“My body, my choice.”
“Pregnancy is an inconvenience to women.”
“Stay out of my uterus.”
“I have to exercise my reproductive rights.”
“Every child a wanted child.”
“Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”
Slogans like these have become commonplace in our culture, whether they appear on t-shirts, bumper stickers, or Planned Parenthood billboards. With the rise of militant feminism, the jettisoning of organized religion, a denial of moral absolutes and the development of a relativistic, post-modern culture, abortion for convenience seems to be rising as a giant that seems impossible to conquer; a castle so well fortified by emotion and sympathy that even the sharpest arrows of logic cannot penetrate its walls.
What many fail to notice though, is that this castle is built on sand. Once someone puts in an effort to dig deep enough and in the right places, its ramparts come tumbling down, exposing its emptiness on the inside. In the following blog post, I have exposed twenty-two such foundations of sand upon which the castle of ‘convenience abortion’ has been built. For the sake of classification, I have divided them into three parts:
- MORAL JUSTIFICATIONS GIVEN BY PRO-CHOICE ACTIVISTS
- MODERN FEMINIST ARGUMENTS FOR ABORTION
- REPLIES TO ARGUMENTS THAT PRO-CHOICERS MAKE AGAINST PRO-LIFERS
Without further ado, let’s go straight into the best arguments that pro-choice advocates use, and the answers that we ought to give them.
MORAL JUSTIFICATIONS GIVEN BY PRO-CHOICE ADVOCATES
Argument #1: “Nobody can know when ‘life’ begins. That is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.”
Contemporary pro-choice activists argue, “No one can actually say when life begins.” I find this to be a very interesting argument. Let me tell you why.
As we speak, NASA is planning numerous missions to Mars in search of life. Imagine that they did find a single-celled bacterium on Mars. I doubt that anyone, not even pro-choice liberals would argue that this is not a life. Why then is it hard to believe that this so-called ‘bundle of cells’ that has the potential to grow and become a fully functional human being, is a life?
The truth is that it is a widely accepted fact among those who have the slightest knowledge of embryology or prenatal development, that life begins at the moment of conception when the egg and the sperm fuse to form a zygote. Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at Rene Descartes University, stated, “After fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being… [this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” The very mission of the American College of Pediatricians is ‘to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception.’ The general medical and scientific consensus seem to agree that there is a living human being in the womb from the point of conception.
“Aha,” you might say, “you are misrepresenting our views. We weren’t trying to argue that a fetus isn’t a living mass of human cells. Instead, what we meant was that no one can actually be sure when a fetus becomes a ‘person’ or a human being. Personhood isn’t something that can be defined by science. It is a philosophical concept.”
“Fair enough,” I would reply, “but if you’re admitting that no one can actually be sure when a fetus becomes a ‘person,’ isn’t it true that you do not know that either? And if you do not know when a fetus becomes a person, isn’t it better to give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus, considering the possibility that it could be a person at that point of time and let it live?”
This is the point at which most left-leaning individuals get ‘triggered.’ It is not because you are wrong, it is because you’ve ‘hurt their feelings’ by telling them that they don’t have the power to dictate what is right and what is wrong to the rest of us. But as Ben Shapiro says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” They really don’t, so always be prepared with hard facts to defend your viewpoint.
Many liberals will tell you, “I’m only pro-choice if the abortion is done before the end of the first trimester,” or “I support abortion only if it the mother is under six months pregnant.” Wait a minute. So you just told me that nobody can be sure when a fetus becomes a ‘person’ and it becomes immoral to kill it, and yet you say it is okay to abort a fetus before the first trimester, i.e. the twelfth week? Are you telling me that the fetus magically turns into a human being/a ‘person’ in the thirteenth week? By setting a time until when abortion can be considered a moral act, pro-choice liberals are actually demolishing their own argument about the ambiguity around the commencement of personhood.
The truth is that, if pro-choice activists really were confused about when personhood actually begins, they would’ve given the fetus the benefit of the doubt and allowed it to live a potentially successful life. Instead, they end up using arguments that are nothing but masses of contradictions and prove nothing but their innate desire to play God and define what is right and wrong.
Argument #2: “Life begins only after the first breath. Isn’t that why birthdays are celebrated after the baby takes its first breath, and not from the point of conception?”
This is the funniest argument for abortion that I’ve ever heard, but hey, there are people who take it seriously. And as long as there are people who take it seriously, I think it deserves to be treated with just as much importance as the other views I will be presenting here.
The basic idea behind this view is that life begins only at the time of birth or just after the child has taken its first breath. Until this point, since the baby has been connected to the mother via the umbilical cord, it is entirely dependent on its mother. But after the cord is cut, the baby begins to use its own organ systems, starts to live an ‘independent’ life.
The problems with this view are numerous. For one, with the exception of the dependence on the mother for its needs, what is so different about the baby on the day before it was born from the day it came out of the womb? Yes, birth is when a baby comes into the world, but how is it any less a baby when it is in the womb? (I have a friend who uses a hilarious argument against this view, stating, “It is ethically wrong to discriminate against a human being based on where they live.”) What about babies who are born prematurely and are put into neo-natal incubators? They came out of the womb before they became ‘independent’ to use their own organs, so are they any less of a ‘life’ than the babies born out of pregnancies that are carried to term for nine months?
Here’s the winner: A baby is not a ‘life’ according to this argument even after it is delivered or it takes its first breath. If you don’t believe me, try asking a mother to leave a baby without feeding it, clothing it or taking care of it. Spoiler alert, the baby dies. So a baby that is born after nine months of pregnancy is still largely dependent on its mother for most, if not all of its needs. Does that make it any less of a life? I don’t know, ask the birthday theorists maybe.
Oh, that reminds me of the second part of the argument. Aren’t birthdays celebrated from the day of birth, and not the moment of conception? Of course, they are. But why in heaven’s name would someone use that to prove their point about the commencement of life? Birthdays are a cultural construct, not a biological or scientific one. That is why it is alright for a person to celebrate their birthday on the twenty-eighth of February, even though they might have been born on the twenty-ninth during a leap year. Birthdays are merely cultural constructs and not scientific proofs of the commencement of personhood.
