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

[Elf01]

But those who would hold to the position that there is literally no difference between a zygote and a fully formed child a day before birth will say something along the lines of: ‘I’d try to save both’. Every time.

Lets make it a 5 and a 6 year old, can you choose?

And yes, rather obviously, I am generally pro choice.

Are you pro my choice to do some unnecessary shopping or meet up with some of my friends?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

“I would do all I could to save both” is not one of the options. Refusing to select one of them tells us as much about the person as making the choice does. You do understand that, don’t you?

All that answer tells us is that the person thinks that both are worth saving.

 

[JoeFreedom]

What I find particularly disingenous about people who insist we use the term “pro-choice” over the term “pro-abortion” is that no matter how you end up defending it, the ultimate end is the same, that you choose to abort the baby.

Whether you are choosing to be able to choose, you are still choosing to abort the baby and thus pro-abortion.

Whether you choosing to believe that it is not a person, you are still choosing to abort the baby and thus pro-abortion.

And another thing I find particularly hypocritical is that many pro-abortion people are also folks who are side with Democratic Progressive Liberal left and thus want to define everyone else by labels, e.g.: rich, poor, black, white, Mexican, the 1%, the 99%, so and so forth, but when it comes to being labeled as exactly what they are, they cannot take it.

Own what you believe, don’t hide behind misdirections and redefinition of terms.

For everyone that believes that ALL life has the same human dignity, do not allow the pro-abortion crowd to call themselves “pro-choice” and to redefine who they are and obfuscate what it is that they truly endorse.

When all is said and done, the choice is murder.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A loaded question is designed to obtain a specific answer. I don’t have any preference for which answer is chosen.

“Have you quit beating your mother yet? Answer yes or no.”
Of course both answers allow the questioner to claim you admit to beating your mother. Which shows that a question that permits two answers can still be loaded.

And you don’t have a preference because both the answers you want to permit serve your purpose. Both answers make the responder look bad.

You keep saying that. I’m not sure why. I have no interest in you picking either.

You have three choices. Say that you’d save the child. Say that you’d save the embryo. Or refuse to answer either (I’d try to save both!).

Taking the first option means you consider the child to have more value. Taking the second means that you consider the embryo to have more value. Taking the third means you would either prefer not to reveal which you consider to be more valuable or you consider them to be of equal value.

Let’s look at the third.

If you are anti-abortion then one of the points you might make against it might be that an embryo has equal value to a child. You wouldn’t make a distinction between the two so you cannot answer. And we wouldn’t consider killing a child so how can we conceive of killing an embryo. Fair enough.

Or you automatically feel that it would be the right thing to do to save the child but saying so leaves you open to the obvious argument that you consider them to have different value.

There aren’t any right or wrong answers. All the question does clarify your position. It tells us what you value and how it governs your stance on abortion. It doesn’t say that your arguments are right or wrong. It’s entirely neutral on that.

You can’t argue a position unless you understand the position that the other person is taking. If you don’t then you will end up talking past each other and never reach anything approaching agreement. I don’t think that you simply disagree with a woman’s view regarding abortion (if she decides to have one). I don’t think that you understand the position of a woman who decides to have an abortion.

And nonsensical terms such as ‘pro abortion’ (do you actually know anyone who thinks having an abortion is a positive thing in itself?) and deliberately argumentative terms such as ‘murder’ will do nothing but push people into one of two camps and leave very little room left for sensible discussions.

I’m a case in point. I have already suggested that it would be a great idea to reduce the number of abortions. That’s something we could agree on, isn’t it? We could look at ways of doing that, couldn’t we? But you’ve already pigeon-holed me into the opposition camp and there’s fat chance of getting any reasonable discussion going.

So feel free to let rip with the usual rhetoric if you like. Throw out all the usual buzzwords. Claim the high ground and rally the troops!

Or you could discuss it and see if a solution of some sort can be found.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

May I say that I appreciate your reasoned and open response to things? It’s pleasant to talk with and not past someone in this context.

 

[Freddy]

What I find particularly disingenous about people who insist we use the term “pro-choice” over the term “pro-abortion” is that no matter how you end up defending it, the ultimate end is the same, that you choose to abort the baby.

Whether you are choosing to be able to choose, you are still choosing to abort the baby and thus pro-abortion.

You seem to think that it would be impossible to argue against abortion yet be pro choice. You seem to want there to be two camps and no middle ground. You seem to want it to be us v them.

Good luck with that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

“I would do all I could to save both” is not one of the options. Refusing to select one of them tells us as much about the person as making the choice does. You do understand that, don’t you?

All that answer tells us is that the person thinks that both are worth saving.

Exactly. That they have equal value. But do you think a woman would place equal value on them if she had to save her embryo or her child? Do you really think the vast majority of women wouldn’t be able to decide?

Do you understand what that means in relation to a woman making a choice to have an abortion?

 

[Freddy]

May I say that I appreciate your reasoned and open response to things? It’s pleasant to talk with and not past someone in this context.

Thanks for that. I really appreciate it.

This subject is obviously a hot topic one and I learned a long time back that rallying the troops around your particular flag and letting loose with the same ol’ same 'ol just got everyone uptight and ended up with zero solutions (and my tendency to slip in a little sarcasm now might get away with and got me sent to the naughty corner on ocassion).

So I try to get people to understand why women can feel they can have abortions. Not claiming that those reasons make it right. But simply to understand them and see if that understanding can lead to some solutions. To see if there are any solutions. I mean, what right minded person would disagree with the suggestion that reducing abortions would be a good thing.

If you don’t understand the problem then there’s no chance of finding an answer.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But do you think a woman would place equal value on them if she had to save her embryo or her child? Do you really think the vast majority of women wouldn’t be able to decide?

Do you understand what that means in relation to a woman making a choice to have an abortion?

But it is possible to save them both in real life and those sorts of dilemmas don’t always apply to abortion.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But do you think a woman would place equal value on them if she had to save her embryo or her child? Do you really think the vast majority of women wouldn’t be able to decide?

Do you understand what that means in relation to a woman making a choice to have an abortion?

But it is possible to save them both in real life and those sorts of dilemmas don’t always apply to abortion.

Good grief, the concept of hypothetical questions seems so difficult to get across. Let’s try something else…

Let’s say a woman finds herself in a financially dire situation. She simply cannot afford to support a second child. She has one already and she has just found out she is pregnant. Yes, she should have been more careful but that’s the situation.

Do you think she’ll put the first child out for adoption and have the second or have an abortion? Yes, she could go through the pregnancy and put that child out for adoption but she’s afraid she might end up with both of them.

No need to answer because we all know what the answer will be. She’ll have the abortion. And why? Because she doesn’t consider what she is carrying to be of equal worth to her young child. No woman who has an abortion does think that.

Now, do you really want to rewrite the scenario so that you don’t have to accept that fact? Or are you going to agree to it?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

No need to answer because we all know what the answer will be. She’ll have the abortion. And why? Because she doesn’t consider what she is carrying to be of equal worth to her young child. No woman who has an abortion does think that.

Now, do you really want to rewrite the scenario so that you don’t have to accept that fact? Or are you going to agree to it?

I know that, but it doesn’t have to affect my thoughts on it.

Good grief, the concept of hypothetical questions seems so difficult to get across. Let’s try something else…

That’s because the dilemma does not apply in real life since there are other options and can be overrided.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No need to answer because we all know what the answer will be. She’ll have the abortion. And why? Because she doesn’t consider what she is carrying to be of equal worth to her young child. No woman who has an abortion does think that.

Now, do you really want to rewrite the scenario so that you don’t have to accept that fact? Or are you going to agree to it?

I know that, but it doesn’t have to affect my thoughts on it.

