Dignity & Value | Debunking Pro-Abortion Arguments: Ep. 2 | Lydia Taylor Davis

“No pain, not viable, not conscious”… NONE of that makes killing okay. In this episode of Debunking Pro-Abortion Arguments, Lydia takes apart the argument that preborn children only matter when they can feel pain, survive outside the womb, or think like us. Human rights aren’t earned– they’re inherent. If we base someone’s value on their abilities, then newborns, people with disabilities, and even unconscious adults could all be next.

🎧 LISTEN NOW on Youtube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
Welcome to another
episode of debunking pro-abortionarguments.
I'm your host, Lydia, spokespersonfor students for Life of America.
And today, I'll be addressingwhat exactly determines
a preborn baby's valueand right to life With the biology
that says life begins at conception,becoming more and more widespread.
Pro-Choice others have resorted

(00:23):
to other, more extreme argumentsto justify by killing preborn humans.
I hear all the timethat, sure, they're technically humans,
but they aren't persons with valueuntil certain stage of development.
Yes, pro-choice
laws have resorted to the scary logicthat has been used to discriminate
against people groups throughout historythat not all humans deserve equal rights.

(00:46):
Let's delve into some of these arguments.
A common argument I hear is that it's okayto kill pre-born children
because they can't feel pain yet.
However, while the subject has been upfor debate, studies show pre-born
children can feel painas early as 12 weeks of pregnancy
and maybe earlier,
A new study
titled Reconsidering Fetal Pain, publishedin the Journal of Medical Ethics,

(01:09):
showed evidence that pre-born babiesfeel pain in the early weeks of gestation.
However, even at the earliest stagesof pregnancy, when a child
may not be able to feel pain, killingthem is still wrong.
There are disorders and born human beingsin which they're pain.
Sensations don't existand they can't feel pain.
And I hope all of uspro-life and pro-choice would agree.

(01:31):
It's still equally wrong to killthose people who can't feel pain.
A child's ability to feel paindoes not determine their value.
Another common argument is
that abortion is justifiedbecause the baby isn't conscious yet.
Studies showthat consciousness may develop between 20
to 24 weeks of pregnancy,but some aspects of consciousness,

(01:51):
like self-awareness, maynot even fully develop until after birth,
and I would hope that pro-choice userswould agree that newborns at least deserve
equal rights.
Additionally, our expertise onconsciousness is actually really poor,
especially when you consider the caseof Emma murray's child.
Emma murray's prebornchild was diagnosed with having no brain,

(02:13):
or at least very little of it,
and she was toldhe would never be conscious
and likely wouldn't even livebecause he was missing
that part of his brainthat gives consciousness.
However, despite
not having those parts of the brain,her baby was born and by the age of two
was able to say the word mom,demonstrating that the area of the brain
experts believe controlsconsciousness was not accurate.

(02:36):
Pro-Choice was also make the argumentthat ending a preborn child's life
before consciousness.
It's just like pulling the plug on a braindead person.
However, the reason that taking a braindead person off of life
support is more morally acceptableis because that person
has no chanceat ever being conscious again.
If there was a waypeople could gain consciousness

(02:57):
after being brain dead,no one would support pulling the plug.
Then, In the same way,it would be wrong to kill a preborn child
because we know they will be conscious.
Their brain isn't dead, it's developingand the brain doesn't
even fully developuntil around the age 25.
And I would hope pro-choice does agree.
It's not okay to kill teenagersbefore their brains are fully developed.

(03:19):
Ending the life of a preborn childis not justifiable at at any stage.
Next, pro-choice is commonly use viabilityas a standard
in which they believe a preborn childhas value.
Currently, the youngestsurviving baby outside the womb was born
at 21 weeks of pregnancy.
However, 100 years ago, viabilitywas not even close to being at 21 weeks.

(03:42):
This is becauseviability is not based on the baby's
development, but on medical advancements.
The age of childcan survive outside of the womb depends
on how much medical carehas improved for premature babies.
We cannot base human rights on whatmedical advancements we currently have.
Additionally,the child's dependency on a mother's body

(04:02):
to survive before viabilitydoesn't make them worth any less.
Even after birth, a prebornbaby cannot survive
without their mother's bodyfor breast milk, constant care, and so on.
Consider people on life supportwho also can't survive on their own.
Do we value them any less? Of course not.
A person's value does not come fromtheir ability to survive on their own.

(04:24):
It comes from being a human being.
Last pro choices arguethat a child isn't valuable until birth
because they're still inside the mother'sbody.
Newsflash.
There is nothing magical
about the birth canalthat suddenly gives the baby human rights,
ie child's location in or out of the wombdoes not determine their value.
The argument that it's not valuableuntil it's born

(04:46):
comes from no legitimate scientific basis.
Pro-choice was continuingto justify abortion by using
discriminatory arguments.
Every human being,regardless of their size
or development,deserves the right to life.
Thanks for watching this episodeof debunking Pro-abortion Arguments.
If this was helpful,
please make sure to like, subscribe,and share this episode with a friend.