Article adapted from episode content.
In contemporary discourse, particularly surrounding contentious topics like abortion, discussions often get bogged down by hidden and undefended premises, leading to unproductive and frustrating exchanges. One of the most prevalent and dangerous assumptions in the abortion debate is the dehumanization of the unborn. This assumption, frequently left unstated and unexamined, permeates various arguments in favor of abortion, rendering them logically unsound and ethically problematic.
The tendency to assume the non-humanity of the fetus is evident in popular slogans and memes, such as “Our bodies, our futures, our decision.” This seemingly straightforward assertion cleverly sidesteps a crucial question: who is included in the “our”? If the unborn child is indeed a human being, the decision to abort ceases to be solely the mother’s, as it directly impacts the life of another human. The slogan’s effectiveness lies in its implicit assumption, leaving the listener to unconsciously accept the premise without critical evaluation.
A similar pattern emerges in other common arguments for abortion rights. The appeal to a woman’s right to make her own decisions, while valid in many contexts, falters when applied to abortion if the unborn is considered human. The right to choose does not extend to actions that harm other humans, such as intentionally killing an innocent person. The argument’s validity hinges on the unproven assumption that the fetus is not a human being deserving of protection.
The argument for privacy rights, often invoked in defense of abortion, similarly crumbles under scrutiny. While individuals undoubtedly deserve privacy in various aspects of their lives, this right cannot justify actions that infringe upon the fundamental rights of others. The analogy of parents abusing a two-year-old child in the privacy of their home effectively dismantles this argument. The right to privacy does not override the obligation to protect vulnerable human life, regardless of location or circumstance.
Another common argument, often veiled as concern for overpopulation or environmental sustainability, also relies on the dehumanization of the unborn. Suggesting that abortion is necessary to curb population growth or reduce environmental impact inherently implies that the unborn are expendable entities whose elimination is justifiable for the greater good. This line of reasoning, however, conveniently ignores the fact that other, less morally problematic, solutions exist to address these concerns. Targeting a specific group of humans for elimination based solely on their developmental stage raises serious ethical questions and reveals the underlying assumption that the unborn lack the same inherent value as born humans.
These examples illustrate the pervasiveness of the assumption that the unborn are not fully human, allowing various pro-choice arguments to appear superficially plausible. However, upon closer examination, these arguments collapse without the support of this unproven and often unacknowledged premise.
The danger of such assumptions lies in their ability to short-circuit critical thinking and stifle productive dialogue. Instead of engaging in meaningful discussions about the moral status of the unborn and the complex ethical considerations surrounding abortion, these assumptions allow individuals to arrive at pre-determined conclusions without grappling with the underlying philosophical and scientific questions.
The key to dismantling these deadly assumptions and fostering more productive conversations is to challenge them directly. When confronted with arguments that implicitly dehumanize the unborn, it is crucial to politely but firmly point out the unstated premise and demand justification for it. Asking questions like “Does ‘our’ include the unborn child?” or “Why should we believe the unborn are not human?” forces the other party to explicitly state and defend their position, rather than relying on unexamined assumptions. This approach encourages a more honest and intellectually rigorous engagement with the issue, potentially leading to a deeper understanding of the complexities involved and a more respectful dialogue, even in the face of disagreement.
By refusing to accept unexamined assumptions and demanding clear and reasoned arguments, we can move beyond emotionally charged rhetoric and engage in more meaningful conversations about one of the most critical issues of our time. The commitment to truth and intellectual honesty requires us to scrutinize our own beliefs and challenge the assumptions that underlie them, paving the way for a more informed and compassionate approach to the abortion debate and other contentious issues.
Episode Transcript
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.
How should prol lifers respond to memes on the internet? Well, there’s a new one going and I’ll take a look at it in today’s episode of The Case for Life podcast. We’re glad you’re here and we hope that we can offer you something that will help you persuasively engage others on the pro-life issue. If you have not yet liked this episode, please do so. Like it and share it and get the word out to others. We would be very grateful if you did.