It wasn’t meant to. But it should inform you of the reasons why women feel they can have an abortion. It should focus your arguments against abortion away from claiming that you shouldn’t have them because a group of cells early in pregnancy has exactly the same value as a child. Whether you think that or not it is patently obvious that most women would not agree with you.

So isn’t it then patently obvious that it would be a waste of time using that argument in the first place. You are going to get nowhere with it. The only people who agrees with that concept (whether it’s right or wrong) are those women who wouldn’t have an abortion anyway.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It wasn’t meant to. But it should inform you of the reasons why women feel they can have an abortion. It should focus your arguments against abortion away from claiming that you shouldn’t have them because a group of cells early in pregnancy has exactly the same value as a child. Whether you think that or not it is patently obvious that most women would not agree with you.

So isn’t it then patently obvious that it would be a waste of time using that argument in the first place. You are going to get nowhere with it. The only people who agrees with that concept (whether it’s right or wrong) are those women who wouldn’t have an abortion anyway.

I don’t use arguments like this anyways.

 

[BornInMarch]

“What if a woman is raped?”

That’s the kind of argument that appeals to emotion rather than reason. If my opposition to abortion is based on the fact that the unborn child is a living human then why would the circumstances of said child’s conception change my mind? “It’s okay to murder innocent children if their fathers are evil”; that doesn’t make sense.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I think what Freddy is trying to say for this case, though, is that there’s a reason women who have been assaulted feel like they need to abort their child. Pro-life people like to point to women who didn’t abort children of rape but what they don’t also mention is that those women almost always have very strong support networks to keep them afloat mentally and emotionally. Women who abort children of rape typically don’t have that. If we want to make abortion infeasible, we need to ensure that all victims have access to very strong support networks that help them get back on their feet and give them whatever aid they need. Until then, victims will still seek abortions.

Taking away a solution doesn’t solve the problem. It just makes things worse.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. As if taking an innocent life is nothing more than a “personal choice” as opposed to a crime.

 

[Elf01]

Taking the first option means you consider the child to have more value.

It doesn’t. In real life you’re probably not going to save the embryo, and in Catholic moral teaching there are no real solutions to the problem of frozen embryos so I would probably save the child. That may change if the embryo is related to me.

I would also save a child over a cryogenically frozen adult in most cases. Does that tell you anything about how I value them?

Now, would you save a 5 year old or a 6 year old?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Taking the first option means you consider the child to have more value.

It doesn’t. In real life you’re probably not going to save the embryo, and in Catholic moral teaching there are no real solutions to the problem of frozen embryos so I would probably save the child. That may change if the embryo is related to me.

I would also save a child over a cryogenically frozen adult in most cases. Does that tell you anything about how I value them?

Yes, obviously.

And this type of question is formulated so that you have two very different choices. Which one you choose will come associated with a reason. ‘I’d save the child because…’ or ‘I’d save the frozen embryo because…’. And the reasons can then lead to a discussion as to why you have those reasons. It’s the reasons that are important - not the choices.

Your ‘5 year old or 6 year old’ doesn’t do that. You might as well ask if I’d choose a brunette over a blonde. Or blue eyes over black.

So do you think that the child v the embryo would be an entirely arbitrary decision? Obviously not. Which leads to the reasons. The 5 and 6 year old would be an arbitrary decision. You’d be better off asking if I’d save a child over an adult. I’d have a reason for that. In your case I don’t so the question is worthless as a means to find anything out.

I value the kids equally so I just tossed a coin. I go with the six year old. What do you do with that?

 

[Elf01]

You’d be better off asking if I’d save a child over an adult.

OK, would you save a child over an adult?

The 5 and 6 year old would be an arbitrary decision.

And those who refuse to answer may feel the same.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Yes, it’s a contradiction. Edit: You say “You want to be able to choose if you want to abort (and kill) your baby, but yet not be pro-abortion.” And yes, this is a black and white issue, those who want to kill their children and those who don’t.

This is something I do not compromise on.