Rebuttals against pro-abortionists

[Verdanty]

Please excuse me for butting in.

Was it the fetus’ fault that it was born by rape? No. Where is the justice in killing it then?

Where is the justice in the woman having motherhood thrust upon her, and have the child of her violator literally suck sustenance from her for several months; accompanied by a lifetime of supporting said child?

To have a child with another is possibly one of the single most intimate things a human being can do, and to have that kind of everlasting bond to someone you hate and despise with every fiber of your being?

There also rises the issue of girls who have only just entered puberty being raped, and actually dying in attempts to carry the child to term.

I should add I am not pro-life or pro-choice, when I have been eligible to vote on this issue when I have lived elsewhere this is the one issue I have never voted on. Even the most fanatical and fervent of pro-choice individuals tend to see a tragedy in the case of the fetus, but to focus solely on them is a rather limited scope.

The mother was here first, and the mothers health and control of her own flesh should be a priority.

I know this is a very unsavory image Joe but imagine you had a ten year old girl. Now imagine her carrying the child of the sixty year old man that raped her. If you do believe it’s right to make her have that child, and to tell her she must or face the unending wrath of God as a murderess (which is entirely your right, I make no comment on the morality of it)…Could you do it? Can you tell her she must risk mutilation and potential death to bear the child of her rapist despite the fact her body isn’t yet ready to cope with the strains of pregnancy?

It’s very easy to pontificate, but could you actually maintain your stance when thrust into the darkest scenarios many people have actually faced? I don’t like abortion either, but the honest truth is; if that was my daughter? While I do not like the destruction of potential life, I see why people do it and could not bring myself to condemn it even if I could never directly approve.

In any case, to rebute the rape case what I could suggest is the notion that new life should be prioritized above old life. The young should not die before the old. It holds some credence, but is a very cold argument as it does directly state the mothers life is of secondary importance and somehow “past it”. It will also run into trouble against those who deny that unborn children (at whichever trimester stage they stick by) are persons (the “Am I really destroying a forest if I step on a seed?” argument) .

 

[theCardinalbird]

This puts me in an impossible situation. If I stayed pro-life there is a chance someone could die by childbirth if they don’t take an abortion. but if I was pro-abortion then I would allow the murder of life that doesn’t deserve to be murdered. Do you see the problem here?
By someone’s carnal pleasure (rape) he has doomed either the unborn baby, or the mother or sometimes even both. Throughout the abortion debate it’s frustrating that the rapist gets to be left off the hook and if caught only serves jail time while his victims have to play with life or death.

Your above point shows the ugly side of pro-life. But there is a dark side to pro-abortion. Both could result in a death, but with abortion it’s definite. How then can there be justice if the innocent die?

 

[Verdanty]

If I stayed pro-life there is a chance someone could die by childbirth if they don’t take an abortion. but if I was pro-abortion then I would allow the murder of life that doesn’t deserve to be murdered. Do you see the problem here?

Indeed, it is one the Pro-Choice people I have listened to also wrestle with. There is no happy outcome in this situation, it comes down to what you would value most. The life of your daughter, or the life of the fetus. Unpalatable, but a choice many parents have had to make.

Being pro-choice isn’t necessarily being “pro-abortion”; I think there’s very few people in this world who “like” abortion, truly only the utterly depraved mentally ill Charles Manson types. It is a choice between the lesser of two evils, or two equal evils for some even. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

Your above point shows the ugly side of pro-life. But there is a dark side to pro-abortion. Both could result in a death, but with abortion it’s definite. How then can there be justice if the innocent die?

I think abortion really doesn’t have much of a light side personally let alone an especially dark one.

In this situation someone is going to go without justice, sometimes evil does triumph and the good suffer without restoration. The unborn fetus will die, alternatively the mother will be forever chained to a man who has done possibly just short of or on par with murder the single worst thing you can do to another human being; a fate worse than death for many women who have killed themselves after being raped in a vain effort to preserve their honor or sense of self, or simply deteriorated and fallen deep into mental illness that destroyed them.

