How could I argue with this fact regarding abortion?

[Marie]

Pro Choice: A woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body. If that means aborting her fetus, it's HER choice, because the fetus came from HER body.

Pro Life: How is killing a fetus any different from killing the baby after it has been born?

Pro Choice: ...

 

[jwthoughts]

It really all boils down to when you consider it a life. Scientifically, a fetus is life the second that the cells start multiplying because it meets all criteria for life. But most who are pro-choice claim that it is not a life until it is born.

 

[AegisofFreedom]

Abortion does not kill the mother's body, it kills the baby. I don't know how anybody can try to use the lame excuse of "it's the mother's body", it's just retarded. That's no different than me saying "it's my house, I have the right to privacy, so I can do whatever I want in it.". Sure, I can do whatever I want in my house, except murder my child, it's no different with a mother's body. Anybody that says the fetus is a part of the mother's body is just stupid. DNA proves that the child is a separate and unique human at the moment of conception.

Placing an arbitrary time frame on murder is just dumb. Saying it is ok to murder a child under 24 weeks is no different than saying it is ok to murder a child under 24 months or 24 years. Regardless of how old you are, you are still human, still alive, and still a unique individual as proven by your DNA.

There is NO logical, legal, or moral defense of murdering babies (abortion).

 

[XxTigerxX]

If U Want The Baby Keep It, We Men Tend Not To. Your Choice Whore.

 

[IMeverywhereUwant2B]

The pro-life side wants to stop abortions by overturning Roe v. Wade. Problem is, Roe v. Wade actually had very little to do with abortions. It never answered the central question of abortion legality, which is "is the fetus a living human baby or simply a clump of cells?"

Now I personally believe it is a living human baby, but Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with that question; and in fact, no court case nor any legislation has ever dealt with that issue. What Roe v. Wade answered was the question, "who has control over a woman's body, the woman or the government?" The Supreme Court said what you must now argue, that the woman controls her own body.

If the pro-life side were to overturn Roe v. Wade, they still would not legally be defining a fetus as a living human baby and so still would not be making abortion illegal. What they would be doing is saying that the government controls women's bodies, and by extension all of her medical decisions. In fact, with the pro-life side handing control of women's bodies over to the government, while simultaneously not defining a fetus as a separate body, the pro-life side would actually be giving the government the fully LEGAL right to FORCE a woman to have an abortion, even if she did not actually want one.





Summary point here--------->Because while the pro-life side took the choice away from women who would have chosen abortion, they had to do it by taking the choice away from women who would have chosen life. The pro-life side would effectively be GUARANTEEING that abortions occurred, even for women who would not have chosen one had they had their own choice.

 

[Pfo]

"A woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body."

That is true. However, the fact that she has that right does not exempt her from the consequences of her actions. Similarly, a woman could choose to use her body to pick up a gun and start shooting. That's not illegal, the act of shooting people is.

 

[Mom2Max]

A child after it is born is a living, breathing individual person.
A fetus (before 24 weeks) is a part of the mother's body. Relying on the 'host' for survival. It cannot survive on its own. It is not an individual at this point. It is a part of the mother.