She received a law degree from Georgetown University.The authors would like to thank Eliza Thurston for her research assistance.Fetal surgery has become a medical specialty, and includes the separate provision of anesthesia to the baby.
Scientists define an organism as a complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry on the activities of life by separately-functioning but mutually dependant organs. The human zygote meets this definition with ease.
Once formed, it initiates a complex sequence of events to ready it for continued development and growth: The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death.
If the medicine and science don't persuade your audience, consider citing authorities from the "pro-choice" community itself.
Mention "Pro-choice" feminist Naomi Wolf, who in a ground-breaking article in 1996, argued that the abortion-rights community should acknowledge the "fetus, in its full humanity" and that abortion causes "a real death." More recently, Kate Michelman, long-time president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, acknowledged that "technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being." Those who justify abortion by claiming that "no one knows when life begins" are not arguing science but rather their own brand of politics, philosophy, or even religion.
Their argument is not about when life begins but about when, or whether, that life deserves legal acknowledgment and protection. Arguing from the Law Most people do not really know what the Supreme Court decided on January 22, 1973.
They assume that the Court made abortion legal in the first trimester of pregnancy only, and that it is subject to substantial limits and regulations today.Arguing from Science The "classic" arguments from the other side are collapsing under the weight of science."No one knows when life begins" and "It's a blob of tissue" are frankly on the wane, especially in the context of surgical abortion, which is how the vast majority of abortions are done today. Still, establishing the evidence of the beginnings of human life will ground your argumentation in science, giving you a firm foundation for additional arguments and preempting the charge that you are basing your position on faith or religious belief.The new human zygote has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique from itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother (thus disproving the claim that what is involved in abortion is merely "a woman and her body"). This DNA includes a complete "design," guiding not only early development but even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood, from hair and eye color to personality traits. It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive.It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Finally, is the human zygote merely a new kind of cell or is it a human organism; that is, a human being?Abortion advocates want to hide this, of course, but liberal journalists such as David Savage of the Los Angeles Times have reported the truth about Roe, saying the Supreme Court created an "absolute right to abortion" under which "any abortion can be justified." Constructing a Pro-Life Legal Argument When you make the pro-life case, explain the basics of the actual ruling of Roe and then use the David Savage quote that Roe created an "absolute right to abortion" under which "any abortion can be justified" -- this allows a liberal LA Times reporter to make the explosive point that Roe created an unlimited abortion right.Chances are your audience will not know that the Court created an unlimited right to abortion, and odds are good that they won't agree with it.But in May 2009, for the first time, a significantly greater percentage of Americans self-identified as "pro-life" than "pro-choice." Be prepared to cite these and other public opinion polls from various organizations (the last bullet point is crucial, it means only a small minority of Americans agree with Roe): One of the best surveys to have in your arsenal was conducted by the Center for Gender Equality, run by former Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton.Its 2003 nationwide survey of women revealed that a majority of women (51%) believe abortion should either never be permitted or permitted only for rape, incest, or life endangerment. That means a majority of women believe abortion should be permitted only in extremely rare circumstances.You will be able to change minds when you inform them that neither of these assumptions is true. Wade did not create a limited right to abortion but a virtually unlimited right to abortion throughout pregnancy.Here's how: The case involved an 1854 Texas law prohibiting abortion except "for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." The plaintiff, whose real name is Norma Mc Corvey, desired a purely elective abortion and filed suit claiming the Texas law deprived her of constitutional rights. While admitting that abortion is not in the text of the Constitution, they nevertheless ruled that a right to abortion was part of an implied "right to privacy" that the Court had fashioned in previous rulings regarding contraception regulations.