The Fetus is part of the pregnant woman's body, like her tonsils or
appendix.

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.

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 science confirms that life, biologically speaking, begins at
conception. This means that at conception there is a human who is very
much alive, human, complete and growing.

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.

Does size determine personhood? Is an NBA basketball player more of a
person than someone half his size? If you lose =BC of your bodyweight
through a diet, do you lose =BC 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 =BD 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 fewer 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.

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?"