Article adapted from episode content.
Lately, much of my thinking has been consumed by the ongoing debate surrounding the sanctity of human life, particularly in the context of abortion. Recently, I had the opportunity to view a compelling video clip featuring Llaya Rose of Live Action engaging with a group of individuals holding staunchly pro-abortion views in what she aptly termed a “surrounded” event. This format, placing herself in the center of opposition, was undeniably courageous. While Llaya handled herself admirably, what struck me most were the interactions themselves, specifically the nature of the responses and claims being made against her pro-life stance. It became abundantly clear that far too often, in this deeply emotional and profoundly consequential discussion, assertions are presented as arguments, and this fundamental flaw hinders any meaningful progress towards truth and understanding.
One of the very first exchanges in the clip highlighted this problem with stark clarity. Llaya stated a fundamental pro-life position: “You don’t have a right to kill your own child. Your child has a right to life”. The immediate response from a visibly angry woman was, “You don’t get to speak for my child. You don’t get to speak for my child. Let’s start right there”. This reaction, while emotionally charged, is a prime example of an assertion masquerading as a rebuttal. Notice the language used: “my child”. Even in the heat of disagreement, the individual implicitly acknowledged the human being within her womb as a child. Yet, her response wasn’t an attempt to engage with the premise of a right to life; it was simply a declaration of her perceived authority and autonomy, a unilateral pronouncement that others have no right to voice an opinion or position regarding her unborn child.
This leads us to a crucial point: what exactly is an assertion, and how does it differ from an argument? An assertion is a statement of belief or opinion, often presented as fact, without any supporting evidence or reasoning. It is a starting point, perhaps, but it is not in itself persuasive or logically sound. On the other hand, an argument is a structured set of statements (premises) intended to support or establish a particular claim (conclusion). A well-formed argument provides reasons and evidence to justify its conclusion and can be evaluated for its validity and soundness.
The woman’s statement, “You don’t get to speak for my child,” is an assertion of her perceived right to exclusive control and decision-making regarding her pregnancy. It doesn’t explain why others have no right to speak for her child, nor does it address the fundamental question of the child’s inherent rights. The hidden, and critically undefended, premise within this assertion appears to be: “Only I get to decide whether my child lives or dies”. This is a significant claim, yet it is presented without any justification or foundation.
We see this pattern repeated in other common refrains within the abortion debate. Consider the assertion, “Women have a right to choose”. While this phrase is frequently invoked, it often lacks clarity and argumentative substance. Choose what, precisely? The speaker in the audio rightly challenges this, urging us to press for a definition and a justification for this alleged “right”. Is it the right to bodily autonomy, the right to be free from pregnancy, or something more radical? As the speaker points out, there seems to be a growing movement, evidenced by the woman’s language and the Senate Democrats’ vote against protecting abortion survivors, towards asserting a “right to a dead child”. This goes far beyond the traditional arguments centered on bodily autonomy and enters the disturbing territory of claiming a right to intentionally end a human life.
Where does such a so-called right originate? This is the critical question that often goes unaddressed. Many today seem inclined to pluck rights from thin air, equating desires with entitlements. If one feels a certain way, they believe they have a right to act upon that feeling, regardless of the impact on others. But this subjectivist approach to rights is deeply problematic. If rights are merely reflections of individual desires, their foundation becomes incredibly shaky and prone to arbitrary changes.
The woman in the clip, if pressed, might point to Roe v. Wade as the source of her right. However, grounding fundamental rights solely in government decisions creates a precarious situation. What the government grants, the government can also take away. The traditional understanding of fundamental rights, the speaker reminds us, is that they are pre-political, inherent to our human nature. Rights such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not granted by the state; rather, the state recognizes and protects them because they spring from the very essence of what it means to be human. This natural right to life is universal, transcending nationality, race, and creed.
