The psychological trickery of the "abortion" issue

By calling it under the name of a euphemism, “abortion”, instead of what it really is (deliberately killing an as-yet unborn human being in the womb), the reality of what happens can be ignored.

We don’t call other examples of deaths “abortion”, no one says the murder aborted his victim’s life by stabbing him several times. That is because it would be silly and weird to phrase it like that. Only when it comes to the issue of deliberately killing as-yet unborn human beings in the womb do we revert to the weird-sounding and silly euphemistic language.

The reason is because what is being done is in truth so horrifying, so morally wrong, so evil, and so against the common human instinct and feeling of most people that it can only be supported by disguising and lying about what is really going on. If every time anyone talked about abortion they were required to not use the word ‘abortion’ and instead state very clearly what is actually happening, the public would lose support for the whole abortion issue. The average person would not support deliberately killing developing human beings in the womb, especially if they had to see and visualize the process of how this occurs to the little developing human.

I have found that most pro-abortion people don’t know the specifics of how abortions can be carried out. Or that the human being in the womb is alive, has a brain and a heartbeat, is experiencing things and feels pain. When the doctor sticks a sharp scissors into the back of its head, inserts a vacuum and sucks out the brain, then collapses the skull and pulls the dead body out and tosses it in the garbage (or more likely sells it to medical researchers) the pro-abortion person on the street doesn’t see that and has no idea it even happened. They just walk around spouting their psychologically programmed catch phrase responses “muh woman’s rights” and “muh woman’s own body” like a drone.

But the psychological trickery doesn’t end with the euphemistic wording or the hiding-away of the brutal disgusting realities of how actual “abortions” are often performed. The trickery extends into the so-called reasons that pro-abortionists use to try and defend their position.

Take for example the common response, “Well who is going to support the mother, will you be her partner, will you pay for her pregnancy, and she is poor, is she going to raise the kid on her own?” ← this sort of response indicates you are dealing with a programmed person, someone whose neurology and emotions have been hacked. There are so many ways to counter this ‘argument’ that even making it is absurd and silly at face value. It would, at best, reveal someone who is deeply ignorant and unthinking regarding the claim they are making, but more likely and more often reveals someone who should and probably does know many of the holes in their own claim yet has no ability to care and no intellectual honesty to follow up on any of those flaws.

Dishonest people and psychologically programmed people adopt similar tactics in situations like this: they use claims and ideas not for their content but as shields and veils. Just putting something out there to attempt to ward off or distract from something else. The content is irrelevant. So if their claim is absurd or has tons of logical holes in it, or they themselves cannot even defend their own claims, none of that matters to them. They are not engaged in rational discussion or debate, they are not even engaged in honesty or thinking. What they are doing is closer to a kind of memetic magic, shifting idea-images around at the surface of their own awareness in ways that give the appearance of some sort of meaningful statement and response having taken place. When in fact no such meaning exists.

Every pro-abortion claim is designed to ignore the core issue: that the deliberate killing of a developing human being in the womb is morally wrong. This core issue cannot be acknowledged, so they will throw any and all possible distractions and euphemisms and insults in order to prevent themselves and others from needing to properly see and deal with that core issue. Because most people are not self-honestly evil enough to say something like “I believe there is nothing morally wrong with deliberately killing a developing living human being”. If they had to acknowledge the true meaning, and the actual reality of what is going on, it would be much harder for them. They would be required to either wake up from their psychological trickery-induced manipulations and madness, or they would be forced to double down and admit their own evil nature. Neither option seems enjoyable for them so the instinctively avoid the necessity altogether, hence why the “abortion” issue is so full of absurdities, non-sequitors, euphemisms, insults, emotionalism and distractions.

Some pro-abortionists use the word miscarriage in place of abortion, and sweep away the footprints of election, preferring not to trigger the differentiation between spontaneous (unpreventable) action and chosen (self-determined) action.

This is seen when the data lump elective abortions in with spontaneous miscarriages, and do not distinguish between spontaneous and elective.

Well that’s just idiotic.

Just add it to the list of “idiotic things” people believe and do.

1 Like

Let’s quickly explore every pro-abortion argument and refute it. If I missed any, let me know.

My body my choice”. No, it’s not your body, it is the body of another human being with its own DNA, organs, cells, experiences and life. There is another human body growing inside of yours, that does not make it “your body”.

