1) "a woman has the right to her own body."
first off, it's silly to think that the law cannot tell us what we can't do with our bodies. we can't put certain drugs in them or sell ourselves for sex. second, this statement totally ignores the fact that the unborn are completely separate individuals from the mother. how can someone have two heartbeats, two different blood types, two sets of DNA? and, if the unborn is a male, how can a woman have a male part of her body? yes, the unborn need their mother for nutrition and saftey, but that does not make them any more a part of her body than some food she swallows is a part of her body.
to refute this statement, i'll tell a story about a little boy who had surgery for spina bifida before he was even born. at the end of the surgery, the baby reached out of the uterus and grabbed the doctor's finger. my question is this... who grabbed the doctor's finger? (full story: http://joseromia.tripod.com/samuel.html
2) "what if she was raped?"
1% of all abortions performed annually are due to rape/incest. althought this is an extremely small number, this situation must be approached with great compassion, because the victim has already been through one violent act. why would we subject her to another, that of killing her own child? two wrongs do not make a right, and abortion will not alleviate the trauma of the rape. the victim needs love and care, and both she and her unborn child deserve better than abortion.
3) "you can't impose your morality on others."
using that logic, should we release all the rapists and murderers from prison to go free on the streets and allow them to do as they please, because we "cannot impose our morality on them?" of course not. if you saw someone beating a child bloody on a playground, would you not try to stop it? even if that's imposing your views on others?
we do not need to be given the right to speak up for the voiceless.
4) "you're all just a bunch of self-righteous jesus freaks."
not all pro-lifers are religious, but one doesn't have to be to have a sense of morality and know that killing a defenseless human being is wrong. simply because many pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs doesn't mean abortion a religious issue. (the civil rights movement was sometimes led by pastors and led in churches, but that doesn't mean civil rights is a religious issue). besides, if we start rejecting laws just because they are supported by religion, since that there is hardly anything illegal which is not also prohibited by Scripture, then we will have get rid of all of our laws.
5) "it has nothing to do with you. stay out of other people's privacy."
if everyone were to follow this idea, then we would not have any security in our nation at all. if everyone just "stayed out of people's privacy," children would be molested, women would be raped in their homes, and people would kill each other and no one could do anything to stop it. we would have no security, no police force, nothing. should we stay out of someone's privacy' when they film child pornography in their basement? should we stay out of a man's 'privacy' as he beats his wife in their bedroom? should we stay out of a woman's 'privacy' as she goes to have her child intentionally torn limb from limb?
6) "if it is illegal, then women will die in illegal abortions."
abortion advocates are flat-out lying when saying thousands of women died each year from illegal abortions and their own research proves it: in 1986, the AGI (allen guttmacher institute, the research arm of planned parenthood) gave proof that shows in the fifteen years before abortion was legal, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in america was 136 per year and falling.
remember: pro-lifers don't perform abortions. if we made abortion illegal right now, and illegal abortionists came about in the next few days, each one of them would be pro-choice. think about it: any woman that ever died or was hurt during an abortion, legal or not, it was because of someone who was pro-choice.
basically, the abortion industry tells us, "if you make abortion illegal, women will end up dying because of it." but what in reality they're saying, "if you make it illegal for us to kill babies, then we'll start killing women."
7) "it's not a human because _______."
this is when people start making up their own definitions of what a human is in order to dehuminize the unborn. science undoubtely proves that at the moment of conception, a new human being is formed, with 46 human chromosomes and human DNA. at that moment, everything about that new human being is determined: gender, hair color, eye color, metabolism, whether they will be right-handed or left-handed, etc.
the definition of "human (noun)" and "human being" are interchangeable. wherever you look, you will see that when either is defined, the other is one of the definitions. in order to be a human being, biologically speaking, one must be a member of the genus homo sapiens, which the unborn are.
8a) "it's not a person."
according to the law, no. but if the law suddenly decided that those under age one are not considered persons, would you be morally comfortable killing them too?
