This will be my introduction into a series of posts regarding how pro-choicers argue and why these arguments don't work. Many of the ideas that will follow are directly or indirectly from the writings of a man named Scott Klusendorf who now runs Life Training Institute.
In the last 30+ years, the two sides of the abortion debate and some in between have presented various arguments as to why abortion should be legal or illegal, if abortion should be illegal in some circumstances but legal in others, and in what ways should abortion be restricted.
Too often we have ended up in shouting matches that solve nothing and hardly ever change hearts and minds. Prolifers must engage the opposition in civil discussions and force the pro-choice side to explain and justify their beliefs by asking them questions that cut to the center of the abortion debate. Those in favor of abortion must somehow conclusively prove that abortion doesn't end the life of a human being. They must prove that the unborn either aren't alive, aren't whole, distinct, unified human beings, or prove that even though the unborn are living human beings they aren't deserving of protection because of some principle reason we all should accept. Continuously spouting empty words like "choice," "reproductive freedom," and "fundamental rights" are simply means of trying to convince themselves that killing innocent children isn't wrong. Prolifers need to push past this rhetoric and challenge the opposition to intelligent, thoughtful debates.
Pro-choice organizations and individuals use a variety of tactics to avoid the central issues in the abortion debate: Are the unborn human beings? If the unborn are innocent human beings why should it be legal to intentionally kill them when it isn't legal to intentionally kill other innocent human beings?
The Truth is on Our Side
The truth is on the side of the prolife position. The unborn are living human beings. This is a scientific fact that has been established for decades. Scientific textbooks and experts on embryology agree that at conception the life of a distinct human being has begun.
The following are some references from textbooks that discuss when human beings begin:
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
The Law of Biogenesis
Also, there is a scientific law called the Law of Biogenesis. This law came from work of a man named Louis Pasteur, among others, almost 150 years ago. This law states that all life comes from life and that life produces after it's own kind. So when two animals that are of the same kind of being(organism) reproduce, they reproduce something that is the same kind of being that they are. So, for example, cats reproduce cats, cockroaches reproduce cockroaches, human beings reproduce human beings, etc. It's also basic common sense but it says that the type of being that is growing inside a human female who has reproduced with a human male must be a human being. There is no denying this. Pro-choicers must prove scientifically that two human beings can reproduce something that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being even though the Law of Biogenesis says this is impossible. How can something have two parents that are human beings but then not be a human being themselves?
Since pro-choicers are unable to use science to prove that the unborn aren't living human beings or provide a principle reason as to why it should be legal to kill some innocent human beings but not others, they have relied on various different ways to argue, all of which don't work logically.
Knowing what kind of tactic they are using will allow prolifers to better refute pro-choice arguments.
On to Part One