Need some help with this abortion discussion

[Loboto-Me]

On another board, that has nothing to do with religion, there’s a discussion about abortion. Obviously, I am trying to explain in my own little naive way that abortion is wrong even if the life of the mom may be in danger. I told them that it is the responsibility of the mom to do all that she can to protect the life that is within her even if it hurts her.

I’ve been using these boards for a bit of help (I hope you don’t mind) I’ve been accused of treating the mother as a living, breathing incubator. I am replying that yes, for the duration of the pregnancy, that’s exactly what we are, but that doesn’t make us inhuman.

The person now asks “What has that fetus done to make its life more valuable than yours?” This is where I’m stumped. I have to keep in mind that this is not a religious board, and so far I’ve stayed away from any mention of religion in my arguements which I’d like to continue. Many of these people would stop taking anything I said seriously if I did that.

Any suggestions on how I should approach this? As well as what else I can arm myself with?

I’ve already mentioned that the baby is not an extention of the mother, and it seems that most of these people agree, but still don’t seem to care.

 

[Didi]

Loboto-Me:

The person now asks “What has that fetus done to make its life more valuable than yours?”

You might turn this around by saying:
What has the mother done to make her life more valuable than the baby’s life?

Who decides what life is more valuable than another?

When you are 82 years old, lying in a bed, fully conscious but unable to care for yourself, are you going to allow someone else to decide if your life is “valuable” or not?

What many people fail to recognize is that abortion is very damaging to the mother as well. Abortion doesn’t make a woman “un-pregnant,” it makes her the mother of a dead baby. This is something she has to live with for the rest of her life.

Also, there are many physical complications that can occur from abortion, including infertility or inability to carry a baby to term. Is the woman ready to give up any future chance of ever having another baby?

Abortion, by its very nature, is “un-natural.” You are ripping a growing baby from its mother’s womb, where it is supposed to be safe and nurturing. (Not even animals will do this to their babies.)

The woman’s cervix is prematurely dialated, before it has had time to soften and prepare for birth, causing much damage to the cervix (thus why many woman cannot go on to carry another baby to term, because the cervix muscle is damaged and weakened).

Hope some of this might help! Also, pray, pray, pray for those who look at this horrendous murderous act and think it is OK.

 

[Tlaloc]

Didi:

What many people fail to recognize is that abortion is very damaging to the mother as well. Abortion doesn’t make a woman “un-pregnant,” it makes her the mother of a dead baby. This is something she has to live with for the rest of her life.

Not everyone sees it that way though.

Also, there are many physical complications that can occur from abortion, including infertility or inability to carry a baby to term. Is the woman ready to give up any future chance of ever having another baby?

Compared to the complications of bringing the baby to term these may seem minor. If the woman in question is willing to accept these risks then why shouldn’t she be able to?

Abortion, by its very nature, is “un-natural.” You are ripping a growing baby from its mother’s womb, where it is supposed to be safe and nurturing. (Not even animals will do this to their babies.)

Ultrasounds, C-sections, incubators, intravenous nutrition, ventilators…The list of unnatural medical procedures you’re likely to accept invalidates this line of argument.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Whew thank you for the quick reply. I also want to mention that I"m telling them this also
What that unborn child has NOT done to be AS deserving of life as I am, is not had a chance to live his or her life.

I’m off to the boards, and I want to thank all of you here who have already discussed abortion as it has really helped me with this discussion. I know what I feel and and what is logical, but often, I can’t seem to put it in a sentence cohesively. I mostly live my spiritual life by being a “sheep”. Not that I follow blindly, just that I KNOW what is the right thing to do, but I don’t always know all the reasons behind it, even if they’re my own reasons, if you can understand what I’m trying to convey.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Loboto-Me:

The person now asks “What has that fetus done to make its life more valuable than yours?” This is where I’m stumped. I have to keep in mind that this is not a religious board, and so far I’ve stayed away from any mention of religion in my arguements which I’d like to continue. Many of these people would stop taking anything I said seriously if I did that.

They’re using a fallacious logic technique on you called “begging the question.” This means they try to get you to accept their basic argument so they can “prove” it to you.

They say, “What has that fetus done to make its life more valuable than yours?”

Don’t fall for that – packaged in that question is the acceptance that somehow abortion is done to save the** life** of the mother. The reply is, “If the life of the mother is at risk, that’s one thing. But only a tiny percentage of abortions are done to save the mother’s life – and in most of those cases, the baby can be saved, too.”

“Now, what makes any of us so special that we’re entitled to kill another living human being for mere convenience?”

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Loboto-Me:

The person now asks “What has that fetus done to make its life more valuable than yours?”

the answer to that question is “nothing.” a person does not have to do anything to make their life valuable. there is an fundemental difference between the person and the actions they do. it is right to discern the good and bad (evil) in the actions a person does, but by transferring that assessment on to the person, you remove the very reason for evaluating the action. that is, if human life does not have intrinsic value, why do you care what a person does?

you need to subtly change the discussion into one of what is a valuable person. inevitably, the others will list biases of society and culture. then the idea becomes that the children of some people have the right to live and the children of others may be killed. these sorts of contradictions may sway people, but sometimes not.

i think you would do well to ask the person, “if i tell you the reason that makes it obvious that abortion is wrong in all cases, are you willing to change your views?” everyone always answers “yes” to that. the power is in asking it. a person must confront his/her attachment to evil (i.e. know that they have a bias toward it) before they can turn away from it.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

I like what I am hearing, these arguments are sound, with the exception of Tlaloc’s, who is an avid abortion supporter here and in other threads but when he loses the fight he leave that thread and moves on to another.

 

[cove]

Tlaloc:

Ultrasounds, C-sections, incubators, intravenous nutrition, ventilators…The list of unnatural medical procedures you’re likely to accept invalidates this line of argument.

Equating life saving procedures with a procedure that is only used to kill. Makes no sense.

I will consider the source.

OK, I have

 

[Tlaloc]

vern humphrey:

Don’t fall for that – packaged in that question is the acceptance that somehow abortion is done to save the** life** of the mother. The reply is, “If the life of the mother is at risk, that’s one thing. But only a tiny percentage of abortions are done to save the mother’s life – and in most of those cases, the baby can be saved, too.”

except that he was specifically arguing against abortion even when the mother’s life is at risk.

 

[Almeria]

Loboto-Me:

Whew thank you for the quick reply. I also want to mention that I"m telling them this also
What that unborn child has NOT done to be AS deserving of life as I am, is not had a chance to live his or her life.

I’m off to the boards, and I want to thank all of you here who have already discussed abortion as it has really helped me with this discussion. I know what I feel and and what is logical, but often, I can’t seem to put it in a sentence cohesively. I mostly live my spiritual life by being a “sheep”. Not that I follow blindly, just that I KNOW what is the right thing to do, but I don’t always know all the reasons behind it, even if they’re my own reasons, if you can understand what I’m trying to convey.

Just keep at it. I’m not good at debate myself, and it took a while before I would post on anything even remotely close to an argument on these safe boards. I’ve gotten much better on here, and it’s helped in the “real world” as well. The more you try, the better you’ll get.

 

[Tlaloc]

Tyler Smedley:

I like what I am hearing, these arguments are sound, with the exception of Tlaloc’s, who is an avid abortion supporter here and in other threads but when he loses the fight he leave that thread and moves on to another.

I have an average of 11 posts a day here tyler, one thing you can not effectively accuse me of is running away from an argument. Feel free to ask me to comment on any post you think has me scared.

 

[Tlaloc]

Tyler Smedley:

I like what I am hearing, these arguments are sound, with the exception of Tlaloc’s, who is an avid abortion supporter here and in other threads but when he loses the fight he leave that thread and moves on to another.

I have an average of 11 posts a day here tyler, one thing you can not effectively accuse me of is running away from an argument. Feel free to ask me to comment on any post you think has me scared.

 

[Tlaloc]

cove:

Equating life saving procedures with a procedure that is only used to kill. Makes no sense.

I will consider the source.

OK, I have

sigh

The argument was that abortion is “un-natural.” The unstated premise being that “un-natural is bad.” That premise breaks down immediately upon inclusion of other un-natural procedures.

Is it really hard to understand that in terms of “un-naturalness” abortion and a c-section are comparable?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

sigh

The argument was that abortion is “un-natural.” The unstated premise being that “un-natural is bad.” That premise breaks down immediately upon inclusion of other un-natural procedures.

Is it really hard to understand that in terms of “un-naturalness” abortion and a c-section are comparable?

