Argumentum ad populum

There are many problems with your theory. Here are just the main ones.

First, it makes an uneducated guess about what makes women turn away

from abortions. Ask anyone working at a pregnancy resource center and

they'll tell you 9 out of 10 women will decide against abortion after

viewing their ultrasound. Women are not operating off of some sort of

moral yardstick of the mental capabilities of their offspring; they're

going off of subjective asthetic traits that trigger the natural

evolutionary instinct to protect, especially to protect our offspring.

Secondly, it misinterprets the statistics of when abortions are

performed. Late-term abortions are rare because women typcally

discover they're pregnant pretty early on. This is further

demonstrated by the statistic about women who were not able to abort

earlier. Of course, if they WERE able to abort earlier, I could see no

reason why they would opt to wait. Especially seeing as earlier-term

abortions are safer for her and less expensive.

Thirdly, it portrays a gross lack of understanding of the process of

sexual reproduction. The sperm cell and the egg cell will never

develop into anything. The sperm is part of the male and the egg is

part of the female. But when fertilization occurs, they fuse to form a

new single-celled organism called a zygote. This new organism belongs

to the same species as his or her parents, marked by the DNA that will

guide lifelong development; in human reproduction, for example,

fertlilization brings about a new human. The zygote is neither sperm

nor egg, but a new entity altogether, the first band on the

developmental continuum of life. The sperm and egg are "alive" in the

same sense that the cells in your eyeballs are alive, but they are part of

a larger organism (the man or woman, respectively. The zygote,

however, is an organism (in the case of human reproduction, a human)

of his or her own right.

Fourthly, you offer no justification for why these seemingly

arbitrary and vague psychological criteria should be used to deny any

human being his or her most basic human right: the right to live.

Fifthly, you call on people who already disagree with your basic

premise (which you make no attempt to argue for) to solve the problem

of late-term abortions by making early-term abortions more accessible.

To us, this is like saying we can stop the murder of ten-year-olds by

allowing, promoting, and "being okay with" the murder of nine-year-olds.

Sixthly, the embryo does not go through "transformations" at all;

fertilization marks the beginning of the process of human development,

a process that continues until death.

Seventhly, I disagree that abortion is a state's issue, but I see where

Republicans are coming from: violence of all sorts is handled on a state-

by-state basis.

Eighthly, there is no such thing as a "fertilized egg". After fertilization,

the sperm and egg unite to form a zygote. "Fertilized egg" is about as

meaningful as "melted ice cube".

If you're a pregnant woman, I'm sorry, and it's sad, but your son or

daughter's body is not yours.

Also, more Americans are pro-life than are pro-choice: