What is the Unborn? A Case for Biological Humanity from Fertilization
Aside from the sourced quotations and arguments in this article, it has been heavily influenced by .
I have written before on h0w we know the unborn are persons from fertilization. But now I’d like to address how we know the unborn are biological members of our species from fertilization. This is a basic, undeniable fact of science and yet I still encounter many people who deny this reality.
Before you can even answer the question of whether or not abortion is moral, you must first decide what the unborn is. For as Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason observes, if the unborn is not human, then no justification for elective abortion is necessary. It would be no different from having a mole removed or a tooth pulled. But if the unborn is human, then no justification for elective abortion is adequate.
If it’s true that no one can tell when human life begins, then the benefit of the doubt should go to life. We should not be aborting the unborn because there’s a chance we could be aborting living human entities. If a hunter hears a rustling in the woods, does he shoot right away or does he make sure the rustling wasn’t caused by another human? Unless he’s Dick Cheney, he’s going to make sure it’s a deer he’s aiming at and not a human (I owe my friend for that joke). Or if you’re driving down a road in the dark and you see the outline of something that may be a child or may simply be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you slow down? Or if you’re about to blow up a condemned building and you’re not sure if someone’s inside, do you blow it up anyway or send someone in to make sure?
However, it’s not true that no one can tell when human life begins.
The unborn from fertilization are alive because they exhibit the properties of living things. They grow through cellular reproduction and division, they metabolize food for energy, and they respond to stimuli. In fact, the only thing the unborn need to survive are adequate nutrition, a proper environment, and an absence of fatal threats. That’s all any of us need. There is no point in human development at which the developing entity goes from non-life to living.
The unborn are also human from fertilization. We know that everything reproduces after its own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. They have separate human DNA from, and often a different blood type than, the mother. A white human embryo can be created in a petri dish, implanted into a black mother, and be born white. In fact, if the unborn organism were simply a “part of the mother’s body,” then following the law of transitive property (if A is a part of B, and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C), every pregnant woman would have four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes, two noses, and roughly half the time male genitalia. But this is absurd. At no time during human development does the unborn ever go from non-human to human.
Finally, the unborn from fertilization are organisms. They are living human entities separate from the mother, with their own functional parts that work together for the good of the whole, developing themselves from within into a more mature version of itself, along the path of human development. Zygote, embryo, and fetus are not non-human entities, they are early stages of development in human life.
Philosopher Richard Stith once made a valuable observation. He discovered that the reason pro-choice people tend to think pro-life people are absurd is that they tend to think of the unborn entity as being constructed in utero, like a car on an assembly line. When does a car become a car? Is when when the frame resembles a car, or when the tires are attached, or when it drives off the lot? It requires an outside builder to put all the pieces together into what we understand is a car. A car is not present from the beginning, because the parts that make a car can be used in the construction of something else (such as a boat or a plane).
However, the unborn’s development is different. He or she directs his or her own development from within. He or she does not have an outside builder, he or she directs his or her own internal growth and maturation, and this entails continuity of being. Professor Richard Stith illustrates the difference with the following analogy:
“Suppose we are back in the pre-digital photo days, and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable — let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example comparable to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I say blithely, ‘You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.’ Wouldn’t you think that I were the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.” (Richard Stith, “Does Making Babies Make Sense? Why So Many People Find it Difficult to See Humanity in a Developing Foetus,” Mercatornet, September 2, 2008.)
As pro-life philosopher Scott Klusendorf notes, “The science of embryology is clear. From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Therefore, every ‘successful’ abortion ends the life of a living human being.” (Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life, Crossway Books, 2009, p. 35.)
Embryologists, who are the experts in the field on human embryos, consistently agree that the unborn are alive and human from fertilization. Consider the following from the most-used textbooks on the issue:
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” (Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p.8.)
“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed., Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003, p.2.)
There are many more examples I could give. In short, you didn’t come from an embryo, you once were an embryo. Sophisticated pro-choice philosophers also know that human life begins at fertilization:
“It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens.’ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.85-86.)
“Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.” (David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 20.)
In fact, Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood, in 1933 (a full forty years before Roe v. Wade was passed), wrote:
“This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge.” (Alan Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation, New York: Viking Press, 1933, p. 3.)
