How would you go about organizing an argument against abortion?

[thistle]

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’.

We are talking about human life. A sperm on its own is not a human life.

 

[lboecker]

I would use Kreefts four possibilities from his apple argument:

The fetus is a person, and we know that; The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that; The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know that;
The fetus isn’t a person, and we know that. What is abortion in each of these four cases?
In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.

In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don’t know that, abortion is manslaughter. It’s like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you’re not sure is fully evacuated. You’re not sure there is a person there, but you’re not sure there isn’t either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn’t know there was a person there, but you didn’t know there wasn’t either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.

In Case 3, the fetus isn’t a person, but you don’t know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren’t. But you didn’t care; you didn’t take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.

Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

Dominus Vobiscum

 

[church_mouse]

These sites might be of help:

deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/

truthbooth.org/video.asp

 

[TEPO]

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.

Oh I know you didnt, I was just curious if you were able to understand the argument that the pro-choicers always make, in attempt to justify their “rights”… They always have to fall back on calling the baby a fetus in attempts to dehumanize. This allows them to strip the baby of all human rights… You know, because the baby wouldn’t be a “human being”.

…but I say that’s all just word-play. It’s a losing argument. Pro-choicers can never logically win this argument just for this reason alone.

 

[edwest2]

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.

This is all about rational arguments. This is all about facts. Only those who tell women that it (the baby) is just a blob of tissue are not stating a fact.

The Church teaches that life needs to be protected from conception to natural death.

1. What do pregnancy tests tell a woman? Here’s an example:

firstresponse.com/early-pregnancy-test.asp

1. Do scientists state that human life begins at conception?

epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

1. What was the driving force that told people, including the Supreme Court, that abortion was OK and then legalized in 1973?

aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

The man who wrote that article later became a Catholic.

1. And who helped convince women to fear having children? Prior to 1973, a baby was “a gift from God,” and “a bundle of joy,” but, in 1967, the media told women, and men, to fear “unwanted” pregnancies. In other words, the responsibility for having sexual intercourse should no longer be your concern. Science has given you the birth control pill. Use it.

time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19670407,00.html

Click on “read the cover story.” You will see a brief portion of the article and you will have to subscribe to read the rest.

Fact: I was born in the mid-1950s. The average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. There was no birth control pill. It was approved by the FDA in 1960 but did not see widespread use until the late 1960s.

Once again, for most young people, Who decides when you have sex? The media? The Church? No - only the two of you. We are responsible for the decisions we make regarding sexual intercourse.

No artificial birth control method can prevent pregnancy 100% of the time. Not the birth control pill, condoms, spermicidal foam, IUDs, etc.

Self Control is not impossible. But The Media is doing its best to convince people of All Ages that you must being having sex, a lot, with Anyone. We’re getting that message from ALL media outlets, 24/7. “Everybody’s doing it.” I don’t think so.

Peace,
Ed

 

[runningdude]

This is all about rational arguments. This is all about facts. Only those who tell women that it (the baby) is just a blob of tissue are not stating a fact…

Of course the fact that abortion is evil is rational. Its the only rational position. What I explicitly stated was that this topic is not where where cold, dispassionate arguments will work. Only showing personal conviction will spread the word of great harm caused by abortion.

Very few people actually believe that killing children is an acceptable “solution” to a problem. People however do believe that fetuses are not children, that women have a “choice”, etc, etc, which are all inherently irrational positions. ** People are extremely emotionally attached to these positions** - to believe otherwise is to admit oneself to be a child killer or to support the killing of children.

As a society, we have a great guilt, and it is difficult to confront this guilt. To explain that abortion is wrong, without addressing the underlying emotional burden here, is to do a disservice to the cause. People will get angry, and opinions will not be swayed.

The best way to present the topic is to simply present clearly and confidently one’s personal opinion that abortion is wrong. The personal courage shown in presenting such an opinion will do far more than arguing the case on purely rational terms without showing passion.

 

[Hokomai]

We are talking about human life. A sperm on its own is not a human life.

Yes, it is human life. It is not a human being. Words mean something, and it helps if we keep using them in the same way.

 

[Hokomai]

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.

Yes, it does follow. Human ‘life’, which is present in your arm, is not the same thing as a human ‘being’. Life does not begin at conception. Life is already present in the sperm and egg, passed on from their parents (usually) and their parents and so on. Sperm and egg can die. They are alive before they do. That means there is life. Human life is not the same thing as a human being. I have not argued that sperm, egg, zygote, embryo, fetus or child are a part of the mother’s body in any sense, let alone in the same sense that an arm is part of her body. My disagreement on one point does not imply disagreement on others.

 

[sw85]

Yes, it does follow. Human ‘life’, which is present in your arm, is not the same thing as a human ‘being’. Life does not begin at conception. Life is already present in the sperm and egg, passed on from their parents (usually) and their parents and so on. Sperm and egg can die. They are alive before they do. That means there is life. Human life is not the same thing as a human being. I have not argued that sperm, egg, zygote, embryo, fetus or child are a part of the mother’s body in any sense, let alone in the same sense that an arm is part of her body. My disagreement on one point does not imply disagreement on others.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. It reads like a scattershot of ideas.

What makes my arm not a life in and of itself is the fact that it is not a substantive unity unto itself, but is part of a substantive unity (i.e., me) which is “alive.” It derives its livingness from its being a part of that substantive unity.

This is not true of the newly-conceived, which are substantive unities unto themselves and not a part of the substantive unity of the mother. As witnessed by the fact that they develop their own organs, limbs, etc. They don’t magically acquire unity at some later point in the pregnancy; the unity is present from the beginning, and it’s from that unity that the organs and limbs, etc., develop. QED.

 

[Hokomai]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. It reads like a scattershot of ideas.

What makes my arm not a life in and of itself is the fact that it is not a substantive unity unto itself, but is part of a substantive unity (i.e., me) which is “alive.” It derives its livingness from its being a part of that substantive unity.

This is not true of the newly-conceived, which are substantive unities unto themselves and not a part of the substantive unity of the mother. As witnessed by the fact that they develop their own organs, limbs, etc. They don’t magically acquire unity at some later point in the pregnancy; the unity is present from the beginning, and it’s from that unity that the organs and limbs, etc., develop. QED.

I am not sure what these are, but I think you are conflating the ideas of ‘being’ or ‘individual’ and ‘life’. If a sperm or ova are not alive, how do they differ from a rock, or a piece of meat, or, for that matter, a dead sperm or ova? I have said nothing about the distinction between the body of a fetus and that of its mother except that I agree they are different.

 

[edwest2]

Of course the fact that abortion is evil is rational. Its the only rational position. What I explicitly stated was that this topic is not where where cold, dispassionate arguments will work. Only showing personal conviction will spread the word of great harm caused by abortion.

Very few people actually believe that killing children is an acceptable “solution” to a problem. People however do believe that fetuses are not children, that women have a “choice”, etc, etc, which are all inherently irrational positions. ** People are extremely emotionally attached to these positions** - to believe otherwise is to admit oneself to be a child killer or to support the killing of children.

As a society, we have a great guilt, and it is difficult to confront this guilt. To explain that abortion is wrong, without addressing the underlying emotional burden here, is to do a disservice to the cause. People will get angry, and opinions will not be swayed.

The best way to present the topic is to simply present clearly and confidently one’s personal opinion that abortion is wrong. The personal courage shown in presenting such an opinion will do far more than arguing the case on purely rational terms without showing passion.

