Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Demolishing Pro-Choice Arguments

The pro-abortion crowd can be a little slippery with their arguments. They decided long before they looked at the evidence that they wanted abortion to be okay so it could be made legal. It was just a matter of rationalizing their idea to get people to agree with them. In order to do this, they have employed a number of tactics designed to explain away an unborn child’s right to life and justify abortion.

They started out by denying that the unborn child was alive. "We don't know when life begins," they said. Then science made it very clear when life begins. At fertilization a new individual with a unique set of DNA is formed. That is simple fact. Check any introductory biology text. A fetus grows and develops. Non-living things do not do that. There is no question that the unborn are alive from the moment of conception. 

So they updated their argument and said that maybe it was alive, but it wasn't human. It's just a fish or a frog...or maybe just a lump of tissue. Well, science had something to say about that too. The unborn child has human DNA and follows the unique human development sequence. Ultrasounds show that it is definitely a developing individual, not simply an overgrowth of tissue. The unborn child can be shown to be genetically distinct from the mother. No question, science says it is a separate human being. 

So, the next argument was that maybe it's a live human, but it's not a person. This is a trickier argument because science cannot answer this one. This is a metaphysical question of value, not scientific fact. To use this trick, they had to differentiate between humans and persons in some way. They use various criteria for the all-important difference, but none of them hold up to scrutiny. The most common argument is that a fetus isn't a person because it isn't self-conscious. Well, we don't really know that, but even if it is true, the same could be said of newborns. There is nothing that happens at birth that changes a baby’s state of consciousness (or anything else, for that matter). On top of that, there are others we consider persons who also lack self-consciousness - those who are in a coma or a vegetative state, for example. Even healthy children and adults are unconscious during sleep or while under anesthesia. Are these not persons when they lack consciousness? Are they not entitled to the protection of the law? Obviously, this argument has fatal flaws. 

Actually, there are just 4 differences between an unborn child and other human beings:

  • Size

  • Location

  • Stage of Development

  • Degree of Dependency

None of these form a logical basis for denying personhood. You cannot use any of these criteria to define personhood without serious ethical ramifications because you would be denying personhood to many individuals, not just the unborn. 

The last argument, and the one which is perhaps the most sinister, is that an unborn child is indeed a living human person, but that it has no right to live off of its mother. The mother's right to bodily autonomy, they say, is absolute and no child has the right to use his mother's body for shelter or sustenance. They view the child as a parasite, feeding from the mother, and this gives her every right to kill him in their opinion. What a twisted view!

The thing is, a woman's body is designed to bear children and the existence of a child within her womb is not at all like a parasite taking from its host. Further, a woman has a responsibility to her child. A mother cannot refuse to feed her child after he is born. She cannot leave a newborn out in the cold to die. The child has an inalienable right to live. When you create a child, you have the unavoidable responsibility for taking care of that life. Outside the womb, this means you must feed and shelter that child. It means the same thing before birth. The difference is, before birth the options are more limited as to where that care can take place. The unborn child needs the protection of the mother's womb just as babies who have been born need clothing and milk. A mother cannot refuse to meet the needs in the latter case, so why should she be allowed to neglect the needs in the former case? The child's rights have not changed. The mother's responsibility has not changed. Birth changes only the location of the baby - not his status as a human being and not his right to live.

61 comments:

  1. So well written and clear! I agree with you 100%! Such a sad world we live in when so many rationalize the killing of human life with their irrational arguments which you eloquently stated! Thanks for linking to NOBH!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think something you forgot to mention is the question of when the mother's life is at risk. This can come in more than one form, but it does indeed happen. If I were to become pregnant, my life would be at risk - I likely wouldn't make it through the pregnancy. To have a chance at all, I would have to live in a hospital under constant watch throughout the pregnancy, and for a long time after the baby was born, in a hell that most people can't fathom. I can't afford that, so I would die along with the baby - unless I had an abortion. I can't put my husband and family through that. I have already discussed this with my husband and some of my family, and they agree. My husband actually said that it was something that had already crossed his mind.

    There are also ectopic pregnancies, which are very serious.

    I believe that any abortion is a tragedy. It's something that must be avoided at all costs - which is why safe sex education is so important, as well as providing birth control options to women. I take my birth control faithfully, and have never had a problem with it. I am a Christian. But if I did happen to get pregnant, against all odds, I would get an abortion. I would have no other choice. Abortion needs to be legal because in some cases it is the only option. In most cases it can be avoided - see my above statement about sex ed and providing birth control. But, sometimes it is the only option, and that needs to be provided for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Direct abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life (and this has been testified by many physicians). Killing the unborn child is not a treatment for any disease or disability of the mother. There are cases, such as ectopic pregnancy or cancer, where the treatment of the mother inadvertently harms or even kills the unborn child. However, this is not abortion in the usual sense because the child's death is not an intended consequence. Making abortion illegal does not place women in danger or prevent them from receiving necessary treatments.

      When a pregnant woman needs treatment that may harm her unborn child, the doctor should realize that he has two patients to care for, not just one, and should do everything possible to save both. However, the baby will die if the mother dies while the reverse is not true. Thus, saving the life of the mother takes precedence. Sometimes only one can be saved and the child dies. Again, this is not abortion, just a sad consequence of saving the mother.

      If someone wants to make the argument that abortion should be legal in cases where the life of the mother is at stake, I can see that (although I don't think it is necessary). It might put more people at ease to have that option spelled out. However, I am against an across-the-board exception for the health of the mother because this is too broad and can be so easily abused.

      The question becomes "What constitutes a risk to the mother's health?" Is the "emotional trauma" associated with not wanting to be pregnant sufficient? Is it enough if she is simply diabetic or overweight and has a slightly higher risk pregnancy? Without clear guidelines, a "health of the mother" exception can be used to rationalize any abortion.

      Delete
  3. Also when someone murders a pregnant woman then it becomes a human being because they are charged with double homicide. Interesting how they decide it is human when someone else
    kills the unborn child. Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If raped you feel the woman should be forced to carry to term? If an 11 year old is raped by her father or other relative, she should also carry to term? If prenatal testing identifies gross anomalies, the fetus should still be carried to term even if it will die shortly after birth? If the mother of that poor fetus is carrying her second or third child with gross anomalies and says she will kill herself if forced to watch another infant die, she should be forced to carry to term anyway?

    Your world view doesn't work for all of us. I've been pro choice (not pro abortion) for decades. Judge not lest ye be judged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These cases are all referred to as "hard cases." These are the troubling stories that make some people, who would otherwise be pro-life, start to wonder. However, when you apply logical principles to these cases, they aren't so hard to solve.

      First of all, it should be mentioned that even if abortion should be allowed in these difficult cases, that does not mean that abortion should be allowed for all cases. The vast majority of abortions do not involve rape, incest, or deformities of the child. These cases do not provide any reason to think that a woman should be able to kill a perfectly healthy, unborn child who resulted from consensual sex simply because she doesn't want him.

      In addressing the hard cases, we should do so by applying the same facts and logic that we applied in my arguments above.

      In cases of rape or incest, any child produced is still just as human as any other unborn child. And the child is innocent of any wrong doing. It isn't the child forcing himself on the woman - it was the rapist who forced her. So killing the child isn't the right or fair thing to do. The child doesn't deserve to die for the crime of his father. We don't consider those born from rape to deserving of death, so why give a death sentence before birth for those same children? Nor does having an abortion un-rape the woman. Two wrongs don't make a right, so killing the child is not the answer.

      Oddly enough, the incidence of abortion is actually lower among women who have been raped. Many rape victims have testified that giving birth has helped them to see themselves as overcomers who found a way to make something good come from their terrible ordeal. They may not have had a choice over what happened to them, but they can choose to do what is right after the fact and give life. On the other hand, having an abortion has been described by some as being raped all over again. Of course, these experiences of women do not determine what is right in these cases, but they do show that an abortion isn't the easy fix for rape that it is thought to be.

      As for children with terrible birth defects and other issues, that would be a very difficult situation to be in. But to cut the life of these unborn children even shorter than it already will be seems the opposite of compassion. We don't kill people because they are going to die anyway. We make their short lives as comfortable as possible until natural death. That's what we do for people who are born and it should also apply to those unborn because they are human beings too.

      In cases where the mother threatens suicide, the baby still doesn't deserve to die. A woman who is threatening suicide needs help. If someone threatens suicide if you don't kill someone else, you don't for that reason kill that person they want dead. That's insane. You treat the one threatening suicide.

      While these hard cases are often fraught with emotion and tough situations, the right thing to do is not dependent on how difficult or emotional it is. Emotion is not a valid basis for making decisions. Applying logical principles shows that the right thing to do is always to protect the innocent unborn child.

      Delete
  5. I'm glad you take comfort in your logic. I'd like to see some data to back up some of your statements though. I knew it was pointless to comment on your page and did it anyway. Your logic is not mine. Your choice is not mine. Have a wonderful life. I sincerely hope that you never have to face something that your logic won't cover (beyond this topic.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Translation: "I can't refute your logic. All I have is my emotional desire to make abortion legal. But I'm not going to change my mind."

      Delete
  6. Tell me, would you be okay with a child being abused rather than it being aborted? I mean, if a woman knows that she'd make a horrible mother, and she knows that giving her child up for adoption would absolutely destroy her emotionally, do you really think that woman should be forced into motherhood, even though her child would likely end up being abused and/or neglected? Whether you like it or not, there are valid reasons for getting an abortion. You can deny that all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.

    I mean, what if a pregnant woman was anorexic and she wasn't willing to go through a recovery program so that the fetus inside of her could get enough nutrients?

    Or what if a pregnant woman was addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and the fetus inside of her ended up being hurt by the drugs and/or alcohol rushing through her system?

    Or what if a pregnant woman was mentally ill (to the point where she was abusive towards herself and/or others) and she wasn't willing to give her children up for adoption?

    Or what if a pregnant woman was already dirt-poor and supporting a child would just put her deeper into poverty?

    Those are all logical reasons to get an abortion, so why do you seem to be so content to just ignore the fact that those situations happen?

    Also, if a baby was born incredibly ill & it had to be put on life support, would you think it was wrong for its parents to make the incredibly difficult decision to pull the plug on their child, thus turning off its life support? If you don't think that would be wrong, then why do you think it's wrong for a woman to make the incredibly difficult decision to "pull the plug" on the fetus inside of her by aborting it?

    Also, do you know what hyperemesis gravidarum, pre-eclampsia, and ectopic pregnancies are? Do you know how physically hellish pregnancy can be for a woman? Do you know all of the different ways that pregnancy can cause mental and emotional distress to a woman? Do you know how emotionally scarring it can be to give a child up for adoption? Or do you just not care about any of that, which proves that your views on this issue are both hateful and uneducated?

    I eagerly await your response to all of my questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since an unborn child is a human being from conception onward (scientific fact), merely insert "toddler" into all your scenarios. If it wouldn't be okay to kill a born child for those reasons, then it's not okay to kill an unborn child for those reasons. It's really quite simple. There are certainly many difficult situations that women find themselves in, but it's not okay to solve those problems by killing an innocent child.

