Abortion: Disposable Lives
Arguing Against Abortion "Rights" (Part-2)
By David Wood

As we have seen in Part 1, the issue of whether life begins at conception is indisputable. The zygote formed at conception has the four needed things to classify it as biological life...growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, and reproduction. This zygote has a completely unique and distinct genetic makeup separate from both the mother and father, it has a complete human nature, and the zygote has all the genetic information needed for the life of this human being.

“It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of life.” (Dr Micheline Matthew-Roth, Department of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.)

Now in Part 2 we will turn our attention to answering some of the arguments used by pro-abortion groups in defense of keeping abortion legal. Although some of their arguments sound compassionate on the surface, it doesn’t take long to realize that their arguments are without merit, without logic, and lacking in common sense.

1) Abortion should be kept legal to protect the reproductive rights of women. Why do you want to take away womens reproductive freedom?

The terms "reproductive rights" and "reproductive freedom" can be found on every pro-abortion website, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL. What this shows is the complete desperation of pro-abortion groups and their followers. What does abortion have to do with taking away the reproductive rights and freedoms of women? I don't know any "pro-lifer" that is telling women not to reproduce! I don't know any "pro-lifers" that are attacking a womans freedom to reproduce. If a woman wants to become pregnant, fine. But once she is pregnant, she has reproduced! Once a human life has been created, reproduction has taken place. The pro-abortion argument makes it sound as if everyone against abortion is telling women not to get pregnant. This is absurd. Everytime I hear someone talk about protecting a womans reproductive freedoms, I clearly sense the desperation felt by the pro-abortion groups to keep abortion legal.

2) Abortion should be kept legal because a law against abortion will not stop all abortions, meaning that abortions will take place anyway. We should keep it legal for this reason and keep abortion safe.

First, to say that an abortion is safe because it is performed in an established medical clinic is not necessarily true. Many women have suffered from physical harm from a “safe legal” abortion. Plus it is now coming to light that a woman that has an abortion when she is young can have difficulties having a baby later in life. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that there is a possible link between abortion and breast cancer, not to mention the emotional harm that can last for years. Secondly, to argue that abortion should be kept legal because abortions will happen anyway is like saying that child abuse should be made legal because even with a law against it, child abuse still happens. Using the logic of the “pro-choicer”, shouldn’t we legalize stealing because even with laws against it, stealing still takes place?

3) The American public has different views and beliefs concerning abortion, so if you make a law against abortion you would be guilty of pushing your moral views and beliefs on others. You cannot legislate morality.

This argument is without merit for a few reasons. First, the “pro-choice” people want laws to keep abortion legal, so aren’t they pushing their moral views and beliefs on the people that believe that abortion is morally wrong? The “pro-choicers” are doing the exact same thing they argue against. And second, if morality cannot be legislated, how is it that we have legislated laws against drunk driving, child abuse, rape, etc.? Aren’t all of these moral issues? To this, the “pro-choicer” might say:

4) Having laws against drunken driving, child abuse, rape, etc. have been legislated because it would be morally wrong to harm another person in these actions. You cannot legislate morality concerning abortion because it is the woman’s body and she isn’t harming anyone.

The only way the pro-abortion groups can make an absurd statement like this is to assume that during the nine months of woman’s pregnancy, the baby isn’t a real human being. If it is a baby with full humanity and life (which we have seen it is), then the woman is not only causing harm to another human being but is also causing the death of another human being.

5) Abortion should be kept legal because we really don’t know when life actually begins.

If you don’t “really know when life actually begins”, how do you know you are not ending a human life if it is aborted at 8 weeks?

6) Abortion should be kept legal because a woman has the right to use and control her own body as she chooses.

This argument fails on two points. First, as we have seen with laws put in place against causing harm to another human being (drunk driving, child abuse, etc.), the woman has no “right” to cause another person harm hiding behind the argument of controlling her own body. Secondly, if the woman has the “right” to use and control her own body as she chooses, what about laws against suicide and prostitution? What is even more amazing is that in many states, if a pregnant woman shoots herself in the stomach and kills her baby she can be charged with murder. But if she pays a person in a white lab coat to kill her child, it is legal.

7) Abortion is a woman’s issue, so men have absolutely no right to say anything about it.

Out of all the arguments used by pro-abortion groups, this one is one of the worst. If abortion is only a woman’s issue, maybe abortion should be outlawed because it was seven male Supreme Court justices who made abortion legal in Roe vs. Wade. (Out of a total of nine justices, seven voted for abortion, two voted against) Furthermore, abortion isn’t only a woman’s issue, it is a human issue. And of course, every pregnancy is caused in part by male sperm.

8) Abortion should be kept legal because there are already too many unwanted children, hence abortion helps society by lowering the number of unwanted children.

Many “pro-choicers” use this argument to escape the real question: Is abortion the murder of a human life? The issue is not unwanted children. But to further show the fallacy of their argument, we can look at the many adults in society that some people would consider “unwanted.” For example, there are many elderly people living in nursing homes, with no family or a family that cares nothing about them. Many people would classify these elderly as “unwanted”, but does that make these elderly people any less human? Furthermore, if abortion “helps” society in any way, what does that say about the society in which we live? To argue that it is morally right to kill an innocent human being is absurd.

9) But you are missing the point. Abortion actually helps children because if they are unwanted they will just have to suffer from neglect and child abuse.

Once again, the “pro-choicers” are the ones missing the point. The point is: Does abortion cause the death of a human being? Abortion is the ultimate case of child abuse because the baby is abused to death. But, is it true that every “unwanted” child will suffer from child abuse? Actually, the evidence is just the opposite. In one study, 90% of abused children came from wanted pregnancies. (Translating Injury Data into Preventive Health Care Services. Dr. E.F. Lenkoski, University of Southern California Medical School)

10) If you are against abortion you must also be against the death penalty for criminals because both events end a human life. The pro-lifers that support capital punishment live contradictory lives.

First of all, there are many people that are against both abortion and the death penalty, so this argument has nothing to do with them. But what about the “pro-lifers” that support the death penalty? Is this a contradiction? First, if the pro-abortion groups want to use this logic, it can also be used against them. We can easily turn this argument around and say that every person that supports abortion must also support the death penalty. Secondly, their argument is without logic to begin with. They are trying to compare the unjustified killing of an innocent baby to the justified killing of a convicted criminal. When we use the term “innocent”, we use it to mean a human being that has broken no laws and deserves no punishment from another human being. Furthermore, many “pro-lifers” believe killing is justified in certain instances, such as in self-defense. We have laws in place that state if a person does some evil act, the penalty might be death. All through history the world has had such laws, including in Biblical times. I am not here to defend or to reject the death penalty, but to attempt to compare the killing of a convicted criminal to the killing of an innocent defenseless human being is absurd. (Note: The following argument used by the pro-abortion groups is a perfect example of arguing ad hominem. They are attacking the character of the “pro-lifer” instead of attacking the argument itself.)

11) If you believe that abortion is murder, you cannot use any form of contraception because birth control would be considered murder also.

We need to step back and look at the words used in this argument. First, this argument lumps the words “contraception” and “birth control” in the same category. In truth, these words do have different meanings. Although all forms of contraception are birth control, not all forms of birth control are contraception. The word “contraception” literally means to prevent conception.

There is a huge difference between preventing a conceptus and killing a conceptus. There are forms of contraception that can prevent the conceptus from forming, such as sterilization, condom, spermicides, and some forms of the “pill”, but these things do not logically cause the killing of a human being because these things prevent the conceptus from forming in the first place. But there are other forms of “birth control” that are meant to kill the already formed conceptus. One example is the “morning after” pill RU-486. This pill is not a form of contraception because it does not prevent the conceptus from forming, but instead causes the death of the already formed conceptus. This form of “birth control” would entail the killing of another human being.

12) Abortion should be kept legal to protect those women that become pregnant due to rape or incest. It is wrong to force a woman to carry and have a baby conceived from rape because this baby would cause harm to the woman’s mental health and personal life.

Although this subject is a very emotional issue for all of us, it is important to realize that the vast majority of “pro-choicers” want abortion kept legal just as it is now, that is, abortion on demand for any reason during a woman’s nine month pregnancy. Pro-abortion groups use the issue of rape as a way to stir up emotions in attempt to defend the “right” for abortion on demand. This has been made clear in witnessing the words and actions of the “pro-choicers” every time someone wants to outlaw abortion except in the cases of rape and incest. The pro-abortion groups know what the facts are, and the facts are that pregnancy resulting from rape is very rare. Although it does happen, it is not common. This is why the “pro-choicers” don’t want laws against abortion except in the instances of rape or incest.

There have been numerous studies performed that prove that pregnancy from rape is uncommon. One such in-depth study found that among 2,190 rape victims, only 0.6% (less than 1 percent) resulted in the woman becoming pregnant. (Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution, University Press of America) Another study performed by the research arm of one of the largest pro-abortion groups, Planned Parenthood, showed that only 1% (one percent) of abortions performed were due to rape or incest. (Guttmacher Statistics from 1995, “Facts In Brief”) Although it is rare that pregnancy occurs from rape, it does happen. Hence we need to respond to their argument reasonably and logically.

In their above argument, the “pro-choicers” speak as if the baby is the attacker against the woman. This is false because it was the rapist that was the attacker, not the resulting baby. The baby is as much an innocent party as the woman. What it then comes down to is: Do you kill an innocent life in attempt to ease the mental suffering of another life? Please do not be under the impression that this question lacks compassion toward the woman victim. Rape is a horrible crime and the woman is a victim, but if the baby is killed, isn’t the baby a victim also? Do two wrongs make something right?

Many pro-abortion groups claim that “pro-lifers” are forcing the woman to carry a child she doesn’t want. This is a false statement because “pro-lifers” just don’t want to see an innocent human killed. It was the rapist that forced the woman to become pregnant and carry this child. Does an innocent human child lose its life because it’s mother or father was a criminal?

This is such an emotional issue that we must not allow the pro-abortion groups to use the rare cases of pregnancy from rape as a way to defend abortion on demand. For the woman that does become pregnant due to rape, the decisions she must make is nothing short of agonizing. I have a woman friend that became pregnant from a “date rape.” She chose to have an abortion as soon as she found out she was pregnant. Months later she regretted aborting her child and cited that she was so overwhelmed emotionally immediately after finding out she was pregnant, the only thing she saw this unborn baby as was some evil being that had invaded her life. A few months after the abortion are when she regretted ending the child’s life. As she began to think more clearly, she realized that it wasn’t the baby’s fault she was pregnant, it was the fault of the man that raped her.

13) Abortion should be kept legal to control the population growth of the world.

First of all, pro-abortion groups want abortion on demand for any reason, so what does the above argument have to do with that? Nothing. Secondly, even if one day the world is overpopulated, abortion is still the killing of an innocent human being. As you are reading this, forced abortions are taking place in China for the purpose of controlling the population growth. In any event, it is absurd for the “pro-choicers” to use this argument to defend the “right” to have an abortion on demand for any reason during a woman’s nine months of pregnancy.

14) We should keep abortion legal to save women’s lives. Before abortion was legalized, up to 10,000 women a year died from illegal abortions. Do you want women to have illegal “coat-hanger” abortions?

This argument is a perfect example of the word “propaganda.” Notice that just as with their other arguments, the “pro-choicers” attempt to evade the real question: Does abortion end the life of another human being? But because we are here to address their “arguments”, we must investigate their claims to see if there is any truth to their argument.

Firstly, their claim of “up to 10,000” women a year dying from illegal abortions is a lie and the leaders of the pro-abortion groups know it’s a lie. It is a sad fact that before abortion was legalized in Roe vs. Wade, there were women that died from illegal abortions. There is no doubt about this fact. But to use the number of “up to 10,000” women a year is nothing short of propaganda.

Abortion was legalized in 1973, so lets look at the statistics for 1972 to see how many women died from illegal abortions. Looking at the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics for 1972, there were 39 women that died from an illegal abortion. This is the year before abortion was made legal in Roe vs. Wade, so where is the “up to 10,000” women dying each year from illegal abortions?

One of the largest pro-abortion organizations is N.A.R.A.L., the National Abortion Rights Action League. Dr. Bernard Nathanson was co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. and an original leader in the pro-abortion movement. Dr. Nathanson is now a “pro-lifer” and has admitted that the numbers used for women dying from illegal abortions was nothing short of lies. In Aborting America, page 193, Dr Nathanson states:

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always “5000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible.

Secondly, what about the illegal “coat-hanger” abortions? These words are always used when referring to what abortions were like before abortion was legalized in 1973. But as we will see, the use of the phrase “coat-hanger abortion” is completely misleading.

Thirteen years before abortion became legal, a study showed that “90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians.” (American Journal of Health, “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem, 1960) Therefore, the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians, not butchers wielding “coat-hangers.”

Although these are not all the arguments used by pro-abortion groups, the above 14 responses are adequate to show the falsity of the pro-abortion view. In Part-3 I will finish with a few more comments about abortion including the question of whether there are any circumstances where an abortion would be morally justified.