Introduction and Context: Engaging Media Commentary on Abortion

Today, I want to address the recent foray into political and moral commentary by late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, specifically concerning abortion. Some might dismiss the significance of what Hollywood figures say on such serious topics, but the reality is that a large number of our fellow citizens turn to media, not the Bible, philosophy, or science, for their information. Thus, we must engage with what the media is communicating.

A recent example involves Jimmy Kimmel sporting a shirt that reads, “Girls just want to have fundamental rights”. This is a clear riff on Cindy Lauper’s song “Girls Just Want to Have Fun”. Lauper has reportedly launched a campaign promoting abortion rights under the label of “women’s healthcare,” and Kimmel, Helen Hunt, and other celebrities have enthusiastically joined this effort, sparking considerable buzz online about Kimmel’s supposed courage. But let’s pause and consider: Is it truly courageous when the stance aligns perfectly with every secular academic institution, the media, news outlets, and the entire entertainment industry? In what conceivable sense is this courageous? It isn’t. Yet, Hollywood has a penchant for self-congratulation, applauding itself for adopting positions that are widely accepted within its circles, often without engaging in any serious moral reflection.

The Hypothetical Conversation and the First Question: Do Unborn Girls Count?

Considering this shirt, “Girls just want to have fundamental rights,” I entertained the idea of a hypothetical conversation with Mr. Kimmel about its implications and assumptions. I would prefer this discussion occur on my platform or privately, perhaps over coffee, rather than on his late-night show, where arguments are typically supplanted by cliches and imagery. In such a serious conversation about the moral logic conveyed by his shirt, I would begin by posing two fundamental questions. The first question would be: Mr. Kimmel, when you state that girls deserve fundamental rights, do you intend to include unborn girls, or are you referring solely to born girls? His shirt, as presented and in context, obviously assumes only born girls.

Second Question: What precisely do you mean by “fundamental rights”? 

The second question I would ask is: What precisely do you mean by “fundamental rights”? Our culture frequently invokes the idea of “rights,” often seeming to pluck them “out of thin air”. This typically boils down to a simple assertion: “I want it, therefore I have a right to it”. We see this logic at play in various contemporary debates. For instance, in the so-called “right to die” movement, the argument is “I desire to die, therefore I have a right to die”. In the context of abortion, it becomes “I want an abortion, therefore I have a fundamental right to have one”. This same pattern appears in the transgender debate: “I want to be a woman, even though I am a man, therefore you must recognize my fundamental right to be a woman, even though I am really a man”. This is the state of rights discourse in our culture today – desires are equated with rights.

Identifying a Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question

Returning to the first question, I would press Mr. Kimmel: Do unborn women count as girls? His likely answer, based on his public stance, would be no. But here is where his logic reveals a significant flaw: He is engaging in the fallacy known as question begging. It’s important to use the term “begging the question” correctly. Many people misuse it to mean “raising the question”. For example, saying “We need to fix the car” might raise the question “What’s wrong with the car?”, but it doesn’t beg the question. You beg the question when you assume the very thing you are trying to prove, arguing in a circle. It’s like asserting, “The Los Angeles Lakers are the best team in basketball because no team is as good”. You haven’t provided any independent evidence or reasoning; you’ve simply restated your conclusion within your premise.

