Five Facepalm Inducing Pro-Choice Arguments

Have enough conversations about abortion and you’ll start noticing patterns.  For the most part, the arguments you hear for abortion following these forms:

• Here is a slogan I’ve been taught to repeat: “[insert slogan here]”
• The fetus lacks physical trait [XYZ], and therefore doesn’t count as a true human.
• The autonomy of the woman allows her to do whatever she wants to the baby within her body.
• Here is a tragic circumstance which I think justifies keeping every possible instance legal.

But sometimes you’ll run into arguments which astound you with their lack of sense.  They’ll make you wonder if the supporter of legal abortion is trolling you for fun…  or if he/she really is that clueless.

Here is my list of the 5 dumbest Pro-Choice Arguments: (Yes, I've encountered them all.  A lot.)

"If we're going to protect fetuses in the womb, why not sperm and eggs?"

This one is distressingly common.  It indicates either a total lack of knowledge regarding the biology of mammals, or … something worse.

The whole idea of being against abortion is that the child-in-utero is a distinct, whole human organism.  She is a living member of our species and should be protected from harm while she develops.  In other words, she is a human.

The same cannot be said of a sperm or ovum. Those are human sex cells.  They aren’t organisms. There is no environment or condition where they’ll grow into an adult human. But a crazy thing happens when the two combine: It makes a new human.

And humans have human rights.

"Miscarriages happen all the time.  In fact, in medicine it’s called a 'spontaneous abortion'.  So why can't we have induced abortions?"

Most people can tell the difference between dying of liver cancer and dying from a gunshot in a home invasion.  In the first case someone is dying of "natural causes".  In the second case a grave injustice was done and someone needs to be taken to court.

Common sense, right?

Miscarriages are an instance of a human dying from natural causes.  No one is at fault.  But in abortion, the death of the child is a service which is bought and paid for.

So this argument is like saying:

"Old people die of illnesses all the time.  So why can't I hire someone to run over grandma with a car?"   

Ummm… because the fact that humans die of natural causes doesn't mean you can kill them intentionally.

"We don't count unborn babies as citizens. Therefore they have no legal standing and can be aborted."

*sigh* Yes, people have actually said this to me.  Yes, those folks are typically strong supporters of the rights of refugees, migrants, and other non-citizens.  And no, they don't see the contradiction.

Our most basic rights don’t come from being a citizen in a certain country, but from our human dignity.  So, for instance… suppose a country revoked the citizenship of a certain ethnic group and began exterminating them.  Or suppose that same country began killing off its migrant population.

Yes, those people technically aren't citizens, but that doesn't mean they lack human dignity.  Killing them would be a crime against humanity regardless of their citizenship.

Now just apply that principle to pre-birth humans.

"Then I suppose we'll have to give them driver's licenses and voting rights too, huh?!"

This is pretty similar to the previous one in that it confuses civic opportunities with basic human rights.

True, we gain more civic opportunities as we get older.  However, there are other human rights which aren't based on our age. Those are grounded in our human dignity. This is why we're fine with a toddler not being able to vote or drive, but we’re NOT OK with abusing or killing toddlers. 

Folks seem to be able to understand this when it comes to newborns.  I have no idea why they can't grasp these distinctions for children a few days younger.

"Are you prepared to take care of all the babies which don't get aborted?  No?  Then shut up."

So let’s get this straight:  If a random member of the population isn’t personally able to handle all the fallout from ending an abominable practice, it should continue?   What sense that does that make?

How about this... imagine the following being said to someone who opposes animal cruelty:

"Oh yeah?!  Well, are you personally able to take in ALL THE DOGS which are killed in dog fighting matches?  No?  Then dog fighting should continue."

No, I'm not capable of taking in hundreds of dogs a year.  That doesn't mean dogfighting right.  It doesn't mean it should be legal.  And it certainly doesn't mean I'm wrong to oppose it.

Similarly, I'm not personally able to take in 800,000 children per year.  But what the hell does that prove?   It means society needs to change as a consequence of recognizing the humanity of a victimized people-group – just as we’ve done in the past.