In summary, this argument is absolutely ridiculous, to say the least, and yet there are many who use it. The beginning of life and the birth of the individual are two distinct events that must not be mixed together, and any attempt to do so will be in vain due to the scientific and logical inconsistencies involved in that form of reasoning.
Argument #3: “A fetus is just as alive as the sperm cells that die if not fertilized or the unfertilized egg that is disposed of during menstruation.”
Yes, it is true that both sperm cells and an egg from a woman’s ovary are living human cells. A fetus consists of a group of living human cells too. Therefore, isn’t the death of a sperm or an ovum a tragic event too? Not necessarily. Just because two things have one thing in common, it doesn’t mean they have everything else in common too. In that case, just scratching your nose is immoral, since it kills cells too.
Both the ovum and the sperm are products of the female’s and male’s bodies. They are not independent entities by themselves. A sperm or an ovum is a living cell, just like the skin cells on your nose. But a fetus is a living organism. A sperm or an ovum is a part of an organism, the human being. Therefore, the death of a sperm cell and the death of a fetus are two distinct events that have different ramifications.
It is also interesting to note that at ~20 weeks of gestational age, the female fetus has almost all the ova she needs for the rest of her life. That once more proves that ova are cells that exist within a woman’s body, just as sperms are cells within a man’s body. Therefore, they are not living organisms. Comparing them to fetuses would be like comparing leaves to trees. A leaf is a part of a tree, but a leaf is not the tree itself.
Furthermore, a sperm or an ovum cannot give life to another organism by themselves. An organism can be formed only by a combination of the two, which results in fertilization.
Thus, this argument fails because it compares two things that are not at the same level: an organism and a cell within an organism.
A side-note about this issue: The pro-choice activist might ask you, “Well if that is true, a tiny snail is a living organism too. If killing living organisms like fetuses is immoral, wouldn’t it be immoral to step on a snail?” The answer to this lies in the idea of the sanctity of human life, which the pro-choicer might not accept. I will not spend time explaining that here, but I will tell you one thing. Yes, it is true that a snail is a living organism. It is also true that messing with endangered snails can get me a $4500 fine in my country of Canada, but a woman can get an abortion until the point of birth in the very same country, and it is considered to be her reproductive right. So whether or not I believe killing a snail is immoral is irrelevant, given that a snail seems to have more value than a human being in certain ‘developed’ parts of the world.
Argument #4: “Abortions are acceptable during the first trimester. A fetus cannot be called a separate entity during this period.”
This argument is often used alongside arguments for bodily autonomy, “The fetus is just a part of my body. It’s just like throwing away a kidney or maybe even a useless appendix. The fetus has no independent identity of it’s own. It is nothing but another lump of cells in my body.”
As Ben Shapiro likes to say, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” So are there any scientific facts to prove that the fetus is just a part of the woman’s body with no identity of its own? Or is there evidence to the contrary?
Let’s look at some interesting, scientific facts:
- Every cell of the fetus is genetically different from every other cell in the mother’s body. If the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, why do its cells have a different genetic composition and a different DNA?
- The unborn can have a different blood-type from that of the mother. If it was a part of the mother’s body, wouldn’t all the blood flowing through the same body be of the same blood type?
- What if the child is a boy? The mother most certainly is a woman, every one of her cells containing an XX chromosome, while every single cell of the fetus contains an XY chromosome. How is that possible? Does a woman pregnant with a boy have some sort of multiple gene disorder in her womb for a period of nine months? I’m sorry, were you saying that the fetus has no identity of its own? Last time I checked, biological sex was sufficient proof of an independent individual identity.
- If a Chinese zygote was implanted in an East-Indian mother, the child would genetically be… (surprise surprise) NOT Indian. The child would still be Chinese. But wait, the zygote was in the mother’s womb. It was connected to her by an umbilical cord. How can a part of the mother’s body and the mother herself have two different ethnic origins? I’m sure Planned Parenthood will finally figure out the science behind that some day. (Spoiler alert: It’s already been figured out, and it says that a fetus is not a part of the mother’s body.)
- If the fetus’ identity is the same as the mother’s identity, and the fetus is just another part of the mother’s body, why does the mother’s immune system often treat the fetus as a foreign object? Why on earth would anyone’s body treat a part of their own body as a foreign object?
Just because a baby is connected to the mother via an umbilical cord and uses the mother’s body as a shelter and source of sustenance, it does not mean that it is a part of the mother’s body. If that was the case, every man attached to a dialysis machine should be considered of no more worth than a part of that machine, since it performs its basic needs of excretion for him (just like the mother does for the fetus). Just because something is in your body doesn’t make it part of your body. Neither does something become a part of your body simply because it is connected to your body.
Argument #5: “Fetuses are completely dependent on their mothers for sustenance, hence they do not have rights of their own.”
The first part of the counterargument to this claim has been covered in Argument #2, but I will repeat it because this is a common claim made by many pro-choice advocates. They state that it is a woman’s choice whether or not she wants to carry the pregnancy to term, since the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its most basic needs, hence leaving the it with no rights of its own. It uses the mother’s body as an incubator, behaving like a parasite at the cost of the mother’s health. Thus the mother’s hesitation to bear this burden is understandable and her desire to have an abortion is completely justified.
Right off the bat, let me repeat what I said earlier. Yes, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother throughout the pregnancy, but its dependence on another human being for sustenance has nothing to do with whether or not it has rights of its own. Sick patients are often dependent on their loved ones to fulfil their most basic requirements. Does that make them any less human? As I mentioned before, a baby that has come out of the womb is also completely dependent on its mother for its basic needs like food and warmth. Does that mean it has no rights either? What about babies in neo-natal incubators, who’s entire life depends on a machine that gives them oxygen to breathe? Why is it immoral to hack them into pieces like fetuses are before being suctioned out from the womb? Are premature babies or babies in general any less human than the adult man or woman who can feed, clothe and protect himself/herself?
“But no, Abraham,” you will say, “I’m talking about the fetus that is within the womb, that is a burden to the mother and takes a heavy toll on her body.” My answer to this might sound pretty rude, but here it is anyway. The most common reason why women get pregnant and then wish to abort the baby is due to irresponsible sexual intercourse. (Around 1% of all abortions are performed as a result of rape and less than 0.5% are performed after a case of incest. The other 98% has to do with issues of convenience. See stats from the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.) In other words, abortion is seen as an easy way to escape the consequences of a stupid decision that an individual made one fateful night, masking it with the excuse of ‘convenience.’ And when it is put in that way, it makes people start feeling uncomfortable, because I’m going against all the common norms and beliefs in society that make you feel good about yourself, and telling you that YOU are responsible for the consequences of the decisions that you make. Instead of using abortion as an excuse to escape from the reality of the situation, suck it up and accept the fact that it is high time for our generation to return to sexual responsibility.
Does destroying the life that was created as a result of your irresponsible actions solve the problem? No it doesn’t. Why should an innocent life that did no wrong suffer for the mistake that you made? Yes, there are cases in which I believe abortion is justified, for example when the mother’s life is in danger. But in cases of unplanned pregnancies that do not occur as a result of rape or incest, it was your decision to go through with the act of sexual intercourse, one that has the potential of creating another life within the woman’s body. Just as every action has its consequence, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman has the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy. (Mind you, I do not mean ‘consequence’ in the negative sense of the term. I simply mean it as the result of an action.) The unplanned nature of a pregnancy does not give a woman the right to end the life that is developing within her, until and unless it puts her own life in danger. Morally, I believe that she must carry the pregnancy to term, and if she still finds it too much of a burden, look into other viable options like adoption. It was she who chose to engage in sexual intercourse, and trying to escape from the responsibility of carrying the child that was conceived as a result of that action under the guise of convenience via abortion is an abominable act. I will address pregnancies that result from non-consensual acts of sex like rape in a later part of this post.
Argument #6: “What about cases of pregnancies caused by contraceptive failure? Isn’t abortion justified in cases of such unplanned pregnancies?”
This would actually be a good question if contraceptive failure was a major contributor to unplanned pregnancies. But as it is the usual case with the pro-choice side, they pick the outlier reason for unplanned pregnancies, make it look like the main issue, and base all their arguments around that.
Yes, contraceptives fail. But at what rate? The Centre for Young Women’s Health shows that the birth control pill fails in 9% of cases of typical use, and 1% of cases of perfect use. Hence, the pill does work 91% of the time. According to the Planned Parenthood, male condoms fail only 2% of the time with consistent and correct use. From these statistics, it is obvious that pro-choicers simply use this point to argue for something that isn’t even a large scale contributor to unplanned pregnancies. Yes, 9% isn’t a small number, but it definitely isn’t the major cause of unplanned pregnancies like many crack it up to be.
You might argue, what can people do in cases of contraceptive failure? Well, if contraceptive failure has let to conception, I recommend that you not kill the fetus. A fetus is a human life, regardless of how it was conceived and deliberately taking away a life from a human being without just cause is not justified under any circumstances.
Furthermore, there are other ways to prevent pregnancies other than contraceptives. Take for example Natural Family Planning (NFP), which is a method promoted by the Roman Catholic Church as the alternative to what it calls ‘artificial contraception.’ In simple terms, it involves periodic abstinence during the periods of the woman’s fertility, and engaging in sexual intercourse during the woman’s infertile periods such as parts of her ovulatory cycle. A BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) article by endocrinologist R.E. Ryder cites a study in India that proved that NFP results in pregnancy rates that approach zero, while in Germany, there were eight pregnancies per 1000 female users every year.
The Guttmacher Institute states that around half of all women having abortions in a year have already had an abortion sometime in the past. This proves that women have become comfortable using abortion as yet another contraceptive method. Steven Levitt, the co-author of Freakonomics wrote that after abortion had been legalized, “Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent, indicating that many women were using abortion as a method of birth control, a crude and drastic sort of insurance policy.” This only proves that many women who undergo abortions AFTER abortion was legalized do not seem to care about using contraceptives anymore, because they see abortion as a contraceptive method in itself.
So if you’re worried about contraceptive failure, don’t use them. Try alternative methods of natural contraception. But don’t use it as an excuse to end innocent human lives for your own convenience. Abortion is not and never will be a contraceptive mechanism. It is deliberate and cold-blooded murder.
Argument #7: “An abortion is justified in cases of rape or incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.”
At the outset, let me make one thing very clear. I believe that the only case in which abortion is absolutely justified is when the mother’s life is in severe danger. In that case, it is important to save lives, and while we must attempt to save both the child and the mother, if one isn’t possible, we must definitely save the other. One life saved is better than two lives lost. In cases like when the mother has virulent uterine cancer (that could kill her AND the fetus), the surgery might require the fetus to be taken out prematurely, and not many might survive this ordeal. However since it was done to save the mother’s life, I believe it is morally appropriate. Instead of both the mother and the baby dying, we were able to salvage the life of the mother.
However it is also important to note that less than one percent of abortions are actually caused by danger to the mother’s life. Many abortionists have admitted that they haven’t come across a single case of this sort in their entire careers. What can we infer from that? The liberal media and the pro-choice advocates, in an attempt to attract public sympathy, use one of the rarest justifiable causes of abortion and blow it out of proportion to make it seem like the work they are doing is good.
The same can be said for cases of rape and incest. This is an issue that keeps coming up when I talk to pro-choice friends of mine. The moment I say, “Abortion is an immoral act,” they come back with, “Well, what about the women who are raped? What about women who get pregnant through incest? How dare you say that they do not have the right to an abortion?” I’m sure you might have had to face this very question too. And today, I’m going to give you the best answer to that question.
Rape is wrong. It is considered to be a detestable sin in most religions. If a woman is raped, her rapist must be found and brought to justice according to the laws of the land. But what many fail to understand is that while rape is wrong, abortion is wrong too. Just because a pregnancy was caused as a result of a rape, does not mean that the innocent life that was produced as a result should be destroyed as a result of the act of a vile man. It is almost like saying, ‘Your father committed a terrible crime, therefore you must be executed for it.” How does imposing capital punishment on the child of a sex offender do anything bad to the rapist and anything good to the woman?
A rape victim does not have to abort the baby if she doesn’t want to deliver it. She can carry the pregnancy to term and then give the baby up for adoption or foster care. The same applies to incest. It is not the product of the incestuous, abusive relationship that should be punished, but rather the abuser in that non-consensual relationship.
But what is even more interesting to note is that rape and incest aren’t even close to being major causes of abortion like the left cracks it up to be. As a matter of fact, the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-choice NGO) reported that of all abortions, only 1% were abortions done as a result of rape, and less than 0.5% were abortions done as a result of incest. Those are insignificant numbers compared to the abortions done in the name of personal convenience. Why then do pro-choicers always come back with the example of rape and incest when we call abortion an immoral act? It is because of the sympathy factor connected to rape and incest. The pro-choice advocates know that they are not supported by the facts. Hence, their only chance of victory is by appealing to the emotions of the audience, and they do so successfully by appealing to that one outlier case called ‘abortion of pregnancy caused by rape’ in order to tug at the heart-strings of the public, so that their cause can get more attention and support (and more money, of course).
Argument #8: “It is a bigger sin to being an unwanted child into the world than to terminate a pregnancy in its earlier stages.”
This argument has also been worded in other ways. For example, ‘Every child a wanted child.” Perhaps that sounds more innocent, but what they are literally trying to say is that, ‘It is better that we kill off the fetus while it is still in the womb, instead of letting it be born and growing out to be a child wanted by no one.”
The problem with this argument is that it contains a faulty premise. There is no such thing as an ‘unwanted child.’ Yes, there are pregnancies that are unwanted, but there is no unwanted child. If the child is not wanted by you, there is someone else, somewhere in the world who wants it. There are millions of families who wish to adopt any kind of baby, some that even fall into depression. A child being unwanted by the mother carrying it is no excuse to kill it.
Secondly, why is killing an ‘unwanted child’ legal only when it is inside the womb? What if a mother really wants to have a child, and then after it is born finds out that taking care of the baby is a burden she cannot bear? Why is it illegal to kill her baby in that case? After all, aren’t Planned Parenthood the ones arguing that unwanted fetuses deserve to be aborted? Why not extend that to all children? Unwanted toddlers will grow up in just as much misery as an unwanted fetus would’ve.
Planned Parenthood’s slogan ‘Every child a wanted child’ makes it look like they are looking out for the best interests of the children of America. How is it in the best interest of the child to be butchered in such a savage way? Instead if every child is a wanted child, let’s help get them to a place where they are really wanted, whether they are homes where they can be welcomed by loving families, or temporary homes where they can be taken care of until such a family is found. But there is a problem. How then will Planned Parenthood make the billions of dollars it wishes to make? It won’t. It NEEDS abortion rates to keep rising to keep their own earnings high and to continue in the illegal trade of fetal parts and the other illicit activities that we do not know of yet. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be exposed for the liars that they are, and America will be rocked by the uncovering of the lies that the entire system was built upon.
For this reason alone, we continue to see lies being propagated through education, the media and through the government itself, one of them being, “Every child a wanted child.”
Argument #9: “Abortions give pregnant women the option to terminate the pregnancy in case the baby is handicapped.”
I have often heard people say, “It is better to abort a handicapped child, since bringing it into this world will only cause it to live a life of pain.” I always respond to them with a question, “Why do we have special handicapped parking spots in public places? Why have ramps made for them in all public buildings?” The response is always, “Because we ought not to discriminate against the handicapped.” I smile and reply, “Well, isn’t aborting a fetus simply because it is handicapped a form of discrimination too?”
Randy Alcorn puts it this way, “A bruised apple is still an apple. A blind dog is still a dog. A senile woman is still a woman. A handicapped child is still a child. A person’s nature and worth aren’t changed by a handicap.” He continues on the next page, “On the one hand, we provide special parking and elevators for the handicapped. We talk tenderly about those poster children with spina bifida and Down syndrome. We sponsor the Special Olympics and cheer on the competitors, speaking of the joy and inspiration they bring us. But when we hear a woman is carrying one of these very children, we say, “Kill it.”
The answer to this argument is simple. Don’t discriminate against an innocent child just because he/she is not perfect in the way you want him/her to be perfect. They are God’s creation, beautiful in their own way, and no one has the right to discriminate against them or harm them for being the way they are. No woman should ever abort her child simply on the basis of a potential handicap.
Argument #10: “Thousands of children live miserable lives in foster homes and never get adopted. Hence abortion is a better option.”
Yes, a lot of children do live miserable lives in foster homes. And yes, a lot of children never get adopted. But how did you reach the conclusion that abortion is the better option? This is the kind of rhetoric that makes me sick to my stomach, because it shows the extent to which the pro-choice movement is willing to go in order to justify it’s own reprehensible actions.
“Aren’t we doing them a favour by aborting them before they come into this cruel world?” they ask.
Since when did the abortion industry start caring so much about the welfare of children? Wasn’t your argument that women matter more than their children, hence her decisions must prevail over them? Why the sudden change of heart into caring so much about the future of children that you’re willing to kill them to save them from the heartache?
How on God’s good earth would you know that the child you just killed would go on to live a miserable life? People who propagate this nonsense are those I would like to include in the ‘basket of deplorables,’ (and yes, the woman who coined that term as well). There are thousands of families who wish they could have a baby to bring joy to their lives, and here we have jokes of human beings trying to kill as many babies as they can to profit from their deaths.
Instead of going straight for abortion because foster homes and adoption agencies don’t work effectively, why not look for an alternative way to achieve a better end? For example, why not look into the foster home system or the adoption system and figure out why it doesn’t work well? Why not try to fix the problem by revamping the structure of the system, making it more accountable so that it works in a more transparent manner? Why not encourage citizens to volunteer in such organizations, donate money to make the adoption process less expensive for those who actually want to adopt or help out in other ways?
This argument just shows you how low the pro-choice movement is willing to stoop in order to accomplish their purpose of subjugating women into thinking that they are in control of their own bodies, while in reality, it is them telling the women what is right and what is wrong.
Argument #11: “Abortion on the basis of a woman’s convenience is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is protected by law, hence you have no right to oppose it.”
Argument rating: Stupid.
Let us for a moment forget the awfully contrived way in which Roe v. Wade was justified to give women a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion.
Slavery was protected by the law less than two hundred years ago in the United States of America (the greatest country in the world, isn’t it?). Does that make it right?
The Nazi slaughter of millions of Jews was also protected by the law. And even better, it was done on the basis of convenience too. Do you think that it was a moral act?
Female infanticide in India is often done on the basis of convenience, as the parents do not want to bear the burden of bringing a female child who will leave home after marriage and cost them a fortune in dowry, hence making her an ‘inconvenience.’ Why is female infanticide considered a crime then? Why do feminists cause all this clamour over gender-specific abortion? Isn’t it up to the parents to decide? Where did ‘My body, my choice’ go then?
This is yet another self-defeating argument that makes absolutely no sense.
Argument #12: “Abortion is an effective tool for population control.”
I agree with this argument. Abortion is an effective tool for population control.
As a matter of fact, gender selective abortion would be great for population control. Destroy the gender balance, people start having lesser number of kids, population goes down. Isn’t that a brilliant idea?
Genocide is an effective tool for population control too. Kill a whole ethnic group within a population, and the population level falls dramatically. Our friendly neighbourhood dictator in Germany tried that out, rather unsuccessfully. But hey, we’ve got better technology now than in the 1940s. So let’s start killing people and bring the population down. Looking at statistics, 50% of Americans call themselves ‘pro-choice.’ Would you feel better about the world if an insane dictator took over the reins of power and said that he wanted all pro-choice advocates dead? What’s the problem with that? He’s exercising his ‘freedom of choice’ by starting a politicide, and it also helps in population control by eliminating half of the population, so it’s a win-win, isn’t it? Oh, but you wouldn’t want that, since you’d be dead at the end of the process.
Yeah go ahead, point out all the fallacies in the above argument, because those are the exact same fallacies that pro-choicers have in their arguments when they reason that abortion should be used as a form of population control. Yes, it is important to avoid overpopulation, but since when did killing innocent lives become the right way to go? Have non-murderous methods like contraceptives, natural family planning or even sex-education gone out of fashion? As a matter of fact, I don’t even understand why Americans or Canadians are worried about overpopulation. Overpopulation is not a problem in the Western world. It is countries like India and China that need to worry about this issue, and states of India like Kerala have shown that the provision of quality education to citizens helps prevent overpopulation. The current birth rate in the US is less than what is required to maintain the population level, and if this goes on, it can have an adverse effect on the ecological and economic balance of the country. The same applies to Canada.
So yet again, the pro-choice movement has come up with an argument that they think is brilliant, but when stripped of all the lies that they decorate it with, it ends up being nothing more than another excuse to kill innocent human beings.
Argument #13: “Laws against abortion cannot stop abortion. As a matter of fact, we might end up having more abortions than we do today.”
A well-read and sensible pro-choice advocate would never use this argument. An ill-formed and desperate one on the other hand might.
Yes, laws against abortion cannot stop abortion, just like laws against murder do not stop homicides from occurring every day and laws against rape do not stop rapes. Stating that crimes against innocent individuals will not stop regardless of the existence of laws against them is a pathetic way to argue for having no laws to control them. As a matter of fact, these laws can contain components that give women alternatives to abortion such as temporary foster care or adoption. Laws that allow abortion don’t allow women to see these alternatives, as they already know that abortion is an easy way out. Laws against abortion on the other hand would make women consider these options and abortions could possibly decrease.
Pro-choicers often come back with the argument, “If you make abortion illegal, women will once again start having unsafe abortions, which is even worse than what is going on today.” Arguments like these are an insult to logical thinking, and that’s just putting it mildly. So should we legalize rape so that people do it in a ‘safer’ and more ‘comfortable’ way than hurting a woman to forcibly get your way with her? Why don’t we legalize drug addictions so that junkies can come to hygienic centres whenever they are in need of a fix, instead of doing it the unhygienic way and contracting infections? It is interesting to note that even before abortion was legalized in the United States of America, abortions were being conducted illegally by physicians. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, himself admitted that the claim that unsafe abortions occurring in great numbers before abortion was legalized is a myth concocted by the abortion industry. He stated that he and other leaders in the abortion industry invented figures to substantiate their claim that ‘thousands of women are dying annually from unsafe abortions.’ They only did it to gain public approval for their cause of legalizing abortion.
To summarize, this perception is nothing short of ridiculous. The claim that making abortions illegal will not stop it from continuing to occur is just as stupid as claiming that laws that prohibit other crimes against humanity must also be struck down, since they do not stop those acts from happening. Women have been known to die from legal abortion procedures too. Hence the best option would be to stop abortion altogether, and the first step to this would be making them illegal. Making them illegal and making women aware of the alternatives will not only help save the life of innocent young ones, but also the lives of their mothers.
Argument #14: “‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are relative terms that mean different things to different people. No one can conclusively classify abortion as an ‘evil’ act.”
Living in a highly relativistic culture, hearing this claim being made is pretty common. After all, it’s no longer cool to believe that there is something called an absolute good or bad. Good and evil were nothing more than social constructs meant to keep society under the control of the elite, and we are free from all that now.
The reason why I love this argument is not because it’s a good one, but because I get to use my favourite Ravi Zacharias line on them. When they tell me that there is no way to objectively define what is right and what is wrong, I tell them, “I agree with you. In some cultures, they love their neighbours, in other cultures they cook their neighbours and eat them. Do you have a personal preference?” (I haven’t had anyone tell me that they consider cannibalism moral, or at least so far.)
The problem with those who argue for moral relativism are that they themselves aren’t following the rules they set out. The very claim that ‘There is no such thing as an absolute good or absolute evil’ is an objective one, not a subjective one, and I’m pretty sure that they want us all to believe what they are saying is true. The reason why moral relativism even comes into play is because we often indulge in trying to find the ‘middle ground,’ a realm of compromise in order to avoid offending other people. That would work in matters of opinion, but it wouldn’t work in issues relating to fact. For example, “I own a really cool car” is an opinion, while “I own a black Honda Civic” is a factual statement. The first statement can be considered subjective, but the second can only be seen in an objective manner. Anyone can easily disagree with me and point out the flaws in my car to show me that it is not ‘cool,’ but no one can say, “Hey, your car might be a black Honda Civic to you, but it is a red Mercedes to me.” Statements about facts are always objective in nature.
