Those of us who believe unborn children deserve human rights can be encouraged. Though we still have many hurdles to overcome before we arrive at the place where all human life is legally protected in the United States, we can be optimistic about the end result. Here are 10 reasons why:

10. Recent Polls

A majority of Americans surveyed in a Rasmussen national poll say they believe abortion is morally wrong, a number that includes a large percentage of people who call themselves “pro-choice”. Last year, for the third consecutive time, Gallup found that more Americans accept the pro-life label, a result which led the polling firm to declare “a real change in public opinion.”

9. Abortion’s Treatment on Television and in Movies

In the “Fetal Position” episode of House, Dr. House operates on a fetus in utero. During the operation, the baby’s hand emerges weakly and grasps House’s index finger. (This scene was based on an actual occurrence.) After the operation, House calls the child a “baby” instead of a “fetus”. (See clip.)

In a 2009 episode of Law and Order (“Dignity”), a female attorney seeking justice for a murdered abortion doctor is shaken by a description of partial-birth abortion. She says, “I grew up thinking Roe v. Wade was gospel. Now… I don’t know where my freedom ends and the dignity of another being begins.”

In the recent MTV documentary on teen abortion, though clearly in favor of the pro-choice view, the producers did not mask the conflicted feelings of the teenagers. Before the young mother chooses to abort her child, she gets visibly frustrated with a Planned Parenthood counselor who tells her to not think of the fetus as a baby. “Call that thing a baby. Alright, exactly what it is. A thing…A thing can turn out like that [pointing to their first, living child]….nothing but a bunch of cells can turn out to be her.”

8. The Revulsion to Sex-Selection Abortion

The rise of sex selection abortions and the media coverage of such abortions in other parts of the world provide a stark reminder of the laxity of abortion restrictions in the United States. Sex selection abortion is not a Chinese or Indian debate. It is happening here! People all over the world were repulsed by the actions of an Australian couple who aborted twin boys because they felt entitled to replace the baby girl they lost.

Sex-selection abortion puts pro-choice advocates in a difficult position. They must defend such insanity (or only faintly protest it) if they wish to maintain their conviction that abortion can and should be provided for any cause at any time.

7. The Exposing of Planned Parenthood’s Corruption

LiveAction has video footage from five different Planned Parenthood clinics that show people posing as sex traffickers being aided in their attempts to gain medical treatment for young girls. Armed with this kind of evidence of corruption, the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood. The fact that no Planned Parenthood advocate will go head to head on television with LiveAction president Lila Rose indicates that this organization cannot and will not respond directly to the allegations of corruption.

6. Planned Parenthood’s Recent Talking Points

Planned Parenthood’s advocates have sought to redirect the discussion on abortion by pointing to all the other health care services their clinics provide for low-income women. Implicit in Planned Parenthood’s downplaying of abortion and emphasizing of other services is a stunning admission: abortion is a problem. The advocates of Planned Parenthood are seeking to cast their clinics as much more than “abortion providers.” These talking points indicate that fewer and fewer Americans can stomach the idea of “abortion as health care.”

5. Abortion as a “Tragic Choice”

On a recent episode of The View, Whoopi Goldberg explained her reason for being pro-choice: the low-income woman who already has too many children. When confronted about women who simply get abortions out of convenience, she called them “idiots.” Why does Whoopi have such a visceral reaction to abortion-for-convenience? Because she’s an inconsistent advocate of abortion rights: she recognizes that the fetus is a human being and that abortion snuffs out this life. The fact that she and others like her see abortion as a “tragic choice” implicitly speaks to the immorality of the procedure.

4. Young People

16-year-old singing sensation, Justin Bieber, was recently asked his opinion on a variety of issues. Though seeking to take a non-judgmental stance on abortion, he told Rolling Stone, “I really don’t believe in abortion… it’s like killing a baby.” Bieber is not alone. The annual “March for Life” in Washington is a sea of young faces, prompting NARAL president Nancy Keenan to worry: “There are so many of them, and they are so young.” Ironically, Bieber was castigated by Barbara Walters for answering questions inappropriate for someone of his age – even though young girls can actually receive abortions at ages younger than 16.

3. Ultrasound Technology and Pregnancy Support Centers

Ultrasound technology continues to prove what embryology textbooks and Scripture have told us all along – the unborn child is a human being. In a Washington Post editorial, Frances Kissling recently advised abortion-rights advocates to shift strategies: “We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible,” she wrote. Meanwhile, pro-life advocates are active at the grassroots level, making sure that women make informed choices and have ample financial and emotional support during their pregnancy. Pregnancy support centers are on the front lines in the battle against abortion.

