Responding to pro-choicers’ views on abortion

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

It’s a fallacious argument to say “what is by law is moral and correct.” In fact “what is, is not necessarily how it should be”. Many examples of that in history. So the legal standing of the unborn child has no relevance to anything.

Please reply to WHAT I WROTE, NOT WHAT YOU THINK I WROTE.

I wrote: “Logically, if you believe a human person is created at conception, it should have all the rights and privileges of any other human being…” I’m not writing about the law today, or what the law today thinks is “moral and correct.” I’m simply asking if there is consistency in your position.

You used the words rights and privileges and that is EXACTLY the logical fallacy I was referring to. Just because the law says something isn’t so doesn’t mean it necessarily isn’t so and certainly doesn’t mean it ought to be that way. Whether the unborn child has legal rights or not has sweet zilch to do with the merits of abortion. Using this fallacy is a tactic of a very poor debater just so you know.

Then why mention it at all? Many pro choicers actually do believe people are going to jail under these laws for natural miscarriage.

I called it (with quotations) “natural” abortion. I am just curious if anyone here actually knows the number (which is, of course, an estimated range). Perhaps you don’t. And let’s assume a state (Alabama, say) makes abortion illegal. A woman miscarries, naturally. How does she PROVE that it was a natural miscarriage and not an abortion?

She needs to do no such thing. The LAW IS TARGETING ABORTION PROVIDERS ONLY. NO LAW IS OR WILL EVER TARGET WOMEN GETTING ABORTIONS. I don’t know how many times this needs to be said and repeated here.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

NO LAW IS OR WILL EVER TARGET WOMEN GETTING ABORTIONS.

Women who get an abortion should “get some form of punishment.” Donald J. Trump, in a televised interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Oh, he changed his mind? And if he changes it back again (as he does daily)? Then what? No cause for alarm? Nothing to see here, move along? Please.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You used the words rights and privileges and that is EXACTLY the logical fallacy I was referring to. Just because the law says something isn’t so doesn’t mean it necessarily isn’t so and certainly doesn’t mean it ought to be that way. Whether the unborn child has legal rights or not has sweet zilch to do with the merits of abortion. Using this fallacy is a tactic of a very poor debater just so you know.

I’ll take the high road and not call you names (“a very poor debater” for example…). But you are missing the point. I’m talking about the consistency of a pro-life position. If a fetus (or whatever you want to call it) is a “human being” from the instant of conception, and you take the position it should be treated as any other human being, there is a logical conclusion to that. Simply that you treat the fetus as a human being, just like any other human being. Are you backing off that position and saying, “Well, we need to treat a fetus like a human being here, but not there, and over here, but not over there”? Really?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Not doing the work for you. If you can’t the find the sites? Fine, others know to what I’m referring.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I can find the site, but after skimming through the site I couldn’t find anything and I wanted clarification on what I’m supposed to be looking for on the sites.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Can’t do the thinking for you.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I found nothing after trying again so it would appear then that your claims are baseless.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Infants can’t drive cars and drink alcohol, but they’re human.

 

[blackforest]

How are we, as Catholics, supposed to respond to things like this, whether on social media or in real life?

I just listened to this podcast and found it very helpful - level-headed, logical, to the point. http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/01/you-can-make-the-case-for-life-scott-klusendorf/

 

[blackforest]

Logically, if you believe a human person is created at conception, it should have all the rights and privileges of any other human being.

Not exactly. Different rights and privileges come with different phases of development. I give my 12-year-old the right to go to the park without parental supervision, but I won’t extend that right to a toddler. Meanwhile, my 12-year-old can’t vote, open-carry a gun, or swig a vodkatini.

As such, they have human souls. Those embryos who are naturally aborted (for example, they do not attach to the wall of the womb), should be given funeral Masses and burials, just like any other human being.

This is silly and impossible because we cannot know when it happens, and nobody holds pre-emptive or just-in-case-it-happened funerals. When we do know when it happens, such as an induced abortion or unplanned miscarriage, there are fortunately options available for parents experiencing grief. Japanese women have a place to put a memorial to their aborted children. We have Project Rachel in the U.S., and I’m aware of Christian and Buddhist rituals for memorializing the unborn who perish in perinatal loss.

Child support should begin at conception, not at birth.

This would actually be a really sound social policy. The U.S. has the highest out-of-pocket health care costs of the industrialized world, and women who struggle with co-pays and deductibles would benefit from financial assistance for prenatal care. It would also enable them to save a nest egg for the baby.

Pregnant mothers should not be imprisoned for any reason, since that would be inflicting a punishment on the unborn child, who is innocent. It is illegal to imprison an unborn child without due process.

This is another silly scenario. The unborn have no cognitive concept of punishment and can’t tell whether or not their mothers are in prison. They also have no concept of their mothers winning a Nobel Prize or the Idaho State Lottery. The only “punishment” (more of a collateral consequence), they may endure in prison is if the woman is, for example, locked in solitary confinement or treated in such a way that affects their welfare in the womb. Such actions should be illegal.

For the remaining three, you’d be correct in saying that there are those who fail to implant. There are also those who are miscarried, aborted, or who perish by stillbirth. Waiting until birth, or at least the 12th week gestation, may be more practical under these circumstances. The risk that an embryo or fetus goes through to be born, however, is in no way a valid bioethical rationale for elective, induced abortion.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

NO LAW IS OR WILL EVER TARGET WOMEN GETTING ABORTIONS.

Women who get an abortion should “get some form of punishment.” Donald J. Trump, in a televised interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Oh, he changed his mind? And if he changes it back again (as he does daily)? Then what? No cause for alarm? Nothing to see here, move along? Please.

And you take a blowhard like that seriously because…

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Trumps more of pawn than anything.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Infants can’t drive cars and drink alcohol, but they’re human.

and…

Different rights and privileges come with different phases of development.

I’ve heard this argument a million times. Being a citizen, being counted in a census, being counted as a dependent, etc. have NOTHING to do with “stages of development.” They have EVERYTHING to do with being treated just like a day-old baby.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

And you take a blowhard like that seriously because…

Well, unfortunately he is president. And his impulsive “women who get an abortion should get some form of punishment” is not some made-up fantasy. In many countries, it’s real.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...tries-laws-already-do/?utm_term=.f8751d0df739 Feel free to read the story for individual horror stores.

Washington Post, May 15 about El Salvador:

" In 2017, then-United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein [said in a statement that he was] “appalled that as a result of El Salvador’s absolute prohibition on abortion, women are being punished for apparent miscarriages and other obstetric emergencies, accused and convicted of having induced termination of pregnancy.”

Abortion has been completely criminalized in El Salvador since the late 1990s. And as of last year, more than 20 women and girls were in prison under the country’s abortion ban. Many of them were sentenced to decades in prison after prosecutors tacked homicide charges on top of abortion charges."

Dominican Republic: “Women and girls who are found to have received abortions in the Dominican Republic can face up to two years in prison.”

Nicaragua: “Those who terminate their pregnancies can face up to two years in prison.”

Ireland: “But even after legal exceptions were made to the ban, women and girls who sought abortions at home and medical professionals who performed them still faced serious punishment: up to 14 years in prison.”

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’ve heard this argument a million times. Being a citizen, being counted in a census, being counted as a dependent, etc. have NOTHING to do with “stages of development.” They have EVERYTHING to do with being treated just like a day-old baby

Then fine, but that’s not really a priority right now.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

You used the words rights and privileges and that is EXACTLY the logical fallacy I was referring to. Just because the law says something isn’t so doesn’t mean it necessarily isn’t so and certainly doesn’t mean it ought to be that way. Whether the unborn child has legal rights or not has sweet zilch to do with the merits of abortion. Using this fallacy is a tactic of a very poor debater just so you know.

I’ll take the high road and not call you names (“a very poor debater” for example…). But you are missing the point. I’m talking about the consistency of a pro-life position. If a fetus (or whatever you want to call it) is a “human being” from the instant of conception, and you take the position it should be treated as any other human being, there is a logical conclusion to that. Simply that you treat the fetus as a human being, just like any other human being. Are you backing off that position and saying, “Well, we need to treat a fetus like a human being here, but not there, and over here, but not over there”? Really?

I didn’t call you names or at least I wasn’t trying to. I meant using that fallacy is a tactic of a poor debater just FYI for future reference. Legality and legal rights or non legal rights of the unborn child is not an argument on the merits of abortion.

I said it before. I say that personhood actually begins at conception. To date no pro choicer has proven me wrong with any tangible evidence. Why? Because they can’t do it.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

And you take a blowhard like that seriously because…

Well, unfortunately he is president. And his impulsive “women who get an abortion should get some form of punishment” is not some made-up fantasy. In many countries, it’s real.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...tries-laws-already-do/?utm_term=.f8751d0df739 Feel free to read the story for individual horror stores.

