I’ve learned from experience that it can be difficult to get straight answers from pro-choice adherents. There is so much rhetoric, douplespeak and catch phrases, that it can be like trudging through a swamp to get to the heart of the matter.

When talking with a pro-choicer, remember this: scientifically and biologically it is a fact that a new and unique human life comes into existence at conception. Therefore, in any debate, the burden of proof is on the pro-choicer.

So, to help you understand their perspective better and to recognize common strawmen, here are some of the pro-choice arguments I hear the most and what they really mean:

What they say: It’s not a human being yet, it’s just a potential human being.

What they mean: I can’t bear the thought that this a real human being. If I were to admit that to myself, I’d be overcome with guilt and grief. Better to console myself with the belief that it’s only a potential life, not a real one. That way abortion appears no different than throwing a used condom in the trash.

The truth is that a unique human being is created/comes into existence at the very moment of conception. At fertilization – when sperm and egg join together – there is a complete set of DNA in place which is distinct from the mother. Eye color, hair color, gender, and intelligence are all determined at conception. This isn’t a religious belief, it’s a scientific fact.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the majority of abortions take place between 7-13 weeks gestation, by which time the fetus already has visibly developed arms, legs, fingers and toes, a face, and a beating heart. If this is only a potential human being, then what is it really? A lifeless puppet waiting to be magically transformed into a real boy like Pinocchio?

Tip: Ask the pro-choicer why there is a heartbeat if this isn’t a real human being. (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 chose 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 is the crucial difference. An embryo is not a mass of cells akin to cancer – it is a unique human being. 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 an appendix or a tooth is just a gallbladder, an appendix and a tooth.

Tip: Ask a pro-choicer 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?)

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 you see, 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 there as we have here.

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. How can we logically argue that an embryo is not a real human being when fifty years from now it very well could be? (Based on viablity of course.) Even today, while preborn children 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 makes no sense. It merely proves that viability is based on technology, not biology.

Tip: Ask a pro-choicer 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. But, if they insist abortion should be legal all nine months of pregnancy regardless, have them explain why that 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 brain, there is no person involved here. I can have a first trimester abortion without feeling guilty, because it wasn’t a person yet. (Again, see responses above)

First of all, have them clarify what they mean by “person.” Do they mean human? 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 fromt start to finish, just as a turtle begins as a turtle and then dies a turtle. Well, they may say, a fetus might be of the human species, but it is not a person yet. (Boy, the waters get muddy quickly.)

Here’s the thing: As soon as you suggest that consciousness and intelligence are required for personhood, you’re also suggesting that people in comas are no longer persons, that those with mental disabilities aren’t human, and that children are subhuman compared to adults because their brains are still developing. If I fall down a hill and get knocked unconscious, do I cease to be a person during that brief time period before I regain consciousness? When a person dies on the operating table and is pronounced braindead, do they suddenly cease to be a person?

Secondly, since the full development of the brain is gradual (remember, the pro-choicers have referred 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, what is it? Please give me that exact date.

Tip: Ask the pro-choicer 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 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. (I should note that the same applies to a fetus with a fatal defect. Yes, they will eventually die. But if aborted, the cause of death will be the abortion, not the defect.)

Let’s take this one step further because the pro-choicer is probably standing 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 legally have it without my consent!” Not the same thing. 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 child growing within you. So, in the first case, you aren’t responsible, but in the latter you are. That’s the difference. You consented to the risk of pregnancy when you consented to sex. To this the pro-choicer says, “That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying that if I catch an STD while using contraceptives, that I consented to having an STD.” No, not quite. You engaged in the behavior knowing the risk, and that makes you responsible for the consequence.

Tip: Ask the pro-choicer 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 preborn child: The mother consented to the risk of pregnancy when she consented to sex – so, as soon as the infant is born, they can be placed with an adoptive family.

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 she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

Since when do we punish children for the crimes of their father? Is a man subject to capitol punishment when he is convicted of rape? No. Then why should a preborn child be put to death when he/she is completely innocent? We must also remember that the child is biologically half the mother’s; it is her child, too. Abortion in the case of rape or incest is not an act of kindness or mercy. It is a second act of violence. It doesn’t undue the rape and trauma that the woman endured – all it does is end the life of an innocent human being.

If you were abducted and knocked unconscious, only to awake hours later missing one of your kidneys, should you have the legal right to hunt down the person it was donated to (think black market), take a knife, and tear it out of them, killing them? After all, you didn’t consent to donating your kidney to them. Compare this to pregnancy by rape. Yes, you are pregnant without consent, but the deed has been done. The only way to get your uterus back is to kill the child that is now growing within you. The analogy stops there because unlike the kidney donation that is permanent, a woman is only pregnant for nine months. Then she gets her uterus back and the child remains alive. A woman is not obligated to raise a child conceived in rape. She is free to place her baby with a loving, adoptive family.

Keep in mind that the rape/incest argument is often used as a smokescreen; a diversion. Statistically, less than 1% of all abortions take place for reasons of rape, incest and the mother’s health combined.

Tip: Ask the pro-choicer why abortion should be legal for any reason other than rape or incest. Then have them explain why a woman should be allowed to take the life of another human being for her own convenience (which is the case in 99% of abortions).

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 her preborn child for the same reason? Remember, less than 1% of all abortions are done for reasons or rape, inceast and the mother’s health combined. It is a rare case when a woman’s life is at risk because of her pregnancy. In which case, she can deliver early by induction or ceaserean section, giving the child a chance to survive. If it is too early in pregnancy, and the woman needs immediate treatment (say, in the case of a fast-growing cancer), then the loss of the fetus is a tragedy. It is not the same as abortion. Many women opt to hold off on chemotherapy until the baby is born, but if waiting is not an option, then we must save whoever can be saved. To use Randy Alcorn’s analogy, if two people are drowning and you can only rescue one of them, do you let them both drown or do you rescue the one you can get to? If a mother’s life is truly at stake, then we must save her, even if that means the fetus will die.

Here’s where the Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) comes into play. PBA is one of the most barbaric forms of abortion. A second or third trimester 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. Now, if a woman had a rare condition in which her baby must be removed right away or else she will die, then why PBA? Why not early induction or cesarean section? If a doctor is going to take all that time 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 extra time to brutally murder the child? There is no point, and that’s the point. PBA for “a woman’s health” is doublespeak for justifying infanticide should a woman decide late in pregnancy that she no longer wants her baby.

Tip: Ask a pro-choicer to give you a legitimate medical condition in which PBA would be necessary. If they can come up with a life-threatening medical condition that involves the pregnancy, then have them explain why PBA should be performed rather than a c-section.

What they say: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

What they mean: Abortion should be safe and legal.

Self-explanatory.

Tip: Ask a pro-choicer why abortion should be rare. If there’s nothing wrong with it, then 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 am faced with most often. If you have suggestions, please contact me and I’d be happy to expand this article.

© 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. http://www.bekahferguson.com

Licensed under the Creative Commons Act .