#prochoice arguments

As I read through “Speaking For the Unborn” by Steven A. Christie, M.D., J.D., I want to share the useful information included in the book. You can buy the book for yourself here. It’s quick rebuttals to pro-choice arguments. 

Companion Video Tutorial: Vid 1, Vid 2, Vid 3, Vid 4.

Why Bother?

Strategy

A Few Basic Definitions

“Why I am Pro-Life” (in 30 Seconds)

1. It’s not “alive” or “human” or a “person”: Argument 1-2. Arguments 3-6. Arguments 7-11.

2. A woman’s autonomy

3. One should never impose their personal beliefs on others

4. Women shouldn’t have to bear the burden and personal hardship of an unwanted pregnancy

5. You are just anti-woman, a misogynist: Arguments 31-37. Arguments 38-42.

6. Abortion empowers women

7. Abortion is best for society and best for unwanted babies

8. Miscellaneous arguments: Arguments 54-59. Arguments 60-65.

"Fetus" is a Latin term meaning little one, used to describe a stage of development, just like "infant or "adult. A fetus conceived by human parents, and growing according to the instructions in its own genetic code of 46 human chromosomes, is by definition a human being.

Human life is a continuum, beginning with the newly conceived zygote, moving through the stages of embryo and fetus on through to adult. Although a fetus doesn't look like an adult yet, neither does a newborn baby. A human fetus is no less human simply because it is smaller and more delicate.

For that matter, neither is an embryo less human, though it looks quite strange to our eyes, even in comparison to a fetus. Still, it is our duty to recognize the common humanity of all stages of development.

A Woman’s Autonomy

Argument 12, 13, & 14: “My body, my choice!” “A woman has the right to control her own body.” “Keep your laws out of my uterus!” 

First Rebuttal: I fully support the right of a woman to do whatever she wants with her own body. I just don't believe she has the right to do whatever she wants to someone else's body. A pregnancy always involves two bodies, sometimes more. Ref.

Second Rebuttal: There's overwhelming scientific consensus that an embryo or fetus is not part of a woman's body. Instead, it is a genetically distinct, living human being-another "body." So, a woman is free to do whatever she wants to her own body, but she is not free to inflict harm on someone else's body. As they say, “Your right to swing your fist ends just before it touches my nose.”

Argument 15: “ A woman has a right to choose!”

First Rebuttal: Yes, a woman should always have the right to choose. I agree completely. The choice she has, though, is not whether or not to kill her baby; it is whether or not to have sex in the first place. When a woman chooses to have sex, she does so with the full knowledge that there's a real possibility that the act may create a new living human being inside her. It's certainly reasonable, then, for society to expect that adult—one who knowingly consented to that risk—to live temporarily with inconvenience—even significant inconvenience—if the only alternative is killing a child.

Second Rebuttal: I'm also very Pro-Choice—with just one less choice than you. I believe you have lots of choices: you can choose abstinence, motherhood, or adoption. I just don't believe you can choose to kill your baby. Ref.

Third Rebuttal: You say a woman has a right to choose. To choose what exactly? It's strange that so many who support abortion are afraid to actually use the word. I wonder what they're afraid of. Why don't you just say what you mean: "I want the right to choose to kill my living baby." Does that really sound like a right you want to defend? Ref.

Argument 16: “Even if the unborn are living human beings, they have fewer rights than the mother.”

Rebuttal: The comparison between a baby's rights and a mother's rights requires a discussion of the actual rights we're talking about. We're speaking of a mother's right to a certain lifestyle and her temporary inconvenience, versus the baby's right to live. These two rights—life-style versus life itself—are simply not equal in moral weight. Life always trumps lifestyle.

Argument 17: “A woman should not be required to be a human incubator.”

Rebuttal: We are not talking about some dystopian fiction where woman are kidnapped and required to be human incubators against their will. We are speaking of women who choose to have sex with the full knowledge that there's a real possibility that it may create a new living human being inside her. It's certainly reasonable, then, for society to expect that woman—one who knowingly consented to that risk—to live temporarily with that inconvenience (even significant inconvenience) if the only alternative is killing a child.

Miscellaneous arguments

Argument 54: “The Supreme Court has already settled the issue of abortion, everyone has a constitutional right to ‘privacy’—which includes the right to an abortion.”

Rebuttal: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "bad precedent is no precedent," and we should be thankful that there are established criteria for overturning bad precedents. If not, slavery would still be legal; denying women the right to vote would still be legal; segregated schools would still be legal; “separate but equal" public restrooms and water fountains would still be legal. Thankfully, these horrific practices were overturned. Good people must seek justice for everyone, including the unborn. Overturning legal precedent and amending the Constitution to reflect our advancing understanding of morality, science, and humanity are as American as apple pie. Ref.

Argument 55: “If abortion were illegal, you would be incarcerating desperate women who sought now-illegal abortions. How could you be that cruel and inhumane?”

Rebuttal: While breaking the law—especially laws preventing the taking of innocent human life-is certainly grounds for prosecution, not a single major voice in the Pro-Life movement advocates for the prosecution of women seeking illegal abortions. There is near-universal agreement in the Pro-Life movement that only abortionists performing illegal abortions would be prosecuted if abortion were once again made illegal. Source.

Argument 56: “Abortion would continue even if it were made illegal. So what’s the point of making it illegal?

Rebuttal: Simply because some people will break a law is not an argument against the existence of that law. Rape is illegal in the United States, yet this crime is committed daily. Does the fact that rape is still committed mean there should be no laws against rape?

Argument 57: “If you’re anti-abortion, you’d better be pro-contraception!”

Rebuttal: My personal opinion on contraception is irrelevant to this debate, and the Pro-Life movement does not advocate prohibiting the use of non-abortive contraceptives. We just don't believe in killing living human babies. Source1. Source2.

Argument 58: “You Pro-Lifers only care about babies while they are inside the uterus! Once they are born, you conservatives don’t care for the poor and needy.”

First Rebuttal: What makes you think that Conservatives and Pro-Life advocates care less for the needy than Liberals and Pro-Choicers? Did you know that Conservatives give a greater percentage of their income and volunteer more of their time to the needy than those who identify as Liberal or Pro-Choice? Now, you might believe that Liberal social policies are better for the poor than Conservative policies-and that's a legitimate debate to have. But it's both arrogant and inaccurate to simply claim that Liberals and Pro-Choicers—who donate less of their time and money to the poor—care more for them than Conservatives. Source1. Source2.

Second Rebuttal: This is untrue—and statistics regarding adoption are evidence of this falsehood. As I'm sure you know, a large percentage of Pro-Life advocates tend to be religious, predominantly Christian. And Christians are twice as likely to adopt than the general population. Catholics are three times as likely to adopt than the general population, and Evangelicals five times more likely. These are facts that prove the Pro-Life movement is pro-life for all children. So claiming that Pro-Life advocates don't care about babies after they are born is nonsense. Source.

Third Rebuttal: Can we all do more? Absolutely. We all must do more for expectant mothers who find themselves in a tough spot. All of us—Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals. And we Pro-Lifers must always remind ourselves that we cannot limit our efforts to the banning of abortion. We must also be strong advocates for all mothers—because “abortion is not a sign that women are free, but a sign that they are desperate." We need to make sure that pregnant mothers know that the Pro-Life movement is on their side! Ref. 

Argument 59: “We are a democracy, and the majority of Americans support abortion!”

First Rebuttal: This might come as a surprise to you but polling consistently shows that the majority of Americans believes there should be greater restrictions on abortion, not fewer.

75% believe in no abortions after Week 12. (This includes 92% of Republicans, 78% of Independents, 60% of Democrats, and 61% who identify as Pro-Choice!)

A majority opposes any taxpayer funding of abortion (54% to only 39%).

Source.

