top of page
Search

Abortion for Christians Part 5: Refuting Abortion Arguments

Updated: Oct 25

It has been a few months since my last article about Abortion for Christians. How should we view it? Is it the right of the person? What about the justifications abortionists offer? In part 5 of this series, we will respond to some common responses that people often make when confronted with the abortion issue. This consists of two sections. Section one will be a short overview of some of the propaganda that is spread about abortion, and the facts that tear it down. Propaganda is any information, especially biased or misrepresented, used to promote a cause or position. If we can reveal any of the popular claims to be untrue, misconstrued, or downright false, then we can confidently say that it is indeed propaganda. Section two is refutations to common arguments posed by abortion proponents. These will include examining statistics, biology, semantics, rhetoric, and the fallibility of the human imagination. May this article bless you with the information to discern truth from lies in this age of cultural mass information.


Section 1: 8 Lies About Abortion from Modern Culture


I believe it is crucial to first understand the context behind some of the "justification" provided for abortion for any reason. It is an unfortunate truth that the movement behind abortion has borne some hefty lies that, at first glance, seem to be valid and plausible. The usual presentation of abortion is often emotionally charged, with plenty of rhetoric to create guilt or sympathy in the listeners. The arguments then play off these emotional responses to make it seem like a critical examination of them is unnecessary or somehow immoral. But we don't stop at feel-good intuitions, but rather we will examine them on a deeper level than the surface. Skepticism is a good thing, but not the only thing; we must use logical reasoning to make a sober conclusion about what may be true or false, and this involves avoiding jumping to a conclusion based on what feels best.


  1. A Fetus is not a Human


This should be in the second section, but it serves as the grounds for deciding what is human. The number one misleading claim is that a fetus is not a human; indeed, if you can somehow get people to think that when a person is in the womb, they cease to be a human. If one could dehumanize a certain group, one could then make it much easier to exterminate them. Thus, the number one goal is to dehumanize the fetus, get rid of its inherent rights as the type of creature it is, and apply a standard for birth, the essence of eugenics. But a fetus is, by all means, a human being, and no studies need to be mentioned because this can be answered with a few probing questions. The first question is what exactly specifies the type of organism one may be? Is it the size? Maybe it's the appearance? Scientifically speaking, the unique genetic code it exhibits would be the fundamental identifier of what creature this is. The genetic code carries the information that, especially at the fetal stage of development, drives physical development changes as time progresses.


So if a fetus exhibits the unique genome of pigs, as time progresses, the fetus will develop into the phenotype of a pig. But the fetus was not "not a pig" before this development because it had the genetic code specific to pigs. If a fetus exhibits a genome that drives the formation of a mature human being, then that organism was, from the very start, a human being. Given that a fetus has a human genome, it, by definition, can not be any other type of organism. Moreover, appealing to a "fetus" being its own type of organism fails because it's making a category mistake. "Fetus" refers to the stage of development an organism is presently in. All organisms are born via parental interaction will begin at this stage, so saying that a stage of development is somehow its own organism makes no sense. A fetus can be any type of organism that develops in that way, but a fetus itself will not exhibit every single type at once, because its genetic code is present before development even begins.


One last point here is that the two gametes that combined to create the genetic code unique to that individual were both of a human type. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that not all gametes are the same. Human sperm cannot fertilize a pig's egg because the genetic differences are not reproductively compatible. Thus, a fetus inside a human is 100% human, and it will exhibit no other type of organism's characteristics other than a human's.


  1. Abortion is Healthcare


This is thrown out in an attempt to justify abortion, because if abortion is somehow healthcare, and we provide healthcare to citizens, then abortion should be provided for anyone who wants it. This syllogism is logically air-tight, and the conclusion is true if premises one and two are also true. But what if a premise is wrong? Does healthcare result in the intended death of a human being? If your healthcare unjustly kills an innocent person, then it is in no way actual healthcare for an individual. Healthcare improves and maintains the health of an individual; thus, if there is another person involved, then individual healthcare for both, and not all healthcare for one. This is simply logical; if there are 2 people, we acknowledge the right to life and treat the health of both of them, and a baby in the womb is no different. Premeditated Abortion of a healthy pregnancy for convenience reasons is not “Healthcare.”


