# The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
1. This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
2. This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed.
3.
1. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
4. This is saying that value of humanity is based upon development.
1. At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
2. If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
5. But is its nature human or something else?
1. If it is not human in nature, then what is it?
2. If it is human in nature, then what gives anyone the right to kill it?
6. Then when does the nature change into human? When does the non-human nature develop into a human nature?
1. This is important since we would not want to accidentally kill a life that has become human at some point.
2. If you cannot determine at what point the life becomes human, then should you risk killing it at all since it may very well be human?
7. At what point does it become human and by what criteria do you make this judgment?
8.
1. If you cannot decide when, then you are risking killing a person.
2. If you say that the life becomes human at birth, then what in the birth process changes the nature of the life from non-human to human?
# The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
1. But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned.
2. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
3. Then when does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
4.
1. It is animals who are owned, not people -- unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
5. If the tissue is not human, but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
6.
1. But, an internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
2. They are different in nature, because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
3. An internal organ is not the totality of a person nor the totality or essence of what makes someone human.
4. But a human has the ability to produce an organ.
5.
1. Therefore, being human encompasses its own body but is not defined by it.
# The life in the womb is really part of the woman and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
#
1. If it is part of the woman then does the woman have four arms, four legs, and 2 heads, four eyes? Is that what a human is?
2. It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
3.
1. Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
2. The life growing in the womb can have a different blood than the mother and has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
3.
4. People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says the people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
5.
1. Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal but that did not make it right.
# In abortion, no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.
#
1. This is simply begging the question. You assume it isn't human, even though it is alive and has human DNA, and then pass judgment that it is not a person.
2. You must define what makes a person before you can attempt to make such a claim.
1. Is being a person limited to attributes of thought, walking, awareness, etc., or is it ontological; that is, is it an issue of the nature and essence of the life?
2. A person is still a person even if he cannot think, walk, or be self aware, as someone in a coma.
3. Personhood is not defined by function alone, but also by essence and nature. To divorce the two, function and essence, is to improperly define what a person is.
3. Saying that the fetus is not a person, does not make it so.
4. The fetus has the nature of a human and is injured by killing.
5. Then does that mean the mother should have no feelings about the life that has been removed from her womb? If it isn't a person, then there should be absolutely no guilt at all with killing the life in the womb, correct?
1. If you affirm that no guilt at all is necessary, then why do so many women have the feeling of guilt after an abortion?
2. Does this abortion really leave the woman uninjured? Countless women are psychologically harmed when they kill the child in their womb.
# To restrict a woman's right to choose is to deny her rights as a woman.
1. This is a self-centered reason that ignores:
2.
1. That the life in the womb is human in nature.
2. That the woman has a responsibility to protect and guard life.
3. That it puts the woman's personal interests and comfort above the value of life of the baby.
4. That it is not denying a woman's rights anymore than she does not have the right to murder, steal, or lie.
3. This is not denying a woman's rights anymore than prohibiting her from murder, stealing, or perjury is denying her rights.
4. Rights come with responsibilities. Choosing to kill another is a great responsibility that needs to be taken seriously. This is why we have trials.
5.
1. However, in the womb, no trial is necessary, just the desire of the mother to take the life that is growing in her womb.
# There are too many people in the world.
1. Since when does the value of human life depend upon how many people there are? Besides, if the number of people is the issue, maybe they should then start getting rid of the sick and old. Maybe they should get rid of those who aren't intelligent or good looking. Where will it stop?
# Abortion is legal, therefore, it is okay.
1. Slavery was legal 150 years ago, but that did not make it right.
2. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
# We don't know exactly when the fetus becomes human in the womb, so we can abort it.
1. If you do not know when it becomes human, then should you risk killing it since it might very well be human -- since you don't know?
2. If there were 500 pills on a table and one of them was a deadly poison, would you randomly take one of the pills and swallow it? Why not? After all, you don't know which is the poison, so you can take the chance and not worry about it, right? Likewise, if there is a chance that the life is human, should you take the risk of killing it?
Topic: Confronting Pro-Abortion Arguments (Read 1791 times)