The pro-life argument is described as a moral debate, however it is largely a philosophical debate regarding the beginning of life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay For many years science has told us that the beginning of life is at conception, however, in modern times the line is starting to blur significantly. The four main issues of the Pro-Choice argument are: They claim so heavily that they are all about choice, but they never give choices to the helpless human being inside the mother. Any line drawn to indicate life beyond conception can be applied to the present day. adults, so the line is unreasonable. Their greatest defense of their access to abortion is based on less than 2% of the data. They believe that giving the child up for adoption is an injustice to him. So in this essay I will argue that the Pro-Life argument is very much in line with American values ​​and law. The child is never given a choice. The reason this is a philosophical problem is that the mother's choice immediately determines the child's life and future. When the mother decides to take away the future of that living child, her decision is unquestioned. However, later, when the baby is born and placed in her arms, if she killed him, she would be arrested for murder. The dilemma is that Pro-Choice advocates argue that the position of the child's body determines whether the murder is legal or not, which is conceptually absurd. It is basically legal to kill a baby because it is trapped in the mother's womb, however, as soon as a single body part comes out of the mother, it is considered a human being with full rights and is therefore illegal to kill it. Overall, the baby's life should not be determined by his physical position (womb or in arms). Life and law should apply to all people, even those who cannot speak. Second, when a group of scientists claims that a certain trait is the definition of life, they immediately endanger a population of adults who share those traits. Some scientists, for example, argue that the heartbeat defines life. Therefore, any baby less than 3 weeks old, or without a heartbeat, is not alive, so it is okay to kill them. The problem is that there is a significant population of adults who have no real heartbeat and live on a pacemaker, an artificial heart machine. According to pro-Choice logic, then, someone should be able to kill those people because they are not considered alive. It's easy to see that this logic is ridiculous. Another example commonly cited as the beginning of life is brain activity. Therefore, any baby younger than 5 weeks old or without brain activity is not alive. So it's okay to kill that child. The problem is that there is a significant population of adults who have no brain activity at all, such as anyone in a deep coma. According to pro-Choice logic, then, someone should be able to kill those people because they are not considered alive. Again, this is absurd. Finally, many scientists believe that sensitivity marks the beginning of life, so a child cannot be considered alive until it is born. Someone who is sentient will have the ability to receive internal sensations and information from their environment and then interpret it as an emotion. Again, there are many times when humans are not sentient and, by pro-Choice logic, someone should be able to kill them. An example of this is when.