Refuting the Top 5 Pro-Choice Arguments

Introduction

We’ve all been there. A conversation with a friend, coffee with a coworker, or that awkward conversation with a family member at Christmas. We have all been in the position where someone we know is adamantly pro-choice. What do you say? How do you say it? 

With the overturning of Roe V. Wade on Friday, the Supreme Court put the issue of abortion back into the hands of the state legislature. In the same breath, they have sparked a series of conversations across coffee shops and comment threads regarding the moral and political legitimacy of restricting abortion access. Some of these conversations have been civil and fruitful, but many of them have resorted to hateful antics and name-calling.

Unfortunately, we’ve seemed to have lost the art of civil discourse in our social media society. Debates on hot button political issues aren’t allowed on college campuses due to their “offensive” nature. And what if a university decides to allow someone from a different point of view to speak their mind? Well, the results can be likened to a toddler’s temper-tantrum, to say the least. 

This doesn’t mean, however, that Christians do not have an obligation to stand up for justice. We most certainly do. The existence of opposition does not negate our upward call to fight for justice and call people to repentance and faith in Christ. 

For those of us who believe that life begins at conception and that God abhors the murder of children in-utero, we are called by God to speak in the name of justice, to protect the innocent, and to proclaim the Gospel of free grace. I believe, however, that for many believers, the issue is not the desire to speak up, but the fear of not knowing what to say. 

That’s why we are here.

So, if your joining and are genuinely curious as to how to expound your pro-life views, this is the place for you. Or maybe you are pro-choice and the title of this article already has you fuming. My hope is that this small post makes you think, and maybe challenges some long held beliefs. Either way, I’d love to hear from you in civil discourse. Feel free to click the “Contact” tab and drop a line. 

Determining the Targets

Before we jump in, a note on the arguments chosen to engage with. There is no possible way that I could speak to every argument for abortion in this article, so I’ve been selective in representing both the strongest and the most representative arguments floating around the inter-webs. What I mean by representative is that the answers to these arguments provide a strong foundation to answering other arguments and objections. One of these answers might apply to four or five different arguments that all flow in the same vein. 

Throughout this post, I will link some sources for arguments on both sides of the aisle, so feel free to scroll, click some links, and work through these lines of thinking yourself. 

It is important to note one more thing before we continue, and that is the fact that I am working from a distinctly biblical worldview. What this means is that I believe that there is a God, and that He is the creator of all things. This means that he rules over all things, and is the ultimate source of truth and goodness. It is my conviction that apart from a belief in the God of the Bible, it is impossible to form any sort of cohesive idea of morality or civil law. 

In short, without an external standard of truth, all of our debates devolve into screaming matches on personal preference. This is the first point that I would like to challenge my atheistic friends on, and one that I will return to time and time again. Who decides what is right or wrong? And how can you be sure?

With that caveat out of the way, let’s jump right in. 

Argument #1: My Body, My Choice

Ok, so admittedly this one kind of feels like cheating. I would never consider this a “strong” argument, or even an argument at all. However, seeing as how this has become the slogan of the pro-choice movement, it has to be addressed. Let’s handle this from two different perspectives; biological and moral. 

Biologically, this claim is misleading at best. Yes, the woman’s body is affected by a pregnancy, but there is a distinct difference between the body of a mother and the body of a baby. The baby in the womb has its own DNA, its own fingerprint, its own blood-type. And the more we learn about fetal development, the more strength is given to the argument for conception being the starting point of personhood (see here, here, here, and here). The inability to refute fertilization as the biological beginning of human life is the very reason many of these arguments have come into existence in the last 20 years. 

It is a distinct and unique human being that is nurtured by the body of the mother. This is not a matter of whose body is being affected, it’s a matter of who has a right to live. As for the assertion that abortions are necessary to save the life of the mother, this is a long-held medical misconception that has been time and time again debunked.

Think about it this way: what is the difference between a baby in the womb and outside of the womb? I can only think of a few: size, level of development, environment, and dependence. Every difference between a 20 week old fetus and a 20 week old baby outside of the womb can fall into these four categories. This begs the question: which of these gives the mother the right to kill the child? 

