Author’s Note: The following column is based on a real life conversation. Posted on 07/03/2013 5:00:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
Author’s Note: The following column is based on a real life conversation.
Teenager: Dr. Adams, may I have a few minutes to speak with you?
Me: Sure. What is your name? (Gives name).
Teen: I enjoyed listening to your talk on abortion just a few minutes ago. Your points were solid. But I have just one problem. It’s with the rape exception. Can you honestly tell me that you could look a rape victim in the eye and tell her that she could not have an abortion – that she must take the rapist’s baby to term?
Me: (pulls out phone). Yes. Give me the number of any pregnant rape victim you know and I will call her right now and talk to her. I can’t look her in the eye but I will talk to her.
Teen: (Laughing nervously). I don’t know any pregnant rape victims.
Me: Well, before I put my phone up, can I ask a favor of you?
Teen: Sure.
Me: I have a friend who was conceived in rape. Do you mind if I call her and give you the phone so you could explain why it would be permissible for her be killed just because she was conceived in rape? Her mother is still alive, by the way. I’m sure that her continued existence reminds her mother of the rape. My friend’s name is Laura.
Teen: No, I won’t do that. She shouldn’t be killed, now. That isn’t my position.
Me: Oh, I see. You think that there is some difference between the adult she is now and the embryo she once was that would have justified killing her at that earlier stage of development.
Teen: I see what you are doing. This is the SLED thing, isn’t it?
Me: Yes it is. Size, level of development, environment (whether she is inside or outside of the womb), and degree of dependency. These are the four differences people generally rely upon when they say you can kill the unborn but not the born. Which one is it?
Teen: Well, none of them, I guess. I see your point.
Me: Good. Now, let’s talk about who benefits when the child conceived in rape is aborted.
Teen: Ok.
Me: Would I, or any of the close friends of Laura, have benefited from her death at the hands of the hands of the abortion doctor? I mean, would it not have been a tragedy had her friends never known her?
Teen: Well, yes, I suppose it would have been a tragedy.
Me: Well, how about Laura? Would she have benefited from the abortion?
Teen: No, of course not.
Me: Ok, then who benefits?
Teen: Well, the rape victim benefits. Obviously.
Me: But is it really obvious?
Teen: I think it is.
Me: You know, if a woman becomes pregnant through consensual sex and has a crisis pregnancy it is a toss up as to whether she will have the abortion. But if she’s raped and becomes pregnant then the chances she’ll abort are much lower.
Teen: How much lower?
Me: The odds are about three to one that she won’t abort. It may seem counterintuitive but it really isn’t difficult to understand upon further consideration. She’s just been the victim of a violent crime. She identifies with the evil of violence and is reluctant to inflict it on another human being. So she usually decides to suffer evil rather than inflict it.
Teen: I’ll have to think about that one.
Me: Good. It will give me time to ask you another question.
Teen: Okay.
Me: You believe that the woman impregnated by a rapist will suffer great stress bringing the baby to term. You obviously believe that the abortion will reduce that stress. But your argument turns on the assertion that the stress saved by the abortion will actually outweigh any guilt she might experience over the memory of the abortion for the duration of her life. Is that a fair characterization of your reasoning?
Teen: Yes, that’s fair enough.
Me: Well, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you point me to some evidence?
Teen: No, I was just speculating.
Me: Well, you haven’t convinced me that the pregnant woman really benefits. The abortion doesn’t solve the problem. She suffers terribly regardless. But when those conceived in rape are aborted there are multiple tragedies. One human is deprived of life, one adoptive couple loses a child, and others are deprived of ever knowing the innocent child who would have had a long life and formed many friendships. I think that the weight of the evidence is against the abortion. I just cannot see who really benefits from the abortion.
Teen: Well maybe I just have some maturing to do as I think about this issue.
Me: I’m not sure it’s really a thinking problem.
Teen: What do you mean?
Me: You have a steady girlfriend, don’t you?
Teen: Yes, I do.
Me: Are you sleeping with her?
Teen: What? I’m not answering that question.
Me: Well, you don’t have to answer it. You just did. You’re sleeping with her.
Teen: Ok … what does that have to do with the discussion?
Me: Well, everything.
Teen: Please explain.
Me: Every time I am in a discussion of abortion that turns to the so called rape exception, there are two common denominators. First, it is always a guy. Second, he’s always sexually active. If he is sleeping with a lot of women he really supports unrestricted abortion. So he just feigns concern for the rape victim in order to preserve unrestricted abortion so he can have unrestricted sex. Then there are guys like you who are just sleeping with a girlfriend and want to preserve a tiny crack in the wall — a safety valve just in case you get into trouble. The idea of an absolute ban on abortion makes you nervous because you are taking risks you know you ought not to be taking.
Teen: I guess everything you are saying makes sense. Maybe I just need to grow up.
Me: No, not really. You pulled me aside and started this conversation because your conscience was bothering you. You weren’t really worried about the rape issue. You were worried about your own circumstances. That’s why it took courage to initiate the conversation. You knew I wasn’t going say things you wanted to hear. You were mature at the beginning of this conversation and you are even more mature now.
Teen: Thanks.
Me: Now it is time to stop treating you girlfriend like she’s already your wife. It will clear your mind and help you make better decisions on a whole range of moral issues. Remember that it is always better to decide what you believe and let your beliefs guide your behavior. When it’s the other way around, you become lost and you eventually lose your moral compass altogether. You eventually become a law unto yourself.
Teen: Well, how do I explain this to my girlfriend?
Me: Well, that should be easy. Tell her you are not yet ready to be a parent. Tell her that if she became pregnant it would be your child, too. Make sure you look her in the eye and firmly tell her that you could never allow her to abort your child. In other words, start living your life according to rules instead of clinging to exceptions.
Outstanding debate!
It’s too bad that most abortion supporters are unwilling to even try to understand that argument.
There are certainly some flaws in his logic but his argument goes way beyond the superficiality of his ideological opponents. I always enjoy Mike Adams’ columns.
However, politically speaking, this is a loser. You'll never get the chance to explain the whole logical rationale, in a rational fashion. The soundbites used by the MSM will literally kill you. In politics, just say no to discussing rape.
Also See: Clod Akin, Dick Mourdock ...
The writer is forgetting one little detail though. That type of debate only works with persons that are reasonable, open-minded, moral, and have a conscience. Liberals would have none of it. If you tell them they cant do something then they will muster all their resources to do it (which can actually be useful at times)...
If the issue of abortion is of keen interest I strongly recommend this presentation. and suggest your time will be well spent.
The other unaddressed fact is that NOBODY has ever proposed a law that limits abortion to cases of rape and incest.
It is a red herring used to rationalize all abortions.
It’s garbage actually. Murdering children in the womb is bad, but so is the OP argument for pro-life. Appealing to emotions is always the start of a poor and fallacious argument.
Somebody in the article’s comments section referenced Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., and I’ve had pro-infanticides throw that argument in my face also. “What if Hitler’s mother would have aborted him? The world would be a better place. There is a reason for abortion.” I usually comment that perhaps another mother somewhere else aborted a child that could have prevented any and all of Hitler’s evil. I usually go on to say that the person who could have invented the cure for cancer, AIDS (fecalfeliacs really hate this example), or even the common cold might have been aborted by their mothers.
There should be no exceptions, the baby did nothing wrong, why should little him or her be the one to die? Kill the rapist if you need to kill anyone, for the baby did nothing wrong.
It is, and I’ve been in conversations that have almost gotten to the conclusion that he reaches, but the listener always shuts it down and doesn’t want to take finish the argument... which of course means they lost the argument, and know I was right.
I wish they would end like this.
I believe this abortion discussion was with reasonable persons.
Indeed. One debating tactic I use with people who want to bring up all the exceptions in order to justify unrestricted abortions is to rhetorically allow their exceptions and then ask if they’d be willing to outlaw all other cases. The answer is always no.
Eventually, you’re down to forcing them to say that they really are in favor of unrestricted abortions for convenience and birth control - something they REALLY don’t like to admit.
A woman that gives birth to a baby produced by rape, has a VERY, VERY, VERY SPECIAL PLACE in HEAVEN.... imho.
I don't think that's necessarily the case; many [most?] effective persuasive-style discussions hit all three of the appeals: Appeal to emotion, appeal to logic/rationality, and appeal to morals/ethics.
With the availability of “Plan B”, the whole rape argument is a red-herring.
Here is the truth that the “Every Sperm is Sacred” crowd just can not except, and yet makes the Pro-Life position a continual legislative loser: there isn’t going to be a national epiphany were abortion proponents are going to throw up their hands and declare “Praise Jesus! I see the error of my ways! We must ban all abortions!”. It’s. Never. Going. To. Happen.
Real positive change is going to come incrementally by building mass sentiment against the most universally revolting procedures. Go after the late term and work back. Go after the Gosnell’s and the like if you want to save lives.
It’s a good article that makes great points, as is usual from Adams. You could just keep it simple, though, and offer this unassailable argument everyone knows already:
“Two wrongs don’t make a right”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.