Be prepared, people! Abortion is going to be a hot topic for some time, and you’ll constantly come across fallacious pro-abortion sound bites. Bookmark this if you like, as I’ll be updating it as I think of other examples. I offered multiple answers to some objections. Let me know in the comments section if you think of others.
I’m using anti-abortion instead of pro-life for a reason. It cuts down on one of the baseless pro-abortion attack lines. Sure, call me anti-abortion, because I am anti-child murder. And I’m using pro-abortion because anyone who demands that others pay for abortions to the child’s first breath is more than just pro-choice. You can soften the snarkiness as you see fit, especially in one-on-one encounters, but sometimes evil ideas deserve mockery.
Whenever you can, “trot out the toddler” and show how most pro-abortion arguments fail when applied to toddlers. Then you point out how the real issue is that the unborn are human beings from fertilization, so the pro-abortion reasoning fails for them as well.
I use some terms interchangeably, such as kill/murder and abortion/crushing and dismembering. They may sound extreme, but so is killing children. Sometimes people need to be confronted with what they are actually supporting.
One example of the stupidity I saw on social media on “No-mo-Roe” day (which should now be a national holiday). Of course, it got lots of cheers from fellow Molech-worshiping ghouls who don’t know how to think critically.
This marks the first time in history that the United States Supreme Court has taken away a constitutional right…
No, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that there had never been a Constitutional right to kill your child.
What happened to the separation of church and state?
This had nothing to do with church and state. It was about what the Constitution says. Try reading it. That said, God is against killing your children. You’ll answer to him for that.
What happened to my rights over my body and what I choose to do with it?
There are countless laws telling you what you can’t do with your body, such as killing your children outside the womb. Now some states will have laws making it illegal to kill them inside the womb. Do what you like, just don’t kill your children. Or live in one of the many states where you can still legally kill your children.
What next? We can no longer purchase contraceptives?
Hold on, drama queen. There is nothing about that in the Constitution, either. It should be left to the states, which are unlikely to ban them.
What about the right to love who you love?
The Constitution has never said anything about who you can love. Oh, you mean whether oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is enshrined in the Constitution? Yeah, hopefully, they’ll get rid of that silly ruling as well.
What about trans rights?
“Trans” rights? Sure, I suppose you have the legal right to be delusional and mock God’s created order. I’ll defend those rights. But you don’t have the right to push your perversions on children or to force me to lie and say that people can change genders. I won’t violate my conscience that way. And no, the Constitution said nothing about “trans” rights.
Oh, but you can still own an assault rifle and that’s all that matter right???
Yes, because that is in the Constitution! Thanks for noticing.
This ruling won’t end abortions, only the safe ones.
They are never safe for the child you murder. And we are under no obligation to make it safer for you to murder your child. And make no mistake: It will reduce abortions. Every life counts.
This ruling is not a ban on abortions, it’s a ban on women.
LOL that’s just stupid. Yeah, we’ve now banned women. They disappeared.
Sorry but we aren’t going to revert back to being worth less than a man.
So if you can’t legally kill your children you are less than a man? That’s some pretty low self-esteem you have there.
It’s time to fight back.
Too bad the 50,000,000 children you murdered couldn’t fight back.
Pro-abortion: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament! (Also: “If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube!”)
Anti-abortion: If men could get pregnant, it would be wrong for them to murder their unborn children.
P.S. You seem transphobic, but thanks for conceding that men and women are different and that men can’t have babies.
PA: If you don’t have a uterus, you don’t get to speak on this!
AA: We can speak any time we like when people are being killed without adequate justification.
So on your logic, we should overturn Roe v Wade because it was decided by men?
Over 50% of abortions kill females, and nearly all gender-selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female. Don’t their uteruses get a say?
Women are more pro-life than men. Go figure.
P.S. You seem transphobic, but thanks for conceding that men and women are different and that men can’t have babies.
PA: But the children might be poor!
AA: Using that logic, you should kill your toddlers or other children who are poor. Also, compared to the U.S. definition of poor, 99% of the people who have ever lived anywhere should have been aborted.
PA: If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one!
AA: If you don’t want people to kill their toddlers, don’t kill your toddler.
Can you see how childish your argument sounds when you ignore the child murdered in the abortion?
PA: Abortions are completely moral acts! They are not sinful.
AA: Do you realize that you are telling everyone – including friends, any children and grandchildren you have, and yourself — that it would have been completely moral to crush and dismember them in the womb rather than letting them live? I pity the children and grandchildren who hear that message!
Seriously, picture someone saying this: “It is very important to Grandma that I fight for the right for mothers to be able to have their children killed. You are safe now, but I wanted your mother to have the right to kill you up to your first breath.”
Yes, I know no one would say it like that, but that’s exactly what their message is.