  1. Women Simply Don't Have the Resources and Aid They Require


This is actually untrue, and some people will hold to this even after they are proven wrong... When the facts contend with theory, so much for the facts. Some will say that Planned Parenthood is the only avenue for help that offers aid to mothers. But this has been repeatedly disproven, as some Planned Parenthoods do not offer any motherhood help whatsoever. It depends on the location. There are also resources for limited mothers provided by movements such as Students for Life of America, WIC, and SNAP for food, non-profits like Postpartum Support International and March of Dimes for other health resources, as well as charities such as Help a Mother Out and The Baby Pantry that offer clothing and baby supplies. There are so many online resources that can also offer support through specialized programs. So there are plenty of resources for women who are not in an ideal financial situation to care for their child.


Raising children is difficult, and nobody deserves to tackle it alone. The link provided leads to a website where you can get pregnancy and childcare aid if such is needed: https://www.standingwithyou.org/.


  1. Late-term Abortions Don't Happen


Although rare, late-term abortions do happen, and there have been many people who have contacted abortion clinics to receive abortions as late as 30 weeks. Most of the time, these abortions are scheduled and decided over the phone, with no in-person examination conducted beforehand. As of early 2024, 9 states have no legal limit on when abortion can be done (I have not kept up-to-date with the legal situations, so this may be incorrect as of 2025). These include Alaska, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Maryland, and New Jersey. There are many testimonials of late-term abortions happening. Such Testimonies include the book titled “Why I Am An Abortion Doctor.”


  1. No After-birth Abortions Happen


This, too, is a lie, and there is some legal work being done in Colorado, Michigan, and California. They have enacted laws that include a new legal term called “Pregnancy Outcome.” The original version of this article was written in early 2024, so the status of this may have changed as of now. Kristen Hawkins says (paraphrasing here). The States are moving for abortion rights for any reason, and thus have created this new term to use. It is very vague and unclear what it exactly is; it only means ‘as long as there is a dead baby, it is considered a pregnancy outcome, and when applied to abortions, a very slippery slope begins to form. If a child is born alive in the facility, it is not considered illegal because the intent is the legal pregnancy outcome just stated. There aren’t even specifics on killing the child by negligence in the laws; as long as it dies, it is legal. Whether this has been passed, has yet to be, or has not, it still reveals the fact that there are people who are fighting for this concept.


There are even abortionists who openly admit to these things. Douglas Karpen is a late-term abortionist who admits to the abortions he has committed. He was extremely unprofessional at his job, and his clinic was reported as being filthy. Karpen admits that he has had babies born alive during his operations, and multiple women have died on his operating table due to the danger of these abortions. Another one is Kermit Gosnell, who testified after being arrested in Philadelphia for prescribing narcotics to women in his office (probably for the pain of his procedures). His employees even admit that multiple babies were born alive in his facility. Both of these men had filthy clinics, and one report says the tubing used for Aspiration Abortions was corroded and dry-rotted.


“There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets” says those included in the raid of Gosnell’s clinic in 2010.

So, yes, late-term abortions happen no matter what pro-abortionists say. You can read more about what these two did at these links:

Karpen:


