Refuting some pro-choice arguments

[AFerri48]

Hey everyone. I have been lurking this site for many years now, reading through multiple threads and posts, some of which have helped me A LOT, but am just now making an account. I feel the need to post about this because I see these questions a lot, and some of them are just horrible assumptions. So many pro-choice people seem extremely ignorant to what the pro-lifers actually stand for and believe. Let me know if you agree with me on my responses.

"You aren’t pro-life, you are simply anti-choice"

Saying that I’m not pro-life, but anti-choice, implies that I don’t care about the child at all and just want to control what a woman does. Um… no, I am all for women’s equality, but why should that dictate that I have to be okay with her killing a child? And I wouldn’t be okay with men having abortions either. The right to life for the child overrides any other possible right you can come up with from my point of view.

"You don’t care at ALL about the child after it’s born"

Says who? Just because I personally am not willing to adopt, doesn’t mean that multiple others aren’t, nor does it mean that I don’t care about them. I very much hope that the child lives a good life. And people often say that it sucks that so many kids have to life in foster care, but this implies that foster care is worse than being killed. If you were to point a gun at one of the kids currently living in foster care, do you really think that they would say “oh please shoot me, I’d rather be dead than live in this place”? I doubt it. And the Catholic Church provides help for the mother and child as well.

"You just want to control women because you are a sexist"

This goes hand and hand with statement one. I highly doubt many pro-life people are sexist, and this entire ideology comes from the idea that women are oppressed. And even if someone was indeed sexist, why would they take that out on an innocent child? A lot of women are pro-life too, so I guess they would be sexist against their own gender?

"What about in cases of ectopic pregnancy or life of the mother in general"

Still doesn’t give you a right to kill the child, however this one pisses me off, because it seems like such a reach. The percentage of abortions that occur because of these are very low, to the point that even if someone was to say okay in these cases… well then, what about the other 99% of abortions that occur? If you are attempting to base your argument off of something that occurs less than 1% of the time, than it’s not gonna get far, or at least is shouldn’t. This isn’t a baseless statistic either.

abortionfacts.com/facts/8

"The Bible says nothing about abortion"

The literal word “abortion” isn’t stated, no. However, it is quite clear that God and Jesus don’t want us to murder others, seeing how it is a commandment, and there are quotes alluding to abortion.

Jeremiah 1:5 - “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

Jeremiah 7:6 - “Do not shed innocent blood.” - The unborn children are obviously innocent

Galatians 1:15 - “Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His.”

Exodus 21: 22-25 - “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.” - As you could the death of a fetus is viewed on the same level as the death of an adult

But you’re okay with the death penalty?

There is a HUGE difference between a man who is up for the death penalty and a fetus. One is innocent and the other isn’t. This being said I am rarely for the death penalty any way. Unless someone continues to pose a serious threat for society that even a maximum security confinement wouldn’t eliminate, I am not at all for the death penalty. It’s simply not necessary.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

If you were to point a gun at one of the kids currently living in foster care, do you really think that they would say “oh please shoot me, I’d rather be dead than live in this place”?

We might be surprised, I do feel like the children and youth in Foster Care are marginalized. Not maliciously but it seems like we (as a society,though there are good people like the CASAs ,Foster Parents and some nonprofits and charities but still…) just leave them to government and social services is often underfunded or neglected(sometimes it may also be an awareness issue). These are people who may literally have no one, they are at the mercy of the system. Things needs to done about Foster Care as well as Child Welfare and there is beginning to be progress like how domestic violence and abuse used to an unaddressed issue but now there is awareness and support. More would be nice but they are starts…

But I digress, just because a kid’s gonna be a difficult start doesn’t mean he or she should be killed. A better approach would be helping taking care of these children (many of us who also had backgrounds and histories not so much different) through charities and improved social services, better schools and loving, caring people and supportive networks out.

“You just want to control women because you are a sexist”

This is something I encountered recently. Someone I know stated that they see this as an issue of men (others may say government) controlling women. While the grassroots movement is full of women, how we can help convince others when their perception of those who want to ban abortion are rich, white men who would never have the experience and burdens of economic struggles, pregnancy or even motherhood?

And how may men and boys be able to spread awareness without having eyes rolled on and not being taken seriously or be seen as oppressors and villains? Or is that how things are to be for those who do the right but not popular things?

