Pro-life responses: Easier than you think.

This pro-abortion site reflexively
used three transparently false arguments. You’ll hear them
from many pro-choicers, even those who (sadly) claim the name of
Christ. Either they know they are false and use them anyway, or
they have used them without thinking critically. Here are
some simple but accurate responses to use when you hear them. 1.
“Pro-lifers oppose the bodily autonomy of women” –
That ignores the bodily autonomy of the human being that is going
to be crushed and dismembered.
The argument plays on
the emotional “conservatives want to control women!” theme.
It would only work if it wasn’t a scientific
that the unborn are human beings from conception.
The “personhood” argument used to
de-humanize the unborn is a heaping does of philosophical FAIL, but
even if it wasn’t it commits another fallacy by equivocating
between body and personhood. 2. “Pro-lifers oppose
reproductive rights” — Uh, but abortions occur when they have
already reproduced a human
(there’s that pesky scientific fact
again). We don’t oppose women exercising their right to
reproduce. We oppose the destruction of the human beings they
have already reproduced. 3. “Pro-lifers have a fetus
fetish,” which is a variant of the
pro-lifers don’t care about kids
after they are

Simply ask the person making that claim,
“Do you have to be willing to take complete responsibility for
human beings you are trying to protect? Can you protest the
abuse of the homeless, spouses, children or pets without having to
provide unlimited care for them all?” As noted in the link,
pro-lifers do a great deal with their own time and money to help
women and families in need. Also, unless the pro-choicers
are advocating forced abortions, the same burden to care for the
babies allowed to live falls on them. But the pro-choice
argument fails even if we didn’t help out.

27 thoughts on “Pro-life responses: Easier than you think.”

  1. So what’s so wrong with killing unborn babies? I mean, we’re killing untold numbers of women and children in our wars overseas and that’s of no concern to you. How about all the people who die of starvation and disease every day? Why aren’t you concerned with those people.

    And what about all the dogs that are killed every day? Dogs have the intelligence of a two year old child, yet you don’t have a problem with dog genocide.

    What’s so special about a fetus?


    1. It is immoral to kill innocent human beings. Just because you rattle off an incoherent list of alleged inconsistencies, the best that does is defeat your own argument (if we’re inconsistent — which you didn’t prove — then so are you).

      But if you are an atheist then of course you have no grounding to make any moral claims.

      What’s so special about a fetus?

      Depends what kind of fetus. If it is a human fetus, then it has the same inherent worth as any other human being. The size, level of development, environment and dependency of a human being do not impact her worth.


    2. How about all the people who die of starvation and disease every day? Why aren’t you concerned with those people.

      For others reading along, this is a classic pro-abort argument to deflect attention from their endorsement of destroying innocent human beings in the womb. It fails on many levels.

      First, they don’t prove that we aren’t concerned about those people (Oh noes!! Ben has access to my Quicken and my calendar and knows what a greedy, selfish bastard I am!!).

      Second, none of us has unlimited time and money. Go ahead and spend your resources on your favorites causes, but don’t have the sin of pride about yours being better than everyone else’s. Protecting the unborn is a noble cause.

      Third, I rarely see these people doing anything about starvation and disease. Liberals who don’t give generously should not even be listened to. Their foundational hypocrisy proves their untrustworthiness.

      Fourth, if the pro-aborts are atheists then they have no philosophical grounding to make any moral claims.

      Other than that they have an airtight argument.


      1. Great point. In your deterministic, atheistic universe you have no more value than a cockroach (just what makes you think mammals are better than any other species?). It is all survival of the fittest.

        Then again, if you can live consistently with your proclaimed worldview for even 3 sentences, let alone for a lifetime, then you’ll be the first atheist I’ve met who has done so.


      2. Ben: first, I’m a pro-life vegetarian, so I sort of laugh at your responses, mostly because I’m 99% sure that you eat steak on a regular basis.

        Second, no one treats animals as badly as the unborn are treated. My dog is curled up on the couch next to me, with her nose in her paws. She sleeps inside every day, gets good food, medical care, a down-filled doggie bed, treats, and walks. She does NOT have her skull collapsed and her brain suctioned out of it, which is how partial-birth abortions are performed. She isn’t burned with saliene, shredded with a knife, or any other means of killing babies. So your analogy fails because it misrepresents reality.


    3. Ben,

      Let’s assume that most people with a conscience care at least to some degree about all you just mentioned (a fairly reasonable assumption…and in many cases, including plenty people here, “some degree” is a gross understatement), does that somehow lessen the need to protect the countless defenseless human lives that are taken through abortion?

      I certainly can’t speak for you (though I’d like to hope we can have this in common:)), but personally, I have plenty of room in my heart to care for multiple issues.

      I can find abortion abhorrent and still find the time to feel concern for the many groups of suffering people of the world. Somehow, I also still have room to have genuine concern for you and your soul as well (I honestly mean that!).

      When I see a blog advocating helping the homeless or those suffering from disease, I don’t ask why they don’t mention abortion and assume they don’t care about unborn humans, I simply pitch in if I can.

      Why not, instead of diverting the blog’s points about abortion to other issues (worthy as some may be), instead chime in with a reason as to what is so right with killing unborn babies (if that is in-line with your view)?

      Or tell us what is wrong about advocating for those unable to defend themselves. I would think that would lead to much more productive discussion (even if we can’t agree).

      It seems you just wish to be contrary though. Your approach is unfortunately a common backwards view of human advocacy and equivocation without logic. It’s similar to PETA and their condoning (and even sponsoring) the killing of sheltered animals simply because conditions aren’t up to their standards.

      Anyway, long story short: I don’t see how voicing concern of one group equates to a lack of concern for another. If you feel that way, that’s truly a shame.

      On a side note, I hope you spend some of your time actively helping the homeless and suffering rather than simply using them as a tenuous counter-argument. They can certainly use all the support we can give, regardless of differing views otherwise.

      My prayers to you and yours regardless. God bless!


    4. “Dogs have the intelligence of a two year old child…”

      Ben should be so lucky. His arguments suggest he isn’t. To suggest that one is unconcerned about one set of children dying because one is supporting the lives of another set is as ludicrous an argument as can be invented. How ’bout this blanket statement: We support an end to the abuse and killing of all children worldwide, born or unborn.

      To move on, Ben needs to prove that we are at fault for the wars in which we are engaged in order to place the blame for ANY deaths at our feet. And considering many of the enemies we face purposely put their own civilians (including kids) in harm’s way for propaganda purposes, it is clear that Ben prefers the enemy over their victims and foes. That is, if we can’t pick them off cleanly with absolutely no risk to others, we must let them rule and everyone else must just deal with their despotism.


  2. I must admit I’ve thought the same thing as Ben. I often wonder what makes humans so special. Though to go on what Ben said about dogs (though I’m not a Christian), I must admit my sympathy tends to lie with animals over people.

    Anyways, though I still consider myself pro-choice, I do understand the pro-life position much more now than I did perhaps a year or so ago.


    1. Hi Sombra,

      The short answer is that humans are special because God created us that way. Deep down we know that and even atheists like Ben live that way. He doesn’t really think there is no difference, otherwise he’d protest bug killers as mass murderers. After all, when I put AMDRO on a fire ant mound I’m killing thousands of morally equivalent beings (in his view).

      But even if he was consistent in treating all living things equally, he’d still be wildly inconsistent with his worldview. If the universe came from nothing and all creation is dictated by the laws of physics, then you just think you are making choices. Ben should “know” that and realize that there is nothing that is truly moral or immoral.

      But again, he can’t go three sentences without contradicting the implications of his worldview.

      There is a God, and when people like Ben die it isn’t like there is some extended debate where they plead ignorance about that fact. His worldview will be exposed in an instant for what it was: Rebellion against his creator.


      1. Well I always sorta figured there was some sort of scale of importance with animals. I just generally sympathize with animals over people. But I’m not gonna hesitate for a second kill insects in my bedroom/house (that is is my cat doesn’t eat them first).

        Though…I wouldn’t be surprised if there was someone out there protesting the killing of insects as they would a serial killer.

        Really he isn’t contradicting anything at the moment. He’s pretty much avoiding a bunch of the questions posed by everyone here.


    2. Kudos to you for gaining a better understanding of the pro-life position. If you have a little time I highly recommend walking through . They have a great overview of the key issues surrounding abortion. So many people jump into the middle of the debate. It is helpful to go back to the basics about what abortion really is and then work from there.


    3. [The short answer is that humans are special because God created us that way. ]

      You have every right to believe that. You DON’T have a right to demand everyone else believe that, which is what you’re trying to do. And there is of course the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which is what you’re advocating for since your argument is purely religious.


      1. You have every right to believe that. You DON’T have a right to demand everyone else believe that

        I don’t demand that everyone believe it. You are mistaken. If you truly think that protecting humans above cockroaches is a violation of the 1st Amendment then you are beyond hope.

        Here’s the whole 1st Amendment if you are interested:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        It protects religious freedoms, it doesn’t restrict them.

        You are either a really bad reader or are lying, because I can explicitly argue the pro-life position without referring to religion.

        Here’s a consistency check for you: Please send me some links of where you blast theological liberals for trying to “force” their religious views on you. After all, I can line up a bunch of religious people like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie. They work nonstop to impose their pro-abortion / open borders / higher tax / oxymoronic same-sex marriage / universal health care / etc. religious views on the populace. So if your primary objection is against anything religious then you should be outraged at them. I think they are fake Christians, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. If you really want to (mis-)interpret the 1st Amendment as saying we can never vote in line with our religious views then you’d have to be outraged at the Left and the Right.

        And of course, if you are going to insist that I vote the opposite of my religious views then I’ll have to change my stance on stealing from and killing atheists. I’ve always opposed those on religious grounds, but if it offends you that much . . .


      2. Seeing as I was the person that was directed towards…

        He’s not demanding that anyone else believe it. He’s just stating a fact of his belief which is that God created humans to both rule over and take care of everything on the earth.

        Even on the subject of pro-life vs. pro-choice, he (or anyone else commenting here) are also backing their beliefs on this matter with non-religious ideas. Mostly upon evidence about how abortions affect the women who have them, the procedures actually done to kill a baby, etc. I’m not completely knowledgeable about the subject just yet, but I’m knowledgeable enough to know that you can take religion out of the abortion debate and still have a very strong argument in favor of the pro-life side of things.

        (And for the record, I consider myself pro-choice though more leaning towards the pro-life side of things. There’s still one area that’s a bit iffy in my mind.)


      3. Well the last thing that bothers me is the subject of rape. While I understand a baby is still a living being, it was a situation that the mother did not ask for. It was brought upon by the selfish need for dominance and power over someone on the part of a rapist.

        Actually it’s two things. The other being if the mother’s life is genuinely in danger (and I know it’s rare now, but women still sometimes run the risk of dying during childbirth). It’s always said that the best family structures are with a mother and father. Though if the mother dies, the child is now left motherless.

        It’s probably because of that second reason that I find the labels of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” very misleading. That second reason allows for one to decide which life is worth more. The one of mother or the one of the child. Also in terms of pure definition of words the meanings are misleading in the context of the abortion debate. But that would be going away from the topic at hand.


      4. Very few pro-lifers object to a woman electing to have an abortion if her own life is endangered by the pregnancy. Naturally, it is more noble for a woman to take the risk, but you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone that is willing to force a woman to do so.

        As to rape, there are two victims if the woman is impregnated, not just one. It is unfortunate for the woman to have to deal with a pregnancy she had no desire or choice in conceiving, but why should the child be made to pay the ultimate price in this situation? This is a chance for the woman to do something incredibly noble and charitable for another human being who is totally helpless, vulnerable and without a voice.

        Still, would you be willing to give up the over 99% of abortions performed for lesser reasons if you could maintain the right for rape, incest and the life of the mother? I’d take that trade knowing so few would the die as a result.


      5. We hold these Truths to be self-evident,
        that all Men are created equal, that they are
        endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
        Rights, that among these are Life,
        Liberty, and
        the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these
        Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
        deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
        Governed, that whenever any Form of Government
        becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of
        the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
        new Government, laying its Foundation on such
        Principles, and organizing its Powers in such
        Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
        their Safety and Happiness.

        The whole point of our founding was based (in part or in whole) on the understanding that all human life is indeed special. Our founders thought so and they thought so to the point of putting it in writing in our founding documents. Our nation quibbled over race initially and realized its error. More recently, thanks to activist justices, it has made a more heinous error in denying humanity based on age and size, all so the worst of us can abuse the procreative process for pleasure without consequence. It is no more complex than that.


      6. The whole point of our founding was based (in part or in whole) on the understanding that all human life is indeed special. Our founders thought so and they thought so to the point of putting it in writing in our founding documents.

        The rights from the Declaration of Independence were for men. They didn’t include women or children at the time, just men talking about their own rights. Though I agree with you “that all human life is indeed special” and precious to our Creator, these documents do not support your argument.

        More recently, thanks to activist justices, it has made a more heinous error in denying humanity based on age and size, all so the worst of us can abuse the procreative process for pleasure without consequence. It is no more complex than that.

        Judges interpret the existing laws and precedents to rule on the side of those former statutes in cases set before them. Interpretations determine what can legally be performed or not. As times change, interpretations also do. “Activist” judges have given corporations equal representation with citizens over the years and especially since the Fourteenth Amendment was added in 1868.

        Your “abuse the procreative process for pleasure without consequence” statement is opinion and although it may cover some people who have resorted to abortion as a method of birth control, it otherwise holds no weight for the blame associated with sexual promiscuity in today’s society. A breakdown of the family and mass media holds a greater share of the blame, IMO.


      7. “The rights from the Declaration of Independence were for men.”

        Regardless of how accurate this statement may be, you’d be hard pressed to prove that the right to life for women and children wasn’t equally respected and defended.

        It’s been some time since I’ve last reviewed the Roe v Wade decision, or commentary regarding it, but even those who are happy with its outcome admit it was a very poor example of judicial action. There certainly was no precedent for deciding a human being was not worthy of protection simply due to size or age. Nor was there any for deciding that one person (the mother) has more value than another (her still developing child).

        Obviously, abortion as a method of birth control is not a reason for promiscuity, but a result of it. I can’t imagine too many people that have sex without pleasure in mind. While some do so with the purpose of procreating, pleasure is still a major part of the process. However, of those who abort, very few do so for reasons other than avoiding the consequences of engaging in the procreative act, even if one of those consequences might be finding that the child they hoped for might have issues they didn’t want to face. It is still a case of avoidance and an abuse of the process (pleasure of intercourse as well as the pleasure of bringing a healthy baby to term and the pleasure of raising a normal child). The result is still the same: making the child pay the price.


      8. Abortions are declining in frequency in America, and have been doing so steadily over the years. The trend may be attributed to better education or the acceptance and usages of the many various forms of birth control available today. While the trend is positive, the facts aren’t always well-documented or unbiased in presentation.

        The abortion issue is a very devisive one in America, both politically and ideologically. As a former participant in Operation Rescue protests, I can truly say we did more harm and incited more hate than we did good. I feel education and open discussions regarding sex in each family environment benefit the cause much moreso. Laws do not incite changes in morals or convictions. If they did, we would not have needed Jesus to be born in the flesh and give us the new testament, sacrificing Himself and thus fulfilling the law.

        Children are the ones who suffer the most in any society. They have NO rights at all unless adults afford them those rights. Once they are birthed into this world, we are obligated as believers to love them as we love ourselves. I don’t think that practice is very common nor is that message getting the press it deserves.


  3. I would push for sterilization of young males at puberty. Simple outpatient procedure, that is highly reversable. Society has proven it has no control or morals, and that is in Christian circles as well, Christian men are not keeping it zipped or focusing on their own wife. It would make abortions unnecessary, stop the creation of the masses of unwanted people. And if procreation was something really wanted by the male, which is rare, because most men would not opt for fatherhood, statistics prove this. It would end the deadbeat dad junk, it would curb the abuse cycle. And free up prisons, most of those come from BROKEN home situations. It would shift the responsibility back on men, and get the women out of the equation. Easy solution to a complex problem. Men will have sex, you can’t curb that behavior, but curb the unwanted children they continually father that they refuse to be responsible for, or provide for. And stop the endless pro-whatever arguements. If their SEED wasn’t being spread like manure, growing unwanted fetus’s then this wouldn’t be an issue. We spay pets, but snipping men just makes perfect sense. I don’t hate men, I hate that their SEED produces such havoc on society. Plug the leak and we wouldn’t have all this JUNK. If they shot blanks, then think how much strife would end.


    1. There’s so many disagreeable things about this statement…The first being how you’re generalizing all men into one group.

      1) When you say “Men will have sex” are you generalizing all men into one group? Women can be equally promiscuous. Women will have sex too. It takes 2 to make a baby.

      2) Abortion isn’t necessary. Your “argument” is only plausible if women were having sex against their will. But the women are wanting sex just as much as the men are in the majority of instances of abortion. You can’t pin the unborn baby on the father unless it was a case of rape. The mother had a say. She wanted sex. She got a baby. That’s her fault. Not the man’s. Their “seed” isn’t being sprayed like manure without the say of the woman too. Where do you place the woman in all this?

      3) Never mind…”It would shift the responsibility back on men and get the women out of the equation”. There it is. Women need to be equally as responsible for their sexual actions as men do. Without sperm a baby cannot be produced just like without the egg a baby cannot be produced. The responsibility lies on both parties. It always will lie on both parties. Why do women need to be out of the equation? Are women not also responsible for the actions that they take?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s