1.The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

First off, in order to dissolve this “argument” we need to examine all the parts, the first being that “the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights”. How can personal control over your own body be associated with civil rights? Secondly, why does “forcing” a women to continue a pregnancy (or enforcing common sense or forethought) necessitate or result in “forcing a woman to use contraception” etc.? These things do not flow into a coherent argument! This “argument” totally ignores the real question and instead fills it up with illogical, absurd conclusions that distract you (at first it distracted me too!) from breaking it down logically. The focus is all on the “women’s right” her “reproductive choice” and how banning abortion would oppress and inhibit her “choice”. The argument completely ignores what is actually being addressed, aborting an unborn child. So they are in fact begging the question of what really is being aborted, or what is the unborn? They are assuming that there is only one body involved in the act of abortion! In turn, the debate is no longer about “choice” and who gets to decide. We need to identify what would actually be killed in a supposed women’s choice.

So to break down this argument, I am going to address what here, is being ignored, I am going to define what the unborn is:

Scientifically to begin, the law of biogenesis reveals that living things reproduce after their own kind. Therefore, humans reproduce humans, so if the abortion argument says that fetuses are not human, than what are they? The fetus can be nothing less than human, born or unborn. So back to the question, taking away a women’s supposed reproductive choice is not in fact taking it away but guarding the sanctity of human life that would be destroyed if she acted that out (which in this case really bottom-lines to aborting babies).

I would continue philosophically with the acronym Mr. Klusendorf gave to describe the only differences between the unborn fetus and a newborn:  S.L.E.D. In reference to Size, large people are no more human than small people, so a fetus, being smaller than a newborn, can be no less human than a dwarf/little person to a fully matured adult. Next, Level of development, in keeping with these laws and rules, a four year old is also no less a human being than a 14 year old which is the same case as a fetus being no less human than a newborn baby. Thirdly, as for Environment, where you are does not change your nature, or who you are. A child that is in grocery store in the U.S is no less human than a child that is a market in Switzerland! Therefore, a newborn in an incubator is no less human than a child outside the womb! Lastly, Dependency, those who are diabetics, have kidney failure and those with insulin issues who are dependent on machines, people and organizations to sustain their life but are still human. Dependent, but none the less still human. Just the same with unborn fetuses, they are dependent on other people and machines to sustain them but they are still humans; "because you have a human nature that was present from the moment you were conceived that allows us to say that we are the same person now that was conceived 19-20 years ago. The only difference is function- your abilities have changed but your essential nature is the same."

In conclusion, now that we have defined what the unborn is, the person's illogical argument for a woman's "choice" can provide no reason to kill an innocent unborn fetus.