I spent some time in front of an abortion clinic. We held signs showing a photo of a fetus in the womb - definitely human, and no possibility of it being something else. We also held a sign with a painting of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

One young lady who was part of the group told me she had an abortion at that clinic, and she really regretted it. She approached young women entering the clinic in this manner: “Honey. Sweety. Can I talk to you for a minute?” She would give the woman literature about Project Rachel:

noparh.org/projectrachels.html

I don’t know what else she told them. We prayed. Sometimes people yelled obscenities from their cars as they drove by, or we got words of thanks. The thanks were fewer than the insults. May I respectfully point out that opinions do not matter. Abortion is either wrong for clear reasons or it’s not. We need to avoid confusing the word opinion with the truth.

I respectfully urge Catholics to learn the truth, understand it and be able to articulate it to others. If somebody says, “Well, that’s just your opinion.” politely ask why the other person believes his opinion is valid - if you feel the situation calls for it. I mention this since some may not answer, or call you names (fanatic, Bible thumper, it’s legal and it’s none of your business, etc.).

We do not need to be confrontational. Everyone knew why we were standing there.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sw85]

I am not sure what these are, but I think you are conflating the ideas of ‘being’ or ‘individual’ and ‘life’. If a sperm or ova are not alive, how do they differ from a rock, or a piece of meat, or, for that matter, a dead sperm or ova? I have said nothing about the distinction between the body of a fetus and that of its mother except that I agree they are different.

The sperm and ovum have nothing to do with it. Sperm are part of the substantive unity of the father. Ova are part of the substantive unity of the mother. Conception occurs when they cease to be parts of the substantive unity of either, i.e., when they cease to be merely a sperm and an ovum. Something new entirely comes into being, i.e., is “conceived.”

They become a thing which is substantively united unto itself. This substantive unity is human. Therefore, it is a human being and not merely of a human being. If it is a human being than it is an object of our duty not to commit murder. And if it is so, then we must not murder it.

 

[edwest2]

And I would like to add this resource:

silentnomoreawareness.org/about/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jeanne_S]

And I would like to add this resource:

silentnomoreawareness.org/about/

Peace,
Ed

 

[runningdude]

I spent some time in front of an abortion clinic. We held signs showing a photo of a fetus in the womb - definitely human, and no possibility of it being something else. We also held a sign with a painting of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

One young lady who was part of the group told me she had an abortion at that clinic, and she really regretted it. She approached young women entering the clinic in this manner: “Honey. Sweety. Can I talk to you for a minute?” She would give the woman literature about Project Rachel:

noparh.org/projectrachels.html

I don’t know what else she told them. We prayed. Sometimes people yelled obscenities from their cars as they drove by, or we got words of thanks. The thanks were fewer than the insults. May I respectfully point out that opinions do not matter. Abortion is either wrong for clear reasons or it’s not. We need to avoid confusing the word opinion with the truth.

I respectfully urge Catholics to learn the truth, understand it and be able to articulate it to others. If somebody says, “Well, that’s just your opinion.” politely ask why the other person believes his opinion is valid - if you feel the situation calls for it. I mention this since some may not answer, or call you names (fanatic, Bible thumper, it’s legal and it’s none of your business, etc.).

We do not need to be confrontational. Everyone knew why we were standing there.

Peace,
Ed

This is what I’m saying. It takes courage to voice the truth.

One needs to speak clearly and confidently, and not engage in pointless confrontation. Children’s lives are at stake.

 

[TEPO]

The sperm and ovum have nothing to do with it. Sperm are part of the substantive unity of the father. Ova are part of the substantive unity of the mother. Conception occurs when they cease to be parts of the substantive unity of either, i.e., when they cease to be merely a sperm and an ovum. Something new entirely comes into being, i.e., is “conceived.”

They become a thing which is substantively united unto itself. This substantive unity is human. Therefore, it is a human being and not merely of a human being. If it is a human being than it is an object of our duty not to commit murder. And if it is so, then we must not murder it.

Well said…! There is no good reason why one should draw comparisons between sperm and human beings, whether they be of the fetus, infant, adolescent, or adult stages of human life.

They are clearly not the same.

I wish there could be better debate on this topic -but I don’t think the mods would stand for it. It tends to cease being a debate after a few posts, turns to argument, and then ultimately fighting. I know we could win it every time though. .

 

[TEPO]

To explain that abortion is wrong, without addressing the underlying emotional burden here, is to do a disservice to the cause. People will get angry, and opinions will not be swayed.

The best way to present the topic is to simply present clearly and confidently one’s personal opinion that abortion is wrong. The personal courage shown in presenting such an opinion will do far more than arguing the case on purely rational terms without showing passion.

This is exactly what we’ve been doing now for quite some time, and it’s not working.

Please tell me why we should be afraid to debate this in in rational terms. What is the counter-argument and is it really that convincing?

I think the pro-choice argument that SW85 and myself have been dismantling is unstoppable. I don’t get it, we can win this…

Besides, the opinions of those against the abortion atrocity are not only those of the Holy Church… There are some among us with no religious affiliation who also disagree with abortion, and the rational opinions of them are left unheard.

 

[TEPO]

I know I’m probably putting my own foot in my mouth here, but I think it’s time for the good Catholics at CAF to let the debates begin.

Those who can’t handle it should be asked to refrain from posting on that particular thread, or face suspension… That includes everyone whether they have 25, or 25,000 posts.

What was the old saying…? Something like: you will be heard better hollaring from on top of a tree than from hollaring in a well… … Something like that.

You get my point though. I feel like we’re not being heard. …And we have no points other than those specific to our faith… So how can we expect to gain the support of anyone outside our faith…?

 

[GratefulFred]

Honor and Integrity.

HONOR: a keen sense of right and wrong; adherence to action or principles considered right; integrity [to conduct oneself with *honor]

INTEGRITY: the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness.

We can judge the 'rightness" of our acts if we think those who matter to us will say to us, “Well Done. I am proud of you.”

That’s different and much more than saying, “Well, I understand you did what you thought was right at that moment.”

But let’s focus on how and why a woman is pregnant and feels she cannot face the responsibility that comes with her actions (ignoring the rape issue.) Would most women insist on an abortion if the father was willing to face HIS responsibility as well? We should be quite critical of men who abandon their women and men who insist that their women abort.

Let’s focus on the MORAL upbringing that parents owe their children. Do they explain the consequences of sex and the GREAT VALUE of keeping sex for marriage? EVERY child deserves a loving mother AND Father. Sex does lead to pregnancy and new life. Sex should be reserved for that special one that is COMMITTED to loving you ALL the days of your life and also wanting to LOVE the chlildren that come along. Anyone less than that is a lousy, dispicable sex partner.

Real men protect and provide for their woman and children.

 

[minkymurph]

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 have stated one of the big debates in the abortion argument. At what point during a pregnancy do we say the unborn child is no longer biological material? If abortion is permitted, this is what needs to be decided. How do we make that call and on what basis?

Many are of the opinion in the early stages of pregnancy the unborn child is a collection of cells and therefore, nothing more than biological material. Of course, as Catholics we do not think of the unborn child at any stage of a pregnancy as biological material. However, lets run with the theory for a moment. At what stage of a pregnancy could we say a child is no longer biological material and why? Even people who are pro-choice find this a difficult call to make. I don’t know about your part of the world, but in Britain the time limit for a termination is 24 weeks. Religious beliefs aside, advances in technology and clinical science have called this into question. Recently in Britain there was a vote in the Commons to reduce the time limit. It was defeated because the current government is pro-choice. However, the most staunch atheist if being honest, does not find this a easy topic to discuss and finds the process by which the termination is carried out during the later stages of pregnancy distasteful. Why?

Another argument for abortion is a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body. Based on the reasoning above, is she doing what she wants with her own body? At what point during a pregnancy can we say it’s her body, and at what point is that no longer the case? On what do we base that reasoning?

I wish you luck. It’s a very emotive and highly politicized topic. You’re very brave. :tiphat: