Pro-life responses to Pro-choice arguments

[anthonymarie]

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?

I think this is a very logical argument but the problem is logical arguments are met with offense when it comes to abortion, people get very upset by this kind of honesty. How can we win the argument without upsetting people? Maybe it’s not possible . . . I don’t know.

 

[PRmerger]

I think this is a very logical argument but the problem is logical arguments are met with offense when it comes to abortion, people get very upset by this kind of honesty. How can we win the argument without upsetting people? Maybe it’s not possible . . . I don’t know.

Why do they get upset?

 

[anthonymarie]

Why do they get upset?

I recently read an article which said 1/3 of women in the UK have had an abortion, and in some wealthy areas, 2/3’s of all pregnancies resulted in abortion. I guess so many people today have been directly involved in an abortion they wince at the comparison. The truth, and reason which leads to the truth is too painful for them.

Recently an abortion debate at Oxford university was protested. The pro-abortion speaker who had turned up to speak wrote an article after describing the conversation she had with the protesters (I think it’s on Spikedonline). She asked them why they didn’t join the debate instead of protesting it, one girl told her pro-lifers were too hard to beat in a debate, so the debate should not be allowed to take place.

This is becoming increasingly common in the UK. It is called no-platforming. Reason is not enough to win young people over to a cause today. They are capable of consciously believing against reason.

 

[PRmerger]

I recently read an article which said 1/3 of women in the UK have had an abortion, and in some wealthy areas, 2/3’s of all pregnancies resulted in abortion. I guess so many people today have been directly involved in an abortion they wince at the comparison. The truth, and reason which leads to the truth is too painful for them.

Recently an abortion debate at Oxford university was protested. The pro-abortion speaker who had turned up to speak wrote an article after describing the conversation she had with the protesters (I think it’s on Spikedonline). She asked them why they didn’t join the debate instead of protesting it, one girl told her pro-lifers were too hard to beat in a debate, so the debate should not be allowed to take place.

This is becoming increasingly common in the UK. It is called no-platforming. Reason is not enough to win young people over to a cause today. They are capable of consciously believing against reason.

So sad.

I don’t know what to say, then, if people refuse to listen to their intellect and reason.

 

[anthonymarie]

So sad.

I don’t know what to say, then, if people refuse to listen to their intellect and reason.

Last time I was in England, a friend of mine (a Cambridge graduate from an observant Catholic family) complained about an outspoken pro-life mutual friend. She complained: “The problem with him is he always uses logic, you can prove anything with logic”.

Another friend of mine was cut off while he was on the radio debating abortion. The host complained what he had said was too offensive, in fact what he had said was not dissimilar to the argument you earlier used, and was true.

Actually I think a revolution of language is needed. This kind of attitude can be said to be radically conservative in the literal sense of the word. I don’t remember which American author it was who said that everybody is a conservative, only some people want to replace the current conservativism with their own. I think this has happened. Today’s young people are ardent conservatives, defending the values society taught them without question and censuring anyone who dares to question them.

Maybe we need to hold up a mirror to them. Maybe we need to give them the badge of conservative and begin calling the pro-abortionists strict conservatives. Since it is their nature to conserve without questioning, we should strip the title of progressive from them. In fact I had a little success doing this with a friend of mine. He was ardently pro-abortion and would try to make these self-deprecating jokes beginning "we liberals . . " and one time I cut him off. I said that I considered him deeply conservative and he was taken back by it

 

[Thom18]

Something I, as a “crazy right-wing nutjob”, am often confronted with, are people saying that I can’t really be pro-life if I support the death penalty. Even though I do, that’s a very ignorant assumption. I actually do enjoy responding to these people, if nothing else, just to remind them what they’re supporting.

“So let me get this straight. You have no problem handing down the death penalty for a child but think the same for a violent 39-year-old criminal is twisted? And not only that, but you’re COMPARING a helpless child to a violent offender?”

 

[PRmerger]

Something I, as a “crazy right-wing nutjob”, am often confronted with, are people saying that I can’t really be pro-life if I support the death penalty. Even though I do, that’s a very ignorant assumption. I actually do enjoy responding to these people, if nothing else, just to remind them what they’re supporting.

“So let me get this straight. You have no problem handing down the death penalty for a child but think the same for a violent 39-year-old criminal is twisted? And not only that, but you’re COMPARING a helpless child to a violent offender?”

Well, I think they would respond: it sounds like you’re saying it’s ok to kill someone for reasons OTHER than self defense.

Is that your position?

(Note: capital punishment is NOT self defense).

 

[Thom18]

Well, I think they would respond: it sounds like you’re saying it’s ok to kill someone for reasons OTHER than self defense.

Is that your position?

(Note: capital punishment is NOT self defense).

It’s not killing someone to take what they have or “just for the hell of it”, which is the reason those people end up on death row in the first place, it’s to stop them from hurting anyone else (even if they never escape, the killing doesn’t end in prison) and, as morbid as it sounds, to show that serious crimes have serious consequences. I can’t seem to recall a time when being conceived, however, became a crime warranting this punishment.

If I were to turn that logic around, “It sounds to me like you think “inconviencing” somebody, even if it is the other person’s “fault” warrants the death penalty. How far will you take that?” or simply in response to the question, “So are you saying killing an unborn child is self defense? Or simply legalized murder? What other kinds will people get away with?”

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not killing someone to take what they have or “just for the hell of it”,

What isn’t? Abortion?

I suspect you meant the death penalty, but see how it fits for abortion as well?

If I were to turn that logic around, “It sounds to me like you think “inconviencing” somebody, even if it is the other person’s “fault” warrants the death penalty. How far will you take that?” or simply in response to the question, “So are you saying killing an unborn child is self defense? Or simply legalized murder? What other kinds will people get away with?”

Sorry. I’m not following you.

I simply asked if your position is: it’s ok to kill someone as long as there’s a very good reason for it.

Is that your position?

 

[Thom18]

My position is, if they have murdered someone and show no willingness to stop (you can judge this by their behavior in prison), it’s in everyone’s best interest, greater society’s as well as those in the prison community who may fall victim to the murderer, to hand down the death penalty.

As far as abortion goes, a child is being murdered because of their parent’s unwillingness to care for them. It’s inconvenient for the parent(s) to have the child around. Regardless of the reasons for doing it, it stems from inconvenience.

 

[PRmerger]

My position is, if they have murdered someone and show no willingness to stop (you can judge this by their behavior in prison), it’s in everyone’s best interest, greater society’s as well as those in the prison community who may fall victim to the murderer, to hand down the death penalty.

As far as abortion goes, a child is being murdered because of their parent’s unwillingness to care for them. It’s inconvenient for the parent(s) to have the child around. Regardless of the reasons for doing it, it stems from inconvenience.

So it’s correct then to say that your position is this: it is permissible to kill a human being, even if it’s not in self defense, if you have a very good reason.

 

[Thom18]

So it’s correct then to say that your position is this: it is permissible to kill a human being, even if it’s not in self defense, if you have a very good reason.

Only if they pose a threat to others and have been given due process. Trial, jury, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

Only if they pose a threat to others and have been given due process. Trial, jury, etc.

So pro-abortion people will have their own argument: we get to kill people only if the person interferes with a woman’s right to choose.

And they will, rightfully say: you get to choose reasons why it’s ok to kill. We are doing the same thing.

 

[vz71]

So pro-abortion people will have their own argument: we get to kill people only if the person interferes with a woman’s right to choose.

And they will, rightfully say: you get to choose reasons why it’s ok to kill. We are doing the same thing.

They could.
But all that does is open up to the idea that they can abort once the criminal activity of the fetus has been established in a court of law before a jury.

It is really messed up thinking, but I would consider that a win for the pro life position.

 

[PRmerger]

They could.
But all that does is open up to the idea that they can abort once the criminal activity of the fetus has been established in a court of law before a jury.

It is really messed up thinking, but I would consider that a win for the pro life position.

So the pro-capital punishment position is: we get to kill a human person if we have a very good reason to.

And if that’s the paradigm, then pro-abortion activists are well within their right to say, “Well, why do you get to do that but deny us this right?”

 

[vz71]

So the pro-capital punishment position is: we get to kill a human person if we have a very good reason to.

And if that’s the paradigm, then pro-abortion activists are well within their right to say, “Well, why do you get to do that but deny us this right?”

Well, the church does not to this day deny the authority of the state to execute criminals.
The difficulty for the pro abortion crowd is establishing the fetus as a dangerous criminal.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, the church does not to this day deny the authority of the state to execute criminals.

This is true.

And I believe it makes the ProLife position less reasonable and logical to argue for.

The difficulty for the pro abortion crowd is establishing the fetus as a dangerous criminal.

If the paradigm is: we can kill a human person as long as we have a very good reason to do so, then we cannot deny the pro-aborts this paradigm.

That would be hypocritical, wouldn’t it?

 

[vz71]

But the paradigm is not that.

It is that the state has the right to execute dangerous criminals.
One cannot equate the fetus to a dangerous criminal.

The pro abortion side may attempt the argument, bUT it ultimately does not make sense.

 

[PRmerger]

But the paradigm is not that.

It is that the state has the right to execute dangerous criminals.

Which means…“we get to kill a human being, as long as there’s a very good reason to do so.”

And that’s what the proaborts say, too.

 

[vz71]

Which means…“we get to kill a human being, as long as there’s a very good reason to do so.”

And that’s what the proaborts say, too.

No ‘we’ about it.
The state. After due process through the legal system.

Try as they might -and they will.
There is no equivocation possible.