Begging the Question in Abortion Arguments

This is precisely what happens in the abortion debate. Those who claim a right to abortion frequently simply assume that the unborn are not human, when whether the unborn are human is the central, contested issue of the debate. The entire debate turns on this point. In the specific case of Jimmy Kimmel’s shirt and the campaign promoting abortion as “healthcare,” the argument is that “Women deserve a fundamental right to healthcare”. When you examine this claim in the context of abortion, ask yourself: What does this statement assume about the unborn? The answer is obvious: They are assumed not to be human. Why? Because would anyone seriously argue for a right to “healthcare” if it entailed intentionally killing a two-year-old or a four-year-old? Would anyone argue that a man has a right to “healthcare” if it meant having the ability to beat his wife because it improved his mental or psychological state? Of course not. We would never make such arguments because we recognize there are other human victims involved, and an alleged right cannot trample on the fundamental rights of another person, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, Kimmel’s t-shirt, right out of the gate, assumes the unborn are not human. He, and almost 100% of abortion advocates outside of academia, don’t have the apparent courage or willingness to argue for the proposition that the unborn are not human. They simply assume it. This is no different from when Joe Biden, while president, stated that everyone should be glad for “reproductive healthcare” because it is “good for everyone”. We must stop and ask: Mr. President, does “everyone” include the unborn? Are they considered part of society? Is “reproductive healthcare,” when it refers to abortion, good for them? The obvious reality is that this argument only has force if you assume the unborn are not human. Otherwise, you are arguing that “reproductive healthcare” is good even though it intentionally kills another human being, an argument no one wants to explicitly make. The strategy, then, is simply to assume the unborn are not human.

We see this assumption embedded in other common arguments for abortion. People say, “Well, we should trust women to make their own personal decisions”. Would this argument hold if we were discussing killing toddlers? Others claim “abortion is good for society because it reduces crime,” suggesting fewer “unwanted kids” lowers the crime rate. But this argument fails if you don’t first address the question: Are the unborn part of society in the first place? Instead of answering this, the assumption is simply made that they are not human. Another argument is that “abortion is good because we shouldn’t be forcing our moral views on others”. Do people argue this way when discussing sex trafficking, child abuse, or spousal abuse? No, they only employ this reasoning with abortion because they assume the unborn are not human.

Exposing the Assumption: The “Trot Out the Toddler” Tactic

Whenever you encounter t-shirts like Kimmel’s or hear cliche statements about abortion, the first thing to do is ask: What does their claim assume about the unborn? A helpful way to test this is to ask: Would their particular claim justify killing a toddler? If the answer is no, you know they are assuming the unborn are not human. One effective tactic to expose this assumption, which we call “trot out the toddler,” involves very graciously, not snarkily, holding your hand out about knee-high and asking the critic: “Would your argument be a good one for killing this two-year-old?” Imagine the toddler is right there, and their parents claim a right to “healthcare” or “privacy” to harm the child in their bedroom. Your critic would say no. You then simply ask, “Why not?” The likely answer: “Because he’s a human being”. Your response? “Ah.” Then you follow up: “If the unborn are human like that toddler, should they be killed in the name of healthcare, trusting women, privacy, or any other reason you bring up, any more than we would kill a two-year-old for that reason?” They will likely respond, “Well, that’s different. The unborn aren’t human. The toddler is”.

At this point, you can agree for the sake of argument: “Ah, okay. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I need to argue that the unborn are human. And maybe you’ll find my argument wanting. And maybe you have an argument to show the unborn aren’t human. Fair enough”. But then you deliver the crucial point: “But you need to make that argument, not merely assume the unborn aren’t human. I need you to argue that they’re not human”. This is precisely the argument most people are unwilling or unable to make.

Challenging the “Healthcare” Claim

Let’s also briefly address the claim that abortion is “healthcare”. Factually, the assertion that women are dying because they lack abortion access in states with restrictions is, according to the speaker, “absolute propaganda lie”. These states generally have legislative language permitting emergency procedures for ectopic pregnancies or care for miscarriages. Women are not prosecuted for miscarriages. These claims are described as scare tactics by pro-abortion propagandists, not based in reality.

Philosophically, the term “healthcare” itself is being intentionally confused. Since when does healthcare involve intentionally killing an innocent human being? Healthcare’s purpose is typically understood as preserving and bettering life, not intentionally taking or harming another human being. The language is twisted to mislead people about the true nature of abortion.

