The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_II

Guest
Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a *really convincing case *that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a *really convincing case *that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer?
Click to expand...
I can tell you that I never have. I tried logic and reason. I tried emotional appeal. Nothing is a clincher for me.

I even wrote out logical statements geared for the person I’m talking to. They would agree with each statement until they fill uncomfortable down near the conclusion and go back to statement one saying they don’t agree. So obviously I did not succeed.
 
I personally think the best evidence is a high-resolution sonogram. Pro-aborts absolutely HATE having to view a picture of a baby in utero, and they seem to uniformly hate laws which require that someone be shown access to a sonogram before they can abort. Why? Because a child knows what they won’t admit - that the picture is of a baby.
 
In all my discussions it boiled down pretty quickly to the personhood and consciousness of the unborn child.

They say “You don’t know for sure, so you can’t deprive a woman of her rights.”

I say “You don’t know for sure, so you can’t brutally deprive a child of its life. Life trumps choice.”

The conversation usually ends at that point. I have tried and tried to contiue beyond this point but the person usually flies off the handle with rage and starts with personal attacks, or they close off altogether.
 
Perhaps you could ask:
“What would you want to say to your mother
if she was deciding to abort you,
at any time of your development in the uterus?”
 
I think they lean so heavily on the government shouldnt dictate to women what women can and can not do that I dont think you will find and iron clad argument that stops them in their tracks.

Since our laws have yet to give full protection to the unborn the way a woman has, under our present laws, full protection, any kind of argument on our side is tougher to make.

In some ways I think its still part of the residuals of women not getting the right to vote until the early 20th centuries and blacks having to fight for their right to vote etc.

Those wounds still run deep and are fresh in the American psyche. The rights of the unborn are still taking a toll because of the sins of our government’s past rights with other groups.
 
Trishie said:
Perhaps you could ask:
“What would you want to say to your mother
if she was deciding to abort you,
at any time of your development in the uterus?”
Click to expand...
You wanna hear something really sad? I have actually used this, and I kid you not, the response I got was “I wouldn’t care. I wasn’t alive yet. It’s her choice to make, not mine.”
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
You wanna hear something really sad? I have actually used this, and I kid you not, the response I got was “I wouldn’t care. I wasn’t alive yet. It’s her choice to make, not mine.”
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that you have heard that. The idea of abortion simply doesnt offend many people. They really and truly are ok with it.

Its the Holy Spirit that has to convert their hearts to a true understand of life. Just like Saul of Tarsus had to become Paul the Great Convert.

A conversion of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, is what many have to experience before they will change their views
 
What I hear some of you saying is that reason just doesn’t get through to some people when they have been conditioned all their lives and by the mainstream culture to regard a woman’s right to choose as more sacred than a child’s right to live.

Yes, I think reason can provoke irrational responses such as some noted above. Lots of people just don’t like to reason.

Here’s one argument I found in the telling of a story about a pregnant woman’s visit to her physician.

*A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help!

My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I’m pregnant again.

I don’t want kids so close together.’

So the doctor said: ‘Ok, and what do you want me to do?’

She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady:

‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born.

If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is.

There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!

‘I agree’, the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.
*
 
I personally think the best evidence is a high-resolution sonogram. Pro-aborts absolutely HATE having to view a picture of a baby in utero, and they seem to uniformly hate laws which require that someone be shown access to a sonogram before they can abort. Why? Because a child knows what they won’t admit - that the picture is of a baby
Click to expand...
On the internet, I’ve found that following this up with “If it’s not a human, what is it?” works well. I think I added “what is it, an alien?” after. Also use plenty of science.
 
No. To many pro-choicers it is potential for life, not necessarily life.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a *really convincing case *that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer?
Click to expand...
A pregnant woman is smoking. Someone says to her “don’t you know smoking while pregnant harms your baby.”

The woman says “the science is unsure”
“it’s not a baby it just a clump of cells or something”
“we don’t know when life begins”
“womans rights!”
“it’s my body”
“don’t take away my choice”
“ban pregnant women from smoking they’ll do it in their backyard”

point being: Smoking while pregnant harms a baby
Aborting while pregnant kills a baby

Would a pro-abortion person believe a pregnant woman has the right to smoke? Would they buy the above arguments?

