Pro-life responses to Pro-choice arguments

[I_am_learning]

Hi all!

I’ve been in a few debates with pro-choicers and I have come across a few things that I would like to hear more answers on. I do respond to what I know on many, but more (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated.

1. How can the rights of an embryo go over the right to choose of the mother?

Surely, we can switch this around and ask how bodily autonomy trumps the rights of an embryo, and I also got a good answer on PFL, but I would like some other answers to this whole “rights” and “bodily autonomy” argument they like to use.

1. It’s not affecting you, that is her decision, so let her be!

I like to talk about something called morality, and that innocent living human beings are being killed with no fault of their own, which is a grave injustice being made which really does affect us and is of our concern. However, more reinforcement on addressing this other popular argument they bring would be appreciated.

1. What if the parents live in poverty?

Of course, this brings in the whole “consent to sex is consent to pregnancy” (question on this below), so if they are in no shape or state to have this baby, they should give it up for adoption.

1. There are some people who do not have sex for the procreation aspect

This is probably answered as a result of the answers to other objections, but a concise reply would be great.

1. Do mothers have enough good pro-life options? Are babies that are given up for adoption safe?

I know they like to say that we are “only pro-birth, not pro-life” and “what if the kid gets beat up, or in poverty” and “what if the mother has no other choice.” Of course, a chance at life is much better than giving the babies no chance at all, but do we actually have enough pro-life/adoption centers which we can point out?

1. Contraception prevents life, right? So is that basically a different type of abortion?

I know many from each side promotes birth control, and the best birth control is abstinence (which is also consistent with Church teaching), so how do we respond to the non-Catholic contraceptive use, when they wont settle for “don’t have sex” and the Church teaching on using contraception?

1. Animal activism: Why do you kill animals if you are pro-life and they can feel and are living things?

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/why-is-it-wrong-to-kill-babies
So I read that, and it is very interesting, because with those arguments, you can point out the logical fallacies which they have when they say things about the baby not being able to feel pain and not being outside of the womb.
However, I heard someone turn that around and say that we kill animals even though we are pro-life, and that they can feel pain. Of course, the argument Trent has in his blog post is meant to point out the logical fallacy of the arguments of them, as said before (unless i’m misinterpreting it). But it got me thinking, how do you answer if they flip it around to point out your inconsistency? When we say pro-life does it mean we defend the lives of creatures more rational and complex than animals, humans?

1. Is abortion safer than giving birth?

I’m not too aware of clear research on this.

1. What if the health of the mother is in danger, or the health of the baby in the womb?

What are some things doctors can do? Or in some cases, to let the baby die naturally?

Any other things about the arguments pro-choicers put forth can be discussed here.
Thanks!

 

[1ke]

I suggest you buy Randy Alcorn’s book, second edition, and study it.

amazon.com/Pro-Life-Answers-Pro-Choice-Arguments-Expanded/dp/1576737519

 

[Elizium23]

I highly recommend Persuasive Pro-Life, by Catholic Answers’ own Trent Horn. Horn is widely respected and admired, particularly by the director of the Catechetical Institute I am attending. My director says he has a mind like a steel trap. Horn often hosts the Catholic Answers Live segments on “Why are you pro-choice?” and expertly refutes every curve-ball that is thrown at him. He also holds live speaking engagements quite often. While I have not actually read the book (can’t afford it), I expect that if it is half as good as a living, breathing Trent Horn, it is worth its weight in gold.

 

[Convert1]

Without pontificating on all your questions, I will provide my standard answer.
In my humble opinion, to stop a human heart from beating, purposefully; is taking a life. Whether it be murder in the criminal sense, capital punishment, or abortion. Taking a human life is just that. I don’t argue the what ifs, or the hypotheticals. I just don’t. And I reiterate this is just my opinion. It is also my opinion that there had to be some purpose for the conception of that individual to take place in the first place. Ending that life, also ends its purpose. With that said, we can all recall situations we have heard or even witnessed in which, rape or incest caused an unwanted pregnancy; or a mother faced terrible medical problems in order to carry the child. These incidents are horrid and unthinkable. And I honestly can say that unless faced with that instance; it would be very presumptive to think what one may do. I can only adhere to my original statement, and believe that I could not be the cause of the cessation of that human heart, nor end the purpose that individual was meant to fulfill.

However, I also do not judge those who believe otherwise, and certainly have empathy for those women who have had abortions. I think it is far better to treat them with kindness than to host harsh criticism. They may be suffering far more than we know.

Again, this is just my opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

1. What if the parents live in poverty?

My favorite response to this is to use the 2-Year-Old-Toddler Argument.

That is, substitute in any prochoice argument “2 yr old toddler” for “fetus” and the point is made.

So, specifically with the “what if the parents live in poverty” question, I ask: if both working parents of a 2 yr old suddenly lose their jobs and are cast into poverty, do you think it would be a moral choice to kill the 2 year old?

After all, the parents are now living in poverty and simply cannot afford to feed a 2 yr old toddler.

And wouldn’t it be better for this toddler to be killed rather than live on the streets, or, worse, in a roach-infested, drug-ridden apartment?

 

[MarcoPolo]

1. How can the rights of an embryo go over the right to choose of the mother?

Surely, we can switch this around and ask how bodily autonomy trumps the rights of an embryo, and I also got a good answer on PFL, but I would like some other answers to this whole “rights” and “bodily autonomy” argument they like to use.

For this one, I might ask the person establish this gratuitous claim that the mother has a right to kill her child. Bodily autonomy is irrelevant. If that which is in the womb is a person, then killing that person is murder.

1. It’s not affecting you, that is her decision, so let her be!

Whether or not it affects me, if that which is in the womb is a person, then killing that person is murder. Murder should be condemned whether or not it affects someone in addition to the victim.

1. There are some people who do not have sex for the procreation aspect

Whether or not people have sex for the procreation aspect does not determine if that which is in the womb is a human person…

1. Do mothers have enough good pro-life options? Are babies that are given up for adoption safe?

Adoption is way safer than direct killing, yes. And whether or not there are “enough” adoptive options is a separate issue from whether or not that which is the womb is a person…etc… And a best option is for the mother to keep the baby. Statistics show that many perfectly capable and resourced mothers go forth with abortion. All the same, there are many pro-life resources and funding for single mothers. Adoption for the sake of the child should ideally be rare. Justifying abortion for this reason is one of feminisms many insults to women, that women aren’t capable or competent or resourceful or strong enough to raise a baby, etc…

1. Contraception prevents life, right? So is that basically a different type of abortion?

Contraception prevents, but does not destroy an existing life. As well, you can point out that the Church is against contraception for similar reasons to abortion. And finally, let’s assume contraception was similar to abortion. So what. Because there are 2 ways to kill someone it makes it right? That makes no sense. Plus, whether or not someone contracepts does not tell us if that which is in the womb…you know the rest… It’s important for you to stay on that topic. That is THE question. All these pro-choice arguments are dodges if you haven’t noticed. The question may be dodged because even secular DNA science, for example, demonstrates the individuality of the baby in the womb as distinct from the mother. The matter about whether the enwombed baby is a baby is really a factual truth. And that’s the entire crux of the issue.

1. Animal activism: Why do you kill animals if you are pro-life and they can feel and are living things?

Animals should not be killed gratuitously. In cases of food or protection of one’s land or something similar, we must acknowledge the subservience of the animal kingdom to man. That’s really a separate argument. And again, this dodges the question about that which is in the womb. If the pro-abortionist thinks animals shouldn’t be killed, then he/she shouldn’t kill animals. This argument is more of an attempt to call pro-lifers hypocrites. But even if pro-lifers were hypocrites, that doesn’t tell us if that which is in the womb…

1. Is abortion safer than giving birth?

No, abortion guarantees someone is killed. Terrible argument!!

1. What if the health of the mother is in danger, or the health of the baby in the womb?

The Church’s position is always to try to save lives and never directly kill. So if the mother’s life was somehow able to be determined with good certainty that she will be killed if she keeps the baby, then the baby should be allowed to gestate to the max and if the baby must be removed by Caesarian or something, the baby’s life should receive all effort to be saved also. Abortion’s intent is to terminate a life that otherwise would persist.

You may want to read more about this teaching, for example, in the case at a Phoenix hospital where a baby was aborted and Bishop Olmsted condemned that decision. I wrote a little on this in this old book review of The Broken Path. Keyword search Olmsted and read those few paragraphs about the hospital incident.

 

[I_am_learning]

I am actually watching the DVD “making the case for life” by Trent Horn, and it really is great. The important part of these discussions is “what is the unborn?” and like someone else mentioned, the “trot out a toddler” method is key to keeping all of these irrelevant objections out.
Although it’s always good to know all of these things, which is why I wanted to discuss them.
Thanks for the answers!

