As a pro-life advocate, you have the opportunity to be the voice of the child in the womb and stand in the gap on their behalf. Whether you’re talking to one person or a whole group, you’re likely to get a whole lot of questions. Don’t know what to say? Don’t worry about it. We’ve heard it all before.
Some of the points get involved. And so do some of the answers. But the bottom line is always the same — the baby is a person, whose right to life is just as non-negotiable as yours or mine.
Some people will tell you, “The belief that life begins at fertilization is a religious tenet not shared by all.” Religious people may believe that the soul enters the body at fertilization, that’s true. And that is something we can’t prove. But the life of a new human being starts at fertilization, and that’s pure science. At fertilization (conception), a human egg and a human sperm join, and a new individual human being with his own unique genetic code is created. This is not a “religious belief.”
If the preborn child is not alive, is he dead? Well, no. And just as a woman can’t be a little bit pregnant, a baby can’t be a little bit alive. Science proves that preborn babies are actually alive. Is there a potential heart beating, pumping potential blood through potential veins? Are potential nerve impulses going through potential neurons in a potential brain? No. The heart, blood and brain are real. So is the baby.
Oh? And what sort of fetus is it we’re talking about here? Cow? Pig? Human? Well, obviously it’s a human fetus, with human DNA and human parts. Remember, abortion proponents try to dehumanize the preborn child. Forcing them to admit they’re talking about the human fetus makes this much harder. They must now say, “The human fetus is not a human being.” That doesn’t sound very logical, does it? By the way, human fetus is just scientific jargon for little one.
Only in the sense that an infant becomes a toddler, or a teen becomes an adult. These are all just stages of development. What the abortion proponents mean, of course, is that the fetus has rights only at birth. But they lack consistency in their arguments. Biologically, the child before and after birth are the same. Nothing magical happens at birth that confers humanity on the “fetus.” Does our value as human beings depend on our place of residence? Let’s hope not!
Every baby should be wanted, for the sole fact that he is a human being. If he or she is not wanted, the problem is with the parents or society, not the innocent baby. By the way, contrary to the pro-abortion promise that legal abortion would lower the number of “unwanted” children and thus reduce child abuse, the opposite has occurred. Child abuse has increased since Roe v. Wade despite the fact that untold millions of potential “unwanted” children have been aborted
Viability is the point at which the baby can survive outside the womb. Some would say that 20 weeks is the age of viability. If anything, the fact that the child is not “viable” is a compelling reason against abortion. A baby so young does not yet possess even a fighting chance to survive outside the womb. Protection should be given to those who need it most. Aren’t the strong supposed to protect those who cannot defend themselves?
If the issue were slavery, murder, robbery or rape, such questions would not even be considered. As an example, slave masters were “pro-choice” in regards to slavery. They thought the choice of whether to own a slave belonged to them, not the government. Choice is important, but we should not endorse choices which drastically and unjustly limit the choices of other human beings. In abortion, of course, the child has no choice whatsoever.
People have the right to reproduce, and an obligation to exercise this right responsibly. The right to reproduce begins and ends with the decision to engage in sexual intercourse. After this decision has been made, and pregnancy has resulted, there is nothing else to discuss. Reproduction has occurred. A new human being’s life has begun. Abortion does not negate reproduction. It negates a human being.
The law determines which choices, among all the possible, are legal, and which are not. Thus the decision to murder is, and always will be, a matter of choice. But the law establishes consequences for making such an illegal and immoral choice. Such choices infringe upon the rights of others and are prohibited. The choice to abort is inherently wrong and infringes upon the rights of the preborn child; thus, this choice should also be prohibited.
No, it isn’t. It’s the baby’s body. The child in the womb is not part of the woman’s body, nor is he a parasite. The child is also not the mother’s property. Parents are legal guardians of children, never legal owners. Also, people are governed by social constraints for the common good. Drug use and other destructive behaviors are prohibited, even though the user is acting upon his own body. There are societal consequences that go far beyond the individual exercising a “choice.”
In many countries (Japan and several western European nations in particular), the population is actually shrinking. There are experts who say the world could support many times its current population. Yes, there is poverty and hunger, but much of that can be blamed on inadequate distribution of the world’s bounty — and much of that can be blamed on corrupt leaders in poor nations. Even if it were true that the world is overpopulated, killing people would never be an acceptable solution.
Certainly childbirth would be the result if abortion were not permitted. But childbirth is the natural completion of pregnancy. The state isn’t forcing it; that’s just the way the process operates. Childbirth occurs unless there is some intervention. “Forced childbirth” might occur in a totalitarian state where a woman is raped, impregnated and held hostage until the child is born. That clearly does not exist in the situations abortion proponents are discussing.
This common argument assumes that women are forced to have abortions. This, of course, is not the case. Just as robberies happen even though robbery is illegal, we do not respond by repealing robbery laws. Abortion, like robbery, is wrong; it should be against the law. The “back alley” argument also ignores the fact that many of today’s legal abortionists have poor medical records. Legalizing abortion did not improve the quality of service. The same providers simply started using the front door instead of the back alley.
Well, if the “choice” to be permitted it abortion, then most certainly the “pro-choice” position is one that endorses abortion. The statement that one is in favor of the “choice” to abort specifically says that abortion is a legal or moral choice. Believing that abortion is a legally and morally valid choice is the crucial pro-abortion position. If one claims to be “pro-choice,” it means that the person has no problem with the object of the choice, abortion.