Pin It

The following debate occurred Sunday evening on a friend Sarah’s facebook page. We decided it was such a good representation of the arguments in a debate over abortion, that it would be worth publishing (names changed, of course). “Sarah,” who is pregnant with her second child, posted the original comment, which was soon commented on by her friends.

At one point, “Jane” reasons that being pro-life means that you must be a vegan, calls pro-life people “whackos” and “f–_ing ignorant” as “Becca” continues to argue the pro-life position in a calm manner.


Sarah: ‎”…in solidarity with the child waiting to be born.” I like that.

Jane: I’m in solidarity with a woman’s right to choose, whatever those choices may be. I’m in solidarity with a woman’s private life being between her and her doctor. I’m in solidarity with government staying out of our bedrooms. And I’m in solidarity with politics staying out of our vaginas.

Jenny If you respect the sanctity of life, then it shouldn’t be limited solely to the issue of abortion.

Sarah: Jenny, thanks so much for sharing. It is always good to read a new point of view and discuss. I’m empathetic to the pro-choice point of view. I was pro-choice before having Kristy…It’s a very difficult issue. After reading the editorial, I have to remark that I was so thankful for the final paragraph in the article — it clearly illustrated the ?? of his point. I think there is a huge difference in being able to choose whether to end the life of another person–your child–and whether to drink a 20 oz soda or not. I believe in the freedom to choose how to live your own life when your own is the only life your choices affect. I don’t believe in the choice to end another’s, and can’t close my eyes anymore to the fact that an abortion is an end to another human’s life, the most innocent life on earth that there is.

Sarah: I’ll add that I mostly shared the original quotation because I do feel so much solidarity with the innocent life about to be born into my family on December 7!

Carol: “Solidarity with a woman’s right to choose?” Since when has murder been a right? With any choices women make, because they’re women? What if a woman chooses to murder puppies, solidarity with that too? Are you in solidarity with government staying out of all murder cases? Should that be a matter of choice? Women have been conned by this argument. That’s the war on women. And the babies who have died because we’ve confused some made up right to choose murder as a good thing, is one of the greatest tragedies of our time.

Jane: It’s the law. Which is based on science. Not religion. Which we separated from state a long time ago. This law was passed 40 years ago. Time to move on and let it go. Is birth control murder in your eyes?

Is masturbation? Technically those sperm are alive and people are consciously making a decision to kill them. Make your choices as you wish in your own home, with your own doctor. I don’t care. But don’t try to tell me what i can and cannot do, it is not your decision to make or to regulate.

Becca: there is a pretty big difference between a human fetus and a sperm. And viable human fetuses are killed every day by abortion. The legal limit for abortion in CA is up to 6 months gestation. (And have you heard of partial-birth abortion, which is supported by President Obama? It is where a human baby is killed when he is half-way out of the womb. And it is perfectly legal under federal law.) I have met children who were born premature at 6 months gestation and now they are children living here among us. Abortion kills human beings. Your argument above does not make sense. Religion is not required to make the pro-life argument. It is common sense.

Jane: It makes perfect sense to me as it does for millions of women all over the world. Again, it’s not your business. And my choices, whatever they may be, don’t concern you. Meat is murder too. I’m just saying, according to your logic and just so you aren’t a complete hypocrite, I certainly hope you are not masturbating and I hope you are a vegan as well, and a staunch defender of no death penalty. I’m also assuming you are with that senator when it comes to “legitimate rape”? How a woman’s body, y’know, has a way to shut that whole thing down?

Carol: Wow.

Jane: Exactly!

Becca: Please don’t assume anything!!! I am just saying that viable human beings are killed when an abortion happens. That is a scientific fact! I don’t understand what that has to do with masturbation, meat, or anything some idiot senator says. VIABLE human beings die when they are vacuumed out of the mother’s womb. FACT.

Carol: Sarah and Becca, I feel that if we let Jane keep writing, the whole world will be convinced to be prolife. Thanks Jane!

Jane: So it’s ok if you’re raped? How does that make sense? If it’s wrong, then it’s wrong.

Jane: Thanks for “letting” me. Wait do you want to take that right away too?

Becca:  Rape is a horrific criminal act of violence. But I am not engaging in an argument with you about rape. Fact: abortion kills human beings.Jane you really should focus on the facts: Is there a human being in there, with eyes, lips, fingernails, a beating heart, and an ability to feel pain? Does abortion kill that human being? YES! This has nothing to do with veganism, masturbation, rape, etc. etc. Typical “arguments” that I also used to believe in when I was pro-choice! Distractions, really. It is sad.

Jane: There are so many larger issues. Why do women have to enter the forefront of everything? Why can’t you people just leave us alone???? Stay out of our bedrooms. Stay out of our marriages. Stay out of whom we want to love. Stay out of the choices I feel are best for me and my family. Stay out!!!

Becca: But that is THE question–if we believe that abortion kills an innocent person, then how can we stand by and let it happen? That is why pro-life people feel they must speak up– to defend the baby who has no voice. We have just run through the entire debate in a nutshell. Hope it was useful 🙂:)

Jane: No. It’s the same old bullshit you people scream out. So it’s okay to kill a doctor that performs abortions? You’re all whackos. And it’s pure exhaustion “talking” to people who are so fucking ignorant.

Becca: no, it is definitely wrong to kill a doctor that performs abortions. Why are you continually putting words in my mouth? I am not a whacko. And I am not ignorant, either. Please stop insulting me and accusing me of things that I never said.

Jane: Stop insulting me with the fact that I can’t make my own decisions. Do you really think if men could get pregnant this would be an issue? And who nominated you to speak for anyone? What makes you and your clan so special?

Jane: Oh. You nominate yourself. Self-righteous. Makes sense

Becca: I am not insulting you. I am trying to present the other side of the debate. You can certainly make your own decisions. I have no idea what would happen if men could get pregnant. No one nominated me, I just happened to “like” Sarah’s original comment.

Jane: You said you’re speaking for the unborn. That means you nominated yourself or someone nominated you.

Becca: Why is it self-righteous to defend my point of view? You are defending yours, why can’t I defend mine? I haven’t called you a “hypocrite” or hurled any other personal insults at you.

Jane: And I LOVE the murdering puppies comment. Hahahahahahah. That’s my favorite!

Jane: Your point of view and saying you’re speaking for “someone” are two different things.

Becca: I didn’t “nominate” myself. I stumbled on this post!

Jane: If you had a point of view I wouldn’t care. That’s why it’s a choice. But the fact that you want to regulate it and make my own decisions for me is the insult.

Becca: I am explaining to you that if you are pro-life, then it only makes sense that you would want to speak up for the unborn.

Jane: I speak for the born.

Becca: I never said that I wanted to regulate anything or make decisions for you. I simply said that I wanted to present the pro-life point of view.

Becca: I was born! And I am an educated person. I have as much right to debate this as you do. And I haven’t engaged in personal insults or nonsensical distractions as you have.

Jane: Do you want abortion outlawed?

Becca: I would like women (and men) to be convinced by logical arguments that abortion is wrong!

Sarah: I have appreciated Becca’s focused, insult-free presentation of the debate. It’s a shame that a discussion about life and choices has denigrated into this: :You’re all whackos. And it’s pure exhaustion “talking” to people who are so fucking ignorant.” As Becca said earlier, I think we just ran through the debate, typical logic or lack-thereof, insults and tone in a nutshell.

Jane: You’re right. Let’s have women go back into dark alleys and get abortions by coat hangers. You think women will ever stop getting abortions? No. Should they have a safe place of doing this because it is THEIR choice to make? Yes. If you think outlawing abortion will make it stop, you’re dead wrong. Sorry if my “tone” offends you. Your opinions offend me.

lifeissues | Abortion: Correct Application of Natural Law Theory
The common moral principle to decide life difficult situations is found in natural law. It is known as the principle of double effect.

Becca: I am signing off but here is a philosophical defense of my position. Hope it is useful or interesting!

Jane: No thank you. It’s neither.

2 Responses

  1. Prudence

    The point “Jane” was trying to get at, is that 1) pro-choicers aren’t appealing to get a law passed, they’re appealing to keep a particular freedom. Pro-lifers, however, are attempting to take a freedom away.

    I feel that this article is meant as a shame tactic, trying to make pro-choice individuals look bad by saying ‘look, she got upset, she’s in the wrong’. She has valid points.

    2) When “Jane” mentions that it’s hypocritical to be pro-life if you’re not vegan, she’s quipping that ‘you’re saying you support life, but animals are killed for you to eat every day, how important can life really be to you?’

    I’ll admit, “Jane” did use a couple argument fallacies, but that in no way means that her argument is invalid simply because she took it personally. “Becca” claims that ‘Religion is not required to make the pro-life argument. It is common sense’, which is not necessarily true. The Religion aspect comes in when you determine when ‘life’ begins– many people believe in the ‘soul’ and that as soon as a fetus is formed a soul inhabits the body. I’m agnostic, so I think that it’s fine to abort a child up until it starts taking on human appearances, such as forming facial features, etc., although that does not mean I would choose to have an abortion.

    Honestly, saying ‘I believe this one thing, so you should be forced to comply’ is what happens when abortion is the topic. It all boils down to ‘Do I want a freedom taken away, or do I just wish people didn’t abuse said freedom?’ There are people who are pro-life, but say ‘oh, unless you were raped’, but why should that matter? They don’t have to keep the child. It’s still ‘murder’, so are you saying that ‘murder’ is only permissible when committed by certain people?

    You’re unfairly publishing an incomplete argument, and I think that’s sad. If two ideas fight and one truly comes out the victor, then fine, but if two ideas fight and one is unfairly represented, then it says more about the individual expressing the argument. If you need to cheat to ‘win’ this argument, then there’s clearly a weakness in yours.

  2. George Kocan

    I do believe that the pro-abortion ideology deserves shame. Killing your own child is a shameful act. Unfortunately, Democrats and their friends have no shame. How can they have shame when they posuture as morally superior? They affect moral superiority because of the very fact that they reject the moral law. In rejecting the moral law, they claim that they can do anything they want. No law, no moral code restrins their behavior. That is the central dogma of the Democrat Party and its fascist, socialist and communist allies. The direct political analogue of the claim that a person can do whatever he wants is a government that can do whatever it wants. Such a government is not restricted by any law, constitution or moral code. Such a government is a dictatorship, as that famous community organizer Vlad Lenin noted years ago, “Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.” In short, the freedom to abort is the freedom to commit genocide.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.