Response to pro choice argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter ltehs63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

ltehs63

Guest
The numbers specifically show that regions with access to abortion, birth control, and sex education have lower abortion rates. Preaching a chaste life doesn’t do it, it just doesn’t. So like I said earlier if you really care about unborn babies then you do what actually results in reduced abortions. If you want to continue to teach abstinence and let employers opt out of contraception coverage then you increase abortion rates. If you are doing anything other what is statistically shown to reduce abortion rates then you don’t actually care about unborn babies you just want to restrict women’s health rights
 
Why have you started a second thread on this?
40.png
Abortion response quick! Apologetics
I’m confused again. Is this person who had the abortion an actual friend of the OP, or a friend of the person who the OP is trying to respond to? I read this thread as the OP seeking a response to a second person X who is going on about the experience that X had with her friend Y’s abortion. I’m not seeing how Y is a friend of the OP or how OP could do anything about what happened to Y. If Y is actually a friend of X and not OP then I don’t see how OP could be doing anything to help or refer…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Are you arguing for abortion rights or are you presenting arguments that you want to refute. Honestly I noticed you were a member since 2006 and came on as a believer in and defender of this Church.
 
Because I wanted to?? This comment is not being addressed in the other thread and Inwant to respond to it specifically.
 
Ok, but the rules discourage posting more than one thread on the same topic.
 
Hey Everyone! The OP explained in his/her other thread that he/she is arguing with a pro-choice friend on Facebook. I believe he/she is giving us the arguments put forth by the Facebook friend, and may be relaying our responses back to the Facebook friend (and whoever else is participating). Just thought you would want to know.
 
Last edited:
Polls can be skewed in a number of ways. One is by the questions asked. Another is by how a question is worded. A third is by how the people polled are chosen; and related to that is how the demographics are chosen. And one more way of a poll being skewed is how it is taken - phone, in person, by mail…

I have no idea who took the poll, nor any information about it, so unless I know who is taking the poll, for whom, and what the prejudices are or are not, I don’t pay much attention to the results.

The only poll takers I pay attention to are at CARA, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate; they are professors and grad students at Georgetown. By and large, they take polls for the Church in the US.

The “proof” that abstinence does not work could in part be refuted by studies which have been done on the effectiveness of Natural Family Planning. It has been taught in China for quite some time, not because the Chinese have suddenly felt the Church is right, but because in the real world it is as effective if not more effective than the Pill. While it is not total abstinence, it is partial abstinence and it works exceedingly well.

And I yet have to hear of anyone who is or has been practicing abstinence who got pregnant. That (apparently the) majority of people now believe that sexual relations outside of marriage is not only a right with no responsibilities, but also inevitable has nothing to do with the fact that abstinence works, and as a result we have murdered somewhere between 55,000,000 and 60,000,000 babies.

Whomever you are interrelating with on FB is likely not to accede anything to you if they are a proponent of “abortion, and it should be infrequent”, one of the mantas of abortion proponents.

The whole abortion premise is completely wrong, including the lie about “back alley coat hanger abortions”. Most abortions pre-Roe were done by doctors, and not in back alleys.

Killing a baby in the womb is no different than if you went into a nursery in a hospital full of newborns and started killing them. What is the difference? A package of lies, and a large number of liars who do not want to hear the truth, and a large number of victims, very many of them coerced, who in their panic did not or could not find the truth; or if faced with it, could not accept the consequences of going through with birth rather than with abortion.
 
Last edited:
ltehs63 said:
The numbers specifically show that regions with access to abortion, birth control, and sex education have lower abortion rates.
Click to expand...
First, it is important to separate these three things. Do the statistics show that regions with access to abortion (but not to birth control and with no sex education) result in fewer abortions? If not, then the argument that the statistics show that access to abortion decreases abortions is unsustainable.

Secondly, the argument that an opposition to birth control, based upon the Church’s moral teaching, suggests an absence of care about abortion is facile because it rests on the false premise that access to birth control is the only effective means of reducing abortion rates.

Thirdly, the Church does not, as far as I am aware, oppose education about sexuality. As I understand it, the teaching is that children should be educated about sexuality, but that such education is a matter for parents to carry out in the home.
 
Last edited:
Where are these stats coming from? How large of a sample size? How long of a time frame are we talking about? How are the numbers fact checked or verified?

Even if the argument is correct, it doesn’t change the fact ending a life is wrong. If we found stats that said a countries where murder is legal there is less murder it doesn’t mean we should decriminalize murder. Murder is wrong because it causes harm to another and to society overall. To allow it to go unpunished in some incidents because the overall “amount” of murder would be less would be an injustice to the victimsand their families. And frankly, it is warped.

If life begins at conception, destruction of that life is wrong and to not attempt to protect that life from harm is a failure to act justly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top