      Delete
  7. So basically, you care more about a fetus than you do about a woman? Yet you yourself are a woman? That makes no sense at all. You do realize that you could end up with an unplanned pregnancy someday, don't you? And you also realize that simply being pro-life doesn't mean that you'll never get an abortion yourself, don't you? Here, read this:

    http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (By the way, the article that I linked to is titled "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion," and it's all about instances when pro-lifers have chosen to get an abortion. Just thought I'd clear that up, since the URL is pretty vague.)

      Delete
    2. No, I don't care about a fetus MORE than a woman. They're EQUALLY valuable because they're EQUALLY human. Because they're equally valuable, the desires of one don't trump the life of the other. If it wouldn't be okay to kill a toddler to make a woman feel better or prevent her from being in poverty, or whatever, then it's not okay to kill an unborn child for those reasons either.

      And I would never get an abortion, for any reason. Not even if I was raped. The fact that some people who get abortions claim to be pro-life doesn't mean they actually are pro-life. You aren't pro-life unless you act that way.

      Delete
  8. If you care about women, then how come you don't care if women suffer during pregnancy? Refusing to care about people's suffering is the exact opposite of being caring. Face it, the fact that you don't give a shit about a woman's reasoning for wanting to get an abortion just proves how uncaring you are. So why not own up to the fact that you care more about fetuses than you do about women?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not that I don't care if women suffer during pregnancy. I'm just saying that even if they do, it's not justification to kill a child. Do you think it's okay for a woman to kill her newborn if taking care of him makes her suffer? If not, then do you not care about her suffering? Or it is just that helping her suffering needs to involve something besides killing her child?

      Delete
  9. Also, did you read "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" yet? If not, then why not?

    ReplyDelete
  10. You don't get to say that people aren't pro-life if they choose to get an abortion. To do so is an example of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. And if you can't refrain from using logical fallacies while debating, then you're not worth debating with.

    Also, if you can't tell the difference between a newborn baby and a first-trimester fetus, then you really need to study fetal development. The two are not the same at all. And plus, a woman who's suffering from taking care of a newborn can just give the child up for adoption, and that will immediately end her suffering. A woman who's pregnant, on the other hand, only has the option of getting an abortion if she wants her suffering to be ended immediately. So that's another reason that comparison makes no sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a difference between the No True Scotsman fallacy and saying that if people don't live by what they say they believe they don't actually believe it. If you don't know the difference, then you need to think about it a bit more.

      I can tell the difference between a newborn baby and a first-trimester fetus, but being able to tell which one is which doesn't mean one is of lesser value than the other. An adolescent is far bigger, more mature, more capable, and more self-aware than a toddler, but that doesn't mean the adolescent is more valuable than the toddler. Those things don't determine human worth. It's just as wrong to kill a toddler as it is to kill an adolescent - or an unborn child. They're all human individuals and have equal worth.

      The point is, it's not okay to kill someone to end suffering of someone else. Period.

      Delete
  11. Actually, what you said does count as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Here, Wikipedia explains it better than I can:

    A simple rendition of the fallacy:

    Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
    Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
    Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

    As you can see, the way you implied that "true pro-lifers don't get abortions" fits in perfectly with the example that Wikipedia gave. So, again, if you can't debate without using logical fallacies, then you're not worth debating with.

    And women don't get abortions because they don't value the fetus inside of them. In fact, many women who get an abortion end up mourning the death of the fetus. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make, and isn't a choice that women go into without completely thinking through all of their options. Sometimes, pregnancy is just not bearable for a woman, though, so are you saying that you don't care about that and you want those women to be forced through their unbearable pregnancy, rather than being allowed to get an abortion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know exactly what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. It involves adding an additional qualification beyond what is actually necessary for that category. In the example above, the person was adding "not putting sugar on porridge" as an additional qualification for what it meant to be a Scotsman. But there is no reason to think that sugar on porridge has anything to do with being a Scotsman (which is a matter of ancestry, not behavior). That's why it's a fallacy.

      In my case, what I'm saying is more like pointing out that someone with no Scotch ancestry is not a Scotsman, even if he says he is. The issue at hand in being pro-life is precisely what one believes about the unborn. Someone who kills an unborn child has shown by their actions that they don't actually believe that the unborn shouldn't be killed. Thus, by definition, they aren't pro-life.

      Delete
    2. Women don't get a pass for abortion being a "difficult choice." It was probably a "difficult choice" for Andrea Yates to drown her 5 kids in the bathtub too, but that doesn't mean it was an okay choice for her to make.

      As for pregnancy being unbearable, it really isn't so bad most of the time. It certainly isn't the case that so many women have such horrible pregnancies that we have 55 million aborted in the last 40 years because of it. No, the vast majority of abortions are for quite different reasons. So don't pretend that women get abortions because they're in such agony that the only relief is killing their children. That's simply not the case.

      And misery on the part of a woman, even when it does happen, does not justify killing an innocent child. Until a woman's life is at stake, there is no justification for ending her child's life.

      Delete
  12. But being pro-life is about what you believe, not about what you do. I mean, all it takes to be pro-life is the belief that abortion should be made illegal. If your actions contradict with that belief, that doesn't make you any less pro-life. It's like the way that Christians often do things that the Bible says are wrong. That doesn't make them any less of a Christian, though, since Christianity is all about what you believe, and Christians are expected to be sinful sometimes. So why is being a pro-lifer any different?

    Also, since you completely ignored this paragraph of my response, here it is again:

    Women don't get abortions because they don't value the fetus inside of them. In fact, many women who get an abortion end up mourning the death of the fetus. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make, and isn't a choice that women go into without completely thinking through all of their options. Sometimes, pregnancy is just not bearable for a woman, though, so are you saying that you don't care about that and you want those women to be forced through their unbearable pregnancy, rather than being allowed to get an abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "misery on the part of a woman, even when it does happen, does not justify killing an innocent child"

    That, right there, is pure hatred. Refusing to care about others' misery is entirely hateful, and there's no way around that. So why not own up to your hatred? And why should I have to take your hatred seriously at all? You're just a bigot, plain and simple, so why shouldn't I treat you like one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not hatred at all. It's just truth. Maybe you think telling someone an uncomfortable truth is hatred, but you're wrong.

      I didn't say anything to indicate that I want women to be in misery. I don't. I simply said that their misery (if it exists) does not justify killing an innocent child. That's just the facts of life. You can't kill someone because they're making you miserable.

      As for being a bigot, if anyone around here is a bigot, it's you. You ignore the rights of an entire group of people because they're smaller and weaker and needier than you. That is bigotry.

      Delete
  14. No, it's not "truth." It's just your opinion. It's incredibly arrogant for you to imply that your opinions on this issue are somehow more truthful than mine are. Heck, even I don't think that my opinions on this issue are truthful at all. I realize that this is an incredibly complex issue and that both sides of the issue have important points to make, and that neither side of the issue is 100% true or correct. It's a shame that you can't open your mind enough to understand that, though.

    And if you don't want women to be in misery, then tell me, if a woman knew that pregnancy would be miserable for her, would you want her to go through with the pregnancy no matter what, rather than getting an abortion? If so, then you want women to be in misery. There's no way around that, so own up to it.

    And I'd rather be a bigot to fetuses than be a bigot to women. After all, fetuses can't even think or understand the concept of bigotry, nor can they suffer any sort of emotional or physical pain at the hand of bigots. Women, on the other hand, can do all of those things.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "And if you don't want women to be in misery, then tell me, if a woman knew that pregnancy would be miserable for her, would you want her to go through with the pregnancy no matter what, rather than getting an abortion? If so, then you want women to be in misery."

    That is REALLY bad logic. Here's another scenario using your logic:

    Do you think someone should take chemotherapy to stop their cancer, even though it will make them miserable? Then you must want them to be miserable.

    Obviously, wanting someone to take chemotherapy doesn't mean I want them to be miserable. Instead, it means that I consider chemo to be the right choice, IN SPITE OF the misery that goes along with it because the end result is good.

    The same thing goes for pregnancy. Saying that it is right for a woman to go through a difficult pregnancy doesn't mean I want her to be miserable. It means that not aborting is the right choice, IN SPITE OF the misery because the end result is good.

    If a woman wishes to avoid a difficult pregnancy, I am all for that. She should avoid getting pregnant. But if she does get pregnant, she doesn't have a right to kill her child in order to prevent misery.

    "No, it's not "truth." It's just your opinion."

    Not everything is opinion. It is scientific fact that abortion ends the life of a living human individual. It is logical to conclude that if killing a human individual is wrong, that it applies to all human individuals equally. You're the one who wants to protect the rights of humans like yourself, but not all humans. I'm in favor of protecting the rights of all human being equally.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You know, I've decided that, if I ever get cancer, I'm not going to get chemotherapy, since I know I would react badly to the side effects (just like I react badly to the side effects of most medications), and I wouldn't want to force myself to suffer. I'd rather just die from the cancer than force myself through years and years of suffering. I guess you'd rather I did suffer, though. How can you possibly think that's anything other than sheer hatred?

    And again, telling an already-pregnant woman "you should have avoided pregnancy" does no good. So what do you think women with unplanned pregnancies should do, then, if they know their pregnancy is going to be difficult?

    And wow. You're determined to keep your mind tightly shut, aren't you? You refuse to see this issue from any point of view other than your own. And you think that's compassionate somehow? Compassion is all about putting yourself in another person's shoes and seeing things from their point of view so you can understand what they're going through. The fact that you're unwilling to see this issue from a pro-choice point of view just proves that you have no compassion for pro-choicers.

    Also, since when does "protecting the rights of all human beings equally" mean "putting some human beings through needless suffering"? (And I feel compelled to remind you that first-trimester fetuses aren't capable of suffering, since they aren't even aware that they exist. So don't you dare try to claim that I want to put first-trimester fetuses through needless suffering.) If you don't care about whether or not women are suffering through pregnancy, then what makes you think you care about their rights at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say I'm not seeing it from any perspective other than my own. But I don't see any evidence that you've even tried to see it from my perspective.

      "Compassion is all about putting yourself in another person's shoes and seeing things from their point of view so you can understand what they're going through."

      Compassion doesn't mean I have to think every choice someone makes is okay. It doesn't mean I have to agree with their choice. It doesn't mean I don't point out where they're wrong. I can feel compassion for a woman going through a difficult pregnancy and still think she should continue at the same time - just as I can feel compassion for a person undergoing chemo and think they should still continue at the same time.

      Also, I'm not saying women should go through pregnancy suffering needlessly. I'm arguing it is needed. The only alternative is killing an innocent child and that's not okay.

      Delete
  17. I actually used to be pro-life. So I have seen this from your perspective. I guess you shouldn't make assumptions, huh?