8b) "well, it's not a LEGAL person so they shouldn't have more rights than the woman."
we are not advocating that the unborn have more rights than the mother. we are advocating that their rights are equal. if america was killing off women by the millions so kids could live the way they wanted, the pro-life movement would fight just as much to end that mass slaughter as well.
everyone has the right to live how they want, but they can't kill others in order to do so. when we say someone can't shoot someone in order to get money to buy a house, it's not to say he has doesn't have a right to buy a house or that he has fewer rights his victim; we're saying that someon's right to life is of higher value than someone else's right to buy a house.
this idea also applies to abortion. the abortion industry's own data shows that at least 93% of abortions are done for non-health issue reasons on a totaly healthy baby and a totally healthy woman who just doesn't want to be pregnant or have a baby, which shows that the abortion conlfict is between the unborn's right to life and a woman's wanting to not to be pregnant, and even though that desire may be rational, she can't be allowed kill for it.
another 6% are performed due to deformalities or disabilities of the unborn baby, which makes over 98% of abortions done solely out of convenience.
9) "the fetuses are parasites and a woman doesn't have to be a fetal incubator if she doesn't want it."
parasites are something of a different species than the host. since both the woman and the unborn are members of the genus homo sapiens, they are both human beings, and therefore of the same species. also, during pregnancy, a woman's body goes through changes to deliberately provide nutrients and protect her baby. this does not happen with a parasite.
when a woman decides to engage in sexual activity, she risks pregnancy, even if she uses birth control. an innocent human being should not have to pay with his/her blood because someone's birth control failed. if one is ready for sexual activity, one must be ready to handle the consequences of their actions.
the pro-choice thought is that if people are "acting responsibly," they should not have any consequences. but even if people "act responsible" when driving their cars can still have accidents, and are still responsible for any damage they cause. in the case of engaging in sex, "acting responsibly" is more than using birth control to avoid pregnancy. it's also accepting (before having sex) that the woman may become pregnant, and abortion is about allowing people evade this part of responsibility at the expense of a child's life.
10a) "no one knows when life begins."
this means you are acknowledging the fact that it very well could be at the moment of conception, yet since they are unsure, it should be an accetable practice to destroy them. this is like sentencing someone to death before it's proven whether they are innocent or guilty. ridiculous, isn't it?
10b) "i don't think life begins until ________."
thing is, it doesn't matter when you think life begins. science proves it begins at conception. no scientific, biological, or medical text reference states that life begins at any other point. besides, pure logic demands it. life cannot come from non-life. if, at the moment of conception, the unborn are not, at least, alive, how is it that from that moment they are able to grow and develop?
11) "the fetuses aren't sentient. they don't feel anything. they don't care."
would it be acceptable to kill people in their sleep, then? or if someone you don't like very much is unconscious, is it ok to kill them? how about someone who is paralzyed? whether one can feel when they are being killed or not does not mean it's ok to kill them.
besides, if any of the pro-choicers took a little initiative and researched fetal development, they'd realize that nerves are developing by the eighth week, possibly even earlier. if touched, an 8-wk-old unborn human being will respond to the touch; they will move away from the stimuli; they will grasp an object placed in the hand.
and during an abortion, they will thrash around in a pathetic attempt to escape the sharp object that is ripping them apart.
12) "it's a legal right. it's about giving women a choice."
just because something is a legal right doesn't make it right. this is merely implying that the issue here isn't abortion. it's "chioce", and that is saying that what is being "chosen" really does not matter.
this is completely illogical, because we know that not all choices are equal. choosing what house to buy, or what color car to purchase, is entirely different than choosing whether to produce child porn. pro-choices think intentionally killing an innocent unborn human being perfectly fine, simply by choosing to have an abortion.
13) "abortion isn't about convenience. a woman only gets one if she really needs to."
not only is this statement a lie, but planned parenthood's own research arm, the allen guttmacher institute, proves that 93% of abortions are done because of convenience (ie, the mother is single, the child would interfere with plans, the mother doesn't want (more) kids, etc), 6% are due to deformalities with the unborn (also in "convenience" category)/health of the mother, and 1% are because of rape. ("underlying reasons for abortion" http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
14) "if abortion is murder then masturbation is genocide!!"
whoever said this either does not know the definition of genocide or needs to go back to middle school and pick up a bio book. life begins at conception. not before, not after. we established this earlier.
abortion is genocide. what you do with your sperm... whatever. 23 chromosomes. not a human being.
