Analysis of a Pro-Choice Graphic

I saw this info graphic on tumblr. As someone who has studied in depth the science of embryology and fetal development, as well as the social statistics of abortion, seeing these things presented as "fact" makes me cringe. I have decided to analyze and address each claim.
First off, searching through various dictionaries, I have found that there are several varying definitions for murder. Some use the adjective unlawful, some don't. The one thing that is common in all of the definitions is that murder is the killing of another human being with intention or aforethought. The unlawful part refers to a legal aspect. If we want to stick with this option, let me remind you that, as the great Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, "everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal,". So with this definition that you proposed, none of the Jews that died in concentration camps during the Holocaust were murdered. I cover this more in point 4.
I have always considered murder the intentional killing of another human being. I've never heard of a murder that was not one human being intentionally killing another human being. So, for the sake of this response, I am simply going to keep the definition of murder as being "the intentional killing of one human being by another"
Before deciding how we should treat the unborn, we should first be clear about what the unborn is. This is a scientific question, and it is answered very clearly by the science of human embryology and fetal development.

1. "A fetus is not a person. You cannot murder non-persons or washing your hands would be murder."

A.)"A fetus is not a person"
As I cannot be sure what the author's definition of the word "person" is, I'm going to assume, for the sake of this post, that the definition of "person" is synonymous with human being, as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says. So, if this is true, then the author says that a fetus is not a human being. This statement is completely contrary to what science tells us. Science tells us that from conception the unborn is a distinct, living and whole human being--a full-fledged member of the species Homo sapiens, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage in her development. Much like a toddler is at a much earlier stage in their development than an adult.

The facts of reproduction are straightforward. Upon completion of the fertilization process, sperm and egg have ceased to exist (thus the term "fertilized egg" is an inaccurate term); what exists is a single cell with 46 chromosomes (23 from each parent) that is called a zygote. The coming into existence of the zygote is the point of conception--the beginning of the life of a new human organism. The terms zygote, embryo and fetus all refer to developmental stages in the life of a human being.

This fact is confirmed by embryology textbooks and leading scientists. TW Sadler's "Langman's Embryology", Keith L. Moore's "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology", and O'Rahilly and Muller's "Human Embryology and Teratology", just to name a few.

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female  unite to give the rise to a new organism, the zygote." -T.W. Sadler (Langman's Embryology)

"Physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception.....The willful killing of a human being at any stage of its existence is murder" -Dr. Horatio Storer (1868) (Criminal Abortion: It's Nature, It's Evidence, & It's Law)

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." -Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th Edition

"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 Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." - Dr. Jerome LeJeune (Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes)

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." - Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic)

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception." -Dr. Watson A. Bowes (University of Colorado Medical School)

"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated." -National Geographic (In The Womb) 2005.

In 1981 a U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee heard expert testimony on the question of when life begins.
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception" -Prof. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard  University Medical School) (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981)

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception" -Dr. Watson A. Bowes (University of Colorado Medical Center) (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981)

The official subcommittee report reached this conclusion:
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

The report also noted that "no witness who testified before the subcommittee raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species. No witness challenged the scientific consensus that unborn children are 'human beings,' insofar as the term is used to mean living beings of the human species."

Scott Klusendorf, president of Life Training institute best sums this point up, stating:
"In short, you didn't come from an embryo. You were once an embryo. At no point in your prenatal development did you undergo a substantial change or change of nature. You began as a human being and will remain so until death. Sure, you lacked maturity at that early stage of your life(as does an infant), but you were human nonetheless." -Scott Klusendorff (2009) (The Case for Life)

B.) "You cannot murder non-persons or washing your hands would be murder."
As already shown by science in 1A, the unborn are in fact "persons", thus this makes this argument completely invalid. When you wash your hands dead skin cells fall off. These skin cells are 100% you. They contain your unique set of DNA, nobody else's. A fetus has a completely separate set of DNA than either the father and the mother. The fetus, as stated above, is a distinct, living, and whole human being that has a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated. Thus, comparing a human being to skin cells lost during washing your hands.

2. " Lack of malice. People getting abortions are not getting them to punish the fetus or because they want to kill the fetus."Those are literally never the reasons for abortion. People get them because of poverty, work, school, their age, abusive situation, rape, medical reasons and fetal abnormalities. But not because they want to hurt or kill something." 

