The abortion argument that catches people?

So I recently had a mostly civil debate with some people, most of whom were pro-abortion andone who claimed was pro-life but does not want to end abortion (logic bud, logic) and finally, after telling them to shove their ‘what about rape’ rubbish as they don’t care for these women, and after telling them that babies are human irregardless of their situation at birth or conception, their final argument boiled down to this: they don’t want children to suffer through poverty, an irrespnsible mother or through the flawed adoption business. One of them even told me that people aren’t going to adopt children they see as ‘flawed’, who have some disease or disability or have a diffirent race to the couple, the latter which I see as rubbish seeing as I’ve seen a ton of people adopt children of diffirent races.

So how do I refute this argument? If I had to state reasons why this argument is flawed, here they are: there are a ton of children suffering in this world. Some of them go on to lead better lives, some of them become delinquents and some of them instead fall into utter despair. This is pure generalizing BTW so not I’m only stating them as examples. Despite their suffering, we don’t wish these children were never born but instead want to help them. To say it’s better to be aborted than to live a miserable life is frankly insulting to people who lived miserable lives because they still have a future ahead of them. Despite their ordeal, they can still muster the strength to get up because God gives every one of us the strength to resist temptation and despair. I admit it’s not always easy especially with young children which is very hard for them but what if they got rescued? What type of logic is it to wish a child to never have been born instead of trying to save him or prevent him from undergoing horrible ordeals?

What do you guys think? I’m pro-life, 100% all the way. Even if humans are tortured and beaten, they still feel the pain and want to live. We should all just man up.

Logically they would be OK with killing those babies after birth. Let’s say on their first birthday, if they have not been adopted out to good homes, there should be no objection to killing them to save them a lifetime of poverty and suffering. See what they think about that.

Abortion is so attractive because it’s such a secret, private murder.

Yeah, right - we’re doing these babies a favor by killing them. We’re so compassionate that way.

Why stop there? Let’s go into the ghettos and slums and gun down all the people already living in poverty. We can’t tell the future, and we don’t really know for sure what fate awaits an unborn baby, but we sure know about the present, and there are a lot of suffering people out there - right now. Why should our “compassion” extend only to the unborn? If killing poor people is “compassionate” then why not gun them down right now?

The logic is the same (actually it’s even better, because, like I said, we are only speculating about the baby’s future, but are certain of the present, so we can only guess whether we are being compassionate to a baby, but are certain of our compassion to the poor folk that we murder).

If you go into the poorest neighborhood, grab a kid, put a gun to his head and ask, “do you want to be poor, or do you want to be dead?” What do you think this poor, suffering kid would say?

He would choose life.

Tell them they don’t have the right to decide that the tribulations of other people make their lives unworthy or a fate worse than death. Many people have not had the best beginings but ending up with a fullfilling life. Are they going to tell those people and the people who love them that they should have been killed in the womb so they wouldn’t have to deal with the trials of life?

Thats my point. What are these people and we by extension doing to help delinquents or these children in need? The will to live is tronger than anything else. We don’t know their future so we should preserve it so that they’d grow up into people who love life. As if there weren’t people who passed through more sufferring than most and never gave up.

Yeah, right - we’re doing these babies a favor by killing them. We’re so compassionate that way.

Why stop there? Let’s go into the ghettos and slums and gun down all the people already living in poverty. We can’t tell the future, and we don’t really know for sure what fate awaits an unborn baby, but we sure know about the present, and there are a lot of suffering people out there - right now. Why should our “compassion” extend only to the unborn? If killing poor people is “compassionate” then why not gun them down right now?

The logic is the same…
[/quote]

You made a very good point about the pro-abortion side’s strange notion of compassion.

A certain nobleman was once interested in eliminating poverty in his realm. He invited all the local poor, handicapped and elderly people to a free dinner party. After they ate and drank he asked them if they were interested in seeing an end to their poverty and to cease being a burden on their families. When they all agreed that this sounded like a good notion, the nobleman locked them in the house and burned it to the ground.

The nobleman was Vlad the Impaler. Naturally, the lesson here is that those who promote abortion in order to save people from poverty should consider the fact that (in essence) they end up being on the same ideological side as the guy who was the historical inspiration for Dracula.

Wow, and he’s regarded as a national hero in his home town. Geez louis.

The amazing G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like.” Throw that one at 'em. After they, in a spluttering rage, accuse **you **of being the crazy, evil one, ask them to explain why not. Sit back and marvel at the ridiculous incoherence of their answers.

As JPII said in theology of the body, the abortion debate boils down to not having the right to kill a baby but rather to have unrestricted sex or sex without consequences, and of course the answer to this unrestricted sex is abortion because babies are viewed as consequences and not human beings with dignity and rights and are in the mind of some people "disposable ". You want to end abortion? Change society and sexuality. Until then abortion is still going to be available and widely practiced because it’s seen as the ultimate answer to unrestricted sex

The Pro Abortion lobby make the argument that abortion is about the human rights of women.

No human right that I know of can be ethically or morally invoked sincerely which results in one human right (women) being enpowered at the expense of another human right (unborn).

It is a bogus and deceitful argument by the Pro Abortion lobby when they invoke human rights.

Abortion is an abomination.

And the irony is that many more female babies are aborted around the world than male babies. Tens of millions more girls than boys have been killed in the name of women’s rights.

In addition to the great answers already posted, you might also ask whose standard are they using to judge what “suffering in poverty” is…and even ask them to define it. Then ask them to show some evidence that babies born out of wedlock or born from parents who offer them for adoption are in these destitute situations…so horrible that it would justify killing them.

He is regarded as a national hero because he successfully fought the Ottomans who wanted to conquer Wallachia after the fall of Constantinople. And he also was praised as a defender of Christianity by Pope Pius II, because he responded to the pope’s call for a crusade against the Ottomans.

Sadly; it really come down to that…
There is no logic in our world…
[INDENT]Only those who smear the best. :([/INDENT]

A couple I’ve had some ‘success’ with (by success, I mean almost seeing the wheels in their heads spin, and watching them get a little itchy, backpeddling, diversionery tactics, etc.):

  1. Do you wish your parents had aborted you?

  2. Can you produce any witnesses that would ‘testify’ that they wished their parents had aborted them?

The point follows naturally–if you gave the kid a ‘vote’–they’d probably veto the abortion idea. (and of course, if not, there’s always suicide–but then it’s on them).

Talk about ‘disenfranchised’…

The sad part is that many would agree with this method. There are many abortionists out there who literally kill babies who are “accidentally” born alive. And, that is what partial birth abortion is basically. I believe there is some abortionist on trial right now for killing a number of babies who were born alive–and I believe one of his “nurses” is also on trial for assisting in those murders. It is interesting too to note that many in the abortion industry know very little about their foundress, Margaret Sanger. She was a rabid racist, anti-semite, and promoted forced sterilization on those who she deemed sub-human. She also was a eugenics promoter and a strong supporter of euthanasia. Of course, you’ll not hear that from planned parenthood or other abortion supporters. I guess it’s their “dirty little secret” that’s not so secret anymore.

To be honest, I never bring up the Margaret Sanger scandal because her immoral and loathesomely evil activities don’t feature in the abortion essence of the abortion debate, the fact that babies are human and no human really wants to die.

But I agree with everyone here, thanks for all the good answers. I actually did put forth the ‘what if you were aborted’ question and they said they wouldn’t care. I told them what about family? What about a career? What about being loved? Screw all that, it’s better to obey the wishes of a mother and a bunch of selfish jerks who throw others away than to follow your own path.

People aren’t usually “pro” abortion…they are pro “choice”.
There is a difference.

Pro-choicers feel a person must have the* free will* to decide for themselves the choices they make in life.
Like God. Who gave people the *free will *to decide for themselves the choices they make in life.

I suppose an all-loving, all powerful, all-knowing God could have made choices like abortion or murder or divorce or all sorts of other upsetting circumstances that happen to people without their choice --like starvation and devastating earthquakes or illnesses–impossible.
But he didn’t.
He wanted people to have free will…and, he allows tragedy and pain to happen to them.

.

Choice occurs BEFORE another human life is involved. ABORTION is making another human being pay the ultimate price for your irresponsibility…a common theme in today’s modern society.

Not really, because the term “pro-choice” is almost exclusively used in the context of the topic of legalized abortion. I say “almost” because I can’t say that there are no exceptions, but I certainly haven’t heard of any. So I think that your position that people who consider themselves pro-choice “aren’t usually pro-abortion” is completely false. Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

Consider the current situation going on in New York City about Mayor Bloomberg’s desire to ban large soft drinks. Those in opposition to this aren’t specifically labeling it a “pro-choice” issue. Even though the issue is, indeed, one of choice, they express their position in different terminology (an action which acknowledges that the term “pro-choice” is typically understood to mean “pro-abortion”). Generally speaking, in today’s society “pro-choice” is simply a euphemism for “pro-abortion.”

Pro-choicers feel a person must have the* free will* to decide for themselves the choices they make in life.
Like God. Who gave people the *free will *to decide for themselves the choices they make in life.

I suppose an all-loving, all powerful, all-knowing God could have made choices like abortion or murder or divorce or all sorts of other upsetting circumstances that happen to people without their choice --like starvation and devastating earthquakes or illnesses–impossible.
But he didn’t.
He wanted people to have free will…and, he allows tragedy and pain to happen to them.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that because humans have freewill then the law should allow people to do whatever they choose? Human freedom is very broad but it has limits, and that has always been the case. Consider what God said in the Garden of Eden: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die’” (Genesis 2:16-17, RSV).

In the U.S. a person has the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” One of the main purposes of the law is to protect this right on behalf of people, especially for the sake of the weaker members of society. Moreover, no one is to be denied this right without the due process of law. For example, someone cannot be executed (i.e., denial of life) or imprisoned (i.e., denial of liberty & the pursuit of happiness) unless first put on trial and found guilty of a serious crime. The fact that people have freewill does not subvert these responsibilities of the law. Once again, human freedom always has limitations. One of the biggest problems with abortion is that the unborn are denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Moreover, they are denied this right without due process of law, because the legalization of abortion stemmed from a ruling on a woman’s right to privacy, leaving the question of the rights of the unborn completely unaddressed.

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.