![\"Two](\"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Answers-Questions-Sign.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Welcome to a complete guide of Pro-Life answers to Pro-Choice arguments. With ten arguments that fall into one of four categories of Pro-Choice objections and simple and easy answers for each one, you can sit back, relax and start a bag of popcorn, because by the end of this article you will be fully able to rebut any question a Pro-Choicer sends your way.<\/p>\n
Even that genius one about what you would do if you had to choose between saving a container with 1000 human embryos or a five-year-old child, that \u2018shuts down\u2019 the anti-abortion argument<\/a>.<\/p>\n As a bonus I\u2019ve also included the answer to something that\u2019s not technically a Pro-Choice argument but since it\u2019s one those who are Pro-Choice often make, I thought I might as well have a crack at it.<\/p>\n Here is an overview of the four categories of objections and the ten arguments in this guide, as well the non-Pro-Choice argument that those who are Pro-Choice often make.<\/p>\n Category 1:<\/strong> Arguments About the Status of the Foetus<\/p>\n Argument 1:<\/strong> A Foetus Is Not a Life \/ Person<\/p>\n Argument 2:<\/strong> Abortion Is Not Killing If the Foetus Is Not Viable<\/p>\n Argument 3:<\/strong> A Foetus Is a Parasite<\/p>\n Category 2:<\/strong> Arguments That Making Abortion Illegal Would Create Inequality<\/p>\n Argument 4:<\/strong> Making Abortion Illegal Would Take Away Women\u2019s Rights<\/p>\n Argument 5:<\/strong> Men Who Are Anti-Abortion Hate Women and Want to Control Them<\/p>\n Category 3:<\/strong> Arguments That Making Abortion Illegal Will Have Negative Ramifications<\/p>\n Argument 6:<\/strong> Making Abortion Illegal Would Destroy Women\u2019s Lives<\/p>\n Argument 7:<\/strong> Making Abortion Illegal Will Result in Women Dying of Unsafe Abortions<\/p>\n Argument 8:<\/strong> How Is It Fair Not to Let Victims of Rape Have an Abortion?<\/p>\n Category 4:<\/strong> Arguments That Those Who Are Pro-Life Are Hypocrites<\/p>\n Argument 9:<\/strong> If You Really Thought a Foetus Was a Human Being How Comes \u2026<\/p>\n Argument 10:<\/strong> You Don\u2019t Care About the Child After Birth<\/p>\n The Non-Pro-Choice Argument That Those Who Are Pro-Choice Often Make: Men Aren\u2019t Allowed an Opinion on Abortion Because It Only Affects Women<\/p>\n Now you\u2019ve seen the Pro-Choice arguments feel free to stop reading for a few minutes and come up with your own answers. It should be fairly easy.<\/p>\n Then you can compare them to mine and decide whose are better.<\/p>\n It\u2019ll be fun!<\/p>\n This is the longest objection that goes back and forth over several stages. This should come as no surprise because at the end of the day the status of the foetus is the key to the entire abortion debate. All the other seemingly valid points are in truth pure misdirection: an attempt to emotionally provoke you (but equality \u2026 you hate women \u2026 rape \u2026 you\u2019re a hypocrite) so that you don\u2019t notice you\u2019re justifying murder.<\/p>\n Here are all the stages of the foetus is not a life \/ person argument.<\/p>\n The Argument Stage 1:<\/strong> A foetus is not a life.<\/p>\n The Answer: <\/strong>This is what I like to call \u2018the argument from ignorance\u2019. The answer to this as all those who were listening in biology class will tell you, is that there are four criteria that science requires to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction. And a fertilised egg has all of them.<\/p>\n The Argument Stage 2: <\/strong>Yes, a fertilised egg is indeed life, it\u2019s just another part of the mother, it\u2019s her own life so she can do with it as she pleases.<\/p>\n The Answer: <\/strong>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 The Argument Stage 3:<\/strong> Yes, a fertilised egg is indeed a life, and a new life, but 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 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 The Answer: <\/strong>Once again this is not true as unlike your kidney or arm the fertilised egg is also an organism.<\/p>\n Science defines an organism as: 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. In other words, although a cell which is the basic unit of a living organism, exhibits the activities of cellular life, it doesn\u2019t engage in coordinated interaction to sustain the life of the entity as a whole or achieve a higher level of organisation. An organism, which is a discrete and complete living thing, does.<\/p>\n For a more detailed explanation of all this, please see here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Argument Stage 4: <\/strong>Ok. Fine. Science proves that human life does indeed begin at fertilisation. But the important point is not when life begins but when personhood begins. A human being is only a person when it has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness.<\/p>\n The Answer: <\/strong>But Leftists don\u2019t have the capacity for reason and they\u2019re still people. No, you\u2019re right, they do have the capacity for reason it\u2019s just that they choose not to use it because they think it makes them morally superior. We\u2019ll have to try something else.<\/p>\n The Answer Take 2: <\/strong>It\u2019s true that when life begins is irrelevant and that it\u2019s personhood which determines when you can\u2019t kill something, otherwise you wouldn\u2019t be able to kill animals. Killing is wrong when the life you\u2019re ending has a high degree of value. When the life has the capacity for reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness. In other words, a person.<\/p>\n But a foetus despite not being a person is also a life with a high degree of value. And the high degree of value is that it will become a person with reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness. In other words, there\u2019s a second factor that determines when you can\u2019t kill a life and that is when it will become a person.<\/p>\n And everyone agrees with this. Otherwise you\u2019d be able to kill newborns who don\u2019t have any characteristic that define personhood. The reason why you can\u2019t kill newborns is because they will become people.<\/p>\n This is the significance of saying a foetus is a human life. Not simply that it can be defined scientifically as human life but because it\u2019s the type of life that will become, if only you just left it alone, a person.<\/p>\n The Argument: <\/strong>A viable foetus is one that can survive outside the uterus. A non-viable foetus is one that can\u2019t. The abortion of a non-viable foetus can\u2019t be killing because the entity lacks value, as it would not have been able to survive outside the uterus anyway.<\/p>\n The Answer: <\/strong>But it is able to survive inside<\/em> the uterus? Meaning the premise of this argument is ridiculous. Why should the inability of a foetus to survive in an environment different to the one it is<\/em> able to survive in mean it has no value? Does a life only have value if it\u2019s able to survive in all environments?<\/p>\n If it were, we\u2019d be able to kill people because they can\u2019t survive in water or space and newborns because they can\u2019t survive inside<\/em> the uterus.<\/p>\n The Argument: <\/strong>No being has the right to be a parasite and live off someone else, literally, so the mother has the right to get rid of a foetus that\u2019s doing just that.<\/p>\n The Answer: <\/strong>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. That\u2019s because even if the human parasite is wrong for being there, it\u2019s right to life (a corollary of being a life that it would be wrong to kill) is far more important than your right not to be host to a parasite.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s not wrong for being there, as this 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, 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 don\u2019t want it to but 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 their 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\u2019 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 mind and<\/em> body that occur as a result of looking after that child \u2026 forever.<\/p>\n The Argument: <\/strong>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 is essentially the same. The foetus is inside a woman and unless she has complete control over what goes on inside her own body, making abortion illegal would take away her rights.<\/p>\n The Answer: <\/strong>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 kill anyone 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, 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 murdering a human being.<\/p>\nPro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments: An Overview<\/h2>\n
Your Own Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments<\/h2>\n
Category 1: Arguments About the Status of the Foetus<\/h2>\n
Argument 1: A Foetus Is Not a Life \/ Person<\/h3>\n
Argument 2: Abortion Is Not Killing If the Foetus Is Not Viable<\/h3>\n
Argument 3: The Foetus Is a Parasite<\/h3>\n
Category 2: Arguments That Making Abortion Illegal Would Create Inequality<\/h2>\n
Argument 4: Making Abortion Illegal Would Take Away Women\u2019s Rights<\/h3>\n