![\"Human](\"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cells-Dividing.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
There are two types of Pro-Life arguments. The first are reasons for being \u2026 erm \u2026 well Pro-Life while the second are actually rebuttals of Pro-Abortion arguments.<\/p>\n
You\u2019ll notice as you read through this article that there\u2019s a disparity between the two types of Pro-Life Arguments – there\u2019s only one reason for being Pro-Life but many rebuttals of Pro-Abortion arguments. This is because the many reasons for being Pro-Abortion are not actually reasons but a third type of argument I like to call \u2018changing the topic so no one will notice that we have nothing to say about the one being discussed.\u2019 That\u2019s why they need so many of them. Pro-Abortionists hope that bringing up lots of silly excuses will make people forget the logic and reasoning that form the basis of the Pro-Life argument.<\/p>\n
As already mentioned, there\u2019s only one Pro-Life argument that\u2019s a reason for being Pro-Life and it\u2019s so obvious that I probably don\u2019t even need to tell you what it is.<\/p>\n
But I\u2019m going to anyway. Not just to annoy you but because it\u2019s important to understand all the evidence and reasoning that form the basis of the Pro-Life argument.<\/p>\n
A foetus is a life. It\u2019s wrong to kill a life. Abortion is killing a foetus. Therefore, abortion is wrong because you\u2019re killing a life.<\/p>\n
This is the Pro-Life argument in a nutshell. And now we can understand the Pro-Life part of the phrase \u201cPro-Life argument\u201d.<\/p>\n
Now I know that Pro-Abortionists believe that life begins at birth but they\u2019re wrong. Life begins when an egg is fertilised.<\/p>\n
No, this is not a great debate between two equally compelling but opposing viewpoints where both sides can convincingly defend their positions with highly reasoned and well thought out arguments. No. What\u2019s going on here is that one side is convinced that life begins at birth because that\u2019s the apparently prevalent and morally superior belief whereas the other looks to the science to prove its point.<\/p>\n
Guess which side does which.<\/p>\n
Go on.<\/p>\n
According to science<\/a>, human life begins at fertilisation because at that time you have a \u201cgenetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n Now Pro-Abortionists have several rebuttals that they think invalidates the Pro-Life argument, but they are all based on what I like to call, \u2018the argument from ignorance\u2019 which basically means they\u2019re talking out of the wrong orifice.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s go through all the stages.<\/p>\n As we all know, and by \u2018all\u2019 I mean people paying attention in biology class, there are four criteria that science requires to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction. A fertilised egg has all four criteria.<\/p>\n Pro-Abortionists, however, will argue that while a fertilised egg is indeed a life, it\u2019s just another part of the mother, it\u2019s her own life so she can do with it as she pleases. Sadly, this is not true, the foetus is a new life.<\/p>\n Science distinguishes one cell from another based on two criteria. It must have a different composition and a different behaviour from another cell. At fertilisation, the zygote is a new cell with a new and unique molecular composition which, while containing the components of the sperm and egg that created it, is distinct from both. It also has a different behaviour from both sperm and egg whose goal is to fuse, as the new cell works to prevent any further fusion.<\/p>\n Undeterred, Pro-Abortionists will then argue that while a fertilised egg is indeed a life, and a new life, it\u2019s like other parts of the body, for example a kidney or an arm that are also made up of human cells and are therefore a life but are not a life in the same way a normal human being is. Otherwise removing your kidney or arm would be murder.<\/p>\n But once again this is not true as unlike your kidney or arm the fertilised egg is also an organism. Scientifically, the difference between a cell and an organism is that a cell is the basic unit of a living organism and an organism is a discrete and complete living thing. The scientific definition of organism is a complex structure of interdependent elements that acts in a coordinated manner to carry on the activities of life by separately functioning but mutually dependent organs. Fertilised eggs are therefore organisms, because unlike human cells that exhibit the activities of cellular life, but do not engage in coordinated interaction in order to sustain the life of the entity as a whole or achieve a higher level of organisation, the fertilised egg is engaged in the process of life \u2013 forming a body and directing its own development to the next stages of life including but not limited to, being born, childhood, adolescence, maturing, aging and finally, death.<\/p>\n Scientifically speaking there is no way out. A fertilised egg is a life and abortion would be ending that life. This is the Pro-Life argument.<\/p>\n I know what you\u2019re thinking. The Pro-Life argument is that a foetus is a life. We don\u2019t need to revisit that argument to point out it\u2019s a human life, because no one thought you meant anything else.<\/p>\n To which I will reply that what you\u2019re saying is true it\u2019s just a matter of emphasis. When first presenting the Pro-Life argument, I wanted to focus on the fact that it was a life, but now I want to focus on the fact that \u2026 well I\u2019ll let you work out the rest of that point for yourself.<\/p>\n Because despite having scientifically proved that life beings at fertilisation, the Pro-Abortionist will argue that while science is right about all the technical biological stuff and a fertilised egg is indeed a life, and a new life, and a life in the same way a normal human being is a life because it\u2019s an organism not just a human cell, the problem is that\u2019s not what\u2019s important. No, what\u2019s important is whether a foetus has \u2018personhood\u2019, and it doesn\u2019t so it\u2019s okay to kill it.<\/p>\n Yes of course arguing that personhood is what\u2019s important and that it only begins at birth is super convenient as well as difficult because there\u2019s a lot of debate as to its definition, but there is something to what they\u2019re saying.<\/p>\n But only because they\u2019ve missed the point by focusing on the life part of the Pro-Life argument while ignoring the human part.<\/p>\n You see, putting the above problems with the personhood argument aside, its essential point that a foetus is not a human being in the same way a fully developed human being is a \u2026 well human being, is valid.<\/p>\n Human beings have special qualities that make them superior to animals. Without getting too involved or god forbid bringing religion into a debate about what those special qualities are, let\u2019s suggest something suitably reasonable for our purposes and sufficiently vague not to matter anywhere else, that we can all agree on. The superiority of human beings comes from something to do with their intellectual capacity, consciousness and sense of personal identity. No, you can\u2019t point at Leftists to disprove my point because it\u2019s not that they don\u2019t have the intellectual abilities of a human being, they do, it\u2019s that they choose not to use them because they think it makes them morally superior.<\/p>\n One cannot deny therefore, that there\u2019s a difference between a fertilised egg that is indeed, as has been scientifically proven, a human life and a human being that has attained the above-mentioned special qualities.<\/p>\n This being the case, while it may be wrong to kill a human being, the same may not necessarily hold true for a mere human life. It\u2019s not as if the fact that something is a life automatically means it\u2019s wrong to kill it. After all, we kill cockroaches because they disgust us, spiders because they scare us, mice because it\u2019s not healthy to have them running around all over the place and cows because they taste nice when you take their meat, rub it all over with a good lug of oil, season it with sea salt and black pepper and cook for six minutes for a medium-rare steak. So one could argue that there\u2019s no reason you can\u2019t kill a human life.<\/p>\n And if we look at this is terms of the special quality that human beings possess, one could argue that if it\u2019s okay to kill an animal it\u2019s certainly okay to kill a foetus. After all the special qualities that human beings have exist in most animals to some degree, just not at the level it does in human beings – that\u2019s why it\u2019s terrible to commit murder but not so bad to go fishing – but in a foetus or fertilised egg these special qualities exist in an even lower degree if they even exist at all.<\/p>\n However, as mentioned above, this misses the point, because there\u2019s also something special about mere human life, that despite it lacking any level of the special qualities of a human being that even some animals have, elevates it in importance over any other animal. I\u2019m of course talking about the fact that human life will become that special-qualitied human being. No one is denying that there\u2019s a difference between a human life and a human being, but the point is that one will develop into the other. What makes a human life special is the fact that it will become something even more special.<\/p>\n This is more than saying that a human life is a potential human being because potential may or may not be actualised. A foetus is more than potential because it\u2019s developing right now and is something that if you let it do its thing will, within a relatively short period of time, meet whatever criteria you want for whatever you think it\u2019s lacking right now for it to be considered a human being.<\/p>\n The truth is that everybody agrees with this already. It\u2019s as simple as the fact that nobody thinks it\u2019s perfectly okay to kill a newborn just because it lacks the intelligence of a dog whereas everybody thinks it\u2019s wrong to kill a newborn because of what it will grow up to be.<\/p>\n One last point on this. Preventing a human life from developing into a human being may not be as bad as killing an actual human being, but you\u2019ve got to be a first class scumbag to think it\u2019s perfectly reasonable to stop a process that will culminate in a human being enjoying 80 or so years of life, just because it\u2019s not one right now.<\/p>\n On the other hand, preventing a human life from developing into a human being may<\/em> be as bad as killing a human being. After all the reason why murder is wrong is not because you\u2019re causing pain or damage otherwise murder would be fine if you carried it out painlessly and damagelessly. No, the issue normal people have with murder is that you\u2019ve stopped the murdered person from living the rest of their life. This means that the essential crime of murder is the prevention of life, which occurs regardless of whether the murdered is a fully developed human being or a mere human life.<\/p>\n So the Pro-Life argument that a fertilised egg is a human life, is less about it being a life and more about the fact that it\u2019s a human <\/em>life – which means something that has a special value now because of what it will become – and that it\u2019s not morally acceptable to prevent an entity that\u2019s developing into a human being from doing so.<\/p>\n To argue that a foetus doesn\u2019t have personhood and can therefore be killed, means you\u2019ve misunderstood the Pro-Life argument. Because being Pro-Life means being pro anything that will develop into a human being.<\/p>\n As already mentioned, the second type of Pro-Life arguments are actually rebuttals of what Pro-Abortionists think are great arguments for being Pro-Abortion. Also, as already mentioned, there are a lot of rebuttals because there are a lot of Pro-Abortion arguments, as Pro-Abortionists are trying to use quantity to overwhelm quality.<\/p>\n But we can sort Pro-Abortion arguments into the following four categories: more arguments that a foetus is not a life, accusations of sexism and general meanness towards women, negative ramifications of making abortion illegal, and proving that Pro-Lifers are hypocrites. And then present the Pro-Life arguments that refute them.<\/p>\n Rebutting Arguments That a Foetus Is Not a Life<\/strong><\/p>\n The argument goes something like this. At a certain stage a foetus becomes viable, meaning that it can survive outside the uterus. This is used by some as an arbitrary measure of when to worry about potential human life and possibly ban abortion, but of course it means that beforehand we\u2019re not concerned about this and killing the foetus would be perfectly okay.<\/p>\n Now obviously, the Pro-Life argument has already dealt with this point. Science shows that human life starts at fertilisation and preventing it from developing into a human being by killing it is not a highly admirable thing to do.<\/p>\n But I don\u2019t understand how this argument even starts. Why should the inability of a foetus to survive in an environment different to the one it is<\/em> able to survive in mean that you can kill it? It\u2019s viable inside the uterus, you can already start worrying about potential human life. We don\u2019t argue that there\u2019s no need to worry about the potential human life of a one-day old baby just because it can\u2019t survive inside<\/em> the uterus.<\/p>\n This Pro-Abortion argument suggests that no being has the right to be a parasite and live off someone else, so the mother has the right to get rid of it.<\/p>\n The Pro-Life argument in response is that it\u2019s true you can kill a non-human life that\u2019s living off a human being but not a human life that\u2019s living off a human being. Even if the human parasite is wrong for being there, it\u2019s right to life is more important than your right not to be the host to a parasite.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s not wrong for being there, as the parasite only exists because you willingly (in most cases) created it. Even if you used contraception and want to argue that means you didn\u2019t willingly create it, at the end of the day you consented to engage in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy which means you consented to that possible outcome. You can\u2019t participate in a dangerous activity knowing that you could hurt yourself and argue that because you didn\u2019t want to hurt yourself that you\u2019re not responsible if you do. That\u2019s absurd.<\/p>\n If you willingly create something that needs to live off you, you can\u2019t argue that you can kill it because it\u2019s doing something you knew it would when you created it!<\/p>\n The truth is that even Pro-Abortionists don\u2019t believe the, \u2018you have the right to kill a human life that\u2019s living off you\u2019 argument. Children live off their parents for at least 18 years and no one\u2019s ever suggested that parents have the right to kill or even not to look after their children properly because of that. In fact, everyone believes exactly the opposite. Because the parents are the ones who created this child, they are the ones who are responsible for looking after it until it\u2019s capable of looking after itself.<\/p>\n And I know that the technical definition of parasite is an organism that lives off another organism\u2019s body and that\u2019s not the case with children who are born who are only living off their parents time, money, effort and energy, but as anyone with children will tell you, the effects of nine months of pregnancy on a woman\u2019s body are nothing compared to the effects on the body that occur as a result of looking after that child forever.<\/p>\n Rebutting Arguments of Sexism<\/strong><\/p>\n This argument is made in many forms. Pro-Choice, bodily autonomy, or you\u2019re taking away women\u2019s rights. The point they are making in all three forms are essentially the same. The foetus is inside a woman and unless she has complete control over what goes on inside her own body, you\u2019re taking away her rights.<\/p>\n The Pro-Life argument in response is that the far more important right to life of the foetus always trumps (who?) the far less important right of a person to do what they want with their own body. Yes, her rights are being taken away, but this occurs in all cases where the rights of two people, conflict. We don\u2019t often resolve conflicting rights cases with, \u201cOf course your freedom of movement allows you to destroy anyone or anything in your way\u201d.<\/p>\n This is so obvious that Pro-Abortionists have had to resort to rewording the issue for it to have any impact. Because when you think about it in terms of rights it\u2019s easy to see that the more important right should win, but if you think about it in terms of the fact that making abortion illegal would mean more laws governing what women can do with their bodies than men, then it becomes a matter of inequality \u2013 the ultimate debating trump (again!) card because all you have to do to win in a debate is to point to some inequality and people lose their ability to see anything else, including the fact that inequality doesn\u2019t justify preventing the development of a human being.<\/p>\nThe Pro-Life Argument Revisited: A Foetus Is a Human Life<\/h2>\n
The Second Type of Pro-Life Arguments: Rebuttals of Pro-Abortion Arguments<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n