Women should have the right to control their own bodies.

If is not a baby, the woman is not pregnant. In other words, the notion of pregnancy automatically co notates another human being - no one would ever call a woman “pregnant” who did not at least think that she had a new, individual, member of the human species growing inside her.
The average person who supports abortion is uncomfortable with late-term, third trimester, or multiple/repeat abortions. If one adheres to the idea that because the baby is inside the woman’s body, that this location justifies the killing of the fetus, then why would there be discomfort at the notion of third trimester or multiple abortions? Is not the baby still inside the mother even at nine months? Why do people squirm at the notion of partial birth abortion, when the reason for abortion, the “right to control one’s body,” is still as present as it was in the first trimester?

The unborn may be a human being, but it is not a person. Charter rights only protect persons, therefore the unborn are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Who can absolutely and definitively claim to know when personhood begins? And make that claim with such absolute confidence that they would be willing to waver someone’s life on it?

Many people who claim to support the pro-abortion position would consider themselves moral relativists of one sort or another. In other words, to support the pro-abortion position, one must make the claim that a woman should be able to make her own decision. What ever she decides to be right in her current situation is right for her.

But this does not answer the question of the humanity or personhood of the unborn. Clearly, as we have shown, when a woman is pregnant she is carrying a new member of the human species, and those who support abortion are claiming that the woman’s right to abort supersedes the child’s right to life for various reasons, one of them being that the unborn child has not attained personhood status. But the relativist who claims that it is a matter of personal choice, must suddenly become an absolute absolutist in their insistence that a) it is in fact a woman’s choice, and b) that the unborn is indeed not a person.

So the pro-abortion relativist must simultaneously hold two very contradictory positions – that everything is relative (a statement that contradicts itself) – and that they have absolute knowledge that the unborn is not a person – so absolutely certain are they, that they would be willing to kill.

If we do not know for certain when human personhood begins, can we take the chance and kill anyway? Is not knowing when human personhood begins a license to kill? Would a demolition company be justified saying “We are not sure if there are people in that building over there, but let’s go ahead and blow it up anyway?”

The pro-lifer on the other hand, holds that not everything is relative; that human action is guided by principles, which govern our nature. These principles should be followed, despite individual circumstances, in order for people and hence society to be truly happy.

One of those principles is that human life is sacred, and that to deliberately take human life is a serious moral wrong that harms not only those involved in the killing, and those whose lives are taken, but the individuals who survive them.

The question is not when personhood begins, but to whom personhood belongs. The pro-lifer knows that trying to determine the exact moment when “personhood begins”, so that we can justify killing, is a game of semantics. Rather than attempting to draw lines in the sand, the pro-life position holds that personhood doesn’t begin, it belongs to a being of human origin. If the beginning of human origin is conception, then that is when personhood begins. This is the most inclusive way to address the issue.

The unborn does not ACT like a fully functioning human being. She doesn’t have the ability to think, reflect, or have self-awareness. The unborn doesn’t look like a person, and is dependent on her mother for her life.

• At each stage of development, a human being looks and acts the way it ought to at that stage. People look different throughout their entire lives. The pro-life position does not exclude the unborn because of the way they look. That is basic discrimination. The pro-life position includes all human beings at all stages of their development, whether they are embryonic, fetal, toddlers, adolescents or senior citizens.
• The pro-life position also does not exclude the unborn based on their current capacity to function as human beings. All human beings function at a level that is appropriate to their current state of development. A being of human origin is a being whose life must be protected because of its inherent capacity to function as a human being, not its current capacity.

For example, a newborn calf has a much greater capacity to function than a newborn baby. Newborn calves can walk and run within minutes of delivery. They know where to go for food and can begin to fend for themselves to some degree. Newborn babies are relatively helpless and have little functionality. No one would ever claim, that based on the current capacity to function, the calf should be placed in the nursery and the baby in the barn yard. This is an absurd proposition, because we all know that the inherent capacity of the baby, though it can currently do very little, is very great. The baby has the inherent capacity to become the CEO of a major corporation, while the highly functioning calf never will.
This example serves well to illustrate that our humanity is not dependent on current functionality, but rather on the inherent capacity that is present within all of us, regardless of our ability to utilize it at the present moment.

• Human personhood should not depend on such things as level of development. Where would we draw the line? What if someone decided that the level of development of a three year old was not enough to constitute personhood?
• Human beings come in all shapes and sizes. We cannot use size to determine someone’s humanity. The fact that they are of human origin is sufficient.
• Clearly the environment of the person should have no bearing on whether or not they are a person. Again, the fact that they are a being of human origin is sufficient.
• Degree of dependency also cannot be a factor in determining personhood, as we are all dependent on our various environments. We depend on oxygen, food and water for our survival. No one is without dependency for existence – clearly this could not be a factor in determining humanity as it would exclude us all!
• Determining the humanity of something in order to kill it cannot be left up to mere opinion. Hitler was of the opinion that the Jews were not human. Many Americans were of the opinion that black people were not human. Women were not considered persons within law in Canada. Opinions are often wrong and frequently change – hence opinion is not the way to determine someone’s humanity or personhood especially if their life depends on it. OBJECTIVE CRITERIA must be invoked and the only place to look for objective criteria is nature – the way things are.
• The only objective criterion we have to know whether or not something is human is to look to its origin. Is this a being of human origin? In other words, does it have a human father and a human mother? If so, than it is a human being and human beings have fundamental rights – the first of which is the right to not be killed.

You cannot force your morality on others. Every situation is different.

• These arguments come from a deeply seated philosophy that is very prevalent in our society today called Moral Relativism. Virtually everything you know or believe is based on an objective reality, without which you would not be able to know anything at all. Moral relativism tries to confuse our subjective feelings with things that are objectively true. The pro-life position regarding abortion is an objective moral claim. It is not a feeling, preference or personal opinion. The pro-life position does not state that we personally dislike abortion, but rather that it is objectively morally wrong for all people, at all times.

• To say “ you cannot force your morality on others” is self-refuting. You are forcing your morality on me by telling me that I cannot force my morality on others. In other words, if you have no right to tell others that their actions are wrong, then by saying ‘”don’t force your morality…” you are telling me that my actions are wrong.
• If I cannot tell others that their actions are wrong, then I cannot condemn what Hitler did to the Jews, what Charles Manson did to his victims, or what Jeffrey Dalmer did to his. I would be required to look at the actions of Mother Teresa and Osama Bin Laden as being equal. If I cannot tell people that their actions are wrong then I cannot condemn child abuse, slavery, smoking (which our society frowns upon) or murder.
• Moral Relativism is inconsistent with daily living. Try stealing the purse or wallet of someone who believes that there is no objective moral right and wrong. If they protest, tell them that you believe there is nothing wrong with stealing.
• We judge the actions of others all the time in order to determine whether they will be a good friend or spouse, whether they will do well in a specific job, or a high school or university program. A resume is a summary of all the things that you have done that tells employers what kind of character you have and whether or not you will be a suitable employee. Actions can be judged as objectively right or wrong. That is the very basis of all law. We are not, however, permitted to judge and condemn people, only what they do. God hates sin, but He loves the sinner.

Who is going to raise all of these children? Our world is already overpopulated.

• Get the facts: The Toronto Star, Sept. 26, 2002 “The number of babies born in Canada in 2000 hit its lowest level since 1946, driving the country’s fertility rate to a record low, says Statistics Canada. “

• The Globe and Mail: Sept. 26, 2002 “ The Stats Can report says that 327,882 babies were born in Canada in 2000, the lowest level in 56 years…. the data released yesterday reflects a world-wide trend that is pushing the median age in developed countries beyond 40. The statistics serve to reinforce government assertions that increased immigration is necessary to maintain a viable work force.”
• The countries of the developed world are not replacing themselves. In fact the fertility rate is lower than that of endangered species. Endangered species reproduce at a rate of 1.5 per couple. We are at a rate of 1.49. Of the 327, 882 babies that were born in Canada in 2000, there were over 120,000 abortions. That means that approximately one in three pregnancies in Canada end in abortion.
• In order to maintain a work force and keep the economy buoyant, the government must ensure at least 150,000 to 200,000 people come to Canada from other countries every year.

• NEW YORK, Aug 21, 02 - The New York Times issued warnings from United Nations Statistics chief Dr. Joseph Chamie on Tuesday noting the soon-to-be-felt high toll of the low birth rate in developed countries. The paper described the current situation of low births and growing elderly populations as dynamics which “cause havoc” in retirement systems such as those in place throughout most of the developed world.
• Even if the western world were not in a crisis, it would still be unjustified to kill an innocent person because you did not want to over populate the world. Remember, if the unbon is a human being, no reason is adequate.
• G.K. Chesterton once said that if someone was worried about over-population, they should volunteer themselves to be shot. We just simply would not expect people to allow their lives to be taken for the sake of a problem like overpopulation.

What about rape? How can you expect a woman who has been raped to carry the child to term, and then have the child serve as a constant reminder of that terrible incident.

• Abortion due to rape constitutes less than 2% of all abortions in Canada and the United States. It is uncommon for a woman who is raped to fall pregnant. Should we permit a law allowing abortion on demand just for the sake of 2%? Some abortion advocates appeal to the “rape exception” not with the intention of protecting the victims of rape, but as a means of justifying abortion on demand. The solution to rape is stopping rape.
• Can one horrible act of violence on an innocent person (rape) be redeemed by performing another act of horrible violence on an innocent person (abortion)? Can you think of any other instance where we would kill an innocent human being for the benefit of another?
• Abortion cannot change the fact that the woman was raped, and it certainly cannot heal the pain. A mother’s love for her child can. In almost all cases where the woman has given birth to the child, it has evoked motherly love and care for the child, bringing healing and closure to what started out as a horrible and violent experience.
• Those conceived in rape find the “Rape exception” argument to be highly offensive. They have the same right to have their lives protected as any other person.

If abortion is restricted, women will die from back alley abortions.

• Get the facts: According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968. The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.

• “How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. it was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false… It was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics.” Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 193.
• In the July 1960 edition of the American Journal of Public Health, an article by Dr. Mary Calderon, then medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated: “90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; … They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is… Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.”
• If the unborn are human beings, why should the law be faulted for seeking to protect their lives? If someone suffers while trying to commit a crime, do we legalize the crime so that they won’t hurt themselves the next time it is committed? The purpose of law is to protect innocent human life; what is more innocent than an unborn baby?

Every child should be a wanted child. You cannot force women to bring unwanted children into the world.

• Can ‘not wanting’ a person be a license to kill? Does ‘wanting’ a child suddenly constitute personhood, while ‘not wanting’ the child take it away?
• Get the facts: Legalizing abortion was supposed to help reduce child abuse, since it was assumed most abused children were unwanted. But this theory has been disproved by scientific studies as well as by the evidence that child abuse has sharply increased since abortion became legal.

• In 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States, there were 167,000 cases of child abuse and neglect reported. Yet in 1980 there were 785,100 cases - an increase of 370% from 1973. Furthermore, in 1987, there were 2,025,200 cases reported, which represents an increase of 1112%. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect; National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting).

You cannot take away a women’s right to choose. We should trust women to make their own responsible choices.

• Which is the more fundamental human right, the right to choose or the right to life? In other words, what do we need first and foremost in order to be able to pursue the other just rights accorded to you? Our right to choose is rather limited if we are dead. Obviously we need the right to life before we can have the right to choose. The unborn child also has a right to choose. But in a rights conflict where rights of life are in conflict with rights of choice, life must always be given precedent, because it is more fundamental BY NATURE.

I’m personally opposed to abortion, but it should be up to the mother to decide.

• This, again, is moral relativism. If the act of abortion is the taking of a human life then it is not a matter of personal preference. It is a human rights issue that involves society.

• Acts that are objectively wrong have to be condemned by society for its protection of the individuals within it. If you were witness to the life threatening beating of a child by its parents, would you not want to intervene and forcibly stop the parent? Would it not be a grave injustice to stand by and say “I’m personally opposed to child abuse, but it should be up to the parent to decide”?
• Why are you personally opposed to abortion? If it is not an objective moral evil, if it does not take the life of an unborn child, why be opposed at all? Women should be able to have as many abortions as they want. But if it is the taking of a human life, an objective moral evil, then it should never be permitted. Can it be good for mothers and fathers to kill their children?

We’ve missed the meaning of true freedom by an astonishing mark. Clearly, freedom is not simply the ability to do absolutely anything we want. That’s not freedom at all, but slavery to our ever changing emotions and the power of the strong over the weak. Freedom is the ability to pursue what is truly right, good and true.

When the law sanctions the selfishness of the powerful over the lives of the powerless, it perverts its own function and compounds the moral confusion of those who lack regard for the rights and dignity of others. Law exists to protect the vulnerable from those who would place their selfish desires over others’ rights.

This attitude in society seriously threatens our freedom and those human rights that are inherent and fundamental to all of us.

Special thanks to Toronto and Area Right to Life Association.