With Roe v Wade being back in the news, there is more talk than usual about abortion, and that will only increase from here. Are you ready to respond to people graciously when they make bad pro-abortion arguments? It is easier than you think. Don’t miss this opportunity.
The arguments are varied, but the most common ones are easy to refute. For example, they love to play on people’s emotions and pretend that we are hostile to rape victims if we don’t let them kill their children. But just turn it around on them and ask, “So are you saying that you’d support making all abortions illegal except in the cases of rape?” I guarantee you that the response will be “no.” Then you simply say, “Then why are you exploiting rape victims to make your case for unrestricted abortions, and why do you support the Democrats’ policies of increasing abortions with taxpayer funding?” it is just that easy. Bonus points for reminding them how Planned Parenthood and other abortionists protect rapists and sex traffickers.
Using the “trot out the toddler” argument from Stand to Reason is useful in refuting nearly every pro-abortion argument. When the Left — including the “Christian” Left — makes excuses for being able to murder children in the womb, just give a parallel example with a toddler in place of the unborn. Would they approve of killing toddlers to help a woman’s education, career, sexual desires, freedom, etc.? They generally would say no (although they are getting more extreme by the day!). Since the unborn are human children, they deserve the same right to life.
And when you get the inevitable “pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born argument,” share these points.
Here’s a similar version in text form. Feel free to copy and paste any of this without attribution.
Do you have any idea how much time and money I donate to help the poor or how much I pay in taxes? [Pause] Didn’t think so. So why not stick to the topic, which is whether you should be able to crush and dismember children in the womb? The “pro-lifers don’t care about those outside the womb/haven’t adopted all the children/etc.” canard is false on many levels.
1. If people were slaughtering toddlers, the elderly or anyone else the way they do unborn children, I guarantee that we would be protesting that as well. So we are completely consistent in protecting innocent human lives regardless of location and yes, we do care for life post-birth.
2. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day without being obligated to care for all the victims for life. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love life, pressure from boyfriends/parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent, and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection. The right to life is a foundational human right.
3. The premise is false. Countless pro-lifers help women and children before and after birth with their own time and money. Pregnancy Resource Centers offer an array of free services. Planned Parenthood and the like make millions via abortion.
4. Asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on your part.
5. Do you criticize the American Cancer Society for not working on heart disease? If not, why are you being prideful about your preferred ministry over what others feel called to? That is, if you actually do anything for others at all. Using your logic, William Wilberforce didn’t do much because he “only” cared about abolishing the slave trade (not true, of course, as he did more than that, but it shows how ridiculous the pro-abortion argument is).
6. Unless they want forced abortions, pro-choicers have the same obligations to help that they put on pro-lifers.
7. The claim that we don’t care about the children outside the womb is demonstrably false. But even if their claim was true, it seems like the greater sin would be to approve of a child being literally crushed and dismembered rather than just not personally feeding someone else’s living child.
8. Imagine saying something similar to justify keeping slavery legal: “You think slavery is wrong but won’t help them get jobs, etc.”
9. Your basic reasoning is this: “It is OK to kill the child but not to risk her being impoverished.”
10. IF you actually help them outside the womb, we could swap labels and dismiss you: “You only help them outside but let them be killed inside.” Still illogical, but that’s what you get.
Or you can use my short version: We are completely consistent on this topic, as we oppose crushing and dismembering children inside or outside the womb. If you were killing your toddlers as well, we’d also oppose that.
I like that response because it is brief and it spells out what abortion does.
This is a video where I teach about pro-life reasoning. I used to give this content to Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers.