The answer to every "argument" for abortion

Hello there. I frequently see people making mistakes when answering to those who defend infanticide. To make things easier for everyone, I have created this kind of silver bullet that answers to every typical argument for it, showing that abortion is always murder. The intended audience are those who want a good, short answer in these discussions. Share it with your friends so that they are well prepared for the daily battle against infanticide

REBUTTALS

A) "But they are not independent, they depend on the mother so they’are not alive"

  1. The same applies to the baby 1 hour before being born
  2. The same applies to the baby several years after being born
  3. You can take a fetus out of the womb and use a machine to feed nutrients, so there is no really dependance on the mother, but on some nutrients, like all of us
  4. A fetus can be alive for a time after the mother is dead (i.e she gets shot in the head), so there is clearly no dependence, not a single life but two.

B) "But they are just a clump of cells"

  1. We are all just clump of cells from a materialistic point of view

C) "But they do not feel pain so they are not alive (that is, they do not have the capacity to feel pain) NOTE: also applies to similar arguments related to arbitrary thresholds in development"

  1. If we somehow removed someone’s entire sense of touch completely and all related sensations, that person would still be alive.
  2. Pain is ultimately the transmission of some impulses through a normal material medium, so following that definition a computer or similar should be considered to be alive.
  3. If someone “starts feeling pain”, it is implied that there is a preexisting living consciousness to which we add sensory information.
  4. Overall, the definition of life as “feeling pain” is arbitrary, and could as well be “it is not alive because it doesn’t see yet”, or “it is not alive because it hasn’t heard someone playing the guitar yet” or “it isn’t alive because the moonlight beams haven’t struck it yet”. The other responses are a consequence of the foolishness of trying to come up with these arbitrary definitions.

D) "But what if it was rape"

  1. The murder of a child by the very mother is 10 times worse than rape, so the mother becomes much worse than the rapist.
  2. If abortion is justified because a fetus is not human, why do people try to bring up rape to justify it? If a fetus wasn’t a human, then they wouldnt have to do so. If it is human, then abortion isn’t justified in any case.

E) "But what if the life of the mother is endangered"

  1. Mothers with the slighest moral compass will die for the safety and future of their children

F) "But what if they grow poor and unloved"

  1. The same could be applied to people after they are born
  2. In no way it follows the inmense cruelty that we should execute them
  3. Overall this “argument” reflects the perverse mind of those who defend infanticide, unable to feel even the slightest love towards their own children if they are a nuissance.

G) "But I am not financially prepared"

  1. Murdering your own children to have more money
  2. Give them up for adoption, so that, since you hate them so much that you abandon them for money, at least someone can give them a home.

H) "But people who oppose abortion don’t love children afterwards"

  1. There is literally no reason to think that
  2. Adopting children is excellence, not murdering them is the basics. It is normal to not to reach excellence but at least cover the moral basics, just like there are people who don’t give their entire savings to the poor, but do not murder them.
  3. With regards to adoption, it is like saying that we can’t complain about beggars being murdered unless we house some beggars in our home.
  4. Statistics show once and again that people who oppose abortion adopt and love more children. This is not surprising, considering that people who defend abortion usually talk about how much they hate children and how they will never have them so that they can go on trips and be whores/manwhores.

I) "But it’s my body/autonomy"

  1. It isn’t your body, just like it isn’t after it is born. See A)

J) "But abortion is a right"

  1. It isn’t. Not being murdered as a child, however, is.
  2. If it was a right on the grounds that the fetus is not human, then destroying anything that isn’t human would be justified.
  3. “Rights” are whatever the current year leftist celebrities proclaim in emotional propaganda speeches. What matters is morality, the good/evil of an action.

K) "But what if you are given the chance to save a baby or 100 fertilized eggs etc etc? Doesn’t that show an inner awareness that a fetus isn’t really alive?"

  1. It is always easier to kill the ones you can’t see. People feel less guilt when there is no face to remember.
  2. Whoever wants to save more living human beings will save the 100 fertilized eggs.
  3. Because of bias, people will usually tend to save the born baby, just like a father will probably save his unborn baby over several born children from other people. That in no way alters their humanity.
  4. In the end, people tend to do what requires less active participation. In similar hypothetical situations, people aren’t willing, for example, to actively push someone to death to save several people.

L) "But you are not a woman!"

