How can we prove wrong this pro-abortion claim?


Hitler had also used such arbitrary arguments, to say the handicapped were less human persons that could be exterminated


What? No!!

Look up what undifferentiated cells look like.

Completely different.

Funny I think the opposite regarding pro-life arguments. And I AM prolife. I just find many people are not actually understanding the science. Which of course makes the listener reject the message.


But also look at what some serious handicapped looks like! they are completely different from “normal” humans, so Hitler was right to exterminate them.


You didn’t look up differentiated cells did you :wink: This is 4 weeks gestation. Just before specialisation and no brain cells (which is the variable I am using from the original post)


You think this looks the same as someone who is handicapped?
Can you see my point? A pro-choice arguer would not see the connection between this image and a born person with a handicap?

Again I am pro-life. But these massive leaps in arguments (ie Hitler) will turn off many who sit on the fence. They are simply not the same thing.


Sorry but it’s not a matter of sciences. Science finds that an embryo still missing a lot of things , compared to an adult. Do these failings mean that we do not consider it a human person? the answer to this question is not of the order of science, but of the order of phylosophy or ideology.


Yes!! That is my point the whole time. It is a sociology or possible philosophical issue at play here.

We should not be arguing the issue using Biology. We cannot win. Pro Choice understand the biology, they understand the DNA in each cell and they understand that those cells have are biologically alive. They DON’T agree they have the same rights as a fully functioning human.


Why brandish an image as an argument? the use of external appearances is a scientific argument, a reasonable argument?
It’s not because an embryo is so different from us that one should reasonably say that it is not human! it’s so hard to understand that? is it the external appearance that is the essence of an object? so if a child is born with a malformation that makes him look like a dog, you’re going to say that it’s not a human because you just stop at the outward appearance?


Pro-abortion arguments are not rational simply because one can easily use similar arguments to exclude certain people from humanity.


With all due respect you have been using the incorrect terminology and it was clear through your comparisons that you didn’t understand what I meant by differentiation.
Thus the picture.

Again when did I say that? I am telling you that argument won’t hold with someone who is pro choice. Is ear wax human? A tumor? Dead skin cells? When you bleed and lose blood? Cutting you nails? They have exactly the same DNA as each other. They are from a human. But alone are not human.

Now that is just silly. We are not discussing a child born with a deformity. The original post was asking about embryos that have not yet developed brain cells. So let’s keep the variables constant here for argument sake.

And then what I find most puzzling is here you completely agree with me! We can’t use Biology to argue this. Most understand cells have DNA that is human. Most don’t agree that his human has the right to trump the right of the mother. We need to appeal to another argument to change any minds.


No, they have the same DNA certainly, but they have the DNA of the same person who owns them. The embryo does not have the DNA of the mother wearing it. That’s the difference, and the embryo’s DNA is a human DNA, not a carcinogenic DNA


One can easily prove that the arguments of pro-abortion is not reasonable, because in contradiction with facts , when using similar arguments


Point. Missed.
P.S. There is no such thing as carcinogenic DNA.


I prefer not to continue the discussion in this direction, because we will get out of the subject of the OP, and this is not the essence of the current debate.


There is a biological distinction. Biologists study what is called a ‘discrete organism’, a zygote is one, a blood cell is not.

That is why wildlife biologists don’t count tufts of wolf hair as being a wolf. It the tuft of hair is a part of a discrete organism, it is not one itself.

The zygote or fetus is a biologically discrete organism in and of itself. It is NOT biologically a part or component that makes up the mother.

Thus any rational discussion of the issue has to start from that biological fact.


This is an equivocation on the word “alive” and reflects a fundamental confusion between the parts and the whole.

Sperm, ova, and eyebrows are part of a human being. The embryo is a whole and separate human being.

A lot of people are dependent on technology to stay alive. They are still alive, and they are still human beings. The fundamental human right not to be killed should not depend on one’s degree of dependency.

By the way, my newborn babies still depended on me to keep them alive. The body part just changed from umbilical cord to breast.

Again, the tumor is not a human being but part of a human being.

As a member of Feminists for Life, I’m definitely OK with this!

Where you’re Catholic and identify as pro-life, you might appreciate this resource.

I should clarify, however, that in my day-to-day living, I don’t just jump in and engage every pro-choicer like this. With abortion statistics as high as they are, a lot of them have likely had an abortion or fathered an aborted child. So I tread gingerly, listen carefully, and stay compassionate. And I often do take your angle of emphasizing the need for support, resources, and even social programs for pregnant women who need them.


We have this, and have had this for decades. Do some of the programs need tweaking? Maybe, I don’t know all the details.

But overall, I find this a strange argument.


It’s actually not a strange argument if you do research on why women have abortions. Address these underlying issues, and you can stop a lot of abortions.


Our judgement is based on appearances that arise from reality like shadows arise from an object.

The problem with the argument you are reflecting on is that it isn’t aware of this truth, that we judge what the inside of some thing is like by how it behaves on the outside. We think then that just because a fetus doesn’t have the physical organ needed for thinking, that it doesn’t have the principle from which the function arises, and thus the physical organ. But just because a fetus cannot function consciously, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the function, it just means the functioning is frustrated due to the lack of nervous tissue.

We know that functioning can be impaired by damage in the physical organ, but that the same functioning returns when the organ is repaired. Thus the drunkard is back to normal the next day. This means that the function itself existed, but couldn’t act without its necessary instrument.

The same principle applies to fetus, and we know this because when they do grow, they clearly look and act in the same way we do. This means the principle of conscious activity and personal activity is present in the fetus.

And just for a quick reminder, we judge a person a person based on having the same nature, the same principle, and not by how well they behave as a person. This is the principle everyone appeals to when they talk about human rights, inalienable rights, and the wrongness of inequality, so to deny that personhood is rooted in nature is a dead end.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

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