I've learned from experience that it can be difficult to get straight answers from prochoice adherents. There is so much rhetoric, douplespeak and catch phrases, it can be like trudging through a swamp to get to the heart of the matter.

When talking with a prochoicer, remember this: scientifically and biologically it is a fact that a new and unique human life comes into existence at conception. Therefore, in any debate, the burden of proof is on the prochoicer. So, to help you understand their perspective better and to recognize common strawmen, here are some of the prochoice arguments I hear most often and what they really mean:

What they say: It's not a human being yet, it's just a potential human being.

There are many debates about whether or not an embryo (fertilized egg) is a human being. Often "egg as person" is compared to "sperm as person," which is clearly absurd. However, users of this argument neglect to clarify that they're comparing a fertilized egg (the whole equation) to a sperm (half the equation). It should also be noted that by just 21 days, an embryo has a beating heart. A sperm will never have a beating heart.

The truth is that a unique human being is created/comes into existence at the very moment of conception. At fertilization - when sperm and egg join together - there is a complete set of DNA in place, distinct from the mother. Eye color, hair color, gender, and intelligence are all determined at conception. This isn't a religious belief, it's a scientific fact.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the majority of abortions take place between 7-13 weeks gestation, by which time the fetus already has visibly developed arms, legs, fingers and toes, a face and a beating heart. If this is only a potential human being, then what kind of creature is it? A lifeless puppet waiting to be magically transformed into a real boy like Pinocchio?

Tip: Ask the prochoicer why there is a heartbeat if this isn't a real human being. (i.e. What do you call it when there is a heartbeat? Life. What do you call it when there's no longer a heartbeat? Death.)

What they say: It's my body, my decision.

What they mean: Until this baby is born, it's only a product of conception contained within my uterus (just a mass of cells or a clump of tissue). In the same way that I can choose to have a defective gallbladder removed, I can choose to end a pregnancy before it develops into an actual baby. (See above)

If the fetus is only a part of the mother's body, then she must have twenty fingers and twenty toes, four legs, four arms, four eyes, two noses, two blood types, two circulatory systems; and half the time, male genitalia as well.

The last time I checked, a gallbladder never developed into anything else. It will always be a gallbladder. A fetus, however, is a unique individual who will continue to grow and develop (if uninterrupted) from infancy to old-age. This is the natural cycle of life. At no point in time is an embryo or a fetus just another part of a woman's body. Not even for one day. An ovum is, yes, but an ovum will never be anything other than an ovum unless it is first fertilized by a sperm. That is the crucial difference. If you were to place an unfertilized ovum inside a woman's womb, nothing would happen. I can take that one step further: You can implant a Caucasian embryo into an Asian woman's womb, and at birth, that infant will still be 100% Caucasian.

An embryo is to a fetus what a fetus is to an infant, what an infant is to a toddler, what a toddler is to a child, and so on and so forth. A gallbladder or a tumor is just a gallbladder and a tumor.

Tip: Ask a prochoicer at which point in time does your body magically morph into a second human body? (When does "the product of conception" become a real baby?) If they say "at birth," ask them what creature/species the fetus was prior to magically becoming a human being.

What they say: A fetus does not become a real baby - a human being - until it is viable.

What they mean: Until a fetus can survive on its own outside of the woman's body (the womb), it is not a real human being.

This is a prime example of a strawman argument. You see, "viable" is an arbitrary term. It can not be adequately defined or set in stone because "viability" is based solely on medical technology. Fifty years ago, any infant born prior to 30 weeks gestation was not likely to survive. Today, infants as young as 20 weeks gestation have survived outside of the womb. Why? Because medical technology has advanced greatly in fifty years. Overseas, however, a 30-week-old preemie is still unlikely to survive, because they simply don't have the same access to medical technology as we have here. Does that make them any less human?