2. The Third Wave

John Ensor: “In the first wave, Catholics took the lead is declaring the inherent evil of abortion.  Evangelicals then flooded in to help advance the pregnancy help movement.  The Third Wave points to the victory of our movement and the downfall of abortion as a business, when Black and Hispanic Christians not only join this movement, but lead it.”

Billboards like the one above (which has subsequently been taken down) are causing controversy, but at the very least, they are prompting conversation about the racial component to abortion. YouTube videos demonstrating the racist agenda of Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, are also making the rounds – causing pro-choice advocates to reconsider their assumptions.

1. God Hears

Speak up for those who have no voice, for the justice of all who are dispossessed. Speak up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the oppressed and the needy. (Prov. 31:8-9)
For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God, showing no partiality and taking no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner, giving him food and clothing. (Deut. 10:5)

Print Friendly
View Comments

Comments:


57 thoughts on “Top 10 Reasons I am Optimistically Pro-Life”

  1. Adam says:

    Loved this. I heard Pam Tebow speak at a Save a Life benefit a while back and she was great. Her story is amazing!

  2. Cameron says:

    Encouraging! I believe one factor in the shift of public opinion is recognition of the moral equivalency between slavery and abortion. This is an argument that has been and should continue to be made.

  3. Don King says:

    Why you would suggest that the LiveAction videos–which have been documented as edited frauds–are good support is beyond me. It makes the movement as a whole look bad when we support fakes and frauds.

    Another issue that is left unresolved is that of taxation. If the baby is alive from the moment of conception, the obvious conclusion is that the child is a dependent and tax deductible. That will result in billions of tax dollars lost resulting in the necessity of raising taxes. People will start calling pro-life people pro-tax people. What can we do about this?

  4. D says:

    Killing babies is fine, God did it in the bible himself.

  5. dr. ip says:

    I think we all know the solution to abortions to unwed mothers: “But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)”

    1. Kari says:

      So we’re back to stoning women to death for having sex? I’m so happy that such an intelligent man has a say in my life.(/sarcasm)

  6. Trey says:

    Where is this documentation?

  7. Cat says:

    Don, I’m curious about this claim you make that the videos have been “documented as edited frauds;” could you post some citations on that? After the first video went public, there were several such accusations, and LiveAction actually posted the original, uncut footage from that incident. Even Planned Parenthood’s own reaction would seem to indicate that these exchanges actually took place, since several parties involved have been fired as a result.

  8. Will says:

    Trey, I don’t think they were exposed as “editted frauds” like Don said, but they were misleading. They left out the fact that Planned Parenthood reported the incident (and similar incidents) to the FBI after they occurred, regardless if the employee “played along.” Those reports to the FBI actually hit the media before LiveAction’s video did.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102010014

  9. Ben says:

    So providing medical attention to girls who are the VICTIMS of sex trafficking is tantamount to corruption? Based on this blog post, I am persoally donating $1000 to Planned Parenthood.

  10. Cat says:

    Will, from what I’ve read, Planned Parenthood reported them when they began to suspect it was a hoax/fraud, so they were reporting it for being fake, rather than reporting someone for prostitution or human trafficking.

  11. Cat says:

    Ben, the problem that they are trying to expose is that Planned Parenthood was helping the PIMPS – helping them cover it up, helping them keep the girls working. This is as opposed to making an effort to stop this sex trafficking, reporting it, trying to somehow rescue these young women, etc.

  12. Dan says:

    I’m one of those people who thinks that abortion is wrong but is pro-choice. Simply for the fact that there is always an exception. If someone is impregnated during a traumatic event (rape, incest, etc…) then I can’t imagine them being forced to carry around a reminder of the incident. I think women should have to undergo some therapy or meetings with a psychologist to make sure all available options have been considered.

    1. Meagan says:

      Why should the baby be killed because of the actions of its father? You’re right, it would be traumatic and hard for the mother to carry to term, but what makes you think that aborting would be any less traumatic or hard? Just because it’s over quickly? I am a mother and a victim of incest, but I would never support the murder of babies.

  13. Tim says:

    Thought that this excerpt from Moltmann from a friend’s blog would be applicable:

    “If the Son of God became wholly and entirely human, and if he assumed full humanity, then this does not merely take in human personhood; it includes human nature as well. It does not embrace adult humanity alone; it comprehends humanity diachronically, in all its phases of development–that is, it includes the being of the child, the being of the foetus [sic] and the embryo. The whole of humanity in all its natural forms is assumed by God in order that it may be healed. So it is ‘human’ and ‘holy’ in all its natural forms, and is prenatally by no means merely ‘human material’, or just the preliminary stage of humanity.”

