Debunking Pro-Choice Arguments, Part 2

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog post offering alternative viewpoints to common pro-choice arguments. I feel that pro-abortion arguments and talking points are weak and are easily disputed. Each time I have seen a debate of any sort on this topic, the best the pro-choice position can come up with is to endlessly change the subject, formulating the most horrifying what-if scenarios they can think of to justify the act. Let’s talk about some of those now.

You’ll often hear that abortion is a life-saving practice, used for medical emergencies wherein the life of the mother is at stake. These circumstances are tragic, but also incredibly rare. Depending on who you talk to, these circumstances simply don’t exist at all. Of course there are pregnancies that threaten the health and well-being of the mother, perhaps even to the point of death, but usually abortion is not a proper treatment. Pregnancies that reach this stage of danger are also usually past the point of viability. Rather than dismember and kill the child, they may be removed via c-section or by inducing labor. This, of course, doesn’t guarantee the survival of the child, but it at least gives them a chance and is no less effective than some sort of intentionally abortive procedure. As far as the overturn of Roe v Wade, most states have some sort of protection for “life of the mother” circumstances. No one would be criminally charged if abortion was determined to be the only method by which the mother could be saved. I'd also like to note that the treatment of a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy are not medically considered to be abortion procedures. Lumping in the women who have had such tragic ends to their very much wanted pregnancies with those who have voluntarily elected to terminate theirs is unfair and cruel.

Abortion is also offered as a solution to the traumas of rape or incest. I purposely avoid talking about pro-life issues from the perspective of consequences or punishment. For instance, I would not say something like, “well, she should not have had sex if she didn't want to get pregnant.” While I do believe in personal responsibility and using protection, contraception, or abstinence to avoid unplanned pregnancies, I also understand that not every pregnancy is the result of consensual sex. (I also understand that sometimes, birth-control methods may fail, though that is also incredibly rare). If a woman finds that she has become impregnated as the result of a rape, I don’t think that an abortion is a cure for her heartache. I would be inclined to believe that the discomforts and pains of pregnancy and childbirth are no worse than the traumas of enduring an abortion, or at least that they aren’t worth comparing. The main thing is that, as much as the woman didn’t ask to get pregnant, the child in her womb didn’t ask to be there either. Rapists should be punished to the furthest extent of the law. If you ask me, the death penalty shouldn’t be off the table. However, the death penalty shouldn’t apply to the innocent child that was produced by the horrible act. I know it wouldn’t be easy for the mother to carry around the living reminder of a horrible event, but a greater societal good comes from that child being delivered as opposed to killed. The circumstances of their conception do not diminish the value of their life. The same goes for children of incest. I have the utmost sorrow and sympathy for women and children who face these challenges, but I believe that communities can and should be able to support them through it.

On the topic of difficult circumstances, pro-abortion people also like to talk about the foster care system, arguing that if women cannot obtain abortions, then the foster care system will become overrun with their unwanted children. This is simply not true, for starters. If a woman delivers a child, she has two choices: keep the child or give it up for adoption. If a mother chooses not to raise her baby or is not equipped to keep her child and her parental rights have been revoked, that child will not go into the system and stay there. That child will be adopted and will likely go home with their adoptive parents the same day they’re born. There’s a waiting list, length unknown, but estimated to be over 2 million long, of couples in the US waiting to adopt a newborn. There’s no such thing as an unwanted baby.

I suppose you could argue that women who otherwise would have chosen an abortion but don’t have the option might try to keep their child and raise it. As a result, there will be more unfit parents in the world getting their kids taken away at later stages in life. I personally don’t understand the mentality of “if I don’t want this baby, then no one can have it,” meaning if you can’t have an abortion your second choice would be keeping it rather than giving it up for adoption. But say this person exists. Yes, maybe this will result in more foster children. But are we really saying that all the children in foster care would be better off dead? That society would be better off if they were all dead? Even children living in uncertain times deserve to live. They can still have meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Pro-choice people will say things like, “if you’re pro-life, then you better be adopting or fostering.” As a matter of fact, conservative Christians, an overwhelmingly pro-life group of people, adopt and foster more than any other demographic. So yes, pro-life people do care about adopting and fostering. But just because you recognize that there’s a need doesn’t mean that you have to be the one to meet it. Many times, you can’t. A lot of children in foster care aren’t eligible for adoption or have specific requirements for the type of home they can go to. Most foster kids are waiting to go back to their biological parents anway. But again, the solution to tackling the inefficiencies and tragedies of our foster care system is not to simply murder any potential foster children. Abortion is, again, a band-aid, used as a quick-fix to prevent real changes from being made to benefit the most vulnerable groups of people in our world.

Finally, I’d like to talk about the pro-choice’s favorite scapegoat: the pro-life strawman. In the same way that they like to assert that we pro-lifers are doing nothing about the problems in our foster care system, they also like to claim that we’re not really pro-life, but simply pro-birth. If we really cared about women and children, we’d support the X, Y, Z social program or whatever the big cause du jour is. The truth is that, again, conservative Christians, a majority pro-life group, are more personally charitable than any other group of people. We care about other people. We may show it in different ways, but many of us who identify as pro-life are personally involved in some sort of social program, charity, or organization that seeks to improve the lives of those less fortunate. We give time to volunteer at soup kitchens, we donate equipment and supplies to pregnancy crisis centers, we make care packages for foster care families, we give money to the poor, we foster, we adopt, we do all kinds of things. Because we care. We may have a different view on the best way to address society’s problems, and yes, some can be a little harsh on those who they feel have neglected their own personal responsibility in life, but at the end of the day, we don’t want to see people suffering in poverty. Once again, the solution to economic disparities in our culture isn’t to blame children and advocate for their murder. The solution is to create opportunities for advancement and to extend a helping hand so that people can actually get on a better path.

I know there may be some kind of argument that I missed, but between this post and the last, I think I covered most of the more popular talking points. I know it doesn’t make a difference. A lot of the pro-choice people out there have no problem admitting that they hold the selfish view. There’s a fundamental disagreement at the very core of our beliefs. Pro-life people don’t necessarily believe that it’s a good thing to make decisions that only or primarily seek one’s own benefit, even to the detriment of others. Pro-choice people believe that one can and should look out for themselves, first and foremost. This fundamental difference creates what seems to be an unbridgeable divide. I hope that I am wrong and someday we’ll be able to reach a place of agreement, that we’ll look upon the debauched practice of abortion the same way we look at slavery; as a deplorable blemish on our country’s history and heritage. I pray we’ll see it for the human rights violation that it is. Until then, we’ll keep pushing for progress, because that’s what ceasing the practice is. Abortion isn’t some new medical advancement. It’s a practice that’s been around basically since pregnancy existed. The methods may have changed, but the goals haven’t. May those people who seek those goals reach the realization that abortion is no solution, but rather something that compounds our culture’s problems.