hard time? of course. would they be in the position to testify to the sanctity of life. absolutely. but not if you pose the question in order to magnify pain.

the particulars of real loss happen in the lives of real people in real pain. death is a loss. you imagine proposing a hypothetical where people may be bitter about death and loss. yes, they will be bitter about death. but will they be bitter about life? no. people hate death because they love life. can you turn the hate of death against life. yes. the devil does it all the time.

think, and then reject the very project that this kind of question supports.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a hypothetical. And where am I arguing against life?
 
vern humphrey:
Be more specific about the objective and the target audience and we can fine tune it.
Click to expand...
Okay, here goes. Specifically, the target is the foster mother who is a church-going Christian and considers herself “pro-life” except in cases of rape, incest and obviously the life of the mother. She maintains she doesn’t think it’s right to make someone bring a pregnancy to term if it will endanger the life of the mother.

Now, I don’t know what condition the mother had so I don’t know if anything couldn’t have been done in case you were wondering. I will ask but I want to have a better handle on this before I do.

The objective - to show that the consistantly pro-life position, including the tough cases, is truely the most compassionate. And to do so without implying that the one disagreeing is a moron.

One of the reason’s I liked the idea of asking if the siblings of the youngest wish she hadn’t been born is because I feel that is more obvious without being too direct. It’s easier to disregard someone they can’t see than someone they can.

ETA she’s a coworker so ideally it needs to be somewhat work friendly. My 3 Cs- clear, cogent and concise.
 
Bruised Reed:
Okay, here goes. Specifically, the target is the foster mother who is a church-going Christian and considers herself “pro-life” except in cases of rape, incest and obviously the life of the mother. She maintains she doesn’t think it’s right to make someone bring a pregnancy to term if it will endanger the life of the mother

The objective - to show that the consistantly pro-life position, including the tough cases, is truely the most compassionate. And to do so without implying that the one disagreeing is a moron…
Click to expand...
There are basically two ways to do that – the first is to SHOW her the results of her position. Not tell, but show – realistically enough for her to see the reality.

She is basically wishing the child were dead – and she needs to face that. And letting her off the hook won’t accomplish that. She has to know she is wishing for the death and dismemberment of that child.

The second way is to show her the impact her attitude has on the other kids. Yes, they resent the mother for dying. And they may well blame the baby. That isn’t healthy – and if she contributes to that unhealthiness with her own words or even body language, she is hurting the children.
Bruised Reed:
One of the reason’s I liked the idea of asking if the siblings of the youngest wish she hadn’t been born is because I feel that is more obvious without being too direct. It’s easier to disregard someone they can’t see than someone they can.

ETA she’s a coworker so ideally it needs to be somewhat work friendly. My 3 Cs- clear, cogent and concise.
Click to expand...
How about, “Do you realize what you’re doing to those chidren? They’ve lost their mother, and now you’re poisoning their memories of her. And they’re blaming the youngest child – do you want THAT?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top