Respect the sanctity of life! Repeal Roe v. Wade!
I’m tired of all you pro-abortion dicks, so I’ve compiled a list of common arguments and responses to them.
“A woman has the right to her own body.”
[…]
To refute this statement, I’ll tell a story about a little boy who had surgery for spina bifida before he was even born. At the end of the surgery, the baby reached out of the uterus and grabbed the doctor’s finger. My question is this: who grabbed the doctor’s finger?Considering that even newborns lack the ability to grasp with intention, this action was without question a reflexive movement.
I compare this sort of story to a little kid who wants to sleep with all of his or her toys because s/he’s afraid to leave one of them out and making the toys feel sad. It’s attributing emotion and intention where this none.
I see you conveniently discarded my arguments which were not appeals to emotion, such as my substantiation of the seperateness of mother and child. And you know, that whole thing about it being acceptable to mandate morality over a people if it preserves a more valuable liberty? Like, say, the right to life? Because, hey, I don’t know if it’s ever occurred to you before, but you don’t get to make a choice if you’re not living. Just sayin’.
If you want to argue this cogently, please do so. If you’re incapable of doing that, at least phrase your responses in a way so that it seems that you’re attempting to do so. Here, let me make it simple for you: whose reflex was it?
“What if she was raped?”
1% of all abortions performed annually are due to rape/incest. Although this is an extremely small number, this situation must be approached with great compassion, because the victim has already been through one violent act. Why would we subject her to another, that of killing her own child? Two wrongs do not make a right, and abortion will not alleviate the trauma of the rape.
But the trauma of childbirth will alleviate the trauma of rape?
Right.
Considering the number of women who are absolutely adamant that if they were raped, they would abort (I know I would), I think it’s fairly clear that you are wrong in your assertion that abortion is the wrong decision for all women in this scenario. Who is the better person to make the choice to carry the product of rape in her body for 9 months or not? The woman who has been raped and is facing the ordeal of pregnancy, childbirth, and a lifetime of either raising a child who reminds her of her rapist or wondering what happened to the child she gave up? Or you, a smug asshole with a blog and a wholly unscientific opinion on the matter?
Obviously, me. Experience does not lend moral rectitude. Most of this paragraph was just you avoiding the issue and trying to make ethical exceptions, though, so I’ll move on to the next point.
“You can’t impose your morality on others.”
Using that logic, should we release all the rapists and murderers from prison to go free on the streets and allow them to do as they please, because we cannot impose our morality on them? Of course not. If you saw someone beating a child bloody on a playground, would you not try to stop it? Even if that’s imposing your views on others?
We do not need to be given the right to speak up for the voiceless.So if I someday manage to become dictator of America, and I decide Christianity should be outlawed because the Bible advocates violence and sexism, would it be okay if I impose my morality on everyone? Would it be okay if I decided instead everyone was going to worship at the altar of Robots and Shiny Things, and if you don’t agree with me, you are subject to punishment?
What? I’m not entitled to imposing my morality on others by making it a low? Or is imposing your morality on others the province of certain people?
Not certain people, but certain principles. You clearly did not read my post in its entirety if you don’t understand this.
All of your scenario is ludicrous. It’s based in the supposition that, firstly, you could overcome the very principles that I argue as a means to an end. In logic, you can’t entertain outlandish notions in hopes of manipulating facts in you favor. That’s just not how it works.
Your becoming dictator would be unethical. Your mandate would be unethical. If you don’t understand why, you shouldn’t be having this discussion.
“If it is illegal, then women will die in illegal abortions.”Abortion advocates are flat-out lying when saying thousands of women died each year from illegal abortions and their own research proves it: in 1986, the Allen Guttmacher Institute, a research arm of planned parenthood, gave proof that shows in the fifteen years before abortion was legal, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in America was 136 per year and falling.
I haven’t been able to locate this study, but my guess is that what the study found was that the number of illegal abortions dropped as contraceptives became more widely available.
I have read some statistics about how “only” a few hundred women died from illegal abortions in the years leading up to Roe v. Wade, and I think it’s worth raising the question of how many deaths were not reported as related to childbirth or illegal abortions? And how many more women experienced complications, including sterility, from illegal abortions? There can be no accurate figures for something that happened illegally and secretly, and which most were quick to hush up.
The guestimate, though, is that something like 5,000 women in America alone died in the period when abortions were illegal and that today, every single day 219 women around the world die from unsafe abortions.
Small potatoes for some, I suppose.
A total of 49,551,703 abortions have been performed since Roe v. Wade was enacted. Small potatoes for some, I suppose.
“It’s not a human because _______.”
This is when people start making up their own definitions of what a human is in order to dehumanize the unborn. Science undoubtedly proves that at the moment of conception, a new human being is formed, with 46 human chromosomes and human DNA. At that moment, every genetic aspect of that human being is determined: gender, hair color, eye color, metabolism, whether they will be right-handed or left-handed, etc.
The definitions of “human” and “human being” are interchangeable. Wherever you look, you will see that when either is defined, the other is one of the definitions. In order to be a human being, biologically speaking, one must be a member of the genus homo sapiens, which the unborn most certainly are.I’m not arguing it’s not human. What I’m arguing is that it’s not viable outside of the womb. It is not a cute little cherub-cheeked baby. It is a mass of organized cells that without a woman’s body will never become anything more.
Alright, so let’s review your criteria for being allowed the right to life here. I see two:
- independent viability
- not being a mass of organized cells
I won’t bother with the second criterion, as it’s dehumanization at its best. In case you haven’t noticed, you’re a mass of organized cells too.
So, let’s take your first criterion at face value and go around killing everything that can’t survive of its own accord. Well, there goes pretty much all of the formative offspring of every species. Without human intervention, human infants die within a few months even while being cared for by alternative means. And hey, they’re masses of cells. They inconvenience people. And, as we all know, almost no parent today is emotionally prepared to care for a child, and the vast majority not financially so. What’s to stop us from painlessly euthanizing 1 to 3-year-olds? Or the developmentally disabled? Sounds like it would save everyone a whole lot of time and emotional toil to me.
Funny how people always with prefix things like that when they want to justify something heinous against someone. The easiest way to justify a wrong against someone is to dehumanize them. But hey, you’re doing them a favor, right?
Colonial slavers: “It’s not a person, it’s a nigger.”
Salem Puritans: “It’s not a person, it’s a witch/demon.”
Nazis: “It’s not a person, it’s a Jew/slav/gypsie/faggot.”
Islamic fascists: “It’s not a person, it’s a woman.”
According to the law, no, it’s not. But if the Supreme Court suddenly decided that those under the age of one year are not considered persons, would you be morally comfortable killing them too?There is a vast gulf between hating an entire group of people on the basis of some arbitrary identifying characteristic (race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc.) and deciding to abort a fetus because you do not have the financial, physical, or emotional ability to bring a child into the world. Perhaps if we were on some sort of crusade to see all the unborn killed off or if we were specifically targeting the unborn of certain people, this argument would make sense, but we do not and it does not.
This argument is offensive on the deepest possible level. It is an attempt to shame people into agreeing with you by co-opting the language and ideals of social movements which conservatives—the only people so clueless about what a genocide is or why it is wrong that they could possibly argue that abortion is genocide—have historically worked against. It’s disingenuous. It trivializes the lives lost and damaged in the face of real hate. It make monsters out of women who have had abortions, and monsters of those who have defended their privacy and their ability to make choices for themselves, when really they are for the most part people backed into a wall where there are no good or appealing decisions.
I have no patience for ignorant, self-serving arguments wherein privileged people attempt to take on the mantle of the underprivileged in order to gain further control over the very people they fake empathy with. Talking about the Holocaust as if Hitler and the modern-day pro-choice movement are one in the same with that smug, faux outrage that conservatives love to try on when it’s politically convenient. Ugh. I’m done.
Not hating them, no. Plenty of colonial slavers didn’t hate their slaves. They nonetheless kept them, their line of thought often being that because they were “just niggers,” there was no violation of rights occurring. Not hating them, but denigrating them. Some arbitrary identifying characteristic by which to do so: first trimester. What makes an 89-day-old fetus so different from a 90-day-old one?
You simply cannot argue that a great deal of dehumanization is going on. You have utilized quite a bit of it in your rebuttal despite your claims to the contrary.
Now, I will say that I was a little disappointed that you stopped there, and I do hope you can come up with those 14 other arguments to the other points I made some time soon.
