What is the pro-life response to abortionists’ arguments?
Learn how to debate pro-abortion arguments with ease.
(Source: National Right to Life Committee – www.nrlc.com)
Pro-abortion advocates consistently rely on the same arguments they have used for decades. What follows are these arguments broken down into their 5 basic forms, and the corresponding pro-life answer to these claims.
1. Claim: ‘It’s not a baby/person – it’s just a blob of tissue’
When a woman is pregnant, science tells us that the new life she carries is a complete and fully new human being from the moment of fertilization. By the time most abortions can be performed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves. The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a new person/human being as you are from me, and as deserving of protection under the law as we are.
The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can’t be done until after six weeks.
2. Claim: ‘It’s my body/ a women’s choice’
Every mother is faced with profound decisions to make for herself and her child but these decisions can never include the right to kill her baby. Mothers facing difficult pregnancies require accurate and compassionate information about the facts of fetal development as well as the practical help that is available to them through the more than 3,000 mother helping centers around the USA. Mothers have a right to be fully informed about the facts at least 24 hours before making this life or death decision for themselves and their child.
3. Claim: ‘What will we do with all the unwanted kids?’ (Poor babies, overpopulation, abuse, etc.)
We will never end poverty in our world simply by killing poor children. The poor mother who is encouraged to have an abortion today is just as poor tomorrow. Problems such as lack of job security, education, or abuse are not cured by ignoring their existence in a woman’s life and turning to abortion as a way to make it all “go away.”
The problem is lack of development — not population. What women of the world desire are good basic health care for themselves and their families. In those countries where abortion is not legal, it is often because of strong cultural and religious beliefs that respect each new life. That respect needs to be backed up with wiser development plans not more dangerous and deadly abortion activity. In countries where there is not even the guarantee of clean running water, abortion will only become a death sentence for third world women and their babies.
4. Claim: If abortion is made illegal women will die in back alleys’
The numbers often used by pro-abortionists to back their claims are vast fabrications mostly made up by the pro-abortion lobby as admitted by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL. The real numbers of deaths before 1973 are shockingly different. Thirty-nine women died of illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade. Those are thirty-nine tragedies along with their thirty-nine children who also died because of abortion’s violence. The true reason the deaths have decreased from abortion isn’t legalization, it was the widespread introduction of antibiotics into medicine that saved the lives of women who would have otherwise died of botched abortions. In fact, the main forms of abortions have changed very little since the middle of this century! The only thing that legalizing abortion did was to give abortionists the right to hang their shingle on the front door and stop using the back alley!
Mothers deserve better answers than the death of their children through the violence of abortion, legal or illegal. Help us support the work of the more than 3,000 mother helping centers committed to providing real life affirming options for these women and their families.
5. Claim: ‘What about a woman who’s been raped/incest or carrying a disabled/sick child? (the hard cases)’
A. We don’t cure illness by killing the patient. Aborting a child with a disability or illness is the height of prejudice. When a family learns that the child they are expecting may have a special need, that family needs support and good solid medical information — not the death of their most fragile member. Society must flee this attitude that uses arbitrary yard sticks to measure peoples worth.
B. When a woman has been raped or a victim of incest, she has been the victim of a terrifying act of violence of which she is a true victim. Tragically, we are some times faced with a second victim of this great crime committed by the rapist, a baby. While pregnancy is extremely rare from rape, it can happen. The cruelest thing that can happen to the women in question is to now be pitted against her child, who is the second victim. In several studies done across America, women who were encouraged to use abortion in such circumstances felt that they had been put through a second act of violence, the violence and pain of the mechanical rape of abortion. Worse than that, they stated feelings of being made into the victimizer of their own child. they felt that their baby had paid with his/her life for the crime of the rapist.
Meanwhile, mothers who found support to carry their children to term, whether they opted for adoption or kept their babies, felt that they’d turned something horrible into something life-giving. The key here is support for both victims, mother and child.