There is No Good Argument for Abortion

I've heard them all, and not a single one stands up to science, logic, or moral decency.

Friends, I want to preface this article to let you know why I’m writing it. If I’m successful, it will serve two purposes. For those of you who support the right to life, I want to make sure you’re equipped with the rational arguments necessary to defend it. For those of you who disagree with my position, or at least find themselves undecided on the issue, I want to address your concerns with the pro-life position, and the arguments in favor of abortion you may have heard or even used. While I always try and keep my writing at least relatively respectful in nature (which is sometimes difficult when discussing subjects like Mitt Romney), it is my intention to keep this particular piece as poised, concise, and non-inflammatory as possible — because I want those of you in that latter category to be able to read this without feeling attacked.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision yesterday to overturn Roe v. Wade and hand the question of abortion back to the states has legislatures and activists on both sides scrambling to answer the question of just how far abortion access or restriction should go. That is, just to clarify, all that will now happen. There will be no federal restriction on access to abortions, and while some states will choose to outright ban the procedure in nearly all cases, others like California will even have their taxpayers foot the bill for you to get an abortion in their state if you can’t do so in your own. These arguments have already begun to take place not only in the halls of our nation’s state legislatures, but across social media platforms and dinner tables nationwide. I’ve been an advocate for the right to life for as long as I’ve had an opinion on the matter, and in that time I have heard every imaginable argument against my position, and I’ve come to the conclusion that none of them hold water. Let’s take a look at them:

My Body, My Choice

This is probably the most common argument heard in favor of access to abortion, and with good reason. It’s a powerful appeal to our right of bodily autonomy. And make no mistake, bodily autonomy is absolutely a right. On that much we agree whole-heartedly. It’s the reason why I’ve argued since before the COVID-19 vaccine even came out that it should never be required by law that anyone should have to take it or even be questioned about it in order to carry on with their lives as normal. I have always said that after the COVID vaccine mandate push, those who lined up on the pro-mandate side should never be allowed to utter the phrase “my body, my choice” again without receiving the due amount of ridicule. The rebuttal I’ve often received to this argument is that, by refusing to get the vaccine (that didn’t protect others by preventing transmission anyway, but I digress) it was more than just our own body in question. This is the same argument that pro-lifers have, by the way, which I’ll get to momentarily.

This begs the question of what should be required of us when it comes to protecting others — sort of like a modified version of the old trolley problem. If you’re unfamiliar, it’s an interesting thought experiment in which there’s a runaway trolley headed down a track about to run over 5 people who are tied to the track. You, an unassuming bystander, have access to a lever that diverts the trolley onto a track where a single person is also tied and will die if you do so. The question lands people on either the side of the utilitarian position of diverting the train or on the side of refusing to intervene, based on a desire not to bear responsibility for the single person’s death or a desire not to “play God” in deciding anyone’s fate.

There are moral and ethical arguments to be made for taking either position in the case of the trolley problem, and I have my own opinion, but ultimately it is just that: an opinion. What I will stand by as an objective matter of justice is that you can not be legally required to take action by diverting the trolley, though. Inaction may or may not be “the right thing to do,” but it is not a crime.

This is the question, then, that separates abortion from a vaccine mandate. Being unvaccinated for COVID-19 is not an action. You can make whatever judgments you care to about a person’s character for their inaction of not getting a COVID-19 vaccine, but it’s a violation of their agreed-upon right of bodily autonomy to either force them to do so or to punish them for not doing so. In the case of abortion, inaction would mean allowing nature to take its course and the child to live. Performing an abortion is an action. You are stepping in and making a decision about someone else’s body: the unborn child. But for one to understand that this is wrong, and truly a violation of the child’s bodily autonomy, it must first be established that the child is in fact, a human person worthy of the natural right to life.

“A Clump of Cells”

When does a human life begin, exactly? It’s a question with profound scientific and legal implications. Those in favor of “abortion on demand and without apology” either believe it’s sometimes okay to take an innocent human life for the sake of convenience, or that life truly begins at childbirth. Many others who land in the middle on the issue of abortion have their own opinions. Viability outside of the womb, or some other developmental milestone such as a heartbeat are common places that people confer the designation of “a human life” upon an unborn child. People’s general understanding that humanity and personhood is what confers natural rights is why significantly fewer people support the legality of abortions during the second and third trimester than the first.

Let’s tackle these in reverse order, beginning with birth. This is an easy one. Nothing about a journey through the birth canal magically confers personhood. These days, in developed nations, successful premature births take place months ahead of the expected due date. You cannot tell me with a straight face that those children are people and that a child in the womb during the third trimester is not.

What about viability outside of the womb, then? This is honestly the argument I find most morally dubious because of its implications. By advocating viability as the measure of personhood, you’re essentially telling me that what is a person today was not a person several decades ago. Again, on the subject of premature births, scientific advancements keep pushing viability outside the womb to an earlier and earlier age, and will likely continue to as time goes on. Viability is, thus, a moving target. It’s also one that varies by where one lives. Even within the United States, those in poor and/or rural areas often do not have access to the same quality of hospitals that those who live in wealthy areas and major cities do. Are you telling me that their children become persons at different times? What about in other, less wealthy or medically advanced countries altogether? Think of the legal nightmare that would take place from trying to decide whether an abortion was performed on a “viable” fetus. This simply is not a realistic measure of personhood.

What about the baby’s heartbeat, then? Or some other developmental milestone? Pro-life demonstrators will often be seen using tiny rubber replicas, often even giving them out, to illustrate that “This is what an unborn baby looks like at X number of weeks,” or talking about how early the baby develops certain physical features like a heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, or even fingernails. There is certainly a segment of the population who this resonates with who have only heard from abortion providers that their child is at this point simply nothing more than “a clump of cells.” A pregnant woman in particular is more likely to consider the nature of the life growing inside her on this very physical level; however, it doesn’t work on everyone, like the lovely young woman in this video, whose rationale for supporting late-term abortions is simply, “F*** them kids.” You may save some lives with this tactic, and that is of immeasurable value, but it’s not an argument — it’s a tactic to pull on the heartstrings of those considering abortion.

In the end, legislators in the states that have passed heartbeat bills know the truth of this matter, and were simply doing what they could to limit abortion as much as possible while attempting to tiptoe around Roe v. Wade.

Ultimately, the only reasonable distinction on when an unborn child becomes a human life is at conception. At conception, the child already has its own DNA, separate from that of the mother. It is its own entity, dependent upon, but distinct from its mother. It’s important to note that in 1973, when Roe was decided, our understanding of DNA was in its infancy (no pun intended). Scientific advancements have provided us with information that we simply did not have back then.

Not to get too foul, but I unfortunately still see grown adults with (presumably) some understanding of basic biology making the juvenile argument that if abortion shouldn’t be legal, then neither should male masturbation. Ironically, it’s in rebutting this ridiculous argument that we find the second important distinction that happens at conception. It’s at this moment where acting upon this new life will change its outcome. Sperm, in and of itself, is not the substance of human life. It will not, if not acted upon, grow up to be indistinguishable from any one of us. In fact, it will do nothing at all. Once an egg is fertilized, however, you have the earliest stages of a person, who will have that same DNA their entire life as they do in that moment. Except for in tragic cases of miscarriages, it requires intervention to prevent it from continuing to grow. The end result is the same whether the child’s life is taken two weeks after conception or two years after birth. It is a person who would otherwise be with us, but instead is not because their life was taken. It’s simply easier to justify internally when you have not yet seen their face.

You Just Want to Control Women

This is the argument I find to be perhaps the biggest cop out. What perceivable benefit do I, or other pro-life individuals (a sizable amount of whom [and may I add, the most passionate] are women), possibly receive by women carrying their pregnancies to term, other than sleeping more peacefully at night knowing that infanticide is not legal in our country? In fact, it is sometimes those seeking to control the women in their lives, such as an ashamed parent or an irresponsible boyfriend, who coerce women into having abortions when they would otherwise not seek one.

I’ll utilize this space, however, to address more of a reasonable argument. It’s often stated that it’s heartless to expect women to be required to carry their pregnancies to term. I will concede that as a man, I do not, nor will I ever, know what pregnancy is like. I will never experience the physical, emotional, or financial challenges that are inherent to it. Surely, society has an obligation to care for women who did not wish to become pregnant. This obligation goes double for pro-life advocates, and I intend to address that in greater detail at the end of this article.

It’s well-established that parents have a legal obligation to care for their children. While again, I can’t claim to know from personal experience, I do know that many women feel that caring for a newborn (or even children at various other stages) is more difficult than being pregnant. Yet, it is still expected of us as parents not to harm or neglect our children. If my previous point follows that life begins at conception, then that in turn requires that the legal obligations of parenthood begin at that point as well.

What About Rape, Incest, and the Life of the Mother?

Studies done on the subject of why women choose to get an abortion consistently reveal that pregnancies resulting from rape amount to about 1% of abortions, and pregnancies resulting from incest amount to about 0.5%. It’s likely that when many pro-abortion activists make this argument, they actually believe this number to be much larger than it is because rape and incest are so often injected into the abortion conversation. The fact is that if abortions were only allowed in these scenarios, the overwhelming majority of abortions could not take place. If you believe that abortion is only permissible in these cases, then fine — let’s have that discussion about pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. If you believe that purely elective abortion should be permissible, it’s both disingenuous and ineffective to make an argument for all abortions based on the extreme minority of them.

Regardless, if everything we’ve already established is true: that life begins at conception and that humans have rights from conception to natural death, then the lives of children conceived by rape and incest are no less valuable because of the heinous acts of their fathers. I’ll stress again that society, and right to life activists in particular, need to do all we can to provide and care for women in these situations. These women are undoubtedly experiencing one of the most traumatic times of their lives, and while their child is no less entitled to life, they are entitled to all the love and support we can possibly provide.

The life of the mother is a much more complex issue, and it can largely be broken down into two categories: issues early in pregnancy and issues late in pregnancy. When issues take place between conception and a reasonable chance at viability outside the womb, treating those issues does necessarily mean that the child will die. In an article about ectopic pregnancies and in particular, Alexandra DeSanctis at National Review writes:

No pro-life person I’m aware of — and, more to the point, no pro-life law that I’m aware of — would prohibit treatment for ectopic pregnancies. Indeed, pro-lifers don’t consider such treatment to be abortion at all. A direct abortion intentionally kills an unborn human being; treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, by contrast, intends to alleviate the health emergency for the mother by removing the improperly implanted child. The intended end of such treatment isn’t to kill the child but rather to save the mother’s life — this moral distinction is essential. This view is reflected by the fact that, before Roe, every pro-life state law had, at least, an exception for cases when a mother’s life was at risk.

In medical emergencies taking place after the child has reached the point of potential viability, Dr. Donna Harrison, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, makes the argument that abortion is never medically necessary in an article for the Washington Examiner that she co-authored with abortion survivor Lila Rose:

What OB-GYNs who abide by the Hippocratic Oath and the signers of the Dublin Declaration understand is that in every situation where a pregnancy is endangering a woman’s life, what has to happen is that the mother and baby have to be separated. But the physician can separate the baby and do everything in his or her power to save that baby’s life. This is different from an abortion. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby before birth, giving him or her zero chance of survival.

Abortion advocates point to pregnancy complications like preeclampsia as examples where an abortion is “medically necessary” to save the mother’s life.

But there is another way. There is always another way, because emergency response to a situation like acute preeclampsia actually requires early delivery of the baby. It is necessary in that situation to separate the mother and the baby. But it is not the same as unnecessarily and intentionally killing the baby in cases where the mother’s life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy. Killing the baby offers no medical advantage to the mother.

The reality is that even if the baby cannot live after we separate mother and baby, there is a undeniable difference between a doctor trying to save the baby after that separation against long odds, and an abortionist deliberately and intentionally killing the baby within the womb.

It is inevitable that sometimes when treating issues arising from pregnancy, the child’s life cannot always be saved. As much as abortion activists want to brand us as seeing women as “incubators,” and invoke tired, cliché references to The Handmaid’s Tale, right to life advocates understand that these tragic instances happen. Many have been through these experiences themselves. Again, considering that the child is also a person, it’s simply a moral imperative that their life be taken into account and every possible effort made to save them as well during the process of saving the mother.

Desperate Women Will Still Get Abortions

Sadly, I have to acknowledge this one is true. Ultimately, it will take a seismic shift in our culture to get to a place where life is nearly universally valued. It will take education about the biological truths mentioned earlier, and it will take education on why the prospect of all human beings possessing natural rights is fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, ethical society. It is because I wanted to do my small part in moving the needle that I am writing this article. It will be worth it if it even changes one mind and one heart. It will be worth it if it influences one person’s vote in November or saves one life of an unborn child.

This transition can only happen through showing love and respect for our ideological opponents, but that does not mean we can stand idly by while this atrocity continues in our nation, even in our new post-Roe era. If the taking of an innocent human life is a crime, then that necessitates that those who do so are criminals. Whether or not they believe that women should receive any penalty for seeking an abortion, virtually all pro-life activists rightly support steep penalties for abortion providers. If abortion was outlawed, their actions would not only take the lives of the unborn, but their seedy operating conditions would likely place the mother’s health at significant risk as well, as abortion’s proponents readily admit. They often forget, however, that even while legal, cruel abortionists with complete disregard for the lives of their patients like Kermit Gosnell can still exist.

You’re Just Some Kind of Religious Extremist!

If you’ve actually read this far, I surely hope you’ve noticed that not once did I invoke God or the Bible in my arguments. While God-fearing people everywhere rejoiced yesterday, so did the growing numbers of our secular brethren who understand the biology of life beginning at conception and the ethical ills of a society that ignores that fact and allows these most defenseless, voiceless members of our society to be slaughtered by the millions.

I did not invoke God yet for the specific reason that such large numbers of the pro-abortion crowd are not religious, and I wanted to speak to you on your own terms. I also did not do so because I don’t find it necessary to make my argument. In fact, were I not a person of faith, I am confident I would still hold the same position. However, at this point I would like to turn to any of my fellow Christians for just a moment who do not support the right to life, or are at least unsure that you can. If the preceding arguments have not fully convinced you, I want to leave you with some final points on what the Bible does say about life.

In Jeremiah 1:5, God says to the prophet “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” King David echoes this same knowledge in Psalm 139:16 when he declares “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.”

If God knew you before your life even began, doesn’t that mean that once your physical substance does come to be, that it’s you from that very moment? God created DNA. He created that unique code that makes each one of us ourselves. He didn’t give that to us 6 weeks or 6 months into pregnancy. He gave it to us at the very first moment possible, because He knew us even before then.

In Romans 8:28, the Apostle Paul says, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” God doesn’t make mistakes. He has a plan for each and every one of us. He doesn’t allow a child to be conceived so that we can just override that decision. The things that happen in this life, including unwanted pregnancies, may not always make sense, but that’s exactly why God tells us to put our trust in Him.

I know you don’t want to force your religious beliefs onto others. Neither do I. It’s why I’m a libertarian and not a theocrat. There are plenty of things that the Bible says are sinful acts that I certainly don’t think the government should be in the business of trying to stop. Again, that’s why I wrote the entire rest of this article from a purely secular perspective. I hope that you, now that you’ve read it, can understand that ending abortion isn’t simply a matter of “Christian morality.”

The Obligations of Pro-Life People

I want to end by taking a moment to address my pro-life friends who are reading this, as well as make a contract of sorts with those of you who are still skeptical. I’ve mentioned several times that as pro-life individuals, we have the obligation to do all we can for women with unplanned pregnancies. What we are striving for is a world where no woman feels fear when they find out that they are pregnant and no woman wishes to have an abortion. This means both taking action as an individual, as well as supporting organizations that support pregnant women.

Support comes in many ways. Perhaps you can offer your services as a babysitter to a young mother who wants to finish her education. Maybe you can show love instead of judgment to a pregnant teen and her family in your community. If you’re a man, don’t go around having sex with women whose children you wouldn’t be ready and willing to father. When you become a father, step up and make the mother feel safe and assured that she will have your support.

There are also plenty of pregnancy resource centers out there that offer counseling and emotional and psychological support to women with unplanned pregnancies. They also offer financial support for medical services and baby products like clothing, diapers, formula, cribs, strollers, and toys. In fact, please reach out to me if you would like help finding a center in your area. Many of them need volunteers and donations now more than ever in the face of a recent rash of violent attacks from pro-abortion extremists.

What can you do? A few years ago, I allowed a pregnant teen I knew to sleep on my couch when she had nowhere else to go. Earlier this year, my wife and I raised money for a local pregnancy resource center during their annual Walk for Life event. We were incredibly proud that both our church and our county GOP participated.

Perhaps foremost, it’s important to consider adoption if you have the means. Having knocked on a lot of doors for a lot of pro-life candidates over the years, I’m consistently ashamed when I meet pro-life families with eight of their own kids who have never adopted or even fostered a child. In honesty, the best argument I believe the pro-abortion crowd has, I haven’t even addressed yet — which is the tens of thousands of children in foster care in this country. Their existence is still not a good reason to kill the unborn, but if we hope to end abortion then we need to be prepared to step into the gap and care for the children whose biological parents cannot or will not.

I also believe it’s important to be consistently pro-life, which may mean examining your views on issues such as the death penalty, and America’s wars and foreign interventions. I could write an entire article on that, and perhaps I may do so soon. For now, let’s celebrate this historic time we’re living in by taking action to show love and support to the women and children in need of it, and make this new era ahead of us one that more people can be excited about. #LifeWins❤️

Friends, please consider sharing this article on social media or emailing it to a handful of friends and encouraging them to subscribe. I’ll continue to provide more fresh perspectives and intellectual ammo that our movement needs to keep this momentum going! Please consider following me on Facebook and Twitter as well. Thank you for all of your support, and never let your guard down in the fight for liberty.
-Brady