If Unborn Children Could Speak, Is This What They Would Say? A Bishop’s Stirring Answer

[mdgspencer]

see If Unborn Children Could Speak, Is This What They Would Say? A Bishop's Stirring Answer |

This presses the matter home.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

This presses the matter home.

The matter has been “pressed home” more times than we can count. Nobody’s mind will be changed by this particular statement.

 

[Zaccheus]

This is what it’s being called: a stirring statement.

And I think it will make no real difference, except perhaps to a few people who read it with open minds.

God grant that I be mistaken.

 

[FiveLinden]

An interesting piece of rhetoric. But like most statements designed to appeal to the emotions it can backfire. It induces the thought that ‘unborn children’ at the time the overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out cannot speak, or communicate in any way. Like all such arguments it also suffers when extended - ‘if children never born because their potential parents were chaste could speak…’

 

[LilyM]

An interesting piece of rhetoric. But like most statements designed to appeal to the emotions it can backfire. It induces the thought that ‘unborn children’ at the time the overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out cannot speak, or communicate in any way. Like all such arguments it also suffers when extended - ‘if children never born because their potential parents were chaste could speak…’

Exactly - and women who have abortions most often speak of fears for their children being born into poverty, abuse, neglect, illness, disability, or other disadvantage of one kind or another.

They would hardly be likely to see.any hope, nor are.they likely to imagine their unborn children begging to be allowed to experience life under such conditions.

I fear this is an exercise in preaching to the choir.

 

[fredystairs]

. Like all such arguments it also suffers when extended - ‘if children never born because their potential parents were chaste could speak…’

This doesn’t follow. A couple who is chaste is not a mother and father (at least in the sense that you mean it). An abortion kills an existing human being, who has a mother and father. The two are not equivalent.

(Happy cake day by the way.)

Pax

 

[fredystairs]

Exactly - and women who have abortions most often speak of fears for their children being born into poverty, abuse, neglect, illness, disability, or other disadvantage of one kind or another.

They would hardly be likely to see.any hope, nor are.they likely to imagine their unborn children begging to be allowed to experience life under such conditions.

Two points:

First, you say that those who have abortions most often speak of fears for their children. Do you have any statistics to back up that statement? I’ve heard of other reasons for abortions, but I’ve never heard that the majority are because of fears for their children.

Second, if, as you say, mothers cannot imagine their unborn child begging to be “allowed to experience life under such conditions” would it be acceptable for those same mothers to kill their children at say two years old for the same reason? After all, those mothers are doing basically the same thing for the same reason. And if it is not acceptable then why not?

Pax

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Exactly - and women who have abortions most often speak of fears for their children being born into poverty, abuse, neglect, illness, disability, or other disadvantage of one kind or another.

They would hardly be likely to see.any hope, nor are.they likely to imagine their unborn children begging to be allowed to experience life under such conditions.

Two points:

First, you say that those who have abortions most often speak of fears for their children. Do you have any statistics to back up that statement? I’ve heard of other reasons for abortions, but I’ve never heard that the majority are because of fears for their children.

Second, if, as you say, mothers cannot imagine their unborn child begging to be “allowed to experience life under such conditions” would it be acceptable for those same mothers to kill their children at say two years old for the same reason? After all, those mothers are doing basically the same thing for the same reason. And if it is not acceptable then why not?

Pax

I am.not saying it is acceptable, I am saying it is the way a lot of them.think. and why arguments like the one in the OP are likely not to be persuasive. We will not persuade people not to have abortions until we understand the many reasons that they do and the many different thoughts that may go through their heads.

Of course a woman who gets pregnant who is too poor to raise a child, or is in an abusive relationship with the man she gets pregnant to, or who finds out through prenatal testing that the child has some horrible genetic illness or disability , is going to fear for the future of that unborn child.

She will fear that f she proceeds with the pregnancy she will bring that chikd into a situation where it will likely have a very hard life. No-one wants that for a child. Are you suggesting that she will not?

And not every child who is born into poverty, abuse, illness or disability is thankful just to be alive. Some are resentful, some blame the women who.gave birth to them. Some tell everyone that they wish they had not been born. That would weigh heavily on any would-be mother. Are you suggesting it would not? Are you making the common mistake of assuming it is always and only about self for anyone contemplating abortion?

And I am sure at least some mothers of extremely sick two-year-olds, as with others who care for the very I’ll, may perhaps find themselves pondering the ethics of euthanasia, which is the flip side of the coin in this debate.

I find it interesting that you are talking to me as if I endorse the views I am discussing when I have never said any such thing. Never once have I said anywhere that I think women should be free to have abortions. Is it that incredible that I shoukd ponder, and be able to express, possible reasons why they do without agreeing with them? People discuss all the time the reasons for Henry Viii starting the COE or the Nazis invading Poland, for example, without it being assumed that they agree with what they did

 

[FiveLinden]

This doesn’t follow. A couple who is chaste is not a mother and father (at least in the sense that you mean it). An abortion kills an existing human being, who has a mother and father. The two are not equivalent.

(Happy cake day by the way.)

Thank you Freddy. I understand your point but to someone who does not think of an ‘unborn child’ as a human being the situations are comparable. I was not arguing this point, but pointing to the (to me) ineffectiveness of the argument. So much in the abortion debate (on both sides) ignores the reality that people on the other side really do believe what they say.

 

[TK421]

mdgspencer:

This presses the matter home.

The matter has been “pressed home” more times than we can count. Nobody’s mind will be changed by this particular statement.

People change their minds on stuff all the time albeit it is usually a gradual change.

 

[fredystairs]

I am.not saying it is acceptable, I am saying it is the way a lot of them.think. and why arguments like the one in the OP are likely not to be persuasive. We will not persuade people not to have abortions until we understand the many reasons that they do and the many different thoughts that may go through their heads.

Of course a woman who gets pregnant who is too poor to raise a child, or is in an abusive relationship with the man she gets pregnant to, or who finds out through prenatal testing that the child has some horrible genetic illness or disability , is going to fear for the future of that unborn child.

She will fear that f she proceeds with the pregnancy she will bring that chikd into a situation where it will likely have a very hard life. No-one wants that for a child. Are you suggesting that she will not?

And not every child who is born into poverty, abuse, illness or disability is thankful just to be alive. Some are resentful, some blame the women who.gave birth to them. Some tell everyone that they wish they had not been born. That would weigh heavily on any would-be mother. Are you suggesting it would not? Are you making the common mistake of assuming it is always and only about self for anyone contemplating abortion?

And I am sure at least some mothers of extremely sick two-year-olds, as with others who care for the very I’ll, may perhaps find themselves pondering the ethics of euthanasia, which is the flip side of the coin in this debate.

I find it interesting that you are talking to me as if I endorse the views I am discussing when I have never said any such thing. Never once have I said anywhere that I think women should be free to have abortions. Is it that incredible that I shoukd ponder, and be able to express, possible reasons why they do without agreeing with them? People discuss all the time the reasons for Henry Viii starting the COE or the Nazis invading Poland, for example, without it being assumed that they agree with what they did

Dear @LilyM:

I apologize for misunderstanding your post . Looking back I see that in fact you are just restating their position.

I never said that I thought that abortion was just about self when it came to abortion. All I asked was for some information concerning the reason that you said that “most often” women speak of their fear for their children when they have an abortion. I don’t know the main reason and when you said “most often” I thought you might have some information.

Again I apologize for misunderstanding your original post.

Pax

 

[Usagi]

Those literally are merely potential children, however. They do not exist.

Conceived children at least exist, even if their early developmental state (which every one of us passed through) leads to some people measuring their moral value differently, especially when pitted against their mother’s interests and well-being.

(IOW, even from a pro-choice POV, that’s a terrible comparison.)

 

[FiveLinden]

Those literally are merely potential children, however. They do not exist

My point is that the people with whom pro-lifers are arguing and hope to influence generally do not consider a zygote, embryo or non-viable fetes to be anything other than a ‘potential child’. Therefore the argument put forward by the Bishop is likely to backfire.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Exactly. The abortion debate is only about the humanity of a fetus and whether humanity carries an inalienable right to life.

 

[FiveLinden]

Exactly. The abortion debate is only about the humanity of a fetus and whether humanity carries an inalienable right to life.

Slightly more than that: there is also debate about whether there are ‘degrees’ of humanity. This is the position taken by those who worry hardly at all about contraception that prevents implantation but are opposed to late-term abortion. And there are those who accept that even a zygote has an ‘inalienable right to life’ as do we all but that that right does not extend to the right to occupy another’s body.

 

[EssentialBeing]

Abortion is NOT the only reason unborn children never get to live. What of those unborn taken by disease, disorders, abnormalities during pregnancy etc. If it is natural then could it be gods will? I am sure those unborn may say something very different

 

[FiveLinden]

I wonder too if unborn children, if they could talk, and were Catholic, would not be happy to be avoiding the risk of hell entirely?

 

[DisorientingSneeze]

I noticed his statement inspired others to try their hand at crafting one. I still thought his was best. Anyone care to try? What would they say?

I’m consulting with my unborn child who has yet to weigh in.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

I am.not saying it is acceptable, I am saying it is the way a lot of them.think. and why arguments like the one in the OP are likely not to be persuasive. We will not persuade people not to have abortions until we understand the many reasons that they do and the many different thoughts that may go through their heads.

Of course a woman who gets pregnant who is too poor to raise a child, or is in an abusive relationship with the man she gets pregnant to, or who finds out through prenatal testing that the child has some horrible genetic illness or disability , is going to fear for the future of that unborn child.

She will fear that f she proceeds with the pregnancy she will bring that chikd into a situation where it will likely have a very hard life. No-one wants that for a child. Are you suggesting that she will not?

And not every child who is born into poverty, abuse, illness or disability is thankful just to be alive. Some are resentful, some blame the women who.gave birth to them. Some tell everyone that they wish they had not been born. That would weigh heavily on any would-be mother. Are you suggesting it would not? Are you making the common mistake of assuming it is always and only about self for anyone contemplating abortion?

And I am sure at least some mothers of extremely sick two-year-olds, as with others who care for the very I’ll, may perhaps find themselves pondering the ethics of euthanasia, which is the flip side of the coin in this debate.

I find it interesting that you are talking to me as if I endorse the views I am discussing when I have never said any such thing. Never once have I said anywhere that I think women should be free to have abortions. Is it that incredible that I shoukd ponder, and be able to express, possible reasons why they do without agreeing with them? People discuss all the time the reasons for Henry Viii starting the COE or the Nazis invading Poland, for example, without it being assumed that they agree with what they did

Dear @LilyM:

I apologize for misunderstanding your post . Looking back I see that in fact you are just restating their position.

I never said that I thought that abortion was just about self when it came to abortion. All I asked was for some information concerning the reason that you said that “most often” women speak of their fear for their children when they have an abortion. I don’t know the main reason and when you said “most often” I thought you might have some information.

Again I apologize for misunderstanding your original post.

Pax

Thanks. I commented on it because it seems to be a common assumption when I discuss such issues.

I suppose it comes of being a lawyer where you are trained to look at an argument from all sides. And having an interest in history, which is much the same.