PA: Girls born today will have fewer rights than those born 50 years ago!
AA: But they will be born.
PA: But the child could impact the woman’s career/love life/education/etc.
AA: On that logic, she could kill her toddler with impunity. None of those reasons are adequate justification to kill her child.
PA: But the children might turn out poor or become criminals.
AA: You could say the same thing about many toddlers in this country, but that wouldn’t justify crushing and dismembering them.
PA: She’s not ready to be a mother.
AA: She’s already a mother; the question is whether she’ll have her child murdered.
PA: Pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born!
AA: We are remarkably consistent: We oppose murdering children regardless of their location – inside or outside the womb.
PA: A woman has a right to choose!
AA: If you are talking about school choice, or whether to own a gun, homeschool your children, take vaccines, get married, etc. then I’m with you. But you need to complete the sentence: You think women have a right to choose to murder their unborn children. There is a reason you don’t finish the thought.
PA: It isn’t a child, it is a blob of cells!
AA: Your problem is with the nice folks at Dictionary.com, not me.
Child: 4. a human fetus: My sister miscarried with her first child at seven months. [Although in the pro-abortion case, their definition could have said, “My sister killed her first child at seven months.”]
And Joe Biden agrees with me! Joe Biden says abortion would “abort a child.”
I’ve been encouraging people to use “child” instead of “baby” because the former is more precise.
Also, even Planned Parenthood always knew what abortion does. From their 1964 ad:
Is it [birth control] an abortion?
Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.
Every related scientific discovery made since then, plus tools like ultrasounds, serve to further that point.
I concede that technically it is a fetus and not a baby, even though that’s what Planned Parenthood called it. I don’t correct people who euphemistically call them babies. But they are human beings at a particular stage of development who have a right to life.
PA: We don’t know when life begins!
AA: Then you should err on the side of life.
Oh, and we do know when life begins: Fertilization. It is basic science and common sense.
PA and some AA people: Women are the victims of abortion, too!
AA: No. If you take out a contract to have someone killed, under no circumstance are you the victim. You may be in a very complex situation and might be getting pressured to do something wrong, but I won’t infantilize you and say you didn’t know what you were doing. If you were killing your toddler for the same reasons no one would consider you a victim.
Many pro-lifers either fear women or are condescending to them by pretending they don’t know what abortion does. The writers of the Hippocratic Oath — which was written well over 2,000 years ago — knew exactly what abortion did, and as late as the 1960s Planned Parenthood said that abortion kills “babies.” And feminists encourage people to “shout their abortions” out of pride for what they have done.
PA: What about victims of rape and incest?
AA: Are you saying that you’d support making all abortions illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother? If not, then why are you exploiting rape victims to make your case for unrestricted abortions?
Feel free to punish the rapist, but don’t kill the innocent child. Using your logic, a woman could kill her toddler conceived in rape if it reminded her of the trauma.
Also, abortion is often used to hide the vile crimes of rape, incest, and sex trafficking. What better way to destroy the evidence? Yet Planned Parenthood, which pretends to care for women, has been caught hiding these crimes countless times.
PA: You just want to take us back to the bad old days!
AA: Even the “restrictive” laws of states like Mississippi are more liberal than any European nation. Only North Korea and China have abortion laws as barbaric as those in the U.S. When Europeans think your abortions laws are over the top, you might want to lay off the child-killing just a bit.
But yes, we want to go back to the days when it was illegal to murder your children in the womb.
PA: You are just forcing your religious views on us!
AA: The non-religious Hippocratic Oath, written hundreds of years B.C., was explicitly anti-abortion.
If you saw a toddler being murdered, would you be wrongly “forcing your views” by intervening?
Are the pro-abortion “Christian” Leftists “forcing their religious views” on others when they lobby for abortion to the child’s first breath? If not, then stop using that fallacious argument inconsistently.
I can argue against child murder all day long without referencing the Bible, but I’ll be glad to tell you about how Jesus can forgive all of your sins if you’d like.
PA: You are anti-science!
AA: Science and common sense completely support our foundational premise that a new human being is created at fertilization. Go check out any mainstream secular embryology textbook. What else would two human beings create?
I’m too pro-science to be pro-abortion.
PA: Why do you oppose reproductive healthcare for women?
AA: Abortion kills children who have already been reproduced. Otherwise, there would be nothing to kill. “Reproductive health” is a deadly and illogical euphemism. You should stop using it.
PA: You are anti-women!
AA: More than half of abortions kill females. Nearly all gender-selection abortions kill female children for the sole reason that they are female. Seems misogynistic to me. Our policies would save their lives.
PA: You are anti-choice!
AA: Why, yes, I am anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings. Thanks for noticing.
PA: Women will still have just as many abortions. You’ll just be forcing them to have dangerous illegal “back-alley” abortions.
