Pro-choice people often tend to use terms like "women's rights" "choice" "women's health" - they deliberately avoid using the word "abortion" because they know it is a vile, reprehensible and, yes, murderous, thing. They want their "choice" without the responsibility of having ended an innocent person's life.

This is not an issue of "choice" but, rather, of protecting innocent life. Every woman has "choice" when it comes to their bodies - they can choose to abstain from sex, choose to use more protection, and choose to put a baby up for adoption. However, from my point of view, when another life is involved, it is not an issue anymore of just that woman and her body, but that woman and another human being's body. It is no longer an issue of "choice" but of "responsibility".

If you are "Pro-Choice", please answer these questions. (You can submit answers at the bottom.)

=====================================

QUESTIONS

=====================================

1. When do you believe "life" begins - at conception, at birth, or sometime during the pregnancy?

2. At some point, even Pro-Choicers admit there is a time when it is no longer okay to abort a child. For instance, we can all agree not to abort a week old baby. Or a day old baby. But some would allow a baby born of a botched abortion to be killed.

   Think of a baby you love - perhaps your own child, a nephew or niece, a friend's child. Would it be okay with you if he/she was aborted:

- after birth? 

- during birth?

- an hour before birth?

- a day before birth?

- a day before that?

- a week before?

- a month before?

The question is…what is the EXACT MOMENT within a nine month period that it is no longer okay to abort a baby? Midnight after the first trimester? Pinpoint the very second - even just the hour - when the rules change. Now, tell me, what is different at that moment?

Or, here’s an easier way to answer this question:

3. Does "life" equal "rights"? Meaning, is it possible for a pro-choicer to accept that life begins, let's say, in the womb, but "rights" don't begin until birth? Or do "rights" come at the same time as "life"?

4. If it's not an individual, unique "life" in the womb, what is it, and why isn't it a life?

(Yes, I know it’s a "zygote", then a "blastocys"t, then an "embryo", then a "fetus" - biologically speaking, these are no different terms for describing a human than "baby" "toddler" "kid" "teenager" "adult")

5. As I understand it, the pro-choice movement is largely based on "don't tell me what to do with my body". The obvious response from my perspective is, "its not just your body anymore, its two individual bodies". Liberals I have spoken to or heard speak, often seem to be saying that people should be allowed to do as they please, so long as it doesn't hurt others. That is not the case here, as another body is involved. What is the liberal argument to this?

6. Since the baby is "connected" to the mother, and because the issue is always about "my body", is it simply a "part" of the mother? I don't mean this facetiously, but if the answer is yes, then does the pregnant mother of a male actually, then, have a penis for those months? If not, then the body is its own separate 'being', right, and thus its not just an issue of "my body"?

7. Keeping in mind that one of the primary tasks of any law is to 'protect the innocent' - As I stated before, if we don't actually "know" when life begins (which is scientifically the consensus as I understand it), and there exists even just a possibility that this is actually a "life", then what would be the argument for not erring on the side of protecting the life? (Example - If you're not sure people are in a building before you blow it up, do you just go ahead and blow it up, or halt the bombing until you know?)

8. Biologically, a complete human is formed at conception - complete DNA and Chromosomes are present at conception and nothing will be "added". The Nat'l Institute of Health defines the embryonic stage as the beginning of developed human form. Biologically, there is no difference in the DNA or Chromosome makeup of a baby at conception versus at birth - "when sperm and ovum join to form the zygote, the individual's genotype is established." (G. Meileander, Valparaiso University) Everything that is there at birth is there at conception, just not 'developed' (this is comparable after birth to things like teeth and hair - not fully developed yet, but present in a newborn).

   The only argument, then, against a unique individual life having been formed at conception could NOT be 'physical' in nature, but rather whether or not a unique, individual "person" (or "soul") is created, which is a problem for secularists. How would you answer this?

9. Let's just say, for argument's sake that it IS a life in there. . . how can the "choice" of one person outweigh the "life" of another? (Nowhere else in our legal system is this the case. I can't kill you just because I make the choice to, no matter how much my choice is protected.)

10. If we allow for a "gray" area of life/non-life in the womb, what is the justification for partial or full birth abortion -  aborting a baby after its been delivered (in some cases, they bring the head out and drill into the skull, and recent news reports feature a woman who survived a botched abortion - there is legislation that would allow for a baby who actually survives an abortion to still be aborted after birth.).

11. This doesn't apply to all liberals, but certainly many - how does a liberal explain the obvious contradiction of supporting animal rights (for "born" animals) but also supporting partial/post-birth abortions (abortion of a "born" baby)?

12.  The pro-choice movement is also based on the idea that you "can't legislate morality". This is untrue, as every single law legislates someone's morality - the question is always "who's"? As I stated above, one of the primary tasks of any law (and any President) is to protect the innocent. Shouldn't law reflect the protection of the innocent over a woman's "choice" if that choice threatens an innocent life?

13. One of the common arguments for legal abortions is to protect those women who are victims of rape or incest. However, these account for less than 1% of all abortions. Although the arguments for protecting the innocent would remain, I would consider it at least a step in the right direction to outlaw all abortions except those of rape/incest. Your thoughts?

14. Many states have laws that deal with cases in which, when a pregnant woman is murdered, the fetus dies. Often, these laws treat the fetus as a full human life, often resulting in two murder charges. Many other laws deal with any action that causes a miscarriage (for example: if you were pregnant and wanted the baby, already had a name picked, room decorated, and someone hits you in the stomach and causes the death of the baby, should they get off with merely a battery charge?). Liberals and conservatives alike have supported these laws. How is the law justified in treating the fetus as a life here, but not in cases of abortion?

15. Many liberals, Barack Obama most recently, have called for the need for "less abortions". If there is nothing wrong with an abortion, then why do we care if there are less? The call for "less abortions" implies that there is something "bad" about an abortion. How does a liberal justify wanting "less abortions" without implying that there is some negative reason, and if there is something 'wrong' with an abortion, why allow it?