Since 1973, abortion has been one of the gravest moral evils of modern western society. Ever since the historic case of Roe v. Wade, hundreds of millions of human beings around the country have been murdered in the womb. However, this atrocity is also supported by many people on the pro-choice side of the aisle, claiming that abortion preserves the woman’s right to choose, and that men should stop oppressing women by telling them what they can’t do with their bodies. In 2019 the abortion debate resurfaced as a result of the bills in the state legislatures of Alabama and Georgia significantly restricting (and virtually outlawing) abortion. In reaction to this, several protesters dressed up as the women from the book The Handmaid’s Tale, thereby comparing these bills to the sexist oppression of women by male hierarchs.
When approaching conversations about abortion as a pro-lifer, I like to stick to reason and avoid citing the Bible or the Catholic faith, not because I am ashamed of the faith, but because most pro-choice advocates I talk to are not Christian. A solid case against abortion can be made without having to appeal to religion, and this can help create common ground with non-believers and can also help avoid the accusation that pro-lifers are only against abortion because their religion says so. What I want to do today is address three common attacks against the pro-life position and expose their underlying assumptions and flaws. My goal is to give those who favor abortion something to think about, as well as to demonstrate sound arguments to pro-lifers.
1.) Abortion is a woman’s choice. You shouldn’t tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body.
All serious pro-life advocates agree with bodily autonomy. Obviously, all people should be free from government compulsion to do whatever they want with their body, provided that it doesn’t harm anyone else. That’s the key in this debate. By arguing that it’s the woman’s body and so it’s her choice, the pro-choicer automatically assumes that the fetus in the womb is part of the woman’s body. As a matter of fact, one increasingly popular way of referring to the unborn baby is a “clump of cells,” reducing abortion to nothing more than the removal of a polyp or cyst. The reality, however, is that the unborn baby, regardless if it’s a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus, contains its own unique genetic code, its own heartbeat, body parts (whether they’re grown or developing shouldn’t matter; human beings are always physically developing), eye color, hair color, and sex. Many pro-life supporters use the following illustration to highlight the individuality of the baby in the womb: If the unborn child is a boy, and according to your argument unborn children are parts of their mothers’ bodies, then does the mother have both an XX and XY pair of sex chromosomes? Would the mother also have a set of male genitalia in addition to her female genitalia? This question underscores the error in denying the fact that the baby in the womb is in fact an individual human being, and as such, the mother cannot correctly say that she can abort because it’s her body. Since the child is not her body, she cannot kill that child.
2.) You should really think about pregnant women in poverty. Outlawing abortion forces women to raise a child they cannot financially support. If you really cared about pro-life issues, you would care about the economic life of the child after birth.
There are so many problems with this argument. One of the most disturbing parts of the issue is that it implies that the child in the womb really is a life, but it’s not a life worth living. Pro-choicers use this line of thinking when talking about unborn children who will be born with disabilities. If they are not aborted, they will suffer, so why not save them the trouble and kill them now? Some pro-choice advocates may not think that the fetus is a life and simply use this argument as an excuse to deviate from the issue of whether the unborn are human.
One great way to get them to see the absurdity in the argument is by asking whether they would allow this to happen if the child was two years old. Let’s say that the mother’s husband walked out on her, she lost her job, and she has no longer has any stable source of income. She also cares for her two-year-old daughter. Should she be allowed to kill her daughter in order to make it financially easier? Most people would say no, but if the mother shouldn't kill her two-year-old child, why should she be allowed to kill her unborn child? Is it because unborn babies are small, undeveloped, and look different from us? Clearly, this would be an undue prejudice against the unborn, especially concerning their outer appearance and where they happen to be located (in this case, inside the womb). Is it because the pro-choice advocate doesn’t recognize the unborn as human beings?
At this point, the discussion can go back to the real issue of whether the unborn are people. Anything outside of that topic is beside the point, because if we shouldn’t kill a two-year-old to achieve financial relief or to “spare” them from a life of disability, we shouldn’t do so to an unborn child either. This is true even if the mother is in poverty. Human beings are not expendable based on convenience, due to the inherent dignity that all people possess.
3.) Life is determined by viability, not by conception.
For those who are unfamiliar with the term, viability refers to how likely the baby can live on its own outside the womb. This is a very questionable standard for what counts as human life, because viability differs from place to place. Some hospitals in impoverished countries may not have access to all of the latest medical technology, and thus cannot ensure the survival of premature babies that developed nations can. As such, a viable baby born in a poor community will be significantly different from one born in a hospital with easy access to the proper medical equipment. A 24-week-old child may be viable in the United States, for instance, but not in Sub-Saharan Africa. If you were to take the American baby and treat it the way an impoverished hospital would, it would lose its viability. Would it also lose its humanity then?
Another flaw with the viability argument is that it would also have to negate the humanity of lots of born people. Just because the child depends on physical attachment to the mother for survival (which compromises its viability) doesn't make it any less human. Think of people attached to life support, or diabetics who depend on insulin to keep on living. If you were to take away the patient’s life support or the diabetic’s insulin, they will die. Does that make them any less human as fully-functioning people, just because they depend on something else for their continued existence? Of course not! Therefore, in the same way, just because the unborn depend on their mothers for life, they are not any less human than those who exist independently of their mothers. This shows that the problem with drawing the line at viability rather than conception is that you would also have to deny the humanity of many born people.
Abortion can become a heated debate very quickly, but it doesn’t have devolve into a shouting match or physical violence. By asking questions and using reasonable arguments, we in the pro-life movement can work to help those on the pro-choice side to better understand our position. Being pro-life has nothing to do with oppressing women or not caring about economic injustice. To be pro-life means to be concerned with the protection of the inherent dignity of each and every human being. To be pro-life means to be a voice for the voiceless. To be pro-life means to recognize that every human life is worth living, not for some utilitarian reason, but because every person is made in the image and likeness of God.
Comments