Frequently Asked Questions


A Rebuttal of the Answers Given on the Abortion is Pro-Life (http://www.abortionisprolife.com) Web Page.



What is Abortion?
Capitalism Magazine, the owner of the site, is correct here. Abortion is "the removal of a fetus from the body of a woman which results in the death of the fetus."

What is a fetus?
The author begins the word-playing here. The fetus is not "a potential human being." According to Webster's dictionary, the fetus is "an unborn offspring of a vertebrate animal that is still in the uterus or egg, esp. in its later stages and specif., in humans, from about the eighth week after conception until birth." Where does the author come up with the notion that a fetus is only a "potential" human being? If the fetus has the potential to become a human being, what kind of being will it become if it does not meet its potential? There is no such thing as a "potential" human being. The fetus is a little human being that will grow into an adult human being if given time.

Is a fetus human?
The author answers this question by saying that "a fetus is human tissue (just like your heart, brain, or lungs are human tissue)." This answer is ironic, because the author has obviously not stopped to consider that the fetus has a heart, brain, and lungs. The fetus is not a heart, not a brain, not a lung. The fetus is an unborn human child. (The picture to the right is of an 8 week old fetus.)

Is a fetus a human being?
The author states, "In the primary sense, a fetus is not a separate entity, but is part of a woman's body." That's an odd answer. I wonder if pro-abortionists actually believe this. A woman's arm is part of her body. Will her arm become a separate individual if given enough time to develop? What about her nose, or her eyelashes? Of course not. An unborn child has his own DNA from conception. Half of his chromosomes come from his father, and half from his mother. The child has DNA which is distinct from his mother's. He also possesses his own circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems.

What is the essential issue concerning abortion?
Strangely, the response here is, "The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against her will?" I find this very disturbing. The essential issue cannot be anything other than the question of whether or not the unborn child is a human being. Since the unborn child is a human being (not just human tissue), no one should have the right to take away that life merely because of where that child lives. Please look at the following picture, and see if the pro-abortionist's answer is satisfactory.



Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman?
The author states, "There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave." The comparison between a baby's rights of location and the woman's lifestyle is unequal. In this case, we are to decide which is more important: the child's right to live, or the mother's convenience. Society is not evil to expect that the mother undergo a temporary loss of freedom when the child's life is at stake. Not all things done with one's body are right or legal (rape, stealing, drunk driving, etc.). The woman is free to exercise control over her body to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Some pro-abortionists try to make the analogy of a woman and her child that needs a kidney transplant. Should the woman be forced to give the child her kidney? More than likely she will choose to do so on her own, but should she be forced to do so? Our answer is, of course, no. But does this analogy fit the pregnant woman's situation? Absolutely not. A more proper analogy is this: should a mother who has given her child a kidney be able to take that kidney back once the kidney is in the child's body? I think our answer is again a definite "no." So, should a mother be allowed to take the life of the child in her womb, even though she has already given it? No, now the child has a right to that life.

If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and she becomes pregnant, then doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside her?
Here, Capital Magazine dodges the question to bring up an emotional defense. "Suppose a young college girl is brutally gang raped..." Let it be known that less than 1% of all abortions performed are performed because the mother was raped. This is an argument brought up to draw attention away from the fact that nearly all abortions are performed for convenience. But let us examine the question. The author asks a valid question, "Why destroy the fetus, simply because the woman did not choose to become pregnant?" but then gives a poor response: "This does not make sense: either the fetus has a right to be inside a woman by its nature, or it does not..." Actually, the issue is whether or not it is okay to take the life of an innocent human being because of the actions of his father. In no other circumstance would we argue that a child should be punished for the crimes of her parents.

Is abortion murder?
Here we come across the argument that an unborn child is only a "potential" human being again. There is no such thing as a "potential" human being. Please see my discussion on this in my article, The Personhood of the Unborn.

Isn't the fetus "life", and thus has a right to life?[sic]
The author states well, "Rights only apply to human beings..." Since we have already established that a fetus is a human being (if it is not a human being, what kind of being is it?), a human fetus should be guaranteed the right to life by a rational government.

What is the capitalist view on abortion?
The author replies, "Anyone who advocates the outlawing of abortion...is an enemy of individual rights in principle, and thus of capitalism." Pro-lifers support the individual rights of the unborn children. Pro-abortionists advocate the taking away of the right to life in order to protect a so-called "right to privacy." I would say that the right to life should outweigh the right to privacy, and it is the pro-abortionist who is the enemy of capitalism. I honestly can't think of anything that is more anti-capitalism than systematically eliminating a group of consumers.

Do children have rights?
The author concedes that children have inalienable rights. Capitalism Magazine is unwilling, however, to grant unborn children a right to life, because "a fetus is [not] a physically separate entity." Consider the roughly 50% chance that the fetus is male. If he is not a separate entity from his mother, does this woman possess a penis? Does she possess two brains, two hearts, two sets of lungs? An unborn child is a separate entity, and does have inalienable rights, whether an immoral government is willing to grant them or not.

Do parents own their children like they own their house?
Capitalism Magazine observes, "Parents do not own their children, but are their guardians. Guardians are individuals who make decisions for the child--in the child's best interest--until the child's mind is developed enought so that the child can make decisions for himself." Well-said. However, I do not believe that killing a child is ever in her best interests.