Debate on abortion today


#1

I had a heated debate with somebody on abortion today and I’m still reeling from it. His arguments were so poor, but I’m really not a good debater and I don’t think I did a good job. It made me realize I really need to brush up on my pro-life arguments. Here’s what he argued, what should I have said?

  1. He refused to believed that abortion had killed more than any other single genocide and when I finally found a source that wasn’t too “biased” for him, he said that since it was over a period of 38 years that it wasn’t as bad as other genocides like Rwanda that killed people at a much faster rate.
  2. He said that abortion could not be considered genocide because it was not targeted at eliminated a specific group of people.
  3. He said “You do realize that if abortion becomes illegal, women will still get abortions.” I argued that if theft is kept illegal, people will still steal. He said that making abortion illegal would be harmful to women, while the illegality of theft is not as harmful to thieves.
  4. He said that pro-lifers are not actually pro-life because we only care about babies getting born, not getting fed, sheltered, etc. He found out that I am not an organ donor, and he really began arguing that that shows that I don’t care anything about life.
  5. He said that we are only pro-life because we are religious and we wouldn’t believe that life begins at conception.
  6. He argued that life does not begin until the baby is born, and thus independent of the mother. How do I make a definitive case that life really begins at conception?

#2

I recommend Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn.

amazon.com/Pro-Life-Answers-Pro-Choice-Arguments-Expanded/dp/1576737519

Read it and work through your positions. It’s very comprehensive.


#3

Ok:

  1. He refused to believed that abortion had killed more than any other single genocide and when I finally found a source that wasn’t too “biased” for him, he said that since it was over a period of 38 years that it wasn’t as bad as other genocides like Rwanda that killed people at a much faster rate.
  2. He said that abortion could not be considered genocide because it was not targeted at eliminated a specific group of people.

Well, even though I agree that it is reasonable to consider the deaths by abortion genocide, he’s distracting by getting into a definition debate. To wit: how many innocent humans have to be deliberately killed before you care? One is too many. Always try to focus on the specific act of a “doctor” reaching into a woman’s womb with a pair of forceps and dismembering an innocent human being.

  1. He said “You do realize that if abortion becomes illegal, women will still get abortions.” I argued that if theft is kept illegal, people will still steal. He said that making abortion illegal would be harmful to women, while the illegality of theft is not as harmful to thieves.

Good response and I would add that an evil act is not made less evil just because it is done legally in a well-lit office by a man in a white lab coat. It’s not our duty to make evil acts safer.

  1. He said that pro-lifers are not actually pro-life because we only care about babies getting born, not getting fed, sheltered, etc. He found out that I am not an organ donor, and he really began arguing that that shows that I don’t care anything about life.

It’s a distracting ad hominem. Always remember that it is all about the specific act of killing an innocent human being, it is NOT about worthily earning the label “pro-life”. I think the whole insistence on the label “pro-life” has been a huge mistake precisely because it allows mischief like this. “You don’t organ donate? You’re not pro-life!” “You don’t support federal minimum wage? You’re not pro-life!” and the possibilities are endless. Dump the label and don’t be afraid of “anti-abortion”. It’s specific and doesn’t allow bs. Take a cue from abolitionists. I don’t think any of them ever used or cared about a “pro-freedom” label.

  1. He said that we are only pro-life because we are religious and we wouldn’t believe that life begins at conception.

Direct disproof: godlessprolifers.org/home.html

  1. He argued that life does not begin until the baby is born, and thus independent of the mother. How do I make a definitive case that life really begins at conception?

That one can kill a baby in the womb and not outside of it is completely arbitrary. When babies are born the mother doesn’t say, “Here’s the frige, here’s your dresser, good luck.” Babies will die without continued support from the mother after being born.

Pro-abortion has no leg to stand on.


#4

??? Ask him if he is therefore maintaining that the fetus in the mother’s womb is dead? (If there is no life in it, presumably then it would be dead.)


#5

Something that I learned here on CA, which is a mini apologetics for pro life side.

If it is growing, isn’t it alive?
If it has human parents, isn’t it human?
And human beings like you and me are valuable aren’t we?

Hope this helps a little.:thumbsup:


#6

In addition to this, Trent Horn’s new book “Persuasive Pro-life” is also great. If you’ve ever heard him on Catholic Answers Live, you know he’s a master at this topic. That book gives really great tips for arguing effectively with pro-choicers.


#7

a lot of great answers…


#8

If his defense of abortion is that it’s not as bad as other forms of genocide, I’d say you’ve already won the debate.


#9

No matter how often you argue that abortion is wrong, it will not prevent women from getting an abortion if they want one. Politicians are forcing women into back alley abortions that were common before it became legal. So now you are also killing a lot of women. Don’t they count too?
It is absolutely true that “pro-lifers” are only interested in a baby while it is in someone else’s womb. The moment it is born, these same people have pushed to cut off all resources for the baby and mother. You only care when it doesn’t cost you anything. How about approaching these women with an iron clad promise of taking the baby off their hands after it is born and having it adopted. Talk is cheap, put up some real money to help these women instead of criticizing and harassing them.


#10

Unfortunately, most people are unaware that Planned Parenthood was started in an effort to rid the world of people of color. Margaret Sanger was the individual who started the cause and if you google her name or Planned Parenthood you can find some pretty incredible information. Ask your person if they were aware of this?

blackgenocide.org/planned.html


#11

all of these bad arguments were answered above, but again, the back-alley abortion is a canard. Abortion is an evil act, and an evil act cannot be made good by making it legal. There is no such thing as a safe abortion because it is never safe for the innocent human in the womb. There are lots of evil acts that people do even though they are illegal. Back-alley abortions isn’t even an argument.

And the whole, “put some money up” is baloney. I remember reading pro-slavery tracts from the 1800’s and they were making the exact same argument: If you were REALLY against slavery, you would pay fair-market value for the slaves and then free them yourselves.

Chattel slavery is evil. Abortion is evil. No amount of legal fiat can make them good.


#12

I guess you never thought this through very well…abortion kills men and WOMEN.:frowning:


#13

[quote=sscott] No matter how often you argue that abortion is wrong, it will not prevent women from getting an abortion if they want one. Politicians are forcing women into back alley abortions that were common before it became legal. So now you are also killing a lot of women. Don’t they count too?
[/quote]

Of course they do. We don’t want anyone, baby or mother, to die from abortion.

But it’s not as simple as you are making it, that either abortion is legal, or women will die. Abortion, legal or illegal, is risky. The legal status of abortion does not drastically change anything as far as women’s health goes. If it did, the maternal mortality rate in countries where abortions are legal should be much lower than countries where abortions are illegal. Yet, countries like Poland where abortions are illegal have a quarter the rate of maternal deaths than the United States. In 2010, our rate was 21 deaths per 100,000. Poland was 5 per 100,000. cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

This makes no sense statistically if legal abortions truly make women safer. It appears to do the opposite. Even more reason for it to be banned.

The bottom line though is if abortion takes an innocent life, it is wrong and should be illegal. There’s no reason why either the mother or child should die. We should be working on making things so that both can live.

is absolutely true that “pro-lifers” are only interested in a baby while it is in someone else’s womb. The moment it is born, these same people have pushed to cut off all resources for the baby and mother. You only care when it doesn’t cost you anything. How about approaching these women with an iron clad promise of taking the baby off their hands after it is born and having it adopted. Talk is cheap, put up some real money to help these women instead of criticizing and harassing them.

You are correct that being pro-life must be about more than just simply opposing abortion. If we aren’t, then we have lost our way.

But when it comes to discussing the morality of abortion, whether or not pro-lifers are hypocrites is irrelevant. People can be immoral and still be right about something. The question is, does abortion take an innocent life or not? If it does, then it should be opposed.


#14

One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, medically, spontaneous abortion. If you believe life begins at conception then it follows that the most prolific abortionist is the Man upstairs. One third of fetuses are just unceremoniously disposed of in the sewage system. Those are the facts. That is a lot of errors in conception.
I ask again why those who are against abortion do not make a pledge to adopt these unwanted babies? If you care about the fetus in someone else’s womb then do something concrete to protect it. Don’t just care while it is a fetus and then not care about caring for it for the rest of its life. Either pay the women to support the unwanted baby or take it yourself. This is not a theoretical problem. It is a real day to day issue. Put your money where your mouth is.


#15

No offense but these are boilerplate objections, and I notice you completely ignored my responses.

Irrelevant. This is just the problem of natural evil. By your logic, that because people have heart attacks or die in accidents, that means I can shoot anyone I want. The idea that I can kill a child in the womb but not after it is born is arbitrary and incoherent.

I ask again why those who are against abortion do not make a pledge to adopt these unwanted babies?

Because adoption is a calling, not a duty. And also this is a subtle ad hominem designed to distract from the only truth that matters: having a “doctor” reach into a woman’s womb with forceps and dismembering an innocent human being is a great and deliberate evil.

If you care about the fetus in someone else’s womb then do something concrete to protect it. Don’t just care while it is a fetus and then not care about caring for it for the rest of its life. Either pay the women to support the unwanted baby or take it yourself. This is not a theoretical problem. It is a real day to day issue. Put your money where your mouth is.

William F. Buckely answered this lame objection long ago:

“The lifers are, by Mr. Fast and others who think as he does, encumbered by the responsibility for everything that happens to the fetus after it materializes into a human being in the eyes of the law. And if you aren’t around to see to it that at age 14 the kid is receiving the right education, ingesting the right food, leading a happy, prosperous life, why, you had no business bringing him into this world. You are a hypocrite to the extent that you support life for everyone who suffers in life. It is only left for Mr. Fast to close the logic of his own argument, which would involve him in a syllogistic attempt along the lines of: Everyone suffers. No one not living suffers. Therefore, no one should live.”

Abortion is misanthropy in disguise.


#16

This is shear ignorance.

Any mother can leave her baby at any fire station in the country. No questions asked. Mom absolved of any responsibility at all. Ever.

FAIL.


#17

Here’s my response to anti-lifers:

If you think abortion is so noble…do you wish your mother had aborted you?

If you hate your life…can’t you take it yourself?

If you’re “pro-choice”, as you claim…why oughtn’t babies be given the same choice you have? (i.e.–life or suicide).

Why should the mother–or anyone–get to choose whether someone else lives or dies?

To anti-lifers (or pro free sexers, if you prefer), abortion is a matter of convenience–the right to ‘a mulligan’, for libertine sexual relations.

But a human being dies, for that ‘right’.

That is quite frankly, fundementally wrong to its core.


#18

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