A Logical Rebuttal of 10 Pro Choice Arguments
For this post, I will be replying to this list of 10 pro choice arguments. Feel free to read their arguments first before you continue.
10. Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe.
That is true, and in times past when there were less options for birth control, RU486, and safe surrender/safe haven laws the desperation to end a pregnancy is understandable. In modern times, it is not. We have come a long way both technologically and socially, there is no longer an excuse. That being the case, no the laws against abortion probably will not end all abortions, just as laws against drugs don’t stop their use and the laws against murder don’t stop people from killing each other. It can’t be justified simply by saying, “People are going to do it anyway, so we should make it easier”.
9. If people want to stop abortion, they should turn to methods that do work.
I couldn’t agree more. That is why in my proposed pro life organization one thing that we will definitely strive for is sexual education, and the availability of contraceptives and RU486 within the first 4-5 weeks. With these available, there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy to happen in the first place aside from someone just changing their mind halfway along, and in that case they can just give the baby away when it’s born.
8. The politicians “pro-lifers” so ardently support are only after one thing: self-interest.
I can understand this, many times with a politician you can’t tell what they actually believe from what they are just saying for more votes. This is true for all arguments against all things. Even Pro Choice, considering wasn’t it Mitt Romney who was criticized for first saying he was pro choice until he was in office, basically saying it just for the votes? This statement doesn’t take away at all from Pro Life arguments, just some of the people that use them.
7. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law.
No it is not. Is it religious ideology that murder is illegal? No, so it isn’t religious ideology that the murder of an unborn child be illegal. My Proposed pro life organization is directly intended to separate the Pro Life debate from religion, as religious debates are exhausting and pointless. Since we can detect brain waves at 6 weeks of pregnancy, that baby is therefor alive and should be protected just as much as any other person, despite their age. That isn’t religion, it is logic.
6. Reproductive restrictions do not end with abortion.
No, if you first categorize pro life being a reproductive restriction, then reproductive restrictions would not end there. Unfortunately, this is an argument trying to first apply their definition to a cause and then saying what their definition could potentially bring. To us, being pro life is NOT a reproductive restriction, just a restriction against killing a living human being. We are not placing a reproductive restriction that can be expanded upon in order to cause your hypothetical future issues, we are instead expanding upon the restrictions against killing someone that already exist. Just making it apply to someone even if they aren’t yet born. In many places, if you assault a pregnant woman and it kills the unborn child you can be charged with it’s death. So the precedence for an unborn child being legally considered alive already exists.
5. Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant.
This argument is absurd, making a broad sweeping generalization against an entire group of people can never be interpreted as a valid argument. It is arguments like that which are used to justify things like racism, sexism, elitism, etc. Unless you are saying that being pro choice should be on the same level as those impossible to rationalize standpoints, I don’t recommend actually trying to use this as an argument against being pro life. I’m sure there are plenty of sweeping generalizations I could come up with for pro choice advocates.
4. Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy.
No they shouldn’t, they should take some RU486 and make sure that they don’t carry out a pregnancy if they don’t want to. As far as the next paragraph they added to this argument that is unrelated to the statement, regarding the existence of orphans and homeless children (a seperate argument they lumped with this one), that actually would be likely to bring about reproductive restrictions. Getting into an argument that people should have abortions because there are too many homeless kids and orphans would open up the door for similar arguments, such as; people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids because of population problems, people shouldn’t be allowed to have children if they are below a certain economic class, and even opens the door people who are genetically flawed shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. Do we really want to open the eugenics can of worms? Whats next, should we all be blue haired and blond? No, the existence of a different problem does not justify the murder of children, whether they have been born or not.
3. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty.
In this argument, they speak of women in third world countries and horrendous environments and situations. Should we as United States Citizens limit ourselves to their standards? Here in the US, a woman can prevent pregnancy, and if she does change her mind when it’s too late she can put it for adoption, give it to social services, she is in no way forced to keep an unwanted child. Not an issue.
2. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and DEATH.
I agree, and so does my proposed Pro Life Organization. We do live in a world where everything is not black and white, and some situations considering an abortion should be acceptable. Some abortions can be justified, this doesn’t mean all should be or that they should be encouraged. But, I do offer this- Say you are more than 22 weeks and you find there is a problem that would cause you to die if you went to full term. Instead of going straight to a clinic and killing the unborn child, you can have your doctor initiate birth and give the unborn child the chance to survive. Babies have been known to survive being born at that stage of pregnancy, so isn’t a chance of life better than no chance? The writer of the other list had a child survive that early after all, that child wouldn’t have had a chance had her doctor suggested she abort as many pro choice doctors would have.
1. Doctors, not governments, should always be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions.
Ah, I love that the top argument in this list is targeted to people paranoid of the government. Anyway, this argument is not valid. The government would not be making a medical recommendation, it would be setting a regulation, as many things in the medical industry are regulated (for good reason). It would simply be saying that an unborn child can not be murdered unless it is medically necessary for the health of the mother or the child would be born debilitated or with no expectation of survival.
While this list is not exhaustive, it does show that ProChoice arguments just do not hold up to scrutiny. They are impulsive arguments made to cause a fast emotional reaction instead of a thought out logical reaction. My proposed Just Pro Life organization does end up somewhere in the middle, it will not get full support from all pro life groups but hopefully will sway many pro choice groups since it addresses their concerns as well. If you feel you can add to this debate, want to show your support, or have something against anything I’ve said here, by all means please comment below. I want to hear what people of all view points have to say about this because I know there is a better way than the current way. I am firm in my opinions and my belief that my proposed pro life plan is the best way, but if you think you can change my mind feel free to try. As I do not carry with it any other agenda’s, religious goals/restrictions, etc I am not a robot and am not above being swayed. It’s just extremely doubtful at this point.
Please share this page/post with as many people as we possibly can. If you disagree show it to others who disagree so we can open up discussion and an active dialog. If you agree then show it to others and share your support.
Thanks for reading.