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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And I don’t know if the person in question has an opinion on the legality of abortion.

I’d need the answer to that first.

No you don’t. I just need you to tell me if there is someone who says that they want no abortions carried out, is that person for or against abortion? If that person said they could reduce abortions to zero in a year, would that person be for or against abortion? If they spent their whole life dedicated to trying to acheive that end, would that person be for or against abortion?

 

[Elf01]

No you don’t. I just need you to tell me if there is someone who says that they want no abortions carried out, is that person for or against abortion? If that person said they could reduce abortions to zero in a year, would that person be for or against abortion? If they spent their whole life dedicated to trying to acheive that end, would that person be for or against abortion?

Until I know wherher or not they support abortion being legal I don’t know the answer.

 

[Buks]

I just need you to tell me if there is someone who says that they want no abortions carried out, is that person for or against abortion?

That person would be against abortion. Right? It seems obvious so maybe I’m missing the context of your question (I haven’t read a big chunk of this thread).

I think the law approach and the material assistance approach are both noble and both have potential to save lives. It’s not either-or, is it? Does one approach inhibit the other?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No you don’t. I just need you to tell me if there is someone who says that they want no abortions carried out, is that person for or against abortion? If that person said they could reduce abortions to zero in a year, would that person be for or against abortion? If they spent their whole life dedicated to trying to acheive that end, would that person be for or against abortion?

Until I know wherher or not they support abortion being legal I don’t know the answer.

Complete nonsense. Your refusal to answer is duly noted.

Freddy:

I just need you to tell me if there is someone who says that they want no abortions carried out, is that person for or against abortion?

That person would be against abortion. Right? It seems obvious so maybe I’m missing the context of your question (I haven’t read a big chunk of this thread).

Obviously correct. And you needn’t have read any of the posts to give that obvious answer. Which was asked because there are some who find it difficult to understand that someone cannot be described as pro abortion if they want there to be no abortions and yet be pro choice in that they don’t want women to be prevented from having the choice should the situation require it.

As we have seen with elf and upant, there seems to be no interest in anything which would reduce the number of abortions. It’s make it illegal and that’s it. You can forget about any other solutions.

 

[sealabeag]

I’m sorry maybe I’m having a brain fart but your question doesn’t seem to make sense. What do you mean exactly?

 

[rosejmj]

Well I think that’s a valid argument. I don’t necessarily agree but I think he was trying to say that personhood is not the same as being alive- he would then have to defend his views of what makes a living human a person, which to him probably has something to do with the brain

 

[rosejmj]

I mean I think it’s true that for some people it would better if they were not alive(like Hitler for example) Didn’t even Jesus day that it would have been better if Judas had never been born? Wouldn’t it have been better if he had died before birth to avoid his crime or his sins or whatever?- Also, there is the case that some people would rather not be alive. There is nothing wrong with that. For example, it’s not surprising that someone who survives a terrible event entirely paralyzed and unable to communicate would rather have died than survived. It’s not everyone in that situation, but I don’t think it’s uncommon. Honestly, it seems much more merciful to not prolong someone’s misery even if that means they die faster. So I think that is where pro choice people get their argument for. Of course there are several arguments you can make against it as well

 

[rosejmj]

No. Hypocrisy is saying you are against something and then engaging in that behavior.

Holding your views but leaving others to act as they please is not hypocrisy. Maybe a form of apathy since they don’t care enough to force other people to follow their beliefs?

 

[rosejmj]

Closing down abortion clinics means closing down planned parenthood clinics that provide women’s health services for little or no charge for women. Planned parenthood also provides cheap or free contraceptive methods and sex education to prevent unplanned pregnancy, which lowers the amount of abortions sought out.

I’d say better education and access to contraceptives would vastly reduce the amount of unplanned pregnancies and therefore reduce the abortions. The problem is Catholics are also against contraception. So do you allow contraception to lower abortion rates? Because you can’t stop people from having sex

 

[rosejmj]

I was saying that saying you are against abortion but saying you won’t impose your views on others is NOT hypocrisy as someone had stated

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Of course, 98% of Catholics ignore the mandate on birth control.

The study you’re referring to asked Catholic women who have had sex in the last 3 months if they have ever used a method of Artificial Birth Control. It also excluded pregnant, post-partum, and trying for pregnancy women. It even showed that 11% of respondents are using nothing for contraception. That figure is completely false.

 

[upant]

Do you do nothing until that happens?

not at all, but that isn’t the issue of our discussion, you want pro-choice to mean not necessarily pro-abortion and that is nonsense. if you are willing to allow a woman to get an abortion you are pro-abortion even if you believe it should be reduced. what level of reduction is acceptable?

"We refuse to do anything except demand that it’s illegal!’

we recognize that as long as abortion is legal, more abortions will be performed. making it illegal has to be a goal if we want to stop abortions. pushing laws that start this process will reduce abortions but that isn’t the goal just a by-product of the true intent, zero abortions

In fact I could ask all those in this thread who are pro choice what they think could be done and I’m certain they’d have some practical ideas.

you don’t get it the goal shouldn’t be a reduction but zero. settling for reduction still allows babies to be killed. that is not acceptable, yet, you seem to be satisfied with that.

But you? You don’t even have any solutions to begin with.

sure I do, but you don’t approve of it, legal action, and cultural change via following church teaching, but it will be hard so you belittle it.