 

[Murmurs]

The Church’s position is always to try to save lives and never directly kill. So if the mother’s life was somehow able to be determined with good certainty that she will be killed if she keeps the baby, then the baby should be allowed to gestate to the max and if the baby must be removed by Caesarian or something, the baby’s life should receive all effort to be saved also. Abortion’s intent is to terminate a life that otherwise would persist.

You may want to read more about this teaching, for example, in the case at a Phoenix hospital where a baby was aborted and Bishop Olmsted condemned that decision. I wrote a little on this in this old book review of The Broken Path. Keyword search Olmsted and read those few paragraphs about the hospital incident.

I and very many are with the line of argument you articulate, until this point above.

If, according to this line of thinking, a pregnant woman is in imminent and pretty certain near-danger of death, which can only realistically be prevented by abortion, then the mother should be allowed to die (and quite probably her baby too), rather than sacrificing one to save the other. No death, particularly one deliberately inflicted, is remotely a good thing, but causing one to prevent another when otherwise both might occur, cannot logically be argued against, if the goal is to promote life.

Now many moderate people actually rather respect (even when they don’t entirely agree with) the Church’s position on abortion, often regardless of their own religious views. However when under the guise of doing-no-evil the Church advocates perpetrating one, it’s when I get lost. I mean…I just can’t…

 

[MarcoPolo]

I and very many are with the line of argument you articulate, until this point above.

If, according to this line of thinking, a pregnant woman is in imminent and pretty certain near-danger of death, which can only realistically be prevented by abortion, then the mother should be allowed to die (and quite probably her baby too), rather than sacrificing one to save the other. No death, particularly one deliberately inflicted, is remotely a good thing, but causing one to prevent another when otherwise both might occur, cannot logically be argued against, if the goal is to promote life.

Now many moderate people actually rather respect (even when they don’t entirely agree with) the Church’s position on abortion, often regardless of their own religious views. However when under the guise of doing-no-evil the Church advocates perpetrating one, it’s when I get lost. I mean…I just can’t…

I’m confused here. What evil are you saying the Church is perpetrating?

 

[Murmurs]

I’m confused here. What evil are you saying the Church is perpetrating?

Oh all I meant was the attitude that ultimately even saving the life of the mother never really comes across as being “allowable” in terms of a reason for abortion.

Now ultimately I don’t think there is ever a cogent reason for taking another human life (which obviously includes the unborn), except in the case of what might be deemed self-defence: someone is attacking you with intent to murder you in a parking lot; on the battlefield; or other situations where the only way to prevent further harm is to take a life.

Cases which effectively amount to ones of self-defence (a mother’s life is critically threatened by her pregnancy) don’t seem to me to be ipso facto ones wherein abortion should be also prohibited (albeit as a last resort).

I wouldn’t say this is necessarily “The Church”'s fault (I massively overstated the case before lol), more what is really a pastoral issue of degrees of morally appropriate behaviour.

During a late-term (post-viability) crisis, obviously if at all remotely possible one does one’s best to save both mother and child. If it’s at say 12 weeks? Refusing to perform an abortion results in mother’s death - and also death of her baby, which isn’t yet sufficiently capable of surviving outside her womb even with medical help. So what on earth in that situation is the point of allowing an otherwise healthy woman to die when her child is certainly going to die regardless?

Let me be clear there’s no other situation wherein I can envisage abortion being an appropriate response to anything, quite honestly. But the case you linked to above (the whole review was interesting BTW ), and the issue one draws from it, has always rather troubled me, that’s all. My use of “evil” is lesson enough I ought to save my replies and look at them an hour later, before posting, I think…!

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

My favorite response to this is to use the 2-Year-Old-Toddler Argument.

That is, substitute in any prochoice argument “2 yr old toddler” for “fetus” and the point is made.

So, specifically with the “what if the parents live in poverty” question, I ask: if both working parents of a 2 yr old suddenly lose their jobs and are cast into poverty, do you think it would be a moral choice to kill the 2 year old?

After all, the parents are now living in poverty and simply cannot afford to feed a 2 yr old toddler.

And wouldn’t it be better for this toddler to be killed rather than live on the streets, or, worse, in a roach-infested, drug-ridden apartment?