Additionally, a Planned Parenthood brochure from 1964, when answering a question about whether or not abortion is birth control, states: “Absolutely not. An abortion ends the life of a baby after it has begun.”
In my next article, I will address objections to biological humanity from fertilization. But the facts of science are clear: human life begins at fertilization.
This is a great article! I think the prolife movement has already helped many prochoice/proabortion people realize the lies they have been told. I have not heard anyone say an unborn baby is not human for a long time. Many just think of the unborn baby is an intruder, most think it's more like a rapist. This really offends me because I am a survivor of rape. I also have gone through recurrent miscarriage that the pregnancies were all unplanned. It was scary being pregnant, but in no way what so ever did it compare to being raped. My miscarriages though, have made me feel grief, guilt, confusion, fear, and inadequate as a woman and mother.
I'm happy you brought up the stages of human evolution, reading that made me think of how many times I've heard Atheist community representatives discuss that topic with people who don't accept evolutionary theory (let me just make up a fake name so as to not target anyone in particular and call him 'MattD') and the points that are commonly argued. Almost invariably at some point in the discussion "MattD" will proudly proclaim "We didn't evolve 'from' apes because we ARE apes!"… now that's a statement I wholeheartedly agree with so, no squabbles there but, how ironic is it that the same person who can make that connection to an earlier stage of Human development in an evolutionary sense, can't make the even more direct connection to an earlier stage of the development to an individual Human Being?
People like our made up 'MattD' are the type who become outraged by and donate time and money to organizations that do the good work of preventing our ape and monkey cousins from being beheaded and dismembered and yet there is no comparable outrage when a far more direct relative's life is snuffed out by it's own Human mother and her medically trained accomplice.
Thank you for trusting SPL enough to share something so emotional. I hope that you find healing and that the perpetrator is brought to justice. I also hope you'll realize that miscarriage is NOT your fault and you have no reason to feel guilty or inadequate. Stay strong.
Michelle, thanks for reading, and for your comment. Unfortunately the pro-choice movement does more harm than good by hiding crucial facts from women in an attempt to sell these deadly procedures. Aristotle once wrote that a choice made without all the information is not a freely made choice. The pro-choice movement really is not pro-choice in any meaningful sense, considering that pro-choice organizations constantly hide information from abortion-minded women, and fight tooth and nail against any measure to give women all the relevant information about abortion.
The pro-choice movement have gone from ridiculous and indefensible arguments against fetal humanity to ridiculous and indefensible arguments about the fetus herself, as you indicate, treating her like an invader or rapist. They're so desperate sometimes that I don't know if they ever really think about the kind of arguments they're trying to make. Thankfully this one doesn't seem to be as common, but there's a world of difference between the embryo, who was put there by her parents and is not acting out of any conscious desire to harm the mother, and a rapist.
I'm terribly sorry to hear about your rape. And as Kelsey said, your miscarriages are not your fault, and you have no reason to feel guilty or inadequate because of them. How are you doing now? Was the perpetrator ever punished?
You bring up some great points
However, to a pro abort, if you're not sapient then you are not human.
They compare a child in utero at 5 weeks to a person dying in a vegetive state but being kept alive by a machine.
They call us beating heart cadavers when we are in utero (first trimester)
Hence the women's feelings (as she is a sentient being capable of suffering) takes precedence over the fetus.
Also,
How would you explain monozygotic twining and chimerism if everyone is an individual from fertilization?
"Also, How would you explain monozygotic twining and chimerism if everyone is an individual from fertilization?"
There is still a living individual or several living individuals from fertilization in these cases. However, in the first case, one individual separates into two or more individuals (possibly a form of asexual reproduction), while in the second case, two individuals fuse together to form one individual.
But some contend that if the egg splits into 2 or chimerism occurs that the individual never existed at fertilization.
I think twinning and chimerism is just the exception to the rule.
How would you address the argument of sentience?
Yeah, bringing the conversation around to evolution is really irrelevant to the conversation. When we speak of human life beginning in the context of abortion, we're not concerned about when the human race entered the cosmic scene, we're concerned about when an individual human being's life begins. I've always found it ironic that people claim we should be dogmatic about evolution, but when it comes to human life beginning at fertilization, suddenly science is "constantly changing" and "has been wrong before."
Hello, Jasmine:
This article was merely meant to support the claim that human life begins at fertilization. I have addressed personhood arguments and whether or not sentience is necessary for personhood in other articles on this blog. 🙂 I think that pro-choice people bring a lot of unwarranted assumptions to the table when discussing abortion. For example, it's true that they often compare the unborn to brain-dead human beings, but this is mistaken. A brain-dead human being has permanently lost their capacity for rationality, whereas an unborn child just hasn't developed it yet. The unborn are more comparable to people in temporary comas than to brain-dead human beings because if allowed to develop normally, they will develop personal qualities, just as the temporary coma patient will regain their personal qualities.
Coyote has already responded to the question of twinning/chimerism, but I'll give a brief response. I'm actually planning on addressing this (and other objections) in my next article. But essentially, what happens if you cut a flatworm in half? You get two flatworms. Does it follow from this that there was not one individual flatworm before the split? Of course not. When an embryo twins, there was still one individual embryo before that. We're not quite sure what happens during twinning; does the embryo die and give rise to two new embryos, or does the embryo split off in a sort of asexual reproduction? Nevertheless, whatever happens there was still an individual human being before the split, and again after recombining, if it occurs.
You've certainly said a mouthful here. I don't have time to give a full-blown response. If I were to respond, it would probably be better to treat it in an article than clutter up the wall here with a long response.
Animal rights activists are certainly free to challenge my position on this, but I don't think their arguments succeed.
The thing is, I have never said that being human is what makes us valuable. It is the kind of thing we are as human beings that make us valuable, our rational nature. This is not a difference of degree between us and animals, but it certainly is a difference of kind. We have a kind of rationality that is not exhibited in any animals, the capacity to learn about the universe, to question our place in it, to understand things, to determine a morality and abide by it, etc. There are things humans can do that are unique to human beings.
But at any rate, this is off-topic, as this article was not meant to give a full-blown defense of the pro-life position. I have addressed the argument of what makes humans valuable in other articles. This article was just meant to address the argument that the unborn are human beings from fertilization.
Thank you for your response!
Very helpful
I'm super happy to hear that you'll be addressing in your next article
Is there an email address where u could make reach you?
I'd like to ask a few more questions
Maybe pick your brain on a few things if that's ok
No worries if you can't 🙂
also, for some great pro abort quotes… go here: http://www.mommyish.com/2013/10/29/10-reasons-to-have-an-abortion/
and read just SOME of the comments.
Absolutely. This is sort of what I do. 🙂 My e-mail address is prolifephilosophy@gmail.com. Feel free to e-mail me with any questions that you have.
Oh yes. I'm quite familiar with that article, and many of the comments under it. I actually responded to the article, then posted a list of my own of 10 reasons *not* to have an abortion.
This is really great. I appreciate the rational discussions. Not all conversations on this topic are so rational . . .
Thanks, Melissa!
Thanks Kelsey and Clinton. The perpetrator was punished about 10 years later after raping so many children, one of them had parents that had faith in the justice system. I was 8 when i was raped, and told my mom as soon as I saw her, all she had to say was that what he did was bad and that I should take a bath. She later told me that she didn't want me to tell my story to everyone and feel more hurt, but i didn't really begin to heal until he was behind bars. It still makes me really angry that my parents never told me the ways I could deal with it, if they did, I think dozens of boys and girls could have avoided the same hardship.
I have worked very hard on healing, and my miscarriages do not terrorize me anymore, and I don't think about all the graphic stuff everyday. I do think about my feelings of loss almost everyday.
I think it's hard for me to heal emotionally unless I feel like these things will never happen again. with recurrent miscarriage it will happen again. I want to try to have a biological child, but only one try. the loss would just be too much. unfortunately, no doctor will sterilize a woman who has not had at least one live birth.
Well, I'm glad that he's behind bars and that you've begun to heal from that.
As a pro-choice Christian and the father of two, I take no issue with the notion that the zygote is the beginning of a human being. I just dispute that this means the woman is obliged to carry this developing human to term.
