People being against Pro Lifers


#1

I am not sure whether this is in the right section of posting. I just saw a post from a friend on fb who wrote I don't understand whats with religious people being against abortion if its my own body and baby I can do as I wish~ this is a male that was posting.... he wrote obviously I'm not pregnant but he was obviously trying to make a point about how "religious" people try to get people who want to have an abortion not to. He sees it as imposing your beliefs on someone.

I guess there are some in the Pro life movement who go about it the totally wrong way by using the whole murder idea and rubbing that in. But I am not sure there is really anything wrong with peacefully making a point that it is wrong. If it were not for the people who peacefully make a point of the wrongness then it may be a lot worse than it already is. Sure we know we cannot force people to change their minds or to tell them what to do, but we have a concern about not only their welfare but the welfare of their child. It is not about forcing beliefs on anyone for control, it is about the core point of life that is at stake. Sadly I think many people forget that and start to think we are somehow doing them harm by saying abortion is wrong. Knowing people that have had an abortion I 100% disagree with my friend that it is just a case of imposing our beliefs, no it is a case of love. Love for the mother who if has an abortion will likely regret it for the rest of her life, and love for the child.


#2

You may want to ask him why he gets to impose his beliefs on the baby?


#3

I guess he was trying to make a point of why do people think they can impose their beliefs on others when its not their body....

But I guess its not about imposing beliefs on anyone because at the end of the day we cannot tell people what to do, we can only hope and pray they choose the right path.


#4

Yes, but you can point out the hypocrisy of his logic. He is claiming you are imposing your view on others while he is imposing his view on the baby.


#5

If it was solely a matter of one person's body, I agree (to an extent), but what about the body of the unborn child?


#6

[quote="fix, post:4, topic:323992"]
Yes, but you can point out the hypocrisy of his logic. He is claiming you are imposing your view on others while he is imposing his view on the baby.

[/quote]

This argument to you and me and countless others makes perfect sense. How someone can't understand this part of it is amazing to me. And your point is a good one for this particular person's argument, because he said "It's my body and my baby..." but many, as you and I both know, convince themselves that it is not a baby at all. Just a clump of cells. What I REALLY don't get is: when does it become your baby then? When you wanted it? Everyone would agree that if an abortion were forced upon a woman against her will, that it would be an absolute travesty. "How dare they take her baby?! What gave them the right???" But if the mom decides to do it, they say "It wasn't a baby. Just a clump of cells." It is so deeply hypocritical that there is next to no arguing with them, because logic is morphed and twisted only to support their "feelings". It leaves me scratching my head.

There was a story in the local news of a woman who went out to "celebrate" her pregnancy with friends by getting drunk and high--obviously a bad move. She then got behind the wheel, and accidentally hit and killed a man. She was recently on trial for this. And do you know what else she did? She went out and aborted her baby as "contrition" for taking this man's life. I believe her actual quote was, "I couldn't bring a life into this world knowing I had taken one out." And the bulk of the comments on the news story were in support of her making this decision because she was an unfit mother, rather than encouraging adoption. It just makes me sick. Can anybody follow that logic? She felt guilty for taking the life of a man (as she well should) so to try and make things better, she went and took the life of the same baby that she was out celebrating.

Mother Mary, pray for us.


#7

[quote="Ophelia23, post:6, topic:323992"]
This argument to you and me and countless others makes perfect sense. How someone can't understand this part of it is amazing to me. And your point is a good one for this particular person's argument, because he said "It's my body and my baby..." but many, as you and I both know, convince themselves that it is not a baby at all. Just a clump of cells. What I REALLY don't get is: when does it become your baby then? When you wanted it? Everyone would agree that if an abortion were forced upon a woman against her will, that it would be an absolute travesty. "How dare they take her baby?! What gave them the right???" But if the mom decides to do it, they say "It wasn't a baby. Just a clump of cells." It is so deeply hypocritical that there is next to no arguing with them, because logic is morphed and twisted only to support their "feelings". It leaves me scratching my head.

There was a story in the local news of a woman who went out to "celebrate" her pregnancy with friends by getting drunk and high--obviously a bad move. She then got behind the wheel, and accidentally hit and killed a man. She was recently on trial for this. And do you know what else she did? She went out and aborted her baby as "contrition" for taking this man's life. I believe her actual quote was, "I couldn't bring a life into this world knowing I had taken one out." And the bulk of the comments on the news story were in support of her making this decision because she was an unfit mother, rather than encouraging adoption. It just makes me sick. Can anybody follow that logic? She felt guilty for taking the life of a man (as she well should) so to try and make things better, she went and took the life of the same baby that she was out celebrating.

Mother Mary, pray for us.

[/quote]

Wow. It is a perverse logic. I really think there is no one argument that will convince anyone who does not want to be convinced. The Holy Spirit works on hearts. Hopefully our arguments will be remembered and at some point it will click with the person.


#8

Being against murder is not really an “imposition” if it’s a matter of basic justice and morality. I also like the other answers above pointing out the hypocrisy.


#9

Why does our society get to impose its views on a mother of a new-born baby who wants to commit infanticide?

Keep in mind when the act of abortion is done with full knowledge and consent, it is murder. That’s the reason why men and women involved in an abortion incur automatic ex-communication from the Church.

