ABORTION (Pro-Choice):

Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights

Featuring the Rev. Carlton Veazey

-Dan Maguire, a former Jesuit priest and professor of moral theology and ethics at Marquette
University, says that to have a child can be a sacred choice, but to not have a child can also be a
sacred choice.

-And these choices revolve around circumstances and issues – like whether a person is old
enough to care for a child or whether a woman already has more children than she can care for.
Also, remember that medical circumstances are the reason many women have an abortion – for
example, if they are having chemotherapy for cancer or have a life-threatening chronic illness –
and most later-term abortions occur because of fetal abnormalities that will result in stillbirth
or the death of the child. These are difficult decisions; they’re moral decisions, sometimes
requiring a woman to decide if she will risk her life for a pregnancy.

-But what about people who believe that life begins at conception and that terminating a
pregnancy is murder? For them, it may not just be about respecting or tolerating each other’s
viewpoints; they believe this is an issue of life or death. What do you say to people who make
that kind of argument?

-I would say that they have a right to their beliefs, as do I. I would try to explain that my views
are grounded in my religion, as are theirs. I believe that we must ensure that women are
treated with dignity and respect and that women are able to follow the dictates of their
conscience – and that includes their reproductive decisions. Ultimately, it is the government’s
responsibility to ensure that women have the ability to make decisions of conscience and have
access to reproductive health services.

-Some in the anti-abortion camp contend that the existence of legalized abortion is a sign of
the self-centeredness and selfishness of our age. Is there any validity to this view?

Although abortion is a very difficult decision, it can be the most responsible decision a person
can make when faced with an unintended pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious
health consequences.

Depending on the circumstances, it might be selfish to bring a child into the world. You know, a
lot of people say, “You must bring this child into the world.” They are 100 percent supportive
while the child is in the womb. As soon as the child is born, they abort the child in other ways.
They abort a child through lack of health care, lack of education, lack of housing, and through
poverty, which can drive a child into drugs or the criminal justice system.
So is it selfish to bring children into the world and not care for them? I think the other side can
be very selfish by neglecting the children we have already. For all practical purposes, children
whom we are neglecting are being aborted.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2008/09/30/pro-choice-does-not-mean-pro-abortion-
an-argument-for-abortion-rights-featuring-the-rev-carlton-veazey/

Why do people have abortions?

Not financially prepared 40%

Not a good time 36%
Issues with partner 31%
Need to focus on other children 29%
Interferes with future plans 20%
Not emotionally or mentally prepared19%
Health issue 12%
Unable to provide a “good” life 12%
Not independent or mature enough 7%
Influence from family or friends 5%
Don’t want children

*Not Earning Enough

-Many people are simply not making enough money to support the financial burden of having a
child. Situations that impact financial security include being unemployed or underemployed.

-Underemployed means that you are employed but not working in a position that fully uses
your skills or pays what your skills are worth.

-Having a baby also impacts a woman's future earning potential, a phenomenon known as the
motherhood pay gap.

*Unplanned Pregnancy
-When pregnancy is unplanned, women may feel they are too old, too busy, or not yet ready.
Similarly, some women feel that they are not yet emotionally or mentally prepared to care for a
child or even handle a pregnancy.

*Rape or Incest

-In the United States, an estimated 25,000 to 35,000 pregnancies are caused by rape each year.
Half of all rape-related pregnancies end in abortion.
-
The frequency of pregnancy from incest is not as well documented. However, studies show 1%
of women disclose their reason for having an abortion is rape or incest.

Finer LB, Frohwirth LF, Dauphinee LA, Singh S, Moore AM. Reasons U.S. women have abortions:
Quantitative and qualitative perspectives.

Reasons for abortion include financial concerns, marital status, and readiness to start a family,
among others.

For many women who choose to have an abortion, not being able to manage the cost of raising
a child plays a significant role in their decision. In each individual case, though, multiple factors
go into making the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Common reasons for abortion include economic, social, emotional, and family issues. Medical
reasons for abortion include underlying health conditions that threaten the mother's life and
fetal malformations that are inconsistent with life outside the womb.

