Abortion has been a hot topic in our country and it seems that the arguments never really change. So let us give you a few good counters to the pro-choice arguments that are floating around out there.
“Personhood” was debatable
One of the main arguments that we see from the pro-choice camp has been the idea that it was unknown when life actually started. They stated that “personhood” was debatable and abortion was not only optional it was logical. However, science is not on their side with this argument. As stated by the Coalition For Life there are more and more medical and scientific textbooks that agree life starts at conception. They also stated that some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception. This knowledge has caused the pro-choice argument to have to change. If anyone has seen some of Jeff Durban’s videos at abortion centers than it is plainly evident that they no longer care whether or not the being inside a woman is actually alive.
“her body her choice”
This small phrase is very popular and anyone who has debated a pro-choicer has come across this and had to refute it. When an individual uses this phrase they are basically saying that since the fetus is inside of the woman’s body it is her choice on whether or not to terminate. She is the one sustaining the fetus so all rights are to be given to her on the fate of her unborn child. They will say that this fetus is just another part of the woman’s body like a liver or spleen. The difference is that the liver or spleen has a common genetic code that signifies its unity with the rest of the body. The fetus does not share that same genetic code due to it being a separate being. Another rebuttal that is once again given from Coalition For Life is that the child may die in the womb and the mother can survive this incident. Likewise, the mother can die and the child may survive. This shows that there are two separate individuals in these scenarios.
Ok If Raped
This is difficult to come up against if we do not do it with love and understanding that this individual is a victim of a horrible crime. They were taken advantage of for the perpetrators own selfish desires. We must first look at the statistics of what percentage of abortions occurs due to rape. According to abort73 less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape. This shows us that when the pro-choice individual is using this argument they are not going for the most common, but the emotional and sympathetic response. Our response must not be to attack a victim of rape or to belittle what has happened to the individual. There must be a balance of love and reason in our rebuttal. The first question we can ask is “should we kill another human being because we were victimized?” This is to say that one helpless victim is above another when one says that they have the moral right to end the life of the child conceived by rape. This unborn child did not hurt the woman who has been raped. The simple yet irrefutable answer is that we should not punish someone who has done no wrong or we ourselves have become the perpetrator and have killed an innocent victim.
The Child is Unwanted
What if the unborn child is unfit or unwanted? There are several different types of situations that this question will be used in defense of the pro-choice argument There are some cases where a mother (and father) do not have the financial stability to take care of another life. These individuals would be put into poverty by taking on the responsibilities of parenthood. Scott Klusendor trains people using a concept called “trot out the toddler”. Basically this states that if a woman who is considering an abortion already has a toddler than the logical answer would be for her to kill the toddler. They are more expensive than the unborn child so she would be saving money in the long-run. This example is used to show the horrendous decision that is made when a mother chooses to kill her unborn baby out of convenience. In terms of an unwanted child (birth defects, disabilities, abnormalities) the same principle can be applied. If someone says that a child with Down syndrome or one that is handicapped would put a strain on the household and society at large just use the “trot out the toddler” example again. If they are saying that these unborn babies are not wanted or even a hindrance than we should kill young children with these handicaps. Once again their argument falls when brought to its logical conclusion.
If the Mother’s Life is at Risk
The final argument is one that can be hard to talk about amongst fellow pro-lifers. The scenario where the mother’s life is in jeopardy can be one that seems to have no right answer. This is due to the fact that when discussing a situation like this we must remember that both the mother and unborn baby have priceless lives. However, what we can refute is the not so subtle difference between the mother’s life and her health being in jeopardy. This difference is vital when refuting the argument. A person’s health is not as important as their very life. If someone developed a serious sickness (but it wasn’t fatal) they would be upset, but what would that reaction be if the sickness would end up taking their very life. Even though we may not have all the answers when it comes down to deciding between the life of the mother and the life of the baby we must still acknowledge that life at any stage is priceless and this is due to the fact that we are made in the image of God.