Responding to pro-choicers’ views on abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.
After decades of media promotion, it is hard for people to abandon thinking that has been spoon-fed to them.
 
Psalm30 said:
I’m not highly active on Facebook, but I check in once a day or so to generally keep in touch with people I know. Someone in my friends list has been posting a lot of pro-choice propaganda over the last few days.
Click to expand...
Ah, how I miss the pre-Facebook days! Do you remember those? When it was uncivil to air one’s personal dirty laundry? When it was impolite to bring up politics and religion indiscreetly in casual company?

Your best response is simply the block feature. The second choice is to refrain from responding but instead share humorous or thoughtful pro-life articles and memes. (Just never share uncharitable one, no matter how tempted you are after seeing uncharitable pro-choice posts).

That said, I’ve seen no evidence that ranting or memes every convert anybody. I eventually found Facebook too spiritually toxic and ditched it entirely.
 
If you say so… though I have yet to read Slate’s take on the matter. I was reading the law itself and the AJC among others. Fact is the way that law was written it does leave open that avenue of prosecution along with a host of others.
 
Not according to the law since the law does not recognize zygotes, embryos and fetuses as people in most jurisdictions. Unless you’re proposing that they’re going to offer the full gamut of rights for said preborn such as citizenship, social security rights, mandated paternal support, etc…
 
Padres1969 said:
If you say so… though I have yet to read Slate’s take on the matter. I was reading the law itself and the AJC among others. Fact is the way that law was written it does leave open that avenue of prosecution along with a host of others.
Click to expand...
The law does not target women, just providers. The language they used seemed to say SOME women may be questioned by investigators who are looking for illegal abortion providers under this law but nowhere does it say they’ll actually be prosecuted for looking for abortion. From what I understand such a thing is banned by a separate state law.
 
Padres1969 said:
If you’re being pulled heavily to one extreme (which these new laws are), the other extreme is going to pull just as hard back in the other direction. I wouldn’t be surprised to see states like California and New York pass laws that expand abortion protections and reporting to protect both abortion and people from states like Georgia.
Click to expand...
These are wise observations, and I could totally see that happen in CA, NY, etc. In fairness to the lawmakers in AL, they’ve been entirely transparent about their intentions. They made the law so strict because they want SCOTUS to deal squarely with the ‘personhood in utero’ question. Making exceptions for rape, incest, etc undermines the personhood rationale.
 
I’ve done that on occasion. My only FB are family and people I know personally and have met/know in person. I wouldn’t even be on it if it weren’t for business. I agree with your post about the separating of the sheep and the goats. I have been noticing that for some time in the last 20 years especially.
 
I’m a bit of a bad example. I tend to only post pro life things and not get into arguments; simply because I’m terrible at debating and I’m way too emotional over abortion.

It doesn’t help that often the pro choicers that I have been exposed to very much like to use ad-hominem attacks.

That said, I’d recommend listening to some of Trent Horn’s podcasts, and reading his ‘persuasive pro life’ book. He’s excellent at the sort of calm response with facts.
 
FWIW I’ve de-activated my facebook account. It happened after the Covington Catholic thing where people I thought I knew became the most vociferous anti-catholic bigots.

Honestly, It’s reduced my stress level as I’m not put in the position of reading their stuff and feeling I have to react to it.
 
Padres1969 said:
I wouldn’t be surprised to see states like California and New York pass laws that expand abortion protections and reporting to protect both abortion and people from states like Georgia.
Click to expand...

"The law for the first time allows abortions after the 24-week mark to protect the mother’s health or in cases where the fetus won’t survive.

Previously, abortions after that point were permitted only to preserve a mother’s life.

The legislation also removes abortion from the criminal code and clarifies that a range of medical professionals, not just licensed physicians, can perform the procedure."

I’d argue they started it.
 
Leaving Facebook was definitely top 5 one of the best things I did for myself in the last decade. If people actually care about you, they will find other ways to keep in touch. And if they aren’t willing to do that, you don’t need them.
 
The problem is most don’t consider fetuses to be babies and they’ll go through any amount of mental gymnastics, willful ignorance, etc. to maintain that view.
 
Padres1969 said:
You’re right that most are in the middle on the issue. Reason you’re seeing such an extreme response from the pro choice side however is that the 20% on the other extreme (banning all abortion with no exceptions and extreme penalties (Alabama) and even punishments if you have one done in another jurisdiction where they’re legal (Georgia) are the people making policy right now. If you’re being pulled heavily to one extreme (which these new laws are), the other extreme is going to pull just as hard back in the other direction. I wouldn’t be surprised to see states like California and New York pass laws that expand abortion protections and reporting to protect both abortion and people from states like Georgia.
Click to expand...
When did things get extreme? Maybe 50,000,000 human lives is extreme.
(That’s fifty million for those who don’t like decimal points. )
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand this argument.

The law didn’t recognize African slaves as people either. That doesn’t mean it was okay.

And citizenship, etc. isn’t something you have to do when you simply recognize the personhood of a living human being.

We don’t give citizenship, SSI rights, etc. to aliens. But we do give them the basic human rights allowed to living human beings.
 
Padres1969 said:
Not according to the law since the law does not recognize zygotes, embryos and fetuses as people in most jurisdictions. Unless you’re proposing that they’re going to offer the full gamut of rights for said preborn such as citizenship, social security rights, mandated paternal support, etc…
Click to expand...
Sounds like appeal to law - that’s a logical fallacy.

Also personhood is a non argument for abortion. I can confidently say that at conception a new human person is created and nobody has any tangible grounds or evidence to show that I’m wrong.
 
Last edited:
Padres1969 said:
Not according to the law since the law does not recognize zygotes, embryos and fetuses as people in most jurisdictions. Unless you’re proposing that they’re going to offer the full gamut of rights for said preborn such as citizenship, social security rights, mandated paternal support, etc…
Click to expand...
Who are laws proposed by and who are laws intended to serve?
Who are human rights for? Things like citizenship, social security rights etc…

Who are those for?

Cats?
Trees?
My dead gramma?

Nope. Human rights are for living human beings.

Now you will have to deny science to support your position. Or simply claim the power to do what you want (which is really the only honest pro abort answer)

“I take the life of a small child because I have the power to do it”
That’s honest.
 
Last edited:
You just made my argument for me. If this is really about life, anti-choicers would be contemporaneously passings laws that treated fetuses like living human beings… but they’re not.
 
Padres1969 said:
You just made my argument for me. If this is really about life, anti-choicers would be contemporaneously passings laws that treated fetuses like living human beings… but they’re not.
Click to expand...
Fetuses are living human beings. Science says so. I’ll go with science.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top