Stanek weekend question: Which pro-choice argument(s) do you struggle to respond to?
Online for Life asked this question, and I thought it was a good one: What pro-choice argument(s) do you have the most difficulty refuting?
We’ve all seen them - slogans written on placards and protest signs used by pro-abortion activists in their attempts to narrow down the pro-abortion position to a simple, succinct catch phrase. Unfortunately, these types of statements are misleading and untrue. And we believe it deserves an open and honest dialogue….
We know you’ve tried to help change the hearts and minds of your pro-abortion friends and family, but sometimes their arguments leave you stumped. How should we respond if an unborn child was conceived during rape? What if the mother’s life is truly in danger? Doesn’t the mother’s right to control her own body supersede the rights of the unborn child in her womb?
So which, if any, pro-choice argument(s) do you struggle to respond to? The inverted question could be asked of our pro-choice friends.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The most difficult are the taunts and tirades. Almost to a person,the radical opposition is loud and abusive. We all respond with prayerful silence. I find it difficult to engage family and friends in the discussion. Without much support, I usually get “it’s not the time” I am passionate but not as articulate as I could be. It would be helpful to have “scripts” that we could read frequently and set to memory to engage the ordinary man on the street.
I dont think any pro lifer is going to dispute life of the mother. Like a tubal pregnancy. The woman will die without emergency surgery. Rape is a tough one for me but I just tell people that PP covers up rape.
None of them are hard to respond to. Abortion kills a child. It has nothing to do with privacy (is rape private?) It has nothing to do with bodily autonomy (hello…drugs and prostitution are illegal) It has nothing to do with hating women and it doesn’t suddenly not kill a child when the mother was raped instead of wined and dined.
Pro-choice arguments would be very compelling if only abortion didn’t kill a child. But it does. And nothing changes that fact. It is never okay to kill a child. NEVER.
I think that the most difficult one is that abortions should stay legal because women suffered/died from illegal abortions during Roe. Although the numbers were exagerrated, , some women DID die and have other problems. I have an aunt who had an illegal abortion and was rendered infertile. I also remember a neighbor who had an illegal abortion and almost bled to death. I remember my mother and the neighbors talking about it and going over to her house. So these things DID happen, whether prolifers like to recognize it or not.
Best pro-choice argument: It’s declared right by the supreme court – and much like gun rights, sometimes the argument is that the rights of a citizen leads to the death of others.
Worst pro-choice argument: It’s my body, I do what I want. We have plenty of things that we don’t allow people to do because they harm a person, or harm others. That argument skips over two others you’d have to make – either the one I listed above, or you’d have to argue that you’re not hurting a human – which is a touch case to make (at least past a certain point).
Best pro-life argument: At some point, you’re dealing with a human that has rights and shouldn’t be killed for convenience sake.
Worst pro-life argument: “Look at this gruesome picture – we need to ban this!” The anti death penalty has done this for years, and the obvious answer is make a less gruesome way so that you don’t get the pictures – which is what they’ve done.
its ‘do you love, yourself enough?’ vs ‘do you love Me(Jesus)?’
“Best pro-choice argument: It’s declared right by the supreme court”
Seriously!? Is the Supreme Court considered infallible or something? I don’t know, to me this actually seems like a candidate for the worst pro-choice argument. I mean, it’s barely even a step above “it’s legal.”
I should probably also mention that the “the Supreme Court says so” argument commits the appeal to authority fallacy.
No mother ever NEEDS an abortion.
Removal of a tubal pregnancy is NOT considered an abortion.
Life is precious no matter how that child is conceived.
We do not add a second trauma(abortion)to the first trauma.(the rape)
No exceptions.
We know tubal pregnancy is not an abortion.
Really? “We” all know that?
I meet people all the time that think and believe that the removal of a tubal pregnancy IS an abortion.
So for the record. It isn’t.
Phillymiss, when they bring up the women who died in back alley abortions I bring up Tanya Reaves and Jennifer Morbelli. I personally know women who had legal abortions and have suffered miscarriages, stillbirth and infertility since then.
And the doctors who did back alley abortions are now legal abortionists today like Curtis Boyd and Warren Hern. Nothing changed with Roe except that society then believed abortion to be morally okay since it was now legal. And more people got in the game because they no longer feared imprisonment so more clinics opened. Which in turn made access easier for women so more and more women aborted who never would have had it remained illegal. So thats what I bring up when they throw the ole “But women will use wire hangers!!!!!!” argument.