Washington Post, May 15 about El Salvador:

" In 2017, then-United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein [said in a statement that he was] “appalled that as a result of El Salvador’s absolute prohibition on abortion, women are being punished for apparent miscarriages and other obstetric emergencies, accused and convicted of having induced termination of pregnancy.”

Abortion has been completely criminalized in El Salvador since the late 1990s. And as of last year, more than 20 women and girls were in prison under the country’s abortion ban. Many of them were sentenced to decades in prison after prosecutors tacked homicide charges on top of abortion charges."

Dominican Republic: “Women and girls who are found to have received abortions in the Dominican Republic can face up to two years in prison.”

Nicaragua: “Those who terminate their pregnancies can face up to two years in prison.”

Ireland: “But even after legal exceptions were made to the ban, women and girls who sought abortions at home and medical professionals who performed them still faced serious punishment: up to 14 years in prison.”

Will never happen here. These new laws certainly don’t do it despite the hysteria from left wing sources. It’s the providers they’re after.

And rightfully so. I doubt most women seeking abortions are doing it maliciously they’re doing it because they are desperate and feel they have nowhere to turn with their pregnancy. That is not criminal in my view. Society must give them the care they need.

That blowhard has said a lot of things even before he was president. That hasn’t changed and won’t when he leaves office. I wouldn’t take it seriously.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

This is silly and impossible because we cannot know when it [miscarriage] happens, and nobody holds pre-emptive or just-in-case-it-happened funerals. When we do know when it happens, such as an induced abortion or unplanned miscarriage

Sometimes we know, sometimes we don’t. I’m not concerned about what Japanese women or Buddhists do. I’m concerned with the consistency of the Catholic position. If a fetus–at any stage–is miscarried, and it’s probable that this is what has occurred, surely a consistent pro-life position (“human life begins at conception”) would be that a funeral service and burial would be obligatory. And yet it’s not. Huh. Looks like inconsistency or hypocrisy to me–saying one thing and actually doing another.

This is another silly scenario [that pregnant women should not be imprisoned since the fetus–a human being–is innocent and has not been given due process]. The unborn have no cognitive concept of punishment and can’t tell whether or not their mothers are in prison.

Crazy people have “no cognitive concept of punishment” either. And yet they go to prison. So if having “no cognitive concept of punishment” is the criterion for staying out of prison, this is an inconsistent position. And you are right–if the imprisonment of the mother results in harm to the fetus, this should be illegal. But again, if the fetus is a “human being,” why are you placing this innocent human being in prison?

I’m simply taking the pro-life position and following it to its logical conclusions. You can’t cherry pick conclusions–either the fetus is a “human being” or it’s not. If it is, a whole host of consequences flow from that belief. If you want to deny those consequences, great, but then you have to say that a fetus is NOT a human being. Consistency. Logic.

 

[Sbee0]

blackforest:

This is silly and impossible because we cannot know when it [miscarriage] happens, and nobody holds pre-emptive or just-in-case-it-happened funerals. When we do know when it happens, such as an induced abortion or unplanned miscarriage

Sometimes we know, sometimes we don’t. I’m not concerned about what Japanese women or Buddhists do. I’m concerned with the consistency of the Catholic position. If a fetus–at any stage–is miscarried, and it’s probably that this is what has occurred, surely a consistent pro-life position (“human life begins at conception”) would be that a funeral service and burial would be obligatory. And yet it’s not. Huh. Looks like inconsistency or hypocrisy to me–saying one thing and actually doing another.

This is another silly scenario [that pregnant women should not be imprisoned since the fetus–a human being–is innocent and has not been given due process]. The unborn have no cognitive concept of punishment and can’t tell whether or not their mothers are in prison.

Crazy people have “no cognitive concept of punishment” either. And yet they go to prison. So if having “no cognitive concept of punishment” is the criterion for staying out of prison, this is an inconsistent position. And you are right–if the imprisonment of the mother results in harm to the fetus, this should be illegal. But again, if the fetus is a “human being,” why are you placing this innocent human being in prison?

I’m simply taking the pro-life position and following it to its logical conclusions. You can’t cherry pick conclusions–either the fetus is a “human being” or it’s not. If it is, a whole host of consequences flow from that belief. If you want to deny those consequences, great, but then you have to say that a fetus is NOT a human being. Consistency. Logic.

The fetus is a human being. Science. Fact.

You’re also incorrect that there is no funeral for miscarriages.

The fetus is also a person. No tangible evidence anywhere says I’m wrong.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

would be that a funeral service and burial would be obligatory.

There’s nothing to bury and I can see considering the expenses that such is not practical.