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.

Scientifically and biologically it is a fact that a new and unique human life comes into existence at conception. Not before, not after, but right at the moment of fertilization. Therefore, in any debate, the burden of proof is on the prochoicer.

To help you understand their perspective better, here are the prochoice arguments I hear most often and how I refute them:

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 (a fertilized egg) is a human being. Often "egg as person" is compared to "sperm as person," as though they were synonymous. But this assumes that the egg is unfertilized; in which case, it would be an ovum. And it is not the ovum that is in question. What users of this argument neglect to clarify is that they're comparing a fertilized egg (the whole equation) to a sperm (only half the equation). By just 21 days, an embryo has a beating heart. A sperm or an ovum (so long as they remain separate) will never have a beating heart.

When people discuss abortion, they tend to view the baby as a "clump of cells" (i.e. an embryo), and conclude that it is no more a human being than a tumor. But a tumor (a cluster of growing cancer cells) will never be anything but a tumor. It is no more "human" than a solitary finger or an eyeball; it is rather a mutated body part or a piece of the body. Not so with the embyro. The truth is that unlike cancer (a mutation), a unique human being is created/comes into existence at the very moment of conception (fertilization). At fertilization - when the sperm and egg join together - there is a complete set of DNA in place, totally distinct from the mother. Eye color, hair color, gender, and intelligence are all determined at conception. A tumor contains no such blueprint. This isn't a religious belief, it's a scientific fact.

But why are we discussing the embryo? People make the assumption that most abortions are on embryos, but according to the Center for Disease Control, the majority of abortions actually take place between 7-13 weeks gestation. These are fetuses who already have visibly developed arms, legs, fingers and toes, a face and a beating heart.

Tip: Ask the prochoicer: if this is only a potential human being, what exactly is it? A lifeless puppet waiting to be magically transformed into a real boy like Pinocchio? Also: Why is there 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's 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 rationally 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 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 that abortion should be legal all nine months of pregnancy regardless of viability, have them explain why this 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 fully developed brain, there is no person involved here. I can have a first trimester abortion without feeling guilty, because it isn't a person yet. (Again, see responses above.)

First of all, have them clarify what they mean by "person." Do they mean a human being? 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" or "a fetus is human but it is not a human being." For the sake of clarity, I am going to distinguish here between a human being and a person. But you might find, on an individual level, that you'll need to say human versus human being, depending on their choice of wording. It's important to watch for their choice of words or you might argue at cross-purposes without even realizing it.

Here's the thing: As soon as you suggest that consciousness or intelligence are required for personhood, you're also suggesting that people in comas are temporarily non-persons, that those with severe mental disabilities aren't persons, that children are subhuman compared to adults because their brains are still developing, and that dead people are no longer persons.

Secondly, since the full development of the brain is gradual (the prochoicers tend to refer 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, when is it? Please give me an exact gestation. After all, if you believe abortion should only take place prior to this development, wouldn't you want to make perfectly sure that no abortions were accidentally taking place on "real" babies?

Thirdly, if a human being can hypothetically exist for a period of time without being a “person” then what precisely is a person? The atheist will tell you that a person has consciousness and emotions. Well, so do animals, but animals are not persons. So what is the difference between the species then that makes human beings persons and the rest of the animals non-persons? If the prochoicer is religious, he might say "a soul," which for him, is synonymous with consciousness. If the prochoicer is an atheist, she might say a person is someone who has the ability to reason; rationality being what sets us apart from the animals. The religious debater, if pressed, will probably also agree that rationality sets us apart from the animals. It's important to find out if this is their view, because if rationality is not part of the equation for them, have them explain why people have souls but animals do not (since we both have consciousness). Most of the time, you will probably be debating with someone who is not religious. But in either case, once you have agreed that the difference between people and animals is rationality, not consciousness, you'll have exposed their Achille's heel. Some prochoicers have already discovered this about their views and are now using it to promote post-birth abortions. Why? Because a 2nd trimester fetus does not have the ability to reason (rationality), nor does a full-term infant. The ability to recognize yourself as a "self" distinct from others is a degree of maturity which takes time to develop and occurs sometime towards the middle of the infant's first year, reaching fruition by toddlerhood.

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 is not dying and will only die if she 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 of natural causes: 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 sitting 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!"

This is hyperbole and here's why: 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 crucial difference. You consented to the risk of pregnancy when you consented to sex.

To this the prochoicer will likely say: "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 whether wanted or not. It's not that you consented to being pregnant (or getting an STI), it's that you took the risk. And 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. The lung cancer is unwanted, but he is responsible for it.

The prochoicer may go on to say: "So, if a woman dresses provocatively and gets raped, is she responsible for the rape?" The answer is clearly no. Provocative clothing is not the cause of rape. Rape occurs for a myriad of reasons which involve the mental makeup of the rapist specifically, not the victim's. This would be like saying that if someone breaks into your house and attacks you, it's your fault for living in a house. Men rape women because they are attracted to women (or whatever their particular perversion might be). If someone develops lung cancer from second-hand smoke, we do not hold them responsible. In the same way, a woman is not responsible for being raped just because she happened to cross a rapist's path. The difference with pregnancy is that pregnancy is the direct result of copulation; just as cirrhosis is the direct result of alcoholism. This is why a woman is responsible for her unplanned pregnancy if she consented to sex and it's inherent risks.

Tip: 1) 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. As soon as the infant is born, he/she can be placed with an adoptive family."

2) Ask the prochoicer if the government holds us legally responsible for the proper care of our dependents. (The answer is yes.) What happens if we neglect this responsibility, causing harm to the dependent (which could be an infant, a child, a disabled person, an elderly person, etc)? We will face prosecution, even imprisonment. So why do we think this should be reversed or ignored with the preborn child, who is clearly our dependent?

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. Or 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 pernicious arguments used by prochoicers. It is quite clever and some prolifers are unsure how to respond to it. It can catch you off-guard if you haven't fully thought it through.

Here are two crucial differences between a rapist and an unwanted pregnancy:

1) The rapist has perverted intentions for the woman and is deliberately violating her body in a manner that he understands to be a crime. He therefore forfeits his right to life by committing this crime and she can legally injure or kill him in self-defense. The fetus, however, has no perverted or evil intentions for her mother, nor is she deliberately violating her mother's body (she has no comprehension of crime as yet). The fetus is just as much an unwitting party as a woman being raped (the fetus did not bring herself into existence), is thus innocent; and therefore, has not forfeited his/her right-to-life.

2) The rapist has chosen to violate the woman's body. The fetus has not chosen to violate her mother's body. She did not choose to be conceived, did not put herself in the environment, and is therefore an innocent party.

To these, the prochoicer may respond with the following comeback:

"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. Therefore, she is not innocent."

Here's why their argument is fatally flawed:

The rapist chose to get drunk or high, and this is why he is responsible for his actions during the intoxication. Same goes for drinking and driving (which we know to be a crime). He may have been too intoxicated to comprehend that he was breaking the law while he was doing it, but he will still be held responsible for it by a court of law. The fetus, on the other hand, did not choose to be conceived (compare: choosing to get drunk) and is therefore, not responsible for her actions (i.e. "violating" her mother's body). Just as the passenger in a drunk driver's car will not be held responsible if the driver crashes it.

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

Consider the following scenario:

You are abducted and knocked unconscious only to awaken hours later missing one of your kidneys. Should you thus have the legal right to hunt down the person it was donated to, take a knife and cut it out of them, killing them? Would this be acceptable knowing that the person who received the kidney was completely innocent (i.e. didn't know the kidney was stolen)? After all, you didn't consent to donating your kidney to them.

As we can see, there are actually two victims here, not one: The person whose kidney was stolen (compare: a woman who is raped) and the person who received the kidney (compare: the embryo/fetus who was conceived and now relies on her mother's uterus for survival). We would hardly compare the person who received the kidney to the person who stole the kidney. Yet this is exactly what we do when we compare the fetus to the rapist.

The analogy stops here however, 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 a temporary situation. And a woman is not obligated to raise a child conceived in rape either; this is not a life sentence. She is free to place her baby with an adoptive family.

The prochoicer may then respond with the following: "This is like saying that a woman can be raped for nine months straight 'because it is only temporary'." Also: "Abortion in the case of rape is an act of compassion towards the victimized woman. Only a cruel person would insist that she suffer through a pregnancy as well."

The truth is, so far from being an act of compassion, abortion in the case of rape or incest is a second act of violence against an innocent person. It doesn't undue the rape and trauma that the woman endured; it ends the life of an innocent human being who is just as much of a victim as the woman. Many women who have aborted due to a rape have spent the rest of their lives deeply hurting from the regret of their abortion, far more than the emotional pain of the rape.

Now, concerning the so-called "nine-month-rape," here are a few things to consider:

What do we call it when a teenage boy who has been abused by his father, then goes to school and beats up another boy who is weaker than him? We call this "bullying," and "the victim becoming the abuser." Do we have compassion for the bully when he himself has been abused? Yes. But we also have compassion on the second victim; often all the moreso because we naturally despise hypocrisy. When a woman who is pregnant by rape has an abortion, she is "the victim becoming the abuser." She is bullying someone far weaker than herself: her preborn child. (To avoid going in circles at this point, refer to the above thoughts on "bodily automony" to consider why a fetus should not be compared to a rapist.)

Finally, it's important to point out to the prochoicer that prior to the legalization of abortion-on-demand, abortion was in fact available to rape victims and women with health complications. All that changed with Roe v. Wade (and similar legislations in other countries) is that now abortion could be procured for any reason under the sun. "Pregnancy by rape" is frequently used as a smokescreen to avoid discussing much more relevant issues; like viability and eugenics. But if abortion was only legal in the case of rape or the mother's very life being at stake (both situations being rare on the grand scheme of things), as many as 98% of the current abortions would no longer be justified.

Tip: 1) If you're dicussing abortion with someone who is against it for any reason other than rape, have them explain why those reasons are suddenly null and void here. Is the fetus conceived by rape somehow less of a human being than a fetus conceived otherwise?

2) Ask the prochoicer why abortion should be legal for any reason other than rape or incest. If they mention birth defects, ask them why they think it is morally right to kill a fetus because he/she has a physical or mental defect when we don't allow the killing of disabled people of any other age.

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 when there is 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 the pregnancy to give birth and the woman needs immediate treatment (say, an urgent surgery for disease, trauma, radiation, and/or chemotherapy), then the consequent death of the fetus is a tragedy; but it is not an abortion unless the additional step was taken to vacuum aspirate or dismember the fetus prior to the medical treatment performed on the woman. If the embryo or fetus dies as a result of medical treatment and is then removed from the womb, it is a miscarriage. It's the difference between two people drowning and only being able to reach out and rescue one of them, versus needlessly throwing someone out of a boat who can't swim.

Here's where the controversial Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) comes into play. PBA is one of the most barbaric forms of abortion. A second or third trimester fetus is too big to be removed with a vacuum, so he/she must be delivered somehow. In PBA, the 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. Another form of late-term abortion is to kill the fetus with a lethal injection inserted through the womb and into the fetus' heart, and then to deliver the dead baby through an early induction labor. Now, if a woman had a rare condition in which her baby must be removed right away or else she will die, then why perform PBA or stillbirth induction? Why not a live early induction or cesarean section? If a doctor is going to take the time out of saving the mother 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 additional amount of time to brutally murder the infant? Lethal injection is less gory and shields the fetus from suffering physical pain but the end result is the same. Why take the extra time to murder the fetus when she could just be delivered live and taken to the preemie ward? There is no point, and that's the point. If a woman with a wanted pregnancy faces a medical emergency, she will most certainly want the doctors to try and save her baby, too; just as they try to save her. Clearly, PBA (et al) for "a woman's health" is doublespeak for justifying infanticide should a woman decide late in the pregnancy that she no longer wants her baby.

Tip: Ask the prochoicer to give you a legitimate medical condition in which an actual 1st trimester abortion would be necessary (rather than a possible D&E should a miscarriage occur). Then, if they can come up with a life-threatening medical condition that involves the pregnancy specifically in the 2nd or 3rd trimester (say, the need for radiation or a severe pregnancy complication), have them explain why PBA or lethal injection/induction should be performed rather than an early live 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

Dr. Henry Morgentaler: An Angel of Light?

Back-Alley and Illegal Abortions 

Pro-Woman or Pro-Child?

Why I Stopped Taking the Pill

The Moral Implications of Invitro-Fertilization (IVF)

Pro-life: Not a Religious Position 

To stay current on new blog posts, please follow me on Facebook or Twitter .  

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. READ THIS: Copy your entry to your clipboard before submitting, just in case there is an error and you need to re-submit.
Name :
Title :
E-mail :
Website :
Comment(s) :	[quote=Guest User]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.[/quote]