Let's jump ahead fifty years from now. Perhaps premature infants will be able to survive outside the womb at only 15 weeks gestation. Perhaps in time, we'll have created artificial wombs in which an embryo can develop/grow into a full-term infant without ever being inside a woman's uterus. So, how can we logically argue that an embryo is not currently a real human being when fifty years from now it very well could be? (Based on technology of course.) Even today, while fetuses are currently viable around 20 weeks gestation (and are thus considered to be human beings), across the ocean a fetus of the exact same age is not viable, and is therefore, not a human being. This is nothing but nonsense and merely proves that viability is based on technology rather than biology.

Tip: Ask a prochoicer why abortion is still legal after a fetus has surpassed viability. If they say it shouldn't be, ask them when the exact cut-off point should be, and have them defend that position with scientific fact - not medical technology. But, if they insist abortion should be legal all nine months of pregnancy regardless, have them explain why that isn't infanticide.

What they say: A fetus isn't a person until it has consciousness.

What they mean: A fetus develops the cerbral cortex at some point in the early second trimester. Until there is a brain, there is no person involved here. I can have a first trimester abortion without feeling guilty, because it wasn't a person yet. (Again, see responses above)

First of all, have them clarify what they mean by "person." Do they mean human? If so, have them explain what species the fetus was prior to developing the cerbral cortex. Was it a turtle? Do we begin as one species and then develop into another? Of course not. We must be human beings from start to finish, just as a turtle begins as a turtle and dies a turtle. "Well," they say, "a fetus might be of the human species, but it is not a person yet." ... (Boy, the waters get muddy quickly.)

Here's the thing: As soon as you suggest that consciousness and intelligence are required for personhood, you're also suggesting that people in comas are no longer persons, that those with severe mental disabilities aren't persons, and that children are subhuman compared to adults because their brains are still developing. If I fall down a hill and get knocked unconscious, do I cease to be a person during that brief time period before I regain consciousness? When a person dies on the operating table and is pronounced braindead, do they cease to be a person?

Secondly, since the full development of the brain is gradual (remember, the prochoicers have referred to the "early second trimester" loosely rather than giving an exact gestation), then who is to say that a fetus did or didn't yet have a developed cerbral cortex when it was aborted? Is there an exact moment in gestation, at the strike of midnight, in which a fetus suddenly has consciousness? And if so, what is it? Please give me an exact gestation.

Tip: Ask the prochoicer - If being a member of the homo sapien species is based solely on personhood, then does a friendly dog, gorilla or dolphin magically transform into a human being as soon as we believe them to be persons?

What they say: Even if a fetus is a person, no woman should be forced against her will to carry to term.

What they mean: No one can be forced to donate a kidney to someone else against their will, therefore; no woman should be forced to donate her uterus to a fetus.

There are some crucial differences here. If someone is in need of a new kidney, it's because their current kidney is damaged; the reason being a disease/infection, a birth defect, or perhaps an injury. If no one offers to donate their kidney and this person dies, what will be the root cause of their death? It will be the disease or injury that initially damaged their kidney; the person who refused to donate their kidney is not the cause of death. Now, let's compare this to pregnancy: If the mother goes to an abortion clinic and ends the pregnancy, what will be the root cause of death for the fetus? A disease or an infection? No - the abortion. The hands that held the currette and scalpel, the hands that turned on the aspiration vacuum. See, whereas the person with a damaged kidney dies because of their disease or injury, the fetus will not die unless it is deliberately killed. One death is natural, the other is unnatural. (I should note that the same applies to a fetus with a fatal defect. Yes, they will eventually die; but if aborted, the cause of death will be the abortion, not the defect.)

Let's take this one step further because the prochoicer is probably standing there right now saying, "Look, you just don't get it. The fetus needs my uterus like the patient needs my kidney. He can't have it without my consent!"

Not the same thing. In the case of the patient needing a new kidney, you aren't responsible for the disease or injury damaging their kidney. But, if you are pregnant because you consented to sex (pregnancy is the natural result of procreation), then you are responsible for the baby growing within you. So, in the first case, you aren't responsible, but in the latter you are. That's the difference. You consented to the risk of pregnancy when you consented to sex.

To this the prochoicer says, "That's ridiculous. That's like saying if I catch an STI while using contraceptives, that I consented to having an STI." No, not quite. See, you engaged in the behavior knowing the risk, and that makes you responsible for the consequences. So, it's not that you consented to being pregnant - it's that you took the risk. That's what makes you responsible for the baby growing within you.The smoker who develops lung cancer is responsible for his lung cancer because he was the one who consented to that risk by willfully smoking.

Tip: Ask the prochoicer if a mother should have the right to allow her newborn infant to die of starvation if she doesn't consent to breastfeeding (the infant needs milk from the mother just as the fetus needs nutrience from the uterus). To this they will likely reply, "She is responsible because she consented to the pregnancy and birth. If she doesn't want to care for the child, she can place it with child services or up for adoption." To that you can reply: The same goes for a fetus - The mother consented to the risk of pregnancy when she consented to sex - so, as soon as the infant is born, he/she can be placed with an adoptive family.

What they say: Forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy is the same as condoning rape. If you're pro-life, then you support rape.

What they mean: In the same way that sex without consent is a violation of a woman's body, pregnancy without consent is a violation of a woman's body. She has the right to defend herself in either case. In other words, because she can kill her rapist in self-defense, she can also kill the embryo or fetus in self-defense.

I have found this particular rhetoric to be one of the most popular and insidious arguments currently used by prochoicers. It is quite clever and some prolifers seem unsure how to respond to it; especially if they don't understand the analogy. Make sure you understand the comparison before you attempt to debunk it.

Several crucial differences here to consider:

1) The rapist has perverted, evil intentions for the woman and is deliberately violating her body. He forfeits his right to life by committing this crime (she can legally kill him in self-defense).

2) The fetus has no perverted, evil intentions for her mother, nor is she deliberately violating her mother's body. The fetus is innocent (has committed no crime) and therefore, has not forfeited his/her right-to-life.

3) The rapist has chosen to violate the woman's body.

4) The fetus has not chosen to violate her mother's body. He/she did not choose to be conceived.

To these, the prochoicer may respond with the following comeback (or something similar to this):

"If the rapist was drunk or high, he isn't deliberately choosing to violate the woman's body. In this case, he doesn't realize what he is doing, but he is still guilty. So, in the same way, though the fetus doesn't realize she is violating her mother's body, she is still guilty. And she is therefore, not innocent."

Again, here is the crucial difference:

1) The rapist chose to get drunk or high, and this is why he is responsible for his actions during intoxication. Same goes for drinking and driving. He may have been too intoxicated to comprehend that he was breaking the law, but he will still be held responsible for it.

2) The fetus did not choose to be conceived and is therefore, not responsible for her actions (violating her mother's body).The passenger in a drunk driver's car will not be held responsible if he crashes it.

Consider this:

If anyone supports "rape," it's actually the prochoicer. Why? Because the violence of rape parallels the violence of abortion. In the same way that a man puts his own body and needs before the woman's, the woman who aborts has put her body and needs before her child's. The rapist violates the woman's body just as the woman violates the body of her fetal child in abortion. Yet while the woman survived being raped, the fetus will not survive dismemberment.

Tip: In the case of consensual sex, ask the prochoicer why a smoker is responsible for his/her lung cancer while a woman is somehow not responsible for her pregnancy.

What they say: Abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest.

What they mean: When a woman is raped, she has not consented to sex, and thus has not consented to the risk of pregnancy either. Therefore, she is not responsible for the child growing within her, and she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

Should we punish children for the crimes of their father? Is a man subject to capitol punishment when he is convicted of rape? No. So, why should a fetus be put to death when he/she is completely innocent? We must also remember that the baby is biologically half the mother's; it is her child, too.

Abortion in the case of rape or incest is not an act of kindness or mercy - it is a second act of violence. It doesn't undue the rape and trauma that the woman endured; all it does is end the life of an innocent human being.

Consider: If you were abducted and knocked unconscious only to awake hours later missing one of your kidneys, should you have the legal right to hunt down the person it was donated to (think black market), take a knife, and cut it out of them, killing them? After all, you didn't consent to donating your kidney to them. Now, compare this to pregnancy by rape: Yes, you are pregnant without consent, but the deed has already been done. The only way to get your uterus back is to kill the fetus who is now growing within you. The analogy stops here because unlike a kidney donation that is permanent (you can't lend your kidney), a woman is only pregnant for nine months. Then she gets her uterus back and the innocent baby remains alive. It is temporary. And a woman is not obligated to raise a child conceived in rape either. She is free to place her baby with a loving, adoptive family.

Keep in mind that the rape/incest argument is often used as a smokescreen; a diversion. Statistically, only 1% of all abortions take place for reasons of rape and incest.

Tip: Ask the prochoicer why abortion should be legal for any reason other than rape or incest. Also, ask the prochoicer why they think it is morally right to kill a fetus because he/she has a physical or mental defect. We don't kill off the disabled of any other age, so why is it okay to kill a disabled fetus?

What they say: Abortion needs to be legal for all nine months of pregnancy in case the mother's health/life becomes at risk.

What they mean: If a woman feels even the slightest emotional distress over her pregnancy, she should be allowed to end it at any time. A woman's emotional well-being is more important than the life of the preborn child.

Should a woman be allowed to kill her toddler if the stress of parenting affects her emotionally/mentally? Obviously not. So why should she be allowed to kill a fetus for the same reason? Remember, less than 2% of all abortions are done for reasons or rape, incest and the mother's health combined. It is a rare case when a woman's very life is at stake because of her pregnancy. But in such a case, she can deliver early by induction or ceaserean section, giving the infant a chance to survive. If it is too early in pregnancy and the woman needs immediate treatment (say, in the case of a rapidly-growing cancer), then the loss of the fetus is a tragedy, but it's not the same as abortion. It's the difference between two people drowning and only being able to rescue one of them, versus deliberately throwing someone who can't swim out of the boat. (As a side note, many women opt to hold off on chemotherapy until the baby is born; but sometimes waiting is not an option.) If a mother's life is truly at stake, then we must save her, even if that means the fetus will die.

Here's where the Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) comes into play. PBA is one of the most barbaric forms of abortion. A second or third trimester fetus is delivered live feet first to the head, at which time the abortionist punctures the base of the skull with scissors and then sucks out the brains with an aspirator. Now, if a woman had a rare condition in which her baby must be removed right away or else she will die, then why PBA? Why not early induction or cesarean section? If a doctor is going to take all that time to deliver the baby all the way to his/her head, why not just pull the baby the rest of the way out? What is the point in taking the extra time to brutally murder the infant? There is no point, and that's the point. PBA for "a woman's health" is doublespeak for justifying infanticide should a woman decide late in pregnancy that she no longer wants her baby.

Tip: Ask a prochoicer to give you a legitimate medical condition in which abortion or PBA would be necessary. If they can come up with a life-threatening medical condition that involves the pregnancy specifically, have them explain why abortion or PBA should be performed rather than an early induction or c-section.

What they say: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

What they mean: Abortion should be safe and legal.

Self-explanatory; however, abortion is never safe for the fetus - a human being - who is being killed. That should be a no-brainer. The whole point of this prochoice line is the blatant lie that women were dying in droves in back alleys prior to the legalization of abortion. The statistics prove otherwise. Here's some food for thought: Drug dealing in "back alleys" isn't safe either. Should we make drug trafficking legal to prevent back alley deaths?

Tip: Ask a prochoicer why abortion should be rare. If there's nothing wrong with it, why should it be rare?

