The argument that convinces me to be Pro-Choice

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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

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.

I’m using children as the plural of child. The definition I gave was that for a child. As opposed to an embryo. Or a foetus. Or an adolescent. Or an adult.

Thanks for clearing that up for those who didn’t understand that.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The best way to formulate an argument is to appreciate and understand the opponents view and specifically counteract it.

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.

That you won’t agree with any arguments I give is itself a given. I’d like to know if you accept that others believe that there are rational and moral arguments for pro choice. If you do then I’ll continue. If you don’t then I’d be wasting my time and yours.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Wozza:

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

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.

I’m using children as the plural of child. The definition I gave was that for a child. As opposed to an embryo. Or a foetus. Or an adolescent. Or an adult.

Thanks for clearing that up for those who didn’t understand that.

Yes, you’re using it developmentally. But the definition is more than just a technical term for a stage of development. It also includes the offspring of a person regardless of age or stage of development. It’s a term that is also used for a relationship. I am still my mother’s child for example, and she is still my mother. That is as true at age 80 as age 8, and also as true at 8 months after conception and 8 days after conception.

 

[on_the_hill]

Even if it was your fault they were in the water eg. you accidentally nudged them in or even pushed

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure you’d have to answer a whole lot of questions even if it’s not intentional. And if it’s done as a joke? I think you might face charges.

 

[Thom18]

One isn’t punished for failing to save a drowning victim, but- of course, as any reasonable and honest person knows, failure to save a victim isn’t the same thing as creating a victim and ensuring that no one else has the possibility of saving them. And creating a victim is, of course, criminal.

 

[Ana_v]

The analogy here is rather obvious. What then would people who are in favour of governmental restriction of abortion say?

There is some analogy and some disanalogy.

The analogous part is that the person drowning is dependent on your help in order to survive, as the child in the womb is dependent on the mother for survival.

However, the disanalogy is that refusal or failure to intervene to help the drowning person is passive, whereas abortion is active.

Also, as you pointed out, unless you pushed the person in with the intention of drowning him, you are not the cause of his death, should he die of drowning.

In abortion, the procedure is by design embryocide/ feticide.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

pervert their sexual faculties in this manner.

This is rarely mentioned, though it should be. Abortion blasphemes God’s creation.

 

[po18guy]

OK. I can argue against intellect, but not against the ego. I’m out.

 

[Inquisitor85]

One isn’t punished for failing to save a drowning victim,

1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea Article 98, disagrees with your analysis. In fact that is precisely why Captian Pia Klemp was released without charge, following her arrest in Italy.

 

[midori]

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)

But one important key is that it’s not merely a “random someone”, because your analogy is discarding the critical parent/child relationship. So are you arguing that there would be no backlash if you took your kid to the beach, sat there with your pina colada, and watched them get into water that was too deep and strong, and didn’t lift a finger to rescue them? Or perhaps you shoved them into water you knew was too deep, as a joke, and then you sat down with your umbrella drink to see how they coped with it? In what world is that okay?

Likewise, being in-utero is merely a normal stage of reproduction. If they’re allowed to remain and develop, they will move on to the next stage, of birth and early infancy. Intervention isn’t necessary; you just let things progress normally.

Whereas if someone is drowning, they are in danger of imminent death if someone does not intervene.

Shoving someone in the water as a joke gets you into “reckless endangerment” territory, which is a misdemeanor and can carry fines and jail time. The Moulton Falls Regional Park bridge story was in the news earlier this spring, but I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.

A “duty to rescue” if you can “do so safely” and offer “reasonable assistance” varies on a state-by-state basis, but it doesn’t necessarily involve you doing it yourself. It might merely be a “notify the proper authorities” kind of thing, whether it’s making a phone call or pulling a fire alarm. However, when there’s a relationship between the two individuals— student/teacher, parent/child, etc— then your obligation goes up many, many, many, many notches. Even though no one’s in danger of dying, and they’re not related to each other, a teacher has a serious responsibility to report knowledge of sexual assault and abuse amongst their students.

How much more responsibility does a parent have for their child?

 

[SusanneT]

Abortion is the deliberate killing of an un-born child. It is murder plain and simple and like all forms of murder should be forbidden.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Does this make sense?

“Let’s be clear, I am a Catholic. And I do find pre-meditated utterly regrettable and a form of social ill. Nonetheless, I’m not in favor of governmental restrictions upon murder.”

 

[Crocus]

Out of the tens of millions of aborted children, at least one of them must have wanted to live.

I think all of them wanted to live in the sense that life is ordered to strive for it’s own continuance.

 

[Crocus]

If the DNA says, “fully human,” then it’s a “human” no matter how small.

I so love this, no matter how small.:hugs:

 

[fhansen]

It’s fairly simple, if life is sacred or worthy of protection in any case, then abortion is intrinsically wrong if it means the taking of an innocent human life. Find the magical time when a fetus becomes human, that very moment when it must be unjust to not award them protection of the law, and then we could abort without playing God, without killing IOW.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Of course there are. But none with which you would agree.

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 you won’t agree with any arguments I give is itself a given.

If you do then I’ll continue. If you don’t then I’d be wasting my time and yours.

You started wasting your time moment you commented on this thread then. After all, in your first post you have already established what you have established in your last (although still with no clear proof behind your words directed towards someone else, which is in the least impolite). You even provided a “best” (subjective word, careful about using it in real argumentation) way to formulate argument yet you did not use it. I can not comprehend what is your goal in all of this, if it is not just empty provocation.

You are aware you are on forums of pro-life religion. Disagreement is your right, but to expect people are required to respect what you call arguments without you mentioning them would be presumptuous, don’t you think? Also if you do use law as natural outcome of all rights, you would be pretty shocked to find out not everyone in the world follows same laws and different countries do have different laws. If rights are found only within the law, then slavery in itself is alright because people did not have right for freedom codified before. Please do present arguments with actual weight behind them instead of empty provocations.

 

[MiserereMei]

That you won’t agree with any arguments I give is itself a given. I’d like to know if you accept that others believe that there are rational and moral arguments for pro choice. If you do then I’ll continue. If you don’t then I’d be wasting my time and yours.

I’m sure there have been numerous discussions on this forum on this topic. I also know that you weren’t addressing this to me. However, I’ll bite, though I am afraid I am not too entertaining a discussion partner at the moment. If need be, we can start a new thread if it risks derailing the intent of this one.

I do acknowledge there are those who believe there are moral and rational arguments in favor of abortion. Some of my favorite political commentators attempt such arguments on occasion. I do hope your arguments are better than theirs, however. Note: I am, like most on this forum, philosophically “pro-life”.

So, let’s hear your argument #1, or, if it has already been posted, please rephrase it, or else restate it, because I must have missed it.

 

[PennyinCanada]

I scrolled through 37 answers looking for Dahominical to explain his/her analogy. I don’t understand it and not sure how you found it convincing. Have you dropped out of this conversation?

 

[PetraG]

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)

Your analogy neglects that there are two persons in the boat. We know that exactly one of them is there in utter innocence.

Yes, if the boat is sinking it is utterly irrelevant whose fault or responsibility it is that either one is on the boat. What a rescuer may not do, however, is to kill one passenger in an effort to save the other. If the Coast Guard started drowning the youngest passengers if it were sufficient to save the oldest, would they not be subject not only to professional charges but also criminal ones?

These analogies that are permissive of abortion always seem to find the direct destruction of the child “regrettable.” Regrettable? That kind of euphemism is the root of the social ill.

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.

Just to clarify: rational and rationalizing are not the same thing. There are those who don’t think a child is a human being until the child is actually born. Having said that, the only way to rationalize abortion that really holds any water at all has to start with that premise. I think there are some people who actually believe that, but no Catholic should, since the Catholic Church very clearly teaches otherwise. We have no excuse for ignorance on that point.

Even starting with that premise, though, a Catholic–or really, any Christian–has to ask where he or she got the idea, “My life is my own.” That is not a correct understanding of baptism. An understanding of the medical profession that intervenes to end perfectly healthy pregnancies? That is another head-scratcher that carries the smell not of the rational, but of the rationalized.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Find the magical time when a fetus becomes human, that very moment when it must be unjust to not award them protection of the law, and then we could abort without playing God, without killing IOW.

The unborn child becomes human the moment is when it acquires human DNA. Who are we to declare when I person with human DNA is or is not human? Who gave us the power to do that?