That’s what burns me up. Poverty isn’t the worst thing. While it is still awful, and no one should have to go through it, as I’ve said before, a baby can be born into a sparkling white nursery, have everything, and be spoiled to death, and still have a miserable life. Happiness doesn’t depend on how rich or how poor…and almost more than not, it is the poor who are truly, in their own hearts, the happiest, if you know what I mean.

 

[Theo520]

1. How can the rights of an embryo go over the right to choose of the mother?
   Didn’t the mother make a choice to have sex (excluding rape/incest)? She was aware of the possible outcome.
2. It’s not affecting you, that is her decision, so let her be!
   Many many crimes and evils that people do don’t affect me, can they be ignored as well using this defense? If I drive after drinking and have a single car accident, why should the police care, I didn’t hurt anyone else and will have to pay to fix my fender.
3. What if the parents live in poverty?
   Adoption. Being poor isn’t an excuse for accepting consequences to your actions.
4. There are some people who do not have sex for the procreation aspect
   Lack of intent doesn’t excuse you from being responsible for your actions anywhere else in life, why should it apply here?
5. Do mothers have enough good pro-life options? Are babies that are given up for adoption safe? At least the baby has a fighting chance if not aborted. Bad adopters are the exception. Foreign adoption is clear evidence of the demand.
6. Contraception prevents life, right? So is that basically a different type of abortion?
   Why debate the nuances of Catholic theology with a non-believer? The discussion is about what is moral to do when the contraception failed.
7. Animal activism: Why do you kill animals if you are pro-life and they can feel and are living things?
   Animals are not people, PERIOD. All the rest is a deflection on their part.
8. Is abortion safer than giving birth?
   Giving birth is very safe in any developed country, about 10 ppm. The deaths that do occur are often linked to diseases like hypertension or diabetes. FYI, daibetes has a mortality rate of 21 ppm in the US.
9. What if the health of the mother is in danger, or the health of the baby in the womb?
   Strawman argument that tends to crumble upon examination of representative examples.

 

[BornInMarch]

1. Animal activism: Why do you kill animals if you are pro-life and they can feel and are living things?

Answer to #7: "I’m pro-human life. Fetuses and embryos are humans, and therefore aborting them is unambiguously murder.

Here’s some more.

1. What if a woman is raped? She shouldn’t have to bare her rapist’s baby!

Answer: The child is not at fault! It didn’t choose the circumstances of it’s conception, but the child is still a human being with natural rights. Furthermore, personality and tendencies are not hereditary: punishing the child for the sins of the father is not only unfair, it is downright evil. If you really are incapable of seeing past your child’s conception and loving him/her for himself/herself, then give the child up for adoption and let those who can love the child do so.

*.

1. What if a woman’s pregnancy has down syndrome or a similar disorder?

Answer: We don’t kill adults just because they have down-syndrome or a similar disorder, so we should not kill the unborn for the same reasons. Even someone too mentally disabled to speak is a human being deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Eugenics is an evil tool used to justify murdering the most helpless members of society, and it should have ended with Nazi Germany.

[Pope Benedict had a cousin with down syndrome. That cousin was later murdered by Nazis in Action T4, so I bet the “down-syndrome babies should be aborted” argument really hit close to home for him].

1. The fetus isn’t a living being.

Answer: Yes it is. It has all the characteristics of life, and is clearly its own organism.*

 

[I_am_learning]

Almost everyone I know is pro-choice and I’ve never, ever, heard them include the above reasons in their argument for legalized abortion.

Really? You’ve had people say these in conversation with you?

.

They go off on very irrelevant things, yes.

 

[I_am_learning]

Great answers guys, I agree.
There is this one thing that I once got asked, although it may just something to trip us up, I was wondering what you think. “So if abortion is made illegal, would the mother be arrested for aborting a child?”

 

[Murmurs]

What if the health of the mother is in danger, or the health of the baby in the womb?
Strawman argument that tends to crumble upon examination of representative examples.

Is that a straw man problem?

Yes of course anyone can pluck an example for one way or the other to “illustrate” this particular question (mother ‘should’ have undergone an abortion and didn’t…she and her child ended up fine - mother refused or was refused [to take a memorable and relatively recent case from Ireland], and she and her child both died), but that either way just deflects from the issue.

There are situations wherein to prevent the medically almost-certain death of the mother, an abortion is the only viable option. Particularly when we are talking about a early stage pregnancy (way before viability is a remote possibility, say), how can one justify not performing one?

I’m not seeking to suggest abortion is ever “ok”, but it is the one area where I can’t see a reason not to at least theoretically support it, in these very limited (and as you imply, not quite as common as pro-abortion campaigners would have us believe) circumstances.

Great answers guys, I agree.
There is this one thing that I once got asked, although it may just something to trip us up, I was wondering what you think. “So if abortion is made illegal, would the mother be arrested for aborting a child?”

Absolutely not. I’m not aware of many mainstream pro-life activists personally or of national attention in either the United States or the United Kingdom who would even consider advocating this (I’m sure there are a few but they certainly don’t represent anything approaching the opinion of even a significant minority).

Speaking personally I don’t think it’s right to charge a mother for murder, in this situation. Were it to be made illegal the ones who should be prosecuted are those who made it possible (those supplying the appropriate drugs, undertaking the surgery, etc).

In any case, I think what you were asked, I_am_learning, is exactly designed either to trip people up, or to provide a way into the “pro-life is anti-woman” chestnut.

 

[Theo520]

Is that a straw man problem?

Yes of course anyone can pluck an example for one way or the other to “illustrate” this particular question (mother ‘should’ have undergone an abortion and didn’t…she and her child ended up fine - mother refused or was refused [to take a memorable and relatively recent case from Ireland], and she and her child both died), but that either way just deflects from the issue.

There are situations wherein to prevent the medically almost-certain death of the mother, an abortion is the only viable option. Particularly when we are talking about a early stage pregnancy (way before viability is a remote possibility, say), how can one justify not performing one?

I’m not seeking to suggest abortion is ever “ok”, but it is the one area where I can’t see a reason not to at least theoretically support it, in these very limited (and as you imply, not quite as common as pro-abortion campaigners would have us believe) circumstances…

So what are these situations which you think warrant an abortion? When you are vague, you are supporting the strawman argument.

**ectopic pregnancies **usually resolve themselves without medical intervention. If not, I agree treatment is needed and there are multiple methods (some approved by the RCC). Planned Parenthood doesn’t treat this condition.

 

[Murmurs]

So what are these situations which you think warrant an abortion? When you are vague, you are supporting the strawman argument.

**ectopic pregnancies **usually resolve themselves without medical intervention. If not, I agree treatment is needed and there are multiple methods (some approved by the RCC). Planned Parenthood doesn’t treat this condition.

Let’s not get drawn into the PP sideshow. While they are an abortion provider, they hardly do so based on medical need, and while I do see a use for a national family planning service that doesn’t mean they should be involved in the provision of abortion.

Anyway, severe pre-eclampsia is a pretty obvious situation where, on a case-by-case basis, it might be an option. If a mother is in a mid multiple-organ-failure situation, then I without hesitation would say that it’s unquestionably better to save the life of one rather than neither.

I’m not saying it should ever be the first option; if it’s possible, in for instance the situation above, (depending on the stage of gestation apart from anything else), to perform an emergency caesarian section instead at no increased risk to the mother, then of course one should do that. I’m certainly not saying it should be available on demand, but the (limited) need for abortion in extremis is so patently obvious I don’t get why it can be opposed. I really don’t.

Maybe such a severe situation (deciding it has arisen presumably has to be left to medical staff), does not arise all that often. But a dozen last-resort abortions to save the lives of a dozen mothers, is entirely acceptable to me.

I notice, by the way, we might be drifting away from the point of the thread. So to try and drag it back again, I think that a very, very limited argument in favour of abortion can be made from the pro-life side. Recognising that there probably is a (admittedly rather small) area of agreement for all parties is a good first step to managing to reduce the overall number.

 

[Theo520]

I understand preclampsia is very treatable but agree it may require abortion is some early cases (<20 wks). In those cases, the child is going to die anyway

 

[I_am_learning]

Absolutely not. I’m not aware of many mainstream pro-life activists personally or of national attention in either the United States or the United Kingdom who would even consider advocating this (I’m sure there are a few but they certainly don’t represent anything approaching the opinion of even a significant minority).

Speaking personally I don’t think it’s right to charge a mother for murder, in this situation. Were it to be made illegal the ones who should be prosecuted are those who made it possible (those supplying the appropriate drugs, undertaking the surgery, etc).

In any case, I think what you were asked, I_am_learning, is exactly designed either to trip people up, or to provide a way into the “pro-life is anti-woman” chestnut.

Yeah… Seems they think it’s smart to ask that since we see abortion as murder, so they would think that if it was murder, then we would charge the mother with the same crime as an ordinary murderer.