When it comes to those looking at reducing abortions, how does it feel to be in the minority?

the minority can be the right side of the issue

Just from the fact that he or she wants no abortions to be carried out, would you describe that person as being against abortion or for it?

do they support the right of other people to have abortions? if yes, they are pro-abortion. you like to blur the issue

 

[upant]

That person would be against abortion. Right?

not if they support the right for others to have an abortion, it really is simple, if you are willing to allow someone to get an abortion, you are pro-abortion.

Which was asked because there are some who find it difficult to understand that someone cannot be described as pro abortion if they want there to be no abortions and yet be pro choice in that they don’t want women to be prevented from having the choice should the situation require it.

it is not difficult, it is a cop-out. the situation never requires an abortion. life is the only option acceptable

As we have seen with elf and upant, there seems to be no interest in anything which would reduce the number of abortions. It’s make it illegal and that’s it. You can forget about any other solutions.

any other solution is a pro-abortion solution. pick a side of the fence and get on it.
sitting on the fence allowing abortion is pro-abortion. if your goals reduction, that is all you will ever achieve. it is not an acceptable option for the unborn babies,

Wouldn’t it have been better if he had died before birth to avoid his crime or his sins or whatever?-

who gets to be the judge of whether a child should live or die? how can a person know what lies ahead to justify killing the child for this reason?

Also, there is the case that some people would rather not be alive. There is nothing wrong with that.

there is everything wrong with that. these people need proper support and care, we do have to take care of the truly needy.

Honestly, it seems much more merciful to not prolong someone’s misery even if that means they die faster. So I think that is where pro choice people get their argument for. Of course there are several arguments you can make against it as well

and that is the next goal assisted suicide, it doesn’t make it right. this life isn’t all there is and these actions may have consequences in eternity.

But there are over 2 billion Christians, Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States, yet we still have all these abortions.

so they obviously aren’t following the church, they are following secular legal rules. that is the issue with it being legal, people believe it is okay.

 

[upant]

Look at it this way. I am pro-gun control, but I do not support fully rescinding the 2nd amendment.
According to you, I am “pro-gun”.

apples and oranges

accepting just a reduction in abortions is still pro-abortion, babies are still allowed to die.

Planned parenthood also provides cheap or free contraceptive methods and sex education to prevent unplanned pregnancy, which lowers the amount of abortions sought out.

their main business is abortion, don’t believe the 3% lie, it has been disproved.

So do you allow contraception to lower abortion rates?

it is a non-negotiable,

Because you can’t stop people from having sex

so we allow them to eliminate their mistake.

why not eliminate the abortion and have the baby even if it is put up for adoption. maybe people would take more personal responsibility if they had to live with the consequences of their actions. we make it too easy to be irresponsible.

It’s well-understood that the Catholic position is illogical. You cannot be against abortion and be against contraception.

sure you can, but you don’t want to accept the rules you have to play by.

Of course, 98% of Catholics ignore the mandate on birth control.

that was proven false, fake sensationalist news. you ask the right questions to the right people and you get the answer you want.

 

[VeryBlessed]

It’s well-understood that the Catholic position is illogical. You cannot be against abortion and be against contraception.

Millions of people have somehow managed not to have an abortion, and not to use contraception. On a personal level of course you can be against both. These people, and the church they align themselves with, are not illogical. You’re free to disagree with the view, but “illogical” does not necessarily follow if some people differ from your view.

 

[chercheur]

It’s well-understood that the Catholic position is illogical. You cannot be against abortion and be against contraception.

Imagine if I want to remove all restrictions on owning guns and then at the same time make bullet-proof vests illegal? That’s the Catholic position. Of course, 98% of Catholics ignore the mandate on birth control.

Why is it illogical? It’s a position based on keeping with their core principles. Opposition of contraception is not necessarily related to opposition of abortion in this case.

 

[Buks]

not if they support the right for others to have an abortion, it really is simple, if you are willing to allow someone to get an abortion, you are pro-abortion.

Could this be semantics? IMO the ideal is trying to help on both fronts - the laws about availability, and also helping the pregnant mothers (donating to the charities, supporting legislation that would increase assistance, etc.).
If someone is not on board in both ways, encourage and affirm them in the part in which the ARE helping.

 

[rosejmj]

and that is the next goal assisted suicide, it doesn’t make it right. this life isn’t all there is and these actions may have consequences in eternity.

Or just refusing medical treatments in order to NOT slow down the inevitable death that comes for us all. That still allows death to come naturally. I’m not vouching for abortion, I’m just saying this is where their argument may come from

While in some cases you can make people’s lives better and make them want to live, sometimes it’s impossible due to the circumstances. You can’t reverse paralysis or a traumatic brain injury. There is nothing wrong with saying that if I got in a terrible car accident and it was possible to save my life by getting me to the hospital by helicopter, but most likely I’d be severely disabled for life, that I’d rather them let me die in the accident rather than take me to the hospital to try to save what little left of me there is.

 

[rosejmj]

accepting just a reduction in abortions is still pro-abortion, babies are still allowed to die.

It is not pro abortion at all. Maybe pro choice, but it does not mean they support abortion, just that they don’t want to take other people’s freedom

 

[rosejmj]

Why is it illogical? It’s a position based on keeping with their core principles. Opposition of contraception is not necessarily related to opposition of abortion in this case.

Well contraception is what prevents unwanted pregnancies and therefore reduces the number of people seeking abortions