Now I am not saying you need to accuse people of being murderers. Just keep it in your mind that the point behind abortion isn’t about ending the life of babies (those babies almost certainly go to heaven and the devil loses them forever), the big victory for Satan is that he transforms a mother, father, grandparent, abortionist, politician, etc into murderers.


#10

They -can- understand the argument in favor of the child’s rights just as they understand the rights of the mother.
But they won’t internalize and accept the rights of the child. They deny the obvious contradiction because the child is voiceless, helpless, and unseen. The powerful subjugate the meek. It is very easy to disregard the rights of the voiceless. It’s a lack of vision, lack of “hope in things unseen” as Paul would say.


#11

The idea that we can’t “impose our beliefs” on what others can do with or to their bodies is deeply flawed given that the following are apparently totally acceptable-
-laws concerning legal and illegal drug use
-laws and guidelines concerning selling of organs, plastic surgery, elective surgery
-laws concerning selling our bodies or part of it for food
-laws and medical practices concerning forced medication
-laws concerning prostitution and slavery
-restrictions placed on prisoners
-restrictions placed on law enforcement and military personal


#12

That’s the sad fact of it. It doesn’t matter how logical, rational and reasonable you are; people who don’t want to change won’t change. They’ll convince themselves you’re being irrational because you’re statements contradict their opinions and beliefs. For these types, the only remedy is prayer and the intercession of the Holy Spirit.


#13

Right. And these laws are based on protecting the dignity of the human person, a fundamental right which all others flow from.

If we can just take for ourselves the definition of what is human, then we can apply these laws not for the dignity of every human person, but in favor of the strong over the weak.
Then anything goes, if you have enough power.


#14

This goes back to the old argument.

“Wasn’t slavery legal for a long time?” “Were not slaves not seen as being whole human beings?”- Dredd Scott, 3/5ths a person (and yes, this is a part of history I can not readily pull up). Why not set it arbitrarily that parents should be able to do with their children in their home until they leave the house?

Though she is pro-choice at least early on in a pregnancy, Megan McArdle, former Atlantic article has written stimulating posts on this.

Listening to the debates about abortion**, it seems to me that really broad swathes of the pro-choice movement seem to genuinely not understand that this is a debate about personhood, which is why you get moronic statements like “If you think abortions are wrong, don’t have one!” **If you think a fetus is a person, it is not useful to be told that you, personally, are not required to commit murder, as long as you leave the neighbors alone while they do it.

Conversely, if Africans are not people, then slavery is not wrong. Or at least it’s arguably not wrong–if Africans occupy some intermediate status between persons and animals**, then there is at least a legitimate argument for treating them like animals, rather than people.

The difference between our reaction to the two is that now we know Africans are people. It seems ridiculous to think that anyone ever thought they might not be people. They meet all the relevant criteria for personhood in twenty-first century America.

But of course, those criteria are socially constructed. The definition of personhood (and, related, of citizenship) changes over time.

“A really long post about abortion”- Megan McArdle

The person who you seem to have taken note of is using nothing less than a '70s feminist type of argument. I admit, it’s a difficult dilemma. All of the old axioms come into this along with saying there was a choice long before the child was conceived, that the person saying this benefitted from another making a choice for life.


#15

There is a disconnect. A logical disconnect and a moral disconnect.


#16

[quote="BroomWagon, post:14, topic:323992"]
..... All of the old axioms come into this along with saying there was a choice long before the child was conceived, that the person saying this benefitted from another making a choice for life.

[/quote]

Freedom (choice) is not God. Every person is subject to God, or at least someone else, even if you are an atheist.
If we can make freedom god, anything is justifiable.

The woman on Catholic Answers radio show last night had an interesting take on the word choice. She asked a caller:
" Do you agree that a man has the right to take?"
The caller was of course befuddled.
" Do you agree that a man has the right to take?"
"Take what?"
"So then you agree that a man does not have a blanket right to take".
Don't know what you are talking about.
"You said a woman has a right to choose. That does not mean she has a blanket right to choose anything".

I am paraphrasing,but this was a very good technique.


#17

That is why “pro choice” is a complete lie and obfuscation. It is exactly pro abortion.


#18

Right. It’s like saying that certain dictators were not pro-genocide.


#19

I think it is one of the great lies of the abortion debate that simply presenting a pro-life viewpoint is construed as “imposing one’s religious beliefs.” That is patently false. It is simply a ploy to intimidate pro-life people to silence.

Obviously, our faith has much to say about this issue, but fundamentally, it is not solely a religious issue. Does the person think that it is okay to torture toddlers for fun? Can a mother decide after two weeks that her newborn is too much work and toss her in the dumpster? Why is being against abortion a “religious imposition” but these other things are not?

What the whole abortion debate boils down to is that the vast majority of those who favor abortion simply do not believe – all evidence to the contrary – that an unborn baby is actually a human being. They come up with all sorts of sophistry to spin popular opinion in their favor. They try to make the debate about anything but the personhood of the unborn. But when it comes down to it, if they really believed the simple biological fact that the unborn are people, then none of those arguments would make any sense whatsoever.

But, yes, stereotypes abound. Many choose to write off pro-lifers as religious fanatics because that is what jives with their society-constructed narrative. For them to think otherwise would challenge them to be open to the possibility that they are wrong.


#20

God gave us free will, not the tyranny of relevancy.


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.