I find that the focus on the fetus's chromosome count and brainwave activity is usually a method of distracting attention from the fact that the process of gestation is going on inside a woman's body. Considering how few times the mother is even mentioned in articles such as this, it appears that the adult female carrying the fetus isn't considered relevant to the matter at all.
If pro-lifers want to escape the accusation of being anti-female, perhaps they should expand their perspective to include the personhood of the mother. This is an adult woman, after all, someone with rights, responsibilities, emotions, and a set of life circumstances that deserve to be taken into consideration in the matter. And if they don't think she's anything more than a vague location for the fetus, then maybe they deserve to be called anti-female after all.
Great article Clinton.
In response to your question Jasmine, I'd just
like to add, in regards to 'twinning' my biology book (I just took
Biology 50 for college) actually says that even identical twins are not
completely identical. This has to do with the lining up of chromosomes
and 'crossing over' of genes when the fertilized egg splits into two.
Not to mention, most of us are aware that even identical twins have
different fingerprints. So identical twins are still individuals in the
biological sense even though they visually look alike. I actually know
of set of identical twins where one is taller. One is slightly darker
skinned also but other than that they look exactly alike and originated
from one zygote that split.
I see you specially asked how they are individuals at fertilization though and frankly I think the answer is there are obviously 'special situations' such as with multiple pregnacies where twins originally start as one individual egg but then become 2 individules through the egg splitting. While both new zygotes have the same dna, as I said the genes are actually scrambled differertly (I don't know how much). So I guess I'd say at least that individuality in the sense of being different doesn't occure for twins until they actually BECOME twins. In any case though all zygotes, twins or not are unique human beings far before they look like 'persons'.
It was a really interesting topic you brought up, I have not myself seen a pro choice person debate this but maybe I don't 'get around' on different sites as a lot of people here probably do.
PS: Clinton, thanks for mentioning Coyote's article regarding this subject. I shall be interested in reading it and looking forward to yours as well.
Biology Book: Simon, Eric J., Dickey, Jean L.,
Reece, Jane B. (2013) Campbell Essential Biology 5th Edition
Sorry Jasmine I missed this comment in my reply. Biology is a complex topic. I
suppose one could argue that a twin wasn't a twin when they were still
one zygote, but even if so what does that matter? Yes it dismisses the
"all humans are individuals at fertilization' statement but for what
sense? As you said, and this is true with many things- there are
exceptions to the rules and twinning is one of them.
Frankly, I
don't see why someone would nit pick that statement apart when common
sense would dictate there are exceptions, since a woman CAN have
identical twins. :/ It just seems like someone would challenge it just
be difficult. It doesn't change the fact that when twins come into being
as twins they too are individual human beings. And I don't mean you as
that 'someone" I mean whoever you heard it from.
Here is the link I mentioned. And it is: I Stand for Life.org (missed the "I" oops) http://www.istandforlife.org/index.php/pro-choice/your-questions-answered
Some of your concerns I believe are addressed, though I will admit I do not agree with everything they say. Particularly in regards to their 'stance' on birth control They claim no official stance, yet seem to promote Plan B , saying that if you choose not to take it when you can (in regards to rape I believe) you are giving permission to continue the pregnancy. My problem with this (and this is more directed at anyone who wants to check out the link and site) is that they don't take a stance on BC yet they seem to be encouraging the use of contraceptives that could possibly prevent implantation. And well I just think they shouldn't be encouraging someone either way to take it ((Plan B or other hormonal types) if they don't have an official stance.
Even in the case of rape, the conceived child is innocent.
Um, so is the woman. But let me guess, you'd force her to undergo pregnancy and childbirth after she was raped?
How compassionate.
YES the women is innocent , as well as her unborn child. So why should one have to die? No one should have to die in that situation that's the result I would like see. That IS compassion. How is it compassionate to kill a human being who did nothing wrong? So, wanting the rapist to be jailed and having to pay for the women's prenatal care, and possible counseling , and wanting the woman to have all the assistance she needs to get through the pregnancy and either keep the resulting child or give them to a family who want's them, that is NOT compassionate? But allowing one life to be lost because of a bad act NOT caused by them, that is?
