Notes:

Bad Ways People Argue About Abortion

1. They assume rather than argue

This is nothing new—

Consider this example from chapter 32 of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, where Huck contrives a story to explain to Aunt Sally his late arrival by boat:

“We blowed out a cylinder head.”

“Good gracious! Anybody hurt?”

“No’m. Killed a Nigger.”

“Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.”

Notice it’s simply assumed the black man is not one of us. President Obama was no better with the unborn. On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he said: “Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams” (emphasis added). The President’s statement was question-begging. He never told us if “everyone” includes the unborn. He just assumed it did not. Our job, as pro-life Christians, is to expose that assumption and focus the debate on the status of the unborn. Consider the back-alley argument: “The law can’t stop all abortions. Women will be forced to get dangerous illegal ones.” Note how the objection assumes the unborn are not human. Otherwise, the argument is saying that because some people die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal to do so. But why should the law be faulted for making it riskier for one human to intentionally take the life of another completely innocent one? True, laws can’t stop all illegal behavior, but they stop most. Laws against rape don’t stop all rape, but we still legislate to protect women. In The Case for Life, I refute the myth that thousands of women died annually from illegal abortion. But your first step is to expose the faulty assumption. It won’t work to say we should be a society that supports “choice” when the very question of who is part of that society, that is, whether or not it includes the unborn, is itself under dispute in the abortion debate.

Whenever you hear an argument for abortion, ask yourself if this particular justification would also work to justify killing toddlers. If not, the argument assumes the unborn are not human as toddlers are human. But again, that’s the issue, isn’t it?

To be clear, you are not asking the toddler question to prove the unborn are human. You’ll present your case for the humanity of the unborn later. Rather, you are asking it to frame the discussion around one question: What is the unborn?

Consider the following objections:

“Laws against abortion impose religious beliefs on others.”

Setting aside for the moment that claiming a fetus has a right to life is no more religious than claiming it doesn’t, would abortion-choice advocates argue this way if we were talking about killing toddlers? Never. Only by assuming the unborn are not human does their objection work. But that is precisely the point they must argue for and not merely assume.

“We must respect freedom of conscience that allows women a right to choose.”

Well, maybe. But choose what? Suppose the topic were locking teenagers up until age 30. (Some of you are tempted.) Would abortion-choice advocates argue for freedom of conscience for those parents who wish to unjustly incarcerate their kids? Again, only by assuming the unborn are not human can we justify intentionally killing them with an appeal to conscience. I’m willing to buy arguments for freedom and self-determination but only after abortion-choice advocates demonstrate that the unborn are not human beings. They need to answer the question “What is the unborn?” before they say it’s okay to kill the unborn.

“Our individual principles of morality cannot control what others choose to do. Our obligation is to liberty.”

Whenever I hear this, I ask: “Is that true or just your individual moral principle?” Again, notice the defender of abortion assumes the unborn are not human. Would he argue for individual liberty if the choice before us involved killing toddlers? Of course not. Only by assuming the unborn are not human can he argue this way. But that’s a point he must prove, not merely assume.

“The federal government should not enter the private realm of family life.”

Really? What if a family wants the right to rough up a toddler in the privacy of the bedroom? Should we allow this in the name of respecting the “private realm of family life?” Again, only by assuming the unborn are not human can we justify taking their lives in the name of privacy. Meanwhile, when people tell me the federal government should stay out of the abortion issue, I ask do they mean the federal courts? Truth is, Roe and Doe did not get the federal government out of abortion. Instead, one branch of the federal government, the judiciary, co-opted the issue from the other two branches of government, leaving them no say on the issue.

“Laws protecting the unborn are misguided. Instead, pro-lifers should work to reduce abortion by addressing its underlying causes.”

I find this an odd claim for several reasons. First, why should we worry about reducing abortion? If the unborn aren’t human, who cares how many abortions there are? But if abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being, that’s an excellent reason to legislate against it. Second, what’s wrong with a law that says you can’t intentionally kill innocent human beings and if you do, there will be consequences? Suppose I said the “underlying cause” of spousal abuse is psychological, so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide counseling for men.” There are “underlying causes” for rape, murder, theft and so on, but that in no way makes it “misguided” to pass laws against evil behavior. Why should it be any different with laws protecting the unborn?