I have two children who are both under the age of two. They are small, extremely dependent upon my wife and I, not nearly fully developed, and move in and out of various environments throughout the day. Under what conditions can I kill them? If I am poor? If they inconvenience me? If they stop me from being successful in my career or education? At what point are they a drain to my life and body to the point where I can be legally justified in orchestrating their execution?

Inconvenience, annoyance, lack of funds to support the child, or a stifling of upward mobility are not reasons to condone murder, under any circumstance. Seeing as how “financial concerns” are one of the most cited reasons for abortions by women who have had them, I will address that issue specifically later on. 

The simple statement that sums up our argument to this point is as follows: if it were your body, then the procedure would end your life. But the baby usually gets the short end of the stick. 

Argument #2: Pro-Lifers Aren’t Really Pro-Life

This is one of the newer ones that has gained popularity in recent months (especially among Gen-Z influencers). To give credit where it is due, this is an attempt at consistency of thought, but fails to be truly consistent when it's contemplated fully. 

The argument is as follows: most pro-lifers are pro death penalty and pro gun. The claim is that it is hypocritical to save the life of a fetus, but to take the life of a death row inmate. The same logic, so the argument goes, applies to the right to self defense. The idea that you would take the life of a home invader, but fight to tell a woman what to do with her pre-born child, seems to be a convenient double-standard. 

The argument falls apart quickly when you help the person understand the importance of categorical thinking. Do you think that a rapist should go to prison? Well, yes of course! What about an innocent 2-year old? Well that would be ludicrous. We believe in the categories of innocent and guilty in regard to the rest of our legal proceedings, but this argument fails to take that into account in regard to the sanctity of pre-born life. 

In the Christian worldview, the government carries the “sword” with the distinct directive of carrying out “God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). Now, debates regarding the just execution of the death penalty, and whether or not our government is fit to give out such a sentence fairly, is a conversation for another day. 

But regardless of where you stand on the death penalty, it is ludicrous to assume that an innocent baby would be treated in the same way as a convicted felon. To equate the two is a rejection of categories that are instituted by God himself, and a rejection of categories necessary to carry out law and order in a civilized society. 

To put it simply, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” (Proverbs 17:15).

Argument # 3: The Life of an Unwanted Child Would Be Hard

This is the argument where the heartstrings are pulled and the guilt-trip-trap is sprung. A red herring, if there ever were one. The position argues that a large percentage aborted babies come from low-income families (a true statement, according to a 2013 study, among others), and that abortion spares the child and parents from a life of unnecessary turmoil. 

The conversation then usually gets personal when the pro-lifer is accused of being heartless and hypocritical. “When was the last time you adopted a baby? You don’t really care about kids after they are born, just when they are in my womb.” 

Never-mind the fact that, according to a 2014 Barna survey, Christians are more likely to adopt or foster than their non-Christian neighbors. Studies are inconclusive with regard to the difference between liberal and conservative adoption rates, but considering how wide the gap is between Christians and non-christians, it wouldn’t come as a surprise to see conservatives leading the way. 

While the sentiment of child-neglect is worth contemplating considering the amount of children in foster care, we once again have to ask the all-important question; what gives a person the right to kill another human being? Should we kill poor children in low-income neighborhoods? How about homeless people? At what poverty level is someone’s life not worth living? How can we predict, for certain, that this person will not live a rich and full life of beauty and value? Who gets to decide what is a beautiful and valuable life? 

All of these questions point us back to our main point. If abortion is the murder (see point one) of a distinct and innocent human being, then there is no socio-economic reason to take the life of a pre-born baby. 

To really send this one home, click here for a story on the beautiful life of a woman who survived her abortion, and why her life matters. 

Argument #4: Rape and Incest

One of the most emotional and traumatic arguments that is used involves painting rape and incest as morally acceptable reasons for abortive procedures.  Restricting abortion, it is claimed, would force women to bear the child of their abuser. Once again, the moral conscience and emotional heartstrings are tugged, and rationality can quickly go out of the window. 

Even though rape and incest cases only account for a negligible amount of abortions, according to a 2004 Guttmacher study (the most recent available data on the topic), it is still worth discussing.

To be very clear, rape is a disgusting and vile violation of the image of God. To the Christian mind, every human being has value and dignity, being made in the likeness of God Himself, and therefore rape falls into the same category of grotesque sin as murder. Rapists should be punished swiftly and strictly. 

The Bible itself commands protection for victims and justice for perpetrators, even going so far as to be one of the earliest ancient documents to give validity to the accusations of a woman who has been assaulted (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Therefore, in conjunction with the death penalty argument above, the Bible condemns rape and condones the execution of rapists. 

But what do we do with their offspring? Let’s think through the implications of aborting the child of the offender. At no point in our body of law, or in Biblical justice, is there ever justification for punishing the child for the crimes of the father. The Bible, ever timely, specifically condemns such actions (Ezekiel 18:20). It is the rapist, not the child, who should be punished. 

The pre-born child is innocent of any crime, just as the child of a murderer is innocent of his fathers crimes as well. If anything, the same moral concept that makes rape a heinous crime is the same moral concept that makes abortion one as well. Rape is the violation of another persons body, as is killing them defenseless in the womb. 

Argument #5: Denying Abortions is Oppressive to Women

This  final argument is interesting, and sometimes appears to be the toughest to contend with. This is because it is the only argument that is backed up by statistics. As I will show, however, the existence of a problem does not justify abortion as the solution. 

The argument is articulated as follows: women’s upward mobility and quality of life are impacted when they are denied abortions, therefore abortion restrictions are oppressive to the rights of women.

The Turnaway Study, which began in 2007, followed 1000 women who sought an abortion, and tracked the lives of those who received their abortions and those who were denied. The study shows that the women who received their abortion by and large did not regret their decision five years later. On the flip side, the women who were denied their abortion ended up facing the hardships that they feared they would if they would carry the baby to term. 

The New Yorker, in their review of the study, summed up the findings very succinctly: “The over-all impression it leaves is that abortion, far from harming most women, helps them in measurable ways.”. The study goes on to record how the women who received abortions went on to make more money and advance further in their careers more quickly than many of those who were denied. 

These findings are not a surprise, and on their surface they can seem to deflate the anti-abortion position Fortunately, however, the pro-life position, articulated consistently, is not built upon the success or failure of the mothers, but upon the right to life held by the fetus, as given by God. To put it simply, a person's drain on the success and livelihood of another person does not deny them the right to exist. 

Is having children hard? Yes. Is it a financial drain? Most certainly. Do parents have the right to end their life because of the hardship associated with their dependence? Most certainly not. While this argument is backed up by statistics and studies, abortion is not the slam dunk solution it is made out to be. 

Imagine, for example, what kind of help impoverished mothers could have if we reallocated the $600 Million that tax-payers gave to Planned Parenthood in 2019. A lot of help, I assume. 

Final Thoughts

As a bonus argument, I would like to close by answering the question “How is this any of your business?”. I mean, our society is built on the concept of personal freedom. If I don’t want an abortion, I shouldn’t get one, right? This is also articulated in the “My Body, My Choice” argument, and is often used to shut down civil discourse before it even begins. 

While I value personal freedom, I also value justice. I believe that God Himself values justice. No one has the freedom to thwart justice at the expense of someone else's life. Imagine if the abolitionists of the north would have bought into this line of thinking in the 18th and 19th centuries. Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one. Or how about the allies in World War 2? Don’t like mass murder? Stay in your country. 

Injustice anywhere is an offense to God and to man. It is the duty of every person to stand for the life and well-being of their neighbor. It is my earnest hope that, in 100 years time, we can look back on this generation of 63 Million aborted children with the same grief that we have when we think of the holocust or the North Atlantic Slave Trade. 

My prayer is that articles like this will equip believers to have fruitful and gospel-centered conversations on key issues that burden the heart of God. In the end, our goal is to point people to the redemption that is found in the sacrifice of Christ. By faith, anyone from anywhere can enter into new life and forgiveness of sins, especially those who have aborted their baby. This is our hope in the face of 63 million abortions. So speak up with boldness and love. God may choose to use us yet. 

---