How do you argue with a pro-lifer who's COMPLETELY pro-life?

[Taverner]

Like my brother for example.

He's against abortion. He's also against war, the death penalty, and is coming over to the animal rights side.

His argument is that to intentionally cause suffering is a universal wrong.

Interesting argument...but how do you argue against that.

(For the record, my brother is a fair and balanced arguer, who considers all sides of an argument.)

[youthere]

1. I don't argue with them...

I admire them for not being hypocrites.

[Taverner]

2. Yes, but debate is one of our shared interests :)

We learned to debate without taking it personally.

Something I hope to empart to my kids if I can...

[youthere]

8. Maybe you can pick up the "tastes great/less filling"debate instead?

[CTyankee]

37. If he wants to outlaw abortion because of suffering you should discuss

women's suffering throughout history when it comes to unplanned pregnancies. Talk about a live, sentient woman as opposed to fetal life that cannot think or feel pain.

If suffering is his issue, the woman's suffering is a lot more devastating and can lead to a woman's death, thereby increasing suffering of her family and other loved ones.

[LaraMN]

3. I don't argue. My husband is pro-life.

It's hopeless, in his case. I prefer to think of it as "anti-choice," though. Everyone's pro-"life".

[wildhorses]

4. that is fine--he can be against anything he wants to be against

the problem is telling other people what they can be against. :shrug:

[AlCzervik]

5. just agree to disagree.

thats what i've done with my bil.

[Taverner]

7. It's not a matter of respecting each other's opinions

We just like to debate the issue. He says (and I tend to agree) that beliefs are useless and invalid unless discussed and debated.

[AlCzervik]

9. does he make any exceptions at all, like the case of rape or incest?

[Taverner]

12. I don't think so

His argument is that abortion should be illegal, but the state should cover all health care costs (he's big into universal health care) and provide adoption services.

My thought is that even with the best medical care and a guaranteed adoption, the mother who's been raped will suffer the rest of her life, and especially those 9 months.

[AlCzervik]

17. does he have any kids? I'm asking this because when i was pregnant

and going into labor i specifically remember that my obgyn asked my husband if he would sign a form saying that if my life was in jeopardy the life of the mother comes first, i don't have the wording exactly right but you get the gist. I don't know if that form was specific to massachusetts but my husband did sign it so i'm wondering if your brother signed something like as well.

[xmas74]

40. We didn't have a form like that in Missouri.

I had a c-section and had to sign a ton of forms. Nothing like that here.

[montanto]

41. what if the woman's life hangs in the balance?

that's always my last question. I do know a few people who are willing to go so far as to say, "yes, if the woman has to die, and perhaps the baby too, that is better than an abortion even at two weeks."

to me this is unreasonable, but it can't be countered. their decision is based on faith at this point, and to them it is better that two die and go to heaven than one (or more) don't.

[colinmom71]

47. Then it becomes a problematic argument in regards to legitimate action of the State...

His stance that abortion should be illegal with the state covering all health care costs still doesn't remedy the fact that his stance would have the force of law used to compel women to be subjected to the risks of complications that pregnancy and childbirth entail. It would force women to remain pregnant against their will and will subject more women to unwarranted suffering due to pregnancy health issues they would not have otherwise undergone had the pregnancy been terminated. I won't even begin to address what kind of monitoring system the State would then have to enact to make sure pregnant women are behaving in a manner to ensure no fetus suffers.

Keep in mind that even with the medical advances in the last several decades, pre-natal health care is no guarantee that a pregnant woman will not suffer from complications. Some complications may end her future childbearing ability (as happened to me), some may have long term impact on her health, and some are even *fatal*. I think these modern health advances sometimes lull us into forgetting that it was just a century ago that the leading cause of death for women ages 14-45 was pregnancy and childbirth complications. Yes, medical care is helping more women survive pregnancy and birth and is optimizing both the women and the babies health as best as possible, but it doesn't always work and the risks are still there.

As far as adoption is concerned, not every woman is ready or capable of being a parent to their child (regardless of the circumstances of conception), but also not every woman is willing to go through a pregnancy and then just give up her child. Then you have to other consent issues surrounding adoption, such as the father's consent and whether the adoption records are open or closed, etc. Add in the trauma of rape and you have a volatile situation where the woman may not be capable of even thinking of enduring a pregnancy thereafter, never mind the legal juggernaut your brother's stance would impose upon her... It's just not as simple as offering health care and adoption services in order to ameliorate "suffering". As you said, there's going to be suffering there no matter what happens to the pregnancy.

[redqueen]

6. That's me, actually.

I'd tell him that it doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not, if a woman is unwilling to carry a pregnancy to term, she may find even more painful and definitely less safe alternatives to legal abortion. No, not may... will.

Would he rather the suffering were increased, by removing access to safe abortion?

I'm pro-life, which necessarily means pro-choice. It's logical to me, anyway.

[Taverner]

10. I've used that argument, as well as the population one

That we are overpopulating this planet - which will lead to more suffering. Just look at deer in the wild when there are no natural predators.

[redqueen]

15. Hm...

it seems he's not willing to consider the suffering of others, then. In the face of that kind of rigidity, I don't know what to tell you. The world is not black and white... someday he'll realize that.

Good luck, and thanks for trying.

[Taverner]

18. He does consider it, but gives suffering from death (the fetus)

more weight than suffering for 9 months and then a lifetime of anguish.

Of course, it takes a woman to truly understand that.

I can't even fathom what a woman goes through when she's raped - I can only speak from what I hear from other women.

And as for the fetus? In the first trimester, a frog has more of a nervous system than a fetus. Should we then stop the suffering of all frogs?

[redqueen]

21. Death is release, really... the suffering is temporary, then release.

Does he know that some young women will resort to things like just punching themselves in the stomach repeatedly, if they can't get to a doctor? Is that preferable to him, than to have access to safe services? Even knowing that it's possible that such a thing might cause her to miscarry in the future, which, seemingly to him, would then cause more 'suffering'?

Has he considered the mental anguish that some poor woman might carry, having done something like that? What about the mentally ill? Should they be forced to carry to term, as well? Is he in favor of orphanages?

So many holes in that rigid way of thinking... I can't understand anyone holding on to it for too long.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

35. I understand what you're saying, However the frog analogy is a bad one.

We SHOULD stop the suffering of frogs. We shouldn't make ANY animal suffer.

[NashVegas]

11. Without Suffering, We Can Never Understand Joy

..

[hellbound-liberal]

13. I agree. What is there to argue about? I agree with all of his positions, though

I still am not convinced that abortion should be outlawed. I still have a problem with forcing a woman to bear a child who is the result of rape or incest. Plus, I think a woman's reproductive decisions should be made by her not some radical right-wing Bible thumper.

[amitten]

14. Try me. I'm one of the few with that particular mindset.

I'm not saying what should be legal or illegal. But from a moral standpoint, I always side with the smaller and the weaker...and I don't really approve of killing anything. That's why I don't.

[fla nocount]

16. Nothing to argue about, he sees embryos as viable life forms

You're not going to change that, I agree with him and I'm knot headed too. At the same time I'm pro-choice because I don't think that this is a matter that can be legislated nor should it be. It's not a cause that will get me out in the street.

[SteppingRazor]

19. Several points of contention I can see

war and the death penalty kill actual living things.

Does he consider an embryo to be a living human being even at conception? Even when it's just a cluster of 10 or 20 cells?

And even if he actually believes that, what if having the baby would kill the mother? Would it be better to have the abortion and kill one life, rather than kill two?

[TheBaldyMan]

20. He's consistent in his beliefs, I'd say cut him some slack.

He sounds like a guy who considers quality of life as important.

His views are't objectionable.

btw how does he feel about voluntary or assisted suicide for terminally ill people?

According to his lights, would I be right as a mentally competent adult if I wanted to end my life voluntarily if I did have a terminal illness or a degenerative condition and I wanted to go out while I still had health and all my marbles.

[Cabcere]

22. Have you tried asking him

what he believes should be done if the pregnancy is likely to be fatal for the woman? :shrug: For example, I have a blood disorder that would make it very dangerous for me to become pregnant (or even go on the pill, for that matter). If I were raped, I would almost certainly have an abortion - not because I think life is something to be treated carelessly or with disrespect, but because the pregnancy could literally kill me (and it's doubtful the baby would survive if that happened, unless it was very close to the end of term). Just a thought. :hi:

[Gatchaman]

23. It's a matter of respect

If someone truly champions the preservation of ALL life, I can respect and even agree with them.

But when someone hides their ninteenth century puritanical views on sex and women's rights behind the fradulent label of "pro-life", all the while talking about how important it is to "support" our troops getting massacred and to execute shoplifters and grafitti artists, they're simply hypocrites of very poor character.

[Burma Jones]

24. I am against abortion, but vehemently pro choice

It's about not imposing my own beliefs on others. Or, against abortion - don't have one. Being a guy, it will never be my choice, but I have a wife and daughters, and they should have the freedom to choose. What one person believes is suffering is not the same as another's belief.

[gbate]

25. At least he's consistent. I'd just avoid the subject.

I respect the fact that he is also against the war and is also anti DP.

[Book Lover]

26. Then I wonder how he eats anything other than fruit dropped from the branch

I don't need to repeat what others have said here regarding keeping abortion safe, though I have to admit that his lack of consideration is somewhat shocking for one who claims to live a life full of compassion for all beings.

[IronLionZion]

27. You don't argue, you politely discuss the suffering of unwanted children

such as neglect, abuse, etc. and how a feeling of unwantedness can push a good person down the slippery slope of mental instability and self-destructive behavior. I wish every child were born into a family that loves him/her.

You can actually agree with him that abortion is bad but ought to be safe, legal, and rare. You could also talk about the importance of freedom of choice, and how it would be wrong to take that away from others. Feel free to use the religious angle about not judging others or "he who has not sinned can throw the first stone".

[kay1864]

28. Depends on what kind he is..

If he's the waffling "legal only in the case of rape or incest" kind, you can point out that murder (which they all claim abortion is) is a worse crime than rape or incest. That should cause him to question the basis of his reasoning.

If he's the "illegal under all circumstances" kind, then you can ask him if a 11-year-old victim of rape or incest should be forced to carry her child to term (Dan Quayle was asked this very question by a 12-yo schoolgirl).

After that, dunno...

[anti-everything]

29. I don't discuss abortion with pro lifers

It's like banging your head against a wall.

[liontamer]

30. Embryos aren't alive

they also aren't equipped to suffer. they are essentially a collection of endocrine cells (like your adrenal glands) for the first stage of development. Women are alive, they can suffer, and to intentionally cause them to suffer is wrong. Additionally, babies are alive, they can suffer, and to create a person who is unwanted and will suffer their whole life (and lets face it, all life contains suffering) is wrong.

[philosophie_en_rose]

31. Pro-choice means that it's your choice.

Pro choice means that your brother can choose to never have an abortion.

In addition, abortions will happen regardless of legality. Anti-abortion laws are only contribute to life-threatening situations.

In sum: keep your bible out my vagina.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. embryos are a collection of cells that dont suffer,

women however who are forced to have children against their will do.

[Katherine Brengle]

33. I don't.

Some people just aren't going to agree - since he's cool on everything else, odds are he votes for Democrats, which indirectly supports choice.

[LeftyMom]

34. Is he personally or legally against abortion?

If he's just against it personally, I think he's got a morally consistent position there, at least if one assumes that abortion is a cause of suffering, although I don't really think the science says that.

If he's against it legally, remind him that banning abortion means that women who need one will get them illegally at an unacceptably high risk of sepsis, lose their future fertility and worse when infection sets in and sometimes just bleed out when things to wrong at the hands of a provider who may not be fully trained and may prioritize secrecy above patient safety. Remind him that while the pain and suffering of the fetus is something we really don't know for sure about, that we do know perfectly well that women baring babies they don't want suffer, that women who get backalley abortions suffer even when they go well, and that women who have complications from illegal abortions often suffer and die.

[librechik]

36. It's harsh, but your brother has integrity, since he's against death penalty

I can't live that ideology myself, but I admire those who can. I wouldn't argue with him. I'd try to live up to him.

[ComerPerro]

38. simply ask him what he proposes we do with all the unwanted children, or children born into poverty

[grace0418]

39. He's allowed to be against abortion. That is his right. The problem comes in

when people who are against abortion try to force others to live by their standards. No one has that right.

[Strawman]

42. Prisoners, combatants are not inside a woman's body

As long as it's in her body, her business, her call.

He can be personally opposed to abortion and still support women having a choice, as opposed to the state controlling those kinds of decisions about her body.

[China_cat]

43. Why would you want to argue with him?

He's one of the few who seems to see the total implication of pro-life, unlike so many who use the label to only mean 'anti-choice' when it comes to abortion but will support war, and are rabid about the death penalty not being used enough.

You might want to sound him out on the anti-abortion stance to see if he supports pro-life after birth. All the things that a child needs that, if lacking, might cause a woman to choose abortion...such as a place to live, health care, food, education.

[Left Is Write]

44. Short answer: You don't.

[Ookie]

45. Is he also pro education and pro birth control?

At least he is consistent in his pro-life stance. Nothing is more hypocritical than a person who is against abortion but for the death penalty.

[colinmom71]

46. Then he must be against saving preemies....

If it is a universal wrong (according to his professed absolutist maxim) to intentionally cause suffering, then it is wrong to subject very premature infants to the treatments that, while they tend to be life saving, often cause much pain and suffering to the infant.

He will immediately counter this with the notion that the intent to promote survival allows for the suffering to be justified, thus creating a justifiable exception to his maxim. Then, you show that his logic is faulty because the intent with abortion sometimes is designed to *prevent* suffering, in cases where a poor fetal health diagnosis shows that only a life of suffering will exist for such an afflicted fetus after it's birth.

Also, fetuses cannot feel pain until around the 26th week of gestation. The full neurological system and brain/nerve connections needed to perceive and process painful stimuli are not fully functional until generally 26 weeks (cite 1997 RCOG study on fetal pain). Most fetuses are considered medically viable at around 24 weeks and post-viability abortions are currently not legal in any state in the US unless there is an emergent danger to the life of the pregnant woman (a phenomenon so rare as to be statistically unappreciable). Therefore, the vast majority of abortions in the US cannot cause suffering to the fetus as a matter of medical fact, as almost all abortions occur before the fetus has the ability to suffer...

I'd suggest to him that he needs to look up arguments for pro-life philosophies based on whether a circumstance of killing can be morally justifiable, and not based upon the very arbitrary notion of what constitutes "suffering". One person's notion of suffering may be another person's notion of "not so bad". Or, in this instance where abortion is concerned, his notion of suffering is a false construct based on his lack of knowledge about gestational development and abortion procedures. Pro-lifers/anti-choicers will often side with the notion that the suffering a preemie endures is justifiable due to the intent to promote survival, therefore their argument needs to focus on whether and when fetal death via abortion is justifiable...

[Hosnon]

48. Well he must first explain how it is that the fetus is suffering.

I don't know the exact science but I assume that an early fetus does not have the necessary nerve endings or translator (brain) to receive and convey pain/suffering.

If the fetus is not suffering, being pro-choice is not contrary to his premise.

Also, ALWAYS CHALLENGE UNIVERSALS!

Ask him if he'd cut off his finger to save his brother's life, i.e., your life. That is causing intentional suffering (to himself). Is that also wrong?

[GreenEyedLefty]

49. He deserves credit for consistency

The more interesting argument would be to define "life." IMO, a human embryo/fetus is a potential life, not a sentient human being. But that's just me.

:shrug:

[Xipe Totec]

50. I am completely pro-life too

and I am also pro-choice.

I believe in the sanctity of life. I would not do anything to harm another life, if the choice was mine.

I also believe that God have us free will for a reason. Therefore, to interfere with another human being's choice in this mater would be to interfere with the will of God. It would be blasphemy.

It is not up to me to decide what you should do in a given set of circumstances, it it only up to me to decide, when the circumstances are mine, what I would do.

[Rabrrrrrr]

51. If suffering is his main issue, then debate on that -

if causing suffering is what is bad (and I would agree), then debate him on issues of how not having an abortion could cause even more suffering in the long term.

He needs to see that there is much more to inflicting suffering on others than just doing it directly and physically, face-to-face.

That one is always weighing varying degrees of suffering.

By me not killing you, sure, I'm not inflicting suffering on you. But I might be inflicting a lot of suffering on myself by not killing you - perhaps you beat me up every day. I might even be inflicting suffering on others - perhaps you are a serial killer or a tyrant. In those cases, my killing you might be the most ethical (possibly the only ethical) choice.

That is sort of where Bonnhoeffer came down when he decided to assassinate Hitler - Bonhoeffer knew it was evil because it was killing, but it was less evil than allowing Hitler to live.

Or maybe I'm the serial killer, and I just really, really enjoy killing, and not-killing causes me suffering. In which case, I would say the suffering that I endure is still less than the suffering of the murder victim, and so I would be ethically wrong to kill you.


I appluad your brother for looking at these issues through the lens of suffering - I truly think that suffering is the only viable lens in ethical matters. But truth is, we cannot eliminante suffering: there is no suffering-neutral option in any situation, especially if one starts looking at the suffering of meta-populations. All we can ever do is weigh all the various sufferings, and, hopefully, choose the one that weighs the least.

[XemaSab]

52. You don't

:shrug:

[rug]

53. As long as he doesn't advocate imprisoning women and doctors, there's no reason to argue.