Sometimes justice doesn’t occur in this world, the Catholic Church itself teaches that justice will be administered not here but in in the world to come. Someone is going to suffer, the woman, the unborn, the parents of the mother, the parents of the rapist, friends, family; a rape has a ripple effect that can tear down much more than one person.

What do you prize more, the needs of the one or the needs of the many? Even if our hypothetical girl receives an abortion or does not I don’t doubt she will remain scarred for life, as will the people who love her to varying degrees. It becomes damage limitation either way.

 

[theCardinalbird]

What do you prize more, the needs of the one or the needs of the many? Even if our hypothetical girl receives an abortion or does not I don’t doubt she will remain scarred for life, as will the people who love her to varying degrees. It becomes damage limitation either way.

Rape is horrible, it is of course scarring and I wish it on no one. I still am pro-life despite these examples. There has to be an easier way to protect people from rape to avoid abortion.

 

[Verdanty]

Rape is horrible, it is of course scarring and I wish it on no one. I still am pro-life despite these examples. There has to be an easier way to protect people from rape to avoid abortion.

I’m not trying to make you pro-choice, I totally abstain from the argument and never affirm either position. What I’m trying to illustrate is that the pro-choice movement does recognize that ending life is not a moral good, but sometimes it still remains preferable to an equivalent or even greater moral evil.

There are men and women who are trying, there are “anti-rape” devices that can be inserted into the vagina I understand have been previously employed in Africa (they’re lined with a coating that functions like barbed wire, the man may insert himself but as soon as he attempts to pull back it will literally slice his penis into small segments; gruesome but effective).

It appeared promising at first if illegal, but then all that happened was potential rapists began checking for such devices, pulling them out carefully and then having their way.

Until that happy day where rape can be prevented, if it ever does come; we need to be aware of and consider which action we might take for those dark times when it does occur, either to those we love or to strangers.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It’s okay to change your mind and come back.

 

[MaryT777]

Thank you very much to you and other posters who have shown empathy for my friend’s situation. Hopefully over time life will become more peaceful for her.

 

[Entwhistler]

So it is not about whether someone is useful or not. That is not what makes a person human. It is about whether a person feels pain. That’s what makes him human.

Are you saying that humanity depends on whether the person is useful? Or is it whether he can feel pain?

 

[Thom18]

My arguments make as much sense as yours. You base your pro-abortion stance on the belief that women “shouldn’t have to go through the pain of delivery”. You fail to explain exactly why the fear of pain is reason enough to kill a child in the womb. As in my example where I (intentionally) failed to explain why weight mattered to the argument. That was the entire point of me bringing it up- to prove how incomplete your arguments are.

You said that morality is about doing what causes the least pain, but you are limiting your definition to physical pain, and physical pain that we can detect at that. You’re also allowing murder to be moral, so long as it is “painless”, which you admit to both when you say it’s okay to kill a fetus, and when you say it’s okay to kill a comatose person. You also base this “morality” on one’s usefulness and their intellectual ability. These two items specifically are what I want clarification on, since they don’t directly have anything to do with pain. These seem more like they would be excuses to exterminate “undesirables”, such as those with low IQs or the unemployed.

Since you’re including usefulness and intellectual ability as qualifiers, does this mean that only those with “no intellectual ability” (how should we define this, again?) and/or no usefulness (another troubling qualifier) can be killed? If so, do their deaths have to be painless? Or should pain, intellectual ability, and usefulness, be taken separately?

 

[Thom18]

Another thought that occurred to me is this situation. Consider that a man is diagnosed with an illness. It’s painless, but it will kill him if untreated. The treatment involves very painful injections (imagine getting a sample of CSF taken- more than a little unpleasant). What would you say is the moral thing to do here? Morally, should he accept the treatment, or die (relatively) peacefully?

 

[Thom18]

He has the right to refuse treatment. that’s common sense. Politicians call
it the Right to die act and the Death with Dignity act.

I didn’t ask what he has the right to. I asked which choice would be moral.