Anton, I'm guessing now that the reason Pro Life groups focus so much on the child and not the mother is because the mother ALREADY has personhood, already has 'value". The zygote, embryo, fetus, newly created human being continues to be disregard as 'inconvenient' or seems to be blamed for the rape..the fact that they are innocent human beings continues to be ignored by people , as you have once again demonstrated. Again I ask you, why does anyone need to die in this scenario? Why don't you feel there are other solutions?
Not to bombard you with posts, but I sincerely would like to know how you feel about aborting out of convenience? Do you feel there is any case where a couple/women (whatever the parenting situation) have a responsibility to care for the life they create? I am just curious if we have any common ground.
How is it compassionate to kill a human being who did nothing wrong?
It's not killing, it's preventing a human being from being born. In the case of a woman who has been raped and doesn't want to have the rapist's child, I fail to see how it's compassionate to force her to undergo pregnancy and childbirth just because you can't distinguish between a fetus and a child.
By dehumanizing my child in the womb, you have dehumanized me
I have a copy of the 4D sonogram of my second son
In it, he is smiling
You can practically see his personality
He is 9 now and when I hold up the picture of the sonogram to his him it's clear that it's the same exact smile True to out predictions from the sonogram, he's got that magic smile and personality
I never carried a non human or non person in my womb
You sir, are a monster for suggesting that my son was anything less than the person he is now to the person he was in my womb You do not deserve the title of "father"
Sick
You sir, are a monster for suggesting that my son was anything less than the person he is now to the person he was in my womb You do not
deserve the title of "father"
Sick
I'm a monster for pointing out that your son was once unborn? I'm sick for suggesting that he was once a fetus?
Thanks for reminding me that the pro-life perspective is all about self-aggrandizement and contempt for others.
No, but you, as are every other pro abort I've encountered are good at word twisting and straw manning
Thanks for reminding of what pro aborts must do in order to "win" an argument.
You are a sick monster for dehumanizing my son just because he was in my womb
Sure he was once a fetus, he was also once a toddler, but he was always the same little guy.
You are a sick monster for dehumanizing my son just because he was in my womb
You're really good at working that immature, self-righteous contempt, PJ. Thanks for being such a shining example of how pro-lifers think.
You're really good at straw manning.
congrats.
that is all you pro death campers have.
You call yourself a Christians?
Atheists and agnostics (that's me) have more morals than you.
This is the hypocrisy of Christians that I cannot abide by.
Thanks for being the shining example of why more and more people are saying goodbye to the archaic, medical practices of religion and "christianity"
OK, wow. First off, I have been trying to stick with the term "human being" on here and other places because I am trying to keep arguments scientic and rational and use terms we can all agree on. I admit I have become a bit emotional because I do not appreciate being called un compassionate when I am fighting for NO ONE's life to end.
Second, my use of the term 'child is still valid" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
Full Definition of CHILD
1 a : an unborn or recently born person
Third: Basic biology tells us cells are alive. Therefor cells can die. As far as I understand "kiling" means ending of an organism life. A zygote can therefore die, and if it's by outside interventions , such as being sucked out of the mother's womb via an abortion procedure that ends it's life, then YES 'killing' is an appropriate term.
Fourth; Unborn does NOT mean ''unalive"(not an actual term I know but I've sort of coined it ) . I thought you understood that in the beginning as you claimed you recognized an unborn living human being as Just that.
So it seem you are the one confused on the concepts of life and death and what constitutes a child, a young member of our species, and all I can advise you to do is please do some research before attempting to argue or understand the concepts of pro life and pro choice as it's going to be difficult to have a conversation if you do not know the fundamentals.
Right now, you are not helping the pro choice movement. I know I chose to debate with you and I was hoping we could do so as logical adults-even if it got a little heated- but I see that is not the case right not. I hope you can find answers you are looking for somewhere. And all I ask is that if you are not actually here discuss our different viewpoints and are just hear to attack please find something better to do. That is all. I have a life just like you and I believe it can be better spend discussing with others than you. Again, good luck finding whatever you are looking for here or elsewhere.