JDC – they make a lot of wrong decisions – but again, the question is about arguments that are tough to respond to. The top court in the land declaring something legal is a pretty big stinkin’ trump card, no matter how you want to play it.
All of the “arguments” that a proabort puts forth can be argued. Scientifically and biologically. And historically. We have the facts. We have the truth.
But the constant circular reasoning and moral relativism goes nowhere fast. Fools and their folly.
I do appreciate those that KNOW it is killing. That KNOW that a fully formed innocent preborn human being dies. They KNOW abortion brings violent death.
And they don’t care. I like that honesty. They own it.
Excellent comment Sydney!!
The most heartbreaking thing is when there is no pro-choice “argument” or justification made.
Sometimes a person knows full well what they are doing is taking a life…but they tell themselves something like…“I don’t care. I’m doing it anyway.”
Tragic.
I was thinking more of those that comment here. The same pro abort arguments over and over.
Women that say they don’t care are trying to justify their abortions to themselves. It is tragic.
“The top court in the land declaring something legal is a pretty big stinkin’ trump card, no matter how you want to play it.”
Meh. It sure makes it hard to actually accomplish anything on the abortion front, but tells us nothing about whether or not abortion OUGHT to remain legal. Not sure how it qualifies as something that’s difficult to respond to, though.
perhaps I should ‘explain’ my comment above. The ‘role’ that God has in all our lives (even atheists) is not one of proving His existence to anyone … if this were the case, He would need to respond to our human insecurity. LIKE … ‘You mean we exist in a universe of wonderful love and not desert-like emptiness and ugliness! … YES’
It really does not matter when we say (as if we were God), that ‘God does not exist’. What matters is that God believes in us (His kids).
GO Carla …. yeah!
JDC – and yes, if the question is ‘ought’, then I agree with you.
It still is a pretty big trump card. I know plenty of people who base the majority of their gun views on how the constitution has been interpreted over the years.
Re: The mother’s life – first, this RARELY happens. As Father Frank Pavone says, “Why can’t we save BOTH?”. With the proper treatment, and with the proper respect given to both mother and babe, both can be saved. An abortion has never ever saved anyone’s life. An abortion is a difficult, drawn out procedure which carries a high risk – too high of a risk for someone whose life already hangs in the balance. Life threatening complications may need to result in an early delivery at the point of viability, but it is never ever necessary to willfully destroy an unborn child. A child may die as a result of cancer treatment that the mother receives, but this is not a direct and willful act to kill the child. Furthermore, what mother would let her 2 year old run in front of a truck and stand there and do nothing? A mother would always run in front of that truck – giving her life in the process in order to save her child. Let’s give that unborn child the same value as the 2 year old, the one year old, the one day old.
“JDC – and yes, if the question is ‘ought’, then I agree with you.”
Yes, and ought is really what we should be debating when we debate abortion.
“It still is a pretty big trump card. I know plenty of people who base the majority of their gun views on how the constitution has been interpreted over the years.”
I would say that means you know a lot of people who are not very good at debating that particular issue.
I cringe when people use rape/incest as a reason (Because a person is less valuable if their father is a sick perverted criminal?
Also “quality of life” for poor prenatal diagnosis, or because the family is poor (you can see into the future, can you? How do you know how a person’s life will turn out? And why should you get to play God with that knowledge and decide who should die to fit some twisted version of perfection?)
This is kind of off topic. So during 40 Days for Life, since I’m agnostic I like to instead stand quietly near the 40 Days group, representing the non-traditional pro-life view (& was well-received by the 40 Days for Life group, I might add). So I’m starting to work on my signs for our local fall 40 Days for Life & I’m trying come up with some good, simple pro-life arguments for my signs. So far I’ve got:
(Picture of unborn at 8 weeks LMP)
I’m a Human Life With Potential
Not a “Potential Life”
(Picture of woman w/ face in hands)
Euphemisms don’t change what abortion is…
Abortion…leaves one dead, one wounded
(Feminists for Life sign)
Abortion is a sign that we as a society have failed to meet the needs of women.
Women & children deserve better than abortion…
They deserve your love, support, & real resources/long term solutions through their pregnancy & beyond
Any other suggestions?
