Vanity - My Abortion Debate from Tonight - Seven against One

I thought some freepers might enjoy a summary of an abortion debate I just had with about seven people. I was over at my friend’s house. It consisted of him, his wife, his mother, his sister, his mother's boyfriend, his grandparents, a few cats, and two dogs. The animals tended to stay neutral, but it was all of them against me in a rough and tumble abortion debate.

The first thing that I found funny was them asking my why I was pro-life even though I am not a Catholic or Christian (which was a funny question because they are all Christian, yet pro-choice; I am for the most part Jewish, although my mom is Christian, dad Jewish; I know it is complicated). So that was there first line of attack, asking me how I could be pro-life if I am not a Christian

My answer was a simple one. While religion no doubt plays an important part in people's decisions to become pro-life, it is far from a necessary component. I am not that religious, but nevertheless recognize the miraculous nature of life. I even made the argument that an atheist can be pro-life. Even if you don't believe in God, that fact is that there is something out there we don't understand that has created this miraculous life process and who are we to take actions to interrupt that process, whether it be God, nature, or something we just don't understand that started it.

With that, I got them to drop the so-called religious attack against abortion. Score one for the pro-life side.

They then pulled the argument that abortion should be a choice between a woman and her doctor. This came from my friend's grandmother, which somewhat surprised me because her favorite radio host is Michael Savage. But I guess she tends to be a Rockefeller Republican (she loves Giuliani for 2008).

Again, I chose to rebut this argument with a simple point. We are not dealing only with a woman and her health. We are dealing with a woman AND THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF A BABY INSIDE OF HER. Of course, this was met with "it’s not a baby; it’s a fetus, its just tissue, blah, blah, blah." Well, I came back with the fact that we do not really know when life begins. I believe it begins at conception, while some of my opposing debaters said the soul only comes in at birth (mind you this came from my friend's mother, a reformed hippy). My point to them was that if we don't really know, shouldn't we be cautious and err on the side of life beginning at conception????

Additionally, I said to them, let’s say you guys are correct and the fetus is just tissue and cells. Well, what about when it starts to look like a baby, what about when the heart starts beating; should women be able to choose abortion then? I then described for them partial birth abortion, a type of abortion used to abort fetuses after the first trimester. It wasn't before long that they conceded abortion should be limited to the first trimester.

Next, I took the constitutional argument to them. I am currently a second year law school student. I made the argument that abortion aside, Roe v. Wade is terrible law because of the means by which the judiciary went about coming to the decision. It allowed judges to act like legislatures by inventing rights that are not in the constitution. While some may have had no problem with the decision because they favored abortion, what if the next time a judge employs substantive due process reasoning they take away some right or invent some right you disagree with? Well, with that, they agreed Roe v. Wade was probably wrong.

I next made the case that whatever pro-lifers think, we don't want to throw women in jail. We simply want to make women or men that support abortion rights understand that abortion is wrong, that there is a reasonable alternative in adoption, and that we merely what to prevent them from making a choice many of them will regret. We want to help them make a better choice, not throw them away in prison for making a bad one.

Well, I could go on a lot longer, but I gave the gist of most of the argument. I nowhere came close to making them pro-life, but I did do two things. I made them agree that at a minimum, abortion should be limited to the first trimester (of course I had to give them the exception for rape, incest, and health or life of the mother for them to agree, but I'll take it for one night). Second, I got them to just about agree that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision and for some of them, that it should be overturned and abortion sent back to the states.

I guess my point in all this is that we are not going to win over pro-choice or ignorant people on the issue in one day. However, we can bring them significantly over to our side at least in limiting abortion to the first trimester and working to return the issues to the states. I believe a significant portion of America at a minimum agrees in these limitations (especially the first trimester limitation) and not abortion on demand like the NARAL and Planned Parenthood types. Of course, none of this will make a difference if Bush does not get another appointment to the Supreme Court. But changing hearts and minds is a good first start.

And mind you, this is coming from a 25 year old, second year law student (who to my friends and his parents amazement, is not only pro-life, but Jewish and pro-life!!!). I think overall, tonight was a good night for our side, at least in the debate I had.

What is wrong with having a religious argument against abortion.

I am pro life because I know that God wants us to protect life, not kill it. It is morally wrong.

What is wrong with having a religious argument against abortion.
I am pro life because I know that God wants us to protect life, not kill it. It is morally wrong.

There is nothing wrong with having a religious argument against abortion, so long as you are arguing with people who share your religious beliefs. Bringing your religion into debates with those outside your religion is likely to end the dialog. You end up trying to prove that your religion is right, not that abortion is wrong.

Excellent work, Mike. But seven against one isn't a fair contest. Since you had the truth on your side, you should have allowed them to bring in reinforcements.

Don't forget: at the moment of conception and for every moment afterward, the unborn child has his own unique set of chromosomes. They're different from his father's and they're different from his mother's. There are 23 pairs of them. This combination of facts defines the unborn child as an individual human life, separate from his mother's.

He is not a "lump of tissue" -- or, even if he could be defined that way by some stretch of the imagination, he's not a part of his mother's body.

I wonder how someone can call themself a Christian and believe in killing babies? Not only that but their own Bible says that children are a gift from God and who are they to refuse a gift from God Himself?

Well, I came back with the fact that we do not really know when life begins.

Here was your fatal mistake. We do know. Just study embryology. Life begins at conception by definition.

Absolutely right...from the scientific standpoint.

And from the Christian standpoint?

'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I haw appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

Well done, Mike -- well-reasoned arguments, well-written report. Hope there's Law Review in your very near future.

And bravos for keeping your cool. If anyone asked me why I'm pro-life, I'd be hard pressed not to fire back "Why are you pro-death?"

It's telling that the pro-abortion side finds it necessary to resort to euphemisms. Does anyone have the numbers on how many "pro-choicers" actually "choose" adoption?

Hmmmm....your statement “It is not reproductive” made me think.....It’s not PRODUCTIVE! It’s ANTI productive.

Nothing is wrong with having a religious argument for abortion. I was just pointing out that you can be an athiest and be against abortion.

I’ve heard people say “religion” shouldn’t enter into political debate.

I usually point them to these folks....

http://www.godlessprolifers.com

Just a argument style comment:

In my opinion, the ‘err on the side of life’ argument is just sugary-sounding rhetoric. It’s like saying ‘we could be wrong about the whole thing, but...’ If you believe abortion is wrong and murder, then make the strongest most bulletproof possible case against it.

I think the ‘err on the side of life’ is an argument to ‘convince’ moderates and fence-sitters (people who can’t follow actual logic to an end), who’ll continue to remain on the fence afterwards anyway.

Good Job.. Good points.

Might want to bring up points re :1)cruel and unusual punishment. Cannot cause undue suffering to a convicted murder but you can cut the limbs off an infant..without anesthetic.

2) Death sentence with no crime and no trial.

3) For the death penalty to be given a)capital crime defined by law b) competent counsel c) conviction by a jury of peers d) beyond a reasonable doubt.

To support abortion you agree that it is legal and legitimate to slaughter any innocent..the in the womb part is just logistical...

You might have to work on the language a bit.. Past the age of viability roughly 23 weeks the womb is technically a residence...The presence of the womb is no longer a medical necessity...

Their position is that certain residences are free kill zones..

I’ve heard people say “religion” shouldn’t enter into political debate. I usually point them to these folks....

http://www.godlessprolifers.com

Here's the first thing I noticed after clicking on "Abortion" at that website :

South Jersey Women's Center - Abortions
Board-certified gynecologist providing surgical and medical Abortions in Cherry Hill, NJ since 1978. No 24-hour waiting period or parental consent required in New Jersey.

Is that what you intended for Freepers to see? I don't get it.

thanks for calling me on that.

Here’s the link I meant to post....

http://www.godlessprolifers.org

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.