Jasimie, I really don't think he's worth arguing with. Despite what he claims he does not believe a fetus is a human being, a child worthy of being protected like children outside their mother's womb. If he can't wrap his head around the concept of 'child' and that an unborn child is STiLL alive and innocent , he can't understand anything and yes it's sad and I feel bad for his children but I can only hope he is actually kind to them and treats them humanly. I'm sorry he's upset you , please try not to take him to heart. I've learned some people , if they don't understand basics about biology you just can't reason with them. And some people are just cruel , claiming sympathy for the mother but don't say anything about supporting rape victims, what about ones who choose to keep their children? They don't want to try and help both, only want to end one's life. I don't know what people like Anton have going on in there heads, but there are more reasonable pro choice people who do welcome finding ways to support mothers and parents so abortion doesn't seem necessary to them.
It's fine, he clearly doesn't want to actually discuss the concepts of value and life, etc. I kind of figured that when he jumped straight to rape, when I said I was tired and couldn't really get into that. A worthy topic yes but he seems to just want to attack and call those who want no lives to be lost un compassionate. He's just trolling.
I have a life just like you and I believe it can be better spend discussing with others than you.
Who's forcing you to respond to me? If you see nothing worthwhile in discussing the matter with me, then as you can imagine, I'd respect your choice not to participate.
If we had been able to get further, I could have admitted it is tragic a women has to carry a pregnancy she didn't ask for, (which is why I want support available to her) however we don't have the technology yet to safely incubate the embryo,fetus etc anywhere else. Like everything, unfortunately people will have to go through hardships for progress because we don't live in a perfect world. But I believe saving lives and being a society that honors life and human rights is worth fighting for and worth the hardships.
All women should be viewed as heros for choosing life for their children, whether they rear them themselves or place them with a family. I am greatful to every one of them for seeing past whereever there baby came from and realizing they deserved a chance in this world.
I am NOT trying to vilify those that were in such anguish they felt they had to abort. I just hope those women have gotten the support they need. I do wonder though how many regret it? How many still are haunted by their attacks even though the 'reminder' is gone? I just hope they can find peace.
I know, I know I said I was done but frankly you're just cracking me up now. I fully admitted it was my choice to talk to you.
From my last post:
". I know I chose to debate with you and I was hoping we could do so as
logical adults-even if it got a little heated- but I see that is not the
case right not" So I'm not really sure what your point is. 😛 I think someone just needs the last word, even if it doesn't make sense. I can be like that too but I make sense. Ok ok have fun trolling this was amusing but no more attention for you.
Thanks!
I try not to let them get to me.
He's not as bad as some I've encountered.
Maybe just slightly more obnoxious
I've come to the conclusion that every pro abort displays certain characteristics
Selfishness
Ignorance
Cruelty
There are more, but those are the top 3
There's also a certain MO they stick to as well.
Straw manning
Word twisting
Spewing factoids.
I dont' know how often you've come across a pro abort but these traits and mo's seem to be consistent
From what I can tell, he and other pro aborts exhibit this behavior
It's a bit scary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/11-signs-dating-a-sociopath_n_3780417.html
Well, reading the articles on here I've seen my share of 'pro choice/pro aborts (certain ly seems like that's all they want sometimes). Most do seem to stick with the typical misconceptions (we're against women, we don't care about rape victims, an embryo really isn't a human beng, etc) and yes sadly have no respect for ALL Life, which is why it is so frustrating to try and find common ground.
I feel like the ones that can't be swayed even if we gave every accomidation to women and their families to allow them to carry to term are simply a lost cause. They are the ones pushing for child death and will never stop. I have once in a while come across more rational compassionate pro choicers who would be happy to limit abortion if the women's/parent's/child's needs were met appropriately. I feel like these are the people we need to get behind us first since they are the most willing to work with us.
I admire you and others who continue to try and discuss the issue with such hard core abortion enthusiasts though. Hope you had a nice holiday by the way.
That's essentially because nobody is denying the fact that a woman is a person. It's not that it's not relevant, it's that it's established already and nobody contests it.
What you are proposing is akin to demanding that a feminist waving a sign saying "break the glass ceiling" should always have an asterisk saying "men also need good jobs."
Still, if an asterisk at the end of every rational, pro-life argument saying *we acknowledge that women are people too, we simply don't think either person shouldn't be killed for the other", is all it took, then I'd be the first to always write that. It doesn't work that way.