Three Bad Arguments against Life Beginning at Conception

In a piece over at Stand to Reason, Amy K. Hall lists three ways pro-aborts use to try and convince us that life doesn’t begin at conception and that embryonic humans are not valuable human beings. Anyone who has a heart will find their reasoning both infuriating and horrifying. Hall writes:

A recent article on Romper argues “3 Ways Science Proves Life Doesn’t Begin at Conception,” and the arguments are not good ones. To begin with, the author is not actually arguing that embryonic humans are not alive (this is clear, since she also argues we should be allowed to kill them). Rather, she’s arguing that these reasons prove embryonic human beings are not valuablehuman life.

To test whether her reasons prove embryonic human beings are not valuable—i.e., 1) many embryos die, 2) many embryos have genetic abnormalities, and 3) embryos can’t survive without receiving sustenance from another human being—I’ve slightly adjusted the words of the three points in her article in order to apply her value-determining principles to newborns. Since we’re not used to hearing these arguments made about newborns, you’ll hear them with fresh ears, which should provide some clarity. See if you find them convincing.

View article →