Well, here’s a meme that is out there and, somebody asked me if I would comment on it, so I will. It reads as follows: our bodies, our futures, our decision. That’s it. Just three quick little bullet points there, and the meme is meant to convey that abortion belongs, as a choice, only to the woman, because obviously, our bodies, our choice, our futures are at stake, not anybody else’s. Now, before we go any further, there is a glaring assumption being made here that we need to address, and we’re going to look at it by simply asking the question: what is the hidden and undefended premise in that Meme?
And it is simply this: that The Unborn are not one of us. You could ask the question: when you speak of R, does r include The Unborn. If not, notice, the meme is assuming The Unborn aren’t human. There’s no argument been presented that would make that case. In fact, if this argument were to be made valid, you would need to add the premise: The Unborn are not one of us, or they’re not human, or they aren’t included in the word r.
Therefore, it is solely the decision of the mother who is hosting whatever this thing is inside her. But that is not argued for. It is simply stated and assumed, and what we need to do is challenge that. Why should we believe that R only includes the woman who’s pregnant and not the child she’s carrying? They need to make an argument for that. But this is the problem with so many abortion rights arguments: they simply assume The Unborn aren’t human. Let me give you some more examples.
Somebody comes to you and says: well, why don’t you trust women to make their own decisions? Well, I think most of us do trust women on a whole lot of issues. We trust them to choose their own cars. We trust them to choose the clothing they wish to wear. We trust them to choose the husbands they wish to marry. We trust them to choose the colleges they’d like to attend. There’s a whole lot of choices we trust women to make, but intentionally killing an innocent human being is not one of them.
You have to make an argument that The Unborn are not human in order for an appeal to trust to work. Here’s another one that we often hear. Well, what about a woman’s right to privacy? Okay, privacy is great. We agree completely that women deserve a right to privacy when they’re getting ready in the morning, when they are having conversations with those people that are closest to them, when they are discussing personal information with a trusted friend, for example. On a whole host of issues we recognize a right to privacy.
But suppose parents wanted a right to rough up their 2-year-old in the privacy of the bedroom. Should they be allowed to do it in the name of respecting their privacy? Clearly not. So the issue is not privacy. The issue is: what is The Unborn? Is The Unborn one of us? Because if he is a human being, he should not be killed in the name of privacy, any more than we’d kill a 2-year-old for that reason. And you can think of, just down the list, all kinds of objections we hear daily.
Here’s another one. Well, the world doesn’t have enough resources to feed everybody. Starvation’s a real problem. So we need to curb overpopulation and one way to do that, of course, is through abortion. I actually had an environmentalist use this argument and her argument was this: the earth cannot handle any more human pollution. We need to C? C, tail that, or mother Earth is not going to survive. Wow, so I guess, it’s okay to kill people if they harm the planet. But see, her argument was really assuming something that she didn’t want to come right out and say, she wanted to merely assume it and HED, she got away with it.
The argument assumes The Unborn aren’t human. Because if The Unborn are human, why kill them to save the planet? You know who we should kill? Probably adult males between maybe 18 and 35 who, through the cars they drive and the machines they use at work, are polluting the environment more than any unborn fetus would, or born one for that matter. So if it’s really just a matter of curbing population to save the planet, why not kill those who are doing the most polluting, rather than unborn children who are not doing any pollution, who aren’t taking anybody’s resources at that point?
So notice: all of the arguments simply assume The Unborn are not human. So I want to give you a piece of advice today and I hope you’ll use this always: always listen, for what is this argument assuming about The Unborn? And if the argument assumes The Unborn aren’t human, do not go any further in the conversation until you politely stop the person and say something like this: hey, can I call time out for just a minute? I noticed that in your appeal to abortion as a right, you simply assumed The Unborn aren’t human.
You didn’t argue for it, you just assumed it. Now you may be right that they’re not human, but I really need you to give me an argument for why I should believe they’re not. And if your argument is persuasive, I’ll agree with it. You have my word on that. I am committed to pursuing truth wherever the argument leads. So no worry. If The Unborn are in fact not human and you can demonstrate that from the science of embryology, I’m on board.
I will accept your position. But I’m not going to sit here and just assume with you that The Unborn are not one of us. You need to make an argument for that. Force them to make that argument. Do not let them get away with simply assuming something they haven’t proven. Thank you for joining us and again, be sure to like this podcast and do it on your social media sites and share it with others so we can get the word out.
Thanks for joining us today. We’ll see you on our next episode.