  1. Pro-life Laws prevent Doctors From Saving Lives


This is the claim that pro-life laws do not allow doctors to remove human remains in the case of miscarriage or other similar occurrences. And in some recent cases, doctors have fumbled the opportunity to save a life due to these laws. Many cite legal suits of women who didn't receive a “life-saving abortion” due to pro-life laws. Every case seen in the media of women claiming not to have received life-saving care was not for life-threatening reasons, except for one case where someone had a failed miscarriage and an infection. To this, the laws do not prevent abortions in rare cases where the mother will die. The mother had a failed abortion, and the baby sustained damage along with her. The pro-life laws do not include these situations as an abortion. Within the laws, the term "abortion" refers to the willful killing of a healthy baby. Thus, are the laws to blame? I think the laws themselves could be more specific, to avoid confusion like this, but we should also keep in mind the doctors who should have been familiar enough with the laws to know what is acceptable and not. One case in Texas was simply medical negligence from the staff, not the abortion context that the media places on it. Pro-abortionists love to use these court stories as propaganda to further push their arbitrary evils of sacrificing your children because you can't take the responsibility to deal with the consequences of free choice in a cause-and-effect world. The answer to these is not to abolish pro-life laws, but to act logically to ensure no confusion occurs.


If these laws really did prevent life-saving medical service, there would be more than a few cases, as a few mess-ups are what we expect given human imperfection.


  1. Abortion Supports Human Rights


As we have already established, the moment that sperm and egg meet, the chromosomes of both combine and create a unique line of genetic code. This being has the genetic code of Human beings only, and can only develop into one. The genetic code is fully packed with the information of a full adult, and from the moment of conception, this code is actively working at maturation. The life of a human begins at conception, not at some arbitrarily decided point in development. Do we call a rose flower a weed when it's just sprouting from the ground? No, we say it's a rose flower in early development, the same treatment for the human being (and every living organism). So, in action, abortion does not support Human rights. Once a human is formed, they have (1) a human genome and (2) life. Both are requisites for acquiring the human right to life. Abortion advocates for the right to kill a human being based on their desirability, and other finite characteristics that have 0 effect on their Value from God. Thus, abortion cannot logically support Human rights, as it defies the very thing it claims to fight for. Moreover, rights do not come from government or opinion; they come from God. Every person has the right to live because they are made in the Image of God, and without that, rights are relative. We then fall into the relativism issue, where no one's opinion of right or wrong is more valid or invalid than another's, thus rendering this theory of rights unable to produce an actual universally accepted standard, or any one theory that's better than another.


If you still claim that a fetus is not a human, you must admit to denying the scientific knowledge to stay intellectually consistent. If you still deny genetics and biology, then you have no logical right to argue against them. Why? Well, because they are a part of objective reality and not thought, and to deny them would be, might I say, Schizophrenic and deluded in nature. So, for you to still support the claim that it is not a human, you must become close-minded, irrational, and emotionally charged in some, if not every, aspect of intellect.


  1. It's the Mother's Choice Over Her Body


Say I have two people standing next to one another, are they one person or body? Say I make them hold hands, does that make them one body? Moreover, if they were one body, would one mind have the right to the body over the other? A mother does have her own body, with organs all purpose for a specialized goal. If someone wants to cut off a healthy arm, we do not offer them the right to do so. If someone wants to cut me open, steal my organs, and sell them on the black market, does he have a right to? Is a fetus a person's organs? No, as it again has its own unique genetic code specific to that person. Arguing from a naturalistic point, the fetus is not part of the mother's body like the rest of her organs and appendages are, because all the cells of her organs and limbs contain her own genetic code. Moreover, the womb is an organ specifically designed to birth another human, so abortion for any reason is contrary to the natural design of the female.


Moreover, the fetus is not the mother; it contains its own flesh and spirit. It contains a person separate from the mother. If the mom cannot kill her 2-month-old baby, then why should she be able to kill her 4-week-old one? They are the same organism, same genetic code, same human, but at a different point in time.


Section 2: 14 Common Arguments for Justifying Abortion


Now that we have examined some propaganda spread by abortion movements, we can move on to popular arguments used to justify abortion when confronted with its obvious moral corruptness. We will take these seriously and tackle them at every level, exposing their logical incoherence and fallibility.


  1. God Forgives Abortion, So We Can Still Do It


The argument here is as follows: God can forgive abortion, so we can perform abortions. This is an extremely narrow and weak argument that is often used by “Christians” who want abortion for any reason. It is an attempt at a convenience argument and aims to trap anyone who isn’t willing to speak against it. I offer a simple examination and dissection of this argument.


God forgives sin when a person repents of it. The two words used for repentance are μετανοέω (menetoeo) and  תְּשׁוּבָה (Teshoova). The Greek word Menetoeo means a change in mind, a change in the inner man, with reference to acceptance of the will of God. "Change my mind, I change the inner man (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God by the νοῦς (mind) instead of rejection): with ἀπό or ἐκ, the giving up definitely of the courses denoted by the following words is indicated." (Alexander Souter,  A Pocket Lexicon of the Greek New Testament,157). Menetoeo also means to think differently, and A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and the Hebrew Bible defines it as "think differently; afterward; reconsider; feel compunction (guilt)," it expresses an intellectual action concerning a topic or idea.


The Hebrew word Teshoova carries a deeper meaning than just turning from sin. It means changing your mind and returning to God's moral righteousness, and a restored personal relationship with God. The root word of Teshoova, Shoov (repent), always appears in the Bible when referring to returning to God from wickedness. So repenting means to simply change your mindset that results in righteous actions. So if God is to forgive a person of abortion, then that person must change their opinions about it and make an active attempt to turn away from that sin. If someone simply continues to view abortion as fine and does not actually repent, there is no reason for God to forgive them their sins, as they obviously do not want it.


Finally, for something to require forgiveness, it must be wrong to begin with. This is because forgiveness is done towards a sin or wrong committed against someone; thus, the thing being forgiven must be considered wrong. In this case, abortion is wrong and a sin against human life and God's will. Since God created man in His image, this would be an attack on God directly. God does forgive sin, but it must be confessed in agreement with His will. This is part of repentance, and it results in a change of will and resistance and/or a halt to sin. If we defined legal terms off the fact that God forgives, chaos would follow. Sin must be punished if God is just.


So should things that are forgiven then be made legal? If a rapist can be forgiven for his sin if he confesses in agreement with God, should the rapist be set free and rape made legal? This is repulsive logic and shows a person's natural denial of God’s truth (Rom 1:18).


  1. The Child will be Born Into Bad Living Conditions


This argument states that since a mother may not have the money or resources to care for the child, the child is better off dead. I must begin by asking those who grew up in poverty or limited living conditions. There are far too many people living in poverty who do not wish to die, nor their children. This reveals some level of arrogance for believing that you can decide what every person in a specific circumstance will want. Every single time in human history, when a person's value was dependent on finite and contingent things, it was later deemed absolutely wrong, and/or things didn't end well between opposing parties. A person's living conditions do not define their life value in any way, shape, or form. To adhere to this is to undermine and override the will of so many people who are not in ideal living conditions but do not want to die because of it. In a twisted way, this is abusing children to death to protect them. We should never repay evil with evil (1 Peter 3:9). Moreover, if a mother has limited resources, there are plenty of programs and online services that will lead them to pregnancy and childcare needs. Nobody is alone, unless they reject help, or worse, have people blind them to the existence of it.


Should people in terrible conditions be terminated for their own good? Should people in terrible conditions be terminated for their own good? Do the person’s circumstances decide their value? Why aren’t we killing poor people if this is true? It leaves far too many areas unclear to be an adequate justification or explanation. Nobody knows what the future holds, so nobody should decide another's present state, depending on what they think the future will hold.


  1. A Fetus is too Small to be a Human


Some people still say that since a fetus is small in size, it cannot be considered a Human being yet. Apart from what we have established about the human nature of a human fetus, an unborn baby is very complex, and it has a few extra organs than we do. The development of a baby is completely individually driven; the mother just houses the child during its early developmental stages and provides nutrients. The baby has several extra body parts that are only grown for the time spent in utero. They create their own living quarters, the amniotic sack. They create their lifeline, the umbilical cord, and root themselves in place with the placenta. All of these are in no way under the ownership of the mother; these organs are a result of the genetic code of the child working towards maturation.


