Adolescent Arguments in the Abortion Debate

Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change Vol. 17, No. 3 ^ | July/August 2002 | Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

[XBob]

Then quit trying to identify eggs as 'people', and let others get on with their own lives, instead of forcing your ideas on them.

If you wish to save all these 'unborn' eggs, please save your own first, just don't inflict us with your problems.

I saw in a courtroom trial onetime a number of years back, a woman in a coma, whose family, wished to have an abortion, to attempt to save her life, and the anti-abortionists were having a fit. And this one idiot (who had absolutely nothing to do with the case) stood up in court and said, HE WOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FORCING THE UNCONSCIOUS MOTHER TO BE, TO DELIVER, PERHAPS KILLING HER. HE WOULD TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY - A NOBODY, WITH NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE SITUATION - JUST LIKE YOU.

You belong with this group of people, intent on inflicting their beliefs on others. STAY OUT ! KEEP YOUR MESSING AROUND TO YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN FAMILY !!!

KEEP YOUR HANDS OUT OF OUR BODIES !!!!!

[XBob]

STOOPID IDEA, ISNT IT - JUST AS STOOOOPID AS YOURS !!!!

SAVE YOUR EGGS, I RESTATE IT - MAYBE YOU WILL GET TIRED OF HEARING STUPID IDEAS THROWN IN YOUR FACE, LIKE I GET TIRED OF HEARING YOUR STUPID IDEAS THROWN IN MY FACE.

[thoughtomator]

Well your egg argument in its various forms falls under #5:

Another common forced analogy heard in pro-abortion arguments is, "The fetus is just a part of the woman's body." The analogy here is that the fetus is in the woman's body so it is a part of it, like her liver and kidneys. This argument completely misunderstands the amazing biological event of pregnancy and the fact that a completely separate human person can live temporarily in the body of the mother. These arguments are more diffficult to deflect because it is generally necessary to provide a great deal of education about human biology in order to prove the analogy false.

But since you seem to have an education about the relevant biological facts, I have to assume you are going into it with eyes wide open.

The wild anecdote falls under both #1 and #7.

From #7: Another version of this type of argument is to point to individuals as examples. For example, "I know someone who had an abortion and she's fine." This is a tricky argument to handle because the argument could end up revolving around the circumstances of a particular person.

You're using the opposite extreme, but the dishonesty is equal.

One. Opposing a proposition by misrepresenting it.

When there are two lives involved, both must be taken into account. This is what I and others have been trying to tell you this whole time. Apparently you only believe that to be true when it's the mother's life at risk, and not the child's, but I believe that to be true in both cases. If it boils down to sacrificing one life for another, no one but the family can make that decision. But when it is sacrificing one life for convenience, well, that is otherwise known as cold-blooded murder. Which you are arguing strenuously for.

Don't feel bad, others have argued the same, Margaret Sanger, for instance, and her eugenically-inclined fellows in the German Nazi Party - they too, like you, believe that some lives simply aren't worth living and therefore appoint themselves the arbiter of who lives and who dies... just like you. So you're not alone in advocating the cold-blooded murder of the most defenseless members of society!

And as a bonus, you are living proof of the original article. A fine work indeed.

[thoughtomator]

Hmm well maybe the original author was off a bit. I don't believe that name calling, shouting, and throwing a tantrum qualify as 'adolescent', but rather as 'infantile'.

So, Infantile Arguments in the Abortion Debate

shall be my next suggestion for research.

Once, just once, I will encounter a pro-abortionist who is willing to discuss their position honestly and rationally. But not today, apparently.

[jwalsh07]

I didn't mean to post that twice.

Post it daily.

[thoughtomator]

Oh hey, check it out, #9 has you pegged too!

A statement like this is based on so many misconceptions that it is difficult to know where to start to refute it. It is clear that a great deal of education is probably needed when this type of statement is made. The usual way to respond initially is to draw attention to the fact that "The baby doesn't get a choice" or "In America we usually don't give people the choice to kill other people." Responses like these can create a great deal of antagonism. The danger is that the person will be so annoyed that the emotions generated by the responses will cause the pro-life debater to lose the ability to continue a meaningfull dialogue.

Right on target. I love the smell of irony in the evening!

[XBob]

157 - "So be honest, and state straightforwardly that you support sex without consequence, and you are indifferent to the murder of children that makes this possible."

So, the truth will finally out. You hate sex, and people who enjoy it. Sex is only for procreation. Do you still burn witches?

Yes, I support sex without consequences. Human sex developed for recreation and entertainment and attraction, in addition to procreation. Otherwise, we would be like other animals, and only have sex once or twice a year, for procreation.

So zip you lip or zip your pants (or take an asperin and hold it tightly between your knees if you are a woman).

YOU ANTI-SEX LEAGUE MEMBER!

[XBob]

163 - "Don't feel bad, others have argued the same, Margaret Sanger, for instance, and her eugenically-inclined fellows in the German Nazi Party - they too, like you, believe that some lives simply aren't worth living and therefore appoint themselves the arbiter of who lives and who dies... "

sO, NOW YOU ARE CALLING ME A NAZI? just who is trying to force who to do something they don't want to do, you or me.

Flippin unbelievable.