Misguided Pro-Choice Argument

[ESMDHokie77]

So On facebook I was posting on the Komen Foundation’s wall during all that ruckus and apparently someone messaged me asking why I was pro-life and not pro-choice which I just read.

Their message is here:

Why be pro-life? I mean, if you give a fetus the right to life, you’re basically enslaving the woman in whose body that fetus is growing, and if she harms the fetus at all, or ends up miscarrying it, birthing it prematurely, or ends up with a stillborn baby, she’ll be charged with the death of that fetus. And, since miscarriages, premature births, and stillbirths don’t always have cut-and-dry explanations behind them, it will often be extremely hard to prove that a woman didn’t intentionally kill the fetus. The woman will have to be constantly paranoid about what she eats, drinks, and does with her life, since she’ll constantly be afraid that she’ll be charged with murdering or harming the fetus inside of her. She won’t be able to live a happy, care-free life at all. Basically, the fetus inside of her will be ruling her life, and that won’t be at all her choice.

Seriously, how can you be okay with that sort of a mindset, and how can you be okay with controlling women in that way? I understand that you care about fetuses, but why not care about women as well? (And no, forcing women through pregnancy and childbirth—which is what you’re doing, since you’re taking away the ability for a woman to choose not to go through with her pregnancy—is not caring at all, no matter how much you claim it is. Nor is treating pregnancy like a punishment caring at all.)

I am shocked someone had enough courage to message someone who disagrees with them on an issue, and replied with the following.

Hi Hannah, I am just now seeing your message, sorry for the delay in responding.

I am reading a lot of paranoia in your message. I am not looking for the natural and accidental death of a fetus be criminalized, but do hope that direct and intentional killing of a fetus, via abortion, does become illegal. Unfortunately miscarriages and stillbirths happen, yet these are accidents and guilt is not laid at anyone’s feet. In abortion, the woman consents to the murder of her child. The pregnant woman made a choice to have sex knowing full well what could occur due to that. Clearly she has to change her lifestyle to give proper prenatal care and health to her child. It was her choice to have sex. A Happy and care-free life, while wistful, is not realistic; we must live with the consequences of our actions. It would be much worse for a woman to have an abortion, the regret most women have after an abortion is much worse than having the privilege to bring a new life into this world.

I am a Christian and I believe that abortion is against both Divine and Natural Law. It’s been the constant teaching in Judeo-Christian theology and history that abortion is wrong. An unborn child is just that, a child; a little human with the same human DNA that we all have. Murder is gravely wrong and thus so is abortion.

I do not wish to control women simply ask them to do what is right and good. I do care for women as well as the unborn. What about the unborn women? I care for even them. I do not want to force anyone to do anyone, but I do want to stand up for the right to life that the unborn children have just like you and I. To me, a choice to kill is no choice at all.

Peace to you,
Phil

 

[buffalo]

Pro-choice is the power a woman wants to murder her unborn child who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[ricks1948]

Hi ESMDHokie77
Good response! It seems incredable to justify abortion by bringing up fears of being charged for miscarrige and stillborn etc. Keep up the good work.

 

[buffalo]

Love Them Both

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

So On facebook I was posting on the Komen Foundation’s wall during all that ruckus and apparently someone messaged me asking why I was pro-life and not pro-choice which I just read.

You might also remind her that plenty of teenage mothers go through with unintentional pregnancies without so much as a complaint. I think this argument that 9 months of pregnancy is tantamount to enslavement is absolutely ridiculous, and frankly it unfairly makes women look hysterical and lazy.

From Randy Alcorn’s Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Argument:

A man is expected to be mature when he fathers a child; he is expected to endure inconvenience and hardship, if necessary, to provide the means to bring a child up and go through college, even if this requires taking an extra job and working late at night. He is expected to do this because he is supposedly mature.

But the woman, according to feminists, is so selfish, immature, irrational and hysterical that she cannot stand the fact of nine months of inconvenience to bring life to another person or to bring happiness, perhaps, to some other family who might adopt that child

D James Kennedy, Abortion: Cry of Reality
(Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1989), 13

Also, pregnancy doesn’t endanger 99.9% mothers who opt to get abortions (only .1% of abortions occur to save the life of the mother) but it kills a baby 100% of the time.