Second Rebuttal: What is alarming is that the leaders of the Pro-Choice movement have little regard for the actual will of the people-not even the will of the average abortion supporter! For example, the New York Senate hag now legalized abortion up until the moment of birth, despite 69% of registered New York Democratic voters opposing that same law. (Even 44% of Pro-Choice New Yorkers oppose this law). Ref. Source.

Third Rebuttal: A “majority of Americans supporting some form of abortion" makes abortion neither moral nor justifiable; it only makes it popular-and perhaps only for the time being. The subjugation of blacks and women used to be quite popular as well-and no one would ever consider those evils to be moral or justifiable. We should never confuse popular opinion with morality. Source.

“It’s not ‘alive’ or ‘human’ or a ‘person.’”

Argument 7: “An embryo or fetus is part of a woman’s body, and a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body.”

Rebuttal: The embryo is not a “part” of a woman’s body. Science clearly defines a “body part” as a structure that shares the same genetic code as the rest of the body (appendix, heart, arm, or tonsils) and does not direct its own development. The unborn child has a completely unique genetic code. Half of the time it even has a different sex. It directs its own development. So the embryo is clearly a separate human being residing temporarily inside his or her mother. That’s the science of the matter.

Argument 8: “A fetus does not have rights until it is ‘viable’— until it can live independently.”

First Rebuttal: “Viability” is a purely arbitrary determinate of rights. How is temporary dependency on another for life grounds for someone killing you? How about a man in a temporary coma? He’s fully dependent on feeding tubes, ventilators, intravenous lines, and twenty-four-hour medical care. Does he also forfeit his right to life when he finds himself in this condition?

Second Rebuttal: “Viability” is arbitrary because it is not a fixed point in time. It is dependent not only on the stage of the unborn child’s development but also on the medical technology available to the child if he or she were to be born at that minute. What was not viable in 1973 is now viable in 2022. How can any assessment of whether the unborn is “alive,” “human,” a “person,” or “possessing rights” depend on the technology in your particular town or the year you were conceived?

Third Rebuttal: In the end, if it’s not a life, you can do whatever you want with it. But if it is a life, you can’t do anything to it. Ref.

Fourth Rebuttal: “Imagine that if a woman is pregnant in New York City and she has a viable fetus. She is 22 weeks pregnant. If she gets on a plane and she flies to Bangladesh—guess what? That human fetus is no longer viable because viability in Bangladesh doesn’t occur until about 35 weeks. So let’s just assume she’s hanging out in Bangladesh, she doesn’t like it very much, so she decides that she’s going to come back to New York City, Are we actually going to suggest that she had a ‘person’ there in her uterus in New York City, a ‘non-person’ in Bangladesh, who, when returning to the United States of America, became a ‘person’ for the second time? It is absolutely absurd.” Ref.

Argument 9: "A fetus is not a person—and has no rights or intrinsic value—until it is a certain size, developed to a certain level, outside the uterus, and independent.”

First Rebuttal: Since when does the size of a human being determine his or her value? Smaller humans have no less a right to life than larger ones. The right to life does not increase with size or age. Otherwise, toddlers and adolescents would have less of a right to live than adults. 

Second Rebuttal: Human development is simply a series of progressive stages, including embryo, fetus, adolescent, and adult. These are advancing stages of human development,  not advancing stages of intrinsic value. Just as an adolescent doesn’t have greater intrinsic value than an infant, and infant has no greater intrinsic value than a fetus.

Third Rebuttal: Where you are located —in or out of the uterus—does not determine what you are or what your value is. We shouldn't discriminate against anyone because of his or her place of residence. How does a six-inch journey through the birth canal magically confer life or value?

Fourth Rebuttal:  Dependence on another for life is no justification for killing them. Newborns are fully dependent on the adults in their lives, but they don't have less intrinsic value than adults. Should people in comas, stroke victims, or Alzheimer's patients also forfeit their rights to life? Are they no longer "persons" because they're dependent on others? A human's dependency is not grounds for forfeiting one's right to life. Someone's helplessness should motivate us to protect him or her, not to destroy the them.

Argument 10: “Abortion should be permitted until the fetus can feel pain.”

First Rebuttal: Why should the inability of an unborn child to feel pain at a certain stage make the killing of that baby OK? Do you really want to argue that as long as we make sure the killing of people is done without pain, it is somehow acceptable? And what about fully grown adults who suffer from medical conditions where they cannot feel pain? This condition is called “congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA).” Should these adults also have no right to life?

Second Rebuttal: Even if we accepted the “abortion until ability to feel pain" criterion, this would still prohibit all abortions after twenty weeks, since there is universal scientific consensus that the unborn child feels pain at twenty weeks, possibly earlier. Source. Ref.

Argument 11: “An embryo is unaware of its own destruction, so it doesn’t matter.”

Rebuttal: "Awareness of harm" has never been required to make an act morally wrong. Nor should it. A drunken woman who passed out at a college frat party might never know she was raped by three men. Does her lack of "aware-ness" make the rape acceptable? A morally wrong act is morally wrong whether or not it is observed or felt.

“It’s not ‘alive’ or ‘human’ or a ‘person.’”

Argument 3: “Ok, so maybe an embryo is technically ‘alive.’ But so is an acorn or a tomato or a jellyfish—and we don’t worry about their lives. Do you also fret over killing a living jellyfish?”

Rebuttal:  An acorn (or whatever example they use) is a thing. An embryo or fetus is a human being. Unlike everything else, human beings have inherent dignity and immense intrinsic value, irrespective of their capacities. Surely you’re not arguing that all living things have equal value to human beings. If that were true, the act of killing a spider would be equivalent to killing a toddler. That is not the case, though. We simply do not kill innocent human beings. Ref 1. Ref 2.

Argument 4 & 5: “A Fetus or embryo is not a human being. It’s just a ‘potential’ human being. An embryo is no more human than an acorn is an oak tree. A fetus might eventually become a tree, but an embryo is not yet a human being.”

First Rebuttal: The term “potential human” is unscientific and made-up. Being human is not a matter of degrees. You’re either human or you’re not. To be human is to be a member of the species homo sapiens. The unborn are fully living, genetically unique members of our species. Science makes this perfectly clear. They might be smaller, weaker, and less developed, but they are indeed living human beings.

Second Rebuttal: The terms “embryo” and “fetus” have never referred to non-humans. They are simply two stages in the development of human beings—no different than the terms “toddler” or “adolescent.” An embryo does not become a human being; an embryo is a human being.

Argument 6: “A fetus or embryo is not a ‘person’—and only persons have rights in the constitution.” 

First Rebuttal: “Personhood” is a manufactured term that only serves to exclude, marginalize, or subjugate a class of “undesirable” people. History has many examples of how “personhood” has been used as a weapon to dehumanize and deny the most basic rights of life and liberty to “undesirables”—blacks, women, Jews, immigrants . . . the list goes on. The unborn need to escape this victimization. Social justice starts in the womb. Source.

Second Rebuttal: A civilized society doesn’t assign “personhood” on the basis of size or capability—unless you’re ready to call the disabled, the frail, or those in comas “non-persons” and undeserving of life. Humanity itself imparts personhood. The only thing required to be a “person” is to be a member of our species. Source.

Third Rebuttal: When it comes to “personhood,” lets not pretend we’re dealing with some complex philosophical question of metaphysics. The definition of “person” is simple and straightforward. A human.

Abortion empowers women.

Arguments 43, 44, and 45: “Abortion empowers women.” “Abortion is in the best interest of women’s physical and mental well-being.” “Abortion is essential in order for women to have equality with men.” 

First Rebuttal: Abortion has never empowered women. It has empowered men, though—empowered them to use women for sexual pleasure, without any long-term consequences. Abortion has normalized men's ability to use, exploit, manipulate, abuse, and abandon women. And you say this empowers women? Ref1. Ref2.

Second Rebuttal: What actually empowers women is to not see children and fertility as threats. It is a perversion of feminism to believe that women and children are natural enemies. Women shouldn't have to kill their children to achieve their dreams or achieve full participation in society. If a pregnant woman or mother can't participate in society, then something is wrong with society, not with their fertility—that's a true feminist response. Ref.

Argument 46: “Why should only men be able to engage in sex without life-altering consequences?”

Rebuttal: The feminist movement wasn't wrong when it said that men were acting like pigs. They were wrong, though, in saying that the solution to this sad fact is for women to also act like pigs. Women's equality shouldn't mean emulating the very worst and most damaging qualities of men. So we have thrown out traditional values—like the notion that sex ought to be connected to love and marriage—so that sex is now just another bodily function, like eating. And this dramatic shift has damaged all of us-women, children, men, and families. Ref1. Ref2.

You are just anti-woman, a misogynist

Arguments 38, 39, and 40: “You men should mind your own business!” “Abortion is purely a women’s issue.” “No uterus? No opinion!”

First Rebuttal: Nonsense. Abortion is a human issue, not a gender issue. Facts, logic, reason, and compassion have no anatomy. Whether men or women support these views is no more relevant than whether they're supported by blacks or whites. To believe otherwise is simply bigotry and sexism. You didn't have to be black to oppose slavery or a Jew to oppose Nazis. As Martin Luther King Jr. said regarding moral issues, "A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice." Ref1. Ref2. Ref3. 

Second Rebuttal: Abortion is a human issue, not a gender issue. My personal identity has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. I don't surrender the right to take a stand on moral or political issues simply because of my skin color or gender. To suggest otherwise is racist, sexist, and bigoted. Ref.

Third Rebuttal: I would echo the sentiments of both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln—that it would be cowardly and immoral to permit anyone to silence you on critical moral issues based on your skin color, your religion, or your sex. And to suggest otherwise is racist, sexist, and bigoted.

Argument 41: “The pro-life movement is just another example of men subjugating women.”

First Rebuttal: That's nonsense. First, opinion polls show that men are actually less opposed to abortion than women. Second, the overwhelming majority of Pro-Life workers and volunteers are women, not men. Third, the leader of nearly every national Pro-Life group is a woman! So the notion that the Pro-Life movement is a weapon used by men is pure fiction. Source.

Second Rebuttal: That's a demonstrably false statement—debunked by even a cursory review of the facts. The Pro-Life movement is led by women, not men (2021): 

March for Life: Jeanne Mancini

Susan B. Anthony List: Marjorie Dannenfelser

Live Action: Lila Rose

And Then There Were None: Abby Johnson

Students for Life: Kristan Hawkins

Americans United for Life: Catherine Glenn Foster 

New Wave Feminists: Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa

Right to Life: Carol Tobias

Ref. Source.

Third Rebuttal: Men are at their best when they exercise deep loyalties to women and children—when they take responsibility to protect and defend them. When men violate these duties, they are at their worst, becoming either abusers or cowards.

Argument 42: “If abortion is made illegal, thousands of women will die in back-alley and clothes-hanger abortions.”

First Rebuttal: That's a fiction based on the false testimony of former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, who once said that “5,000-10,000 women died of back-alley abortions each year prior to Roe." He now admits that he completely made up this number. In the years prior to Roe v. Wade, the actual number of abortion deaths of the mother was about 250 a year. Also before Roe, 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by physicians in back offices with surgical instruments, not in back alleys with clothes hangers. If abortion were once again made illegal, the small percentage of women seeking to break the law would resume this same “back office" medical practice. So "thousands of women dying from back-alley abortions and clothes hangers" is pure fiction.

Second Rebuttal: We must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous. . . . we don't try to make kidnapping or child abuse safe and legal. If abortion kills children, our goal should not be to make it as safe and legal as possible, but to provide alternatives and legal restrictions that help avoid it in the first place.

Third Rebuttal: We know from other countries that restricting abortion does not cause an increase in maternal deaths. Ireland and Malta, for example, have some of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world despite their tight abortion restrictions. And Poland experienced a documented decrease in maternal deaths when abortion was made illegal. Source.