Arguing abortion

There is a person that I know online. We’ve been friends across several forums over the years and we frequently end up in a disagreement regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood.

Granted, I use such language as “murder, inc,” genocide and baby killers (kind of hard to hold back) and that does not lead to a constructive discussion.

In our most recent, I tweeted a story regarding something in Canada!/Cyclophile/status/39076369627484160

and it devolved into abortion. Her final statement to me was after I replied to her statement that late term abortions save lives. I said “ironic”

“Her response: Ironic? You’d prefer the woman to die along with unborn trying to make pregnancy go full term??”

Is there an answer to this? I am no medical expert but if you can birth the entire baby, except for its head… why not go all the way rather than killing the child?

My response would be - "Why abort?..Why not try to save both?

Even if the baby has a one in a million chance, why not try?..
New medical knowledge can come from such efforts.

Today premature babies are surviving who would have certainly died only 20 or 30 years ago. How did medical science learn to help these extreme cases? They didn’t learn it from aborted fetuses…They learned by working to save the life of the infant while also saving the life of the mother…


Amen James, Amen.
So true, my cousin was born 25 years ago and weighted 15 oz. Obviously, he almost did not make it. But is now 6’4’’ a mountain of a man. But, he was experimented on attempting to save him. The Doctor was trying everything he could think of. And some of what he tried worked and was put into practice later for other premature babies. We learn nothing from taking a life but everything from saving one.
God bless,

Jerry - Thanks for sharing this. :thumbsup:

Another thing that comes to me is a person shor or stabbed or otherwise grieviously injured. The health professionals will do ALL that they can to keep that person alove. They don’t say - he’s too far gone and then stick a knife through his brain or snip his spinal cord - or… They try to save him until he dies…
Why should a child not have this same chance and attention…


It should be the goal of the medical professionals to save both lives. To abort one life to save another is still murder. Incidentally, you are right to use the word murder, because that is exactly what it is.

A life is a life. Whose is more precious? The mother’s? The baby’s? Why is the baby sacrificed so many times to save the mother? Who and when was it decided that the mother’s life was worth saving, but the baby’s was not? It should not even be an option. All life is precious.

You are correct. Late-term abortions generally involve delivering the baby vaginally anyway, so there would (IMO) never be a valid reason why you could not deliver that baby alive as opposed to killing it first. It is no more dangerous to the mother to deliver a live baby than a dead one. Late-term abortions by definition are done on babies that can survive outside the womb and are often done as “partial birth abortions” wherein the baby’s head is delivered while the baby is alive, the baby is killed by inserting a scalpel or some such tool into the brainstem, killing it, and then the rest of the baby is delivered. Tell me how that will save the mother as opposed to delivering the baby alive. :mad:

Because that is what is “Legal”…Nor moral or ethical but Legal…


Yes, you are right. Morality and ethics play no part in the legal system.

You’ll not get a rational response to your question, because there is none. I have to wonder how this practice ever entered into existence. Abortion is evil enough, partial-birth abortions are beyond my comprehension.

Thanks all for the great responses. I am generally pretty worked up when I get to a certain point because it is like banging my head against a brick wall… especially with that particular person.

You can see what I mean if you trace back through the tweets. We’ve argued on different topics and the “liberal” mind is just… really hard to get into.

You are right, momofmyangels… you can’t use rational responses to minds such as hers…at least not very effectively.

One thing I have learned in these matters is that getting “pretty worked up” is counterproductive. Although frustration is normal, allowing your emotions to get too involved tends to make it harder to think and respond rationally.
Believe me I do know what you mean about it being like…:banghead:…until you are…:hypno:

I’ve taken the position (and tried to train myself) to remain aloof (not always successfully:rolleyes:), to respond in charity with sound answers and trust to the Holy Spirit to open their eyes - eventually.

May God bless you for figthing the good fight.


I just read your link, it sounds absolutely appalling that the Doctors are going to kill this child and the parents have no say. Is that even legal??? Can the parents claim the self-defense argument when dealing with these Doctors? (By that can they protect their child by non-physical means)

@hxcCatholic413 This issue they’re having is that the child will die anyway but the parents are not being aloud to take him home to die naturally there. They are being forced to watch him die in the hospital at the hands of the state. Totally despicable.

That’s a pretty thoughtful answer, Thoughtfulone.

A couple of questions/comments:

  1. I’m confused about what late-term abortions have to do with this article. Also, is Canada the same as the US regarding the illegality of late-term abortions? Even my pro-choice friends say that late term is egregious. I think the number of people supporting late-term abortions are in the cast minority. It’s that pre-25 week, lungs-aren’t-developed-yet phase that seems to be more of a controversy.

  2. This is a *terribly *written article. Nobody seems to have a good grasp of what is actually happening. The doctors are injecting something? The doctors are just removing life support? What’s actually going on? It’s an awful, biased, one-sided story that I just can’t trust. Of course it sounds terrible; the author is spinning the story to garner sympathy. Additonally, I didn’t understand anything the father said. What does this mean? “They said they will give him injection, but I don’t want to.” Huh?

As to your first question, it came up in the discussion about the article and the relative evil canadian system vs US.

Depending on what kind of ‘liberal’ they are you might be better served by attacking their first principles or using them against them.

Americans use you ‘liberal’ in a less technical sense than Europeans, who tend to reserve it for actual economic liberals or for social liberals in the tradition of JS Mill (not always one and the same thing).

If they are socially liberal in the sense of Mil than they subscribe to the ‘harm principle’. This principle can be equally used against abortion as for it. Indeed the case against is easier to make as all that is required is that the foetus is regarded as being a ‘person’ and/or a human being, depending in the particular flavor of 'harm principle that they are applying.

Also, watch out for pro-choice people using a contract version of human rights theory. There are some obvious unintended consequences of this view that will present several bullets for pro-choicers to chew on.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit