|
Now
that Kevin has demonstrated how educated he is, here's a second message for
Kevin:
Other
than coloring the initial
statements blue, the text
below is passed on to you exactly it was received. Judging from the
distinct difference in the writing style between the message above and the
statements below, we are guessing that the statements below were simply copied
from another web site. Regardless of their source, we hope you find
them helpful.
Shortly after receiving Kevin's second e-mail,
we found that the list of twenty one
pro-life arguments included below had been copied from
http://www.abortiontv.com/AnswersToProChoice.htm
They
are included below exactly as we found them
*********************************
Here
is are answers and infalliable counters to many anti-life beliefs and fallacies.
1.
The
Fetus is part of the pregnant woman’s body, like her tonsils or appendix.*
A
body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of
it’s body; the unborn’s genetic code differs entirely from the mother’s.
Being "inside something" is not the same as being part of something. A
car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. Human beings should not
be discriminated against because of their "place of residence."
*The
unborn is an embryo or a fetus just a simple blob of tissue -- not a baby.
Abortion is simply terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.*
Like
toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to non-humans,
but humans in a particular stage of development. Fetus is a Latin word meaning
"young one" or "little child." Is stage of development
related to a person’s worth? Is a two-year old worth less than a 6-year-old,
etc?
>From
the moment of conception the unborn is not simple, but very complex. The newly
fertilized egg contains a staggering genetic information, sufficient to control
the individual’s growth and development for an entire lifetime.
Prior
to the earliest first-trimester abortions, the unborn already has every body
part she will ever have. At 18 days, after conception, the heart is forming and
the eyes start to develop. By 30 days, she has multiplied in size ten thousand
times. She has a brain and blood flows through her veins. By 42 days, the
skeleton is formed and the brain is controlling the movement of the muscles and
organs. After the first trimester, nothing new develops or begins functioning.
The child only grows and matures.
*It
is uncertain when human life begins, therefore it’s a religious question, not
a scientific one.*
Even
though this argument is hardly used by the majority of pro-choice anymore, there
are still a few who think it is a relevant argument. Bottom line is the question
can be answered one of three ways. One could answer it in a religious theory;
however, not everyone is of the same religion and some just plain don't believe
in religion. So answering the question of when does human life begin in a
religious theory makes it open to much debate. Another way the question could be
answered is in a philosophic theory. Again not everyone's philosophy on a
subject is the same and again the theory is left open to much debate. There is
finally another theory which can answer the question of when does life begin. It
is the biological theory. Biological human life is defined by studying the
scientific facts of human development. This field of study has no disagreements
and no controversy. Bottom line is that there is truly only one set of facts.
The more knowledge that has been learned about human development, the more s
The
biological fact is not a spiritual belief, nor is it a philosophical theory. The
biological fact is not debatable, not questionable. It is a universally accepted
scientific fact. See also "When Do Human Beings Begin."
*The
unborn isn’t a person with a meaningful life. It’s only inches in size,
can’t think, and is less advanced than an animal.*
A
living being’s designation to a species is determined not by the stage of
development, but by the sum total of its biological characteristics which are
genetically determined. If we say that a fetus is not human, then we must state
that it is a member of another species an impossibility. What makes a human
"human" is that he/she came from humans. A dog is a dog because he
came from dogs both the mother and father were dogs.
A
living being’s designation to a species is determined not by the stage of
development, but by the sum total of its biological characteristics which are
genetically determined. If we say that a fetus is not human, then we must state
that it is a member of another species an impossibility. What makes a human
"human" is that he/she came from humans. A dog is a dog because he
came from dogs both the mother and father were dogs.
Does
size determine personhood? Is an NBA basketball player more of a person than
someone half his size? If you lose ¼ of your bodyweight through a diet, do you
lose ¼ of your personhood? If personhood is determined by one’s current
capacities, then someone who is unconscious or sick could be killed immediately
because he/she is not demonstrating superior intellect or skills. Age, size, IQ
or stage development are simply differences in degree, not kind.
*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 the blueprint, not a house, and acorn and
not an oak tree.*
Something
non-human does not become human by getting older and bigger -- whatever is human
must be human from the beginning.
When
the egg and sperm are joined, a new, dynamic, and genetically distinct human
life begins. This life is neither sperm nor egg, nor a simple combination of
both. It is independent, with a life of its own, on a rapid pace of
self-directed development.
*A
fetus isn’t a "person" until viability.*
Viability
(the point when an unborn baby could survive outside of the womb) is an
arbitrary concept. Why isn’t personhood associated with heartbeat (begins just
21 days after conception), or brainwaves (43 days after conception), or
something else? The actual point of viability constantly changes because it
depends on technology, not on the unborn baby.
Based
on the same viability logic, many "born" people are not viable because
they cannot survive on their own without the aid of others. Should we abort them
too?
*No
one should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone
else.*
The
right to life doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and
adolescents would have less of a right to live than adults.
What
is really at stake is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.
No one has an absolute unconditional right to a lifestyle. It is always governed
by its effects on others. There are 1,000’s of restrictions on us including
no-smoking provisions, noise and zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it
reasonable for society to expect an adult to live with a temporary 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.*
All
civilize societies restrict individual freedoms when that "choice"
would harm an innocent person. Do men have the freedom of choice to rape a woman
if that is his choice? After all, it’s his body, why do we have a right to
tell him what to do with it? Why do we have a right to impose our morals on him?
By emphasizing a rapist’s right to choose, we clearly are completely ignoring
the rights of the woman.
We
have laws that restrict false advertising, and others that protect us from
tainted foods or bad products. We have laws against discrimination and violence.
When other’s rights are at stake particularly when their lives are at stake
society is expected to, and must restrict the individual’s freedoms of
choice. The fact is that people who are pro-choice about abortion, are often not
prochoice about other issues with less at stake.
Throughout
history, nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds
of the right to choose, e.g. "you don’t have to own slaves if you don’t
want to, but don’t tell us we can’t choose to. It’s our right." The
civil rights movement fought to take away this "slavery choice," while
the woman’s movement fought to take away an employer’s free choice to
discriminate against women. The pro-choice position always overlooks the
victim’s right to choose. Women don’t choose rape. African Americans
didn’t choose slavery. The Jews didn’t choose to be killed in ovens….and
babies don’t choose abortion.
*Every
woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic
right.*
Abortion
insures that 750,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies.
Why? Because they’re killed. About ½ of the total babies aborted each year in
the United States are female killed before they are even born, not even able
to enjoy the basic right to life.
We
don’t have absolute control over our bodies. A man is not permitted to expose
himself in public. In most areas of the country, women are not allowed to sell
their bodies through prostitution. We’re also not permitted to take illegal
drugs.
Too
often, the "right to control my life," becomes a right to hurt an
oppress others. Whites used blacks to enhance their own quality of life, but did
so at the expense of blacks. Men have often used women to live their lives as
they wanted, but at the expense of women.
*Abortion
rights are fundamental for the advancement of women.*
The
founding feminists were prolife, not prochoice. Susan B. Anthony, referred to
abortion as "child murder" and viewed it as a means of exploiting both
women and children.
Another
leading (founding) feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, said "When we consider
that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should
treat our children as property to be disposed of as we wish."
What
happened? Abortion rights activists tied abortion to "women’s
rights" in the 1960’s as a profit motive. To find out more, see
"Feminism and Abortion." Further many of today’s active feminists
still oppose abortion. Feminists for Life was started in the early 1970’s to
counter the misdirected mainstream feminist movement's change to pro-abortion.
*"I’m
personally against abortion, but I wouldn’t take that right away from someone
else."*
To
be prochoice about abortion is to be pro-abortion. Suppose drug dealing were
legalized and you heard this argument:
"I’m
personally not in favor of someone dealing drugs at schools, but that’s a
matter to decide between the drug dealer and his attorney. We don’t want to go
back to the days when drug dealing was illegal, and people died in back alleys
from bad cocaine. I personally wouldn’t buy drugs, so I’m not pro-drugs.
I’m just pro-choice about drug dealing."
Basically,
being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is
self-contradictory and morally baffling. It’s exactly like saying,
"We’re personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor’s
right to abuse his child if that is his choice."
Someone
who is prochoice about rape might argue that it’s not the same as being
pro-rape. What’s the difference, since being prochoice about rape allows and
promotes the legitimacy of rape? Those who were prochoice about slavery believed
their moral position was sound since they personally didn’t own slaves.
