How can we prove wrong this pro-abortion claim?


“A blob of cells” is a scientific term?


I put in the word not, assuming that it was supposed to be there…

Anyway,. This statement can not be true, since each of us human beings has gone through the stage of not yet having differentiated brain cells.

Using this type of logic, Peter Singer could extend his argument by claiming no one is really human until they have kneecaps.


The cells of the early embryo are undifferentiated for just a matter of days. I’m not an embryology expert, but the nervous system begins forming around day 14, the heart starts to beat around day 23, indicating a level of complexity much sooner than most folk imagine. Certainly not a “blob” for 4-5 weeks.


Simple: because that would mean that during a brain transplant surgery, during time his brain removed and new one put in, it is permissible to stab the patient to death.


I think we are forgetting pregnancy is measured as the life of the egg not from time of conception. The egg begins to grow for quite a while before it is released into the fallopian tubes.

So a woman at 4 weeks gestation only had conception at week 2. Implantation has just occured at week 4.

Our times are actually similar. I’m just using accepted pregnancy weeks. You’re using from the day of conception.



My question is, who does the DNA belong too. Just because it does not have a brain, you can guarantee it has DNA. I propose the question, who’s DNA is it?

It’s not the mother’s or the fathers. It’s humans, thus it is the DNA of a human, but which human?


Because most people don’t know when fertilization occurs, they start their counting from the date your last period began.

So it’s automatically about two weeks off of chronological-reality time, give or take a few days.

It’s less of an issue when you’re at 38 weeks or 40 weeks— but it makes a huge difference when someone says, “See, this is what a three-week-old embryo looks like, see how slow and undeveloped it is”— but it may not have even been physically around for more than 7 days.


One is human from the moment of conception, because at that point all the DNA that makes up that unique person is present.


The question to ask this person is where is the biological basis of that claim.

Biology is a very well defined science. So if it is not human, then what species is it? What biologists make this claim, that it changes species when the brain tissue develops. None that I am aware of.

In fact, every single biology text clearly describes the life cycle off all the primates, human included, as beinging at conception. And none change species during the gestation process. If the zygote starts as an ape, it remains an ape until the day that it dies. Likewise with a human, the zygote begins as a human, and remains so until it dies. It does not start as something else and change into a human.

Anything else is a denial of validity of biology, and would be very ‘anti-science’


Again who is arguing against this?

Pro choice advocates know the cells contain human DNA. They know the life cycle of the embryo. That is not up for debate. You won’t win the argument this way. They KNOW this.

What is up for debate is when/is it ok to terminate this potential life? It’s a matter of philosophical debate not biological.

Both educated pro choice and pro life advocates agree on the biological aspect. Just not the moral. That is why as a prolifer I would love to see less or the same arguments which are generally futile.


There’s no “potential.” An embryo/fetus is alive.

I would beg to differ; I encounter a lot of scientific ignorance on the pro-choice side.

I do tend to focus more on the philosophical side, however, like you.


The is entirely consistent. A gold bar that has no value to its owner has no value in law unless the owner asserts its value. “It means nothing to me, he can have it” would get your average gold bar thief off.


So is a sperm. And an ovum. And an eyebrow you pluck. And all are human. The category you are looking for is ‘a human being with full human rights with no regard to the being’s location in relation to another person’. That is the position of the pro-life movement and that is why many people disagree with it.


All the DNA that makes me human is present in each of the cells in my ear. That’s an awful lot of people clinging to my head.


The fetus isn’t property.


the eyebrow does not have a DNA of its own, different from the DNA of the person who has this eyebrow. This is not the case of the embryo, here is the difference


That is debatable by law. It is alive because it is being kept so by the mother. And it is considered ‘potential’ at this stage considering 1/3 will end in natural miscarriage due to chromosomal disorders.

Exactly! And this is why those arguments using biological viability arguments fall flat.
Technically a tumor is full of your DNA considering it is uncontrolled cell growth. No one would think it problematic to remove. Apply the same logic.

That is why we need to avoid the argument of biologically human cells. Most educated people understand that is what a embryo is. It doesn’t sway the argument to pro life.

What we need is a greater emphasis on financial and practical solutions for families.


Why would a fetus who breathe through its mother’s body, be less a human peson than a patient who breathes thanks to a machine that gives him oxygen?


This is not my personal argument. I argue that life starts at conception.
But clearly it is debatable considering it is such a derisive argument. This is why laws are managed and created around it. Arguably it is less of a person because (at this discussed stage of the pregnancy) it does not have particularly well formed differentiated or specialized cells. Before brain cells appear all cells in the morula are stem. So the mother is doing much more than just providing oxygen. It is not comparable to a adult who cannot breath well.

Secondly many would argue that someone brain-dead being kept alive by machines shouldn’t be artificially kept alive.


So what? if a baby is born with a malformation because of some missing cells he will not be considered a human? Does the fact that a fetus has only one type of cell is a fair criterion to say that it is not a human when it already has its own DNA?
I find all the arguments of pro-abortion totally irrational

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit