40 Years After Roe V. Wade, Pro-Abortion Arguments Are Still Illogical
Think about the most common talking points used to justify legalized abortion over these past 40 years and whether they can withstand intellectual debate, scrutiny and logic.
1) The term "pro-choice."
Even the definition of the movement itself is dishonest. There are three participants in an abortion decision: the mother, the father and the unborn baby, yet two of the three are denied any choice at all. While the father, if given a choice, may in some cases choose to abort, many others would not. Either way, he gets no say, no choice.
As for the unborn baby, I think it's safe to assume that, if given the ability and opportunity to offer an opinion, that baby would certainly choose not to be burned alive with a saline solution or dismembered. Just a hunch. So, a movement that denies a choice to two-thirds of its participants actually has the audacity to call itself "pro-choice."
2) "A woman must have the right to do what she wants with her own body."
First, it's not "her body." The pro-abortionites absolutely refuse to acknowledge this simple medical fact. The baby growing inside the woman's womb is a completely separate human being with its own separate blood type, fingerprints and DNA. It merely receives nourishment from the mother, which does not equate to "being" the mother.
Secondly, this talking point falls flat for other reasons. Pro-"choice" people don't really believe women should have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies. Most pro-"choicers" do not believe prostitution should be legal nor do they believe any woman (or man) should be allowed to sell their kidney or any other body part on e-bay to the highest bidder.
3) "But abortion is acceptable if the mother doesn't love the baby, can't afford the baby and the poor baby will have a terrible life."
What a nonsensical argument this is. First, this talking point makes the case for adoption, not abortion. Secondly, what if a woman gives birth to a baby that she "doesn't love, can't afford," etc.? Does that become an argument to reach into the crib and smother that newborn to death? If not, WHY not? If the argument for killing the baby inside the womb is that the baby will have a bad life, why shouldn't that same baby be killed outside the womb to "protect" him or her from that same bad life?
4) "I'm personally opposed to abortion, and I would never have one, but I can't impose my morals on others."
Again, a nonsensical argument if you dissect it logically. Pro-choicers have no problem imposing their moral opinions on society in a countless number of ways.
Ask your pro-choice friend if they would be willing to declare this: "I'm personally opposed to cruelty to animals and I would never torture an animal, but I can't impose my morals on others......I think it should be an individual pet owner's right to choose."
Or, how about: "I'm personally opposed to racial discrimination and I would never do that myself, but I think an individual restaurant owner should have the right to choose whether to serve whites only."
For that matter, you could take the same statement and replace the word "abortion" with plenty more things than just cruelty to animals, or racial discrimination - prostitution, harvesting body parts for profit, polygamy, slavery, and the list goes on.
Obviously, these things are all wrong and SHOULD be opposed by all decent people, but it doesn't change the fact that pro-"choicers" routinely support legal restrictions against things they are "personally opposed" to and would never do themselves.
5) "Abortion rights are protected by the Constitution."
This argument is so laughably dishonest, it shouldn't even require a response, but unfortunately, it does. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "right to an abortion." It's just not there. Nor is there a "right to privacy," as is often claimed as the basis for a so-called right to an abortion. There is, however, a right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
6) "Women don't make the decision to abort lightly. They agonize over this decision."
With all due respect, what difference does that make? Should racial discrimination be legal as long as the "whites only" restaurant owner "agonizes" over his decision not to allow blacks? Should slavery have been left legal because many plantation owners "agonized" over whether to own slaves? (As many actually, really did) What morally wrong activity that has been outlawed should be made legal again because many people were conflicted and "agonized" over the decision to do it?
7) "So a woman who is gang raped should be forced to keep that baby?"
Those who use this argument are showing how desperate they really are in that they have to resort to such an extremely rare scenario. Remember, rape and incest accounts for approximately 1% of all abortions, and "gang rapes" account for a very small fraction of that 1%, so it's important to remember that well over 99.9% of all abortions have nothing whatsoever to do with "gang rapes".
If anyone played this card with me, I would ask them, "So, before we discuss gang rapes, are we agreed that the other 99.9% of abortions should be illegal?"
With that said, I still can't support abortion, even in the horrible cases of rape and incest. It's not that I don't care about the horrible pain this woman is going through, it's just that executing an innocent baby for the crimes of its father is not something I can support. If a woman who is raped can not bring herself to keep that baby, I would ask her to give up just a few months of her life to allow that innocent human being to live, after which she could put it up for adoption. I don't think a few months is too much to ask, yes, even from a horrifically traumatized woman, to spare the life of an innocent human being who did nothing to deserve death.
Even so, I will not allow someone to force me into a long debate on the rape/incest question. I will instead force them to explain how and why they justify legal abortion for any reason whatsoever, including birth control. This is a very extreme position that just so happens to be held by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, but a small minority of Americans.
8) "It's not really a life or a human being until birth, or at least viability."
To use this argument is to deny basic medical and genetic fact. As to "viability," this varies based on current medical technology. Right now, the earliest a baby can survive outside the womb is at about 21 weeks gestation, but this is with only a 10% survival rate. Fifty years ago, the "viability" age was much older and 50 years from now, it will undoubtedly be younger. So is a "human being" different now than 50 years ago, or 50 years from now? Also, by 20 weeks, an unborn baby can hear and recognize its mother's voice. At 20 weeks, this is still pre-viability, but would any intellectually honest person still claim this is not a human life?
It's ironic that so many refuse to acknowledge an unborn baby with a beating heart and sucking it's thumb as "alive." But, trust me, if the NASA Rover ever found a fossilized amoeba or bacteria, the headline would read "Life Found on Mars."
If these are the best arguments the pro-abortion crowd has been able to come up with over the last 40 years, maybe it's time for them to realize their whole case rests on dishonesty. Unfortunately. I don't see that happening any time soon.