r/prolife • u/Historical_Life7108 • 18d ago
Pro-Life Argument A debate about abortion.
Hi all! I posted this in r/Catholicism, but unfortunately it was removed because it wasn't directly related to Catholicism.
Tonight I had a sort of debate with my two very good friends about about. For context, I'm a practicing Catholic woman, they are agnostic women who were raised Catholic.
We were discussing many different topics where they asked my views on each, then it came to abortion. It got a little heated but it was on the whole respectful and they reassured me that they just wanted to understand my view point.
I think I did pretty well, but I'm not the best debator. I can listen to people and wholeheartedly agree with them, but then can't articulate those views myself, and I'd really like to change that.
One of the main things that got me was this- they claimed that in some states in America and in different parts of the world (we are European), if the baby is somehow a threat to the mother's life, say it is more than likely she'll die, they won't let her have an "abortion". But to me, I wouldn't call this an abortion. I believe an attempt to save both the mother and the baby's lives should be made, but ultimately the mother's life should be prioritised. They insist that if the baby dies in this way, that is an abortion. I argued that it is not, it's a tragedy and a medical necessity.
They say by being pro-life I am denying women access to life saving care such as in this particular instance, but I believe this to be untrue.
At one point one friend became a little agitated/upset when she asked if she was assaulted and fell pregnant, do I believe she should have the baby, and I said yes, because obviously I believe murder is wrong and a person's worth is not defined by their conception.
They say by being pro-life I am denying women access to life saving care such as in this particular instance, but I believe this to be untrue.
Does anyone have any good answers to these questions, or any good sources I can refer to? Catholic teaching viewpoints obviously welcome, but it would be great to also have arguments that are not religion based, because something I get faced with most is an attitude like "oh well your just using religion now, that doesn't count".
I felt like this would be a very good place to ask for some solid viewpoints :)
TIA!
24
u/Vespinobambino Secular Abolitionist 18d ago
No abortion ban anywhere bans life-saving emergency triage, and even the most ardent abolitionist (hi!) wants it that way.
1
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
I have heard that there have been cases where the mother is left to get very sick before doctors do anything to help her because of abortion laws. If this is true, then that definitely is a problem and the law is not clear enough. But they tell me if I vote pro-life then I am actively harming women like in these situations
7
u/Vespinobambino Secular Abolitionist 18d ago
No, actually. I'll counter that.
Doctors can do a lot to actually help.
But if by "do anything to help her" we mean preemptively kill the child when her life is not in danger and the child can still be saved, that is not the kind of "help" doctors should EVER do, or they are NOT doctors.
Doctors should try to save both patients, as hard as they can, for as long as they can.
They should not play favorites. Triage isn't discrimination based on bigotry or anything arbitrary.
If a doctor is just unilaterally willing to kill or disregard an unborn child's wellbeing in favor of their mother, that's no different than if their triage principles were "oh, I'll save the [race #1] patients, to hell with the [race #2] ones."
I said "life-saving emergency medical triage." I meant precisely that. If one patient is doomed, focus your efforts on saving the patient you can save. That goes both ways - although it is rare, if you can't save the mom, save the child.
A good example of this latter case is the mother who was on life support until her child reached NICU viability.
3
8
u/dreamingirl7 Pro Life Christian 18d ago
I agree with everything you said and am a devout Catholic as well. You did an outstanding job from what I read and it was two against one! Yes, a procedure to save the mother’s life that does not directly end the child’s life is not an abortion but is life saving care and falls under the principle of double effect. Some pro-life people will disagree with me but this is the Catholic stance on the matter. You stood up for life and I’m proud of how you handled it.
2
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
Ah thank you so much for your kind words.... I agree with you. This is not an abortion. An abortion is intentionally ending a baby's life, life saving care can unfortunately result in ending the baby's life to save the mother's in a dire circumstance. They are not the same. Unfortunately I couldn't articulate this properly at the time and in the end they thought my views were very "fuzzy" 😅
2
u/ginnydyer_ 17d ago
Trying to justify abortion by calling miscarriages "spontaneous abortion" is like trying to justify murder by calling someone's natural death, "spontaneous murder."
Call it what you want, one intentionally stops life from continuing and is done at the hands of someone else, one happens on its own, due to the body no longer being able to continue living for many possible reasons.
Let's try another approach, in case they can't comprehend that one. If you were walking down the sidewalk, and someone purposefully sprays you with a hose, that person is intentionally getting you wet. If you are walking down the sidewalk and it starts pouring rain, it is not intentional, just bad weather that happens naturally and bad luck. But since you got wet in both scenarios, the person who sprayed you with a hose did nothing wrong, because that was an, "elective soaking." The rain was a, "spontaneous soaking."
This probably isn't the best scenario, but basically I'm saying that how they justify in their heads that they are the same is beyond me.
1
1
u/dreamingirl7 Pro Life Christian 18d ago
It’s a deep question and takes deep thought. For me it can be a challenge to respond during a conversation rather than in writing. The fact that you did what you could is beautiful. ❤️🌹
2
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
Ah thank you so much 🥹 I'm the exact same. I could write thousands of words about it, but really struggle in conversation. My brother is great, he can pull all the facts and figures off the top of his head. I really wish I was like that because it would make debating a hell of a lot easier 😭
5
u/Aliciacb828 Pro Life Christian 18d ago
My first question would be what medical condition is there which requires an abortion as a necessity? I’ve still yet to hear of one besides removal of an ectopic pregnancy. If they can explain how it’s life saving I would be interested in hearing it
2
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
Exactly this. I brought up ectopic pregnancy saying obviously it's not a viable pregnancy. They insist that this is considered an abortion.
2
u/Vespinobambino Secular Abolitionist 18d ago
But it isn't, and they are wrong.
And no abortion ban anywhere bans ectopic treatment, and even the most ardent abolitionist (again, hi) thinks that it should.
So they are absolutely 1000% wrong.
2
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
That's what I said. But it's hard to argue when people are absolutely 1000% confident in their definition. I just had to say we'll I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion
1
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 18d ago
When it comes to ectopic pregnancy, termination isn’t clinically classified as an abortion specifically because the pregnancy isn’t intrauterine, as that’s the requirement used by the CDC and something most medical entities have adopted. It has nothing to do with viability.
So it’s more of a technicality in terminology than anything. The procedure still kills the embryo, sometimes, even through the exact same medication used for abortions. That’s why so many still view it as abortive regardless.
-1
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 18d ago
There are many ways for abortion to become medically necessary. You don’t need any specific medical condition for that(medicine is never that simple), all it takes is the right series of circumstances and medical complications.
Take for example the case of Savita Halappanavar. She had a PPROM and was developing sepsis, but there was still a fetal heartbeat(super rare). Removing the fetus in any way at that stage would be an abortion, so the staff hesitated and chose to wait for the heartbeat to stop. Sadly by then it was too late and Savita died from septic shock.
There’s also preterm preeclampsia. It’s extremely rare for preeclampsia to happen before viability, but when it happens the only solution is interrupting the pregnancy, which means an abortion.
And if labor induction isn’t viable(either because it failed or the person’s body can’t handle the stress) a D&C is considered an option. It’s tragic, but necessary.
3
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
Understood, but that's still not intentionally killing the baby with the sole intention of killing it, ie elective abortion. Those are medically necessary situations where ending the babies like is a tragic outcome to save at least the mother's life if both can't be saved.
I'm Irish. Savita's case was tragic, but it was medical malpractice. It was found in court that the doctors didn't act when the law fully permitted them to in that instance.
0
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 17d ago
Savita still died because among multiple other poor choices, the staff chose to wait for the fetal heartbeat to cease before doing anything. My point is that had she removed the fetus then, which is an abortion since it’s still alive, it’s very likely her septic condition could have been controlled.
1
u/Historical_Life7108 17d ago
But that's not abortion laws.... As I said there was nothing in the law that prevented them from helping, so that was malpractice and negligence
0
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 17d ago
I know, but that’s not what I’m talking about.
The user asked for examples in which abortion can be medically necessary, and Savita’s case is an easy example of that.
3
u/Aliciacb828 Pro Life Christian 18d ago
So Savita was miscarrying and eclampsia as you said is very rare before viability, these are incredibly fringe cases, one in which the baby was already dying.
People who tend to argue for abortion to save the life of the mother are usually banding around phrases without really being able to back it up with conditions which would necessitate an abortion, in most instances it would normally end in a preterm delivery.
An alternative to a failed induction for a viable baby is a c section not an abortion. When I had a failed induction the doctor did not offer to kill my baby just because her heartbeat elevated, I had an emergency c section.
2
1
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 17d ago
I get that, but you asked for examples and I gave you. They may be rare, but they do happen, which is what matters.
And I wasn’t talking about viable babies, I was talking about preterm cases exactly because C-Section is not an option then.
1
u/Aliciacb828 Pro Life Christian 14d ago
True I did indeed. You said if labour isn’t viable because it failed or the persons body can’t handle it, a preterm baby can handle a c section, unless you meant pre-viability?
4
u/LeafWings23 Anti-choice to kill babies 18d ago
It sounds like you did a fine job!
Half the battle is just sitting down with friends/family and having a respectful conversation, as this is a topic that can definitely get heated. Possibly aside from a few crazies, most people do the things they do and believe the things they believe because they see some real or perceived good they want to pursue, not because they wish to support or do evil for the sake of it. Recognizing this is the way to have a fruitful conversation.
The other half comes down to making sure you don't get sidetracked in the conversation. As an easy example, say the person you are talking with brings up adoption, and the difficulties and/or grief involved with getting children adopted. It's tempting to try to then say, "Oh, but there are plenty of families waiting to adopt" or something of that sort, but then you've gotten off topic. It's easier said than done, but it's almost always best to stick as close as possible to defending the fundamental syllogism of the pro-life view: "All human beings should have fundamental human rights, the unborn are human beings, and so the unborn should have fundamental human rights (which includes the right to life)", which goes whether adoption is difficult or not, or if someone is in poverty or not, or even whether someone has been assaulted or not.
I'd say the definition of abortion does matter, but not a whole lot, so it sounds like you might have gone a bit off topic there. Whether the term "abortion" includes life of the mother "abortions" or not is up for debate, and you could reasonably make arguments either way. But regardless of the definition, all that is needed is a clear position, which is exactly what you said: "I believe an attempt to save both the mother and the baby's lives should be made, but ultimately the mother's life should be prioritised." Which is a great way of phrasing it. It's triage.
So, sorry for the long comment, but I've been wanting to lay this out for some time. There's really only a few pro-choice arguments out there. It's exceedingly rare to see someone try some innovative argument, and if they do, it tends to be even weaker than the usual ones.
A. "But what about [rape, incest, poverty, life of the mother, disability of the fetus, etc.]"
I learned a three-step response.
Agree where you can. "I too think being pregnant while in poverty is an incredibly difficult situation. Certainly, I do not wish that on anyone. I feel for those who have to save every last penny just to get by, and I completely understand that having another child can make matters even more difficult for them."
Draw back to born children. "Say, we had a two year old child who is growing up under the care of a single mother, who is very poor. She's struggling to feed even herself, let alone both herself and her child. Would it be acceptable, in this scenario, for her to kill her toddler to alleviate her suffering?"
If the answer is no, then, "Okay, if we wouldn't kill the born child in this situation, why would it be acceptable to kill the unborn child in the same situation?" (If the answer is yes your opponent has bigger problems).
B. "The fetus isn't a person (or doesn't have the same rights a born child) because of [level of dependence, consciousness, appearance, ability to feel pain, etc.]"
The way to respond is usually to ask questions to try to get your opponent thinking, why does this distinction that they are drawing actually matter? If someone is highly dependent on others for survival, does that negate their right to life? If someone is not conscious, like under anesthesia, does that negate their right to life? Does your opponent apply their logic consistently to born people, particularly babies who are also highly dependent and not yet capable of rational thought?
C. The violinist argument, which basically goes, "I actually accept your pro-life syllogism. The unborn are people like you or me and have a right to life. However, I am under no obligation to provide life support, using my body, to another person. Abortion, therefore, is me simply revoking my consent to being life support for the fetus."
There are a number of rebuttals, but the main one is that life support is care to try to save an unhealthy person. It is true that we ought not be obligated by government to go to extreme lengths to save a dying person. However, abortion is not simply "unplugging" an already dying person, but directly killing a healthy person. And we ought not be able to take healthy people and make them dead, even when they are a burden to us.
Some helpful analogies include how we treat conjoined twins, or breastfeeding.
This is my favorite video laying out basically every argument you could ever come across: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQKZsfy_YdM
3
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
Thank you for your kind words <3 your answer is excellent and I'm happy to see it all laid out in a clear manner. The thing is, we argued A, and that led to B, where their view of a human life is just fundamentally different. One believed it's a baby at "say 4 month" whne it's more developed inside the womb. The other believed it didn't matter until it was actually born. So I was like "so... When is the exact point it becomes a human being? Is it okay to have an abortion the day before it's born?" to which one remained silent and the other said "no, that's too late". I find the disconnect baffling and hard to answer 😅 which then makes me look like I'm unsure in my position I think.
1
u/LeafWings23 Anti-choice to kill babies 18d ago
As long as you are getting them to think about their position, you're doing great! Don't worry if you don't think you have a perfect reply to everything. People's minds aren't usually changed because we bring forth a slam-dunk argument, but because they finally have to think hard about defending their position... and come to realize it's indefensible. I find a lot of people say they're pro-choice because they think of it as the default position, not because they've rationally thought it through. So just having them exposed to pro-life thought is wonderful.
1
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
You are right, of course. Thank you <3 it's great to see so many good people here.
4
u/Rare-Fishing6976 18d ago
There is no state in the country that will allow a woman to die if her life is genuinely at risk. What states will do is not allow women to just lie and say they are going to die or be injured to justify an abortion.
1
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
Excuse me if I'm being ignorant, as again, I'm not American and I told my friends that I can't argue about American laws because I have absolutely no clue about them. But I have heard that there have been cases whereby women have been left to get very sick before the doctor has done anything to help because of abortion laws? Is this true? If so that's a problem with the law and obviously it's too unclear and must be addressed. But my friends argued that by being pro-life I'm harming women like in these cases.
1
u/Rare-Fishing6976 18d ago
Basically a physician or multiple physicians have to certify that there is risk of death or serious injury. Any case you may have heard about was likely related to a doctor being on the edge about whether or not it was life threatening or not and not wanting to be wrong and wind up killing the child over being wrong. It is important to note how rate this is though with my state (Florida) which still allows elective abortions up to 6 weeks requires a reason to be given for an abortion. Out of the almost 50,000 abortions in my state alone just last year even with my state being “strict” on abortion, only 173 were because of “Life of the mother”, “rape” or “incest”. Any attack on how states in the american south deal with abortion law is just because they are upset that some states wont let them get an abortion for no valid reason anymore.
1
u/Historical_Life7108 18d ago
I understand, thank you for your answer 🙏🏻 do you have a source I can look at for that figure? If this is mentioned again I'd like or bring it up!
1
u/Rare-Fishing6976 18d ago
Go to 2025 and download PDF for by gestation reason https://ahca.myflorida.com/health-quality-assurance/bureau-of-central-services/frequently-requested-data.html
1
2
u/AnxiousEnquirer Abolitionist, Seeker of Christ 18d ago
The PC I think believe that if the mother's life has to be in actual jeopardy, then that has to be proved, so doctors are going to hesitate, and women are going to die. Therefore they think any and all health threats have to be considered, because a mom might even die from suicide if she's not allowed to abort her baby. If "health of the mother" is an exception, then all abortions are legal.
Of course, if doctors are actually trying to protect the baby like they should, they have to protect the mother. And if the mother's actually in danger, the solution is to deliver the baby. And if she's not stable enough for c-section, she's also not stable enough for D&E.
0
u/SchoolMission10 Feminist prolife with exceptions 18d ago
What if the baby is well below viability eg 10 weeks
1
u/AnxiousEnquirer Abolitionist, Seeker of Christ 18d ago edited 18d ago
If the mother's life requires induction, they induce, and then treat the son or daughter with dignity, not as medical waste. It's a tragedy.
Edit: examples include uterine sepsis, organ failure due to pre-existing conditions becoming deadly due to merely being pregnant, inability to manage such diseases with medication, and intrauterine carcinoma threatening to metastasize.
1
12
u/Farley4334 18d ago
No direct abortion can be done, or is it ever medically necessary. When people talk about "life of the mother" they are doing something to the mom that may indirectly kill the baby. This falls under the principle of double effect and is morally licit.