AA: Cold, hard truth: Society has no obligation to make it easier for you to kill your children, regardless of their location.
Are you conceding that if you ban guns people will still get them illegally?
Sadly, even if Roe v Wade is overturned, you’ll still be able to legally have your child murdered in many states. California is already planning on lots of “abortion tourism.” Now that’s Satanic.
Abortions skyrocketed after Roe v Wade, and Leftists concede that outlawing abortion would “decimate” hook-up culture. Laws greatly influence behavior. Just because laws against stealing don’t stop all stealing, it doesn’t mean we don’t keep the laws on the books. It is the same logic for child murder.
The statistics showing women dying of abortions were wildly overstated pre-Roe v Wade, and even those were typically due to a lack of antibiotics.
Pro-abortion groups aggressively fight safety standards, and pressure law enforcement to ignore the ones in place. See Kermit Gosnell.
PA: That’s so mean to call these women murderers! And it is inaccurate because abortions are currently legal.
AA: As Abraham Lincoln noted, even if you call a dog’s tail a leg, it still has just four legs. Calling something the wrong name doesn’t change reality. In God’s eyes, taking human life without adequate justification is murder.
But there is good news! Abortion is forgivable if only people will repent and trust in Jesus.
PA: Opposing abortion is racist!
AA: Abortion kills blacks at a rate over three times that of whites. If that isn’t an example of “systemic racism,” then nothing is. And that rate isn’t an accident. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an extreme racist. With our policies, the percentage of black people in the country would be higher. How is that racist? And most abortionists have traditionally been white males getting rich by killing black children.
Bonus answer: Pregnancy resource centers are funded and staffed with mostly whites and they serve mostly non-whites. How is that racist? Same thing for prison ministries.
PA: Women have bodily autonomy! My body, my choice!
AA: That right ends when it comes to destroying the body of another human – especially when it is your child. You have a wildly different obligation towards your own child versus a stranger.
Examples such as the “violin argument,” forced blood or organ donations, etc. are unnatural uses of your body, whereas a uterus is designed explicitly to nurture an unborn child.
Ninety-nine percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on women who chose to have sexual intercourse.
Abortion is not just letting an innocent person die, or taking them off of life support. Abortion is an active, violent form of killing.
P.S. You said that about vaccine and mask mandates as well, right? I’m sure you didn’t cheer when people got fired for being unwilling to take the vaccine or when schoolchildren were forced to be masked.
PA: It is between a woman and her doctor!
AA: A woman and her doctor can’t kill a toddler for the reasons given for abortion. So the question is, what is the unborn? Factually speaking, they are human beings. I don’t care if Dr. Mengele is on board or not, you shouldn’t kill the child.
PA: Keep the government out of our bedrooms!
AA: One role of government is to address the wrongful taking of human lives, regardless of location. And most children are killed at abortion clinics, not in bedrooms.
PA: Pro-lifers show those awful pictures of abortions. That is wrong!
AA: What could be more relevant to a debate than images of the procedure in question?
Is it OK to kill unborn humans but wrong to show pictures of the practice?
Which is worse, letting children see those pictures or letting them be in those pictures?
PA: Pro-lifers are extremists!
AA: Killing your own children up to their first breath and without anesthetic, and wanting others to be forced to pay for it, seems extreme to me.
And who are the real extremists? The abortion debate seems to be a 50/50 split until you ask more specific questions. Then the Leftist view becomes the extreme one.
Pro-choice views (Gallup, 2011)
Make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester – 79%
Make abortion illegal in the 2nd trimester – 52%
Ban “partial-birth abortion” – 63%
Require parental consent for minors – 60%
Require 24 waiting period – 60%
PA: But Jesus said nothing about abortion (or LGBTQX, etc.)!
AA: Logic of those who use this argument: Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible. In the “red letters” (direct quotes of Jesus) He did not specifically condemn abortion. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally permissible.
But the “red letters” also didn’t specifically mention slavery, drunk driving, child sacrifice, gay-bashing, and many other wrongs.
The “red letters” did call murder a sin, and when the Israelites sacrificed their children to Molech and others, God denounced it in the strongest possible terms.
Jesus is divine and agrees with the entire Bible (Matthew 4:4 and more).
In Luke 1, which many people hear every Christmas, 2nd trimester John the Baptist reacted to 1st trimester Jesus. They were both persons in the womb.
The Israelites viewed children as a blessing and abortion wasn’t a major issue in 1st century Palestine.
PA: But your God performs the most abortions! [i.e., miscarriages]
AA: Dying early doesn’t make you non-human. Abortions aren’t miscarriages. Can they see the difference between these?
- Human outside (or inside) the womb dies of natural causes
- Human outside (or inside) the womb killed by a third party
In other words, grandma dying of natural causes is different than grandma being bludgeoned to death.
