I have heard this same argument over and over and over again, how that in some situations it is "humane" to choose abortion than to let a child live. They could grow up poor and hungry, they could be abused, they could have a disease like MS or a thousand other things so it would be better to just abort them and save them the pain and suffering. I will NEVER for the life of me be able to wrap my head around that heartless totalitarian mentality. They usually want to start on this idea by be-crying the "rights" of a person to do what they want to with their own body, and if "their own" body were the only one affected, well I still don't agree with killing but that would be their ultimate decision. That particular situation is also called suicide not abortion. But abortion is the taking of someone else's life and it is the ultimate usurp of another person's rights because without the most basic and important right...the right to life no other rights matter or even come into play. 
Case in point here is a conversation that I had with one pro-choicer very recently that commented on a very simple pro-life pic that I shared on my personal Facebook page. I have blacked out the name for privacy purposes. I don't know this man personally he was he said the friend of a friend and saw my post on his feed because of that. Here is the graphic followed by the comments...
No one can know how a person's life will end up. Even if they are the victim of some terribly hard times, and or abuse or whatever their situation may be...they could go on to live a very good and outstanding life afterwards in spite of all their hardships. In fact some of the very best people and leaders do just that! The bottom line is NO ONE has the right to play God and decide that it's all right to kill another person period!
What are your thoughts on this?

I had a person post on Voice for Hope’s Facebook page this last week in response to a post that I made on there and she that stated that aborting a fetus that doesn't have a brain isn't murder. So I made a response to her on the subject and I thought that it would be good to post it as a blog post here for reference for other Pro-lifer’s because this is a very common belief among many people that are pro-choice.

First I want to address that the reason that pro-choice people only like to call an unborn baby a clump of cells or a fetus is because they don't want to call it a baby or a child because that would make it harder to justify their belief that it is all right to kill that child. It is a tactic to dehumanize or separate emotion and reality that it is truly a living baby that they are referring too. The only difference is that it is in a different stage of it’s development (still in the womb) where you can’t see it yet with your eyes without an ultrasound machine. You need not look any further than ANY woman that wants the child that she is caring: do they go around saying "I'm going to have a fetus!" Or I just found out “I’m carrying a clump of cells!” No they say “I'm going to have a baby!” And rightly so because that is what they are going to have.

People like Abby Johnson that use to work as a director for 8 years at Planned Parenthood before she saw the light and became a very outspoken Pro-life advocate and speaker have testified that they teach their employees to always refer to the child as a fetus or a clump of cells and to NEVER under any circumstances to call a baby or a child. Because that would put the thought of what it really is into the woman's mind and she might change her mind about having the abortion. All abortion clinics use this tactic.

But it is murder to abort a baby or if you want to call it a fetus or even an embryo it's still murder. Putting another name on it doesn't change what it is. It is the taking of an innocent human life even though it is at an early stage in development. Its still murder if you kill a 2 year old or if you kill a 40 year old the only difference is their level of development: their size and age. The science of Embryology and all top Embryologists and even the top abortion advocates like Peter Singer, and David Boonin all concede and acknowledge the fact that a human being comes into existence at the moment of conception. Everything that that human being is going to be is already present and mapped out in their unique DNA at the moment of conception. All that they need is nutrition and the proper environment like any human being before or after them to continue to grow and be born.

The woman who made the comment on my post said that a fetus at 20 weeks doesn't have a brain so it’s not murder to abort it. However that’s not true a baby at 20 weeks does already have a functioning brain. The brain and its cerebral hemispheres appear and begin to grow rapidly at only 4 weeks and by 6 weeks brain activity has already begun. This is a scientific fact.  You can learn more about the development of babies in the womb and when their organs and bodily functions begin here http://www.ehd.org/index.php It's a great site that has a huge amount of facts and even videos of babies from the moment of conception up right up until birth that are invaluable information for pro-lifers. So you see there is no such thing as a fetus with no brain since a fetus by its medical definition is a baby 9 weeks after fertilization and by then it already has a brain that is functioning and that is long before 20 weeks. :)

  

I also highly recommend this great video from Stand to Reason on this same subject. I had seen it before this came up and I had it saved in my pro-life playlist on Youtube for reference. I also posted it in my response to her as well. All pro-lifer’s should see this one and many of the other videos in this great series he makes great points on this subject and those similar to it that can be very helpful when trying to explain the truth to others.

This is the main question that abortion hinges upon legally and for most people. Is what is the unborn? Is it a baby, is it a fetus, is it a person? The argument behind almost all reasons for abortions is that the unborn is not a human being or that it does not have the same value as a born person does.

Both of these arguments are easily refuted with simple truth and logic.

1. Every human is a human being, and every human being is a person. 

If a cat is pregnant and gives birth it has - kittens.

If a dog is pregnant and gives birth it has - puppies.

If a human being is pregnant and gives birth it has -? 

A human being of course. Each and every thing that can reproduce will reproduce and give birth to one of it's own kind. Humans and non-humans alike. That is a irrefutable scientific and biological fact.

If you look up the word person in the average dictionary I used Websters here you will find it defined as

Person  noun

And a human being at the time of conception is a distinct and living being with it's own DNA that is unique and different from any other person's DNA before or since it's creation. It has it's own blood type usually different than that of it's mother, all of it's genetic factors have already been decided from it's bone structure, hair color, eye color, it's gender, it's skin color, it's finger prints all of these things have already been established at the very moment of conception. And the new human being is a distinct and separate individual that is different from anyone else that has ever been conceived and that ever will be conceived.

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, The "Father of Modern Genetics"  Univ. of Descarte, Paris wrote: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." 

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated: “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life…. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

It's scientifically and biologically irrefutable that a distinct human life begins at conception. And since the unborn baby is in fact a human being and a person the baby therefore has invaluable worth and there is no argument that would constitue the killing of an innocent human life. It would be a violation of morals and the law. A human being regardless of their age, size, sex, environment, or level of dependency is not disposable and there is no argument that can constitute the taking of an innocent human life.

Now most pro-choice people will try to steer you off of the main subject with various emotional or social arguments but the main subject here is...is the unborn a human being and therefore a person? And we have already established that it is. When they try to steer you off on another part of an emotional argument like "but it's the woman's body and therefore should be her choice on what to do with it." Nicely but firmly steer them right back to the main part of the discussion don't let them steer you from the points.

The fact that an unborn child in the womb is indeed a person is vitally important and crucial. There is a reason that abortion clinics never use the word baby in a clinic because doing so would put the image and thought that what the woman is actually carrying is indeed a baby into the mother's mind and they might not go through with the abortion if they thought of it as anything but a fetus. So they always call the unborn child a fetus. This same practice is also used by pro-choice people for the same reason they don't want to admit that the being that is in the womb is actually human being and so they seek to dehumanize the child by calling it a fetus and never use the words baby, child, person, or even human being.

Technically even this argument isn't even accurate because the word fetus doesn't mean a non living thing or a clump of unviable tissue or a bunch of cells. The word fetus comes from the Latin which means offspring or little one. Which means a little human in the case of two humans reproducing. And if you look up fetus in the English dictionary (again I've used Webster's here) it is defined as a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth. So by it's very definition a fetus is a human being. 

It's irrefutable that a fetus is a human being and is so from the moment of conception. And therefore it is morally and ethically wrong to kill them. 

The last video is a great one featuring Dr. Alveda King on Personhood she makes some priceless points in just this short ad. Please watch it and learn more about Personhood it truly is the way to go to help overturn Roe vs. Wade and make abortion illegal in the U.S. again.






Please feel free to share these on your Facebook, Twitter, and blogs etc. and help others to learn the truth about these important issues.