This is also flawed logic because you are making your conclusion purely based on what you can see with your eyes. We have scientific knowledge and tools that go far beyond what the human eye can perceive. It’s rather close-minded and is comparable to believing in the theory of spontaneous generation despite the scientific knowledge present. If this logic were applied to other medical situations, then cancer would be diagnosed by looks. This would be very stupid and would make it so that every time we discovered cancer, it’d be too late to save the person. We would also need knowledge beyond our eyes to treat the cancer, so that falls rather hard.


  1. Abortion is Okay When a Person is Raped


In this situation, a girl is raped and gets pregnant. She is either too young or too traumatized to carry and deliver the baby to full term, so we must abort the child conceived in rape. Will the abortion un-rape the person? It will most likely add to her trauma as she has to carry the trauma of being raped, and not giving their child a fair chance at life. In this situation, the rapist should be punished and put to death. Getting rid of the best evidence against a rapist is not an option, especially when that evidence is another toto person. I am not saying girls should be forced to raise their rapists' children; if someone doesn't want to raise the child, they can easily give it up for adoption. I would also ask the child their opinion, whether those today who were conceived in rape would rather be dead. About 37.1% of the reported rape-related pregnancies decided to keep the child or send them for adoption (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/#:~:text=Results:%20The%20national%20rape%2Drelated,attention%20related%20to%20the%20rape). And with the underreporting of rape cases, that number is probably higher, and thus the number of those born of rape is higher. Should all of these people be killed today? Or did the natal wizard magically impose life value onto them once they passed the mysterious veil of the womb?


Statistically, 78% of women who abort their child who was conceived in rape regret their decision, and it usually adds to their trauma. Rape is a huge issue on its own; 25% of women will have experienced attempted or completed rape in their time spent at college. From hearing personal witnesses, I will attest to that being accurate and probably higher, but does this justify abortion? This 25% is way too high and reveals humanity's evil (Revelation 17:2). Notice how in this situation, the rapist is never punished; the victims are punished. The child never gets a chance at life, and the mother is now scarred with the event and the loss of a life. This is why rapists love abortion; they can rape, and then leave without worry about the evidence making it through because it’s gonna be killed! Books like “I Am The Exception” by Anna Richey testify to this truth. In her book, she tells her story. A girl whose father raped her and then forced her to abort the child by taking pills. Being forced, she went through the bleeding and pain from “DIY At Home Abortions.” When she came to her mother to report what had been happening, she didn’t believe her. So Anna didn’t take the abortion pills, conceived with a child, and then used the baby bump as evidence for her mother. The father was put in jail, and she continued to carry and deliver her child, whom she loved dearly.


Society hates babies more than it hates rapists because we will bend over backward to protect the identity of the rapist by blotting out his sin. When somebody uses this argument, it reveals far more character than substance. The person is willing to use the tragedies of others to justify their evil convenience choice. Less than 1% of all abortions are rape-related (https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives; https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t3.pdf), so using this as some absolute trump card is dishonest, considering it’s attempting to throw an outlier statistic with the majority in order to justify an obvious evil, killing unborn children, something we don’t do. So this argument is repaying evil with evil (1 Peter 3:9-14).


If you or a friend has been sexually abused: Get Somewhere Safe; Tell Someone You Trust; Seek Medical Care; and Meet With A Counselor. Talking about sexual assault is never easy for victims of such, and those who have been hurt by it deserve healing, hope, and love from Jesus. The effects of an event must be addressed, but aborting a child conceived in rape only extends the violence and complicates the grief of the mother. Jesus Christ has the hope they need. Abortion does not un-rape a woman, but it sure does add to the grief and guilt of the experience. (https://studentsforlife.org/learn/what-about-rape/)


  1. The Adoption Industry is not Fit for These Children


The adoption industry is not in a bad state; it is the foster care system that is in a bad condition. Foster care has children already born. There are more kids in foster care than in adoption services, mostly because who would want to raise a child who will move out in a few years? Not many, and I am not saying it's wrong to do so; there are people called to do exactly that, and perhaps you or I could one day be called by the LORD to do the same. This is also not undermining the current state of the foster care system; it is broken and needs to be fixed. There needs to be people in those positions of aid who actually care, love, and will lend the time and commitment to helping children in foster care. However, the concern here is not with the foster care system, but rather adoption.


Adopting a newborn is a completely different side of the coin. There are 36 adoptive families for every single newborn that enters adoption (https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families). If the child is already wanted and guaranteed a family, they should be born and adopted into a loving family who will care for them. Instead of ending that child's life so you can go to the mall next week with Stacy, maybe consider the moral and spiritual consequences of that action; give them a chance, you can find fulfillment in knowing you saved someone. Simply not liking the situation is not an excuse to take someone of their life, even if it happened by "accident".


  1. The Mother's Life is at Risk


If the mother's life is at risk, ideally, we should treat both the mother and the child in the womb. If that is not possible, and the child's and mother's lives cannot be simultaneously preserved, then I can see a spontaneous abortion being conducted to save one life when both would be lost if nothing is done. A spontaneous abortion is not the same thing as an abortion; it refers to the sudden need to remove the child from the mother. For example, a woman has a miscarriage, and the pregnancy cannot continue successfully, and a great risk of infection arises; a spontaneous abortion would then be necessary to prevent the decomposing fetus from harming the mother. In what way is this comparable to Ann walking into the clinic saying, "I slept with the wrong guy and now I'm pregnant, gosh, I have finals next week and cannot miss them, can you abort the child for me?" when she is perfectly healthy and at no mortal risk from the pregnancy? This is a far cry from an induced abortion, or the willful end to a healthy pregnancy for irrelevant convenience reasons.


If the pregnancy is Ectopic, then the fetus is stuck in the fallopian tube and will not survive even if something is done. Even when the spontaneous abortion (removal) is done, the termination of an Ectopic pregnancy is not considered an induced abortion (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36869678/). Late-term abortions are never necessary; emergency C-sections can always be done instead. Late-term abortions are more dangerous because they can take hours and up to days to complete, while a C-section can be done in under an hour, and the baby gets to live. I might also add that just because there is a possibility of risk, there shouldn't be a rejection of the action. There is a risk of me crashing and dying when I drive to work, but I do it anyway because it is necessary for life to continue successfully, in this instance, for me to attend my occupation and make my paycheck. Moreover, there is a higher risk of crashing your car than dying in childbirth.


  1. It is just a Fetus


As already discussed and refuted in section one, this is still a claim that pops up way too often. There is little biological understanding behind this argument, as is seen in the contradiction of saying "a human fetus is not human". I already explained, but let me phrase it in another, simpler fashion.


This is the argument that it cannot be considered a human being because it is a fetus. Fetus comes from the Latin word foetus, which means little child, offspring, or hatching of young. The original word meant a child, but that is beyond the point here. A Fetus is not just a fetus, because it is a stage of development. A dog and a human fetus are not the same, so saying “fetus” alone doesn’t declare whether it is anything. Either in the context of the discussion or directly stated must be what this fetus is. An identity must be attached to the fetus before we can make a mental image of what exactly it is. Thus, a “fetus” alone only describes the early stages of development of any organism that goes through a fetal stage. This fetus will not come out as any other kind of creature but a Human Being, and since it bears the genetic code of humans, it is not just a fetus but a specific member of Humanity and none else. Therefore, the fetus, in context, must be a human being for any meaningful conversation about it can begin.


  1. A Fetus is a Potential Human Life


Apart from this being another contradictory statement, because a fetus is alive, and in the context, a human, it completely divorces reason from the mind. If the fetus can be anything I want, then maybe, but there is an objective world external to my mind, with objects to correspond to. A human fetus thus has truth attached to its physical being, about its being. So a fetus can actually be examined and observed to see if it fits the requirements for (1) already alive and (2) of the human kind. Lo and behold, a human fetus, in fact, is made of living cells, and thus is already living. So to say it has potential life is not accurately describing the object of a fetus, and is thus untrue about it. Since a human fetus is already living, and surely has potential for development due to its genetic code, it should actually be a life with potential. Touché, touché indeed.


