What’s the most irritating pro-abortion argument you’ve heard?

[goout]

I’m thinking that man that just got his neck traumatized by the Minneapolis police, he’d probably like more than compromises. He’d probably like someone to acknowledge his full value as a human being, and his right to draw breath. A full breath instead of a compromised half-breath.
Maybe compromises are the luxury of the living.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I see no compassion or empathy in the pro-life position.

That’s not how it works, each individual pro-lifer and pro-choicer has individual beliefs that vary from person to person so painting with a broad brush is invalid. There is no “pro-life position” aside from respecting human life.

However I agree some certain attitudes are not helpful.

 

[EndTimes]

The silliest argument I heard fame from a leftist YouTuber by the name of Vaush who argued that while a fetus may be human life it is not a person. I thought it was the most bizarre argument I’ve ever heard to defend argument.

There’s a legion of reasons given by those who’ll defend Abortion…

These are not what they say - but you’ll get the idea.

The babe’s body grows inside its mother’s womb…
The babe’s body is not the mother’s body…
Violently Murdering the living babe - is very Wrong and Selfish

 

[tori2323]

I have heard many ridiculous pro-choice arguments but one that really bothers me is “the mother cannot afford to raise the baby” or something along those lines. They KNOW it is a baby, a living human being, yet they condone its being sent to the slaughter.

Sometimes I wonder what pro-choicers think abortion is.

God have mercy on humanity.

 

[Lost_sheep2]

The one I hate the most is when people say that abortion is okay because miscarriages happen. That is so incredibly offensive to women who have had miscarriages and mourned the tragic loss of their unborn child. Just because unborn babies sometimes die that does NOT mean that it is okay to kill them. That’s like saying because some people die of cancer murder is okay. I will never understand the logic of this argument. I think some pro abortion people see the medical term ‘spontaneous abortion’ (ie. miscarriage) and somehow think they are related. Honestly, some people need to use their brains for 5 or 10 seconds.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Good point. And another easy answer to that is the option of adoption instead of abortion.

 

[JanR]

I’ll go one better. Not only is a fetus not considered a person, but even an early embryo is considered to be “only a mass of cells”. I’ve heard that argument. Never mind the potential of what that early embryo shall eventually become. I never did agree with that cavalier attitude.

 

[esieffe]

It begins with the opening of their lips… and just goes down hill from there.

 

[Sarcelle]

At least it’s honest.

The most irritating is the assertion that the fetus isn’t human.

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t think anyone is asserting that.

Being open to the possibility of pregnancy is what is required. That is all.

 

[Sarcelle]

Nope it’s not.

Just using the condom in and of itself is an indication that one is not open to life and is in fact proactively trying to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Lea101]

Being open” does not mean anything else, but “being open”. Even if people use condoms (for example) they can be open to pregnancy - which means that if a pregnancy occurs, they will accept it.

Being open means not doing anything that would prevent pregnancy (intentionally).

 

[Sarcelle]

One does not have to help to facilitate pregnancy.

You are right in this instance.

This why the church approves of natural birth control methods like limiting sexual activity to infertile days of a woman’s cycle.

The Church however does not approve of artificial means like using condoms or hormonal birth control.

 

[Sarcelle]

Sex is singled out because it is the means by which new life is created. New human life which is a new body and soul. This is a big deal.

Sex and the resulting babies should never be divorced. According to the Church, sex is to be within the confines of marriage and the resulting children, the fruits of the marriage are the responsibility of the parents.

I remember my spiritual director telling me that freedom is the invitation to responsibility. Adults are accorded more freedom than children but are expected to shoulder more responsibility.

Same thing in marriage. Couples are free to have sex but this very freedom is also the invitation to the responsibility of parenthood.

What we see now is the fruits of the contraceptive mindset where sex is primarily for recreation and marriage is all about self-fulfillment and children are to be avoided instead of welcomed.

That mindset has changed society and I don’t think it’s for the better.

 

[Sarcelle]

Otherwise stay celibate, and be unfulfilled, because the urge to have sex is overwhelmingly strong.”

Celibacy does not equal unfulfilled. Not necessarily anyway.

You’re not going to die if you don’t have sex.

It’s not like food, air and water. You’ll die without these.

 

[Lea101]

So, if God was in control, and he made this special case, I think that it was on purpose, to allow the humans to perform bonding and have pleasure, without the ever-present “threat” of unwanted children.

You’re not completely wrong here. There’s a reason why we have a fertile window and why we still want to have sex outside of it, as well as why NFP is accepted. I just can’t see how that justifies “working against” pregnancy. If anything I see this as supporting points for NFP?

If you’re interested, Fr Mike Schmitz does explain the philosophy behind it. The short and not so good version is simply sex and our genitals are ordered towards something, and working against something is considered as disordered. With food for example, we eat to survive as well as for pleasure. When you work against one of them, it’s disordered. (e.g. Denying yourself any pleasurable food or purging to avoid calories)

 

[Lea101]

Our legs are “ordered” toward getting for one place to another, so dancing should be considered “disordered”

Our legs also keep us upright, help us move in general and so on. Dancing doesn’t work against the function of these body parts.

Your argument is interesting and definitely one I had, but you took to mean that our genitals have different and separate purposes-pleasure and procreation. I argue that the pleasure is meant to aid to procreate. There’s a reason why sex feels good. It is not two separate functions, like your example with a mouth (eating and singing). Pleasure serves as motivation.

Hence why I have the example of eating. Being able to taste delicious food is meant to aid in providing your body energy. You don’t have to fulfil both aspects of it every time you eat, but intentionally avoiding pleasure or energy from food would be disordered eating.

 

[Sarcelle]

Reminds me of an old joke:

Q: Is it possible to have a true platonic friendship between a man and a woman?
A: Yes, but what would be the point?

I know this is a joke but sex shouldn’t be the be all and end all.

What is wrong with friendship?

 

[Lea101]

And also the unitive aspect of it. Moreover, the NFP simply kills one of the most important feature - the spontaneity. Don’t forget, there is no need to include pleasure to procreate, and there is no need to procreate to have pleasure. They are not logically interconnected - unlike in all the animals - except the higher apes.

Nfp is not a fun thing so I’m not going to defend it but it killing spontaneity is irrelevant in terms of morality.

But it still not explained why both have to be present every time

Technically, it means you just can’t separate the two. You can intentionally have sex when you’re not fertile. For some people, they say that ‘hey, there’s no procreative aspect to this’. The Catholic response to that is, ‘they’re not working against life’. Regarding their body parts, that is. Things are going where they should go, lol.

Same reason why people who are infertile can still have sex. Because in terms of actions and the use of their bodies, they’re not working against life.

And probably more than two instances of sex every week - especially when they are young… (twice a day? )So the pleasure and the unitive aspect are much more important than the procreative aspect

Don’t get me wrong, having sex just for intimacy is perfectly fine! And even encouraged, I would say, precisely because of the way our cycles work.

You forget the zero-calorie diet drinks and the no nutritional types of cakes.

Good point. I was thinking more about eating disorders. It’s fine to indulge in ice cream, cakes etc (pleasure). Working against nutrition/energy would be purging it all back up because through your body, you’re refusing the calories. Your digestive tract isn’t made to expel energy (unless you’re sick).

Think actions and what you’re doing with the relevant body parts.

Having sex with your spouse just because one is ovulating and both aren’t necessarily into it isn’t disordered (although a waste of opportunity, lol).

Raping your spouse because she’s ovulating would be sinful because through the lack of consent, you’re actively working against pleasure and inflicting trauma onto her. (Before anyone freaks out on me, it’s also sinful because you’re disrespecting the general autonomy and dignity of the person)

Having sex with your spouse because she looks so darn good that day and she isn’t fertile isn’t sinful

Having sex with your spouse because she looks so darn good that day, and you work against it by using birth control, would be sinful.

I apologise if this isn’t written clearly. I’m no expert in the faith, I’m just a very sleep deprived girl writing at 1am!

 

[RuthAnne]

The most annoying thing I hear is that not only does the woman have the right to abort her baby but that I have to help pay for it.