I had an extended-play discussion with someone on Facebook that I didn’t want to go to waste. It was fairly classic reasoning from someone on the pro-legalized abortion side, and it remained civil throughout. I hope people will take the time to go through it and see how to navigate through these conversations. It takes a little practice but we’ve got the science and logic on our side (and the word of God, if they are interested in that!). The other commenter used the same arguments and tactics (i.e., changing the subject) that professional pro-aborts use.
EMatters: And he [Obama, at the recent prayer breakfast] spoke of speaking up for those who can’t speak for themselves, yet he’s the most pro-abortion President ever.
Other person: how is he any more pro choice than clinton?
EMatters: Obama wants taxpayer-funded abortions and even opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. When you are so pro-choice that you read the Constitution and see a right to a dead baby, even if she survives the abortion, then you are pro-abortion.
Other person: no one is pro abortion. you can skew the argument all you want. Its Pro Choice
EMatters: If someone supports taxpayer-funded abortions then I think it is fair to refer to them as pro-abortion. Think about their premise: “There should be more abortions than there are already, so we need taxpayers to fund them — many of which are pro-life.” If wanting to increase abortions isn’t pro-abortion I don’t know what is.
EMatters: Having said that, I don’t care if someone is “just” pro-choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings. It is still wrong to take innocent human life for 99% of the reasons given for abortions.
Other person: you have every right to have that opinion. as i do mine.
Other person: but you still havent made the case for this president being the MOST pro abortion president ever.
EMatters: Show me one who was pro-taxpayer funded abortions and who fought against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
EMatters: Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I never thought otherwise. I encourage people to base opinions on facts and logic. Here’s mine: It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq). And most people agree that you shouldn’t kill an innocent human being just for reasons of economics, romantic life, education, career, etc. Therefore, abortion is immoral in 99% of the cases (the exception being to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic).
You can have a different opinion on whether the unborn are human beings, but I have all the embryology textbooks on my side.
You can have a different opinion on whether innocent but unwanted human beings can be killed as well.
The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony www.abort73.com A new human being comes into existence during the process of fertilization.
Other person: http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Abortion.htm Clinton actually used a number of executive orders to undo some pro-life legislation. i dont believe obama has. if its so cut and dry then why did the supreme court rule the way they did…..or with their conservative advantage overturned it. Why hasnt congress drafted legislation to ban abortion if its so apparent
EMatters: Re. Clinton — I assume you don’t think I’m a Clinton fan ;-). He was bad on abortion as well. That is a contest no one should be proud to win. Obama has also done his best to export abortion.
EMatters: I encourage you to study Roe v Wade and how Justice Blackmun was pressured to make it happen. It doesn’t get overturned (yet) because of all the money involved. Planned Parenthood and the other aborts make huge $$ and funnel it back and forth to politicians.
Interestingly, Blackmun conceded that if if we knew life began that would change things. He made a major scientific error there. Even PP used to be pro-life and knew when life began — http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e — that is, until they realized how much money they could make.
Having said all that, I don’t follow your point about it not being cut and dried. My scientific fact and simple logic are there to criticize, if you like. But there existence of an opposing view doesn’t mean there is no morally correct view.
The issues surrounding abortion are psychologically complex. I do pregnancy center ministry and can attest that the pressures on women are severe (often from boyfriends pushing them to “choose” to abort). But there is moral simplicity: You shouldn’t kill an unborn human being for the reasons given for abortion.
Other person: there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for. There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right
So eMatters: , let me ask you, are you pro capital punishment? What do you think about us killing Bin Laden? Are you in the “all life is sacred” camp or do you pick and choose which already “birthed” people deserve to live?
EMatters: Re. capital punishment, there are questions of practice (e.g., Can you get a fair enough trial given our lax treatment of perjury?) and questions of principle (i.e., is it always wrong to use CP?). Your question was about the principle of CP, and I’ll answer it with a question.
Do you see any difference between A and B?
A. Completely innocent human being — no record of any crimes, ever — being put to death for being unwanted, with no appeals.
B. Human being guilty of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt who survived 10+ years of appeals.
EMatters: ”there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for.”
I conceded that abortion situations are psychologically complex. In fact, if there weren’t some factors that made the situation psychologically complex I doubt anyone would consider an abortion. So that isn’t the question.
The question is whether feeling ill equipped to care for a baby is justification to kill her.
For every situation you come up with to rationalize abortion, I encourage you to ask the same question with a toddler plugged in the example. What if the toddler is causing economic / romance / career / education problems? Can you kill her for those reasons? Most people would say no.
Therefore, the only question is, “What is the unborn?” The answer is that they are human beings that are simply at a different stage of development than the toddler, but with the same right to life.
EMatters: ”There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..”
If I understood that correctly then you are making a factual error. The woman already has reproduced a human being, so she has a child. The question is about birth control (whether or not to have a child), it is about abortion (whether or not to kill the child).
“just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right”
I don’t dispute that. The fact that the pro-aborts are venomous and radical in their pursuit of the legal right to kill innocent human beings is true, of course, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether it should be legal.
Other person: venomous and radical? i only see doctors being killed and clinics bombed by one side, my friend.
EMatters: So we agree that killing humans is bad. Your side kills 3,000+ daily with your apparent approval. My side vehemently denounces murders and violence against abortionists, which are extremely rare. And your media apparently forgot to tell you about the pro-lifer killed a couple years ago.
Other person: abortion is legal in this land. has been since 1973. so you statement is wrong…..legally speaking
EMatters: Huh? We are debating whether it should be legal. The fact that it is currently legal is irrelevant. It is a fact that abortion kills an innocent human being.
Other person: we’re getting no where here. you may want to stick to the moral arguments, because currently you dont have a legal one. You can work you elect folks to overturn Roe v Wade to change that, but you arent ever going to convince citizens who believe in choice to change their minds…..and as of today, we dont HAVE to convince to come over to our side.
EMatters: I’ve noticed that you change the subject every time I make a point. I’d appreciate if you’d close out on a topic or let me know if you see my point. Examples:
1. Do you see the difference between aborting a completely innocent child who had no appeals (20,000 per week in the U.S.) and executing a first-degree murderer who lost 10+ years of appeals?
2. Do you see how the fact that pro-abortionists are really committed to their cause has nothing to do with whether their cause is just? (Same thing for pro-lifers, btw)
3. The reasons you are giving for abortion (women wanting to control their lives, not equipped to care for kids, etc.) would justify killing infants and toddlers as well?
4. The existence of two sides to an issue doesn’t mean neither is correct.
EMatters: Your last comment made no sense. Saying I don’t have a legal argument is merely stating that abortion is legal. That proves nothing, because we both agree that it is legal. Do you see how anyone could make that claim as justification for keeping the status quo at all times? Using your logic, the pro-lifers were correct before Roe v Wade because the law said abortion was illegal. Therefore, they had no legal argument. Now does that make sense?
I’m arguing that abortion kills an innocent human being and that it should be illegal. Your response is that it is currently legal. But my argument assumes that already.
I hope you give this important issue more serious thought than you have to date.
Other person: 1. We’ve executed innocent people. Even if they were possibly “bad” in some other way, they werent guilty of capital murder. One of these “mistakes” is one too many IMO.
EMatters: I agree that we shouldn’t execute innocent people. You are the one whose views are in conflict. Using your logic, we make 3,000+ mistakes per day — but you are OK with those (that is, unless you are going to attempt to refute my scientific argument that the unborn are human beings).
And using your logic, capital punishment is legal, so you shouldn’t complain about it or expect it to be changed.
Other person: 2. We ARENT pro abortionist. We are pro choice. Must pro choice women never make the decision to actually abort their babies. I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.
Other person: what dont you get about my statement that I DONT THINK ABORTION ARE MURDER
Other person: 3. That is a ridiculous statement. Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder
EMatters: Right, but you aren’t offering any facts. Which do you deny, and why?
1. The unborn are human beings from fertilization. I’m claiming that as a scientific fact and offered references to 10+ embryology texts — not to mention common sense (what else would two human beings create?)
2. Abortion kills human beings.
So do you deny that the unborn are human beings or that abortion doesn’t kill something?
Other person: why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?
EMatters: ”Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder”
You are once again begging the question and assuming what you should be proving. We are debating whether unborn human beings have rights, so you can’t just claim that they don’t have rights.
EMatters: ”why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?”
I’ve addressed that above (money & politics) and you’ve ignored it and once again changed the subject. I’ve answered your questions. Why do you ignore mine?
Other person: i just answered them all. i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law
EMatters: ”I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.”
And for the 3rd or 4th time I’m pointing out that you are making an illogical statement. Saying, “abortion is legal,” when I concede that and when we are debating whether it should be legal is meaningless.
Other person: ok. so lets stick to the moral argument
EMatters: ”i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law”
You stated your opinion without reasons and for the 5th time you’ve begged the question on the law issue. If that is the best you’ve got you may want to reconsider your position.
EMatters: Yes, let’s stick to that.
EMatters: Is it moral to kill human beings because they are unwanted?
Other person: i dont think its moral to kill ANY human being.
Other person: but we do for all sort of reasons
EMatters: So you think abortions are immoral?
Other person: in war, criminals. if they really scare us
Other person: but we kill in war because it makes us more secure…but its not moral
Other person: was the constitution moral? is everything in the Bible moral?
Other person: eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? which is it?
Other person: my point is moral is malleable. mostly shaped by the culture, the victors. Is abortion a good thing to be doing….absolutely not. but 35% of US children in poverty isnt very moral either. a large number of those babies would be in poverty
EMatters: Interesting questions, but irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether abortions are moral, and if so, should they be illegal (we probably agree that you don’t want gov’t micro-managing every activity of our lives and assessing whether they are moral or not).
I think we agree that war and capital punishment exist, and people can debate the “just cause” theory of war and the principle and practice of CP. But we can address abortion whether those exist or not or whether they are just or not.
I will answer a side note: Of course everything in the Bible isn’t moral. That’s the point! Even Homer Simpson quipped, “And talk about a preachy book! I mean, everyone’s a sinner . . . except this guy.”
So, I’ll ask again: Do you think abortions are immoral?
Other person: why is every point i make irrelevant to you. i think all my points form why i think the way i think. just because you dont like the points dont make them irrelevant
EMatters: Yeah, we agree that poverty is bad, too. But using your logic, it is legal and exists, so you definitely wouldn’t ask the gov’t to do anything about that.
And I realize that societies have different views at different times. Abortion was illegal, now it is legal. But it was either always moral or always immoral. Same thing with slavery and many other ills.
EMatters: You are welcome to your opinions, but I am free to point out whether those have anything to do with whether abortion is moral or should be legal.
Back to the topic: Is abortion moral or not? You say it isn’t a good thing. Why not? I say it is a bad thing because an innocent human being is killed with no appeals. And if government exists to do anything, it exists to protect the lives of human beings. Therefore, it should be illegal.
Feel free to use facts and logic to point out why my premises or conclusions or false.
Other person: its not moral
EMatters: Thanks, that helps the dialogue. Why do you think it is immoral?
Other person: i dont think its immoral.
Other person: i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period
EMatters: I’m confused — did our comments get out of order? You said “its not moral” then you said “i don’t think its immoral” . . .
Other person: i got ahead of myself. sorry….and we’l have to pick this up later
EMatters: ”i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period”
Yes, we’ve established that you hold that opinion. I’m asking you to be more specific. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the mother should have the right to kill an innocent human being.
EMatters: No problem! I need to run as well. I appreciate the charitable dialogue. I know these things can get testy so it is nice to be able to discuss it with someone who is civil. I just think it is a very important topic. Have a blessed day!
Update: Not surprisingly, he never came back. Hopefully it planted a seed.