In Conclusion:

This article is by no means exhaustive. Whole books have been written on the subject. This is just a collection of the arguments that I'm faced with most often. If you know of a good prolife argument which hasn't been included, please post it in the comments section. :)

(c) 2009 - Bekah Ferguson

Permissions: By all means, you are welcome to reproduce and distribute my articles in excerpts or complete format as long as you don't change any of the wording. If you do reproduce any part of my articles, please include the following information: by Bekah Ferguson, Ontario, Canada. www.bekahferguson.com

Licensed under Creative Commons.

RELATED:

Abortion and Right-to-Life - A Rebuttal

Why I'm Prolife

Readers have left 16 comments.

 1. The Real Pro-Choice Rhetoric
Blaise Alleyne, Unregistered

Great article! But it seems like you've only tackled the easy pro-choice arguments. I find that people making any of these claims are really rationalizing abortion to themselves; they know deep down that there's something wrong with abortion, but they don't want to admit it or they think it's somehow necessary (e.g. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "necessary" for social relationships are built around its availability...). These people tend to be middle-of-the-road, and possibly could sway a bit in the other direction when forced to be honest with themselves.

But the serious pro-choice intellectual claim is, "yes, of course the unborn is a human being, but it's not a human *person*." This philosophical or ethical distinction between humanity and personhood runs beneath all of the life issues. This is the ultimate fallacy that we need to debunk. They definie personhood by a list of functions or powers, but there's a difference between *functioning* as a person and *being* a person. These folks tend to be firmly grounded in their convictions, but they are leading the charge and convincing middle-of-the-road folks that there's some ethical justification for abortion. I was a bit disappointment that you skipped over one of the only serious pro-choice arguments.

 Posted 2009-04-25 12:11:35

 2. Untitled
Guest User, Unregistered

You wrote: "What they say: Even if a fetus is a person, no woman should be forced against her will to carry to term...

What they mean: No one can be forced to donate a kidney to someone else against their will, therefore; no woman should be forced to donate her uterus to a fetus."

No, that's not what we mean. What we mean is, no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, for reasons similar but not identical to the reasons no one should be forced to donate a kidney. Because it's part of HER body.

 Posted 2009-04-25 20:31:55

 3. Untitled
Guest User, Unregistered

You wrote: "the person who refused to donate their kidney is not the cause of death. Now, let's compare this to pregnancy. If the mother goes to an abortion clinic and ends the pregnancy, what will be the root cause of death for the preborn child? A disease or an infection? No - the abortion. The hands that held the currette and scalpel, the hands that turned on the aspiration vacuum. See, whereas the person with a damaged kidney dies because of their disease or injury, the fetus will not die unless it is deliberately killed. One death is natural, the other is unnatural."

Then I know you will join me in shouting grateful prayers of joy for the abortifacient drugs, which do not kill the fetus, but merely switch the mother's life-support functions off. The fetus dies, naturally, of poisoning by its own metabolic end-products.

 Posted 2009-04-25 20:38:36

 4. Re:
Bekah Ferguson, Administrator

Then I know you will join me in shouting grateful prayers of joy for the abortifacient drugs, which do not kill the fetus, but merely switch the mother's life-support functions off. The fetus dies, naturally, of poisoning by its own metabolic end-products.

— Guest User

That's like shutting of the dialysis machine against the will of the patient and then daring to suggest that the death of the patient is thus "naturally, of poisoning by its own metabolic end-products."

 Posted 2009-04-26 10:04:41

 5. Re:
Bekah Ferguson, Administrator

No, that's not what we mean. What we mean is, no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, for reasons similar but not identical to the reasons no one should be forced to donate a kidney. Because it's part of HER body.

— Guest User

Refer to "My body, my decision." A fetus is not "part" of her body, it is "in" her body. Quite a significant difference there.

 Posted 2009-04-26 10:06:54

 6. Untitled
Guest User, Unregistered

test

 Posted 2009-04-30 21:18:56

Please keep your comments brief and on topic.
Name :
Title :
E-mail :
Website :
	Text ColorAquaBlackBlueFuchsiaGrayGreenLimeMaroonNavyOlivePurpleRedSilverTealWhiteYellow
Comment(s) :