Women are the only ones who can talk about abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Upgrade25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Upgrade25

Guest
Even through the doubts, I engaged in a debate with a girl in my gifted class(we are allowed to debate there) over abortion. She said, “First of all, no uterus, no opinion.” I tried to prove that life begins at conception, but my arguments were without citation, making them useless.

How do you refute the “No uterus, no opinion” argument, also, do you have any citations for secular sources(she’s atheist) to prove that life begins at conception?
 
Ask her why she is atheist.

That should get you two past that first road block.

For the second, confirm she agrees chromosomes are the building blocks of life. Then confirm the # of them in a human, I believe 46, and confirm the source of those 46. 23 each in the egg and sperm.

I’m no scientist, so hopefully you might get better or different answers. That’s just what I used to use, though it hasn’t come up in quite a while.

When does she think life begins? That might assist in an answer.
 
What does your sex have to do with the truth of the matter? The argument assumes by default that whatever is democratically decided must be right. Even then, why is it solely a woman’s issue and not a human issue? There’s an automatic assumption again that fetuses are not people and that the matter only concerns women. That’s putting the cart before the horse, using the conclusion in circular reasoning to make the argument.

Second, she has no authoritative sources showing that “life” doesn’t begin at conception. Clearly that single cell is a living organism. It is a life. What she should be asserting is that it’s not a person, but even then, that’s not something she could prove either, as heart beat, brain activity, consciousness, are criteria that science can measure, but there’s nothing authoritative that declares “thou must think to be a person.” That’s an ethical opinion, and one she should prove. Do not let her try to put the burden of proof solely on you. That’s a common tactic, and easy to get sucked in to, where the opponent assumes they possess some neutral position.

Of course, you should be able to provide an argument as to why a fetus is a person, and what makes a person, too, but don’t get pinned down as being the one who needs to provide all the proof. She’s the one claiming that it’s okay to kill humans without clearly first demonstrating they aren’t persons.

Also, secular doesn’t mean atheist, that’s a misconception. You can have secular arguments for the existence of God. You may be limited in what you can define about God from a purely secular standpoint, but you don’t require a religion or holy book to conclude that one exists, or what is morally good or bad.
 
Did the moderator allow such a silly logical fallacy to pass unchallenged? A fact is a fact, regardless of who is stating it.

You have access to Google and Google Scholar. Look up the process of human reproduction. You can certainly prove that a fertilized egg’s genome is different from its mother’s genome, and that this genome is the one that the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby will have its entire life.

You can also ask what is a more logical starting point to life than conception. Implantation, viability, and birth are possible answers, but all are flawed.

What you cannot do is prove that personhood begins with conception, nor that the fertilized egg has a soul. To an atheist, our personalities and selves are generated by our brain’s activity.
 
If she says that only women get to have opinions on abortion, ask her what other rights/opinions men aren’t allowed to have. Seriously, I wouldn’t waste my time with someone who doesn’t even recognize your right as a human being to hold an opinion. Seems like someone isn’t familiar with this quote:

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Although, I will help you out:
lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/life-begins-at-conception.html
 
Also, ask her if that means only female elected officials get to vote on abortion rights. That might make her choose her words carefully.
 
Upgrade25 said:
How do you refute the “No uterus, no opinion” argument, also, do you have any citations for secular sources(she’s atheist) to prove that life begins at conception?
Click to expand...
Step 1: Understand what is at the core of the argument.

For example, it seems to me that the underlying theme of her argument is the idea that one group of people shouldn’t be able to get together and agree to vote away the rights of a second group of people, while still keeping their own rights. The founding fathers of the U.S. believed this when they wrote the Constitution, when they decided that states didn’t have to worry about the other states ganging up on the first state and voting away it’s equal representation in the Senate.

In the case at hand, we have a group of men getting together and deciding that women lose their right to bodily integrity when they become pregnant.

Step 2. Find examples where the argument does and doesn’t apply.

Come up with examples of groups of people voting away the rights of different groups of people, and articulate a rule that determines when that is a good/correct/moral thing to do, and when it is not. Some possible examples:
  • Men deciding that women shouldn’t have the right to vote in elections.
  • Men deciding that women shouldn’t be allowed out in public unless they have their entire body covered up, except for their eyes.
  • Christians deciding not to allow Muslim immigrants.
  • Poor people getting together and deciding that no person should be allowed to own more than $10 million.
  • etc.
Step 3. Argue that the case at hand falls in the good category and not the bad category.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Step 1: Understand what is at the core of the argument.

For example, it seems to me that the underlying theme of her argument is the idea that one group of people shouldn’t be able to get together and agree to vote away the rights of a second group of people, while still keeping their own rights. The founding fathers of the U.S. believed this when they wrote the Constitution, when they decided that states didn’t have to worry about the other states ganging up on the first state and voting away it’s equal representation in the Senate.

In the case at hand, we have a group of men getting together and deciding that women lose their right to bodily integrity when they become pregnant.

Step 2. Find examples where the argument does and doesn’t apply.

Come up with examples of groups of people voting away the rights of different groups of people, and articulate a rule that determines when that is a good/correct/moral thing to do, and when it is not. Some possible examples:
  • Men deciding that women shouldn’t have the right to vote in elections.
  • Men deciding that women shouldn’t be allowed out in public unless they have their entire body covered up, except for their eyes.
  • Christians deciding not to allow Muslim immigrants.
  • Poor people getting together and deciding that no person should be allowed to own more than $10 million.
  • etc.
Step 3. Argue that the case at hand falls in the good category and not the bad category.
Click to expand...
She hates Trump. Your Muslim immigrant one will work
 
Have you read Persuasive Pro-Life? It has a very good, logical explanation for why life has to begin at conception and why it is human life.
 
As long as male babies are being killed by abortion, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say they don’t have a dog in the fight.
 
How can they not have gender at conception? At conception, they have all their chromosomes, including the sex ones.

I agree with other posters that the issue at hand is not what a woman can or cannot do with her body, but, whether or not the unborn are human beings with rights. Once that is established, it is no longer a question about a woman and her body.

Some other points:

It takes a man and a woman to make a baby.

Notice, also, that with no other social movement people say that only those directly affected by an issue should have any say. Where men not allowed to support women’s suffrage? Could only slaves, former slaves, and former slave-owners speak out for abolition? Did only black people fight for civil rights?
 
So, in her world, the woman can decide to have an abortion even if the father of the child is against it? Does the father’s rights come into play at all?
 
Alex_H said:
So, in her world, the woman can decide to have an abortion even if the father of the child is against it? Does the father’s rights come into play at all?
Click to expand...
She said that the reason abortions can be good is because the father leaves. I botched the two year old argument when responding
 
Upgrade25 said:
She said, “First of all, no uterus, no opinion.”
Click to expand...
Abortion is not a “women’s issue.” How dare she to say that? I know, I know exactly how it is, even though I’m a woman and have never even gotten into this argument with anyone. Yes, well, they forget that without the man that woman wouldn’t even be carrying a child. They forget the man is that child’s father. They forget that child is even a child. Murdering a child is NOT an issue of gender for God’s sake. Okay, and what if that child is a little baby girl? That little baby girl has a UTERUS, but is a slave to mere “opinion.”. Have this person answer that?
 
the pre-born child is a human being with as much right to life as you or i

the mother has no authoriity to terminanate the pre-born human being’s exestence
 
When someone tries to tell me that I am not allowed to have an opinion I immediately reply that I utterly reject the notion and roll over it. It’s an indefensible position because she’s saying that you have no right to form an opinion or express it freely without giving any reason beyond her own opinion of who is allowed to participate in the conversation. The only reason it is effective at all is because it often intimidates men into silence. By the same logic I can’t form an opinion on the morality of slavery in the southern States because I’m not living in the 1850s South. “No Plantation no opinion” right?
 
Upgrade25 said:
Even through the doubts, I engaged in a debate with a girl in my gifted class(we are allowed to debate there) over abortion. She said, “First of all, no uterus, no opinion.” I tried to prove that life begins at conception, but my arguments were without citation, making them useless.

How do you refute the “No uterus, no opinion” argument, also, do you have any citations for secular sources(she’s atheist) to prove that life begins at conception?
Click to expand...
For secular sources, check out the website Secular Pro-Life:

secularprolife.org

They are good at showing how the Pro-life position is the most reasonable from a scientific stand point.

Also, Trent Horn’s book Persuasive Pro-life is great.
 
Upgrade25 said:
Even through the doubts, I engaged in a debate with a girl in my gifted class(we are allowed to debate there) over abortion. She said, “First of all, no uterus, no opinion.” I tried to prove that life begins at conception, but my arguments were without citation, making them useless.

How do you refute the “No uterus, no opinion” argument, also, do you have any citations for secular sources(she’s atheist) to prove that life begins at conception?
Click to expand...
Here is one question:

What about in 1850 in America. No slave ownership, no valid opinion on the issue of slavery?

The question is basically the same, but as a different example based on what she said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top