Poor pro-life arguments to avoid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ragazza_Italiana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ragazza_Italiana

Guest
I’m sure we’ve all seen our fair share of fallacious pro-abortion arguments, but what do you think are some weaker pro-life arguments you’ve heard that we should probably avoid using and why?
  1. “What if we wound up aborting the next Einstein or the person who would discover the cure for cancer?”
The implication here seems to be that this unborn person ought not be killed because of what they may or may not accomplish later in life, kind of shifting focus away from the fact that, hey, maybe we just shouldn’t kill innocent human beings, period. I could see someone coming back and saying, “yeah, and we could’ve aborted the next Hitler too.”

I can’t help but wonder if this sort of attitude contributes to the occasional comment along the lines of, “well it’s a shame [abortion advocate] wasn’t aborted,” or, “millions of lives could have been saved if Cecile Richards had been aborted.” Fact is, even Hitler and Richards were once innocent “fetuses” themselves, and I’m not sure what universe there is in which it is justice to punish someone for a crime they haven’t committed yet. Besides, literally any baby we save could potentially grow up to be an abortion advocate just like them. Maybe we should actually start encouraging abortions? You know, abort all the potential abortionists. It’s genius, really.
  1. “If we recognize that life ends when the heart stops beating, why don’t we recognize that it begins when it starts?”
If I’m not mistaken, the first part of this argument is simply not true. A person suffering cardiac arrest is not pronounced dead on the spot, are they? If someone is pronounced dead but they manage to somehow get the heart moving again artificially, like with a pacemaker?

Besides, while a fetus does develop a heartbeat pretty early on in development, it’s not immediate. Does it follow, then, that there’s a brief period after conception in which the fetus is not a living being?
 
Last edited:
I’d say avoid any arguments that involve unneeded comparisons, so basically all pro-life memes. Baby sea turtle vs. Unborn human etc.
 
Ragazza_Italiana said:
“If we recognize that life ends when the heart stops beating, why don’t we recognize that it begins when it starts?”
Click to expand...
I take that a step further. My husband has not had a heartbeat since the end of January, and likely will not have one for many years to come (he has an implanted pump doing the work).
 
There aren’t really any poor pro life arguments as long as you have the knowledge and understanding to back it up rather than using catchphrases and soundbites like those on the other side. Science and Logic are on our side in this one.
 
Last edited:
Ragazza_Italiana said:
I’m sure we’ve all seen our fair share of fallacious pro-abortion arguments, but what do you think are some weaker pro-life arguments you’ve heard that we should probably avoid using and why?
  1. “What if we wound up aborting the next Einstein or the person who would discover the cure for cancer?”
The implication here seems to be that this unborn person ought not be killed because of what they may or may not accomplish later in life, kind of shifting focus away from the fact that, hey, maybe we just shouldn’t kill innocent human beings, period. I could see someone coming back and saying, “yeah, and we could’ve aborted the next Hitler too.”

I can’t help but wonder if this sort of attitude contributes to the occasional comment along the lines of, “well it’s a shame [abortion advocate] wasn’t aborted,” or, “millions of lives could have been saved if Cecile Richards had been aborted.” Fact is, even Hitler and Richards were once innocent “fetuses” themselves, and I’m not sure what universe there is in which it is justice to punish someone for a crime they haven’t committed yet. Besides, literally any baby we save could potentially grow up to be an abortion advocate just like them. Maybe we should actually start encouraging abortions? You know, abort all the potential abortionists. It’s genius, really.
  1. “If we recognize that life ends when the heart stops beating, why don’t we recognize that it begins when it starts?”
If I’m not mistaken, the first part of this argument is simply not true. A person suffering cardiac arrest is not pronounced dead on the spot, are they? If someone is pronounced dead but they manage to somehow get the heart moving again artificially, like with a pacemaker?

Besides, while a fetus does develop a heartbeat pretty early on in development, it’s not immediate. Does it follow, then, that there’s a brief period after conception in which the fetus is not a living being?
Click to expand...
  1. The fallacy here is obvious and you pointed it out.
  2. We do not recognize any such thing because that is not a fact at all - as you pointed out. Also human life begins at conception. Scientific fact and indisputable.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
My abortion was in '10 & the career I’ve built since then fulfills me & makes me better able to care for kids I have now.
Click to expand...
I think that the question one needs to ask those women is: Would you prefer not to have become pregnant? As opposed to having an abortion. I doubt any of them would say - ‘Hey, yeah…I was looking forward to getting the abortion. I’m all for it!’
Click to expand...
 
“It’s too hard to amend the Constitution to protect all human life (or words to that effect)”
 
Be careful in being too critical in Pro-Life arguments. Many of the premises of the next Einstein is simply trying to appeal to people who only values life based on the high quality of contribution to society by someone’s intellect. In other words, you are already dealing with someone’s compromised view/observation looking at life without value and meaning. Thus, you are trying to appeal on some mid-ground, which to help lift them out of the tentacles of the squid of abortion.

In other words, if you end or kill this human being through an abortion. You will suffer the affects of someone (which as Christian’s we bear as a blessing) who brings certain qualities that are necessary for the betterment of civilization. Especially in the Western World.

Sometimes in Logic. Pointing out fallacies can make someone focus on working out a super tight argument. Almost like sharpening one’s blade. In truth, that isn’t a bad thing. When you are in the discourse of debates. And need a good argument to counter the errors of one’s argument for abortion.

However, even a dull bladed argument is better than no argument at all.

The point is, often, when you argue with people who are pro-abortion. They are quite obviously standing on a sinking ship, or pointedly a slippery slope. Killing innocent life is wrong. And, it stands against the reality of the ontological reality of a human being’s existence. it stands against nature to kill an innocent child. Might explain why there’s stranger environmental changes in the atmosphere, and animals. Whales washing up dead on beaches. The point is, nature cannot produce any more food if babies are being killed in utero.

Okay, that was going off on a tangent. But the point is that you are trying to convince people with an often selfish view. And, in their selfish view. Applying somewhat haphazardly the Golden Rule, appealing to the person’s somewhat haphazard sense among themselves, the tragedy of abortion. Even in their selfish courts. Thus, I wouldn’t be too critical of pro-life arguments where they can apply to very selfish people. it’s how you open the selfish hands of someone to charity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top