In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the American media landscape has been flooded with post-mortems and investigative pieces seeking to identify the “architects” behind this monumental shift in jurisprudence. A recent article in the Washington Monthly, titled “Roe’s Autopsy,” exemplifies this trend by focusing almost exclusively on the political players and their alleged motivations. However, as pro-life advocates, we must recognize that identifying the “who” of the Roe reversal is a strategic distraction from the more foundational question: What—or rather, who—does abortion kill?. When the press prioritizes personal attacks over moral arguments, they engage in a series of logical fallacies that fail to refute the central claim of the pro-life movement. To be effective truth-tellers in this climate, we must learn to sift through the rhetoric, identify the “genetic fallacy,” and keep the “main thing the main thing”.
The Genetic Fallacy: Attacking the Messenger
The primary tactic employed by critics of the pro-life movement is known as the genetic fallacy. This occurs when someone attempts to discredit an idea based solely on its origin or the character of the people who advance it, rather than engaging with the merits of the argument itself. In the Washington Monthly piece, the author characterizes the “tribe” responsible for dismantling Roe as being composed of “white male religious extremists”. By labeling proponents in this way, the critic attempts to “poison the well,” suggesting that if the proponents are biased or “extreme,” their arguments must be inherently flawed.
However, this is a logical failure. Even if we were to grant the critic’s premise—that every influential pro-lifer is a “white male religious extremist” who “hates women”—it would not do a single thing to refute the pro-life syllogism. The core argument remains: it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; abortion does exactly that; therefore, abortion is wrong. The truth of a moral claim is independent of the person making it. To stay in the “driver’s seat” of a conversation, we must refuse to defend our identities and instead force our critics to address the logic of our position.
The Undefended Assumption in Modern Rhetoric
Much of the pro-abortion rhetoric found in the popular press relies on what can be called the “undefended assumption”. When critics cite the “devastating impact” of pro-life laws—such as women being “forced to give birth” or the risks associated with “back alley” procedures—they are making an argument that only makes sense if one assumes the unborn are not human beings.
Take, for example, the “back alley” or “safe abortion” argument. This claim suggests that pro-life laws are faulty because they make it riskier for a woman to secure an abortion. But we must ask: What does this argument assume about the unborn?. If the unborn child is a human being, then the law should make it difficult and risky to intentionally kill them. We would never argue that society should make it “safe and legal” for parents to kill toddlers simply because the toddlers were placing the parents at some form of physical or emotional risk.
Similarly, the “rape objection” is often used to “poison the well”. While cases of sexual assault are tragic, the moral question remains the same: is it permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human being to alleviate the suffering of another?. A civil society does not kill children because they remind a mother of a painful event, because we recognize that hardship does not justify homicide. When critics use these “hard cases” to justify unrestricted abortion, they are hiding behind rhetoric rather than providing logical reasons for why the unborn do not deserve the right to life.
The Mirage of “Fundamental Rights”
Critics often frame abortion as a “basic and fundamental right to control reproductive lives”. When faced with this claim, we must gently but firmly ask two clarifying questions: “What do you mean by a fundamental right?” and “Where did that right come from?”.
There is a vital distinction between “natural rights” and “government-granted rights”. Natural or fundamental rights are those that a human being possesses prior to the existence of any government. The role of the state is to recognize and protect these rights, not to invent them. If a right is merely granted by a court—as Roe v. Wade attempted to do—then that same government can, and should, take that right away if it was granted in error.
Furthermore, many who claim abortion is a “transcendent” right also simultaneously attack pro-lifers for being “religious extremists”. This creates a “suicidal” argument: if you expunge the secular marketplace of all religious or transcendent grounding, you have no foundation upon which to build a “fundamental right” to anything, let alone abortion. Rights cannot be plucked out of thin air; they must be grounded in the inherent dignity of the human person, a dignity that pro-life advocates argue begins at conception.
Correcting the Narrative of Pro-Life History
The Washington Monthly article, like many others, attempts to rewrite the history of abortion in America, claiming that 19th-century anti-abortion laws were never intended to protect the unborn, but were only aimed at protecting women from dangerous surgery. The Supreme Court in the Dobbs decision correctly identified this as bad history.
Historical records, including the “physicians’ crusade” of the 1860s and the writings of early feminists, clearly show that abortion was recognized as a “crime against humanity” and the “worst kind of child abuse imaginable”. These laws were established because science and philosophy coalesced around the reality that the unborn are members of the human family. By overturning Roe, the current Court did not “commit a crime”; it corrected a vacuous legal decision that had no basis in the Constitution or in accurate American history.
The Irony of Efficacy: Why Pro-Life Laws Work
Perhaps the most surprising takeaway from the critics of the pro-life movement is their implicit admission that pro-life laws actually work. For decades, the pro-abortion narrative has insisted that “laws don’t deter abortion” and that “women will get them anyway”. Yet, the author of “Roe’s Autopsy” spends considerable time decrying the Hyde Amendment, which banned federal Medicaid funding for abortion.
She complains that this amendment represented the “anti-abortion movement’s first victory” and that it prevented thousands of women from exercising their “right” to an abortion. In doing so, she implicitly concedes that legal and financial restrictions are effective at curbing abortion rates. If laws and funding restrictions didn’t save lives, she would have no reason to complain about them. This reality serves as a powerful rebuttal to the claim that the pro-life movement should abandon the legislative arena.
Conclusion: Staying in the Driver’s Seat
As we navigate the “heated rhetoric” of the current political season, we must remain “truth-tellers” who refuse to be led down “rabbit trails”. We do not need to defend ourselves against labels of “religious extremism” or “white male” identity. Instead, we should use clarifying questions to expose the inconsistencies in our opponents’ views.
If someone calls you an “arrogant extremist” for claiming to be right, simply ask: “Do you think you are right about your position?”. If they say yes, then by their own definition, they are the very thing they are decrying.
Ultimately, our success as advocates depends on our ability to keep the main thing the main thing. We must stick to the syllogism. We must insist on the humanity of the victim. We must argue that it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being, and that abortion is exactly that. By focusing on who abortion kills rather than the political drama of who killed Roe, we stay in control of the conversation and remain faithful to the voiceless children we are called to defend.