PA: The book of Numbers shows that God is pro-abortion.
AA: What verse in Numbers 5 says the woman is pregnant? What verse says she has a miscarriage? (The NIV has a mistranslation of the original text, but other, more accurate versions make it clear). Even if she had a miscarriage as a punishment for adultery, how would that mean that God is OK with abortion at any stage for any reason? More here.
PA: Exodus 21 supports abortion because it says that a miscarriage is less valuable than a woman’s life.
AA: Here’s the passage in question:
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)
The key word of the passage is sometimes not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” If you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.
More here, with a listing of all the errors that pro-aborts make with this passage.
PA: These abortive women have terrible situations!
AA: That may be the case, but don’t confuse psychological complexity with moral complexity. Their personal issues may be complex, but the morality is simple. You shouldn’t kill toddlers for the reasons given for abortions, so you shouldn’t kill unborn children, either.
PA: But the unborn aren’t persons yet!
AA: That is an artificial and false distinction. Using that logic, you could kill infants as well. The size, level of development, environment, and dependency of human beings don’t dictate whether you can kill them.
Whether they have consciousness is irrelevant. Neither do people who are asleep or in comas. To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious (abortion fails on both counts):
- You need to demonstrate that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious
- That there is little or no hope of recovery.
PA: Christians are just repressed sexually, hate women, are greedy, are insane, etc.
AA: Compared to non-Christians, we adopt more children, have better sex lives, are more generous, have better mental health, and treat women better. Oh, and we have been completely forgiven and will spend eternity in Heaven with God. Please seek Jesus for yourself while there is still time! More at 5 Statistics Reveal Christianity Is Good for the World.
PA: You are just against women’s freedom!
AA: We are all for freedom to own guns, home school your children, not take vaccines, etc. If we make it illegal for them to murder their children, they are still free to destroy their lives with all the soul-destroying, disease-spreading illicit sex that they like. I advise against that behavior, but we aren’t legislating it. Just don’t complain to us when they are miserable and unmarriageable cat ladies.
Side question for the PAs: Is Islam correct about women? Asking for a friend.
PA: Abortion is health care!
AA: No, healthcare is when you don’t crush and dismember one of the patients.
PA: It is better to destroy one life than three! [i.e., abortion will destroy the life of the child, but letting her live will destroy the lives of her and the parents]
AA: You’ve used a different definition of destroy in those cases*. Destroying the life of the child means the literal crushing and dismembering of a human being. Destroying the life of all three implies that all of them will now have bad lives, but they will still be alive. And you falsely assume that all of their lives will be ruined**. There are countless stories of lives turning out well. Consider adoption instead of abortion.
Side note: A guy used that exact argument with me. He had pressured his daughter to kill his grandchild. It destroyed their relationship for a time and he was in deep denial over what he had done. By the grace of God, he later repented of it and restored his relationship with her.
* Logical fallacy: Equivocation
** Logical fallacy: Begging the question
PA: Adoption is hard on women.
AA: Perhaps, but at least they can always know they gave their child a better life instead of crushing and dismembering them out of selfishness.
And abortion is hard on the child getting slaughtered.
PA: If women have to bear children, then men have to take equal responsibility!
AA: Short answer: OK.
Longer answer: We already have laws on the books to address that concern. More than that, the deck is so stacked against men that paternity fraud goes unpunished and men can be liable for 18 years if they sign birth certificates for children that aren’t theirs. If you want fairness, get rid of those laws.
PA: Pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but being pro-capital punishment!
AA: That’s a great argument, provided you can’t see the difference between a completely innocent human child and a convicted murderer who survived 10+ years of appeals.
Actually, I am OK with unrestricted access to abortions – provided that the unborn get the same 10+ years of appeals as condemned killers. I’m pretty sure that at that stage they won’t want to be crushed and dismembered. As Ronald Reagan said, all the people who support abortion have already been born.
P.S. If you will agree to ban abortions then I’ll agree to ban capital punishment. Deal? Yeah, I didn’t think you’d agree to that.
PA: You are anti-choice!
AA: You got to make your choices: to meet men, to have sex, not to use birth control, and to get pregnant. You got to make all kinds of choices. No, what you’re complaining about is that now you have to live with the consequences of your choices: which you’ll have to do even if you do murder the life that now grows in you.
AA: You got to make choices. The man who got you pregnant got to make choices. The life that now lives in you won’t get to make choices – but will thrive or suffer based on your choices.
PA: It is just a clump of cells! (Or blob of cells, etc.)
AA: You’re still a clump of cells — just a much bigger one. I guess your life can be taken, too! Or are you simply discriminating against people who are smaller clumps than you? Does Shaquille O’Neal have more of a right to life than the rest of us?
Here’s a version with audio and video if you prefer that. Bonus: Lots of Bible verses at the end!