MrsJVR,
No, the rape/incest exception is because of feeling a deep compassion for the victim of a horrible crime such as rape/incest. I agree, however, with your other arguments.
A couple of questions on making pro-life signs…what size & styles of font would you guys recommend, & do you have any recommendations as to how to waterproof the signs (for in case it rains)?
Well the hardest one for me is rape/incest. Because I can understand that driving need to get rid of it, and I’m sure in the aftermath of trauma it’s really easy to believe the lie that abortion will make it go away. Especially really young girls in incest situations.
Obviously, I argue that one with the fact that heaping violence and pain upon violence and pain doesn’t make it go away – but compounds it.
But that’s the one that is the hardest for me to argue because the whole situation makes me so sick and heartbroken.
But I agree that all of their arguments can be argued morally, emotionally, and scientifically and it is never ever ever okay to kill a baby.
Just for the record.
But the dumbest argument they use is the “quality of life” crap. What the heck, man? You think you can just decide arbitrarily that someone’s life will be not as worth it so you freaking KILL them? Yeah, okay, that’s not sadistic at all.
LB,
I know mothers who gave birth to their children after rape. They are beyond grateful that they NEVER listened to others and aborted their babies. Their child brought healing. A miracle in the face of unspeakable violence. I think abortion for rape or incest is approached as we want to help you “get over” the rape. Or remove the child as a “reminder.” But abortion cannot do that.
And the mothers that aborted after rape grieve just like I do. They have healed from their rape. Not from their abortion.
Another “argument” I have a hard time with are those that say abortion is necessary if the child is going to die due to fetal anomaly. So we kill them before they die naturally??
That one I can’t wrap my head around.
I know. It’s so sad. It’s just hard for me to argue in the face of pain like that I guess.
Me neither! Like, okay yeah let’s kill all the people cause they’re gonna die anyway. That’s what I don’t get. How does the fact that someone is going to die anyway change the fact that you killed them?
I mean if they use that argument for abortion, then any murder should be set free because hey, people will die anyway. they should be allowed to murder cancer patients and stuff because they’ll die anyway, right?
Insane.
I get that LB. I do. But to think that abortion can heal or help or save in any circumstance isn’t true. And I always have to remind myself that only 1% of abortion is for rape. 3500 abortions today for convenience. :(
BUT proaborts always argue from the extreme cases.
I honestly can’t think of a single one. I used to have some difficulty with some questions, though, until I read Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s book The Hand of God: A Journey From Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind.
Dr. Nathanson co-founded NARAL in the 1960s and committed, by his own admission, at least 75,000 abortions (at least one on his own child) before he saw the truth via the then-recent development of ultrasound (which he was chosen to oversee at New York University Hospital, a very prestigious position).
In my opinion, his book should be required reading on every college and university campus. The anti-religious argument couldn’t be used because he was an atheist at the time he woke up to the truth.
In his book he soundly demolished every argument any pro-abort has ever come up with. Highly recommended.
I’ve never understood why pro-choice people bring up incest as a reason why a child needs to be aborted.
From what I’ve read, a woman over 40 has a higher chance of delivering a baby with birth defects than, say, a woman who was impregnated by her brother. Yet you never hear them say “what if the pregnant woman is over 40?!” as a reason to support abortion.
Personally, I find all abortion arguments to be pretty weak, especially the “my body, my choice” one.
According to this logic, it was perfectly ethical back in the day, or even now in modern times in places where baby formula isn’t readily available, for a woman to abandon her baby in the woods to be eaten by animals if she didn’t want to be a mother. After all, even a born child “forces” a woman to use her body parts, such as her breast, to care for it.
Good points, Carrie. I personally know some people whose moms were raped, and they are thrilled that they were not aborted. So are their moms. It’s a sad and tragic subject, but killing the baby does not harm the rapist, only the baby.
Any woman who has carried a baby in her womb knows that it is not part of her body, babies have their OWN bodies — their own blood types, their own fingerprints, their own DNA, and other things which distinguish their bodies from their moms’. If all babies were just part of their moms’ bodies, they’d all be female!
And, yes, babies are completely helpless after birth. They cannot feed themselves or care for themselves. Still separate bodies which have to be taken care of. Before birth, the mom’s body carries out those functions, BUT even then if she does not eat right, if she does things which are harmful to the baby, the baby’s body is adversely affected.