Homeworks academic service


Good thesis statement for being against abortion

This site contains persuasive statements concerning why the unborn have a right to continue to live. Please keep an open mind about these very real persons who are at a stage of their life when they need someone to speak for them. Each and every person created in our world is worth our love. The taking of innocent life is called murder. Take a look at the pictures of aborted babies, murdered babies, lying without legs or arms, in a pile of blood with their little fingers and face features in pain, or listen to what an ex-abortionist doctor says about when they were doing the "PROCEDURE", and how the baby moved away and tried to hide in the walls of the uterus, or that its head moved when the aborted baby was placed a few seconds still alive in the lab desk.

Such direct evidence is very powerful 3. Abortion is not a matter of choice, it's a matter of life and how we value life. Life begins at conception Each individual has a very neat beginning at conception. This is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. Good thesis statement for being against abortion a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being it could not become one, because nothing is added to it. That is, life begins when the sperm and egg get together at conception to form a full set of DNA, without which human life would not begin and progress Dr.

Matthew Roth, of Harvard University, said "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception. The Fourteenth Amendment states, "The State shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No clearly defined point at which to state an embryo is human or is not has ever been empirically established by pro-abortionists. Abortion takes away the right of a human being to live.

Pro-abortionists like to say that the child is only a "potential" human. That the child IS something is obvious.

For and Against Abortion Thesis Statements

Calling her a "potential" human doesn't say what she is, it only speaks to what she will be. I have never heard a pro-abortionist say what the child IS. The reason for that is obvious. They know the answer and that answer is that the child is human. No person or animal has ever been observed to change into some other kind of creature during their lifetime.

If something is a cat, it has always been a cat, and will always be a cat. If someone is a human being then they have always been and will always be a human being. Being dependent does not make one not human or not a person. Having the freedom to choose whether or not an unborn person is to be killed is not a right which can be justified morally or legally. No person has right to destroy the life of another person.

The unborn person is human and physically distinct from the mother and not just part of her own body. The unborn child often has a blood type different from that of the mother. If the differing blood types were to mix, one or both of the mother and child could die. Half of all babies are male. During the pregnancy, is the mother temporarily part male? Without the protection provided by the amniotic sac the unborn child would be expelled from the mother's body as a foreign object.

First, even legal abortions are dangerous to the mother physically and psychologically. Second, it is a fallacy to argue that a law should be changed because some persons will break it. It is a fallacy to argue that pro-life laws are an effort to legislate morality since all laws are passed to restrict or encourage behavior, and hence have some kind of moral view of the world being promoted.

Pro-abortionists good thesis statement for being against abortion that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest.

Report Abuse

Again, a quick answer is "Why? Abortion will not take away the incestuous violation of a young girl. In fact, in the case of incest, abortion helps protect the abuser by helping to hide his crime. Secondly, when rapists are jailed, we do not also jail their children.

Killing a child who is a product of rape or incest punishes the child. It does not punish the rapist or abuser. No civilized society punishes a child with death because of the sins of their parents. I can understand that a woman who is pregnant due to rape or incest may not want the child. However, killing the child just puts the woman in the position of responding to violence with another act of violence.

There are millions of couples eager to adopt babies. There are couples willing to adopt any baby, not just healthy white babies. This allows the woman to not have to forever be reminded of her violation without having to live with the physical and psychological consequences of abortion.

  • Words are powerful weapons;
  • The reason is because we're talking about human beings;
  • Words are powerful weapons;
  • No civilized society punishes a child with death because of the sins of their parents.

The truth is that no conclusive evidence has been provided which proves that an unborn baby is not a person. Since the number of cases concerning the abortion issue involves millions of lives, no sane or humane society would risk committing millions of murders.

Pro-abortionists argue that abortion should be allowed in cases of severe 'fetal deformities'.

Order Your Custom Thesis Writing Now!

Words are powerful weapons. When we want to provoke feelings of compassion we speak of 'handicapped children. If that is the case then why not advocate burning down all of the nation's nursing homes with the residents still inside? A second consideration is that many forms of prenatal testing for handicaps are flawed and unreliable. Do we risk killing a baby for an ailment that she may not really have?

Pro-abortionists argue that pro-lifers are concerned with unborn babies, not women and born children. This is an irrelevant argument since it does not address the issue of whether unborn babies are human or not.

However even so, it is still patently absurd. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be more active in charities than the average person. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be giving help to both child AND mother during and after pregnancy. If that were the case then pro-lifers would not be trying to adopt children. Pro-abortionists argue that abortion prevents unwanted children and therefore prevents child abuse. First, I would suggest that abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

To what greater abuse could a child be subjected than be ripped piece by piece from her mother's womb? Secondly, if this argument were true then the rate of child abuse in the country would have gone DOWN since abortion was legalized in 1973. On the contrary, though, child abuse has gone UP since then. The nonchalant way in which the nation accepts abortion has led to a devaluation of human life that has led to more abuse, not less.

Pro-abortionists argue that most people favor legal abortion.

Let us for the moment assume this is true. I still respond, "So what. If it did we would still have slavery. In any case, this argument is not true.

Polls can be taken that show some support for legalized abortion. However, it is a known fact that poll results can be skewed by the way a question is answered.

If people are asked "Should a women be allowed to make her own medical decisions without governmental interference? However, if they are asked "Should unborn children be protected from being ripped apart in the womb?

Neither question does a good job of determining public opinion. To determine public opinion, questions must be worded in an unbiased way. When people are asked "Do you oppose abortion on demand?

Is this a good thesis statement about being against abortion?

But there's something else that's wrong with this argument and it's something that's wrong with the argument itself. It's something that's functionally wrong with the thinking. It can't work even if none of the pro-lifers want to support the children saved from abortions. The argument doesn't work. Once again, we'll restate the argument. Having restated that and getting an affirmative nod from the person I'm talking with, I want to ask another question.

We herd all of the homeless together, who are really a drag on our resources, and inject them with a poison or gas them. Let's just kill them and get them out of the way. Would you object to that? Your moral objection isn't sound if you aren't willing to take care of the needs that accrue as a result of letting them live.

The reason is because we're talking about human beings. We're talking about people's lives and you don't make a trade off like that. If a person's life is in jeopardy it doesn't matter whether you're willing to care for that life or not for you to have a legitimate moral objection against the taking of that innocent life.