Some people may still think the world is flat but modern science is unequivical - human life begins at the very moment of conception.

Abortion takes away a human life. Take away a human life outside the womb and it’s called murder, infanticide if an infant.

Abortion: a women just doesn’t take a pill and the baby magically disappears. Nope. It’s brains are pulled out, or it’s head is snapped off, or chemicals are used (Hitler???).

The Centre for Disease Control (2009) says most abortions in America are at six weeks or after. A baby’s heart begins to beat within the first month.
 
Two times I scored a hit:
  1. Ask them: at what point in life do you acquire the entire genetic code of an individual human being? When the inevitably reply at conception, then state that any other definition for the starting point for human life is merely arbitrary; the only scientifically proven point is conception when the fetus acquires it’s DNA.
  2. This was my favorite. One fellow in an on-line debate stated that "we (meaning pro-lifers) shouldn’t be imposing our moral code on others. I replied “the irony of the fact that your own continued existence is guaranteed by an imposed moral code is totally lost on you”; That got me a few “touchés” from other debaters (including some pro-choice ones) and left the person I was responding to spluttering out ad-hominem attacks, a classic example of not having any arguments left!
But then clear-cut logic has its work cut out for it when it comes to unseating one’s cherished (and often erroneous) beliefs.
 
I’ve been reasoning with people for years.

If you want to know what you have to, it would be to Ask the Holy Spirit to speak through you.

Sometimes you have to be able to “read” what reason people are going there by their actions and words. Then you have to choose carefully.

It really depends on the scenario and every situation is different.

One thing that is true very often is that they made up their minds and they don’t want to hear any other opinion or explanation, because they don’t what to hear that they are wrong.

When they give you shock answers it is almost always to shut you up so you don’t tell them more so they feel badly for that which they are about to do. It happens all the time.

Generally, they want to hear about how their body can be hurt first, because they are more worried about their body than that of the baby’s when they arrive at the decision to have an abortion.
 
Timbothefiveth said:
On the internet, I’ve found that following this up with “If it’s not a human, what is it?” works well. I think I added “what is it, an alien?” after. Also use plenty of science.
Click to expand...
Again, the sad thing here is their response to that.

“Well, a tumor is unique, growing, human tissue, and no one whines when someone cuts one of those out of their body. What’s the difference?”

The sad thing is, proabortion people ignore all science and degrade an unborn child to the equality of a malignant tumor. There really is no sound reasoning one can employ against this.
 
Hiyas:)

The sad thing, to me; Is that we have to explain life to them, in the first place 😦
 
OraLabora

One fellow in an on-line debate stated that "we (meaning pro-lifers) shouldn’t be imposing our moral code on others. I replied “the irony of the fact that your own continued existence is guaranteed by an imposed moral code is totally lost on you”; That got me a few “touchés” from other debaters (including some pro-choice ones) and left the person I was responding to spluttering out ad-hominem attacks, a classic example of not having any arguments left!

Brilliant! The best clincher I’ve heard so far as imposing moral code.
 
Is your goal to ‘win an argument’ or to ‘gain a convert’? I would simply suggest that anyone engaging the other side in this debate do so with courtesy. People in general do not respond well to ‘gotcha’ arguments or to those who speak to them in a condescending manner. After all, what good is it to ‘win’ an argument if you have failed to change their position in any meaningful way?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
OraLabora
One fellow in an on-line debate stated that "we (meaning pro-lifers) shouldn’t be imposing our moral code on others. I replied “the irony of the fact that your own continued existence is guaranteed by an imposed moral code is totally lost on you”; That got me a few “touchés” from other debaters (including some pro-choice ones) and left the person I was responding to spluttering out ad-hominem attacks, a classic example of not having any arguments left!
Click to expand...
There is nothing “brilliant” about it. The problem is that those in the pro-life position that cannot see the reasonable position of the pro-choice position is due to the fact that they do not undertand the distinction between a moral issue and a legal issue.

The main rationale for the pro-choice position is that it is a legal position—not a moral one.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top