    And I'm not asking you to think abortion is okay. I'm just asking you to stop trying to prevent women from getting abortions. You can think something isn't okay without trying to keep others from doing that thing. I mean, think about vegetarians: they're against eating meat, yet the large majority of them don't try to keep others from eating meat. Nor do they try to make others feel bad for eating meat. So why not follow their example?

    And it doesn't matter if the suffering is needless or needed. What matters is that you think that women should go through 9 months of suffering, rather than getting an abortion. The fact that you want women to suffer is entirely hateful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would be perfectly happy to let women gat abortions if I thought it was a mere preference like not eating meat. But it isn't merely a preference. What you don't seem to understand is that this isn't a preference issue. It's not just a matter of opinion. It's about the life of a human being and whether or not it's okay to discard human beings we don't want.

      Would you tell me to shut and just let people keep slaves if they want to - if that's their preference? Would you tell me to just let pedophiles rape little girls if they feel that is what they want to do and they'll suffer if they don't? That's the kind of thing you're asking me to do. Abortion is every bit as bad as child rape and slavery. In fact, it's worse because you're not just harming someone, you're killing them. You're not just violating their right to liberty, you're ending their very life.

      So, no, you haven't seen it from my perspective if you think abortion is just a matter of personal preference.

      Delete
  18. Also, since you completely ignored these points of mine, here they are again:

    You know, I've decided that, if I ever get cancer, I'm not going to get chemotherapy, since I know I would react badly to the side effects (just like I react badly to the side effects of most medications), and I wouldn't want to force myself to suffer. I'd rather just die from the cancer than force myself through years and years of suffering. I guess you'd rather I did suffer, though. How can you possibly think that's anything other than sheer hatred?

    And again, telling an already-pregnant woman "you should have avoided pregnancy" does no good. So what do you think women with unplanned pregnancies should do, then, if they know their pregnancy is going to be difficult?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your point about chemo is entirely irrelevant. What you want to do about chemo is entirely your choice. My point in bringing up chemo was to show an analogy of how you can think something is the right choice, even if a by-product is not pleasant, without wanting a person to have the bad side-effects.

      I don't know how to make this any plainer. I DO NOT WANT WOMEN TO SUFFER!!!!!

      However, I am not willing to say that it's okay to kill children in order to keep women from suffering. I won't put "compassion" for women over the lives of innocent children. When we can extend compassion to women in difficult situations and help them, we should. But not by killing their children.

      Delete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So you don't want to force people to go through chemo if that would cause them to suffer, yet you do want to force people to go through with their pregnancies if that would cause them to suffer? Why the discrepancy there? Why are you okay with forcing people through one kind of suffering, but not another?

    And no matter how many times you say that you don't want women to suffer, that doesn't change the fact that making abortion illegal would cause women to suffer. So why not stop lying and own up to the fact that you do, in fact, want women to suffer?

    Also, I'm curious: do you know what "herbal abortions" are? Or do you know any of the other ways that women could (and did) perform "at-home abortions" on themselves, back before Roe v. Wade? What makes you think that women won't start doing that again if abortion is made illegal? Do you just not care about women who die from "at-home abortions"? If so, then how is that "pro-life" of you at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether or not someone has chemo is a choice they have a right to make about their own bodies. The choice of whether or not to kill a child in the womb is NOT a choice about a woman's own body. It's a choice about someone else's body and she doesn't have a right to make it. I can't believe I even have to explain this.

      And you keep speaking of going through pregnancy as if it is always such suffering. It's not, okay. It's not that terrible that it requires women to be able to kill their children to get out of it.

      I am just as opposed to home abortions as the kind where you pay someone to kill your child.

      Delete
  21. Most vegetarians think that eating meat is more than just a preference. They think it's akin to killing a human being and eating it. They genuinely care about animals and think it's horrible the way they're treated at factory farms, and the way they're inhumanely killed. But, like I said, the large majority of them don't push that belief on others or expect others to be vegetarians. So, like I said, why not follow their example?

    Also, are you really trying to compare women who have gotten an abortion to pedophiles or rapists? And you think that's compassionate somehow?

    Also, why do you think abortion is anything like slavery? A first-trimester fetus cannot even think, feel pain or emotions, or know that it exists. Slaves, on the other hand, felt immense amounts of pain, humiliation, anger, and fear. So why compare them to something that can't even feel at all, such as a first-trimester fetus? Do you really think that's a loving position to take on this issue? If so, then how is it loving at all to be so dismissive of slaves' experiences?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A first-trimester fetus cannot even think, feel pain or emotions, or know that it exists. Slaves, on the other hand, felt immense amounts of pain, humiliation, anger, and fear."

      So you're saying it's okay to hurt people as long as they don't know you're hurting them?

      It's not loving to allow innocent children to be killed for the "crime" of existing. Maybe their existence is inconvenient, or even downright catastrophic, to their mothers. But that doesn't mean it's okay to kill them for something that isn't even their fault. How is that loving to kill a child just for existing when he didn't do anything to deserve that?

      Delete
  22. So you're okay with people having control over their body when a fetus isn't involved, but when a fetus is involved, you don't want people to have control over their body? Seems to me like it's clear that you value the life of a fetus more than you value the health and well-being of a pregnant woman.

    Also, do you know what hyperemesis gravidarum and pre-eclampsia are? Do you know how epilepsy can affect a pregnant woman? Do you know all of the different ways that pregnancy can cause mental and emotional distress to a woman? Do you know what the maternal death rate (the death rate of women during pregnancy and childbirth) is here in the US? Do you know how emotionally scarring it can be to give a child up for adoption? Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of ways that pregnancy can cause a woman to suffer. Just because you've never known a woman who has suffered during pregnancy doesn't mean a thing.

    And at-home abortions can't be regulated, unless you want pregnant women to be monitored 24/7 to prevent them from killing the fetus inside of them. So why not just face the facts that women are going to perform at-home abortions on themselves, and those extremely unsafe abortions will often cause them to die? Is that really what you want? Because that's what will happen if abortion is made illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A first-trimester fetus isn't a person any more than a tumor or a tapeworm are a person. After all, a tumor and a tapeworm both can't think, can't feel pain, and don't know they exist, just like a first-trimester fetus. You can yell at me all you want for making that comparison (and something tells me you probably will yell at me for that), but that doesn't make the comparison any less apt.

    Also, why do you keep insulting women who have gotten an abortion? You've already compared them to rapists and pedophiles, and now you're claiming that they're not loving at all? Are you completely incapable of showing love and compassion to those women? Those women are human beings just like you and they're not heartless nor do they lack morals. Many of them actually have children of their own, and are great parents to those children. And many of those women feel incredibly bad about having gotten an abortion, to the point where they seek counseling for it. Yet you don't care about that. No, you want to blindly hate those women, just because they made a choice that you disagree with. And you can't see how wrong that is? You really need to do some introspection and take a look at your personality and the way you treat others. Because if this is the way you act in real life (i.e., not online), then that's not okay. I feel for anyone who has to encounter you in real life if you would treat them this way. I really hope you're not the type of person who protests outside of abortion clinics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A first-trimester fetus isn't a person any more than a tumor or a tapeworm are a person. After all, a tumor and a tapeworm both can't think, can't feel pain, and don't know they exist, just like a first-trimester fetus. You can yell at me all you want for making that comparison (and something tells me you probably will yell at me for that), but that doesn't make the comparison any less apt."

      It's not at all accurate to compare a human individual with a tapeworm or a tumor. Why would being currently able to think or feel be the defining characteristic that makes someone valuable? And if that is the criteria we should use - current ability rather than intrinsic value based on what you are - then that would mean that anyone who cannot currently, at this moment, speak or feel (perhaps because they're in a reversable coma or have a mental or physical ability) can be killed also. This rationale for abortion also allows all kinds of violence against disabled people.

      "And many of those women feel incredibly bad about having gotten an abortion, to the point where they seek counseling for it. "

      Why do they feel bad about it if there's nothing wrong with it? Maybe I'm just agreeing with them that it was wrong.

      Delete
    2. "It's not at all accurate to compare a human individual with a tapeworm or a tumor. Why would being currently able to think or feel be the defining characteristic that makes someone valuable?"

      It's not about what makes a person valuable (since that's entirely subjective and not a fact at all), it's about the scientific facts regarding fetuses. And those scientific facts are that a fetus cannot think or feel pain, just like a tapeworm or a tumor. Why do you want to ignore those scientific facts, anyways? Ignoring science just makes you willfully ignorant, you know. (And no, that's not an insult, so don't you dare try to say that I just insulted you. I was using the term "willfully ignorant" according to its dictionary definition, rather than using it as an insult.)

      "Why do they feel bad about it if there's nothing wrong with it?"

      Because people like you make them feel bad. If pro-lifers didn't exist, then women wouldn't feel bad about getting an abortion.

      Delete
    3. I'm not denying that it's a fact that tapeworms and tumors and young fetuses can't think. I'm saying it's not relevant. Not being able to think in this particular moment, if that's the criterion, would mean it was okay to kill lots of other people besides the unborn. Do you not get that?

      If it's okay to kill human individuals who aren't currently, at this moment, able to think or feel, then it's okay to kill lots of disabled born people too. That's just the logical conclusion from your reasoning. You're either advocating for killing any human who can't think or feel, or you have to give up that criteria. Otherwise, you're not being logically consistent.

      Delete
    4. " If pro-lifers didn't exist, then women wouldn't feel bad about getting an abortion."

      I disagree. Women feel bad about getting an abortion because their conscience tells them it's wrong. They know it instinctively. They don't need me or anyone else to tell them it's wrong. Silencing pro-lifers won't make their pain go away. The way to stop women from having that pain of knowing they killed their child is to prevent them from making that bad decision in the first place.

      Delete
    5. "I'm not denying that it's a fact that tapeworms and tumors and young fetuses can't think. I'm saying it's not relevant. Not being able to think in this particular moment, if that's the criterion, would mean it was okay to kill lots of other people besides the unborn. Do you not get that?"

      The only other people who have as little brain function as a fetus does are the severely disabled and brain-dead. And if a parent (or caretaker) sees no possibility of recovery for a severely disabled or brain-dead person, it should be legal to kill them. They shouldn't have to live their entire life as a vegetable, nor should their parents (or caretakers) have to care for them forever as a vegatable.

      "I disagree. Women feel bad about getting an abortion because their conscience tells them it's wrong. They know it instinctively. They don't need me or anyone else to tell them it's wrong. Silencing pro-lifers won't make their pain go away. The way to stop women from having that pain of knowing they killed their child is to prevent them from making that bad decision in the first place."

      That makes no sense at all. Morals don't come from your conscience. If they did, then everyone around the world would agree with what's right and what's wrong. Yet we don't. There are many different moral codes around the world, and none of them are superior to the rest. The only constant between all of those moral codes is that they were developed by each individual society. So therefore, morals come from society, rather than from within you. You should really study sociology. It goes really in-depth about this sort of thing.

