The argument that convinces me to be Pro-Choice

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dahominical
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dahominical

Guest
Let’s be clear, I am a Catholic. And I do find abortion utterly regrettable and a form of social ill. Nonetheless, I’m not in favor of governmental restrictions upon abortion.

When someone is drowning we would not punish you for deciding not to take the risk to rescue that person or use some other means to force you to rescue them. Even if, you were the only person there and not rescuing them would inevitably lead to their death. Even if it was your fault they were in the water eg. you accidentally nudged them in or even pushed them in as a joke. (Short of intentionally trying to drown them from the outset)

The analogy here is rather obvious. What then would people who are in favour of governmental restriction of abortion say?
 
I may be missing the argument in the analogy, abortion isn’t the same as not rescuing someone while drowning. Abortion, i think, defined as the purposeful cessation of life. In most cases when someone drowns and your around, you didn’t cause that person to drown. Whereas with abortion you’re going in with the intent to stop a being from existing.
 
A Catholic? How so, since you differ on the very basics?

The argument is apples and oranges. Pregnancy is not an emergency - it is the sexual reproduction and furtherance of the human race. Never mind the rape and pillage blah blah blah.
  1. What did the unborn child do to merit the death penalty?
  2. Are you conflating accident with intentional killing?
  3. Have you, perchance, consulted with the catechism on this?
 
Last edited:
Finn said:
40.png
Dahominical:
The analogy here is rather obvious
Click to expand...
The analogy is strained far beyond breaking point. There is no rational or morally coherent way to defend abortion.
Click to expand...
Of course there are. But none with which you would agree.
 
Woman here 👋
What does the scenarios of drowning you mentioned have to do with abortion? Unless you’re trying to intend viability or something.

Abortion is the direct killing of the unborn.

Here’s a senario - If a woman is pregnant and gives birth while alone on some island with no civilization and the only way she can feed the baby is with her breast milk…

Should she be punished if she refuses to feed her child?
It’s her body and her choice.
 
You can post this solely because you are not a victim of the “right” to abortion. Out of the tens of millions of aborted children, at least one of them must have wanted to live.
 
Dahominical said:
When someone is drowning we would not punish you for deciding not to take the risk to rescue that person or use some other means to force you to rescue them.
Click to expand...
No one should punish you for not being prolife?
 
Finn said:
40.png
Wozza:
Of course there are. But none with which you would agree.
Click to expand...
Seems assumptive. I’m open to hearing your defences of abortion - please proceed.
Click to expand...
The best way to formulate an argument is to appreciate and understand the opponents view and specifically counteract it. All else is just hand waving.

That said, how would you argue the pro choice view? If you understand it, then you should be able to do it. If you don’t understand it, then any points that you put forward will be opinion (however based) and not argument.

Give it your best shot…
 
po18guy said:
You can post this solely because you are not a victim of the “right” to abortion. Out of the tens of millions of aborted children, at least one of them must have wanted to live.
Click to expand...
Lots of errors here.

First. The scare quotes around ‘right’. It is a legal right so need for the quotes. Secondly, children are defined as those between the age of birth and puberty, hence not applicable to the term abortion. Thirdly, to suggest that a foetus or even an embryo might have wanted to live is no different from saying that a potential child not born due to NFP would have preferred to have been born.
 
Wozza said:
Thirdly, to suggest that a foetus or even an embryo might have wanted to live is no different from saying that a potential child not born due to NFP would have preferred to have been born.
Click to expand...
So are you saying there is no difference between an existing foetus and an hypothesis (as the “potential child not born due to NFP” is nothing more than that)? I’m not sure I understand you here.
 
Wozza said:
The best way to formulate an argument is to appreciate and understand the opponents view and specifically counteract it.
Click to expand...
Wozza, you’ve asserted that there are plenty of rational and morally coherent defences for abortion (and made a blind assumption about my response to said defences). I’ve asked you to provide some examples - let’s have them, unless you’re merely out to bait.
 
Wozza said:
Secondly, children are defined as those between the age of birth and puberty, hence not applicable to the term abortion. Thirdly, to suggest that a foetus or even an embryo might have wanted to live is no different from saying that a potential child not born due to NFP would have preferred to have been born.
Click to expand...
Taking science into account, these statements make no sense.

“…children are defined as those between the age of birth and puberty, hence not applicable to the term abortion.”

We’re not talking about killing children–we’re talking about killing human beings. A human being is defined as “human” by their genetic code. If the DNA says, “fully human,” then it’s a “human” no matter how small.

“…to suggest that a foetus or even an embryo might have wanted to live is no different from saying that a potential child not born due to NFP would have preferred to have been born.” I

If there has been no fertilization of an egg by a sperm, resulting in a zygote that possesses a complete genetic code of a human being, then there is no possibility of an abortion. It makes no sense to say that an egg or a sperm can desire to mature and become a mature human being–that is a scientific impossibility. An egg or a sperm is not genetically a human being.

A fertilized egg is NOT a “potential human,” it is, genetically, a human. That’s the science.
 
Last edited:
I actually expected a more difficult argument.

Abortion and drowning have nought to do with each other. Even in the loose sense, we aren’t pro life to force a person to accept the consequences of their choices. We’re pro life because it is a moral evil for a parent to kill their own child and pervert their sexual faculties in this manner.
 
Wozza said:
Secondly, children are defined as those between the age of birth and puberty, hence not applicable to the term abortion.
Click to expand...
This is just false. A dictionary includes the definition “a son or daughter of any age,” and that much should just be obviously true. You don’t stop being the child and son or daughter of your parents. It’s not just a developmental term, it’s also used as a relationship term. And your parents don’t stop being your mother and father.
 
Peeps said:
40.png
Wozza:
Secondly, children are defined as those between the age of birth and puberty, hence not applicable to the term abortion. Thirdly, to suggest that a foetus or even an embryo might have wanted to live is no different from saying that a potential child not born due to NFP would have preferred to have been born.
Click to expand...
Taking science into account, these statements make no sense.

“…children are defined as those between the age of birth and puberty, hence not applicable to the term abortion.”

We’re not talking about killing children–we’re talking about killing human beings. A human being is defined as “human” by their genetic code. If the DNA says, “fully human,” then it’s a “human” no matter how small.
Click to expand...
Take it with po1 please. He was the one saying that children were being aborted. And dna doesn’t define ‘fully human’. Is a toe nail clipping ‘fully human’? You are playing fast and loose with scientific terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top