Assumptions That Kill

This transcript was generated from the episode’s YouTube captions and lightly edited for readability: filler words and the mid-show announcements have been removed. It may still contain transcription errors.

Hello friends. Should we keep abortion legal because it might lead to more cases of spousal or partner abuse? We’ll take that up on this edition of the case for life. Good to have you with us. Thanks for joining us. Let rem let me remind you of two things right out of the gate today. First, if you have not visited our primary sponsor, Life Training Institute, I hope you will. Their website will help you with resources for engaging others on the pro-life issue as well as reaching out to one of our speaking team if you’d like to have a presentation at your church or your conference.

We’d be glad to help you with that. Secondly, if you have not taken a look at our new course, which we are calling Prolife 101, it is designed to help you in one week master the moral logic of the pro-life view so you can engage effectively. I hope you’ll take a look at that. Well, today’s an interesting day. There have been several pieces of news about abortion that have just broken on the wire. The first, of course, is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has struck down that state’s prohibition on abortion, a law that had been in effect for almost 150 years.

The court has ruled that that law is unconstitutional. They’ve tossed it. No surprise there at all. This was a done deal back in November of this last year. And the reason it was a done deal, I should say, I’m sorry, it was a done deal going back to March of this year when the special election in Wisconsin pitted a Democrat federal judge that was vying for a position on the Supreme Court against a conservative Republican judge, and the Democrat judge won.

I say it’s no surprise because let’s just be honest here and if you think I’m being too direct, too bad. If a Democrat is elected to office, abortion is going to be promoted wholesale. Period. That is the party’s commitment. That is the party’s organizational apparatus. That is the hill Democrats will die on. That is the hill of unrestricted abortion. We may not like how that sounds. We may wish it were not so partisan, but it is the fact of the matter.

So, if Democrats control the courts or the legislative chambers in your state or in the Congress, abortion is going to be promoted wholesale and pro-life bills will be dead on arrival. No pun intended. So, just keep that in mind. So, it was no surprise that the Wisconsin Supreme Court did what it did today. But I did have to chuckle a little bit at how some of the activists were responding to this. Some of the same people applauding this decision that the court overturned a law that had been on the books for decades, over a hundred years really were quite vocal that the court must respect precedent when it was dealing with Roie Wade at the Supreme Court.

In other words, they were screaming for a doctrine they call sterecis that says the court ought to respect existing precedent. Now, I am aware that that primarily replies to court decisions, not legislative law. I’m well aware of that. However, when you listen to a lot of abortion rights advocates on the street, they will talk about how pro-life laws in principle are bad if they challenge existing law. And so when Roie Wade was still the law of the land and anytime a Republican president appointed a court nominee at the federal level either for an appellet court judge position or a Supreme Court decision, you could go to the bank and bet your life’s fortune that the first question out of the mouth of the Democrat senators that would be interviewing this candidate to give approval would be, “Do you respect Sterry decisis.

In other words, do you respect Roie Wade being the law of the land, a law that is immutable, should never be changed, never touched, and they would grill the Republican nominee on that question. The idea being that past law should always be respected. Well, now we’ve got people that were arguing for overturning this Wisconsin law on grounds that it was so old and outdated. Hey, listen. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue on one hand, we need to respect precedent and then argue on the other hand, we can overturn a law because it’s so old.

It doesn’t matter how old the law is. What matters is whether it is in principle defensible. That’s the issue. I mean, the Declaration of Independence is old. That we have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I mean, that’s going on 250 years here. But it doesn’t mean it’s bad. So we’ve got to look deeper than just what is the deline on a law. We need to look at does the law have a basis in morality, a basis in law, a basis in the social good of the particular state involved.

You can’t just say, well, it’s old, so it’s a good idea to liberalize it and overturn it with newer law. That seems a rather flimsy way to look at this. All right, let’s move from Wisconsin to what I think is an even more disturbing but not surprising piece of news today. I’m holding here an article that was just published in a female medical journal that basically argues that when you restrict abortion, when you make abortion harder to get, that it’s going to have an adverse effect on maternal morbidity, meaning harm, and mortality, meaning death.

