Secular Arguement Against Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JackVk said:
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Both saving unborn children and helping to alleviate disease and poverty are both noble causes. “Pro-life” focuses on abortion, articificial contraception, stem cell research, etc. But diseases and poverty in third world countries is a completely different issue. I’m not saying that one is more important than the other, they’re just separate topics.
Click to expand...
The ostensible value behind pro-life movement is a respect for ALL (innocent, to allow the possibility of capital punishment) human life. This would supposedly include human children vulnerable to diseases because their environment lacks clean water and sanitary conditions. In this respect, the pro-life movement should be concerned with that.

But as its followers indirectly acknowledge, the pro-life movement instead has a narrow myopic perspective since it only focuses on issues of human reproduction despite claiming that all human life should be valued.
 
Apryl said:
Not everyone sees iy as murder: some see it as only religion that says the unborn child is a life:blush:

How do you respond to that? 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m pro-life, but I’m NO expert in arguing the case. I wish I was.

What I try to say is, “Look, it has ten fingers, ten toes, can feel pain, re-act to the mother and father’s voice-if it’s not alive, then what the heck is it?”

I have some athiest/agnostic friends who are pro-life. That’s what one said to me-“If it’s not a human life, than what the heck is it?”
 
Black_Rose said:
The ostensible value behind pro-life movement is a respect for ALL (innocent, to allow the possibility of capital punishment) human life. This would supposedly include human children vulnerable to diseases because their environment lacks clean water and sanitary conditions. In this respect, the pro-life movement should be concerned with that.

But as its followers indirectly acknowledge, the pro-life movement instead has a narrow myopic perspective since it only focuses on issues of human reproduction despite claiming that all human life should be valued.
Click to expand...
You are trying to say that pro-lifers are deliberately being indifferent to third-world countries. It’s like saying PETA should be pro-gun control because hunters use guns. You are trying to assimilate interest groups that have barely any relation.
 
JackVk said:
You are trying to say that pro-lifers are deliberately being indifferent to third-world countries. It’s like saying PETA should be pro-gun control because hunters use guns. You are trying to assimilate interest groups that have barely any relation.
Click to expand...
I doubt many pro-lifers are deliberately indifferent to third-world countries, but if some of them are, I doubt they would openly admit it and sound gauche like Mark Fuhrman.

Well, PETA does not need to be pro-gun control; its view is that guns should not be used to hunt animals. Nothing more, nothing less.

askcarla.com/Answers.asp?QuestionAndAnswerID=274

But, PETA gives meager attention on issues of gun-control because other issues obviously eclipse it. Presumably, factory farming, animal testing, and fur-farming inflicts more pain and suffering on animals than hunting.

But regarding proportionality, wikipedia states that there were 820,000 abortions in the US in 2005. Let’s just say that there were 3 million abortions in all the “developed” countries from crude extrapolation. According to this UNICEF link:
More than 70 per cent of almost 11 million child deaths every year are attributable to six causes: diarrhoea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth.
Click to expand...
These deaths occur mainly in the developing world. An Ethiopian child is 30 times more likely to die by his or her fifth birthday than a child in Western Europe. Among deaths in children, South-central Asia has the highest number of neonatal deaths, while sub-Saharan Africa has the highest rates. Two-thirds of deaths occur in just 10 countries.
Click to expand...
And the majority are preventable. Some of the deaths occur from illnesses like measles, malaria or tetanus. Others result indirectly from marginalization, conflict and HIV/AIDS. Malnutrition and the lack of safe water and sanitation contribute to half of all these children’s deaths.
Click to expand...
But disease isn’t inevitable, nor do children with these diseases need to die. Research and experience show that six million of the almost 11 million children who die each year could be saved by low-tech, evidence-based, cost-effective measures such as vaccines, antibiotics, micronutrient supplementation, insecticide-treated bed nets and improved family care and breastfeeding practices.
Click to expand...
unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html

Isn’t six million a year larger than the number of abortion performed in developed countries?
 
Black_Rose said:
I doubt many pro-lifers are deliberately indifferent to third-world countries, but if some of them are, I doubt they would openly admit it and sound gauche like Mark Fuhrman.

Well, PETA does not need to be pro-gun control; its view is that guns should not be used to hunt animals. Nothing more, nothing less.

askcarla.com/Answers.asp?QuestionAndAnswerID=274

But, PETA gives meager attention on issues of gun-control because other issues obviously eclipse it. Presumably, factory farming, animal testing, and fur-farming inflicts more pain and suffering on animals than hunting.

But regarding proportionality, wikipedia states that there were 820,000 abortions in the US in 2005. Let’s just say that there were 3 million abortions in all the “developed” countries from crude extrapolation. According to this UNICEF link:

unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html

Isn’t six million a year larger than the number of abortion performed in developed countries?
Click to expand...
abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Isn’t 42 million abortions a year, worldwide, about 7 times that of disease in third world countries?

And I might add that, while helping sick children is a good thing, UNICEF is a pro-choice organization.
 
JackVk said:
abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Isn’t 42 million abortions a year, worldwide, about 7 times that of disease in third world countries?

And I might add that, while helping sick children is a good thing, UNICEF is a pro-choice organization.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.

I guess I underestimated the rate of abortion in Eastern Europe. I thought there were about 1.2 billion people living in the “developed world” and assumed the abortion rate throughout the developed world is uniform for my “crude estimate”. It is about 6.6 million abortions per year in the developed world.

It is not seven times that of disease of the third-world… it is seven times that of easily preventable deaths from disease in the third world.
 
Rascalking said:
I’m pro-life, but I’m NO expert in arguing the case. I wish I was.

What I try to say is, “Look, it has ten fingers, ten toes, can feel pain, re-act to the mother and father’s voice-if it’s not alive, then what the heck is it?”

I have some athiest/agnostic friends who are pro-life. That’s what one said to me-“If it’s not a human life, than what the heck is it?”
Click to expand...
Ok… but…:o

When you are in an argument, is it just to spout off ideals to each other? OR is the purpose of your ‘argument’ to convince the other side that your side is the right side? :rolleyes:

For someone who does believe that abortion is just a right that women should have, the points about fingers and it’s nice and alla that… they know that. They DON’T CARE. So what is your argumeent against abortion? :cool:

What reasons do YOU have, that have nothing to do with Human Rights, or with the fact that it’s a human being? Can you argue against abortion?

So often, these people are in their world, and refuse to come out of it.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
How do you create a solely secular arguement against abortion?
Click to expand...
This reminds me: a couple of years ago, I had a class and needed to do a debate (one team versus the other)

When the instructor said their would be a debate, I sort of got disappointed. There are certain topics that every one seems to need to go through. The teams were 3 people each, and every one else had been vocal that they were PRO-Abortion on demand. 😦

Wouldn’t you know it: the instructor gave my team the Pro-Abortion stance. :eek:

I bit down, and did what I needed to do: I prepared our argument, thinking like THEM… but then I went a bit further.

Just like the Pro-Abortion people seem to rely on ‘but you shouldn’t bomb abortion clinics, because that’s taking a human life, too’ and ‘but it’s a woman’s body and she should be able to do what she wants when she wants to’ arguments and turned them on the others.

What was so funny was that one of my arguments cause a student on the other team, who was ‘pro-abortion’, to get riled up and just start yelling about how ‘that doesn’t make any sense’.

I got my ‘A’, and I could also see how the other side thinks. Hee hee:D
 
LOL Apryl, I can just see that too… typical pro-abort, relying only on sheer emotion just like the rest of them! :rolleyes:

Do you remember exactly what it was you said that got them so riled up?
 
Apryl said:
Not everyone sees iy as murder: some see it as only religion that says the unborn child is a life:blush:

How do you respond to that? 🤷
Click to expand...
In that case, ask them if they ever took (and passed) any kind of biology class in school. If they did, they’re obviously being dishonest with themselves in denying basic knowledge and any discussion with them would just be a waste of time anyway. There’s no reasoning with pure insanity.
 
exoflare said:
LOL Apryl, I can just see that too… typical pro-abort, relying only on sheer emotion just like the rest of them! :rolleyes:

Do you remember exactly what it was you said that got them so riled up?
Click to expand...
Not EXACTLY, but one of my arguments was that

With abortion available, men should not have to pay child support for a child that they didn’t ask for since the mother had the right to get rid of it. :rolleyes:

If she wants to choose whether or not she’s a mother, she should have the full responsibility for the financial care of that child :cool:

And if the man didn’t want the child, he should be able to walk away and have no contact with the child.

😃
 
exoflare said:
In that case, ask them if they ever took (and passed) any kind of biology class in school. If they did, they’re obviously being dishonest with themselves in denying basic knowledge and any discussion with them would just be a waste of time anyway. There’s no reasoning with pure insanity.
Click to expand...
IMO, anyone who chooses to defend abortion gas to rely on dishonesty, conscious and subconscious, to do so. 🤷
 
Apryl said:
IMO, anyone who chooses to defend abortion gas to rely on dishonesty, conscious and subconscious, to do so. 🤷
Click to expand...
Oops! Early morning posting with no eyeglasses! :eek:

That was supposed to say

“IMO, anyone who chooses to defend abortion HAS to rely on dishonesty, conscious OR subconscious, to do so”
 
Hello!
In reply to the original post on this thread- here is a link that I have found helpful.

princeton.edu/~prolife/academic.html

It is a page full of research done by pro life student at Princeton. As far as I can tell, not religious in nature, though I have not read every single one. I find myself embroiled in these types of debates, with people who will not admit any talk of God or religion. I have been called every name in the book! But I am trying.

Oh and many thanks to the previous poster who suggested Nat Hentoff. I read over some of his writings and think it is an excellent source.

Peace,
Kelly
 
Apryl, it is correct, It is a natural justice position that if you grant all rights to the woman to either have or not have a child based on a priori position at law (Only the mother can decide whether or not to have an abortion, and a father has no say), then it is correct that no man can be held liable for the choice of a woman to have a baby and therefor has no liability when it comes to making child support payments or any other payments. End of conversation, nothing anyone else can say without showing that there position of bias.

Secondly I always use the difference between say a 36 week old baby in the womb and a one week old baby after birth. The fact that there is no difference other than one is out in the world and one still lives in the womb, means that ultimatley you have to allow for the right to destroy new borns as well as preborn babies. The only way you can say otherwise is simply to take a position based on a choice and no other.

Its amazing the number of people who think its abhorent to abort a 35 week old foetus but find it acceptable to abort a 12 week old. I simply point out the fact that they have no right reason to accept one position and not the other.
 
How about quoting a pro-abortion editorial appearing in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine about lying in the service of killing?
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.”
Click to expand...
[Emphasis added]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top