One thing that may contribute to this is the dehumanization of the unborn (especially since they’re often unseen), if someone sees a child being abused in front of them, hopefully they feel like they need to call Child Protective Services. But then, there are those who say that while they would never have an abortion or are “personally opposed” but they feel like it’s not in their place.

Would simply continuing to emphasize the dignity and humanity of the unborn be a good course of action, if lies can be considered truth by repeating them, imagine what truth can achieve?

And one time, my friend made an another argument, he states that the unborn are human, but unlike people who are born they cannot laugh, or smile as well as other things and that the woman does still have a right to an abortion.

And there was meme I saw with that embryo, stating how the unborn individual
“wants to live” but “doesn’t have central nervous system.” For those of our friends who are not religious, how can we show them the dignity and personhood of the smallest and littlest human beings.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You have decent answers here. I do think the key to every single one of these is to first say, “well, wait, is that which is in the womb a human life or not?” Then we can discuss if there is sexism, what to do after child is born, etc… Every single one of these “arguments” is a diversion. The one about “life of the mother” actually implicitly admits that that which is in the womb is a human person.

 

[BornInMarch]

"Are you saying a woman who’s raped should have to carry her rapist’s baby to term?"

The child is not any less important or human simply because of how he or she was conceived. “Rapist” is not a hereditary title or a transitive property, and punishing the child because of the father’s sins is flat-out evil.

 

[JohnGerard]

Yes, many holy scriptures urge that we should not murder others. And most people in general, be they atheists or theists or deists, etc, agree using their own common sense that we should not murder others.
The issue here, of course, is that many people don’t consider a half-inch fertilized egg a “person” yet.

I’m curious…why don’t they? Can you please explain why they don’t?

So…God doesn’t want us to murder another human being…but…it’s okay* sometimes* for us to murder another human being?

.

It is not inconsistent to believe that innocent babies should not be put to death, but a convicted murderer can be. The baby has committed no crime. She is innocent. A convicted murderer has been found guilty by a jury. These are completely different situations.

If someone does believe that it is ok to put murderers to death, it doesn’t mean that they must be wrong to think innocent unborn children should not be put to death.

 

[carn]

"You aren’t pro-life, you are simply anti-choice"

Saying that I’m not pro-life, but anti-choice, implies that I don’t care about the child at all and just want to control what a woman does. Um… no, I am all for women’s equality, but why should that dictate that I have to be okay with her killing a child? And I wouldn’t be okay with men having abortions either. The right to life for the child overrides any other possible right you can come up with from my point of view.

With this pro-choice argument you have to remember that PCs are more or less convinced that outlawing abortion does not reduce the number of abortions.

If that would be true, the only effect of outlawing abortion would be that the “quality” of abortions would be reduced and the cost increased; hence, such a law would as its only effect be a disadvantage for unplanned pregnant women and would not protect unborn in any way. Hence, someone being in favor of such a law would - knowingly or unknowingly - be in favor of a law that has as a sole effect a negative impact upon some women reducing their choice. Hence, only anti-choice.

As furthermore it is presumed that the Guttmacher Institute is a neutral and realiable scientific institution and has published studies supposedly proving this “restrictions do not reduce number of abortions”, the conclusion is that unknowingly can no longer be presumed, it is either knowingly or out of careless to seek information.

And someone knowingly or out of careless promoting laws that solely limit the choice of women is presumably anti-choice.

Not that i think that argument to be valid, i especially disagree with the claim, that restrictions cannot reduce number of abortions, but one should understand the reasoning why pro-life is in PC eyes preactically equivalent to anti-choice.

"You don’t care at ALL about the child after it’s born"

Says who? Just because I personally am not willing to adopt, doesn’t mean that multiple others aren’t, nor does it mean that I don’t care about them. I very much hope that the child lives a good life. And people often say that it sucks that so many kids have to life in foster care, but this implies that foster care is worse than being killed. If you were to point a gun at one of the kids currently living in foster care, do you really think that they would say “oh please shoot me, I’d rather be dead than live in this place”? I doubt it. And the Catholic Church provides help for the mother and child as well.

In my eyes this argument is too some extent valid for people being both pro-life but absolutely against any welfare state/social security/food programs and such; i do not know whether such people exist, but some members of the reupublicans from a distance seem to fall in that category.

Hence, maybe one should add either a disclaimer of not being absolutely against welfare (which as a catholic one is nearly required; i think some minimal welfare state is mandatory political position for catholics) or one should include an explanation how to avoid having unwanted children starve to death without some welfare state.

But you’re okay with the death penalty?

There is a HUGE difference between a man who is up for the death penalty and a fetus. One is innocent and the other isn’t. This being said I am rarely for the death penalty any way. Unless someone continues to pose a serious threat for society that even a maximum security confinement wouldn’t eliminate, I am not at all for the death penalty. It’s simply not necessary.

This lacks a bit in the respect, that likely not all people being executed are guilty; wrong decisions always happen with humans; courts and benches are unfortunately staffed with humans; hence, at least potentially the death penalty might claim one day the life of innocents.

The difference is, that such death of innocents is accidentally just like when fighting an enemy sometimes claims innocent lives; hence, while the death penalty should be used only for grave reasons just like one should only go to war for grave reasons, there is still a difference and just like a pro-lifer can be in favor of having a military a pro-lifer can be in favor of having death penalty.

 

[AFerri48]

I’m curious…why don’t they? Can you please explain why they don’t?.

Something about how the zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t conscious of life yet. Another bad argument in my opinion, because just because it isn’t aware of being alive, doesn’t mean that it isn’t actually alive. If consciousness was the sole factor in whether someone was a person or not, than every time we were to go to sleep, we would be viewed as non-people.

I know at least one person who doesn’t even view infants as being people.

It’s a pretty twisted mindset.

 

[carn]

I know at least one person who doesn’t even view infants as being people.

I always wonder which argument such people would bring forth if my dark side speaks:“I don’t consider entities as people, WHICH view infants and unborn as non-people.” when they get pass that “What kind of monster are you?”-anger-phase.

 

[JohnGerard]

Something about how the zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t conscious of life yet. Another bad argument in my opinion, because just because it isn’t aware of being alive, doesn’t mean that it isn’t actually alive. If consciousness was the sole factor in whether someone was a person or not, than every time we were to go to sleep, we would be viewed as non-people.

I know at least one person who doesn’t even view infants as being people.

It’s a pretty twisted mindset.

I see…

 

[JohnGerard]

In my eyes this argument is too some extent valid for people being both pro-life but absolutely against any welfare state/social security/food programs and such; i do not know whether such people exist, but some members of the republicans from a distance seem to fall in that category.

Hence, maybe one should add either a disclaimer of not being absolutely against welfare (which as a catholic one is nearly required; i think some minimal welfare state is mandatory political position for catholics) or one should include an explanation how to avoid having unwanted children starve to death without some welfare state.

I disagree. Even if I am the worst sinner in the world and do not care at all for babies after they are born…it doesn’t change the the only question that ultimately matters…“What are the unborn?” If they are members of the human species they shouldn’t be killed regardless of how pathetic I may be.

 

[carn]

I disagree. Even if I am the worst sinner in the world and do not care at all for babies after they are born…it doesn’t change the the only question that ultimately matters…“What are the unborn?” If they are members of the human species they shouldn’t be killed regardless of how pathetic I may be.

The mechanism used in medical abortion is rather similar to starvation.

If that potential “worst sinner” first hinders a pregnant woman to starve her unborn child to death by denying what she should and can give and then later hinders/prohibits/denies the transferal from his property what is necessary to keep the born child from starving (so also denying what he should and can give), he first was against starving the child to death and later is in favor of starving the child to death, hence his position is not consitent.

If the mother is not allowed to starve her child to death, he should not be allowed to starve her child to death as well.

I know that is a schematic and hypothetical argument, nonetheless i think it is not without merit, if one is against starving unborn to death one should also be against starving born to death.

 

[Bspencer]

"What about in cases of ectopic pregnancy or life of the mother in general"

Still doesn’t give you a right to kill the child, however this one pisses me off, because it seems like such a reach. The percentage of abortions that occur because of these are very low, to the point that even if someone was to say okay in these cases… well then, what about the other 99% of abortions that occur? If you are attempting to base your argument off of something that occurs less than 1% of the time, than it’s not gonna get far, or at least is shouldn’t. This isn’t a baseless statistic either.

regarding ectopic, i wouldn’t really classify this treatment as an ‘abortion’. by definition, an ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs outside of the uterus- commonly in the fallopian tube. a morally acceptable treatment for this condition is a surgical procedure called salpingectomy- which is removal of the pregnancy containing fallopian tube. the surgeon treats the damaged tube by removing it. as a secondary effect, the child does not live (although it is rare that there is a heartbeat prior to the procedure). this treatment is morally acceptable by the church under the definition of double effect. it does not involve directly killing the baby.

 

[Rau]

…The issue here, of course, is that many people don’t consider a half-inch fertilized egg a “person” yet.

They tell themselves this, but who knows what they believe? If they make this claim, they should let us know at what point and by what means the transition to a person, deserving of protection from murder, occurs.

 

[Rau]

These don’t sound like comments on abortion IMO.

Jeremiah 1:5 - “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

I’m surprised you can’t see at least a possible connection here.

 

[987mk]

** and punishing the child because of the father’s sins is flat-out evil.**

That is precisely what God has done to all mankind.

 

[JohnGerard]

The mechanism used in medical abortion is rather similar to starvation.

If that potential “worst sinner” first hinders a pregnant woman to starve her unborn child to death by denying what she should and can give and then later hinders/prohibits/denies the transferal from his property what is necessary to keep the born child from starving (so also denying what he should and can give), he first was against starving the child to death and later is in favor of starving the child to death, hence his position is not consitent.

If the mother is not allowed to starve her child to death, he should not be allowed to starve her child to death as well.

I know that is a schematic and hypothetical argument, nonetheless i think it is not without merit, if one is against starving unborn to death one should also be against starving born to death.

I see your point.

 

[AFerri48]

The personhood argument is horrible, because if you start deeming personhood to be something that is gained later and later, that just puts society in danger. If you try and claim that personhood doesn’t begin until a kid is 3 years old or so, does that mean that murdering a 2 year old is fair game? That is a horrible and twisted mentality. As previously stated this just puts society in danger. What’s to stop people from trying to put more and more requirements into personhood? What if people try to call the disabled non-people, because they can’t function as well as others and deem them fit for murder? Something VERY similar happened in the past with slaves because the owners didn’t deem them as people so they had no rights. This seems to be happening once more with the unborn, where some don’t view them as people and thus, grant them no rights. This is a VERY dangerous mentality, and can’t be tolerated any longer. So this leaves us with two options.

1. We can all agree that personhood starts at conception
2. We completely eliminate the personhood factor from the determination of whether or not a human has a right to life

Either way, the notion of personhood can no longer be a factor that effects the lives of any human being, not a zygote nor a grown adult. Something as important as the right to life cannot be held under such a dangerous perspective.

And seeing how one is almost certainly impossible (for example, I say that the soul is what deems us people, however that won’t work with everyone, because they aren’t religious), than that leaves us with option 2, which means that the right to life is no longer based on personhood, but on whether or not it is a human life. And it goes without saying that from the moment of conception the child is a human, and thus has the right to life.

 

[carn]

The personhood argument is horrible, because if you start deeming personhood to be something that is gained later and later, that just puts society in danger. If you try and claim that personhood doesn’t begin until a kid is 3 years old or so, does that mean that murdering a 2 year old is fair game? That is a horrible and twisted mentality. As previously stated this just puts society in danger. What’s to stop people from trying to put more and more requirements into personhood? What if people try to call the disabled non-people, because they can’t function as well as others and deem them fit for murder? Something VERY similar happened in the past with slaves because the owners didn’t deem them as people so they had no rights. This seems to be happening once more with the unborn, where some don’t view them as people and thus, grant them no rights. This is a VERY dangerous mentality, and can’t be tolerated any longer. So this leaves us with two options.

1. We can all agree that personhood starts at conception
2. We completely eliminate the personhood factor from the determination of whether or not a human has a right to life

Either way, the notion of personhood can no longer be a factor that effects the lives of any human being, not a zygote nor a grown adult. Something as important as the right to life cannot be held under such a dangerous perspective.

And seeing how one is almost certainly impossible (for example, I say that the soul is what deems us people, however that won’t work with everyone, because they aren’t religious), than that leaves us with option 2, which means that the right to life is no longer based on personhood, but on whether or not it is a human life. And it goes without saying that from the moment of conception the child is a human, and thus has the right to life.

Was it ever based on personhood?

The personhood thought is especially weird in the US. I mean, you people over there have so called founding fathers who literally declared it an eternal, unchangeable and god-given right to:
a)check whether or not your current government is up to the task of securing the inalienable rights of HUMANS or whether it is destructive to these ends
b)if failing the test hard, self-organize to abolish that government with violence being permissable to some extent

And then your supreme court starts to claim that inalienable rights are not for humans but only for persons. Grand thinking, how well can a state protect the rights of humans, if the state officially declares that its only duty is to protect the rights of persons?