  1. A Fetus is a Parasite


For a human fetus to be a parasite, it must occupy some characteristics it doesn’t have. Therefore, it can't be a parasite. What do I mean by this? A parasite must be of a separate species or kind and actively harm its host while gaining benefit from such. A parasite will be taking unjust advantage of the host's vitals. A fetus does use some vitals from the Mother, but not with the intent of harming or taking advantage of her. The relationship between mother and fetus is a biologically mutual (symbiotic) agreement for development.  So a fetus cannot be considered a parasite by any means; this argument is therefore purely used for shock value, memorable gotcha moments, and coping with denying the truth. But to add another knife wound, in a phenomenon known as fetal microchimerism, a child in the womb sends stem cells to various parts of the mother's body, aiding in tissue repair, maternal repair and preservation, and resistance to disease and infection (https://www.cordblood.com/blog/Fetal-maternal-microchimerism-the-surprising-bond-between-mom-baby).


  1. Men Cannot Say Anything About Abortion


This may stem from the argument of the mother's body, the mother's choice. If the mother is the one with the right, then men don't have it, simple as that. But this argument assumes that the child in the womb is part of her body, and as we have established, there is no objective support for this. This is false; it is claiming that since a man is not a woman and can’t be impregnated, a man cannot speak about abortion. Truth is universal, not individual, so I can speak on truth despite what sex I am. This is an attempt to trump the opinion of another and is an ad hominem attack: A Logically fallacious attack on attributes of character or being that is in no way proportional to the truth of the matter. What does this mean? When someone argues this way, you have no logical reason to respond or take them seriously. Should we take them seriously? Absolutely, we should challenge them directly, dissect their claim, and dismantle them with truth if they are willing to humble themselves to learn something. But this can also be a result of being misled to believe that truth actually is relative, and nothing a person thinks can be false, an epistemologically indefensible position.


  1. The Fetus is not Viable


The word Viable here means capable of independent existence. By this definition and application, a 6-month-old healthy baby after birth is not viable either. If you leave the child alone, in a few hours, they’d be dead. A baby is not capable of independent existence but depends entirely on the life support and aid of more developed humans. I will argue that this state does not change until maybe the early to mid-twenties, and some, never, as we are all contingent on our parents’ aid at some point.


  1. A Fetus is not Conscious


Although it is not clear whether a fetus actually has conscious awareness, theologically, it has a soul and spirit, unique to them, although the full control panel is not complete or familiar. According to scientific consensus, a fetus develops consciousness at about 20 weeks of development. The question is then, does consciousness constitute life value? What about people in comas? What about the extremely mentally disabled? We must take this into account because a person who is in a coma is not considered conscious, so should we kill them? An extremely mentally disabled individual can seem, from an outside view, to have very limited conscious capabilities, but they themselves do not want to die because of it. If a person is medically deemed brain dead, then they are not just considered unconscious, but also dead. So saying consciousness determines value is a very slippery slope argument that doesn’t withstand scrutiny.


  1. My Body, My Choice


This claim would pass if the fetus were the Mother’s body, but as we have established in this series and this post, the fetus is in no way part of the mother but is fully individually driven. You cannot choose everything for your body! You will be denied if you ask a doctor to amputate your perfectly healthy arm because you want to. You also can’t say no to an amputation if you are unconscious and need it to save your life. So, do you have full freedom to do whatever you like with your body without consequences? No, you will face consequences, which is necessary for free will and meaning. If the baby in the womb is a Human being, we are not to treat this like a single-person situation, but a two-person one. You cannot have 2 persons in a pregnancy situation and only apply the right to life to one; the right to life must be taken into account for both individuals. What if it is expensive and time-consuming to save the baby's life? I would argue that Human value is far beyond any material resource. After all, Jesus saw human life so valuable that He came down incarnate to suffer for it (John 3:16). I think any other questions are answered in these other arguments and refutations.