Trauma from pregnancy caused by domestic violence, rape, or incest, mental health concerns,
and active addiction are other reasons why a woman may decide to have an abortion.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589

ABORTION PROS AND CONS: 5 PRO-LIFE ARGUMENTS

Abortion is arguably one of the most heated debates in America right now. With the Supreme
Court having overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, tensions are continuing to rise between pro-life
vs. pro-choice advocates. This leaves a unique opportunity to share the truth of life’s value with
abortion proponents. Rather than leading with anger, the key in sharing pro-life views is to
thoughtfully prepare for the hard conversations surrounding abortion pros and cons.

Studies suggest that people forget about 60% of the information they receive. So, with such a
sensitive topic as abortion, the way to really make a lasting impact is by leading with truth in
love. Consider Ephesians 4:15, which says, “Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to
become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.” We want to
leave all conversations having represented Christ well, listening with compassion and
respect. And this is especially important with abortion because of how personal it is for many
people. After all, 1 in 4 women will have an abortion by the time they’re 45.

Most pro-choice advocates believe a fetus is a clump of cells and not human;
therefore, abortion isn’t murder. Others justify abortion with topics like women’s equality,
overpopulation and freedom to use contraception. But, intentional, healthy conversations can
reframe someone’s stance entirely. Here are a few abortion pros and cons, along with how we
can approach them as followers of Christ and advocates for life.

Pro #1: "Pro-Life Just Means Pro-Birth"

 Often, abortion debates tend to center solely around the baby’s birth. And while that
is a core factor in being pro-life (and every child absolutely deserves to live outside of
the womb), it only captures a fraction of our beliefs and support system. Being pro-life
isn’t just about banning abortion – we envision a world where women don’t need
abortion whether it’s legal or not. However, it’s also about seeing the life, value and
equality in all people. The pro-life movement encompasses many amazing ministries,
resources and support systems for women, children and families. Take a few of these
topics for example:

Adoption
 Foster care
 Elder care
 Special needs
 Racial equality (abortion has historically targeted minorities)
 Abortion pill reversal
 Parenting education and support
 Post-abortive care (see more on abortion complications)
 Support during and after pregnancy, including free pregnancy care, baby supplies,
housing, mentoring and more

The ultimate pro-life goal is to meet the needs of women so well, the need for abortion doesn’t
even cross her mind. Could you imagine how much the pro-life movement could do for women
and their babies beyond birth if the tax funding for abortion (nearly 2 million dollars a day) was
redirected to the list above? Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, we should all be fighting for
the same thing: to see life thriving from the womb to the tomb.

Pro #2: "Abortion Solves Overpopulation"

The idea that overpopulation is solved by abortion is completely flawed. For one, there
wouldn’t be a lack of sustenance without abortion. The U.S. has enough capacity to feed twice
the amount of people it currently does. And if foreign countries were to simply tweak
their agricultural processes, they wouldn’t need the food exports that the U.S. provides (and
consequently, leave us with even more). Plus, we are only getting more efficient: food is made
on the least amount of land than ever before.
Another consideration is emissions. Lower birth rates naturally lead to higher economic
consumption and output. This means that even if abortions were to surge, carbon emissions
remain consistent. In fact, studies show that couples with no children can produce
even more harmful emissions, so children can actually be thought to benefit the issue rather
than exaggerate it.

Population Control
Though the points above debunk arguments about resources and climate, let’s assume a higher
birth rate does cause overpopulation for just a moment. Population control has destructive
consequences on a society. It promotes inequality and devalues human rights. Would we take
someone else’s life to help ourselves? It seems like Thanos of the Marvel Universe had a similar
idea – and he certainly wasn’t considered a hero. A society that sacrifices the innocent to
benefit the strong is not a world we should want to live in.

Pro #3: "Banning Abortion Only Reduces the Number of Safe Abortions"
We’ve all seen protestors with a symbolic hanger, indicating a time before Roe v. Wade when
abortions were self-performed. Understandably, the concept of reverting back to that method
strikes fear in many women. But the statement, “banning abortion doesn’t reduce abortions,
just illegal ones,” is not entirely true. In a study that reviewed women who were denied
abortion, the majority carried their pregnancy to term. Similar focus groups in other countries
reveal nearly the same results.

In addition, the year abortion was legalized in the U.S. (1973), more women died from legal
abortions than illegal abortions: 19 died from a back-alley abortion, and 25 died from a “safe”
abortion.

Regardless, though most women will carry their child to term rather than attempting to illegally
abort, the goal is that women want to choose life. They shouldn’t have to dread a post-
Roe world, and certainly shouldn’t dread it so much that they would rather risk their lives than
choose to parent or place for adoption. As I said before, we must support women and
families beyond birth and cultivate a positive and supportive experience to protect women and
preborn children.
Pro #4: "Abortion is Contraception"

Some people believe that the difference between birth control and abortion is minimal (or even
non-existent). About half of the women receiving abortions have undergone one or more
abortions previously, which can also indicate a repetitive reliance on it as contraception. But
the reason abortion and birth control are not the same is simple: life is defined as constant
growth. Egg and sperm will remain dormant forever if they do not meet. However, the process
after fertilization leads to life outside the womb when uninterrupted. One is a growing life, one
isn’t.

Since growth begins at fertilization and ends at death, why would life in the womb be any
different than another stage of life (i.e., toddler vs. teenager vs. adult)? Because dependency
varies between life stages, it doesn’t mean value should. Therefore, personhood status should
begin at fertilization rather than a blurred line somewhere between viability and birth. This
would entirely invalidate the concept that abortion is another form of contraception.

Pro #5: "My Body, My Choice"

Perhaps the most common argument in abortion pros and cons is “my body, my choice.” At first
glance, it’s not too hard to see why someone would support such a statement. After all,
women’s rights are objectively crucial to our society, and women should have bodily autonomy.
But the pro-life movement isn’t about taking away those personal rights. Instead, it’s about
drawing a line when it takes another’s rights. Consider, for example, when a pregnant mother is
killed. It’s typically labeled as a double homicide, because of the second little life that’s also
taken. A similar parallel can be made with abortion.

We champion equality for all, regardless of their stage in life, dependency, gender, race or
needs. It’s about indiscriminate value for every single human life. And just as any other human
rights movement, advocates must speak up for the victims of prejudice. Since preborn children
cannot defend their rights, pro-lifers are dedicated to magnifying the injustice of abortion for
preborn children and the families it wreaks havoc on.
 Each life is granted inherent value by the God who delicately crafted them in their mother’s
womb. Christ was the ultimate advocate, always standing up for the vulnerable or those seen as
“less than.” Abortion is no exception – it breaks His heart because it breaks ours. We have a
unique chance in a freshly post-Roe world to dive into the pros and cons of abortion and
educate others. We can shine light into a broken world, showing people that there is hope. And
we can do it together.

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/abortion-pros-and-cons-5-pro-life-arguments/

Women's rights arguments in favour of abortion

Here are some of the women's rights arguments in favour of abortion:

 women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies

 the right to abortion is vital for gender equality
 the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential
 banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists
 the right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to
make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy
This argument reminds us that even in the abortion debate, we should regard the woman as a
person and not just as a container for the foetus. We should therefore give great consideration
to her rights and needs as well as those of the unborn.

Pro-choice women's rights activists do not take a casual or callous attitude to the foetus; the
opposite is usually true, and most of them acknowledge that choosing an abortion is usually a
case of choosing the least bad of several bad courses of action.

-A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It
disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts
her entire family life.
-And we feel that, because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such
fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the
choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.

Childbearing, freedom and equality

-The women's liberation movement sees abortion rights as vital for gender equality.

-They say that if a woman is not allowed to have an abortion she is not only forced to continue
the pregnancy to birth but also expected by society to support and look after the resulting child
for many years to come (unless she can get someone else to do so).

-They argue that only if women have the right to choose whether or not to have children can
they achieve equality with men: men don't get pregnant, and so aren't restricted in the same
way.

-Furthermore, they say, women's freedom and life choices are limited by bearing children, and
the stereotypes, social customs, and oppressive duties that went with it.

-They also regard the right to control one's own body as a key moral right, and one that women
could only achieve if they had were entitled to abort an unwanted foetus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtml
ABORTION (Pro-Life):

1.) THE HUMANITY ARGUMENT

My first argument is simple: it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent biological human beings; a
fetus is an innocent biological human being; abortion intentionally kills a fetus; therefore,
abortion is wrong.

The world’s leading pro-choice philosophers agree that unborn children are biological human
beings. David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “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”

Now, some philosophers object to the premise “It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent
biological human beings.” They say it’s incomplete because it doesn’t account for the
wrongness of killing certain non-human beings, such as intelligent aliens if they happen to exist.
And it’s true that if there were intelligent aliens, it would be wrong to kill them, because they
would be rational creatures (a point I’ll return to shortly). But this objection does nothing to
refute the truth that “It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent biological human beings.”

If you believe that truth, then you are morally obligated to oppose abortion.

Another objection is that we do intentionally kill innocent human beings when we, for example,
take a permanently comatose person off life support. But in these cases, we do not intend to
kill an innocent person. Instead, we intend to remove disproportionate means of keeping a
dying person alive, since they are no longer helping the person.

For example, if we took someone off a ventilator, and he started breathing on his own (which
happens occasionally), then we would not proceed to smother him to death, because killing
him wasn’t our intention. However, killing is intended in every abortion. Some abortion
providers are even sued for “failed abortions” if the child is born alive.

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent
biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows
that it is wrong to kill them.

2. THE PERSONHOOD ARGUMENT

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons”
who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons and that anyone reading this article is a
person. But many other humans who don’t understand this article—such as infants and
mentally disabled adults—are still persons. We also agree there are many beings that are not
persons, or at least are not persons in the sense that you and I are persons. For example, most
people would agree that rats and pigeons, for example, are not persons.

So, any definition of personhood must account for clear examples of personhood such as in the
case of you, me, infants, and disabled humans and not include clear examples of non-persons
such as rats and pigeons that do not have a right to life.

That means we can’t merely say a person is any being that can feel pain, is aware of the outside
world, or is sentient. That definition would include non-persons such as rats and pigeons. But
we also can’t say a person is simply any being that is capable of rational thought, because that
definition would exclude infants.

And if we say a person is any human being that can feel pain, then we are being arbitrary,
because if feeling pain didn’t make a rat a person, why would it make a human being a person?
Instead, the requirement that a person be human and also able to feel pain seems designed to
exclude unborn children instead of providing a consistent definition of personhood.

A better definition of a person would be an individual member of a rational kind.

In this view, you, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our
personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on
our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are). This definition also excludes
non-human animals such as rats and pigeons because they are not members of a rational kind.
Finally, this definition is species-neutral and could include rational aliens if it were discovered
that they exist.

This definition accounts for views of personhood pro-life and pro-choice advocates share when
it comes to uncontroversial cases such as newborns and rats. The definition also isn’t ad hoc, or
it isn’t arbitrarily designed to include unborn children. Instead, the inclusion of unborn children
naturally flows from the definition’s emphasis on rational capacity.

Since there are no good reasons to reject this definition of personhood, and there are no
alternative definitions of personhood that just as easily account for the uncontroversial
examples I mentioned, it follows that we should adopt this definition, which includes unborn
humans. And if unborn humans are persons, then it follows that abortion is wrong, because
abortion directly kills innocent persons.

3. THE PERSONAL IDENTITY ARGUMENT

The next arguments I’ll share against abortion don’t rely on defending either the humanity or
even the personhood of unborn children. For example, we can show that since it is wrong to kill
us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill
us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as
follows:

1. If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
2. I am an organism.
3. Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
4. Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
5. Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
6. What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
7. Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Notice I’ve qualified premise four with the term “generally speaking,” because sometimes it
isn’t wrong to kill me. If I’m trying to kill Fred, then Fred has the right to use lethal force to
protect himself from my attack. But if we aren’t in a nitpicky, philosophical mood, we all know
what it means when we say it is wrong to kill us.

With that out of the way, let me defend the most controversial premises of the argument. For
example, some philosophers deny that you and I are organisms. They might say we are simply
minds that exist inside organisms. But that leads to several implausible conclusions.

First, if people are only minds and not physical organisms, then you have never been slapped or
kissed. Someone may have slapped your body or kissed your body, but no one slapped or
kissed you, since you are an immaterial mind and not a physical organism, at least if these
philosophers are right. (They aren’t.)

Second, if I am only a collection of thoughts in a mind, then I don’t think. After all, can a thought
think? No more than a book can write. But I do think. In fact, if you’re trying to understand
what I’m talking about, then there is a “thinking animal” sitting in front of an online article at
this very moment.

Now, here is the question: who is that thinking animal? Once again, you are the thinking animal
sitting in front of this online article. So it is not true that I am just a collection of thoughts. I am
an organism (specifically, an animal) with the power to think.

Finally, if I am only a collection of thoughts, then where am I when I am asleep? Do I stop

existing? If I exist because I will presumably wake up tomorrow, then what if I fall into a coma
and we don’t know if I will ever wake up? It would be odd if my current existence depended on
some fact about my future existence. But if I am a living organism, then as long as that
organism exists, I exist, and this has been true from the moment I was conceived in my
mother’s womb.

4. THE “FUTURE LIKE OURS” ARGUMENT

The “future-like-ours” argument says that what makes killing anything wrong is that it deprives
that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours” (FLO). Rats don’t have a FLO, so it isn’t
wrong to kill them. But you and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO,
and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo
and fetus because it has a FLO.

Some philosophers have claimed that fetuses do not have a FLO because they are not
psychologically connected to their futures. They aren’t aware of anything in the womb (at least
early on in pregnancy), and so they don’t carry any personal experiences into the future as do
you and I. Nathan Nobis writes, “There is no (even broken) chain of experiences from the fetus
to that future person’s experiences. Babies are, at least, aware of the current moment, which
leads to the next moment; children and adults think about and plan for their futures, but
fetuses cannot do these things, being completely unconscious and without a mind” (Thinking
Critically About Abortion, p. 45).

But if fetuses don’t have a FLO because they don’t have a psychological chain connecting them
to their futures, how could newborn infants have a FLO when Nobis admits they are connected
by a broken psychological chain of experiences? A lamp will come crashing to the floor if it is
missing some chains. Similarly, if a newborn does not maintain psychological continuity over
time, even for brief intervals, then a newborn would not have a FLO, and killing it would not be
immoral.

But killing newborns is immoral. And if what makes killing newborns wrong is that it deprives
them of a “future like ours” (even if they don’t have a self-conscious personal experience that
will continue into the future), then this will also make it wrong to kill nearly all unborn humans,
because they have a FLO as well. Granted, it may not explain why it is wrong to directly kill
terminally ill unborn children who will die shortly after birth (and not have a FLO), but it would
explain why almost all abortions are immoral.

5.) THE IMPAIRMENT ARGUMENT

One final argument against abortion I’d like to share with you is similar to the “future-like-ours”
argument and is called the “impairment argument.” It goes like this:

Imagine that if Mary conceives a child in the month of July, she will give birth to a child named
Bob with a mild mental handicap. Most people would say Mary has not done anything wrong,
nor has she harmed Bob, because if Mary had waited to conceive a child in August, she would
not have conceived Bob. There would have been different sperm and egg, so Mary would have
conceived Bob’s brother, Bill.

We can’t say Mary harmed Bob, since, if she had not had relations in July, it would not be the
case that Bob would exist without a mental handicap. Bob would simply not exist at all.
But suppose Mary waits a month and conceives Bob’s healthy brother, Bill, in August. She then
takes a drug that causes Bill to have the same mild mental handicap. Did Mary do something
wrong in this case?

Most people would say she did and that this is quite different from the Bob case. Mary harmed
Bill because she impaired Bill’s healthy development. In the Bob case, Mary could not have
made it so that Bob would exist and not have a handicap. But in the Bill case, if Mary had not
taken the drug, then a healthy, non-impaired Bill would have existed. Mary did something
wrong because she performed an act on an already existing individual that impaired his
development.

And if it is wrong to cause a minor impairment, then it is wrong to cause a major impairment to
someone’s development. And most people would agree that death is the most severe
impairment a person can suffer (since it impairs all development). Therefore, if it was wrong for
Mary to cause Bill to be born with a mild mental handicap, it would also be wrong for her to
cause Bill not to be born at all, or for Mary to abort Bill.

I have offered five different arguments to show abortion is so wrong that it ought to be illegal:

1. It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.

2. The unborn are persons with a right to life.
3. You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
4. Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours
5. Abortion unjustly impairs a being’s development.

These arguments show that the pro-life position can be defended with a variety of powerful
philosophical arguments. It behooves pro-lifers to learn these arguments so they can engage
even the most sophisticated defenses of abortion.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/five-non-religious-arguments-against-
abortion
ABORTION (DEBATE):

PRO-LIFE DEBATE (CONS)

Abortion might personally affect you or someone you know: you or a partner, spouse, relative
or friend may have had an abortion, have considered abortion, or will have an abortion. But
what is an abortion? There are a number of common definitions, some of which are better and
others which are worse:
Definition 1: An abortion is the murder of an unborn baby or child.

Definition 2: An abortion is the intentional termination of a fetus to end a pregnancy.

Definition 3: An abortion is the intentional killing of a fetus to end a pregnancy.

-Written in the ten commandments one of the sayings are “Thou shalt not kill”. Abortion is
the killing of a unborn child. Which is against in the Bible.

-“Murder” means “wrongful killing,” and so this definition implies that abortion is wrong
Abortion ends a life.

-Some argue abortion is wrong because “life begins at conception,” whereas those who
support abortion sometimes respond that “fetuses aren’t even alive!”

- Fetuses are alive. It is a distinct individual human being which should be given the same
basic rights as every other human on earth including the right to life. Since its a human,
regular laws should apply to it. Killing it should be considered murder because it is a human life
that is being taken. No different from the murder of an adult.

- if the Bible says an action is wrong, then it really is wrong.

-Written in:

Matthew 18:14
-So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones
should perish.

-Therefore, you are killing something that is a blessing. A gift coming from God. Generally
speaking, if fetuses aren’t human and are just a clump of cells. They are something we came
from, fetuses naturally develop into adults. Killing a fetus deprives it of the same sort of
valuable future that an adult is deprived of in being killed and this makes abortion seriously
wrong. Robbing the future of a developing child.
EXTRA:

-Saying it’s the Woman’s right’s to control her body, to whether decide to abort. Like I said
fetuses naturally develop into a human being, making it also a human like us.

-If you have had an abortion, you will go through many stages of grief, sorrow and the unending
wave of guilt. Letting the unborn child experience the future we have is such a gift.

-If you aren’t ready to be a mother, put the child in adoption. You may wonder what is the life
of the child not experiencing reality? They will go through severe depression and loneliness
cause not everyone gets adopted. But it is only for a matter of time, time moves so does our
lives. Instead of aborting the child you’ll get criticized by the people around you.

-People who deny that are denying science. The fetus, in every cell of its body, has a complete
set of human DNA that is unique to it. This makes it factually a member of the human species
and differentiates it from its mother.

PRO-CHOICE DEBATE (PROS)

-When you are raped and don’t want to be a mother at such a young age. You would abort
the child. If you aren’t financially stable and can’t have access for support you would abort
the child.

-Forcing a Woman to carry a pregnancy even when she doesn’t want it is like taking her
future away, her freedom. You might say how about putting the child in adoption?

-Putting the child in adoption will put the child’s future at risk. We aren’t certain the child will
be adopted immediately. Some adoption can’t even support the needs of children. Ever
thought what the child has to go through? And won’t you feel guilty about it?

-It is the woman’s right to abort. How would you feel carrying something in your womb while
you aren’t ready yet? And the cause of it is rape?

- When pregnancy is unplanned, women may feel they are too old, too busy, or not yet ready.
Similarly, some women feel that they are not yet emotionally or mentally prepared to care for a
child or even handle a pregnancy.

Pros are listed as arguments in favor of making a particular decision or action. Cons are
arguments against it.