      Delete
    6. "That makes no sense at all. Morals don't come from your conscience. If they did, then everyone around the world would agree with what's right and what's wrong. Yet we don't. There are many different moral codes around the world, and none of them are superior to the rest. The only constant between all of those moral codes is that they were developed by each individual society. So therefore, morals come from society, rather than from within you. You should really study sociology. It goes really in-depth about this sort of thing."

      And now we come down to it. The real difference between abortion advocates and pro-lifers is subjective versus objective morality. Pro-aborts think morality is subjective and comes from society and varies from place to place, depending on what people believe. Pro-lifers think that morality is objective and universal and doesn't depend on what people think about it. Wrong is wrong, whether anybody agrees it is wrong or not. Murdering innocent children is wrong, regardless of how difficult it will make someone else's life not to and regardless of whether or not society thinks it's okay.

      Delete
    7. "Pro-lifers think that morality is objective and universal and doesn't depend on what people think about it. Wrong is wrong, whether anybody agrees it is wrong or not."

      How do you figure that morality is universal when morals vary from location to location? Again, I'll ask you, have you ever actually studied sociology? Do you know what mores, folkways, and taboos are?

      Delete
    8. Yes, I've studied sociology. I'm quite familiar with the terms.

      What people believe about morality changes from location to location, but morality doesn't. People can be wrong, you know. The standard isn't what we think about morality, but what is set by the morality giver - God. He made us and everything else, so He sets the rules.

      And actually, there are a number of things that are very consistently realized to be wrong across cultures. There might be exceptions and variations, but certain principles (like murder, incest, adultery, killing of children, and so on) are recognized nearly universally as being wrong.

      The Bible refers to this phenomenon of basic morality being so common as the "law written on the heart." Some people call it a conscience. But we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. We can sear our conscience or ignore it until we no longer have a sense of morality. We can be misled by the customs and laws of our culture. But we all start out with some innate sense of right and wrong. And people all over the world know that certain things are wrong, without having to be told.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  24. Hello? Are you ever going to respond to my most recent comment on here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have better things to do with my time than respond to your comments all day. It's not like you're asking honest questions and really wanting to understand my position. You're obviously just here to throw insults and be annoying. I've spent lots of time explaining my position. I'm done wasting my time on you.

      Delete
    2. When you respond to my question (which you avoided), I might think about answering yours.

      "The only differences between a child in the womb and a born child are:
      Location
      Size
      Stage of development
      Degree of dependency

      So, which of those do you think makes some humans worthless and able to be killed? Because it won't apply only to the unborn."

      Delete
    3. The location makes a fetus worthy of being killed, since no human has the right to use another human's body against their will.

      There, I answered your question. Now will you answer mine?

      (Please don't delete this and claim that it had profanity in it, like you did with another comment of mine.)

      Delete
    4. But location isn't a relevant characteristic of a human being. I don't change who I am simply because I change location. If I move from one room of my house to another, I'm still the same person. My rights don't change. If I move to a new home or take a trip on an airplane or visit another country, I'm still the same person with the same rights. So how exactly does an 8 inch trip down a birth canal change a non-person into a person or confer human rights? It doesn't. The child is the same person before and after birth. The child's rights don't change because he changed location.

      Delete
    5. Way to move the goalposts there. You asked me which characteristic from that list made it okay to kill a fetus, and I answered, so there's no reason for you to think that location isn't a relevant characteristic of a human being. But, since I want to have an honest discussion with you, I suppose I'll just ignore the moved goalposts. Anyways, are you seriously trying to say that human beings should be able to use each other's bodies against their will? I mean, if I needed a kidney, would it be okay for me to demand that you give me one of your kidneys, and refuse to let you say otherwise? That's what you're advocating for, you know. There's no difference between a fetus using a woman's body against her will and a person demanding to use another person's organs against their will.

      Delete
    6. "There's no difference between a fetus using a woman's body against her will and a person demanding to use another person's organs against their will."

      Nonsense. For one thing, giving up an organ is removing an organ from the body and permanently making it unavailable for that person to use anymore. No organs are removed from a pregnant woman when she is pregnant. In fact, her body doesn't lose functionality at all during pregnancy, but actually uses an organ of her body for what it was designed for. Completely different there.

      In addition, pregnancy doesn't involve a child stealing nutrients. The baby uses nothing that her body doesn't purposely bring to him. He doesn't take. She gives. Pregnancy is just the normal, natural way that women care for very young children.

      Children have a right to normal, natural care from their parents. Before birth, this normal care involves using a woman's womb. After birth, this normal care doesn't involve a womb, but does involve a woman's hands (to hold the baby), her eyes (to watch the baby), her breasts (to feed the baby), etc. Giving up an organ of the body permanently is not normal care and is not analogous to pregnancy.

      So, no, I don't support forced organ donation - not even from parents to their children. No one has a right to take an organ out of someone's else's body. But children do have a right to be cared for in their own mother's womb, which was designed to care for her children, and which is the normal, natural way that children of that age receive care. Women have a responsibility to provide normal care to their children - born and unborn.

      Delete
    7. Oh, and I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm demonstrating that no characteristic of the unborn makes them less human or have any fewer rights than born people. The only differences are not morally or logically relevant. So, whichever one you choose, I can show that it's not relevant and doesn't justify abortion.

      Delete
    8. "Nonsense. For one thing, giving up an organ is removing an organ from the body and permanently making it unavailable for that person to use anymore. No organs are removed from a pregnant woman when she is pregnant. In fact, her body doesn't lose functionality at all during pregnancy, but actually uses an organ of her body for what it was designed for. Completely different there."

      Are you being serious here? Do you really not understand that a woman's organs are seriously stressed during pregnancy, since they're working to support two human beings? Even when a woman has a relatively easy pregnancy, she still has to deal with morning sickness, round ligament pains, severe fatigue, and the possibility of gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. To say that a woman's organs aren't affected by pregnancy at all is to outright lie. So, tell me, why are you lying to me?

      "In addition, pregnancy doesn't involve a child stealing nutrients. The baby uses nothing that her body doesn't purposely bring to him. He doesn't take. She gives. Pregnancy is just the normal, natural way that women care for very young children."

      So you want to pretend that pregnant women always want to be pregnant, and that the fetus inside of a woman is never an unwelcome surprise? Wow. You really do live in a world all your own, don't you? It must be hard for you to be confronted with reality (like I'm doing now), huh?

      "Children have a right to normal, natural care from their parents. Before birth, this normal care involves using a woman's womb. After birth, this normal care doesn't involve a womb, but does involve a woman's hands (to hold the baby), her eyes (to watch the baby), her breasts (to feed the baby), etc. Giving up an organ of the body permanently is not normal care and is not analogous to pregnancy."

      Since when does a child have the right to "normal, natural care from their parents"? That kind of makes it seem like adoption is wrong, since adoption isn't "normal, natural care from [a child's] parents." Plus, who are you to say what "normal, natural care" is? Do you think it's wrong for parents to vaccinate their children, for example? After all, that's not exactly "natural," yet it's still what's best for a child.

      "So, no, I don't support forced organ donation - not even from parents to their children. No one has a right to take an organ out of someone's else's body. But children do have a right to be cared for in their own mother's womb, which was designed to care for her children, and which is the normal, natural way that children of that age receive care. Women have a responsibility to provide normal care to their children - born and unborn."

      You know, I'm curious, have you ever read My Sister's Keeper, by Jodi Picoult? It's about a mother who has a daughter with cancer, and the daughter needs blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants from donor with the same blood type as her. Her mother doesn't know of any suitable donors, so she decides to have a genetically-engineered child who will be a suitable donor. The book is the story of that genetically-engineered child (named Kate), and her struggles with having to be forced to donate blood and marrow to her sister. What do you think about that?

      Delete
    9. "Oh, and I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm demonstrating that no characteristic of the unborn makes them less human or have any fewer rights than born people. The only differences are not morally or logically relevant. So, whichever one you choose, I can show that it's not relevant and doesn't justify abortion."

      So basically, you're not willing to think through what I'm saying, and you want to keep your mind firmly shut on this issue? What's the point of having this discussion, then?

      Delete
    10. "Are you being serious here? Do you really not understand that a woman's organs are seriously stressed during pregnancy, since they're working to support two human beings? Even when a woman has a relatively easy pregnancy, she still has to deal with morning sickness, round ligament pains, severe fatigue, and the possibility of gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. To say that a woman's organs aren't affected by pregnancy at all is to outright lie. So, tell me, why are you lying to me?"

      You're changing what I said and then saying it's ridiculous when that isn't what I said. You're arguing against strawmen rather than actually engaging with the argument I'm making. What I said was that pregnancy does not involve removing an organ from a woman and that it doesn't take away any organ functionality. Those are both true. If anything, pregnancy forces her organs to work MORE, not LESS. Yes, it's a bit of a strain sometimes. I'm not denying that. But it isn't the same thing as taking an organ out of her body. You can't deny that fact.

      ---

      "So you want to pretend that pregnant women always want to be pregnant, and that the fetus inside of a woman is never an unwelcome surprise? Wow. You really do live in a world all your own, don't you? It must be hard for you to be confronted with reality (like I'm doing now), huh?"

      Again, that's not what I said or what I meant. Biologically, a woman's body (not her mind, her body) brings nutrition to her child in the womb. It's not a case of a parasite attaching to a body part and sucking out blood or nutrients. The mother's womb grows blood vessels to the child and her body changes its metabolism in response to the presence of the child in order to provide nutrition to the child.

      ---

      From just these examples, it's obvious that you're intentionally trying to misunderstand me and twist my words. You're not engaging my arguments. You aren't even trying to understand them. In such circumstances, you've made it impossible to have an honest and useful conversation. Please do not comment here any more. Your comments will only be deleted.

      Delete
    11. "You're changing what I said and then saying it's ridiculous when that isn't what I said. You're arguing against strawmen rather than actually engaging with the argument I'm making. What I said was that pregnancy does not involve removing an organ from a woman and that it doesn't take away any organ functionality. Those are both true. If anything, pregnancy forces her organs to work MORE, not LESS. Yes, it's a bit of a strain sometimes. I'm not denying that. But it isn't the same thing as taking an organ out of her body. You can't deny that fact."

      I never said that pregnancy is the exact same thing as taking an organ out of a person's body. I said that pregnancy involves a fetus using a woman's body against her will, just like if I forced you to donate one of your organs. And yes, pregnancy does force a woman's organs to work more, which means that they're more likely to be overworked and to suffer problems as a result of that. Why do you seem to want to ignore the negative consequences of pregnancy, anyways?

      "Again, that's not what I said or what I meant. Biologically, a woman's body (not her mind, her body) brings nutrition to her child in the womb. It's not a case of a parasite attaching to a body part and sucking out blood or nutrients. The mother's womb grows blood vessels to the child and her body changes its metabolism in response to the presence of the child in order to provide nutrition to the child."

      According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the definition of the word "parasite" is "an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it." Seeing as a fetus is an animal, and so is a woman, that definition applies perfectly. So why pretend otherwise?

      Delete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete