17 questions abortion proponents need to answer
5 min readJun 26, 2022
- Abortion advocates often invoke the “right for a woman to do what she wants with her own body.” This despite the fact that the unborn child has a heart, brain and DNA blueprint distinct from the mother’s. If, as they say, the child counts as “her body,” does that mean abortion kills a part of the woman’s body? And if not, who actually dies?
- We often hear about abortion as a “health-care decision.” What kind of “care” does an abortion administer? Whose “health” benefits from an abortion? If it’s the woman’s mental health, how do we factor in the regret and depression many women report after aborting a child? Is there any other thing conducive to mental health that fosters regret and depression?
- Those of us with a libertarian outlook can appreciate the problematic nature of government preventing a woman from undergoing a procedure. If we can appreciate that, why can’t abortion advocates appreciate the morally problematic nature of killing an unborn child — something that often involves dismemberment, saline burning and, in the case of partial-birth abortion, the vacuuming out of the child’s brain? Is there no moral ambiguity in any of this? None??
- Another euphemism for abortion is “reproductive rights” or “reproductive freedom.” How is abortion in any sense “reproductive”? A child is produced but terminated. What then of “reproduction”?
- When does an unborn child become a person entitled to human rights? Some say after the first breath of air. But what is it about respiration that confers personhood and humanity? Moments earlier, before that initial breath, that same “someone” was merely on the other side of the birth canal and (presumably) not a human being. How is this not an utterly arbitrary standard?
- Many abortion supporters are opposed to late-term abortion, thankfully. But what factor regarding the late-term fetus that should preclude its destruction? If there is a cutoff point between “abortion OK” and “abortion not OK,” where is it? And why?
- Some abortion activists argue that a child in the womb has no unalienable right to live because it’s entirely dependent upon a mother for its life. But isn’t this also the case for an infant after its birth? How is this even an argument?
- Some complain that the 2022 repeal of Roe v. Wade is simply forcing the will of “white men” upon the women they long to subjugate. First, can we recognize that the original 1973 Supreme Court decision was one of white men (and old ones, too)? Second, under what artifice can we esteem Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Amy Coney Barrett as “white men”? Doesn’t this illustrate a serious lack of critical thought?
- Also, if opposition to abortion is the work of “the patriarchy,” how do we explain the presence of so many women in the pro-life movement? Why does video footage of pro-life rallies teem with images of women if this is all about men holding down the opposite sex?
- Often, we’ll hear that an abortion critic has no right to oppose the practice without favoring heavy social services to help the mother once the child is spared. “They only care about the child before it’s born but not after,” is the oft-heard taunt. First, how do these people know that abortion critics don’t want to help children once they’re born? Does any survey data exist to suggest such a thing? Are pro-lifers less generous than their pro-choice counterparts? Or less apt to adopt? Prove it! Also, is there really such a serious dearth of help to poor mothers who do give birth? We all know about programs like WIC, SNAP Food Assistance and various private charities. At what point will such programs be enough so we can rightly criticize the aborting of children without this censure?
- Considering the last point: Suppose pro-lifers are willing to provide all the social services necessary to satisfy the demands of the abortion activists who want us to “care for children after they’re born.” Will pro-choice people relent at that point and accept sweeping restrictions on abortion? Obviously, they won’t. That said, how is this anything but a red herring, a complete irrelevancy to the issue at hand?
- We can make the same point against the “rape and incest” subterfuge of abortion proponents. These, as everyone knows, account for only a miniscule fraction of the total aborticides. But OK … suppose we allow abortions in the case of rape and incest. Will the pro-choicer be willing to accept a ban on all other abortions that don’t involve these two mitigating circumstances? Clearly, they won’t. So, why even bring this up in the first damned place?
- If the “will of the woman” is supreme over “reproductive” decisions, why is it null and void once the child is born? Why can’t a mother who no longer wishes to have her infant simply kill it? Or just cease caring for it? For that matter, why can’t she kill a 9-year-old if everything so revolves around her “will”? Of course, this is an absurd question, but why is it absurd? Can anyone answer it with moral consistency?
- Some abortion proponents offer up the argument that it’s acceptable to kill an unborn child before it’s capable of feeling pain. Apparently, killing something is morally pernicious only if it hurts. But by this standard, you could terminate an anesthetized man or woman in the nursing home. After all, it won’t cause any pain to the victim. Why is this not an equally valid choice?
- Abortion activists in many cases are also interested in matters of racial justice, particularly as it relates to African Americans. But why are they unconcerned that such a disproportionate number of black babies is aborted compared to the whole? All of these black children — millions of them — are deprived of existence because of a practice that their supposed allies endorse. Is there no contradiction here? Add to this that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an open racist and eugenicist. Why isn’t this deeply problematic?
- Doesn’t the habitual use of so many euphemisms and weasel words suggest that there’s something wrong with killing an unborn child? We hear “reproductive rights,” “women’s health-care choices,” “the right to choose” (without a mention what they’re choosing). The fact that so many mainstream abortion proponents refuse to straight-up describe what they want suggests there might be something less than admirable about it. Why all the evasive language for a practice that is supposed to be such a fundamental right?
- Finally, the fact that Roe’s repeal has caused such consternation must mean that the justices got it wrong. In kicking the matter back to the states (per the 10th Amendment), the court is asserting that the Constitution doesn’t touch abortion. If you think abortion is in the Constitution, where? Can you offer a citation?
