Pro Choice Arguments
The Mother's Body
The most common argument is that the woman has the right to have an abortion because the child itself is a part of her body. But research shows that it is a completely different entity.
All of your body parts share the same genetic code. So if it was really a part of your body it would share the same genetic code.Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body. Here is an example. Let's say you get an organ transplant. Even though it is possible for someone to have a transplanted organ that doesn't share the same genetic code as the rest their body, that organ will match the genetic code of the one it originally belonged to.
Another thing we have to consider is that it did not come solely from the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, "we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed." With that being said, the rights of the father should also be considered.
In a majority of cases, the blood type of the child is not the same as the mothers. Your body does not share two blood types. That's why blood transplants require a blood type that is the same as yours (O Rh D), the blood type given has to be universal, or you have to be a universal recipient (AB Rh D).
We also have to consider that the child is by default a living thing as the mother breathes for them.
"an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."
This definition is used as an argument to define the child as a parasite. But here are the differences between the two:
-A parasite is defined as an organism of a separate species living in another. The mother and the child are both the same species.
-A parasite is an invading organism that comes from the outside source. But as we have been told, the child is not formed from an outside or internal source alone and requires both the male and female to create it.
-According to "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974) by Alan E. Beer and Rupert E. Billingham, the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- prevents these antibodies and therefore the embryo/ fetus is not rejected. The human body would not commit such an action to protect a parasite.
-A parasite is strictly harmful on some degree. Aside from the emotional benefit some mothers have, babies have the potential to actually heal their mothers from inside the womb. And that is not the only benefit.
And as a final point, the same can be said about the baby after it is born. It is still dependent on you. While it can be transferable, you still have to use a lot of your time and energy to provide for them. By using your definition of a parasite out of context, you unintentionally debunk one of your main arguments; it is not a baby until it is born.
This doesn't necessarily mean we should all live like this. We would have to worry about resources and space. But if we have this much room left by crowding everyone together, doesn't that beg the question of how much potential space we are wasting? Right now we have many untapped resources and important resources being wasted. Gas being wasted in racing, for example. Or fabrics being wasted to create fashionable clothes, as well as building materials making extremely lavish houses that house one or two people when they could house like ten.
Another argument used to justify abortion is the fact that it cannot be murder because it is legal. While that is technically true, the law does not dictate what is right or wrong. It is very ironic when you consider the fact that before 1920 women were not allowed to vote. But I am sure if that law were passed today those same women arguing this point would be against it despite the legal status.
I think a majority of pro-life advocates understand this. But we treat it as such because saying something can be allowed and it still has the same amount of inhumanity is wrong. And a lot of pro-choice advocates say pro-lifers are actually "pro-birthers" given the fact that they seem to not care about the life of the child after they are born. Let me personally state that if you are a pro-lifer and you don't care about the life of the child afterwards, you are a hypocrite. No one is saying that every waking second you must support every single baby out there. But at least show some support in any way you can when it comes to the life of a baby in general.
Also let me add that being pro-life does not mean I am a mysoginist. It means I consider the life of the child to be worthy of at least having a chance given that I myself have no authority on it since I myself am just a human.
The Child's Life
If a woman is raped, then the consequences for the action should fall onto the rapist. The child is not at fault in any way for what happened. This would be sharing the blame with someone who had done nothing wrong. And a lot of people say that the child would have a bad life knowing they were a product of rape. That's not true. They do not necessarily have to have a bad life.
In speaking of which, there are people who argue that abortion is okay if the child is mentally or physically disabled because they fear that the child will be spending a majority of their life being bullied or mistreated in some way for their disability. Now there is some truth to this. According to the National Bullying Prevention Center, students with disabilities are much more likely to be bullied than their nondisabled peers. Now is that a problem? Yes. But does it apply to every mentally disabled child? No. It only applies to a majority of them, the ones who are being bullied. And when they grow up they will have more of a choice to decide what to do with their life from then on.
If the child is not disabled, they will spend the rest of their life being insulted based on their sex, race, religion, social class, appearance, or weight, Nothing can truly prevent bullying. They will experience it at least once. Does that make their life worthless? Does the possible chance of them living a terrible life make their life worthless? For any of you who say yes, you have become a part of the problem. You just condemned them because of the fact that they are disabled.
I worked with the disabled children's class from the time I was in 5th grade and up until freshman year of high school. I know those kids. And yes I will admit some of them do have terrible aspects in their lives. But when me and a few other kids did what we could to help them they started doing a lot better.
You can also make the same argument for children being put up for adoption. While there are statistics that show that many adopted children do live terrible lives, statistics do not apply to the whole group. Don't base what happens to part of the group on the whole group. We can see the real statistics on adoption here. You will find that there are a lot of misconceptions.
Not the Only Choice
It is understandable if you really can't provide for your child. You can find adoption agencies based on their ratings online.
This is for any believers who don't think the scripture condemns the act of abortion.
- It is wrong to murder a person (Genesis 9:6; Matthew 15:19; 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; John. 8:44; Acts 3:14; and Romans 1:28-29; 13:9)
- Described by personal pronouns (Jeremiah 1:5, Matthew 1:20-21)
- Christ is called a child in the womb (Matthew 1:20)
- Unborn are called children (Luke 1:41-44)
Please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. No matter what your opinion is please at least be cordial, especially if you are responding to someone else.
Peace and blessings and all praises to the Most High.