“SPEAK FOR LIFE: Combatting The Three Most Common Pro- Abortion Arguments”, dailywire, January 27, 2017:
The left is fighting mad over today’s massive March for Life on the Washington Mall. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans march against the killing of the unborn; usually, the media ignore the march nearly entirely, but thanks to President Trump calling them out for their failures, they’ve been shamed into covering it.
This newfound coverage his driven the left absolutely batty, and their abortion coverage shows it. They’ve been trotting out pro-abortion argument after pro-abortion argument. For the sake of pro-life readers, here are some quick responses to the three most common pro-abortion arguments.
1. “My Body, My Choice!” This was one of the themes of the Women’s March – the notion that pro-life people want to take control of women’s bodies. In fact, it’s abortion advocates who refuse to acknowledge the bodily autonomy of someone else: the child growing in the womb. Oddly, abortion advocates never seem quite able to explain why, if pro-life advocates are so intrusive, pro-life advocates don’t care about their esophagi, their stomachs, their kidneys – only the baby in their wombs.
2. “It Isn’t A Baby!” The pro-life case does not require an embryo to be a baby in order for there to be an obligation to preserve it. Life begins at conception. That’s not religious belief. That’s science. There is no other logical alternative to defining life that holds morally true across the board. Life is not heartbeat – it is illegal to stab someone to death after they’ve had a heart attack but before death is declared. Life is not brain waves – the reason lack of brain function in adult human beings is considered correlative with death is that is when bodily decay begins, but this is not true of developing fetuses. Viability is a poor choice of standard for life – human beings are routinely non-viable without outside intervention, but that does not give us the moral justification for killing them. And viability would also mean that the standard of personhood would change with advancing science (children were not viable until quite late in pregnancy a generation ago, for example).
3. “You Can’t Force Me To Keep Someone Else Alive!” This is an argument often attempted by libertarians, who say you have no duty to keep another person alive. But this ignores two important facts. First, you do have a duty to a person you have placed in a precarious situation (this logic applies to all consensual conceptions, but not to children conceived in rape). Second, there is a difference between “pulling the plug” and forcible killing. You have no duty to give someone your kidney to keep them alive, but you also have no justification for stabbing that person in the head and sucking their brains into a sink. Abortion is an active intervention into a natural system.
Life is worth preserving. And arguing for life is worth doing the research and learning how to counter the demagoguery of pro-abortion advocates.