 

[sedonaman]

Ask Hannah where she would be if her mother opted for what she is advocating. One thing is sure: she would not be here to advocate what she thinks. If that isn’t a fallacy, it should be.

 

[catholictiger]

In the most kind way you can ask them is a mother guilty of murder if she didn’t raise her child as she should have and her child came down with a bad illness which killed her. Should the mother be charged with murder? If you say no then why, if abortion was legal, should a mother who had a miscarriage be charged with murder if she didn’t deliberately kill her child.

understand that almost every pro choice argument has logical flaws behind it. Noone truly believes that you can kill a human being because its dependent on the mother, the mother can’t afford it, and no one thinks that a mother who didn’t deliberately kill her born child but her child died of an illness is guilty of murder. If you can show them this fault, pro choices must discuss the most important issue here. What is the unborn? If you can get a person to this point you are making progress. Never expect someone to turn around because you won and argument but hopefully you planed a seed.

 

[Hokomai]

This is one of several “reductio ad absurdum” arguments that can be made against the pro-life position. It is not expressed very well. To attempt a better expression:

‘You say abortion is murder. but your expectation in cases of the death of non-fetuses (born people) is that there will be careful examination by authorities to determine the cause of death, in case there has been a murder. While you expect this in the case of born people, you do not in the case of fetuses, embryos and zygotes - even in countries where the Church has succeeded in imposing or maintaining strong anti-abortion laws. So in fact although you say fetuses, embryos and zygotes are people, and killing them is murder, you don’t actually act in this way’.

This does not represent my views, but it is worthwhile prolife people thinking it through. There are many examples of the way people do not in practice treat the unborn as human, or fully human, even if they wish to criminalise abortion.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

These sorts of responses come from people who haven’t learned to THINK properly. Her reasoning is all twisted and muddled, fed to her from her cohorts, people who also cannot think logically and carefully.

Since having children is the NATURAL OUTCOME of having sexual intercourse, how can the result, a BABY, be somehow enslaving a woman? It is not as if the baby has gotten in there on its own, like some sort of alien taking over a person’s body. Maybe these skulls full of mush have watched too many movies where just that happens - they actually have no idea that making a baby is what happens when you have sex. The baby is seen as some sort of bizarre invading being.

Also, she mentions that women will be afraid to drink, eat, do certain things when they are pregnant…Well, DUH! When God gives us a new soul to carry within us, YES we are going to be careful to shelter that new person in the best way we can!

This “parasite” viewpoint of a baby is one of the most illogical and downright stupid things I have ever seen. Maybe it comes from reading dystopian literature like “The Handmaid?” I have no idea, but it’s ridiculous. And sick, and sad.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

This is one of several “reductio ad absurdum” arguments that can be made against the pro-life position. It is not expressed very well. To attempt a better expression:

‘You say abortion is murder. but your expectation in cases of the death of non-fetuses (born people) is that there will be careful examination by authorities to determine the cause of death, in case there has been a murder. While you expect this in the case of born people, you do not in the case of fetuses, embryos and zygotes - even in countries where the Church has succeeded in imposing or maintaining strong anti-abortion laws. So in fact although you say fetuses, embryos and zygotes are people, and killing them is murder, you don’t actually act in this way’.

This does not represent my views, but it is worthwhile prolife people thinking it through. There are many examples of the way people do not in practice treat the unborn as human, or fully human, even if they wish to criminalise abortion.

Hokomai, this comment seems to be the first and only pro-choice comment made so far on the thread. I note that you admit this isn’t your view.

Indeed deaths of born persons involves great investigation to determine accident, manslaughter, or homicide. I barely see this argument’s legitimacy. I’d say that it’s by the unfortunate acceptance of the culture of death that feticide is not investigated. Also, a need to investigate feticide probably isn’t necessary by the dead giveaway with the following… that the parents are practically always greatly saddened by the death of their child. And whereas the death of a born person requires a certain set of events to effect that outcome, there are dozens of medical (or natural) variables that could result in the death of an unborn child.

In any event, I had never thought about this subject in light of the argument you shared.

Pax Vobiscum,
Phil

 

[Hokomai]

These sorts of responses come from people who haven’t learned to THINK properly. Her reasoning is all twisted and muddled, fed to her from her cohorts, people who also cannot think logically and carefully.

Since having children is the NATURAL OUTCOME of having sexual intercourse, how can the result, a BABY, be somehow enslaving a woman? It is not as if the baby has gotten in there on its own, like some sort of alien taking over a person’s body. Maybe these skulls full of mush have watched too many movies where just that happens - they actually have no idea that making a baby is what happens when you have sex. The baby is seen as some sort of bizarre invading being.

Also, she mentions that women will be afraid to drink, eat, do certain things when they are pregnant…Well, DUH! When God gives us a new soul to carry within us, YES we are going to be careful to shelter that new person in the best way we can!

This “parasite” viewpoint of a baby is one of the most illogical and downright stupid things I have ever seen. Maybe it comes from reading dystopian literature like “The Handmaid?” I have no idea, but it’s ridiculous. And sick, and sad.

This is the sort of language that some pro-choice people use to describe the views of pro-life people. In fact the dispute does not result from faulty reasoning, but from different views of facts. Every ounce of emotion injected into this argument further obscures the debate over facts , and prevents understanding and progress. You will not win over people by telling them their views are sad, sick, ridiculous, downright stupid, illogical (well, maybe that), that their adviser cannot think logically and carefully, that their reasoning is muddled and twisted, and that they themselves have not learned to think. In another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=639456&highlight=pro-choice I attempted to draw attention to a good summary of pro-choice thinking. The results demonstrated why the pro-life cause keeps losing ground: rage takes the place of reason.

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai, this comment seems to be the first and only pro-choice comment made so far on the thread. I note that you admit this isn’t your view.

Indeed deaths of born persons involves great investigation to determine accident, manslaughter, or homicide. I barely see this argument’s legitimacy. I’d say that it’s by the unfortunate acceptance of the culture of death that feticide is not investigated. Also, a need to investigate feticide probably isn’t necessary by the dead giveaway with the following… that the parents are practically always greatly saddened by the death of their child. And whereas the death of a born person requires a certain set of events to effect that outcome, there are dozens of medical (or natural) variables that could result in the death of an unborn child.

In any event, I had never thought about this subject in light of the argument you shared.

Pax Vobiscum,
Phil

Phil, were I arguing this case, I would respond to your ‘parents are saddened’ comment by pointing out that in the case of the deaths of the elderly, children are typically saddened, but the deaths are always investigated (sometimes, unfortunately, for good reason). I think the strong Catholic pro-life argument against this one is that in fact people culturally do not usually see zygotes, fetuses and embryos as fully human and make all sorts of distinctions, but that from the Church’s point of view they nonetheless have a right to life. The argument that they differ from adults only in degree persuades no one.

 

[Nate13]

‘You say abortion is murder. but your expectation in cases of the death of non-fetuses (born people) is that there will be careful examination by authorities to determine the cause of death, in case there has been a murder. While you expect this in the case of born people, you do not in the case of fetuses, embryos and zygotes - even in countries where the Church has succeeded in imposing or maintaining strong anti-abortion laws. So in fact although you say fetuses, embryos and zygotes are people, and killing them is murder, you don’t actually act in this way’.

Its a different environment. The baby is inside the woman and can’t go anywhere. The possible causes of death are few.

A good analogy would be this: You have two people who live inside their house and never leave and no one ever comes by for any reason. They are stocked up on enough dry goods and other amenities to last them years. All the windows are blocked so no one can see inside. They are completely isolated. One of them kills the other and takes care of getting rid of the body so there is no smell and no evidence left that the person ever existed.

Explain to me how the authorities are even going to come to know someone has died in the case above let alone go about prosecuting the other person? The first step in knowing someone has died is knowing they were alive to begin with is it not? In many cases the authorities would have no way of knowing a fetus was alive to begin with. That does not make said person any less alive but it does limit the extent to which the law can attempt to bring justice does it not?

We want the authorities to treat this the same as they would any other death if it occurred under the same circumstances. You can only prosecute what you have evidence for and you can’t throw out people’s rights to get it. I don’t see how you think there are two different standards here. The circumstances are different, and the standards can be different for two different events if the circumstances surrounding the two events are the cause of the difference in standard.

 

[Hokomai]

Its a different environment. The baby is inside the woman and can’t go anywhere. The possible causes of death are few.

A good analogy would be this: You have two people who live inside their house and never leave and no one ever comes by for any reason. They are stocked up on enough dry goods and other amenities to last them years. All the windows are blocked so no one can see inside. They are completely isolated. One of them kills the other and takes care of getting rid of the body so there is no smell and no evidence left that the person ever existed.

Explain to me how the authorities are even going to come to know someone has died in the case above let alone go about prosecuting the other person? The first step in knowing someone has died is knowing they were alive to begin with is it not? In many cases the authorities would have no way of knowing a fetus was alive to begin with. That does not make said person any less alive but it does limit the extent to which the law can attempt to bring justice does it not?

We want the authorities to treat this the same as they would any other death if it occurred under the same circumstances. You can only prosecute what you have evidence for and you can’t throw out people’s rights to get it. I don’t see how you think there are two different standards here. The circumstances are different, and the standards can be different for two different events if the circumstances surrounding the two events are the cause of the difference in standard.

Nate - I’m not saying this is the world’s best argument; it is just one of a series of arguments which draw on the differences people see between the born and unborn. They really do see these difference, so prolife people need an argument that deals with that reality if they are to make progress.

 

[BobCatholic]

First, stop using the term “pro-choice”

The correct term is “pro abortion”

If they really believed in choice, they wouldn’t seek so hard to take it away from the unborn, the father, the taxpayer (who they seek to pay for them), people who protest abortion clinics, and those who believe in religious freedom.

And second, all pro-abortion arguments always come down to dehumanizing the unborn. And if it is OK to dehumanize one group in the human population, it is OK to dehumanize another. Talk about enslaving the woman? If it is OK to take away the humanity of the unborn, then it is OK to take away the humanity of the woman. Can’t argue one without conceding the other.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I blame the government, the govt. only wants to look into deaths of taxpayers since they lose out .

Nate and I have essentially dismissed that argument as too different in circumstance in comparison to a born person’s death. I think the burden of proof is on the pro-choice side to show how it is applicable.

 

[Hokomai]

First, stop using the term “pro-choice”

The correct term is “pro abortion”

I am sure someone could find one somewhere, but I have never met anyone who is “pro-abortion”. Everyone who thinks abortion is a good choice in a particular circumstance sees it as a burden at least on the mother, and often on others, and sometimes on the unborn as well. They would prefer that the rape did not take place, that contraception had been used or been effective, that the woman had financial security and so on.

If they really believed in choice, they wouldn’t seek so hard to take it away from the unborn, the father, the taxpayer (who they seek to pay for them), people who protest abortion clinics, and those who believe in religious freedom.

Of course, they do not view zygotes, fetuses and embryos as having rights, or the ability to choose or have choices made for ‘them’ since ‘they’ do not yet exist as people. Argue this first point, rather than the names people use and you have some hope of winning supporters.

And second, all pro-abortion arguments always come down to dehumanizing the unborn.

Well of course. But you can’t dehumanize something which has never been human. You are begging the question in this argument.

If they thought the And if it is OK to dehumanize one group in the human population, it is OK to dehumanize another. Talk about enslaving the woman? If it is OK to take away the humanity of the unborn, then it is OK to take away the humanity of the woman. Can’t argue one without conceding the other

Well, you ‘dehumanize’ corpses, or bodies with utterly destroyed brains kept on life support for transplants, or human life in the form of unjoined sperms and ova… You do not consider them human beings with rights. Why does exactly this argument not apply to you?

You will not persuade anyone with this sort of argument. You must address the central issue of the reason you consider zygotes, fetuses and embryos to be human in the sense that you are human (assuming all concede you have a right to life).

Please note that I am not here expressing all these views as my own, but in an effort to add clarity and some understanding of the pro-choice position. My own view is, as they say, complicated.
.

 

[Nate13]

Nate - I’m not saying this is the world’s best argument; it is just one of a series of arguments which draw on the differences people see between the born and unborn. They really do see these difference, so prolife people need an argument that deals with that reality if they are to make progress.

I personally love this argument:

“Motherhood must never be a punishment for sexual intercourse”

This is the kind of argument you get when people have completely left reality. What do doctors call that system that includes the sexual organs? Oh yeah its called the reproductive system that’s right not the 24/7 pleasure center… This argument also helps people see the connection between abortion and contraception. If people fail to see the purpose of sex in the first place it should not be surprising that this attitude then carries over when considering abortion. It all starts from a misguided notion as to what is the purpose of sex though.

 

[catholictiger]

First, stop using the term “pro-choice”

The correct term is “pro abortion”

don’t get caught up on the terms for pro abortion pro choice, or the names people call us pro life, anti abortion.

focus on the key issue, is the fetus a living human being.

I personally prefer to use more scientific terms vs the pro life version of scientific terms, I think when you say unborn human, along with other stuff it kinda turns people off. They think your using bad versions of scientific terms, meet them where they are when discussing with them.

 

[kama3]

Also, a need to investigate feticide probably isn’t necessary

Errr… There are countries which already do that: americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/nicaragua.html

When “Maria” (not her real name) recently entered a Nicaraguan hospital, three months pregnant and bleeding heavily, doctors said they couldn’t treat her miscarriage.

Because their ultrasound machine was broken, they couldn’t determine whether she had truly miscarried—and any attempt to treat a miscarriage without such proof could expose the patient and her physician to accusations of inducing an abortion and possible prosecution.

Denying such treatment is likely to become routine in Nicaragua, where on Nov. 17 the outgoing president, Enrique Bolaños, signed a law that eliminated the only legal circumstance in which induced abortion was permitted: to protect a woman’s life or health.

El Salvador passed a similar ban in 1997; and as a result health professionals often delay medical treatment for women suspected of having abortions while reporting them to the police. If they don’t act as informants against their patients, they too can be prosecuted. It’s a choice no health care provider should have to make.

Oh yes, someone in the US had that brilliant idea as well: rt.com/usa/news/usa-georgia-criminalize-abortion/

A bill introduced in the Georgia state legislature by Republican Bobby Franklin would make abortion the equivalent of murder and require authorities to investigate all miscarriages. …]
Miscarriages, while not criminal, would have to be reported and investigated by hospitals, and a fetal death certificate issued.

The problem is that there is a multitude of fetal deaths of natural causes. So, if you criminalize feticide, then the state has to investigate each and every fetal death to determine if an action against the fetus was involved or not. What it means in practice is that every woman with a miscarriage automatically becomes a murder suspect. Since a lot of miscarriages are not clear cut at all (i.e. it is difficult to determine if it was artificially induced or not) and law enforcement is under pressure to produce ever increasing number of arrested criminals, then you will end up having women wrongly convicted.

Another problem is that if an unrelated medical procedure accidentally provokes a miscarriage then the doctor can be prosecuted for manslaughter (or covert abortion/murder if law enforcement feels like demonstrating they are really busy fighting crime). The result is that medical personnel is known to refuse services to pregnant women:

In early 2004, a Polish woman in her second month of pregnancy was diagnosed with a painful and serious colon disease. But when she sought medical treatment, the woman found that doctors were more concerned with harming the fetus than with her medical needs.

One after another, doctors in her hometown and nearby cities refused to treat her, even though it was unlikely that the fetus would be harmed. By September 2004, the woman had miscarried. Shortly after, she died.

reproductiverights.org/en/case/z-v-poland-european-court-of-human-rights