Women need abortions.” No they don’t. In only very rare cases would the pregnancy threaten the life of the mother, and in those cases it is reasonable for the parents to consults with their doctor and consider abortion IF it comes down to either the baby’s life or the mother’s life. Other than this rare edge case, no woman every NEEDS an abortion. Abortions are done mostly for the convenience of not wanting to deal with being pregnant or giving birth.

Abortion is women’s healthcare.” No it isn’t, killing your own baby cannot in any sense be construed as “healthcare” except in the rare edge case mentioned above where the pregnancy reasonably threatens the life of the mother. In fact abortion can be seen as a threat to women’s healthcare since it can lead to physical problems, sexual problems and emotional and mental problems for the woman later on.

The fetus isn’t alive.” Of course it is alive. It is not dead, is it? Well at least not until you kill it.

The fetus isn’t human.” Of course it is human. Humans create other humans. What else would it be, a squirrel or a fish? It is human and has complete and unique human DNA.

The fetus is a parasite.” No it isn’t, it doesn’t meet the criteria of the definition of a parasite. Parasites feed off of another organism in a harmful way at the expense of the host, whereas the baby inside the womb is not harming the mother or taking from her at her own expense.

It’s not a person until it’s born.” False, there is no born-ness logically associated with the notion of being a person. Being born or not is arbitrary past a certain point in the pregnancy anyway, but even besides that we already know it is a living and growing, unique human being. Therefore you don’t get to kill it, regardless of whatever definition of “personhood” you might hold to. My definition would simply make reference to the fact that it is a living human being, therefore it is a person. When we use the word person we almost always mean “human being” or “human individual”, and it doesn’t even need to mean alive. We still think of a dead human as a dead person.

The fetus isn’t conscious.” This is wrong after a certain point in pregnancy, where neurological tissue has developed to the point that neurological brain activity can be detected. Besides this, being conscious or not isn’t a consistent metric to determine if you can kill a human being. A human being in a deep sleep between REM cycles, or a human being in a coma, are not conscious but that doesn’t give you the right to kill them.

The baby would have a bad life anyway.” No, you do not get to prejudge an entire life before it is even born, you have no way of knowing what it’s future life will be like or what its preferences will be. Plenty of great people in the world came from difficult situations and poverty.

Abortion is needed for cases of rape or incest.” No it isn’t. Rape is bad, and we all feel bad for the victim, but that does not give the victim the right to then go and kill another human being. Even if it were the fetus’s fault she got raped, which of course it isn’t, that sort of vengeance to then go and kill the rapist is not legal or even generally considered moral (although I am personally fine with a rape victim killing the person who raped her, especially if she was literally violently raped and we aren’t talking about vague situations where she kinda wanted to have sex but wasn’t totally sure how she felt or regretted it later, etc. But all of that is a non-issue here anyway). Likewise with incest, the fact that the baby may be unwanted or may have some genetic abnormalities or disorders does not give you the right to kill it. Just because a fetus or a baby has disabilities or a genetic condition doesn’t give you the right to kill it.

The fetus can’t survive on its own.” So what, lots of human beings can’t survive on their own including people with severe disabilities, the very elderly, or infants and young children. That doesn’t mean you have the right to kill them.

Hmm what other idiotic arguments do pro-abortion people come up with… there is one about how the baby is “violating the property rights of the mother” by being in her womb and she can kick it out just like a landlord can kick out an unwanted renter. But a landlord cannot kill an unwanted renter. And if the ONLY way to evict the unwanted renter/tenant would be to kill them, this would not be allowed either. In particular the analogy fails when you consider that the fetus is innocent and did not choose to “be an unwanted tenant” in the first place. Imagine an analogous situation to a landlord and tenant: a landlord owns a building and in one of the units there is a human being living there. They were just put there unbeknownst to themselves and against their own will, and they have no awareness that they are there and no ability to get out. They are being kept alive only by being in the unit. Furthermore, we know for certain that after a period of some months of time, they will leave the unit on their own. In this situation, the landlord would have no moral or legal right to kill that person just to get them out of the unit. The are not “squatting”, they have no knowledge or intent to even be there and did not choose to be there, they are innocent, yet for whatever idiosyncrasy of the situation if you remove them from the unit they will certainly be killed. Your right to property, in this situation, would not trump their right to life because there is no way to remove them without ending their life AND they are not morally or legally responsible for being in there. In fact the analogy breaks down even further when you realize the landlord is the one responsible for them being in there to begin with (the woman herself chose to have sex, knowing that pregnancy was a possible outcome; barring rape cases of course, which was addressed above).

I can’t think of any more right now, but let me know if I missed any key pro-abortion arguments so I can refute them.