Similarly, most people in Germany did not favor the killing of Jews, but did
nothing to stop the killing.
Some
people have an illusion that being personally opposed to abortion while
believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between
pro-abortion and prolife positions. It isn’t. Pro-choice people vote the same
as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the unborn, and both
are willing for children to die even if they do not directly participate in
the killings.
*Abortion
is legal. Things that are "legal" are OK, aren’t they?*
The
government has a reputation as a protector, although closer examination reveals
that this is an inconsistent position. Anything "legal" is actually a
defacto endorsement from our government. Abortion is legal, so many women go
blindly through the process believing that "if the government says its OK,
then it must be fine." Countless women who have abortions are shocked at
the realities of the experience -- both physically and mentally -- wondering,
"why wasn't I warned?"
If
abortions were illegal, there would probably be around 100,000 a year, as
opposed to 1.5 million today -- so it's easy to conclude that this would save
lives. Hearts would not be changed however this is only accomplished through
a consistent education program.
Finally,
what is legal is not always right. Law doesn’t reflect morality rather the
law should reflect a morality that is independent of the law. Case in point: was
abortion immoral on January 21, 1973 and moral on January 23, 1973? In the
1940’s a German doctor could kill Jews legally, while in America he would have
been prosecuted for murder. In the 1970’s and American doctor could kill
unborn babies legally, while in Germany he would have been prosecuted for
murder. Laws change. Truth and justice don’t.
*It’s
unfair to bring children into a world when they’re not wanted.*
There’s
a major difference between and unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. Every
child is wanted by someone. There are currently 200,000 couples in the US
desperately seeking to adopt, yet less than 25,000 babies available each year.
Demand is so great, that couples are forced to adopt in China and Russia, often
spending more than $20,000 to do so.
Not
just "normal" babies are wanted many people request babies with
Down’s Syndrome and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to
adopt babies with spina bifida.
Slave
owners argued that slavery was in the best interest of blacks, since they
couldn’t make it on their own. Exploiting people and stripping them of their
rights is always easier when we tell ourselves we’re doing it for their good
rather than our own.
*Having
more unwanted children results in greater child abuse.*
In
the first 10 years after abortion was legalize, child abuse increased by over
500%. Is it any wonder? Isn’t it easy to conclude that "if it’s OK to
abuse our unwanted children by killing them, then why not our "born"
children?" Studies also have shown that child abuse is more frequent among
mothers who have previously had an abortion.
Further,
most abused children were wanted by their parents. A study conducted by
professor Edward Lenoski of the University of California concluded that 91% of
abused children were from planned pregnancies. In society, 64% of pregnancies
are planned concluding that among abused children, a significantly higher
percentage were wanted children compared to the percentage of wanted children in
society at large.
*Abortion
helps solve the problem of overpopulation.*
The
current birth rate in America is less than what is needed to maintain our
population level. In 1957, the average American woman in her reproductive years
bore 3.7 children. Taking into account all causes of death and the increases in
average life span, zero population growth requires that the average woman bears
2.1 children. Since 1972, the average in America has been 1.8 children a
figure that is below zero population growth. In fact, any increases since 1972
have been due to immigration.
What
about elsewhere? There are now 6 billion people on Earth. The planet's
population will most likely continue to climb until 2050, when it will peak at 9
billion. Other predictions have the world's population peaking at 7.5 billion in
2040. In either case, it will then go into a sharp decline. With fertility rates
low and anti-foreigner sentiment rising in Europe, the United Nations recently
released a study that suggests Europe will need mass migration from the Third
World to populate it. The report, written by the United Nations Population
Division, states that South Korea, Japan, Europe and Russia are facing
population crunches. If Japan continues its current abortion policies and fails
to raise its average birth rate of 1.4 children per married couple, will have
ewer than 500 people by the year 3000 (see "The Overpopulation Lie").
By 2050, the population of Russia will reduce to 150 million. In the 1970s,
Russia's population rivaled America's, at more than 225 million people.
Finally,
the entire population of the world could be placed in one gigantic city within
the borders of the state of Texas (with a population density less than many
cities around the world).
*If
abortion were made illegal, there would still be many abortions.*
There
are laws against rape, burglary, armed robbery and illegal drug dealing, yet
every one of these crimes continues to happen in our society. Does the fact that
these crimes still happen inspire us to make them legal? Clearly not, as laws
should exist to discourage bad things from happening. Laws concerning abortion
have significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions. In one
survey, 72 percent said they would definitely not have sought an abortion if
having one were illegal.
There
are laws against rape, burglary, armed robbery and illegal drug dealing, yet
every one of these crimes continues to happen in our society. Does the fact that
these crimes still happen inspire us to make them legal? Clearly not, as laws
should exist to discourage bad things from happening. Laws concerning abortion
have significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions. In one
survey, 72 percent said they would definitely not have sought an abortion if
having one were illegal.
*If
abortion is made illegal, thousands of women will die from back alley and
clothes hanger abortions.*
This
is a favorite myth put forth by pro-abortionists. Prior to legalization, 90
percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back
alleys. Further, women still suffer and die from "legal" abortions in
America (see "Abortions Gone Wrong").
*Abortion
is a safe medical procedure, safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.*
Abortion
is not safer than full term pregnancy and childbirth. Less than one in 10,000
pregnancies results in the mother’s death. Government statistics indicate the
chances of death by abortion are even less however, deaths from childbirth
are accurately reported, while many deaths by legal abortion are not
completely skewing the statistics. Abortion actually increases the chance of
maternal death in later pregnancies. Women face injuries to the uterus, cervix,
urinary tract, infection, hemorrhage, heart failure, embolism, sterilizations,
ruptured intestines & bowels, coma, and even death. In addition, there are
countless cases of abortionists sexually abusing their clients while under
anesthesia. In fact, you're four times more likely to die in the year following
your abortion (see report). Further, woman who have abortions suffer mental
health declines, while those who deliver their child actually have improved
mental health (see report).
*What
about a woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy or childbirth?*
American
Life League's (www.all.org)
medical advisors say the answer is a simple, unequivocal "no"— and
any claim to the contrary is bogus. And many other doctors across the country
agree. American Life League circulated a statement (3/00) concerning this
position to a select number of doctors around the country. More than 100
physicians have signed the statement — including former abortionists Bernard
Nathanson and Beverly McMillan. The statement reads, "I agree that there is
never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a
preborn [unborn] child's life need be intentionally destroyed by procured
abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do
everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child.
He must never intend the death of either." See "Life of Mother
Exception?"
While
he was the United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly
that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a
single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to
save the life of the mother. He said that the use of this argument to justify
abortion in general was a "smoke screen."
*What
about a woman who is pregnant due to rape or incest?*
Less
than 1% of all abortions are due to rape or incest. Furthermore, since
conception doesn’t occur immediately after intercourse, pregnancy can be
prevented in nearly all rape cases by medical treatments including the morning
after pill (MAP).
Nearly
all the women interviewed in a recent survey said they regretted aborting the
babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90
percent said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having
an abortion (see report)
Finally,
if you found out today that your biological father had raped your mother, would
you feel you no longer had a right to live?
*Abortion
Reduces Crime*
Roe
v. Wade did not reduce the rate of illegitimacy, which is widely believed to
contribute to crime. Indeed, illegitimacy shot upwards in a straight line from
5% in 1962 to 33% of babies born today. The legalization of abortion had no
visible affect whatsoever on this disastrous trend. Only in the more
conservative cultural climate of the late Nineties did the illegitimacy rate
start to plateau - and at the same time the number of abortions dipped as well.
A
study by Levitt and Donohue point out that the crime rate started to fall about
18-20 years after Roe v. Wade in 1973. However, this reasoning also implies that
these same individuals born soon after 1973 should have grown up to be
especially law-abiding teens in the early Nineties. Did they?
No.
Instead, this generation born after Roe v. Wade went on the worst youth murder
spree in American history. According to FBI statistics, the murder rate in 1993
for 14-17 years olds (who were born in the high abortion years of 1975-1979) was
a horrifying 3.6 times higher than that of the kids who were 14-17 years old in
1984 (who were born in the pre-legalization years of 1966-1970).
What
about black male youths alone? Levitt and Donohue's theory suggests that their
behavior should have "benefited" more that whites' behavior from
abortion. Instead, their murder rate grew an apocalyptic 5.1 times from 1984 to
1993. See "Does Abortion Really Reduce Crime?"
|
