The question is no longer when does life begin. That science has been settled. When a human embryo is formed at conception, a completely separate set of DNA is created and life begins. This isn’t an opinion. This cannot be argued. This is the purest form of scientific fact. But as I said, the question is no longer when does life begin.
An honest pro-abortion advocate will concede to the fact that life begins at conception. The question has always been and still remains, does that life have value? This is where the debate begins.
Those who champion the hyperbolic slogan of “women’s choice” argue that a woman’s convenience and circumstance outweigh the life inside of her. The life that encompasses an entirely separate body, brain, autonomy, and DNA code. A life that is half of her. A life that is her child.
The pro-life stance asserts that the child growing inside the womb is, of course, of value as any human life is. Stage of development does not determine your worthiness of living. I don’t deserve to live more than a six-year-old just because I am about 20 years older and more developed.
Due to innovation in technology, it has become harder and harder to ignore scientific fact when it comes to fetal development. We’re seeing this forcibly shift the pro-abortion arguments. First, the argument was, “well it’s just a clump of cells.” This dismissive rebuttal is scientific illiteracy. We know a fetus is indeed a baby and thanks to advanced ultrasound technology that fact is now impossible to ignore. Not to mention the word “fetus” literally translates to mean “baby.”
With the clump of cells argument defunct, the pro-abortion side has switched their tactics to determining personhood. They reluctantly admit that a human is growing inside the womb, but they contest that the baby is a person. I’ve heard many abortion supporters trying to come up with some sort of definition and standard of personhood. Consciousness, brain activity, viability, and the ability to rationalize are among the popular categories of the personhood argument.
The only problem is, once you apply these standards to reality they fall apart immediately. The argument for consciousness and brain activity, would therefore translate to the ability to rip people apart with forceps who are in a coma. As for viability, we can therefore kill two-year-olds since they are dependent upon adult care. And ability to rationalize, say goodbye to people with dementia.
Does this all seem irrational, grotesque, and ridiculous? Good, because it’s abortion.
The key to the pro-abortion stance is that you need to eliminate intrinsic value. We either have it or we don’t. If we have it, you are forced to be consistent across the board. A human life is a human life is a human life. We all have value regardless of our stage of development or brain activity. If we don’t, well then at least you have a logically sound argument. An abhorrent one, but an honest one, nonetheless.
This is where we can establish the only argument worth any intellectual merit on the pro-abortion side. A woman’s comfort, convenience, and life circumstance are more valuable than an individual’s right to live. This opens a door for the dehumanization of entire groups of people. The sick, the elderly, the dependent, and the unwanted are all granted the death penalty if they are viewed as another’s burden. This is not a slippery slope argument; it’s being logically consistent. We went from “safe, legal, and rare” to late term abortion and in some instances after birth termination.
The god of comfort and convenience is a merciless and unforgiving one.
The pro-abortion stance due to its adverse relationship with science and logical consistency relies on ancillary arguments. That’s why you’ve probably heard so-called pro-choicers speak ad nauseam about how pro-lifers only value the unborn and ignore the children already here. The foster care system, adoption, and children at the southern border get brought up frequently. This diverting tactic is almost humorous to the pro-life crowd with the extent that it gets used.
Attempting to dispel a position by bringing up a separate issue is the epitome of a logical fallacy. It’s like me saying you can’t claim to care about finding a cure for cancer if you’re just ignoring people with diabetes. It’s like me saying you can’t claim to care about women being forced into the sex trade when there are women not being trafficked but are being domestically abused that you’re not talking about. These are two separate issues that are not mutually exclusive.
The pro-life movement and pro-life pregnancy centers do an incredible job of taking care of women past pregnancy and into family planning through financial assistance, counseling, and help caring for the child. Pro-life means from the womb to the tomb. The same people advocating for the halting of infanticide are the same people advocating for a better adoption system, for the safeguarding of the nuclear family, and for the future of all children.
Once the argument strays from the actual topic of abortion you know the pro-life movement is winning the debate. Once the argument strays from science you know the right to life is gaining traction. The inconvenient fact of a “woman’s right to choose” is that it is eliminating choice not creating one. It’s eliminating the choice of the only individual’s decision that matters — the baby’s.
The year is 2020, we are having a national debate whether or not it is morally acceptable for a mother to kill her child. We are living through a black stain in human history in our battle to protect life. Civilization will look back at our barbaric and utter disregard for the innocent among us. We cannot play God. We do not get to decide if the innocent live or die.
The pro-life movement will not stand idly by as our children are being slaughtered just because they have to depend on the care of their mother’s womb for a mere nine months. Pro-woman is saving our daughters. Pro-choice is allowing the baby to have one. Pro-child is raising them. Pro-life is defending the greatest gift we could ever receive, existing.
Alyssa has her Bachelor’s in Business Administration and currently works as an analyst in corporate finance. She grew up in northern Wisconsin and is a former collegiate hockey player. Alyssa is pursuing her passion for current events and politics through writing and being an advocate for the conservative movement.