PRO-CHOICE SLOGANS ANSWERED

(Excerpts from "Making abortion Unthinkable", by Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf)

"No one knows when life begins"

If you think about it, this statement assumes life begins at birth, which abortion advocates must prove instead of take for granted. By promoting abortion based on the assumption that no one knows when life begins, abortion advocates really do think they know when life begins— at birth, therefore justifying abortion. In the Roe v.Wade trial, Justice Harry Blackmun (who wrote the opinion of the Court) insisted that the Court, in the absence of a moral, theological, and scientific consensus, should not propose one theory of life over another. Hence, they decided abortion should be legal. In making this decision, the court hardly took a neutral position because it in fact assumed who was and was not a person. By allowing abortion, the court essentially assumed that fetuses were not fully human—otherwise, abortion would be unjustifiable homicide. In other words, the Court took a position on who was and was not a member of the human community – and asserted the unborn were not. The Court didn’t prove that the unborn were not human beings; it merely assumed this point, all the while claiming neutrality.

"It's only a "potential" life"

Pro-abortionists commonly dehumanize the unborn in order to justify abortion by referring to the unborn as a “potential life.” But calling an unborn child a “potential life” is just a clever rhetorical trick. There is no such thing as a “potential life.” There are two options. First, we can potentially create life, that is, create a potential for life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex, there’s potential in their conduct for life to be created. Second, we can create a life with potential, one that has the possibility of developing into something good or noble. But that’s the end of our options. We either potentially create a life or we create a life with potential. We never create a “potential life.” This line of thinking is the same as saying, “I just had a potential thought.” What could that possibly mean? You either had a thought or you didn’t. You could have the potential for a thought, or you could have a thought with potential. But you never have a “potential” thought. In the same way, pregnancy doesn’t create a potential life. If it did, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion, not a potential one, is needed to end pregnancy, a real life must be involved, not a potential one.

"Men shouldn't have anything to say about abortion — it's a woman's issue"

This challenge ignores the issue of abortion and attacks the gender of the pro-lifer. It is, therefore, an ad hominem attack. This attack is hardly relevant, since arguments don’t have sexual organs. Gender has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. This reply is sexist, pure and simple. If this attack were valid, should women be silent when men molest children? Interestingly, the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand in 1973 was decided by male judges.

"The fetus isn't human until birth"

Do humans forfeit their worth when they change locations? Baby Rachel (Rachel Caruso) was born prematurely at 24 weeks, in the middle of her mother’s second trimester. On the day of her birth, Rachel weighed 1 pound, 9 ounces, but dropped to just under 1 pound soon after. She was so small she could rest in the palm of her daddy’s hand. She was a tiny human living person. Heroic measures were taken to save her life because she was a vulnerable and valuable human being. If a doctor had killed Rachel while she quietly slept at her mother’s breast, we would have recoiled in horror at this homicide. However, if this same little girl—the very same Rachel—was inches away from the outside world, resting inside her mother’s womb, she could be legally killed by abortion.

Here’s the question: If we are valuable human persons, do we cease being valuable because we move locations by crossing the street, moving from the kitchen to the den, or simply rolling over in bed? If it’s wrong to kill an innocent human child at one location, then it’s wrong to kill that same innocent human child located six inches away. If it is considered homicide to take the life of any child like little Rachel outside her mother’s womb, then why is it legally protected to take the same life for the same reasons at exactly the same stage of development while inside her mother’s womb? Nothing changes except the child’s location. If this is true, then minimally all mid-to-late-term abortions (Rachel’s birth age) are immoral because the liberty to kill the child is based merely on the child’s location. Clearly, one’s environment can’t be the deciding factor. Changing locations is morally trivial. Conclusion: Environment has no bearing on who we are.

"You don't care that unwanted children will be abused. The pro-choice motto is "Every Child a Wanted Child"

When an objection begins with “You don’t care . . .”, you know it is a personal attack that strays from the argument. The “Every child a wanted child” defense disguises an insidious moral equation. Killing a child is less offensive than abusing him, and molestation is more evil than murder. In fact, they offer killing the child through abortion as an antidote for abuse. The slogan should be changed from “Every child a wanted child” to “Every child a valued child.” This makes us responsible for valuing the human beings in our care instead of discarding them when they become burdensome. Each of the above examples does nothing to refute the pro-life position that it’s wrong to kill unborn human beings. Instead, they attack the individual pro-lifer.

"Abortion should be restricted only after viability"

The unborn’s dependency on his mother for biological sustenance is irrelevant to the baby’s value. No baby is “viable” if degree of dependency matters. Babies of all ages depend on their mothers for feeding, whether via blood (an umbilical cord), breast, or bottle. In this sense, no child is “viable” even years after she’s born. Human beings may be dependent on others for their survival, but they aren’t dependent on others for their value. All physically dependent people are at risk if degree of dependency determines their value. If dependence on an external source makes one non-human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, pacemakers, and insulin would have to be declared non-persons.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson—formerly one of the largest abortion providers in New York City and an original founder of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League)—now points out as a prolifer that there is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon her mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine. Dependence (viability) doesn’t change what the unborn is: a separate, unique, living being. If dependency determines worth, then no moral principle protects the weak and vulnerable from the strong and powerful. Conclusion: Dependency does not determine worth.

"Women have the right to control their own bodies"

The statement assumes there is only one body involved in the abortion act —the mother’s. Whether or not abortion involves one body or two is precisely the point at issue. Hence, this statement begs the question of whether or not abortion destroys an innocent human being must be answered before the appeal to bodily rights can be made. We must answer whether we have a right to use our bodies to harm innocent human beings.

"It is hypocrytical for pro-lifers to oppose abortion unless they are willing to care for the woman and her child"

It simply does not follow that because one objects to the killing of innocent human being, he must be willing to care for those that survive. Imagine, for example, how bizarre it would sound if someone argued, “You have no right telling me not to beat my wife unless you’re willing to marry her,” or, “Unless you are willing to hire ex-slaves for your business, you have no right to oppose slavery.” (Indeed, slave owners used this very argument a century ago.) It also doesn’t follow that abortion is justified when pro-lifers fail to care for those involved in a crisis pregnancy (both mother and baby). Even so, pro-lifers are willing to care for those involved in crisis pregnancies. Roughly 4,000 national and international pro-life service providers are dedicated to the well-being of mothers in crisis who choose life for their children. They provide medical aid, pregnancy support, housing, baby clothing, cribs, food, adoption services—even post-abortion counseling services—all at no cost.

"Without legal abortion, women will die from illegal back-alley abortions"

This argument is the same as saying, “Because some people may die attempting to kill their unborn child, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so.” This argument still begs the question by assuming the unborn are not human. Should we legalize bank robbery in order to protect the robber from getting injured or killed in the process? Even pro-abortion philosopher Mary Anne Warren knows this is sloppy thinking: “The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that restrictions are unjustified—since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of forbidding it.”

"If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

Unfortunately, the reasoning behind this bumper sticker misses the point. The point is not whether we trust a person to make the right or wrong choice with regards to their unwanted pregnancy, but rather that there are some choices no one should be “trusted” to make at all. One such choice is the choice to kill innocent human beings. The question of the morality of abortion has nothing to do with personal choice. It has to do with killing an innocent human being for frivolous reasons. This is never defensible. Further, no one is “trusting” the mother with a child. She doesn’t need permission to get pregnant. Because of the nature of motherhood, this is properly out of the state’s control.

"If you don't like abortion don't have one"

Abortion advocates assume that right and wrong is different for different people. This assumption manifests itself in statements like, “You have your truth; I have my truth. Therefore, we should be tolerant of all views. Maybe abortion is wrong for you, but it might be right for others.” This flaw turns the pro-life moral claim about abortion (“Abortion is wrong”) into a preference claim (“I don’t like abortion”). Of course, this misses our point entirely. Twisting objective claims into subjective claims is known as “moral relativism”—the view that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, only personal preferences, like tastes in ice cream.

This is one of the most common ways that abortion advocates relativize the pro-life position. They treat our view as a mere preference that we’re forcing on others. However, it’s not that we don’t like abortion and would prefer that people not have one. We think abortion is wrong, whether we like it or not. This argument confuses our moral claim with a preference claim.

"I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my view on others"

This relativistic response is known as the “modified pro-choice” position. Though this view may seem difficult to oppose, it’s actually very easy to upend if you ask the right question. Ask the person, “Why do you personally oppose abortion?” Invariably they will reply, “I oppose it because I think abortion kills a human baby, but that’s my own personal view.” At that point, repeat their words back to them, but take the spin off it: “Let me see if I understand you. You actually believe abortion kills a human child, but you think women should be allowed to kill their children if they want to.” If they object to your wording, ask them what part of their view you misunderstood. The fact is, that is the view they hold. You just carried it out to its logical conclusion. Would these same people argue that if they personally opposed slavery, they would not protest if a neighbor wanted to own one? This was precisely what Stephen Douglas argued in his debates with Abraham Lincoln. This argument did not work with slavery, and it will not work with abortion. Either elective abortion kills a defenseless child or it does not. If it does, we should not tolerate it.