Answer: It’s only different if you assume the victims in question are not human, an assumption no pro-lifer should let stand.

Of course, abortion-choice advocates may respond that killing a toddler and killing a fetus are two different things, like comparing apples with oranges. But that’s the issue isn’t it? Are the unborn human beings, like toddlers? That’s the one issue that matters. We can’t escape it.

“Many poor women cannot afford to raise another child.”

When human beings get expensive, may we kill them? Suppose a large family collectively decides to quietly dispose of its three youngest children to help ease the family budget. Would this be okay? Abortion-choice advocates agree it’s wrong to kill the children but insist that aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a child. Ah, but that’s the issue: Is unjustly killing a fetus morally the same as unjustly killing a two-year-old? So, once again, we’re back to, What is the unborn?

“A woman should not be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world.”

The homeless are unwanted. Can we kill them? Abortion-choice advocates sometimes reply that killing the fetus is the more humane thing to do. “Who wants to be part of a family that rejects you? Everyone has a right to be wanted.” Suppose a toddler is unwanted and we have good reason to think that by the time he’s five, he’ll be abused and neglected. Should we kill him now to spare him future trouble? The answer is obviously no, but if the unborn are human, should they be treated this way? We’re back to our primary issue: What is the unborn?

“Pro-lifers should not force their view of abortion on others who disagree.”

Dr. Malcom Potts argued this way during our U.C. Berkeley debate. Insisting morality was personal, he chided pro-lifers for forcing their views on others. He insisted they should follow the Ethic of Reciprocity, the Golden Rule—which simply states that we ought to treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Really? Is that true or just his personal rule? At the same time, notice how his claim is question begging—it assumes the unborn are not human, the very thing he is trying to prove. He says we should treat “others” the way “we” want to be treated. Do “others” and “we” include the unborn? If not, isn’t he assuming something here?

“No woman should be forced to raise a child with physical disabilities.”

Suppose that you have a small boy who is mentally disabled. He’s not very bright, cannot speak or understand much of what is said, and looks strange from head to toe. Would it be morally permissible to kill him because of his disability?

Abortion-choice advocates agree that we cannot destroy him, that we should treat him with the same care we provide all disabled human beings. But again, this raises the question: If the disabled unborn are human, like the disabled toddler, should we kill them for not meeting our standard of perfection any more than we’d kill a toddler for that reason? Thus, the issue that matters most in the abortion debate isn’t disability. It’s “What is the unborn?”

Asking Good Questions

Suppose your friend Tanner justifies abortion this way: “Women have a right to make their own private decisions. What goes on in the bedroom is their business and no one else’s.”

When you hear this, don’t panic. Ask yourself a simple question: Would Tanner’s justification for abortion work for killing a toddler? If not, Tanner is assuming the unborn are not human. To help him see the problem, engage him with thoughtful questions aimed at returning the discussion back to the status of the unborn. Here is a sample conversation between you and Tanner:

You: Tanner, you say that privacy is the issue. Pretend that I have a two-year old in front of me. (Hold out your hand at knee-level to help him visualize the kid.) May I kill him as long as I do it in the privacy of the bedroom?

Tanner: That’s silly! Of course not!

You: Why not?

Tanner: Because he’s a human being.

You: Ah. If the unborn are human, like the toddler, we shouldn’t kill the unborn in the name of privacy anymore than we’d kill a toddler for that reason.

Tanner: But that’s different. You’re comparing apples with oranges, two things that are completely unrelated. Look, killing toddlers is one thing. Killing a fetus that is not a human being is quite another.

You: Ah. That’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn human beings, like toddlers? That’s a question we must resolve at this point. We can’t say it’s okay to kill the unborn unless we first answer “What is the unborn?”

Tanner: But many poor women cannot afford to raise another child.

You: That’s true. Poverty is terrible. So how should we fix it? By killing dependent children or helping poor families get back on their feet?

Tanner: But what about a woman who’s been raped? Every time she looks at that kid she’s going to remember what happened to her. If that’s not painful hardship, what is?

You: That’s a fair point. She’s suffered a terrible injustice and her child may indeed provoke painful memories. She desperately needs our love and compassion. And like you, I’m saddened by pro-lifers who brush aside her pain with statistics. So what if most abortions are for other reasons? That doesn’t help her feel any better.

Tanner: So you agree abortion is okay for her?

You: Well, let’s explore that. How many humans are involved in a pregnancy that results from rape, two or three?

Tanner: Um, two…three? Ya, three.

You: I agree. You’ve got the pregnant mother, the rapist, and her unborn child. How do you think we should treat each of them? Should we kill the guilty rapist?

Tanner: No, I oppose the death penalty. It’s immoral. He should get life in prison.

You: Fair enough. How about the mother, should we kill her?

Tanner: Seriously? You’re kidding, right? That’s barbaric. Some Islamic countries do that. A woman gets raped and they kill her for bringing shame on the family. They call it honor killing.

You: I agree. It’s evil. How about her unborn offspring? Should we kill him for the sin of his father?

Tanner: Huh? Wait. I feel like you’re cornering me.

You: I’m not cornering you; the argument is. Can I make an observation? Of the three humans involved in the pregnancy resulting from rape, you won’t kill the guilty rapist. You won’t kill the mother. But you will kill the innocent child.

Tanner: But where is your compassion for the victim?

You: That’s not at issue here. We both agree she’s been terribly wronged. It’s your proposed solution I’m struggling to understand. How should a civil society treat innocent human beings that remind us of a painful event? Is it okay to kill them so we can feel better? Can we, for example, kill a toddler who reminds his mother of a rape?

Tanner: No, I wouldn’t do that.

You: Neither would I. But again, isn’t that because you and I both agree that it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings even if they do remind us of a painful event?

Tanner: But you don’t understand how much this woman has suffered. Put yourself in her shoes. How would you feel?

You: You’re right. I don’t understand her feelings. How could I? How could anyone? I’m just asking if hardship justifies homicide? Can we intentionally kill toddlers who remind us of painful events? Again, my claim here is really quite modest. If the unborn are members of the human family, like toddlers, we should not kill them to make someone else feel better.

2. They attack rather than argue

Bring up abortion and you’ll quickly hear that men can’t get pregnant, meaning only women should decide the issue. But this response attacks the person rather than his argument. In short, it’s completely beside the point. Arguments don’t have gender; people do. Pro-life women use the same arguments as pro-life men. Indeed, if men can’t speak on abortion, Roe v. Wade should be reversed because nine men decided the case. Should only generals decide the morality of war? You’ll also hear that pro-life advocates have no right to oppose abortion unless they adopt unwanted children. Rather than buying your critic’s premise, recognize the objection for what it is—a disguised attempt to change the subject. Let’s go back to our syllogism: P1—It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. P2—Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Therefore, C: Abortion is morally wrong. Now ask your critic this question: How does my alleged unwillingness to adopt a child justify an abortionist intentionally killing one? Put simply, how does it refute my essential pro-life argument?

3. They assert rather than argue

Suppose you lay out your essential pro-life argument and defend it with science and philosophy. Instead of refuting your argument, your critic responds, “Well, women have a right to choose.” Is that an argument or an assertion? It’s an assertion because no evidence is offered to support the claim. The obvious question is, “Choose what? And where does the right to choose come from?” Your opponent presents no argument and no evidence for either question. He simply asserts a right to choose. To expose the undefended assertion, ask, “Why would you believe a thing like that?” Sometimes the assertion comes in the form of a hidden premise. For example, a professor discounts your case with an assertion: “The embryo is not self-aware and has no immediately exercisable desires.” The hidden and undefended premise is that self-awareness and desires give us a right to life. But he presents no argument for that hidden premise. Begin by exposing it: “Why does self-awareness or having desires matter? That is, why are they value-giving in the first place when determining who lives and who dies?”

4. They confuse moral claims with preference ones

A popular bumper sticker reads, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”

Notice what the sticker does. Instead of refuting the essential pro-life argument, it changes the subject. It treats the pro-lifer’s moral claim (abortion is wrong) as a mere preference one (abortion is about likes and dislikes). This is intellectually dishonest. It’s possible to like something and still say it’s wrong. Maybe I like driving my father-in-law’s new Corvette without permission. That doesn’t make it right.

Morality is about what’s right and wrong, not what we prefer. Try this: “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave.” Anyone who would say that does not understand the nature of moral reasoning.

Nevertheless, many people want it both ways. They condemn abortion with words but want it to be legally available. They say things like, “I personally oppose abortion, but don’t want to impose my beliefs on others who disagree.”

The obvious question is, Why do you personally oppose abortion? If abortion does not intentionally kill an innocent human being, why be opposed at all? Imagine if I said, “I personally oppose spousal abuse, but I won’t impose my personal beliefs on you. After all, your moral beliefs are just as valid as my own.” If I said that, you would not say I was neutral. You’d say my moral compass was broken.

Moral neutrality on abortion is impossible. If you believe that all moral views are equally valid, you are not neutral. You are espousing relativism, a worldview that says right and wrong are either up to the individual or his or her society, not any objective truths we discover. Morality, like choosing your favorite flavor of ice cream, is strictly a matter of personal preference. Relativism is not neutral. Relativists think they are right and non-relativists are wrong. If not,why do they correct non-relativists who argue that moral truth is real and knowable?

Applied to abortion, moral neutrality is impossible. Either you believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life or you don’t. The pro-life view is that humans are intrinsically valuable in virtue of the kind of thing they are. The abortion-choice view is that humans have value only because of an acquired property like self-awareness or sentience. Notice that both positions—pro-life and abortion-choice—use philosophical reflection to answer the same question: What makes humans valuable in the first place? Pick a side. There is no neutral ground.

State neutrality is also impossible. Either the state recognizes the humanity of the unborn and thus protects them or it doesn’t and thus permits killing them. Imagine it’s 1860 and the Supreme Court says, “We take no position on whether or not slaves are human beings. When scientists, philosophers, and theologians can’t agree on that question, the Court is in no position to decide. Therefore, individual slave owners can choose for themselves whether to free their slaves or keep them.” A court that rules that way is not neutral. It’s taking the position that slaves do not deserve the same liberties free people do.

Watch out for phony appeals to tolerance. The classical view of tolerance, which I support, goes like this: I think your idea is mistaken, but I will tolerate you expressing your view and making your case. The classical view tolerates humans as being equally valuable but rejects the claim that all ideas are so. Indeed, the very concept of tolerance presupposes I think you are wrong. Otherwise, I’m not tolerating you; I’m agreeing with you!

The new (phony) tolerance really isn’t tolerant. It insists that all ideas are equally valid (except those that claim to be true with a capital T) and if you say differently, we won’t tolerate you. The new tolerance does not seek understanding and dialogue, only censoring of opposing views.

At the end of the day, if disagreement means there are no moral truths, then slavery, genocide, and rape are mere matters of personal preference.

5. They hide behind the hard cases

Two types of people bring up rape—the inquirer and the crusader. The former is looking honestly at the arguments but stumbles emotionally with saying the mother must give birth. The crusader is not honest. He just wants to make you look bad by painting you as an extremist. Your approach to each is different. For the inquirer, gently ask: “Given we both agree a woman who is sexually assaulted suffers a terrible injustice and may in fact be reminded of it should she give birth, how should a civil society treat innocent human beings who remind us of a painful event?” Let the question sink in. Then, ask, “Is it okay to kill them so we can feel better?” If the unborn are human, hardship does not justify homicide. For the crusader, say: “I’ll grant for the sake of argument we allow abortion in cases of rape. Will you join me in opposing all other abortions?” 100% of the time, he won’t. He wants all abortion legal. Now, call his bluff. “Your position is not that abortion should be legal only in cases of rape. You want it legal for any reason the mother wants. Why don’t you defend that position instead of hiding behind rape victims?” In short, even if the rape objection works, which it does not, it would only justify abortion for rape, not for any reason the mother wants. Francis Beckwith puts it well: Arguing for the abolition of all abortion laws because of rape is kind of like arguing we should get rid of all traffic laws because you might need to run a red light rushing a loved one to the hospital.

Memorize the pro-life syllogism. Practice it out loud. It will keep you on message when critics change the subject.

¹ Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice (New York: Routledge, 2011) p.8.