  1. Being a woman does not give someone permission to murder a child.
  2. It follows that we can’t complain about the torture and murder of the boers in South Africa if we aren’t black.
  3. Strangely, this is almost never said to those who defend infanticide.
  4. For the duration of the discussion, I identify as a woman :^)

EXTRAS

  1. Groups that defend abortion using the former arguments have consistently supported leaving the babies that result from failed abortions to die while they scream, voting down laws that would force the staff to try to save the baby [1,2,3,4]. Politicians and celebrities have constantly defended the “right” of the mother to decide whether or not the already born child should be killed.
  2. There are several records of abortion providers joking about dismembering children, talking about selling baby parts, etc [5].
  3. Some groups and communities have stopped pretending they care about it and just concede that they know the babies are alive, but they don’t care. Some have realized that there is no magical threshold for humanity, and removing it altogether to be consistent, they advocate for “post-birth abortion” [6]. This is also known as euthanasia. Several born babies, children and adults have been killed because it was considered it was “in their best interests” [12, 13, 14].
  4. Similarly, people are also forced to abort their children because it is “in their best interests” [15].
  5. It is no surprise that it is only in the modern western world, with 11 year old transvestites dancing at gay bars for money [7], drag queen history time hours [8], pronouns madness, pornographic ice-cream ads with priests [9] (or even abortion ice-cream flavors [10]) and cartoons [11], and many more, that infanticide is widely defended.
  6. The defense of abortion, like that of degeneracy, euthanasia, and atheism, are all based on hedonism and avoiding suffering as the ultimate life goal. People don’t want to have children because they are an obstacle to cheap pleasure. Mothers will murder their own children because they will also get in the way of their pleasure. Hedonistic pleasure is love. Lives without pleasure do not count as actual lives. If at some point pleasure ends, it is better to end the life. There can’t be a God if there is suffering because since pleasure is the ultimate good, God would create the ultimate pleasure
  7. The legalization of infanticide is usually enabled by false testimony, such as the Roe vs Wade case, where Roe repented, admited lying, remarked the evil of those who supported her, and spent the rest of her life fighting infanticide.

DO NOT DO THESE

  1. Do not argue on the basis of pictures that show the visual aspect of a fetus, because then you justify infanticide in earlier stages, and reduce humanity to emotional reactions. Said images are only useful for getting attention.
  2. Do not accept arbitrary, materialistic definitions of humanity/life like “feeling pain” or “knowing how to play the guitar”, i.e. do not try to argue whether or not a fetus can feel pain. If you play by their rules you will never win, because those rules are made to justify infanticide. You are also conceding that the fetus can be killed, for example, if it doesn’t feel pain. You won’t have time to explain the supernatural nature of life and consciousness, but you can show the absurdity of their definitions (see C))
  3. Do not use a tone softer than what is appropiate for people who defend the mass murder of babies, because you are implying that nothing serious is being done, and they do not deserve it.
  4. Do not condemn those who very strongly protest against the slaughterhouses that are abortion clinics, because you are defending the apathy of those who see a kid being killed on the streets and do nothing. Actual murder of children justifies action against it, so the rejection of this action implies that it is blown out of proportion because there is no actual murder.
  5. Do not argue on the basis of how many women/blacks/whatever are killed by abortion, because then you are implying that there is no murder, since otherwise you would defend all babies instead of trying to further feminism. You aren’t being smart, you aren’t using their own weapons against them, you are just falling into their trap, implying there is no murder, and furthering their other causes.
  6. Do not argue on the basis of “potential for life”, since then you are denying the murder, saying that there is no life yet.
  7. Do not argue on the basis of how few abortions are caused by rape, because then you justify the murder of the children in those cases, and doing so would only be justified if they are not alive/human, and if they are not alive, then all abortion is justified.
  8. Do not make “pro-life” into anything other than “anti-abortion”. “pro-life” doesn’t mean nobody can ever be killed. We focus on innocent children.

It is evident for anyone with basic intellect that abortion is always murder. There are more and more people who will just laugh and say that they will try to have as many abortions as they can, or that they will not bat an eye while they dismember their own children. That, of course, only shows the moral level of those who defend infanticide. Overall, a better case could be made for those who defend infanticide not being alive/human, since they do not give any signs of having any decency or humanity, being like wild animals that scream at anything that threatens their pleasure and filth.

A million more things could be said about the hypocrisy of those who defend abortion, a group that correlates, for example, with the people who will try to murder you if you crush a turtle egg. . The groups that defend abortion are well knwon for their promiscuity, hedonism, materialism, lack of responsability and morals, relativism, etc. To keep their debauchery without worries, the easiest way is to just murder the product of their vices to keep indulging in them. That is why the apologist of infanticide will shapeshift constantly and periodically come up with new arbitrary definitions of humanity as time goes by.

Overall, our position is summarized as follows: the murder of children will be punished as murder of children. From time to time, a self declared christian comes up and states how infanticide is God’s gift, or that they are personally opposed to it, but will protect it by any means so that people can keep murdering children. Let us see what we can find in the earliest Christianity:

The didache (1st century). chapter 2:
“you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten”

St Basil of Caesarea (4th century). Letter 188:
“Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses”

St John Chrysostom (4th century). Homily 24 on Romans:
“Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?”

Council of Ancyra (4th century). Canon 21:
“Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfil ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees.”

Council in Trullo (7th century). Canon 91:
“Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the fœtus, are subjected to the penalty of murder.”

The Apocalypse of Peter (Apocrypha, 2nd century). Paragraph 25:
“And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion.”

Apostolic Constitutions (4th century). Book VII. Paragraph 3:
“You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed.”

St. Barnabas (1st century). Epistle of Barnabas:
“You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born”

Brace yourselves. Soon it will be considered that our lives, empty of their nihilistic hedonism, are too miserable, and that we are subject to so much self inflicted “suffering”, that we can hardly be considered to be alive, and it will be in our bests interests to go through a post-birth abortion.

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkTopSKo1xs
[2] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll506.xml
[3] https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/31/ralph-northam-no-regrets-abortion/
[4] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/born-alive-bill-fails-to-pass-senate-vote/
[5] http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/
[6] https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGHC-hYwKg
[8] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/second-drag-queen-story-hour-library-reader-exposed-as-convicted-child-sex-offender
[9] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8087413/Gay-priests-ice-cream-adverts-banned.html
[10] https://twitter.com/prochoiceoregon/status/1030117982012301312/photo/1
[11] https://www.netflix.com/title/80218634
[12] https://jme.bmj.com/content/43/7/450.full
[13] https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng61
[14] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/gard-press-summary-20170411.pdf
[15] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/09/high-court-orders-abortion_n_5473628.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&guccounter=1

4 Likes

I’m sharing this! You’ve done a good job here, Mozalbete.

1 Like

Thanks! I fixed some typos.

1 Like

Excellent.

2 Likes

Something else that I would note:

When faced with the argument “The mother will suffer and the child, too, when it’s born”, the assumption made is that a certain amount of suffering warrants death. The same argument here (that one should not have to suffer) is employed in the cause of justifying and legalising euthanasia.
The argument is problematic because it is must fall to someone to decide when it is that “some suffering” has become “too much suffering”. Whilst this isn’t an issue per se, it will inevitably become one every time. We have seen with abortion that men’s opinions are to be viewed as irrelevant, and so why should my opinion be considered should my grandfather decide to kill himself? And then, of course, there is the case of the lonely old man who has no family left. Who is to decide when he is suffering too much? Ultimately, someone other than him.

In permitting divorce and remarriage, the world said “No” to marital fidelity. In legalising contraception, the world removed children from marriage. In legalising abortion, the world says “No” to responsibility. In redefining marriage, the world said “We are the authority”. Finally, in legalising euthanasia, the people of the world sign their death warrants: they have no responsibilities, and, therefore, they have lost the capacity to suffer. Suffering brings sense to life, in removing anything that gives us responsibility, we remove anything that can make us suffer, and so suffering becomes abnormal, thereby becoming distasteful, and ultimately renders life unlivable, and so we must end the suffering. The swiftest way to do so is to end life.

And so, to the argument “X should not have to suffer (because Y)”, the follow-up to this (whether supplied by us or by the pro-abortionist/euthanasian) ought to be “If X does not have to suffer because Y, then they should kill themselves” and “If X is deemed to be suffering because Y, then Y ought to be killed.”

From here we can begin to introduce the idea of selflessness. Counter to the idea that suffering is necessarily bad, selflessness leads those who suffer one thing to help those suffering with similar/the same thing.

“If X does not have to suffer because Y but chooses to do so, then P and X can help Q when Q is suffering because Y.”

The same reasoning that led to abortion “That X should not have to suffer because Y” is the same justification provided for euthanasia. The difference is that the case of Euthanasia involves someone who is born. If Euthanasia is permitted, then there is nothing to prevent infanticide because an infant cannot live without help. Therefore, the infant is suffering. If X is suffering, then X may be killed.

To refute this, it must stand that suffering is either always or never and impediment to life. If it is always an impediment to life, then killing X because X has pancreatic cancer is the same as killing Q because Q got bitten by a mosquito. If it is never and impediment, then there can be no justification that suffering can provide to killing another.

2 Likes

I added some changes, including answers to L), a couple of jabs at euthanasia, and a final concluding paragraph. Observe how degeneracy, abortion, euthanasia, and atheism are all related: they are all fueled by hedonism that considers pleasure to be the purpose of life. As long as there is pleasure there can’t be evil. Lives without pleasure do not count as actual lives. If at some point pleasure ends, it is better to end the life. There can’t be a God if there is suffering because since pleasure is the ultimate good, God would create the ultimate pleasure. When you do not surpass an arbitrary threshold of pleasure you are on the death row. Every year the threshold advances a little more, and soon all decent people will be under it.

1 Like

The terrifying reality of the matter is that this nihilistic and hedonistic generation has blindly signed its death warrant because it was told that it could be “liberated” from suffering by allowing someone else to decide its worth at either end of its life.

1 Like