How would you go about organizing an argument against abortion?

[runningdude]

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.

I offered specific advice about making a compelling argument is a classroom. Now lets stop bickering with each other. This is not at all productive to saving children’s lives.

 

[edwest2]

Speaking from the other side of the pond, I offer this:

catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0005.html

The fact of the matter is this, how did Catholics and non-Catholics view their governments in the US or the UK in 1968? How much more were we committed to living out our lives as taught to us by the Church and in our common laws? We were also more trusting of strangers back then, and more trusting of authority.

We were naive and deceived in 1968. The radicals, Hippies and anarchists began publishing their anti-Church, pornographic and Marxist underground newspapers and comics. When Pope Paul VI had the encyclical Humanae Vitae published in 1968, the following happened:

"On July 29, 1968, a crescendo of suspense was broken and Pope Paul VI publicly issued his long-awaited encyclical Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth).

"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

In a 5 year plan, outsiders began living with their girlfriends, and when mother or father would say, “If you love the girl, why not marry her?” It was as if their minds had been taken over - the radicals convinced enough of us to abandon ALL authority, Federal, Civil, Priests, Nuns, mom and dad - they were old. Here they promised us a Woodstock Nation, which never came to pass. I lived through this.

Pope Paul VI warned there would be an increase in promiscuity, and small groups of people with a great deal of money would open strip clubs and topless bars and Adult Bookstores selling explicit photos of prostitutes. But they had their highly paid lawyers yelling: “We have the First Amendment right!”

Everything had to be easy. Sex had to be worry free though no form of artificial contraception is 100% effective. Gradually, we began to slip away. Eastern mysticism became the big thing on college campuses.

In the 1980s, things got easier with No-Fault Divorce. Yet, I still felt that enough remained where we would not lose most of what we were. But the plan was ongoing. Cable TV appeared promising more “choices.” What did we get? Porn.

In the 1990s, it was all about me. “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.” Shock jocks spewing filth on the radio and interviewing “porn stars” (prostitutes) and exalting them. Then the global internet.

It goes back to the Hippie saying: “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.” A “modern” translation of it’s OK to be a slave to your flesh and without self-control.

We know the way back. There is a priest waiting to hear our confession. And to non-Catholics, I would say: This is better? A dysfunctional, sex obsessed world is better?"

Peace,
Ed

 

[Julian0404]

1. Translate the latin “fetus” into english so that your audience can see what the “doctors” are hiding through the use of latin.
2. Chart the division of the embryo once fertilized into hours: how many hours after the embryo divides is a heart beat detectible thus you have “life”. How many hours until eyes, ears, fingers etc How “much” of the “fetus” is formed and alive before the women even knows she is pregnant.
3. Research your state on the civil law for murdering a pregnant women, is the killer charged with one murder or two? Then pose the question, why is violence a double murder, but choice “not” murder? Nothing has changed for the “fetus” in either situation.
4. A picture speaks 1,000 words. Show some actual aborted babies, and ask “is this identifiable as a human”? And “did it not have a heart beat before it was cut into pieces?”
   And then the finale, “Can you tell from this picture if this baby was killed by the violence of a murder or the choice of a mother?”
5. Conclusion : if a criminal cannot kill a “fetus” a mother cannot kill a “fetus”, it is wrong.

 

[minkymurph]

1. Research your state on the civil law for murdering a pregnant women, is the killer charged with one murder or two? Then pose the question, why is violence a double murder, but choice “not” murder? Nothing has changed for the “fetus” in either situation.
2. Conclusion : if a criminal cannot kill a “fetus” a mother cannot kill a “fetus”, it is wrong.

This is an interesting one. I appreciate the law differs in different parts of the world. In Britain, a criminal who murders or kills a pregnant woman is charged with one murder - the woman - not two. Concerning the unborn child, he or she may be charged with manslaughter if the unborn child dies, but not murder, even if the pregnancy has progressed beyond the time limit (24 weeks) for a legal abortion to be carried out.

I see this as a flaw in the law, and a bit of a cop out. If a criminal was charged with two murders, that would call abortion into question as it would be recognizing the unborn child as a person. However, the public is more incensed if a pregnant woman is killed, (now why would that be?) and unlikely to accept no recognition be given to the fact the person murdered was pregnant. So, to get around that the criminal may be charged with manslaughter. However, the fact the criminal may charged with manslaughter is in law, recognizing the unborn child as more than biological material.

I raised a question on this issue with a criminal lawyer. My argument was the time limit for a legal abortion in Britain is 24 weeks. As such, if a woman more than 24 weeks pregnant is murdered, and the unborn child dies, should the charge not be murder rather than manslaughter? He agreed there is a legal argument it should be, and the law is flawed in this area. I stress we were discussing legal arguments and not moral or religious ones.

I would say Parliament can’t have it both ways and needs to make up it’s mind. Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

[vera_dicere]

End of the day, the argument falls to when does human life begin. It begins at conception. Not before and certainly not at some assinine point selected arbitarily in pregnancy.

Human rights should then be bestowed when human life begins. Because if those rights are not bestowed at the beginning of that individual human’s life, then again, there’s not much to stop people selecting some other random point in development.

The newly concieved human being is just that, a human being, at exactly the stage of development they are meant to be at. We were all at that point. Therefore, there can be no allowance for abortion, not for defect of foetus, not for incest or rape and not for life of mother - which, you might be interested to know, there is actually NO medical condition that requires the directly willed death of the foetus to save the mother. [ectopic pregnancy is a different kettle of fish].

How would I order it, point out, right from the get go that the human being in the womb is a human being. Their life began at conception, science proves this. The pro-abortion lobby has done a fantastic job of making the “life at conception” beleif into some kind of religious concept. It is not. It is science. To deny it is just stupidity.

Then if one wishes to order rights, well, you can’t have a right to privacy or any of that other good stuff if you dont’ have a life to enjoy it? Therefore the human in the womb, their right to continue their existance over rides any spurious “right to privacy” the mother has.

Also, hit out at this stupid “right to privacy” and “right to choose” nonsense. How does having a right to privacy include killing another human being? And the right to choose? Choose what? The death of another human being. How are those rights we should be allowed? I think of the right to privacy as protecting my personal details from abuse, not being able to kill a child. And call the right to choose what it is - the right to choose to KILL A HUMAN BEING.

I think one big thing you need to throw out there is the numbers of women who did seek abortions and did die pre-Roe. They were slim in number. Much lower than what the pro-aborts harp on about. And certainly the majority were not carried out by crazy coat hanger wielding perverts in back streets or desperate 18 year old college girls with nana’s knitting needles.

Sorry, I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but long and short of it, I’d start with science saying life begins at conception, then human rights must be afforded at the human’s beginning - to choose another point is very dangerous, the ordering of human rights - ie. life first, privacy second, the rights of privacy not being able to override life. Then lead into your facts about women being harmed, the pre-Roe myths the pro-aborts bang about. Define the terms. The pro-abortion lobby has relied on false words, catch phrases and junk science.

look here for the anti-coat hanger stuff:
realchoice.blogspot.co.nz/2005/07/coathanger-abortions.html

 

[runningdude]

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.

I don’t think you understand. I’m offering advice tailored specifically to a classroom setting.

The OP needs to share his conviction that this is the truth, not mere statements he’s reciting solely for the purposes of the assignment.

 

[TEPO]

I don’t think you understand. I’m offering advice tailored specifically to a classroom setting.

The OP needs to share his conviction that this is the truth, not mere statements he’s reciting solely for the purposes of the assignment.

I see your point now. I thought you were trying to say that the abortion argument should never be debated By using rational terms -not sure why I thought that at the time…

I think I was preoccupied with the notion that the abortion debate is not permitted here on CAF, not that I know for a fact that this is even true, but after doing a quick search here I can’t find one single debate on abortion. Come to think of it, I’ve been posting here for a few years and I don’t recall ever taking part in a debate about abortion at all. I suppose I figured that the mods at CAF must have also agreed that the abortion argument must not be debated in rational terms. I was just trying to make sense of the whole thing.

I must have blended the two thoughts into one. But you’re right, it’s a very good idea to make known that you believe abortion is fundamentally wrong, and that a million facts thrown out at once tends to come off as a little dry.

 

[TEPO]

So I just really wish someone from the pro-choice side would come to CAF and begin the debate trying to rationalize human life.

That would just be too much fun… :bounce:

 

[minkymurph]

So I just really wish someone from the pro-choice side would come to CAF and begin the debate trying to rationalize human life.

That would just be too much fun… :bounce:

I really don’t mean to boast, but I’m quite good at putting up arguments for things I don’t agree with. So I could do that if you like. Problem is I wouldn’t mean it so it wouldn’t be the same, but it might be good practice for debating with someone who is pro-choice.

 

[wynnejj]

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?

For the Christian, and especially a Catholic, there is a very strong argument. There is the witness of the Nicene Creed as handed down from our earliest church fathers. There is a point in the Nicene Creed where every head bows in the liturgy of the Mass. It is the point where it states that …

by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

or in Latin,

et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria virginine et humanatus [homo factus] est

The point is that Jesus became man when he first became flesh — when the word was made flesh. Not when he was born. Not when he first acquired brain & pain centers. When he was first conceived. That was when Our Lord first literally became our brother. By the same token, we first became Our Lord’s flesh & blood brother when we were first conceived in the womb.

For those religions that recognize the Body & Blood of Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist, such as high Anglican and Lutheran churches, Our Lord becomes flesh & blood at the point of Consecration. The Word made Flesh again. How the point of Consecration parallels the point of conception in both cases of incarnation should not be lost on the Christian believer in the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

Note: The Nicene Creed is the most ecumenical of all the creeds and, is recognized and accepted by most mainstream Protestant religions, as well as the Catholic religion.

 

[saveusfromhell]

I really don’t mean to boast, but I’m quite good at putting up arguments for things I don’t agree with. So I could do that if you like. Problem is I wouldn’t mean it so it wouldn’t be the same, but it might be good practice for debating with someone who is pro-choice.

A catholic who comes on a catholic board and: D at supporting murder. Question when you were doing RCIA they you make your despicable views know to the instructor?

 

[CatholicZ09]

Just an update:

I have my debate tomorrow. My friends had to debate the same topic in another period today, and they said my teacher is MAJORLY pro-life. So, it looks like the Lord is working on my side. :thumbsup:

I was praying about it too!

I think tomorrow will be interesting.

 

[TEPO]

Just an update:

I have my debate tomorrow. My friends had to debate the same topic in another period today, and they said my teacher is MAJORLY pro-life. So, it looks like the Lord is working on my side. :thumbsup:

I was praying about it too!

I think tomorrow will be interesting.

So how’d it go…? :bounce:

 

[CatholicZ09]

So how’d it go…? :bounce:

The pro side basically gave a three minute argument on definitions, and they concluded that you cannot kill something if it is nothing. Meaning, you cannot commit a wrong by aborting a fetus because it is not life.

I got up there and gave a five minute argument on fetal development and everything. I said how life begins at the moment of conception, but they still continued their notion that the fetus is not life.

When I did the rebuttal, they basically admitted that we had the better argument. They only got one vote for their argument, and we got about the whole class.

God was there!

 

[TEPO]

The pro side basically gave a three minute argument on definitions, and they concluded that you cannot kill something if it is nothing. Meaning, you cannot commit a wrong by aborting a fetus because it is not life.

I got up there and gave a five minute argument on fetal development and everything. I said how life begins at the moment of conception, but they still continued their notion that the fetus is not life.

When I did the rebuttal, they basically admitted that we had the better argument. They only got one vote for their argument, and we got about the whole class.

God was there!

Love it…!

Thanks for the good thread.

 

[runningdude]

The pro side basically gave a three minute argument on definitions, and they concluded that you cannot kill something if it is nothing. Meaning, you cannot commit a wrong by aborting a fetus because it is not life.

I got up there and gave a five minute argument on fetal development and everything. I said how life begins at the moment of conception, but they still continued their notion that the fetus is not life.

When I did the rebuttal, they basically admitted that we had the better argument. They only got one vote for their argument, and we got about the whole class.

God was there!

What were some of the details of your argument?

 

[CatholicZ09]

What were some of the details of your argument?

Fetal development, the definition of murder and why abortion is murder, statistics on the effects on women who have had abortions, Roe (Norma McCorvey), and Doe (Sandra Cano) and how they never had abortions and joined the pro-life movement, statistics on how most pregnancies aren’t the result of rape (popular argument in these types of debates), and the religious side of it. I quoted some religious documents from the Early Church Fathers and disciples of them.

 

[ACCT]

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?

What is “the larger question?”

I can understand everyone’s concern that a child should be born into a loving family. However, not all values are equal. What is more fundamental than life itself?

There is another aspect of Roe vs. Wade that we did not discuss: the power of government to tell us who is and who is not a person. When some of you say that the government should not be involved in the abortion decision, I agree. However, I agree from a different perspective. The government got too involved in 1973 when it said that an unborn child is not a person. The world has been down this slippery slope of “non-persons” before.

Could the government ever declare us to be “non-persons?” That idea is not so far fetched as it sounds. I do not think that we have considered the full implication of Roe vs. Wade.

 

[ACCT]

This is what I wrote in response to an atheist who was also a medical doctor:

Are you saying that it is not a baby? Yeah, right. That statement is old and out of date. I can understand that assertion (maybe) when Roe vs. Wade was passed, but not today. When are you going to catch up with the times? When do you think that abortion destroys a human life?

Do not get spiritual on me and ask, “When do babies receive souls?” I do not want to get into that argument. I am not interested in the abstract and the invisible. The law protects both whatever you want to believe about souls and the right to life.

I see that some of you have trouble accepting that we are made in the image of God. If you are a Christian, then reread Mathew 22:15-22. Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar, and to God what is due to God.” The coin belongs to Caesar because it has Caesar’s image on it. All of us human beings belong to God because we bear God’s image. Even Caesar belonged to God; therefore, Caesar must obey God! The bible scholars can also look up Samuel 8:1-22 and 12:13-15. The well-being of Israel depended on the obedience of the King to God.

 

[nordskoven]

Abortion raises the breast cancer rate by up to 30%. Stop abortion with anti-breast cancer organizations like the Susan G. Komen Founda…Wait. They got flamed for attempting to pull funding to Planned Parenthood. OK there’s no money in stopping abortion. That’s the American argument. Money talks.