“It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.”
If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.
Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.
Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception.
Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception.
The possibility of human cloning does nothing to discredit the fact that all humans conceived in the conventional manner began their lives at conception.
“The fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman’s body, like her tonsils or appendix. You can’t seriously believe a frozen embryo is an actual person.”
A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn’s genetic code differs from his mother’s.
The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live, proving they are two separate individuals.
The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth.
Being inside something is not the same as being part of something.
Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence.
There is substantial scientific reason to believe that frozen embryos are persons and should be granted the same rights as older, larger, and less vulnerable persons.
“The unborn is an embryo or a fetus—just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception—not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.”
Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.
Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.
From the moment of conception, the unborn is not simple, but very complex.
Prior to the earliest abortions, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have.
Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves.
Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance.
Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is — a human being.
No matter how much better it sounds, “terminating a pregnancy” is still terminating a life.
“The fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one; It’s like a blueprint, not a house; an acorn, not an oak tree.”
The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity.
The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life, but of an actual life.
Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.
Comparing preborns and adults to acorns and oaks is dehumanizing and misleading.
Even if the analogy were valid, scientifically speaking an acorn is simply a little oak tree, just as an embryo is a little person.
“The unborn isn’t a person, with meaningful life. It’s only inches in size and can’t even think; it’s less advanced than an animal and anyway, who says people have a greater right to live than animals?”
Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.
Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.
The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or selfserving definitions of personhood.
It is a scientific fact that there are thought processes at work in unborn babies.
If the unborn’s value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals.
Even if someone believes that people are no better than animals, why would they abhor the killing of young animals, while advocating the killing of young children?
It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.
Arguments against the personhood of the unborn are shrouded in rationalization and denial.
“A fetus isn’t a person until implantation…or until quickening or viability or when it first breathes.”
Implantation is a gauge of personhood only if location, nutrition, and interfacing with others make us human.
Quickening is a gauge of personhood only if someone’s reality or value depends upon being noticed by another.
Viability is an arbitrary concept. Why not associate personhood with heartbeat, brain waves, or something else?
The point of viability changes because it depends on technology, not the unborn herself. Eventually babies may be viable from the point of conception.
In a broad sense, many born people are not viable because they are incapable of surviving without depending on others.
A child’s “breathing,” her intake of oxygen, begins long before birth.
Someone’s helplessness or dependency should motivate us to protect her, not to destroy her.
“Obviously life beings at birth. That’s why we celebrate birthdays, not conception days, and why we don’t have funerals following miscarriages.”
Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.
Some people do have funerals after a miscarriage.
Funerals are an expression of our subjective attachment to those who have died, not a measurement of their true worth.
There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.
“No one can really know that human life beings before birth.”
Children know that human life begins before birth.
Pregnant women know that human life begins before birth.
Doctors know that human life begins before birth.
Abortionists know that human life begins before birth.
Prochoice feminists know that human life begins before birth.
Society knows that human life begins before birth.
The media know that human life begins before birth.
Prochoice advocates know that human life begins before birth.
If we can’t know that human life begins before birth, how can we know whether it begins at birth or later?
“Even if the unborn are human beings, they have fewer rights than the woman. No one should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone else.”
Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.
The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.
The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.
It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.
“Every person has the right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman’s choice by prohibiting abortion.”
Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.
“Freedom to choose” is too vague for meaningful discussion; we must always ask, “Freedom to choose what?”
People who are prochoice about abortion are often not prochoice about other issues with less at stake.
The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.
Everyone is prochoice with it comes to the choices prior to pregnancy and after birth.
Nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose.
“Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right.”
Abortion assures that 650,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies.
Not all things done with a person’s body are right, nor should they all be legally protected.
Even prochoicers must acknowledge that the “right to control one’s body” argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being.
Too often “the right to control my life” becomes the right to hurt and oppress others for my own advantage.
Control over the body can be exercised to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.
“Abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. It’s no one else’s business. Everyone has a constitutional right to privacy.”
The constitution does not contain a right to privacy.
Privacy is never an absolute right, but is always governed by other rights.
The encouragement or assistance of a doctor does not change the nature, consequences, or morality of abortion.
The father of the child is also responsible for the child and should have a part in this decision.
The father will often face serious grief and guilt as a result of abortion. Since his life will be significantly affected, shouldn’t he have something to say about it?
“It’s unfair for an unmarried woman to have to face the embarrassment of pregnancy or the pain of giving up a child for adoption.”
Pregnancy is not a sin. Society should not condemn or pressure an unmarried mother into abortion, but should help and support her.
The poor choice of premarital sex is never compensated for by the far worse choice of killing an innocent human being.
One person’s unfair or embarrassing circumstances do not justify violating the rights of another person.
Adoption is a fine alternative that avoids the burden of child-raising, while saving a life and making a family happy; it is tragic that adoption is so infrequently chosen as an alternative to abortion.
The reason that adoption may be painful is the same reason that abortion is wrong—a human life is involved.
“Abortion rights are fundamental for the advancement of women. They are essential to having equal rights with men.”
Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.
Some active feminists still vigorously oppose abortion.
Women’s rights are not inherently linked to the right to abortion.
The basic premises of the abortion-rights movement are demeaning to women.
Many of the assumptions that connect women’s welfare with abortion, the pill, and free sex have proven faulty.
Some of the abortion-rights strategies assume female incompetence and subject women to ignorance and exploitation.
Abortion has become the most effective means of sexism ever devised, ridding the world of multitudes of unwanted females.
“The circumstances of many women leave them no choice but an abortion.”
Saying they have no choice is not being prochoice, but proabortion.
Those who are truly prochoice must present a woman with a number of possible choices instead of just selling the choice of abortion.
“Abortion or misery” is a false portrayal of the options; it keeps women from pursuing—and society from providing—possible alternatives.