  1. Illegal Abortion Would Endanger the Lives of Women


This is the idea that if abortion is illegal, more women will seek abortion illegally, and thus more will die in childbirth. This falls painfully flat because, legally done or not, the safety of the procedure is in question, and the outcomes are not guaranteed. Also, if abortion were illegal, of course, more women would seek it illegally; it’s illegal, and human beings can be morally corrupted.


If a person finds themselves in a risky operation done illegally to remove something they conceived out of the natural consequence of their act of free will, then if injured, it is their own fault for not seeking a more natural, righteous, and safe way to deliver the baby and possibly care for the child. You play with fire and get burned in the act of doing so. These people would not be innocent by any moral standard, considering they are seeking evil to cover up their own evil, as well as their own immoral lifestyle, producing immoral fruits. If a sexually immoral person finds themselves pregnant by accident, it should be a moment of reflection on their selfish lifestyle, a surrender to repent from the actions they have committed, and an adult commitment to facing the consequences of their actions. This would apply to both men and women equally.


This would be a simple maturation of a person, and we should all be held to this standard of responsibility. Instead of this self-centered standard, in which we are the maximum of truth that Western culture has so aggressively pushed. Thus, when someone says illegal abortion endangers women, they are making an observation that shines light on the fact that people will do evil (Romans 3:23), and that does not say to commit evil to fix that.


Why Do People Argue Like This?


A major question may arise: why do these people use such logically incoherent arguments for abortion? One might not understand, or actually have another reason other than the one I am about to provide, and that is okay. I believe, with high confidence, that the majority of these people do so because of what they have done or chosen. Let me elaborate. Some of us who agree with abortion have either been directly involved in an abortion, have supported someone thinking about one, or have already chosen to support abortion. As a consequence of this, we often create our beliefs around a nucleus of what we've done. Nobody wants to be wrong, and that is understandable, but that shouldn't entail appealing to incredulity, nor does it justify constructing your beliefs around your actions. Some people believe these arguments are true because they justify the action for themselves, avoiding the guilt a reasonable person would feel, along with being wrong. This insecurity/pride can interfere with someone's ability to think critically in an objective manner.


Now, this is complex and is ultimately the result of Marxist ideology and postmodernism's claim to relativism. If there is no objective truth, then what I believe is true to me, so no matter what you say, I'm right in my own mind, and that's all that matters. This is only in line if truth really is relative, but it isn't. For a concise discussion about the nature of objective truth, check out my article What is Truth (https://www.ptequestionstoeden.com/post/what-is-truth). Anyhow, since we tend to avoid that which is unpleasant, it makes sense for someone to create their beliefs in such a way to justify what they have already done, which avoids the unpleasant truth of being wrong. But this isn't a good way to live life. Ignorance is only bliss as long as the flame producing its light can remain, and the wick of delusion is not infinite. That flawed and delusional system of life will guarenteed affect your mental health, as abondoning reason is by definiton insane; as well as your spiritual health, as you are open to any truth that feels good, and satan comes as an illusion of pleasure and goodness (2 Corinthians 11:14), and the path of righteousness is narrow, so your chances of finding it alone are next to none. You need a savior.


Conclusion


As we have seen in this article, the common claims and arguments made by abortion proponents are no more than irrational suicide truth statements and fallacies of all kinds. It is not suprising that when a generation of philosophers abandon God, infiltrate the universities, abandon objective truth and by extension reasoning and logic, questions everything, creates their own truth, and most unfortunate, forgot the falibility of their imaginations, that an entire culture would eventually latch on too, and commit one of the biggest gonocides of children the world has ever seen. May you find grace, peace, and salvation in Jesus Christ: the ultimate act of love that He performed on the cross. There is true forgiveness if you repent of your sin, turn from the irrational, and choose the object of goodness Himself. You know, He was once in that stage of development... just like you. God the Father knitting himself in the womb, God the Son fully human and fully God at conception, from God the Holy Spirit. Amen.


"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." (Psalm 139:13)


Comments

bottom of page