As a bioethics student, I’ve encountered several challenging arguments in favor of abortion. In my research on the subject, there have been several authors who’ve forced me to think about the issue more deeply and to sharpen my arguments against it.
But there are also some pretty bad arguments out there. In popular-level discussions about abortion, you’ll often hear pro-choice advocates use arguments that completely miss the point and that show a lack of familiarity with the arguments on the pro-life side. In this post, I want to point out four such arguments and show how they’re really nothing more than red herrings.
The first bad argument for abortion is the idea that you can be personally against it, but you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others.
The second bad argument for abortion is that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body.
A third bad argument is that it’s a women’s issue, so men have no right to tell a woman that she can’t have an abortion.
The last bad argument for abortion is that it should be legal because women will keep having abortions even if it’s not, and we should at least ensure that they will have them in safe environments (instead of in back alleys with rusty equipment).
Click through to read the whole thing and get all the responses!
Unborn baby scheming about International Life Chain Sunday
The following is a guest post from commenter Mary to commemorate International Life Chain Sunday. Mary urges all of my readers to take this opportunity to stand up for the pre-born.
In my discussions with people on the topic of abortion, I frequently come across people (including many Christians) who claim to be “personally opposed” to abortion (or words to that effect), but who don’t think that it should be illegal. They believe in “a woman’s right to choose”. This all sounds very fine and magnanimous, couched as it is in the language of generosity, but an analysis of the reasoning behind it shows it to be seriously flawed.
Abortion should be illegal for the following reasons:
Taking of innocent human life without morally sufficient reason should be illegal. Where the rationale comes from for believing this basic premise is another topic, but it is agreed on by all reasonable people – theists and atheists alike. (A morally sufficient reason would be something that saves another innocent human life.)
The pre-born child is human. This is a scientific fact.
The pre-born child is alive. This is a scientific fact.
The pre-born child has committed no crime and can therefore be considered legally innocent.
Taking the life of the pre-born child is to take an innocent, human life.
Taking the life of a pre-born child should be illegal.
Abortion should be illegal for the same reason that murdering a newborn or a 2 year old is illegal. We don’t give women the “right to choose” to kill their newborns and for the same reason we should not give them the “right to choose” to kill their pre-born children either. The only case where we would consider it acceptable to take the life of a newborn would be where it was absolutely necessary to save the life of another innocent human being. The same should be true in the case of a pre-born child. We should give equal value to human lives and value life above the right to comfort and convenience.
Our entire legal system is based on the fact that there are certain limits to choice. If the right to choose were applied across the board we’d have to scrap every law in the books. Laws exist to limit choices that are damaging to others.
Legalized abortion is unfair discrimination of the worst kind on the basis of age and location. The right to life of the pre-born is a human right that should be fought for with passion and integrity. If we do not fight for this right we will be remembered in the same way as those who have failed to stand up for the rights of the oppressed in other areas.
Will we be like German citizens during the Nazi regime who failed to stand up for the rights of Jews, despite being “personally opposed” to Nazism? Will we be like those who failed to stand up for the right to freedom of those oppressed by slavery and Apartheid, despite being “personally opposed” to the same? Or will we be like Dietrich Bonheoffer and William Wilberforce who went beyond personal aversion, even though they weren’t members of the oppressed group, who spoke against oppression and who stood up for what was right, in the face of opposition.
I would like to end with two very apt quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King:
It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter
WINTERY KNIGHT 