And the argument here in this piece that I’m holding here, this was published by the City University of New York researchers there. And they are they argue in here that if we restrict abortion, we’re going to have dire circumstances. We’re going to have instances of spousal and partner abuse skyrocketing. And the first thing to note about this is this is a forecast. This is something they are projecting will happen on the basis of some states restricting abortion. And they go on to argue that it’s especially poor and minority women that will be hurt the most.

Now, this is nothing new, but it’s used to silence pro-lifers all the time. And I say it’s nothing new because if you put your thinking cap on and think back for just a little bit here, isn’t it common place for us to hear that if we restrict abortion, women are going to die in the back alleys of America from rusty coat hanger abortions? We’ve been told that if we restrict abortion, crime levels will go up because after all, more unwanted kids will be born.

We’ve been told that if we protect the unborn in-law, cases of child abuse will skyrocket because again, we’re having more unwanted kids born that will end up being ab abused. This in that sense, this study today is nothing new, but I want to give you a way to navigate stuff like this. And the reason you need to know how to navigate it is that people will bring these things up thinking they have refuted your pro-life argument. And I want to assure you they most assuredly have not.

First, it does nothing to refute your pro-life syllogism to say that, oh, there’s going to be all these dire consequences that follow if we make abortion illegal. Remember our pro-life argument. Premise one, it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Premise two, abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Conclusion, therefore, abortion is wrong. Suppose it were true that there were some dire circumstances that followed by legislating to protect the unborn. Would that a prove the unborn are not human or b would it justify intentionally killing them?

And of course, the answer is no. And this leads to the second major problem with these kinds of studies, so-called studies. And by the way, maybe at a later date, after I’ve had time to look at the internal data of the study, we can make an assessment about how flawed the methodology was. But I don’t have enough information yet to know that. So, I’m not going to claim anything. Let’s just accept the study at face value and say let us suppose it were true that this study is accurate in what will happen.

Again, it’s a forecast, but let’s just set that aside for the moment and go with what the headline seems to indicate here that we’re going to have an increase in domestic violence because we’ve restricted abortion. All right. Notice what this kind of argument does right out of the gate. It assumes the unborn are not human. And it’s vital that you as a pro-lifer point that out. Now, what typically happens, and this is, I think, regrettable. Whenever these kinds of sociological forecasts or so-called studies come out, right away, pro-lifers want to go to statistics.

They want to know, hey, where is the study flawed? Or they want to know, hey, does the data really support what they’re saying? And so, for example, take the issue of illegal abortion, which we’ve heard about for decades, right? So, for 44 almost 50 years, 40, 50 years, pro-lifers have been told when we restrict abortion, women are going to die by the thousands each year from illegal abortion. Now, later in the show, I’m going to tell you why statistically that is one big fat lie with no basis in fact whatsoever.

But first, I think it’s important we deal with the philosophical problem with that claim before we start dicing out the numbers. So, here’s the way proiffers typically respond to the back alley argument. They say, “Well, statistics don’t show that women died by the thousands every year prior to Roie Wade.” In fact, we have evidence from the CDC, the evidence from Gutmcker indicating that this did not happen. And you know what? They’re right about that. And again, in a little bit, I’ll show you why they’re right about that.

But it’s really not the place to begin the response. I would begin this way. I would begin by saying, you know, you and I agree that any woman that dies from an abortion, legal or illegal, is a tragedy that did not have to happen. I wish it had not happened. We can agree on that. But notice that the objection assumes the unborn are not human because otherwise what’s being argued here in the case of the back alley coat hanger abortions is that because some humans will die attempting to intentionally kill other innocent human beings, the law ought to make it safe and legal for them to do the intentional killing.

Well, this is ridiculous. You can see right away it assumes the unborn are not human. I mean, after all, what’s wrong with a law that says you can’t intentionally kill innocent human beings? And we’re not going to make it easy for you to do it. And the answer is there’s nothing wrong with that law. The law should not be faulted for making it more risky for one human to intentionally kill another completely innocent one. So you have to assume the unborn are not human in order to even make this case.

Suppose there was some study that came out indicating that toddlers increase maternal morbidity or mortality. For example, let’s just make this up. Suppose somebody could concoct a study indicating that the presence of toddlers in the home proved to be very distracting for mothers and caused them to neglect their other children because they were so focused on keeping track of the toddler. Now suppose in response to that the argument were made that it ought to be okay to eliminate the distraction problem by eliminating the toddlers in question.

Well, everybody would say, “What a bogus argument.” Nobody would go there. Why? Because they recognize that even if the toddler is challenging, he should not be killed in order to make life easier for somebody else or to spare somebody else a problem that they’re facing in the home. The argument here for illegal abortion being something that harms women, therefore we must keep it legal so they can have an abortion safely and legally is question begging. It assumes the unborn aren’t human.

You know, when people say to me abortion should be safe and legal, the first question I ask is safe for whom? Is it safe for the child to be dismembered, poisoned, or burned in the womb? And the answer is of course not. It only works if you assume that that child in the womb is actually not a human being. You have to make that assumption for this argument to have any force whatsoever. And the same is true with this particular study.

It only works to say we should keep abortion liberalized and should not restrict it so that we can prevent cases of spousal abuse or partner abuse. And that’s the only way we’re going to be able to protect m maternal health in this case. That argument only flies if you start with the assumption that the unborn are not human. But that needs to be argued for, not merely assumed. And I will tell you, every time, and I do mean every time, you read a headline like this talking about how abortion actually is saving lives, abortion is actually making it possible for women to enjoy a greater level of health.

Every one of these arguments that begins that way is going to begin by assuming the unborn are not human. Nobody would argue we can kill five-year-olds to make it safer domestically for parents, but they will argue that way with the unborn because they simply assume the unborn are not human. Now, we’re going to take a break here in just a minute. When we come back, I’m going to do what I promised to do a moment ago. I’m going to go ahead and tell you why statistically the claim that thousands of women died each year from illegal abortion is bogus.

I will tell you that information so you have it. But again, I want you to remember the most important thing to do right out of the gate is expose the assumption that the unborn are not human. Pro-lifers for too long have let that go. And if you don’t expose that assumption, here’s what you run into. You’re going to run into a situation where you’re having to say that your study is better than the critic’s study. And the news media is going to be on the side of your critic.

The news media is going to be a on the side of those arguing that we need abortion to prevent other societal harms. And you’re not going to have the benefit of the doubt in that case. So, it’s going to be your study’s better than my study or my study’s better than yours and it’s going to be a fight to the draw. You need an additional way to argue here. And that additional way to argue is to point out the philosophical and logical flaw in the claim.

Namely, that it assumes the unborn are not human. Nobody argues we should make bank robbery legal so that it’s safer for felons. But yet, when people argue we should make abortion legal so that it’s safer for those who want to do the killing, they are making the assumption the unborn in question are not human. They need to argue for that, not merely assume it. By the way, don’t count on them being able to argue for it, but they’ll get away with that assumption if you don’t challenge it.

So, it’s vitally important that you first recognize the assumption and then push back on it. All right, we’ll come back after the break and talk about the statistical flaws. Again, if you have not already looked at our course, Prolife 101, I hope you will because it will give you the tools you need to make your case for life.

Hello everyone. Welcome back. Good to have you with us. I mentioned before the break we’d talk about the statistics involved on the claim of illegal abortion that and that we need to keep abortion safe and legal as people like to say without ever saying safe for whom? But they want to make the claim that 5 to 10,000 deaths a year followed when we had abortion restricted by law. Now, I’ve already made the point and I want to reiterate it here so that you don’t lose track of it.

It’s vitally important we expose the logical assumption in the claim, namely that people to make this claim that we need to keep abortion safe, by which they mean safe only for the woman, not the child. We need to expose the assumption that the unborn are not human. Now, it could be that pro-lifers are wrong, that maybe the unborn are not human. Maybe there’s some other kind of species or some other creature. Okay, maybe that’s true, but you need to argue for it, not merely assume it in the course of your argument.

So when people argue that we need legal abortion so it can be safe abortion and not have back alley abortions taking place with rusty coat hangers. They need to make the argument the unborn aren’t human. But there is indeed another flaw with this argument and that is that it is completely false that 5 to 10,000 women a year died from illegal abortion. About a ye about a decade ago I think it was now maybe 8 n years I don’t know I was out at UC Berkeley in California that bastion of conservative thought right and I was debating a guy by the name of Malcolm Pototts Malcolm Pototts has written a book on abortion he was the worldwide medical director for Planned Parenthood for a number of years he teaches a sociology class I guess or public health course maybe it is out at Berkeley.

Anyway, I got invited to debate him in front of 600 of his own students in Dr. Pots’s class. Now, you might think, “Oh man, why would any proiffer wait into that?” It’s absolutely a win for me. I have nothing to lose in that situation. That crowd is already against me. Nobody is going to improve his position by this debate. Rather I got a chance to pick some people off that maybe held his view but now start thinking more seriously about mine.

So I didn’t go there with this notion that oh the crowd is going to stand up and applaud me when we’re done. I was absolutely on enemy turf if you want to put it that way. But during the course of the debate an interesting thing happened. Dr. Pototts tried to paint a picture of me as someone who wants women to die and principally die from back alley abortions that if we restrict abortion and I get my way, women are going to suffer and bleed out in the back alleys of America.

Now, he was busy making this claim and what he did not know is that I had a copy of his book with me where on page 529 he says the following. I’m just going to read to you what he said and I read this to his class. He says, “Unfortunately, clinical aspects of abortion have become the subject of emotional and political claims. Those who want the law to be liberalized will stress the hazards of illegal abortion and claim that hundreds or thousands of women die unnecessarily each year when the actual number is far lower.

That wasn’t my opinion. That’s Dr. Pots right out of his own book which he apparently had forgotten about writing. And I held that book up and quoted that to his course. And the people in that course were quite amused. Dr. Pototts went ballistic on me and absolutely had a meltdown on stage when I did that. But it was appropriate to point out that that wasn’t a pro-lifer saying that the numbers were much lower. That was him as an abortion advocate writing that it was much lower.

Now I want to give you some other sources for this. This is a book by Daniel Callahan called Abortion Law, Choice, and Morality. And I like this book because Callahan, though he supports abortion, is committed, I think, to trying to be even-handed and he wants to be honest with where the evidence leads. He’s not the kind of guy that is going to throw out flammatory statements. He wants to be more measured. And he writes in this book that while illegal abortion certainly happens and certainly some women will be harmed by it is simply untenable to the max to say that 5 to 10,000 women a year died from illegal abortion.

And he gives a reason for it. He says up to 30,000 women a year of reproductive age die from all causes. To claim that so high a number as 30,000 or 5 to 10,000 a year come from one source is ridiculous and it stretches credibility to the breaking point. If 30,000 women a year die from all causes who are of reproductive age to claim 5 to 10,000 a year come from only one cause illegal abortion. Sorry, that does not work. All right, third source.

We’ve already cited POTS. We’ve cited Callahan. Here’s a third source. Dr. Mary Calderon, who was Planned Parenthood’s medical director in the late 60s, early 70s when allegedly all these women were dying from illegal abortion, told the American Journal of Public Health that the death rate from illegal abortion was so low it really wasn’t even worth commenting on. And she gave two reasons why the death rate was low. Again, she wasn’t arguing nobody died. She was arguing that the death rate was substantially lower than what people wanted to claim who wanted to liberalize abortion laws.

And here’s what she said. The rate was low because we’ve had a widespread introduction of penicellin that has reduced dramatically the number of postop infections people were suffering. Whether the surgery was abortion, having an apppendecttomy, having your tonsils pulled, whatever. With the widespread introduction of penicellin those death rates plummeted. Now a third source here and this one I think is or fourth source pardon me is very important. Dr. Christopher Tits again a statistician with Planned Parenthood at the time called the claim of 5 to 10,000 deaths a year from illegal abortion unmitigated nonsense.

He told that to the New York Times. And then finally a fifth source Dr. Bernard Nathansson who wrote this book aborting America where he made the claim that not only had he presided over 60,000 deaths while he was performing abortion. It is also the case that he made up the figure of 5 to 10,000 deaths a year and sold it to the media. These are facts you need to know about. We cover them in our course. I hope you’ll take a look at that.

Thank you for joining us today. I look forward to seeing you the next time.