Back to the Second Question: Defining Fundamental Rights

Now, back to that second question I’d ask Mr. Kimmel: What do you mean by fundamental rights? As noted, our culture often thinks wanting something creates a right to it. Kimmel’s post supporting his shirt reportedly stated, “Women have always had a fundamental right”. I agree with the statement that women have fundamental rights. But the critical question is: On what are those rights grounded? This is where secular culture struggles to provide a coherent answer.

Fundamental rights are not granted or invented by the government. They are those rights you possess simply by virtue of your humanity. The government’s role is to recognize and protect these inherent rights. This understanding is reflected in the language of the Declaration of Independence, which speaks of “unalienable rights” endowed by a Creator, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are pre-political; they exist before the formation of government. Government should align with them, not create or abolish them.

Consider an analogy: When I visit the UK, I don’t have the right to vote in their elections or enter without proper documentation like a passport. The UK government has the authority to regulate entry and participation in its political processes. This is fair. However, while in the UK, I do have a right not to be shot dead in a public place like Trafalgar Square. This right is fundamentally different from the right to enter or vote. The right not to be gunned down in a major city is not granted by the British government; they don’t invent it or decide its scope. This right is universal to all human beings, regardless of citizenship, because it is based on our human nature. It flows inherently from being human.

The Source of Fundamental Rights: Beyond Government Decree

So, when people assert that women have a fundamental right to an abortion, I ask: Where did that right come from? The answer invariably offered is, “Well, the Supreme Court granted that right in Roe v. Wade”. This answer reveals the problem: Any right granted by a court or government can be taken away by that same authority. If the only basis you can provide for an alleged right to abortion is a court ruling, then you have no logical grounds to complain when a subsequent court decision, like Dobbs, revokes that alleged right. If courts are the final arbiter, one should simply accept their decrees.

However, those advocating for abortion rights do complain about the Dobbs decision, insisting women have a fundamental right. This insistence implies a source higher than the courts. The only answer that provides a coherent grounding for fundamental, unalienable rights is a transcendent source, which is precisely why the founders linked these rights to a creator.

When Do Natural Rights Begin? Applying Embryology

Thinking about natural rights, we must ask: When do your natural rights begin? The only logical answer is: the moment you begin. To determine when a human being begins, we don’t turn to religion, philosophy, or catechism. This is an empirical question answered by the science of embryology. Embryology textbooks worldwide affirm that a human being begins at the moment of fertilization.

Therefore, applying this understanding: When did Mr. Kimmel begin? At the moment of fertilization. When did his natural rights begin? At that point. If all girls have fundamental rights, and I agree that they do, when do girls begin to possess those rights? The answer is in the womb, because their natural, fundamental rights begin when they begin. And according to the science of embryology, they begin at fertilization.

Conclusion: The Centrality of the Question “What is the Unborn?”

This is where Mr. Kimmel, and many others, seem to go off the rails. While the online reaction praises his supposed courage, I see a lack of clarity in his thinking. The core issue is the failure to grapple with the fundamental assumptions being made. Arguments for abortion rights consistently bypass the necessary step of demonstrating that the unborn are not human, simply assuming it to justify other claims about healthcare, privacy, or personal decision-making. Furthermore, proponents struggle to provide a consistent, non-arbitrary grounding for the alleged “fundamental right” itself, often appealing only to changeable legal decrees rather than inherent human dignity flowing from human nature or a transcendent source.

To be persuasive in defending pro-life convictions, we must learn to recognize and expose these underlying assumptions and logical fallacies. We need to understand that arguments like Kimmel’s, while seemingly straightforward (“Girls just want to have fundamental rights”), conceal crucial, unproven premises about who counts as a “girl” deserving of rights and what the basis for those rights truly is. The challenge is to guide the conversation back to the core question: What is the unborn? Once we establish, based on science, that the unborn is a human being, the burden shifts dramatically, and the arguments for intentional killing under the guise of “healthcare” or other asserted “rights” collapse. You cannot pluck rights out of thin air; they must be grounded in reality.