Rights and Fairness Part II: Prolife Answers 13-16

Before we begin the summaries for arguments 13-16, I think it’s important that we again focus our thoughts on what the goal should be when talking with someone who is pro-choice.  We’ve mentioned in our previous summaries that the ultimate goal of a general debate with a pro-choice person is to bring the argument back to two key questions on which the whole abortion debate heavily depends:  What is abortion?  and What are the unborn?  These two questions summarize the primary differences between the pro-life and the pro-choice perspectives, as each side’s responses to those questions portrays their mindset concerning the subject of abortion.

However, while we do want to bring the topic back to those two questions, it is just as critical that we actually address the argument itself.  Thus, with this summary I hope to show you an effective way to intelligently respond to each argument, while also giving you a few clues on how to swing the topic back to the two core questions.

Pro-choice argument 13: “It’s unfair for an unmarried woman to have to face the embarrassment of pregnancy or the pain of giving up a child for adoption.”

This argument, the unfairness and embarrassment of pregnancy are key words.  However, why does the woman feel cheated and humiliated?  As Alcorn notes, that’s a problem with society’s attitude towards pregnancy, not a problem with the unborn.  A pregnancy makes the woman feel disadvantaged because of other peoples’ response to her pregnancy.  As always, the unborn baby is the most innocent of all parties involved in a pregnancy, why should you destroy him?

As for the pain inevitably felt when a mother chooses to give up her child for adoption, Randy Alcorn really hits the nail on the head when he says the following: “The irony is that a mother who would not give away her child because he is too precious will instead kill that same child.” [italics mine]

Surely a mother must have been misled in her decision to save a child from a more difficult life of adoption by ending his life altogether.  It’s just not logical, unless one does not appreciate the humanity and personhood of the unborn.

Pro-choice argument 14: “Abortion rights are fundamental for the advancement of women.  They are essential to having equal rights with men.”

Here it may be helpful to point out that the earliest proponents of the feminist movement were pro-life, not pro-choice.  It is difficult to memorize paragraphs of quotations recorded in Alcorn’s book, but it is useful to know the general ideas held, such as this quote from Susan B. Anthony:

I deplore the horrible crime of child murder…. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed…but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.

It may prove helpful to point out that feminism and the pro-choice perspective are not necessarily connected, and that equal rights for all women does not have to include a right to abort a child.

Finally, probably the strongest argument against pro-choice point #14 is that abortion kills unborn women, and does so more often than it kills unborn men.  A good example of this is in China, where the family planning situation of allowing one child per family has resulted in many couples aborting the unborn when female so as to have their only child be a boy.  This has led to a situation where in the Chinese countryside, the ratio of boys to girls is 4:1.

Until the right to live is guaranteed to the unborn female, there can never truly be equal rights for all women.

Pro-choice argument 15: “The circumstances of many women leave them no choice but to have an abortion.”

For such an argument as this, we truly see the underlying philosophy behind the pro-choice movement.  We have already talked about how alternatives to abortion (such as adoption) are commonly shunned by abortion proponents.  All too clearly it is evident that to be pro-choice means to be pro-abortion.  To say that the woman only has no choice is hardly giving her choices.

However, as I mentioned at the very beginning of this post, it is important to counter the idea of circumstances leaving the woman helpless and desperate.  We must acknowledge that some women do indeed feel as if they are trapped and have no way out.  As with argument #13, though, this is a problem with society, not a problem with the unborn child.

Oftentimes a woman may lose her job or her social life if she chooses to keep her child.  Modern day people are trained to look down on the unborn as a disadvantage to the mother, as helpless individuals who do nothing but get in the way.  It’s so sad to think that the only option we so often present the mother with is the one that truly and permanently damages both mother and child.  Instead, we should work to reduce the number of obstacles and make adoption a convenient alternative.  We should support and encourage a woman who has the courage to keep her child instead of ending it’s life in a seemingly more advantageous move.

Pro-choice argument 16: “I’m personally against abortion but I’m still prochoice.  It’s a legal alternative, and we don’t have the right to keep it from anyone.  Everyone’s free to believe what they want, but we shouldn’t try to impose it on others.”

This argument saddens me because it is so easy to see how politicians might use it.  In a poor attempt to satisfy both pro-life and pro-choice people, a candidate may say something similar to this argument.  As always, though, we must analyze what it means to be against abortion but still prochoice.

There are hundreds of examples we could give to illustrate the ramifications of holding such a view.  Let’s say we extend this to child abuse, is it right to acknowledge that child abuse is a despicable crime, yet allow your neighbor to beat his children because he is free to believe what he wants?  The core issue at stake is whether or not abortion kills an unborn child who deserved life.  If abortion does no such thing, then prolife people are wasting their time on a futile cause.  If, however, abortion does indeed unfairly destroy a life that was, then there is no reason to continue for anyone to do it.  It is simply illogical to say that murder is wrong to you but not to somebody else.

Just as important to point out is the fact that legality does not determine morality.  The legality of abortion in America changed in 1973, did whether or not abortion was morally right change?  Certainly not!  As Alcorn states, “either abortion has always been right and always will be, or it has always been wrong and always will be.”  That’s the comforting thing about morality–it doesn’t change with the seasons.

And with that we will end summaries 13-16.  As always if you have any questions, comments, or issues with my poor writing skills, you’re more than welcome to leave a note.