Why are you pro-choice 19Sept2018 Trent call


So I called into the CAL to talk about why be pro-choice on 19Sept2018 with Trent. The conversation was going along fine and we had to take a break. They hung up on me over the break and every time I tried to call back in, they kept hanging up on me without ever explaining why. I used the name Carlos from Denver.

So if we could pick it up where we left off with this conversation.

The pro-choice position, as I understand it, is about consent of use for someone’s body. I gave the example of how a woman consenting to sex is fine, but as soon as she withdraws it or never gives it to begin with, it is called rape since it is a violation of her body against her consent. This is the conflict between someone else’s right to life and someone else’s right to bodily use. Your right to life is secondary to my right to defend myself from you assaulting me. I get to stop you from assaulting me and can use lethal force if I have to since you have to have my consent to use my body. That seems to be the argument. Killing someone to stop them from assaulting you is not a moral action to take, but it is a necessary action to end the assault. So abortion is an immoral justified action in that you are violating someone else’s humanity by killing them (the immoral part), but justified because you are trying to stop the assault on your body by someone else you do not consent to use your body. So its about, can you justify why you took someone’s life. Not whether or not it is moral. Killing someone in self defense or not is still killing someone and that is an immoral action. Hope that clears up the line between a justified action and a moral action.

Parents are not required to donate kidneys to their child without the parents’ consent, even if the child dies. The child is a human at an earlier stage of development, just as a fetus is, just as a teenager is. You are not allowed to grant one group of people special rights over others. It must be applied equally to all. Since the child has no right to the parents’ kidney without consent, the fetus has no right to use the mother to stay alive without her consent. Otherwise everyone that is not an organ donor is a murder then. Ending a pregnancy is ending the assault of the fetus to the woman since the woman is not consenting. The fetus will die of natural causes without that connection to the woman just like a child that needs a kidney will die if the parents do not donate a kidney. Even if the parents were in charge of the event that caused the child to need a kidney transplant, the child does not have a right to the parents’ kidneys. Such as if the parents ran a red light, caused a car accident with their child in the car. How is this different from adults engaging in sex and having an accidental pregnancy and then the woman decides to not save the child’s life by choosing not to use her body to save it?


In order for consent to be given or denied, permission has to be asked. The fetus didn’t ask the mother’s permission to use her body, was told no, but decided to use it anyway. Pregnancy is not an accident but a natural consequence of sexual intercourse. The only “assault” is the killing of an innocent child for actions it had no control over.


You don’t really expect Christians to endorse chopping up innocent children, do you?


This. Consent to possible pregnancy was given when the man and woman had sex. The child did not ask to be brought into the world, the child had no choice, the child was not given an option or made aware that their mother would rather see them dead than support them for at the very least 6 months (age of viability is getting lower and lower these days). It’s like finding someone in your home after you left a sign out front that said “Free lodging, here”. Chopping that person into little bits, sucking their brains out through a straw, or burning them to death with chemicals to get them out of your house after you invited them in is absolutely immoral and disgusting. In fact, I’d argue that the laws in this country would rule that doing so is murder because you invited the person in. Having sex is an open invitation for the conception of a child, always. It’s no secret how babies are made…

And if we’re talking about applying laws equally, you make the argument that abortion is simply the mother refusing to provide the necessities for survival for an unborn child. Let’s fast forward that thinking to a one year old. If a mother decides that the child has no right to her body so she feeds the baby, makes sure it’s warm and clean, and refuses to hold the child it will die.

All courts in the United States would absolutely argue that the parents in the case would be guilty of criminal neglect, resulting in the death of a child. They would be arrested, charged, and sent to prison. In this case it is VERY clear that children have the right to the bodies of their parents insofar as is needed for basic survival in normal conditions. Although, this goes even further because the law dictated that failure to provide medical care for health concerns is also criminal neglect. Same is true for parents that have a child who refuse to feed the child, shelter it, or give him or her other necessities for life.

The real question is when the right to that kind of care is demanded of the parent. I, for one, say that the moment that child is a unique life form, distinct from the mother. This happens at the moment of conception. A fertilized egg is actually a self-sustaining life form and survives for nearly 2 weeks before implantation (and a few days after) on a yolk sac until the umbilical cord is established. It’s a wholly unique form of life, and classified as such by being a growing, consuming, genetically unique, and self-sustaining organism.

tl;dr Just as you can’t invite a person into your house and murder them for being a “home invader”, you can’t invite a child into your body by having sex and then murder him or her.


I remember when I was pregnant, a group of my friends-- about 10-20 years older than me-- were all sitting around a picnic table, and they were all swapping pregnancy stories for my benefit.

One of them, a very smart engineer, piped up, “I could never be a mom. I could never be pregnant. I mean, it would be like having a parasite inside of you.”

We all laughed-- haha, what a joke-- but it took me a few moments to realize she was serious. She seriously, genuinely equated the normal propagation-of-the-species-this-is-how-reproduction-works with, say, tapeworms or barnacles or Spanish moss.

And here you are, equating the normal propagation-of-the-species-this-is-how-reproduction-works with an outside organism undertaking an assault on someone’s body. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

If I’m not interested in kids, then I don’t indulge in activities that have reproduction as one possible outcome.

If I do engage in activities that have reproduction as a possible outcome— then I’m not surprised if the obvious happens. (Well, it’s actually a pretty small window of opportunity. But you know what I mean.)

By consenting to engage in activities that have reproduction as a possible outcome-- that’s consent right there. Just like I don’t ride roller coasters, but I don’t consent to have my hair get messed up. Or I eat cake every meal, but I don’t consent to get fat. Or I stay up hours past my bedtime on CAF, but I don’t consent to be a slug in the morning.

The lack-of-consent is actually the basis for the rape exception that some people claim to espouse— “I’m against it, except in cases of rape or incest.” The counter to that, of course, is that you don’t erase one act of violence against an innocent person with another act of violence against another innocent person.

However, you’re not even trying to make that polite distinction. You’re saying every pregnancy is an assault, by its nature-- unless you’re in the mood to be pregnant.


what is CAL? is that canadian talk radio; you are never going to get anywhere there

canadian is is far more stridently pro-abortion than the USA; and trust me. that takes ion “a load of territory”

i googggled “CAL Trent” ; i couldn’t find anything


It’s a radio program on EWTN. Catholic Answers Live, with staff apologist Trent Horn.


OK, now i understand…

thank you…

Trent Horn is one smart guy…


I used to like listening to it. Then there was some guy who wanted to discuss why Catholic priests burned all the Mayan books in the 16th c. Rather than discussing the subject honestly (or not taking the call if they didn’t want to get into the weeds), the answer was, “Duh, books weren’t invented until Gutenberg’s printing press! Goodbye!”

I stopped listening for a long time after that one. :stuck_out_tongue: Can’t remember who gave the answer, but the quality control was definitely not there that day. :slight_smile:


So you are against the method used to stop the assault, not the points presented then?


I am not sure if you are serious or not, but your argument is specious.


No it is not. Consent is to be given for the use of your body for the pregnancy to continue. Otherwise it is assault.

[quote=“Delphinus, post:4, topic:510993”]
Let’s fast forward that thinking to a one year old. If a mother decides that the child has no right to her body so she feeds the baby, makes sure it’s warm and clean, and refuses to hold the child [it will die.][/quote]
This is different since the child is not assaulting someone’s body. We are talking about consenting to the use of someone’s body. This is changing the topic to being a bad parent.

No one is arguing that the fetus is not a person.

Inviting someone into your house was first giving consent for this person to enter your house. The woman never consented to the person entering the house in the first place for an unwanted pregnancy. Also, you can always remove consent once given. Just like consenting to sex and half way through it you remove consent. Does the guy still have a right to keep raping you?


Someone is inside the woman and using her body against her will. That is assault. What else would you call the use of your body by someone else that you do not consent to?

Okay but I assume you drive a car. Do you consent to getting in a car accident then? No you don’t. You accept that is a risk to that behavior and then if you get in an accident, you don’t consent to keeping the broken arm. You take responsibility for fixing your broken arm.

No it is not. You are consenting to the risky behavior, then once something happens, you have to choose on how you want to address it. You can consent to keep being pregnant and allow the person to use your body or not. Just like if you consent to sex and then half way through it you decide to remove it. Does the guy get to keep using your body against your will because you gave consent to begin with?

Yes use of the woman’s body has to have her consent. Otherwise, everyone that is not an organ donor is a murder then for everyone born that requires an organ transplant. If your children require your body to stay alive after birth and you have a right to say no, then a fetus is held to the same standard. Change the laws to force every parent to loose their bodily rights for the full life of their children then.


I’m just looking at the argument presented. My position on the topic is irrelevant. This is what I was trying to argue and just seeing where the logic fails.


Why would you let one experience “ruin” it for you, or was it a long time coming?


As a further question, why do the dead have more rights than the living?

If someone doesn’t consent to organ donation (regardless of its an opt-in or opt-out scheme), then their organs aren’t taken when they die because the hospital doesn’t have consent from the deceased to do so. If however a woman gets pregnant then the RCC would argue that no matter what she should not be permitted an abortion, regardless of her views on the matter.


Embryos don’t ask permission because they are incapable of doing so. It’s not right to hold them to the same standard as people with developed brains and then kill them for not meeting it.


In this case, half that person originated from my own cells-- so where else would they live besides my body, while they grow and develop? Pregnancy is a natural process. If I wait nine months, they’ll naturally go on to the next stage, but it will be about 20-25 years before they’re able to be truly independent organisms. :wink: That’s like arguing that a baby is an unauthorized roommate, or calling your five-year-old a boarder and kicking him out for not paying rent. You’re taking basic biology and trying to scramble in criminal law to justify something that’s morally reprehensible.

If I drive to the grocery store like a normal person, I don’t expect to have an accident, although since I don’t live in a bubble-wrap world, it’s a potential risk. But if I blow through a red light at 50 mph, my chances of having an accident are enormously increased, and if I end up in one, I shouldn’t be surprised.

When we’re pregnant, the mother’s body and the baby’s body work together to cooperate. They’re in constant communication, and my body shifts to accommodate the various needs at various times. I don’t have to deliberately do much-- except I find myself instinctively looking for certain nutrients more than I did when I wasn’t pregnant. (One kid required a lot of pineapple! One kid required a lot of avocado!) It’s amazingly cool to actually watch.

It’s biology. It’s reproduction. But it isn’t criminal assault.


Hey op, under current us law if I murder a pregnant woman I’m charged with two murders because I terminated the life of the unborn child.

But if I only murder the child via abortion I’m not charged with a crime under us law. Abortion is simply the taking of a life of an unborn child. No one goes up to a pregnant woman and says, so I bet you can’t wait until the clump of cells inside you become alive. This is because everyone recognizes that there’s a baby inside of her. Science shows that the origin of life begins at conception.

I heard your call on catholic answers. You seemed to not understand. So I’m going to explain it to you. When you have sex, you open yourself up to the risk that you may get pregnant. That’s the natural result of sex anyway. Now people can try to contracept but it’s never 100%. Your argument on the show was ridiculous. I think you said if you rock climb you don’t consent to getting hurt. But OP, if you rock climb you open yourself up to the risk. You consent to making that risk. That’s the distinction. It’s like if you eat nothing but fast food you don’t consent to developing diabetes. But guess what, life doesn’t work that way. Our actions have consequences. You may develop heart disease or diabetes by only eating junk. Just as when you have sex, there’s a risk you may get pregnant. These are consequences of your actions. It doesn’t matter if you consent to the consequences. They just happen. What’s not okay is to deal with consequences by murdering them.

Even if someone was raped, which is horrible, it’s not okay to justify murdering the innocent child who is already a victim. Children deserve to be born into a family.


Consenting to drive is consenting to a car crash. You know a crash is possible, yet you chose to drive.

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.