Therefore, when someone asserts a “right to an abortion” or a right to end the life of their “child,” the onus is on them to provide a justification for this claim that aligns with a coherent understanding of rights. Simply stating it, no matter how emphatically, does not make it so. We are well within our rights to politely but firmly ask, “What do you mean by ‘right,’ and where does that right to an abortion come from? Why should I believe this assertion?”.
Another common tactic employed in the abortion debate, and one that surfaced in Llaya Rose’s “surrounded” event, is the use of ad hominem attacks and irrelevant diversions. One individual questioned Llaya, “Well, how many kids have you adopted?”. The implication was that her pro-life stance is somehow invalidated by her personal adoption history. This is a classic example of a logical fallacy, specifically an ad hominem attack, which attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the merits of the argument itself.
The speaker rightly points out the absurdity of this line of reasoning. How does one person’s alleged unwillingness to adopt justify another person’s decision to kill their child?. This question-begging “argument” implicitly assumes that the unborn are not fully human, otherwise, would anyone suggest we could kill children in an orphanage simply because they are unwanted? Furthermore, even if Llaya were, hypothetically, a person who cared nothing for children after birth, that would not negate the argument that intentionally killing an innocent human being is wrong. The validity of an argument stands or falls on its own logical structure and evidence, not on the personal character or actions of the person presenting it. The speaker even draws a parallel to the problematic use of Margaret Sanger’s potentially racist views by some pro-lifers, noting that while her personal failings might be relevant in other contexts, they don’t inherently invalidate or validate the pro-life argument itself.
The issue of illegal abortions is another area where assertions often overshadow factual arguments. The claim that prohibiting abortion leads to millions of women dying in back alleys due to unsafe procedures is frequently presented as an undeniable truth. However, the speaker rightly challenges the definition of “safe” in this context, asking, “Safe for whom? The child?”. He also points out the inherent logical flaw in arguing that the law should be faulted for making it more risky to intentionally kill an innocent human being. We don’t legalize other harmful activities simply to make them “safer” for those perpetrating them. Moreover, the speaker alludes to statistical analyses that challenge the exaggerated claims of massive numbers of deaths from illegal abortions in the US, suggesting that while any death is a tragedy, the figures often cited are “utter baloney”. This highlights the importance of scrutinizing the evidence behind assertions and engaging with the factual basis of the debate.
Finally, the speaker touches upon a more recent trend in the abortion discussion, even among some who might identify as Christian, which involves a call for a “more nuanced” approach based on the perceived “mystery” surrounding the beginning of human life and the status of the unborn. The argument goes that since the Bible doesn’t directly address abortion or explicitly state when a soul enters the body, there is room for uncertainty, and perhaps the decision should be left to individual conscience. While acknowledging the good intentions of his friend who holds this view, the speaker firmly refutes the notion that the status of the unborn is a mystery. He emphasizes the clear and unequivocal scientific evidence from embryology, stating that there is no debate that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn is a distinct, living, and whole human being. Every embryology textbook, he asserts, supports this conclusion. The appeal to mystery, the speaker suggests, often arises when individuals struggle to reconcile the scientific reality of the unborn with a desire to still justify abortion. The fundamental question remains: are they human beings or not?. Once this scientific reality is acknowledged, the moral implications become unavoidable.
In conclusion, the abortion debate is fraught with deeply held beliefs and powerful emotions. However, progress towards understanding and truth requires us to move beyond the realm of mere assertion and engage in reasoned argumentation. Simply stating a position, no matter how passionately, does not constitute a justification for that position. We must be willing to examine the underlying premises of our beliefs, articulate them clearly, and provide evidence and logical reasoning to support them. When faced with assertions, we should politely but firmly ask for justification and challenge undefended claims. Only through rigorous and honest engagement with arguments, grounded in facts and sound reasoning, can we hope to navigate this complex and critical issue with the seriousness and respect it deserves. The lives of unborn human beings, whom even their adversaries often implicitly acknowledge as “children,” hang in the balance, and we owe it to them and to ourselves to engage in a debate characterized by clarity, logic, and a commitment to truth, rather than a volley of unsupported assertions.