Hence in the case of abortion, there can be only two choices: Either the fetus is a human being, or it is not. There is no ‘middle ground’ of the fetus being partly human, or any less human than its father or mother. If it isn’t a human being, there is nothing wrong in treating it like your appendix or any other vestigial organ. If it is a human being, killing it is a morally deplorable act.
Moral relativists might go one step further and argue that it is wrong to assume that everyone accepts that murder of human beings is an unethical act, since morality is a social construct, so everyone’s individual sense of morality is right for them. As absurd as that sounds, let me show you why that is problematic. First of all, it causes the problem of infallibility, or in other words, they are literally claiming that they can never be wrong. So even if they change their minds about a critical moral issue tomorrow, they will still be right. So I can be pro-choice today, pro-life tomorrow and a child rapist the day after, and I will still be morally pure in all three cases, as long as I believe what I’m doing is right. And that defeats the purpose of norms and laws, and doesn’t make any logical sense. Moral relativists also misunderstand the basic meaning of morality. Morality is not what someone does. Me smiling at you is not a moral act. Neither is the act of eating, drinking or playing. Morality is not what people do, it is what people ought to do. We might kill each other, but we ought not to kill each other is an argument in which the first defines an action that is ongoing, while the second defines a clear moral standpoint on what is being done. The relativist on the other hand, states that different people do different things, and they are all doing things that they ought to do, hence falling into circular reasoning by stating “We ought to do what we do.”
Thus moral relativism is an indefensible position, and hence cannot be applied to defend abortion.
MODERN FEMINIST ARGUMENTS FOR ABORTION
Argument #15: “Abortion empowers women/I have the right to do what I want with my body.”
I like to call this the ‘feminazi’ argument for abortion. No, I’m not taking a shot at feminists here. You will see why I consider this argument an anti-feminist one, rather than one that empowers women or upholds their rights (which should be the real aim of feminism).
A former president of the NARAL named Kate Michelman once said in a 1988 New York Times interview, “We have to remind people that abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s full right to choose and her right participate fully in the social and political life of society.” (It’s funny how she seems to be implying that pregnant women are unable to participate in society, hence we should start killing the babies in their wombs in order to give them that ability. It’s even funnier to note that there are people who subscribe to this kind of logic.) Is abortion really a feminist or a woman’s right issue? Let’s find out.
I’m certain that every feminist would agree with me when I say that the real aim of feminism must be to look out for the best interests of the woman. So does the abortion industry contribute anything to the woman’s benefit in cases of ‘abortion for convenience’? It sure does cost her wads of cash to get the abortion done. It lets an unborn human being be shredded to pieces within her uterus, whose remains are then vacuumed out. The abortion process throws the ecological balance of her body into disarray, has the potential to cause future miscarriages, takes away from her the opportunity to experience motherhood and often leaves the woman psychologically scarred. It doesn’t improve her health; it doesn’t give her any financial benefit nor does it actually help her to become a better woman. Instead, the abortion industry makes a ton of money, while leaving a woman with the delusion that she’s finally able to ‘fit in’ with the rest of the ‘empowered’ women around her. Is abortion really a sign of a woman’s ‘freedom’? Or is it an act of escape that the industry tries to brainwash you into believing will make you ‘free.’
Susan B. Anthony, the famous suffrage activist and one of the earliest leaders of the women’s rights movement said, “I deplore the horrible crime of child murder…. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed.” Mattie Brinkerhoff, a contemporary of Anthony’s and a suffrage lecturer, went on to say, “When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged.” She recognized that abortion was not a victory for women, but a reflection of the failure of society to understand the true meaning of what it means for a woman to be a woman.
Pro-abortion activists like Bernard Nathanson have openly admitted to purposely connecting the legalization of abortion to the issues of women’s rights, not because they cared, but to use it as a means to achieve their goals of legalizing them. Others like Margaret Sanger, a eugenist whose organization blossomed into the scandal-ridden Planned Parenthood Federation of America and who is regularly quoted by millions of pro-choicers and feminists alike, herself admitted that she wished to ‘assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.’ Does the rhetoric sound familiar? (I’ll give you a clue, mate. The guy lived in Germany, tried to wipe out an entire race.)
So is abortion an issue of women’s rights? Is it something that empowers women? Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued that if women felt that it was wrong for them to be treated like property by men, it was equally wrong for women to treat their unborn child as property that can be disposed of. Frederica Matthewes-Green, a former pro-choice activist, writing for Feminists for Life said, “It is because I still believe so strongly in the right of a woman to protect her body that I now oppose abortion. That right must begin when her body begins, and it must be hers no matter where she lives- even if she lives in her mother’s womb.” She goes on to claim, “The child is conceived through no fault of her own; it is the height of cruelty to demand the right to shred her in order to continue having sex without commitment,” and ends the stunning article by stating, “Women’s rights are not in conflict with their own children’s rights; the appearance of such a conflict is a sign that something is wrong in society.”
So what do you think? Are you going to side with the Clintons and the Michelmans of our day, who tell you that you are no real woman unless you put your womanhood on display by killing your own child? Or are you willing to stand for what women like Susan B. Anthony fought for, true freedom for women that includes her protection even while she is still in the womb? You’ve got to choose a side, and you sure as heck cannot be on both.
Argument #16: “My body, my choice.”
This sounds like a fair argument at first. Yes, a woman owns her body. Doesn’t she have the right to do what she wants with it?
Randy Alcorn has written a great book called Why Pro-Life? In the book, he describes a tactic he uses while presenting the pro-life view on school campuses. He starts off by saying, “I am pro-choice. That’s why I believe that every man has the right to rape a woman if that’s his choice. After all, it’s his body, and we don’t have the right to tell him what he can and cannot do with it.” He then asks the students to point out the fallacy in his argument. They often respond by pointing out that in asserting the man’s right to choose, he has ignored the harm done to the innocent woman, whose rights have been violated. He then says, “So you’re saying that if I demonstrate to you that a woman’s choice to have an abortion harms or kills another human being, you’ll no longer be pro-choice about abortion?”
Alcorn has an underlying point here. While the pro-choice side bash us for ‘not giving women the freedom to choose,’ we often start arguing about morality, and fail to point out the fallacy in their argument: It is impossible to be pro-choice in every circumstance. No individual can live a life of only making good choices. Bad choices exist, and you can’t be ‘pro-choice’ about these bad choices.
Other than certain kinds of philosophers and followers of certain religions/sects that I won’t name, most people believe in the notion of free will. Free will simply means that every human being has the capacity to make the choices that they need to make. However, simply having the freedom to choose does not entitle us to make whichever choices we please. It is our ethical duty to make the right choice. And in Alcorn’s words, “When we oppose the ‘right to choose’ rape or child abuse, we aren’t opposing a right, we’re opposing a wrong. And we are not narrow-minded and bigoted for doing so.” Why then can’t we apply the same logic to abortion? Being ‘pro-choice’ is equivalent to saying, “You are free to choose whether or not you want to hack a fetus to pieces in the womb of its mother.” (Of course, you’re not going to hear it put that way, you’re going to hear flowery euphemisms instead, but that’s how it happens in case you didn’t know.) A person stating that they are pro-choice is doing nothing short of claiming, “I have the right to choose to kill innocent fetuses.” And that is in no way, ‘pro-choice’ because there is no ‘right’ involved. NOBODY has the RIGHT to deliberately take away an innocent life. Yes, you have the freedom to do so, but you have no right to.
Ben Shapiro rightly compared abortion to the issue of slavery. He stated, “The argument in favour of abortion is exactly the same as the argument in favour of slavery. ‘You’re on my land, therefore it is up to me to decide whether you are person or property.’ So when you have women who say, ‘It’s my womb, I get to decide based on how I feel today…whether this is a child or not,’ it is the exact same argument.”
Mary O’Brien Drum gives another powerful reply, “After a woman is pregnant, she cannot choose whether or not she wishes to become a mother. She already is…all that is left for her to decide is whether she will deliver her baby dead or alive.”
I would like to conclude this point with Alcorn’s final lines in the very same chapter. “The pro-choice position always overlooks the victim’s rights to choose,” he writes, “Blacks didn’t choose slavery. Jews didn’t choose the ovens. Women don’t choose rape. And babies do not choose abortion.”
And the last time I checked, taking away someone’s life without their consent was called murder.
Argument #17: “The abortion industry promotes women’s health.”
“…as long as as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”
These were the very words Barack Obama uttered a while back, after he promised to defend Planned Parenthood and veto any bill that wishes to defund it. He even went on to say, “God bless you,” to the biggest abortion provider in the nation. Look it up, if you don’t believe me.
Does the abortion industry promote women’s health in any sense of the term? Let’s find out.
Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists pointed out that women who have abortions are more likely to develop cervical cancer, sterility, nervous disorders, sleep disturbances, eating disorders, suicidal thoughts and PTSD. None of those sound like healthy women to me, unless of course, they changed the definition of healthy when I was hibernating during my first winter in Canada.
According to Frederica Matthewes-Green, a former pro-choice advocate and a current activist for Feminists for Life, abortion does nothing but cause a woman to lose her health. Women are often punctured by the invasive machinery used during abortion. The cervix, which is supposed to open gradually during the period of birth, is wrenched open in a matter of minutes, damaging the delicate muscle fibres and causing future miscarriages. Nicks and scratches caused due to the vacuuming of the uterus can lead to endometriosis. In future ‘wanted’ pregnancies, the fertilized egg will get stuck in the Fallopian tube without being able to pass into the uterus, causing it to grow there and ultimately forcing the tube to explode, killing both the baby and the mother. Matthewes-Green quotes a man who saw his wife fall apart after abortion as saying, “What kind of trade-off is that: Gain control of your body, lose control of the mind?”
This is just some of the things that Planned Parenthood is involved in, not to mention suspicious activities like the sale of fetal organs or the high racial imbalances in the rates of abortion. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, herself believed greatly in eugenics, which was the belief that the elimination of “unfit” races is necessary for the proper functioning of society. Is this why over 62% of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in areas with high black populations? You tell me.
This is the kind of organization that President Obama blessed in the name of God. This is the kind of organization that Hillary Clinton believes should be the role model for women’s healthcare.
Argument #18: “Abortion is a painless procedure for the fetus in the womb.”
The most common form of this argument is, “When the fetus is in the womb of the mother, it has no organ systems that have developed completely. Hence abortion is a relatively painless and humane process.” Various scientific researchers claim that the fetus needs to be out of the womb in order to start feeling the real sensation of pain. Others state that the development of the cortex is necessary for the sensation of pain, and the cortex only develops at the earliest during the 26th week. Hence the baby does not feel pain in the womb, justifying abortion. First of all, painless murder is never humane or justified in any form. And that is assuming that the pro-choice side is telling the truth that the fetus is unable to feel any pain. But are they telling the truth? Let us look at the eyewitness evidence given by experts.
We first need to examine the procedure by which abortion is done. Just to be nice to the pro-choicers, I’ll take the earliest abortion method possible, the suction curettage abortion (also the most popular abortion method in Canada, where I live), done before the fetus is twelve weeks old. This is long before abortionists claim that the sensation of pain develops in a fetus. So how is it done? A description I read online goes this way:
“The cervical muscle is stretched open. A hollow plastic tube with a knife like edge is inserted into the uterus. The suction machine then tears the baby’s body into pieces. These pieces are sucked through the tube and collected into a bottle. Often a sharp loop-shaped knife called a curette is then inserted into the uterus to loosen any remaining tissue so that it can be suctioned out. When the suctioning is finished, the abortionist must examine the baby parts and tissue to see if the abortion is complete.”
If I hadn’t told you that this was ‘abortion’ being performed, most of you would’ve said, “What a gruesome act!” But with years of indoctrination by pro-choice liberals, we are once more desensitized to these things and we accept them and go on with our day to day lives. Coming back to the question. This seems pretty gruesome. However, the abortionist claims that the fetus feels no pain during this procedure, so it isn’t an inhumane practice. Let’s see what other experts have to say about this.
Maureen Condic, a neurobiologist at the University of Utah School of Medicine explains that the spinal reflex, which is also the most primitive reflex to pain, is developed in less than eight weeks of gestation. She also added, “There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester.”
Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesia and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center said, “If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.” Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion doctor, described what he saw during an aborton of a twelve-week old fetus, “We see [in an ultrasound image] the child’s mouth open in a silent scream… This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction.”
None of these descriptions make it sound like abortion is a humane or a painless procedure. Now, you could believe the industry that makes billions of dollars and assume that I’m lying and the entire process is painless. Or you could look at the fact that people like me stand to gain nothing from lying about what abortion really is, and hence there is a shadow of a chance that what I am saying is true. From the evidence that I have placed before you, it is safe to conclude that abortion is most certainly not a painless procedure, regardless of whether or not you think it is murder.
REPLIES TO ARGUMENTS THAT PRO-CHOICERS MAKE AGAINST PRO-LIFERS
Argument #19: “The pro-life position is based on a religious belief. Religious beliefs should not be allowed to influence legislature.”
While religious beliefs do serve as an influence for many to take the pro-life position, it is fallacious to argue that everyone who stands against abortion does so for religious reasons. There are numerous secular advocates of the pro-life position (if you do not believe me, do take the time to visit https://secularprolife.org).
Furthermore, it is absurd to suggest that just because many people advocate a particular position based on their religious beliefs, that that position cannot be incorporated into legislature. Nevertheless, if you do wish to argue in that way, I suggest that the government strike down laws against murder. Why? Because many people believe that murder is an unethical act due to the biblical commandment that states, “Thou shalt not kill.” I recommend that they repeal laws that condemn robbery and perjury as well, since many hold the belief that stealing and lying are wrong as a direct result of breaking the commandments, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” As a matter of fact, I’m certain that the legislators who laid down these basic principles for our society today used the Bible to some extent to develop a moral code that they could rely on. That being the case, I think it is foolish to believe that a position that many people hold for religious reasons, should not be allowed to influence legislature.
Argument #20: “Pro-lifers are disgusting human beings who use disturbing images of aborted babies in order to get an emotional reaction from people.”
The hypocrisy involved in a pro-choice activist even making this claim is stupendous. It would definitely be a disgusting act to fabricate pictures of mutilated babies and parade them as abortion victims, but that is not what is going on here. The pictures that many pro-lifers use as a technique to get the attention of the public to the cause of saving the unborn are real images of the aftermath of the so-called ‘termination of pregnancy,’ which is flaunted by liberals to be a woman’s right. The images display the level of mutilation and destruction caused by committing this hideous act, and I believe that trying to get an emotional response for the right reasons might be the only way to solve this problem right now.
On the other hand, it is hilarious to note that the pro-choice movement relies heavily on emotional response too. Chanting slogans until they become rhetoric and brainwashing women into believing that they have the right to play God plays an even bigger role on people’s emotions than the pro-choice movement does.
Nobody considers it disgusting to show pictures of the aftermath of the Holocaust in history books, do they? Why then is it wrong to show the aftermath of a modern day Holocaust. where innocent lives are taken every year for no particular reason?
Argument #21: “Many conservatives who are anti-abortion also support capital punishment.”
First of all, while it may be true that some pro-lifers support capital punishment, there are also other pro-lifers who are against it. Many who argue for the sanctity of human life claim that only God has the right to take the life of a being that He created, and hence all death sentences must be commuted to lesser sentences like life imprisonment.
Secondly, I don’t see why anyone in their right minds would go to the extent of comparing abortion to capital punishment. One has to do with the punishment of a convicted killer who has no regard for human life, while the other has to do with the killing of innocent, unborn babies who are being murdered by people who have no regard for human life.
Argument #22: “Many pro-lifers are males. Men have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies.”
Or in the words of Alan K. Simpson, “I consider abortion to be a deeply personal and intimate issue for women and I don’t believe male legislators should even vote on the issue.”
There was a reason why I saved this objection for the end. I’m quite sure that at least some of you might have had this thought in your mind, “The person writing this is a male. What does he know about the issues females struggle with during pregnancy or the tough decisions that they have to make before having an abortion?” Or, if you’re one of those ‘girl-power,’ man-hating pseudo-feminists (or feminazis, as I like to call them), you would have thought, “How dare this guy lecture us on how we’re supposed to treat our bodies and tell us not to exercise our reproductive rights?” or “Don’t you dare start mansplaining me!”
As a matter of fact, you might be right. I probably do not have a right to tell you whether your actions are right or wrong (even though I believe that men are equally responsible for and equally affected by the abortion process). Neither do I have the right to tell you whether or not you should have an abortion. I’m a firm believer in the notion that God has endowed each of us with the free-will to choose between what is right and what is wrong. He has placed a moral compass within our hearts and it is our wish to go where it leads, or turn the other way and do the opposite of what it asks us to do.
However, I also have to admit that I’m arguing for neither women’s rights nor reproductive rights in this blog post. I do believe in equal rights for all human beings, men, women and children included. But in this post, I’m specifically fighting for the rights of the unborn, the members of our society,who are being slaughtered by the millions, who are being shredded to pieces in the womb, suctioned out using a vacuum pump, all in the name of an ambiguous term called ‘personal convenience.’ I believe that one day, I will stand before my Maker, and on that day, I want to be able to say with confidence that I stood by what I knew was right, regardless of what others thought of me.
Nevertheless, I would like to end this post with a challenge to every pro-choice advocate and pro-abortion feminist out there who believes that abortion is a female issue and a man has no right to let his opinion be known on this issue. I promise you, I, as a man, will stop talking about abortion. I will not utter a single word about this topic for the rest of my life, IF and only if you stop quoting male pro-choice activists when you make arguments in favour of abortion. If this is a ‘woman’s only’ issue as you claim it is, I dare you to stop quoting Dr. Henry Morgantaler, Barack Obama, or any other male supporter of abortion on the basis of convenience. Why? Because I believe it is blatant hypocrisy to ask someone who defends the pro-life position to shut his mouth because he is a man and abortion is solely a ‘woman’s issue,’ but then readily quote male sources when they defend your point of view. Furthermore, I’d ask you to denounce Roe v. Wade, the very decision that defined abortion as a constitutional right. Why? Because it was decided by, drumroll, SEVEN MEN. Of course their argument was invalid because they were men, wasn’t it? Or was it valid because they were men on your side of the argument?
Fulfill that challenge, and I will not speak a word against abortion for the rest of my life.
If you say, “Surely we did not know this,”
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?