How would you go about organizing an argument against abortion?

[CatholicZ09]

I have to organize and argument for my English class on why abortion is wrong. I already made ten PowerPoint slides and gave statistics and everything on why it’s wrong, like the side-effects it has on women and even men and such, but I feel like there should be more. I was thinking of adding in how early after conception the fetus becomes a living being, too. What would you put in in your argument?

 

[Layman_F]

Something that always stuck in me was this: Even if you ask a small child what’s in that woman’s tummy, they’ll say a baby. There’s no such thing as a little pregnant, it’s all or none. If a “pro-choicer” says to you, “I’m having a baby!”, does it make sense to remind them it’s not a baby, it’s a choice? Their choice is to birth that baby, but if they had chosen to abort, it still would have been a baby. Their consent, or lack thereof, doesn’t determine what it is; but what it’ll become.

 

[thewanderer]

What about the fact that it is biologically a living individual human? From conception it has its own human DNA and starts to grow. Human DNA, different from any other human. Acting on its own impetus. I don’t have links to studies backing this up right now, so you should definately look it up and find references to back it up, but there are deffinately scientists who admit that biologically it is a new living individual human.

 

[YoungCatholic86]

Pro-choicers complain that women need to have a “choice.” I then say, “The choice was already made to have sex.” Here are the four points I give to those who result to the “what if they were raped” argument. 1. Almost all teen pregnancies are the result two teens just having sex for the heck of it and a very small portion are cases of rape. 2. Just because a woman is raped does not give her the right to deprive another of his or her life. Though it was morally wrong/downright evil of the rapist to take the woman’s virginity, it is equally as bad for a woman to end a human’s life. 3. There are support groups out there for women that are raped that can help support her and the child along with her family. 4. It is just as expensive or more expensive (depending on where you go) to get an abortion than just to give birth and give it up for adoption. There are plenty of families who cannot have children of their own that desire children so if a woman was willing to terminate a child then why would she not be willing to part from it in another way that still allows a child to live in a healthy home.

 

[Jeanne_S]

What about the fact that it is biologically a living individual human? From conception it has its own human DNA and starts to grow. Human DNA, different from any other human. Acting on its own impetus. I don’t have links to studies backing this up right now, so you should definately look it up and find references to back it up, but there are deffinately scientists who admit that biologically it is a new living individual human.

This explaination,also supports the OP’s statements re the negative affects on post-abortive women and men. Abortion is counter intiuitive to a woman’s nature.We were created to carry life,not destroy it. Post abortion depression is the result. Men were created to protect ,so they too are affected adversely by abortion.

 

[Richard320]

hli.org/index.php/hli-research ought to give you some leads.

 

[runningdude]

I have to organize and argument for my English class on why abortion is wrong. I already made ten PowerPoint slides and gave statistics and everything on why it’s wrong, like the side-effects it has on women and even men and such, but I feel like there should be more. I was thinking of adding in how early after conception the fetus becomes a living being, too. What would you put in in your argument?

You are right that this shouldn’t just be a bunch of “statistics” and “why it’s wrong”…

This is not a topic that lends itself to “rational” arguments. This is a topic guaranteed to produce an emotional response, to which a “cold” and dispassionate argument would not dissuade. I’m not sure what level of English class you are presenting to, but I will assume it is a higher level class if it is tackling controversial topics such as this.

One thing you ought to learn about the English language is that it can convey fact and emotion. To properly present such a topic requires making it an intensely personal story; you have present your story in an effective manner.

I’d recommend starting off with a general disclaimer that this is an emotional and controversial topic to disarm your class. State it calmly, slowly, and firmly, looking your audience in eye. Go on to say it is a topic you feel strongly about personally.

State a brief summary of your case, then present a handful of arguments in detail. Avoid invectives - statements that will only cause anger (such as “baby-killers”, insults, claims of ignorance etc.). Use simple statistics and facts. Speak clearly and engage the audience. Summarize again at the end, and ask for questions. Specify that you’d like to focus on the content of the presentation. If a student asks a “stump question”, honestly say you would need to consider the issue carefully and offer to follow up.