15a) "pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion."
people who support unions- pro-union.
people who support gun rights- pro-gun.
people who support slavery- pro-slavery.
people who support gay marriage- pro-gay marriage.
people who support abortion- pro-abortion.
(note: the creator of this group uses the ambiguous term "pro-choice" when referring to pro-abortion people in order to evade irrelevant arguments with those who throw hissy fits at the term "pro-abortion" when debating.)
15b) "then that means i'm also pro-life."
no, it doesn't. pro-life=anti-abortion. you are pro-abortion.
16) what if the mother's life is at risk?
less than 1% of abortions are performed for "health concerns" to the mother. bear in mind: "health" is a very stretched term and can mean anything from having emotional stress from a pregnancy, to having headaches. with modern medical technology today that can save babies born at half the normal gestational age, there are virtually no life-threatening pregnancies. many have complications, but virtually none is a threat to a woman's life. in the extremely rare case of a dangerous pregnancy, it must indeed be terminated, not by abortion, but by early induced labor or c-section.
a note on ectopic pregancies: these pregnancies are incredibly rare and are very dangerous to the woman and will inevitably kill the child. once an ectopic pregnancy is detected, the child is either dead, or will die. in this case, the child must be removed.
an analogy to this situation: a killer has a gun held to a woman with her newborn baby. the killer says, "either your baby dies, or you both die." in this tragic case, the lesser of the two evils must be chosen and the child will inevitably die either way.
17) "if abortion is illegal, there will be more child abuse."
first off, abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. this statement is to claim that children are better off dead than injured and hurt, and better to be without a chance of recovery from abuse.
second, child abuse rates SKYROCKETED after roe v wade. in 1973, there were about 160,000 cases of child abuse reported. by 1980, that number rose to about 800,000. by the late 80s, when abortion was at its peak numbers, there were over two million cases reported. when the numbers started to decline (in the 90s), the number of cases fell to about 1.7 million.
there is NO evidence to back up the claim that "unwanted" babies are abused. in fact, the opposite is true: 90% of abused children were reported to be "wanted" by their parents.
women that had at least one abortion are much more likely to abuse the children they have after their abortion.
why is this? maybe the reason is that since children were seen as expendable before their birth, the value of their lives diminished after birth as well.
this makes me wonder... since we've already killed off over 50,000,000 "unwanted" babies in the last 35 years, why are there ten times as many abused children as there were before abortion was legalized? if we've already killed off over 50,000,000 "unwanted" babies, where are all these abused children coming from?
"don't like abortion? then don't have one!"
typical pro-choice outlash from those who realize they can't defend their stance on abortion!
of course, abortion can't be defended on its own twisted merits anyway, so the fact that many restort to this pathetic statement is quite understandable.
"don't like rape? don't rape!" "don't like child molestation? don't molest a child!" "don't like slavery? don't own a slave!"
19) "you can't force someone to donate a part of their bodies to someone else so they can live."
this retort (like the "don't-like don't-have" idea) is usually a last-ditch attempt to end an abortion argument, because the pro-choicer is well aware that the unborn are living, developing children, but are so caught up in their own self-gratifying and self-serving world that they see it entirely acceptable to kill off children simply because they need their mothers' bodies to survive.
-if you are forced to give up your kidney, you have no say in the matter.
-when you get pregnant, you have a say in the matter.
-if you do not give up your kidney to the person who needs one, and they die, they died from whatever disease or injury they had, not you.
-when you abort, the child is killed directly because of you.
besides, if we are to disallow children from using their mothers' bodies, should a woman be required to care for her children at all once they're born? she would have to carry the baby around, feed the baby with her own body? if we take this "no right to the woman's body" idea, then why should a woman have to care for her baby at all? this would legalize neglect, because children need their mothers' bodies up until a certain age.