Need some help with pro-life argument

[Luke_K]

I’m able to get some pro-choicers to the point where they define a human (with a right to life) as a human life who previously has had sentience or consciousness. Assuming that they view the development of a brain/brainwaves as a sign of this, what can I do to convince them that a fetus before this stage of development as as much right to life as anyone else?

 

[jokerman]

i think if they admit that its a human at that stage of development then it must be a human before that as well. it would just be a human being at an earlier point in life. how can something that isnt human suddenly become human and if it wasnt a human being before then what kind of being was it and why do they think human beings evolve from some other kind of being?

 

[KIKINWING]

I belive the brain waves start at 41 days and the Heart beats at Two weeks. Most abortions start at eleven weeks. So by the time 99% of babies are aborted then they are, though the size of a nickel Totally formed with Brain function and a beating heart. But the argument i love is these few:

If the sex is determined at conception, then how can it be your body (fetus) if that body inside you is a boy? You cant be both man and woman can you? So then it ISNT your body but a seperate and distinct person with unlimited potential.

If you dont think abortions should be performed in the Ninth month (like Obama does) then when should abortions be disallowed. (Politicians take note, great in debate against anti-lifers who are attacking you) Then walk them back and pigeon hole them. STAY on the offensive, we have all the information and science, they have emotion and rhetoric.

Should abortions be used for birth control? NO? then you have just eliminated 97% of abortions.

Abortion for the usual chorus of rape, incest, and mothers life would end 97%. While I would fight for the rest it would save many, many, lives. Mothers HEALTH is a trap. US supreme has ruled HEALTH to mean a headache etc… Not kiding. Health is stress, foot ache etc…etc… No health exception.

Finally the back alley abortions argument that supposedly killed tens of thousands of womYn is and was a lie perpertrated upon us by Dr. Bernard Natheson who argued vehemently for abortion and has since done a mea culpa and is now an ardent pro-lifer and has admitted to lying quite largely about those statistics.

Hope I was some help.

Lastly the best of the best is that ALL abortions stop a beating heart.

Soldier up and keep fighting for the innocents. And please click on the thread below and pray for the baptism of desire and help those aborted angels who werent baptised and need help to meet Jesus, they call on us all.

penitents.org/PFL%20Aborted%20Babies.htm

 

[survive]

Everyone develops at a unique pace, so ask them whether it’s wrong to kill someone who probably has had a brain-wave pattern at some time. The earliest brain waves would be weak, perhaps intermittent, and hard to detect. Shouldn’t the standard be at the latest the right to live appears as soon as the child even might be conscious? People have awakened from supposed unconscousness when their brain waves were undetectable, and reported having had sensation and emotion about what was going on in the hospital the whole time. The brain begins forming between around eight and eighteen days after conception and sends neural impulses through the body; is there any way of knowing whether that little brain-bud is conscious? Even if not, it will contain consciousness within a few weeks at most. Is it wrong to kill a possibly conscious person who will certainly awaken at an unknown time in the next few weeks? If they insist that the wrongness of killing the temporarily unconscious applies only to those who have been conscious before, return to the fact that the baby may be aware of some things as early as a week-and-a-half after conception. Should all abortionists have to run a PET scan on every embryo for three or so weeks to ensure the lack of consciousness, or should the common principle of erring on the side of caution apply just as it does in so many other kinds of legislation? If there is certainly a human individual living creature and the creature may or may not ever have been conscious but certainly will be very soon if left alone, it is as wrong to kill that living human individual as it is to kill any other living human individual. Therefore, the latest cut-off age would be a week-and-a-half post-conception, three-and-a-half weeks gestational. But wait – gestational age can begin anywhere from one to three weeks before conception. So to be safe we must subtract a week, making the latest acceptable cut-off two-and-a-half weeks gestational.
Very few mothers know they are pregnant at that time. That means very few abortions are done at that time. The morning-after pill can kill at that age. Almost all surgical abortions and many “contraceptive” drugs kill babies who might be sometimes partially conscious.

 

[camerong]

This is the thought which convinced me, that popped into my head (though I likely remembered it from elsewhere):

When even the most pro-choice couple wants to have a kid, and the woman gets pregnant, when she sees the + on the stick she tells her man “we’re having a baby!” not “we’re having a zygote!” More seriously, if that couple miscarries several months later, after coming up with names and painting the baby’s room, they mourn it like the loss of a child, not like the loss of an easily-replaceable blood clot. Thus, even pro-choicers recognize that it is a life from conception WHEN THEY WANT IT. And of course, such a philosophy, in which the definition of life changes upon whether we happen to find the life convenient or not, must be abandoned.

I realize this does not directly address your point, but none of the typical pro-life arguments swayed me until I thought of this one, so maybe its worth throwing at the wall. Good luck!