A.) "Lack of malice. People getting abortions are not getting them to punish the fetus or because they want to kill the fetus."
Of course nobody is getting abortions to "punish the fetus", the fetus hasn't done anything wrong to be punished for.

But purpose of an abortion is to kill the fetus. That is exactly what and only what an abortion does. I've talked with former abortionists and have heard testimonies from countless abortion clinic workers including a former director of Planned Parenthood, and all agree that that is what an abortion does, it kills the fetus. It kills an innocent human being (see 1A). I've even seen a video recording of a sonogram of a surgical abortion, it is very obvious that the intent of the abortionist is to kill the unborn child. I watched as the medical instruments ripped the arms and legs of the unborn child from its body. The unborn child tried to squirm away from the instrument as it was doing so. Finally, after the limbs have been ripped off, the head of the unborn child is ripped off and is crushed I between tong-like instruments. You can watch this by searching for "The Silent Scream" on Google or YouTube.
This whole point is like saying that people who point a loaded gun at someone's and pull the trigger aren't doing it because they want to kill a person. The logic is completely flawed here.

B.) "Those are literally never the reasons for abortion."
Although those aren't the reasons people have for getting abortions (which I address in 2C), abortion, as shown in 1 and 2A, the abortion IS the killing of a human being. This is like saying,  I didn't decapitate them because I wanted to kill them. (Harsh imagery, I know, but not that much of a stretch because in many surgical abortions, the unborn child's head is ripped from the body). I used this imagery because decapitation is simply a form of killing a human being, just as abortion is a form of killing a human being(although there are several methods of both decapitation and abortion).

C.) "People get them because of poverty, work, school, their age, abusive situation, rape, medical reasons and fetal abnormalities."
Yes. Poverty, work, school, age, and abusive situations, these are the socioeconomic reasons that women get abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, these make up over 90% of the reasons people get abortions. Whereas in cases of rape & medical issues with the mother or child, those make up less than 1% of the people who get abortions.

D.) "But not because they want to hurt or kill something." 
See 2A-C

3. "No premeditation. No one has sex just to get abortions."

A.) "No premeditation"
All abortions are premeditated. A woman comes to an abortion clinic because she has an unplanned pregnancy. The woman either doesn't know what she is going to do, or already has her mind made up about getting an abortion. If she has not yet made up her mind, most abortionists will suggest getting an abortion. The abortionist either gives the woman the abortion pill(s) or performs the abortion procedure. This isn't an accident or "act of passion", this is an act that is thought out ahead of time.

B.) "No one has sex just to get abortions"
Of course not. People have sex for pleasure and for procreating. I'm not even sure why this is mentioned in this point. It makes no logical sense.

4. "It’s not unlawful"
Well, it all depends on where you live.  Also, Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right. Slavery was legal, that didn't make it right. What Hitler and the Nazis did in Germany was legal, that doesn't make it right. As I previously stated in the introduction, the Nazis killed Jews in mass numbers. Most would consider what the Nazis did murder, but according to the author of the original statement, which I am analyzing, as well as anyone who agrees with them, what the Nazis did was not murder, because it was not unlawful. I have had the privilege of seeing a holocaust survivor speak in person at my university a number of years ago. Almost everyone in her family was, as she said, "murdered" by the Nazis. I would urge you to find her and tell her that her family was not murdered. She's up in her eighties, but I can imagine that she could work up enough strength to slap you in the face. As one of my professors once said, "Ideas have consequences," and bad ideas have bad consequences. The idea that killing someone is not murder because it might be legal, could have very bad consequences for you, depending on who you talk to.

5. "You have a lawful excuse, that being your right to bodily autonomy. No one has the right to use a persons body, resources or internal organs without that persons consent regardless of circumstance or reason."

A.) "You have a lawful excuse,"
 See 4

B.) "..that being your right to bodily autonomy. No one has the right to use a persons body, resources or internal organs without that persons consent regardless of circumstance or reason."
This is absolutely correct, nobody has the right to use your body or any part of your body without your consent. But according to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, in 99% of the times people get abortions, they have given consent. They willingly consented to engaging in the one natural act that results in a new human being being made (aka pregnancy).  Just because someone doesn't like the result of the action that they willingly engaged in, doesn't mean that they have the right to kill another human being.  The unborn is not an intruder. He/she is precisely where he/she naturally belongs at that point in his/her development. In other words, the unborn cannot be an unwanted invader that uses the mother's body without consent. If someone willingly engages in this action that creates a new human being, they have given consent. One must be responsible for one's actions.
Also, just because you have the rights to your own body, that doesn't mean that you have the right to kill another human being.

Further scientific facts on the humanity of the unborn:

Four features of the unborn (i.e., the human zygote, embryo or fetus) are relevant to his or her status as a human being. First, the unborn is living. She meets all the biological criteria for life: metabolism, cellular reproduction and reaction to stimuli. Moreover, she is clearly growing, and dead things (of course) don't grow.
Second, the unborn is human. She possesses a human genetic signature that proves this beyond any doubt. She is also the offspring of human parents, and we know that humans can only beget humans (they cannot beget dogs or cats, for instance). The unborn may not seem to "look" human (at least in her earlier stages), but in fact she looks exactly like a human at that level of human development. Living things do not become something different as they grow and mature; rather, they develop the way that they do precisely because of the kind of being they already are.
Third, the unborn is genetically and functionally distinct from (though dependent on and resting inside of) the pregnant woman. Her growth and maturation is internally directed, and her DNA is unique and different from that of any other cell in the woman's body. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, central nervous system, etc. To say that a fetus is a part of the pregnant woman's body is to say that the woman has four arms and four legs, and that about half of pregnant women have penises.
Fourth, the unborn is a whole or complete (though immature) organism. That is, she is not a mere part of another living thing, but is her own organism--an entity whose parts work together in a self-integrated fashion to bring the whole to maturity. Her genetic information is fully present at conception, determining to a large extent her physical characteristics (including sex, eye color, skin color, bone structure, etc.); she needs only a suitable environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of human life.
Thus, the unborn is a distinct, living and whole human organism--a full-fledged member of the species Homo sapiens, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage in her development. She is a human being.

Further Reading
www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

www.prolifemn.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-science-tells-us-about-unborn.html

www.caseforlife.com

www.abortionfacts.com

"In the Womb".  By National Geographic. Video, 2005

United States, Cong. Subcommittee Report on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158. 97th Cong., 1st Ssess. Washington: GPO, 1981

"The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology". By Keith Moore & T.V.N. Persaud. Saunders. 2003.

"The Case for Life". By Scott Klusendorf. Crossway Books. 2009.
"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health". By Lawrence B.Finer. Guttmacher Institute. 2005.

"Langman's Embryology". By T.W. Sadler. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2009
"Human Embryology and Teratology". By Ronand O'Rahilly and Pabiola Muller. Wiley-Liss. 2001.

An analytical response to a Pro-Choice Progressive

I recently posted a status on Facebook criticizing some of the Pro-Choice claims. It lead to a rather lengthy discussion between 4 of my friends. Two were very strong Pro-Life Advocates and two were very strong Pro-Choice advocates. This response is to the most vocal of the two Pro-Choice advocates. I broke down his claims and arguments and wrote a response to each of them. Amazingly, by the grace of God, I was able to stay calm and gently respond to his claims and arguments without getting upset or mad. This youngster is, from what I've gathered, a logical and intelligent student, and I pray that some of what I have said has some effect on him.

Note: *I use some arguments & examples in an edited form from Scott Klusendorf and Dr. Mike S. Adams, both have encouraged and taught me many things on this area. I wouldn't have been able to make this defense without them. *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My friend, you make some great points and raise some important questions. Allow me to break each down and address and/or answer them for you. Before I answer and address what you said, I want to first lay on the table what science says on the issue, and the reasoning behind most of, if not all of my points. 

Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading doctors in thee field and Embryology Text books confirm this. 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. Nothing is added to the unborn to make them “more human”. They are fully human, just as much as human as you and I are.  They just aren't as fully developed as you and I are. They are just as much human as you and I are, just at a different stage of development. In comparison: a 4 year old girl is not as fully developed as a 14 year old girl is, yet both are fully human. That is not simply my opinion, that is documented scientific truth.

Now on to your questions and points.

*”You make it seem like people who are pro-choice are pro-abortion and that's entirely false.”

Being pro-choice means that you want women to have an option, a choice, on whether they want to get an abortion (unjustly end an innocent human life) or not. Being Pro-life means that we value all human life and wish for the equal right to life for all human beings. Because if you take away that one right, all other rights are automatically taken away. So, when it all boils down, Pro-life advocates are against abortion (unjustly ending an innocent human life). Pro-Choice advocates are for the right of a mother to get an abortion (unjustly ending an innocent human life), therefore, by advocating for it, you are on the “pro” side of it. On a side note: the majority of Pro-choice advocates that I’ve met or talked with are very much Pro-abortion. They view it as no different than using a condom or taking the pill. 

*”The honest reason why people have the same process as me are simply one to keep it safe.” 

I assume you mean “safe” for the mother. But abortion, itself, is never a safe procedure. In every procedure, sans failed abortions, an innocent human life is unjustly ended. I do’t know about you, but to me, killing an innocent human being would never fall under the category of “safe”. 

  

*”Before abortions were legal people still had things like back alley abortions where a shifty guy would use a hanger or some instrument like that. This lead to the woman most often dying or being incredibly hurt....really gruesome stuff. This is why most people who are pro-choice believe that way, we need to keep something like this safe, and avoid a disaster like that from happening ever again.”

Sadly, yes, that did happen before abortion was made legal in the US in 1973. But in saying this, the assumption is made that the unborn are not human. A more understandable analogy of your argument would be: (I’m going to drive down the road to kill someone, but there is ice all over the road, I’m afraid that I might have a wreck on the way there and get hurt. Could you call the city workers to have them come put salt on the road so that I wont get hurt on my way to of from the person’s house? Im still going to kill the person, but at least I will be safe in the process.) In your argument/statement, you are saying that we should keep it legal to unjustly end the life of an innocent human being in a safe and sterile environment to avoid harming the person killing them, as would happen in a dirty filthy place such as a back alley. Where’s the logic in that?

*”Let the expected mother know what she is going through”

I completely agree with you. A mother should know what is going to happen in the procedure before she agrees to do it. Sadly, in the majority of abortion clinics, especially Planed Parenthood, they do not explain to the mother what the procedure is. Ive talked with several women that have either had abortions or had been to get an abortion and then decided not to. They said that they were not shown an ultrasound, or told what the procedure would do. In one person I talked to, she said that although the abortion doctor did an ultrasound, he purposely stood in front of the screen so that she could not see it, and he told her that there was nothing but a glob of tissue. He also talked loud during the ultrasound so that she wouldn't hear the heartbeat. She went to the hospital the same day and saw her child through an ultrasound and listened to the heartbeat. She decided to not go through with the procedure after seeing and hearing these things. This is not an isolated incident, I've heard dozens upon dozens of accounts almost identical to this one from all across the country. Why, you might ask, do the abortion doctors lie and deceive the women like this? Money. The approximate cost for an abortion is between $400-500. The doctors make a profit from this. If they actually told what the procedure would do and actually showed the women the ultrasound, most women, after seeing the child and hearing the heartbeat, would change their minds about the abortion. And thus the abortion doctors would not make any money, save for the small visit fee.   


“Other reasons are obvious, like in the horrific event of rape or incest. How can we as human beings tell a woman who was raped that they now have to carry that burden, and that reminder of the most likely single most horrific event that has ever happened to her in her life. We can't! That would be appalling to even suggest that the woman has to keep it.”

Good point. Rape is terrible. I consider it to be the worst crime, after murder, that is. I advocate for the male to be castrated in punishment for the crime, as well as a long jail sentence.  It is an absolutely horrible crime and nobody should ever have to experience it. You're saying that if a woman becomes pregnant as the result of rape, she should get an abortion. So, you're suggesting that because an evil man commits an extremely terrible act of violence on an innocent woman, then the woman should in turn  commit an extremely terrible act of violence on another innocent human being that results in that human being’s life being ended. If anyone should have their life ended over rape, it should be the rapist, not the innocent child.
As for the child reminding her of the horrific incident, let me ask you something: should we be allowed to kill other human beings simply because they remind of us of a horrible event that happened to us? Lets say that a woman is raped and doesn't get pregnant, and it just so happens that her boss looks similar to the rapist, and everyday at work she is reminded of that horrible incident because her boss resembles the rapist. Should she be allowed to kill her boss, n innocent human being, simply because he reminds her of that horrible attack? 
Luckily, less than 1% of abortions are done on women who became pregnant as the result of rape, so that is a very small issue.
I propose to you an offer:  If I agree to write in the exception for rape , will you lobby with me for the law banning all other abortions (99% of the ones performed) ?

*”Another pretty valid point are the legislators that claim themselves as pro-life consistently vote down child welfare services. So, how can they say we need to protect that child as much as we can while in womb, but when it comes out, if the parents can't afford it, that's on them, maybe the shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. The pro-life concepts don't make a lot of sense in that regard.”

An EXCELLENT point my friend! And that, I agree with you 100%. It makes no sense whatsoever! We should make every effort to protect the children at all stages of development, not just in the womb. Thats why I cannot stand politicians, they dont make sense and they! HA! As the late Whitney Houston so eloquently put it, I believe the children are our future. We should protect them at all costs at all stages of their life . 

*”The MOST obvious [reason], mother endangerment”

This too is something I agree with you on. But I believe you are mistaken about. Yes, I believe that if the mother’s life is at risk and if continuing to carry the child or giving birth would kill her, then I believe that her life should be saved. I haven't met any Pro-life advocates that would disagree. The child will die either way, so you are saving the only life you can. I use the analogy that if 2 kids are going down stream towards a waterfall, and you go in to save them, but because of the current, you only have time to save one, you save the one that easiest to save and that is closest to you. You aren't going in with the intention of taking a life, you are going in with the intention of saving a life. The other life that is lost is an unintentional and unavoidable consequence.
Also, even if abortion were made illegal, this would in no way affect this life saving procedure. These procedures are done in hospitals or women’s clinics by medical doctors who are trying to save the woman’s life. Ive never heard of an abortion doctor doing one of these life saving procedures. I have a friend who is an OBGYN here in Starkville and the Medical Director of the Starkville Pregnancy Care Center, and I've talked to him about this issue and how he handles it. He agrees and says that it is a last resort procedure they do to save the mother’s life and that those cases are rare. So the legalization or ilegalization of abortion would have no affect whatsoever on this procedure. 

*”...people who have the ability to have the keep and could afford it or giving it up for adoption, and they have an abortion, that's pretty twisted.”

Yes, that is pretty twisted. But sadly, that is the case with the majority of people who get abortions in the US. They use abortion as a form of birth control. I believe that adoption is the best choice in the situations where the parents cannot provide for the children. 
In their annual report released in 2010, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, did 392 abortions per every 1 adoption referral. 

*”You and I probably shouldn't have too much input on a subject like this because after all, we can never get pregnant. This is women's rights issue, and men trying to legislate it just doesn't make sense!”

I see your point, and I would agree with you IF this really were a women’s rights issue. The claim that abortion (unjustly ending an innocent human life) is a women’s rights issue couldn't be farther from the truth. It is, in fact, a human rights issue. Since abortion was made legal in the US in 1973, over 55 Million innocent human beings have been killed. Half of those innocent human beings (approximately 27.5 Million) have been male. This doesn't just concern women, it concerns men as well. Regardless of the gender, nobody should have the right to unjustly take the life of an innocent human being.   

*”We can not for a single second compare abortions to the holocaust.”

Why can’t we? Approximately 6 million innocent human beings were killed in the Holocaust. Around 55 Million innocent human beings were/are being killed through abortion. The death toll of abortion is approximately 9 times higher than that of the Holocaust.
Now, I will grant that the torture and brutality of the Jews before they were killed is horrific, and in comparison, abortion seems like a more merciful way to kill someone. Although it has been proven that in surgical abortions past 8 weeks, the child can actually feel pain and can feel the pain of its arms and legs being ripped from their bodies. That sounds horrific too.
So, when comparing just the death tolls, abortion would be considered 9 times worse than the holocaust.
Not to mention that the US’s largest abortion provider started out as a machine for eugenics, ridding the nation of the undesirable people, most notably, blacks. Their early founders had numerous links to the KKK and the Nazi Party, and even Hitler and Himmler. They still do, in some forms, still function today with a racist agenda. But that is a whole other can of worms that can be saved for a later discussion. (If you are interested, I suggest you watch “Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America”. 

Thanks for your input in this discussion, and I apologize for the delayed response. I hope you have a blessed summer! =)  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you can see, every response comes back to the question, are the unborn human? If they are not human, than abortion isnt wrong at all and should be legal, but if the unborn are human, then abortion is Very wrong and should be made illegal and the unborn should be protected at all cost! 



*Update: I received a response to this from the guy it was written to. He was telling g someone about it and tagged me in it.:
 "Nick Bell and I were In a debate about abortion recently in a status he published. Nick and I threw some good points at each other in a non-offensive way, some things we actually agreed on. There were people in the thread obviously offended but, in his argument he opened my mind to think about my stance on the issue, I am still pro-choice, but he brought up valid points. Opening people to think works in many ways."

I praise God that his mind was opened to think about and consider some of his ideas!