Whatever facts you decide, it is important to remember that the grade is irrelevant. There could be young women in the class that may find themselves contemplating an abortion, or young men who may find themselves aiding or convincing his sexual partner to obtaining one.

It takes courage to risk displeasing the teacher and the possibility of a hostile class, but this presentation shouldn’t be just about a grade; it should be about protecting children.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Get involved with a pro-life group so you can be exposed to the arguments and counter-arguments from both sides. You’ll learn a lot there.

One thing I contemplated on, if they say that a fetus is dependent on a mother to live and is not a person until it is detached from the mother, ask them if they think conjoined twins who share vital organs are one or two people.

 

[jeannetherese]

I think you will find this website very helpful, and a good resource to share with your classmates.
healingtheculture.com/prolife_issues.php
May God bless you and your good work!
jeanetherese
P.S. a few slides of fetal development might be a wonderful visual aid: along with mention of when the heart begins to beat or when brain activity is first noticable when fingerprints are seen. Help your friends to see what a baby looks like. Help your friends to recognize the fetus as a person.
Nowadays, a lot of the arguments revolving around abortion are connected to personhood. should such arguments be raised, you might want to be able to point out that it is always those with power who define who gets to be considered a person versus who is considered a non-person.
At one time slaves were defined by those in power as 3/5 of a person. In Germany, for a time, Jews were defined as non-persons as justifucation for the holocaust. In Rwanda, more recently, a group of people were described as cockroaches (non-persons) prior to an act of genocide. Word choices are important. This will help you get back to the right to life for all-the most important right.

 

[TEPO]

• Abortion is a completely unnatural act that exits nowhere else among any living creatures on earth.
• There are laws that protect the unborn of nonhuman animals such as bald eagle eggs, which are considered fetuses, and not eagles… But its okay to kill a human fetus -it is still a living creature, no? Which begs the argument -why is it legal to kill any form of life whatever it’s age, when not for consumption…?
• Our natural instincts tell us abortion is flawed once we commit the act, which every mother who performs one must admit. There is no justifiable law that protects an act that that causes guilt in every single case, this fact proves that it is in fact a civil rights issue in that it should be made illegal becauses it only causes harm, to every life involved in the act.

These three points sum up my argument against abortion… I think they are valid points and I couldn’t even imagine how anyone would go about with a counter argument on any of them… To me it seems crystal clear that abortion is a complete violation of everything that life itself stands for.

 

[TEPO]

The main point for me is really the fact that abortion is the killing of a life, it’s not about figuring out -at what point does a fetus become a human being.

The real question is -under what circumstances should the abortion of any live animal be made legal…? Is abortion as a stress reliever really a justifiable cause…?

 

[thistle]

I have to organize and argument for my English class on why abortion is wrong. I already made ten PowerPoint slides and gave statistics and everything on why it’s wrong, like the side-effects it has on women and even men and such, but I feel like there should be more. I was thinking of adding in how** early after conception the fetus becomes a living being**, too. What would you put in in your argument?

Life begins AT conception and not early after.

 

[Hokomai]

I think the big issue in your question is the concept ‘wrong’. What exactly is meant by that? ‘Should be criminalised?’ 'Is generally undesirable"? “Is a matter of individual moral choice, but a moral person would not choose abortion”?. If you define that, the rest of the argument in a debate becomes clearer. Incidentally, the posters here who are saying ‘life begins at conception’ and ‘each baby has unique DNA’ are not correct. Both sperm and egg are alive. The point is that they are not human beings (which you will also need to define). And leaving aside the possibility of mutations, their DNA is not unique. They got it from their parents. It is the combination which is likely to be unique. And an argument about uniqueness will not help you much either, as it would allow abortion of non-unique unborn children, like identical twins. You may be suprised to know that the Church supports some abortions: “indirect” abortions, such as when a fetus living in a fallopian tube is removed, tube and all, for the proportionate reason of saving the life of the mother. It is not actually abortion that the Church opposes, but “direct abortion”, and the argument for this distinction requires a complex philosophical justification to do with ‘ends and means’. Congratulations on taking your debate seriously. Debating and careful preparation not only improves the mind, but can be very enjoyable!

 

[TEPO]

Life begins AT conception and not early after.

Exactly.

All Creatures become alive the second that cells begin to multiply and structuralize. For us, this happens at the moment of conception.

It aggravates me when people try to claim that a fetus is not a human. That argument is nothing more than a form of word-play.

It’s ridiculous.

 

[TEPO]

the posters here who are saying ‘life begins at conception’ and ‘each baby has unique DNA’ are not correct. Both sperm and egg are alive. The point is that they are not human beings (which you will also need to define).

Couldn’t disagree more. The only difference between a “fetus” and a “human being” is a difference in terms.

Maybe you could explain why some debaters might think that there should be some difference between the two terms outside of them as just medical terms for medical practitioners who need to make distinctions for medical care.

It’s just word-play when used in debating abortion, isn’t it…?

 

[TEPO]

Both sperm and egg are alive. The point is that they are not human beings (which you will also need to define). And leaving aside the possibility of mutations, their DNA is not unique. They got it from their parents. !

How do pro-choicers prove that sperm and eggs are alive in the same context as when the two mutate together and form an actual entity which occurs at conception?

I mean it seems pretty clear that after conception there exists a “being”, that did not exist up until that point… What is the argument based on that qualifies the live matter prior to conception as equally nonhuman as the entity that results from conception up until birth? How does one justify the the need to compare the two when they are clearly not the same.

It seems like a completely fabricated argument.

 

[Hokomai]

How do pro-choicers prove that sperm and eggs are alive in the same context as when the two mutate together and form an actual entity which occurs at conception?

I mean it seems pretty clear that after conception there exists a “being”, that did not exist up until that point… What is the argument based on that qualifies the live matter prior to conception as equally nonhuman as the entity that results from conception up until birth? How does one justify the the need to compare the two when they are clearly not the same.

It seems like a completely fabricated argument.

The point I made was that life does not begin at conception. Both sperm and egg are alive. I made the same point as you about ‘being’.

 

[Hokomai]

Couldn’t disagree more. The only difference between a “fetus” and a “human being” is a difference in terms.

Maybe you could explain why some debaters might think that there should be some difference between the two terms outside of them as just medical terms for medical practitioners who need to make distinctions for medical care.

It’s just word-play when used in debating abortion, isn’t it…?

I did not say that a fetus is not a human being. In fact, I think it is. The abortion debate is about the rights of that human being, and the rights of others involved.

 

[sw85]

The point I made was that life does not begin at conception. Both sperm and egg are alive. I made the same point as you about ‘being’.

Your second sentence doesn’t follow from your first. Frankly, the two don’t have anything to do with another.

My arm is “alive” in the sense that it’s tissue is alive. But it is not itself a living being, because it is only one part of a substantive unity which is collectively organized for the good of the unity. I am alive, but I am not reducible to any of my parts: I am that substantive unity.

By contrast, at the moment of conception there ceases to be a sperm or an egg. There is a separate substantive unity. It is not “part” of the mother the way my arm is part of me; it is a new and different thing altogether.

 

[sw85]

I did not say that a fetus is not a human being. In fact, I think it is. The abortion debate is about the rights of that human being, and the rights of others involved.

I’m going to reply to this for the benefit of the OP, since, if there is a kind of Q&A session, this is likely an assertion he is going to have to address.

The right of people to live is not some kind of magical writ from on high. It is simply a slightly different way or perspective of understanding our moral duties. I have a duty not to murder people; therefore, people have the right to live. A right is simply the inverse of a duty.

Hence the abortion debate really does have to center around the question of whether the fetus is a human being or isn’t. If it is a human being then it must be understood as an object of the injunction not to murder; therefore, it has a right to live (i.e., not to be murdered).