 

[Senneville]

Yes. And this is the position I took when I was teaching high schoolers. I ask them: do we, as Americans, execute children for the capital offenses of their fathers? The answer is “no.” And so I respond: why make exceptions for rape. Instead seek out the rapist and punish him to the full extent of the law. Of course there was always someone who asks “Isn’t the woman being punished for being raped?” This would always lead to a discussion about adoption and helping women with unwanted pregnancies. It got them thinking about how they could help.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m saying that the fetus is created, therefore it will become a human one day, therefore we should be obligated to let that fetus become fully grown into a human.

The fetus is a human being, they use terms like ‘fetus’ to dehumanize and trick people in order to justify their evil actions.

God Bless You

Josh

 

[Entwhistler]

Just trying to understand your position here. You believe that we can kill someone as long as they are doing something useless and if they feel no pain.
And that the ability to feel pain and the ability to be useful are both what makes a human a human. Therefore, those who do not exhibit those two qualities can be killed. And what “hurting” means is logical and everyone can figure it out. Am I getting this right?

 

[theCardinalbird]

Oops my bad (not sarcasm)

 

[josh987654321]

What do you prize more, the needs of the one or the needs of the many?

The ends do not justify the means. Suppose you could save the whole world by killing one innocent human being, would you do it? how about 10? how about 20? how about 10 million?

All horrific evils are justified in these ways.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

 

[Thom18]

I did’nt mention the pain of delivery. I mentioned the pain of bodily
privacy invasion, which the unwanted fetus is inflicting, which women have
said is worse than even slavery. This far outweighs the pain inflicted don
the fetus by abortion. Pain, intellect, and usefulness don’t necessarily
have to be taken separately, as they can be linked.

In one of your earlier comments, you said how a woman feels “1000000000x”, or something like that, the pain the fetus feels. If you weren’t talking of the pain of delivery, then what? Morning sickness? Regardless, it doesn’t matter much to the point I was making.

I think it’s very intellectually irresponsible to compare carrying a fetus to slavery. I don’t recall the statistic which claims that 100% of pregnancies are the result of rapes (sex without consent, as slavery is doing some sort of action without consent), so you’re committing a fallacy in trying to use a minority of cases to make moral judgements for all cases. Most sex is consented to with full knowledge of the possible “consequences”. Even if you use contraception, you know there is a chance of getting pregnant.

Slavery also implies there being a slavemaster. Who is the slavemaster? Surely not the child, since they only exist as a result of what their parents did. They’re hardly in control of their situation, most importantly. They live or die based on what their mother does. What slavemaster exists who has absolutely no control over their supposed slave? And which slavemaster allows themselves to become subservient to the supposed slave?

Who’s the slavemaster, the state? Did the state force the woman to get pregnant? I highly doubt it. In a country where abortion is illegal, they would simply tell her that she cannot end a life, even if she is partially (don’t forget the husband) responsible for their existence.

Your argument fails.

 

[josh987654321]

You don’t need anyone else to tell you that it’s hurtful to go kidnapping and torturing people.

Yeah, and you don’t need anyone else to tell you that it’s wrong to take a human life not in self defense… oh wait, I guess you do, and you will probably still reject it and support abortion regardless. Damn, so much for evolutionary morals and atheistic relativism, they kinda suck, but hey, don’t take my word for it.

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

“I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.” - Adolf Hitler

“Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Then we have these -

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” - Matthew 22:36-40

26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? 27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. - Matthew 16:26-27

13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. - 1 Corinthians 13

I know which ideology I’m going for. And not just because it is obviously better (for myself and everyone else), but because it is also true.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

He has the right to refuse treatment. that’s common sense. Politicians call

it the Right to die act and the Death with Dignity act.

‘Right to die act’ and ‘Death with Dignity act’ are not about refusing treatment, the so called ‘death with dignity’ (A total lie) is to promote euthanasia or assisted suicide, where people are given lethal drugs to kill themselves or someone else kills them.

 

[josh987654321]

“Isn’t the woman being punished for being raped?”

And whether she kills her child(ren) or not, she still suffered the injustice. Abortion actually compounds the suffering, because not only have they suffered being raped, but they will also suffer the emotional and psychological consequences of killing their own child(ren).

Note: If anyone reading these posts have had an abortion, please go to confession, I believe it will help you more than anything else.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh