Refutation of pro-choice arguments

John Smith commented on my last abortion post, and managed to fit pretty well every classic pro-choice argument there is into one paragraph. So I thought I’d go through his comment and discuss each of his arguments:

Abortion should be allowed because it is a personal choice that should not be dictated by law.

But it is a choice regarding somebody’s life. If it is to be a personal choice, that is a choice for the child, not the mother. As we don’t know what the child would choose, but can assume they would choose to live (wouldn’t you?), we can only allow the child to live.

Many children are born into bad families. To single mothers or abusive parents, and in some of these cases the parents blame their kids for their hardships. Abortions are typically performed on mothers who do not want to be mothers,

If they didn’t want to be a mother, what on earth were they doing having sex? The birds and the bees are pretty obvious, if you have sex you may (and probably will eventually) end up pregnant. Sex is to make babies, and it is very good at it. It happens to be pleasurable to ensure people actually do it – if it wasn’t fun the human race might die out! If you aren’t prepared for pregnancy, don’t have sex.

If they don’t want to be a mother, but still get pregnant, it isn’t as though abortion is their only option. Many couples are crying out to adopt a baby, and there aren’t enough babies available, because so many are aborted. Adoption is a far better option to abortion, and there are plenty of organisations and individuals who will pay all the legal expenses associated with it to ensure that the baby’s life is saved. Having more adoptions would save the lives of babies, give children to parents who want them, and provide a simpler and cheaper option to infertile couples considering IVF treatment – saving a lot of public and private money.

women who cannot afford to take proper care of kid,

Irrelevant in NZ, our state welfare system pays you more if you have children. And they can adopt the child out.

someone who had been raped,

This is a red herring, as it is extremely rare. Few women conceive due to rape, as it is hard to conceive when under stress, and rape is one of the most stressful situations a woman can be in. Furthermore the odds are she won’t be at a fertile part of her cycle. Just because a child is the result of rape doesn’t mean it should be denied the right to live (kiwipolemicist explains that well here), and some women can actually find having a child therapeutic after rape, as she has something good in the middle of the terrible situation she is dealing with. But ignoring the moral aspects, even if you allowed abortion due to rape, but stopped the rest, abortion in NZ would nearly disappear because abortion due to rape is so rare anyway.

and many other reasons. Those women should not be denied their individual right to abort their pregnancies and many are doing it for the well being of their developing child.

I’m going to kill you. It’s for your own good, trust me. Huh?

In this country people are not allowed to force a religious or philosophic belief through force of law and by getting rid of abortion our country would be doing just that.

But abortion forces the belief of the mother (that she can kill her child) on the child, in a completely irreversible way. Allowing the child to live is PREVENTING someone forcing their belief on it.

I understand that with today’s knowledge people can be informed while the child is still developing if the baby will have any sort of complications. If the baby will have any mental problems or if they will be handicapped and I agree that mothers should not base their choice on those outcomes.

Glad to hear that, we agree on one point!

I think abortions should have regulations for those types of problems but I do believe that women should be able to make the choice of having an abortion. Should abortion ever become illegal and a woman still wishes to have an abortion it may lead to people doing illegal abortions which are very serious. Many illegal abortions end in death for both the mother and her child.

The flaw in this reasoning is the idea that abortion becomes safe if it is performed in a state hospital. It doesn’t. Abortion is a risky procedure, sure you can reduce some of the risks, but ultimately you cannot get rid of them. Women still die from abortion. Furthermore, abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, and can have other detrimental effects on the mother, all of which exist whether or not the abortion is performed in a hospital. I understand the international experience is that when abortion is restricted, the number of deaths due to abortion is actually lower.

These common myths about abortion are refuted all over the net, one example is here.

6 Responses to “Refutation of pro-choice arguments”

  1. kiwipolemicist Says:

    That’s a very good refutation Samuel.

    You mention IVF: if you believe that life begins at conception – as you and I do – then IVF is also murder/abortion because the “surplus” embryos/babies are destroyed.

    Therefore I believe that IVF should also be illegal and, as you say, if abortion was also illegal then more babies would be available for adoption and provide an alternative to IVF.

    I can understand that some couples want IVF because they want a baby that they have created and carried themselves, but if they valued children above their own desires they would consider those children that are killed as part of the IVF process. There are probably some couples who have fallen for the pro-abortion lies and see no conflict between killing a bunch of children to produce one live one.

    I oppose the cloning of humans for the same reasons.

    Then there’s the stem cell business. Obviously creating and killing embryos/babies to gain stem cells is out. But taking stem cells from cord blood is no problem: the ethical use of the stem cells is a separate matter.

    Why not offer mothers the opportunity to sell the stem cells from the cord blood? It’d pay for a few nappies :)

  2. Mr Dennis Says:

    Good point about IVF. I understand it is possible to freeze the spare embryos and use them later, or donate them to someone else, removing this moral objection, but am not sure of the legal details around this. The vast majority of people would not do this, and IVF would result in the surplus embryos being destroyed. This is another good reason to promote adoption instead.

  3. kiwipolemicist Says:

    A point that should have occurred to me earlier: I understand that IVF implantation has a high failure rate, so even if all the embryos/babies were implanted then humans are still causing the death of those babies.

    A good number of home made embryos/babies also die at a very early stage, but that is a natural process and therefore something entirely different.

  4. Sara Says:

    “If they didn’t want to be a mother, what on earth were they doing having sex?”

    Would hate to be your wife!

  5. kiwipolemicist Says:

    Sara, I think it is safe to assume that Samuel is not advocating a sex-is-only-for-procreation ethos :)

    Samuel’s point is valid, i.e. no contraceptive method is 100% safe – with the possible exception of a hysterectomy – so anyone engaging in sex is accepting the risk of pregnancy. As Samuel says “If you aren’t prepared for pregnancy, don’t have sex.”.

    This is one of the reasons why God wants sex to be only within marriage, because if there are any little surprises they can be raised within a family (his rules aren’t made to spoil fun, they’re made for everyone’s benefit). So much of the societal break down that the government and other people bleat about is caused by the Domestic Purposes Benefit that pays single mothers to have babies and raise them without fathers. There’s an old saying amongst economists: don’t subsidise something unless you want more of it.

    http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com

    http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/

  6. No woman should be forced to carry a child? « Samuel Dennis Says:

    [...] Apiata greatest living NZerChildren forced into adoption by gay coupleHow to make semi-soft butterRefutation of pro-choice argumentsSea level rise “greatest lie ever [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: