“A fetus is not a human being.”
Really? If a fetus is not a human being and it does not posses life, then what is it? Here’s a challenge to any pro-death person in the whole world: find a genuine definition of either life or human being which excludes fetuses. It can’t be done. When someone uses this ridiculous statement, turn the tables on them and ask for a definition which excludes fetuses. They won’t oblige.
“A fetus is not a human being because it is not viable.”
Simply because a fetus in the womb depends upon its mother for survival has no bearing on the question of personhood. Do not children and the senile old depend upon others for survival? Are they also not persons? As science advances and the point of fetal viability becomes earlier and earlier in the pregnancy, does the definition of life change right along with it? Nonsense.
“A woman has the right to choose because it’s her body.”
If we just established that the fetus is indeed a human being and indeed possesses life, it does not matter that that tiny living human being is contained within its mother’s womb. Do a few inches of skin, muscle, and body fluids decide the question of personhood? Again, such reasoning is nonsense. (By the way, this argument is an implicit acknowledgement that the fetus is a living human being. These so-called “pro-choicers” are openly advocating the permission to commit murder.)
“We must abort babies if the life of the mother is in danger.”
When is the life of the mother not in danger? The abortion procedure is more dangerous and deadly than the naturally occurring process of childbirth. And besides, this argument has a flawed premise. There is never an instance when the doctor must choose between the life of the mother and the life of an unborn child. A doctor must refrain from committing murder while doing everything in his power to save both lives.
“Children conceived in rape or incest should be aborted.”
We have already established that a fetus in the womb is in fact a human being and in fact possesses life. It is simply in a different stage of life contained within the mother’s womb, but its life and personhood is not essentially different from that of a small child. Would anyone argue that a toddler conceived in rape or incest could be murdered if the mother decided to do so? Of course not.
“I’m personally against abortion, but I don’t want to force my beliefs on others.”
I’m sure you’re also personally against theft, but you’d undoubtedly try to force that belief on a thief trying to steal your car. The fact that one acknowledges abortion to be murder, but then proceeds to permit it, makes them a kind of accessory to the crime. True beliefs require actions. That leaves only two options then. Either you don’t really believe, or you’re a coward.
TomNaegeleBlogs 