Help with Abortion Argument


I was wondering if I could ask anyone who is good at debating/discussing abortion to help me with a thread on another forum.

I am Catholic, but I need help!

The website is an Irish Discussion Forum. It has an extremely anti-Catholic, anti-Life flavour. The people there have very hardened hearts.

I need someone to help me who can argue against abortion on non-religious grounds, since these people do not believe.

So the link to the site is here:

I am Ultravid. The thread is only just beginning, but you can see there is a good opportunity here to make a difference, I’m just not so sure I am up to the task so I need some help.

I promise this is a genuine request and an opportunity for a sharp arrow to make an impact on this very spiritually dark forum. They try to shut down all discussion on abortion, using various excuses.

In Christ,


PS If you want to PM me, you can.

I never bring up religion when debating abortion unless I am talking to another Christian. That is because the second religion comes up the pro-abort has ammo to disregard anything you say as “religious fanaticism”.

Stick to science when debating abortion. Simply point out the fact that every single science book written on the subject of human embryology (the ones that are used to teach the people who are studying to become doctors) says that human life begins at the moment of conception. That is the best argument because then they can’t tell you that you are just trying to push your religious beliefs on others because you’re arguing from science. It is scientific fact that human life begins at conception and at no other time. has some good quotations out of science books that you can post.

In Christ,

Thanks. I just did that. But they say it’s not true… I don’t know what to say about that! They reject the science!

One guy said this:

religious,philosophical and scientific means usually are need to decide something like “when life starts”. None have all agreed or come to a totally universal conclusion. Hence,as mena said so eloquently,its bull.


I think reason is lost on many of these people.

How about pointing out the fact that at the moment of conception a whole new set of DNA is formed that will show that the this is in fact a human being.

Ask them what they are basing there facts on, if they reject science. I am a biology professor, and the moment egg and sperm unite, you have a new indiviual human being who begins to grow and develop at that moment. By 18-21 days the heart will begin to beat. By 6 wks, they will move on their own, and respond (draw away from) a needle if stuck during an amniocentesis. Solomen and Berg, as well as Curtis are leading college Biology texts. Both say conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. They can argue the rights of the person all they want, but facts are facts, human life begins at conception.

Yes, you can cut and paste my answer.

Thanks, I will use your piece.

Someone said this just now:

a tadpole (even frogspawn) is not a frog. Describe a frog. 4 legs,Amphibian etc Tadpole-not a frog. But is potential to become a frog. If i killed a tadpole,i killed a tadpole,i didn’t kill a frog. I killed a potential frog. I kill a bunch of cells,i didn’t kill a human. Thats my opinion.

This bunch of cells bit got me rilled up a while back. When my 11 year old daughter asked me why I was so frustrated I told her that someone had said that it was okay to kill an unborn child because they were only a bunch of cells. She replied ‘well we are all just a bunch of cells’ and I thought oh that is right we are all just a bunch of cells.

Thanks you people are great. I think one of you just joined up on and I thank and bless God for this! Please pray that the light of truth may shine on them.

You know, bobolink, I have encountered that same thing in my debates on this issue. I have brought up science as my argument and have been met with the “Well, I don’t believe that” or “That’s not true” answers.

If you are being asked to prove that life begins at conception, and you cite them textbooks backing up that very fact, then they can no longer argue against you without refuting the evidence you have brought to the debate. They always will tell you that the burden of proof is on you, but when you have, in all actuality, proved what they challenged you to prove, then it is at that point up to them to prove you wrong. And guess what? They can’t. That’s why the only answers you’ll get back from them are “Well, it’s not a person though” or “it’s different than a full grown person”. But they will not be able to give you any references to back up those claims because references that would back them up don’t exist.

In Christ,

Or, you could pull a Barack Obama and say, “That’s above my pay grade.” (Just kidding, of course) :wink:

Thanks Rand. I will do that.

I said:

Can you prove, using science, that human life does not begin at conception? Can you refute the science I have presented in my links and in my posts?

They said:

Yeah hang on a second…ill get my test tubes out and stick on a cup of coffee.^^

No one in pro-choice debates that human life starts at conception…or earlier even(A sperm is human life at an earlier stage)
What I debate is the “importance” of “human life”. Why do you class “human” life as being so important? That you could become so enraged at the abortion of the unborn yet not bat an eyelid or care about the slaughter of animals on a massive scale. What is it that makes us more special than those creatures?

I am not quite sure how to proceed!

I said:

As regards the unborn, when he/she pulls away from the needle in pain as I described above, this is not opinion, it is observable scientific fact.

They said:

Do they scream ‘ow’ and cower in a corner of the womb as well?

Your views here are very black and white and you’ve avoided all of that grey in between the two.

I wouldn’t question that basic life starts at conception but the choice to have an abortion is not as simple as you’d like to convey it as. People choose abortion for many reasons be it as a result of threats to the life of the mother (which i’d rate much more over that of a collection of cells) or due to circumstances such as rape or incest.

And this:

I said:

To Virgil: Do you believe human life doesn’t really matter? Is my life no more valuable than that of a snail?

Virgil said:

Not until you acquire what it is that separates us and animals. But then you’re not an unborn child are you?
Humans are easily inferior to a VAST amount of animals in a number of ways.
I cant run as fast as a large cat, i cant see as accurately as a bird of prey, im not as strong or agile as a gorrila.But i still classify myself as more important.

I beleive that i(and you), are superior to a snail because we’re more intelligent.A gift bestowed upon us by our brain and the consciousness formed by it.
Is there another way to differenciate ourselves from animals?The fact that something is “human life” or potentially human life doesnt hold great importance to me.
Do you believe killing a body without a brain to be immoral?

Hmmm… I need help here. :confused:

For those who claim we don’t know when life begins, then we should obviously err on the side of life. If they don’t know if life begins at conception or not, then they must admit that it is possible that life begins at conception and that life is human and thus a person.

Tell them to go to and defend what they see there.

Be forewarned, you are correct when you say that some of these people have a heart of stone and they will not be moved. You could show them pictures of violently murdered toddlers and they would justify it if it were expedient for them to do so. Although they may claim to be secular, atheist or whatever, abortion is the sacrament of their religion and you are attacking it.


From your post #13, he is saying that you ignore the massive slaughter of animals (is he vegaterean, vegan?) all the while you are enraged by the killing of unborn children. Keeping in mind that you are arguing with someone who probably places a higher value on animal life then on human life, go back and tell him that you are discussing the massive slaughter of human life here and that animal rights is another topic altogether. He’s using avoidance to redirect the debate. Get him back on topic. Ask him when, in his opinion, is human life worthy of being protected. Is it at some point before birth, at birth or at sometime after birth or never?

Thanks Mizer.

This is how things are going now:

It is hard to prove abortion is not wrong when you take out God as part of the givens, because without God everything is permissible.

Without God in the picture, then we become the moral arbiter. My vantage point is where everything get’s decided. If a baby is inconvenient and I will not have to kill it myself (let’s get a doctor to do the evil deed) then it becomes easier.

I asked a friend who thinks abortion is okay if she would have no qualms cutting her 1 year old child into pieces and she thought I was being grosse. So I said what is so wrong to do that to 1 year old and yet permissible to do this to a person a few weeks old. Why does a few months difference in lifespan make a difference? It seems how far along life we’ve travelled makes a difference

But if this is the case, then it would seem that when times get tough it is okay to dispose of the younger ones in the family to alleviate any financial hardships.

On the argument of preserving the life of a mother, I pose this scenario. A madman is on a rampage ands find mother and child huddled in a corner in fear. The madman says that if the mother does not let him kill her child, he will have to kill her (the mother).
Would a decent mother opt to allow the lunatic to kill her child to save herself.

It is a bit difficult to argue something that is a moral issue if we take away the source of our morality.

Proponents of abortion and contraception have already been born.

No matter how much science you throw at pro-abortionists, because of the so called “choice” which really translates to "I am a law unto myself ", it will matter zilch.

Having said that, check out the link below to Elizabeth Fox Genovese’s conversion. It was her questions regarding abortion and who has the right to decide who lives that started her journey into faith.

People choose abortion for many reasons be it as a result of threats to the life of the mother (which i’d rate much more over that of a collection of cells) or due to circumstances such as rape or incest.

Read “Victims and Victors”. This is a book on Victims of rape and incest. The most interesting thing is that this is the first documented study on victims of rape and incest who conceived, and an overwhelming majority preferred to continue with the pregnancy. And some of those who didn’t were actually pressured into killing their babies by “well-intended” families and friends.

It seems those who actually suffered this heinous crimes are more compassionate than the pro-choice loby who claim to speak for them. These victims are also very angry that the pro-choice people act as though they speak for the victims when they don’t.

Out of all the innocents that have been aborted, could it be possible one of these innocents may have had the cures for many illnesses and deformaties ?

Just imagine all the possabilities that could have been there and some are willing to throw them away :confused:

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