Well Tlaloc, Iam goingt o ask you to do something then.How would you address that question in FAVOR of the unborn child?God Bless

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa4Catholics:

Well Tlaloc, Iam goingt o ask you to do something then.How would you address that question in FAVOR of the unborn child?God Bless

I don’t understand what you mean, the “unnaturalness” question? Or the initial poster’s question?

 

[demolitionman65]

The person now asks “What has that fetus done to make its life more valuable than yours?”

My response is that the person is applying a human (fallen) qualitative argument to the value of human life. If it is not providing improvement, the (offending) other life should be removed.

Taken to the nth degree, I could then respond that the person who wrote this has done nothing to improve my life, is in fact hindering it, and should therefore be removed.

In short, the question itself is invalid. It is reminscent of the quote from Hamlet: “If we all received justice as we should, who would 'scape whipping?”

How on EARTH can we judge one life to be “more valuable” than another?

 

[Loboto-Me]

Wow thanks so much for these replies! And the vote of confidence

Now, what stance do we take when cancer is used? Would the Church allow an abortion at this point? This is something I know nothing about… When IS abortion allowed according to the CC? I know that if it’s a procedure that will save the mother’s life and inadvertently kills the child such as ectopic pregnancy and uterine cancer ect, then if it could not be helped, abortion is sadly accepted. That’s about the only thing I can think of though.

The person is arguing a cancer patient’s situation as well as a small woman having sextuplet and had to abort SOME of their children for the greater good of the rest who were allowed to stay safely in the womb. These are situations that she personally knows of. It’s strange how debates bring out personal experiences and the longer you debate the more “personal” experience the people seem to have. LOL

 

[Philip76]

Loboto-Me:

When IS abortion allowed according to the CC? I know that if it’s a procedure that will save the mother’s life and inadvertently kills the child such as ectopic pregnancy and uterine cancer ect, then if it could not be helped, abortion is sadly accepted. That’s about the only thing I can think of though.

The person is arguing a cancer patient’s situation as well as a small woman having sextuplet and had to abort SOME of their children for the greater good of the rest who were allowed to stay safely in the womb.

The difference (and this may be corrected by others better versed in these rules) in the case of ectopic pregnancy is that the procedure’s intention is to remove a part of a fallopian tube that will kill the mother if it stays there and ruptures. The intention is not to kill the child, although that is a likely side effect of the treatment. This has something to do with the principle of double effect.
An abortion, on the other hand, is a procedure designed to kill the child. The death of the child is not a side effect, it is the intended result and if it doesn’t happen then the procedure is deemed to have failed.

Killing some sextuplets to save others is contemptible. It, once again, is the deliberate killing of one or more of the children - their deaths are not a side effect. For their deaths to be a side effect, the procedure performed would need to be the **continuation **of the pregnancy. If the mother tries to carry the children to term, she might be able to give birth (albeit by c-section) to all seven of them. Some of them might die, but that would not be the intended result.

Can others help me here?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Loboto-Me:

Wow thanks so much for these replies! And the vote of confidence

Now, what stance do we take when cancer is used? Would the Church allow an abortion at this point? This is something I know nothing about… When IS abortion allowed according to the CC? I know that if it’s a procedure that will save the mother’s life and inadvertently kills the child such as ectopic pregnancy and uterine cancer ect, then if it could not be helped, abortion is sadly accepted. That’s about the only thing I can think of though.

The person is arguing a cancer patient’s situation as well as a small woman having sextuplet and had to abort SOME of their children for the greater good of the rest who were allowed to stay safely in the womb. These are situations that she personally knows of. It’s strange how debates bring out personal experiences and the longer you debate the more “personal” experience the people seem to have. LOL

first, the person is trying to get you to say that there is a case where abortion is not wrong. it is always wrong.

second, there are cases where it is not a mortal sin. these are practical, case by case evaluations, which cannot rightly be judged in the hypothetical. if it is absolutely sure that the child will die prior to being able to be born (premature, c-section, etc.) and waiting for that inevitable event will also *surely *cause the death of the mother, that would be an example where dispensation could be considered. but that would only reduce culpability, that is, it would be a venial sin. it would not be “o.k.” this is motivated by the value of life. inaction would result in the death of two instead of one. these cases only apply when the natural outcome is clear and someone’s death would be a sin of omission.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Tlaloc:

I don’t understand what you mean, the “unnaturalness” question? Or the initial poster’s question?

The initial posters question How would you argue in Favor of the child?God Bless