    -Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ, trans. Margaret Kohl (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1990), 85.

    http://wmolenaar.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/moltmann-2/

  14. Ryan K. says:

    The “tragic choice” point is massive in this debate. I heard a pro-choice advocate in a debate say abortions were tragic and right then all my brain could think for the rest of the hour is “why?”

    This is also the fatal flaw in the position of Obama that Clinton made popular; abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Why rare? If there is not a moral component involved than why rare? We do not say other surgical procedures should be rare, like the removal of a mole or having your wisdom teeth taken out. Why should abortion be rare?

    If I could ask Obama one question it should would be why should we even care or want to work toward reducing the number of abortions? This makes no sense in the pro-choice view.

  15. Alex says:

    Ryan,

    A pro-choice view might simply assume that the abortion per se is a morally neutral act, but may have negative psychological/financial/health effects on the woman. Therefore it would be rational to reduce the number of abortions to lessen the secondary effects of the abortion – not by banning it, but by investing in things that may lessen demand for it(sex education, contraception, etc).

  16. fow says:

    10. This is not a very good argument. Or maybe it is. I was going to mention how everyone used to think the world was flat and now no one does, but that’s not a good counterargument. Your argument says that society believes abortion to be incorrect. That’s a fair argument, I suppose, but society once also believed slavery to be acceptable and women’s suffrage unacceptable. I guess I’m saying this isn’t a very good argument as it says that other people agree with you, so you must be right; instead, you should argue why you say what you say.

    9. As House is a drama with the character’s often cold attitude towards humanity as a recurring theme, the writers are meaning to show that he has a compassionate side, rather than take a stance on abortion. At least that’s how I interpret it.

    I have nothing to say about the Law and Order episode.

    I think this interpretation of the events in the MTV documentary tries to make something complex into something simple, when it’s not. While I think that such words from the Planned Parenthood counselor were not chosen well, I don’t think the point is that those who undergo an abortion are conflicted and therefore must know that abortions are wrong. I think the point is to show that these girls who have chosen to undergo an abortion are not taking it lightly; they’re suffering; they’re not just cavalierly thinking, “oh, I can just kill the damn thing and be done with it.” There’s a lot of emotional stress the girls feel.

    8. Ignoring the fact that you’re saying this occurs here, in the US, and then provide an example that took place in Australia, again I think you’re taking a complex issue and trying to make it simple. I think an abortion for the purpose of sex selection is a terrible thing, but I do not think that means all abortions are abhorrent. More on this later.

    7. Judging from other comments, it appears the authenticity of this video is suspect. However, if it’s true that any Planned Parenthood worker has knowingly did not report a supposed underaged sex worker, then that worker should be reprimanded and punished according to the law. However this does not mean Planned Parenthood is all bad (though I would chide them for choosing to remain silent to such accusations instead of taking appropriate action, if this is true). Anyway, this argument is trying to attack the character of the other side rather than actually discussing the issue. This is called an ad hominem, and it’s not a good (or even valid) form of argument.

    6. Since this point lacks any links or citations, I’ll have to take your word on the events. This argument again avoids the issue. It’s using weak reasoning to say that “abortion is a problem.” I’m not entirely sure how to respond to this, to be honest. It is true that they offer services besides abortions (see ), and I suppose they’d like to highlight these other services in an effort to retain funding. Whatever their reasons, I dislike it when people avoid talking about the real issue.

    5. Again, this is taking something complex and trying to make it simple, when it really is not. I see nothing quoted in this point that indicates Whoopi Goldberg is an “inconsistent advocate.” She’s merely recognizing that abortion is a highly emotional issue for any woman who considers the option, and she’s expressing how she feels about anyone who takes it lightly. I hesitate in making this analogy, but would I be inconsistent if I said that it’s okay for one to kill another person who threatens one’s life, but it’s not okay for one to kill another person who looks at one funnily? Admittedly that’s a simple example and abortion is not a simple thing, as much as you’d like it to be.

    4. I’m not actually sure what your point is here.

    3. This is the closest thing to a real argument I’ve read here. As you surely know, a somewhat common argument from pro-choice advocates is that the fetus is not a human being, and here you’re arguing against that with decent evidence. This is the sort of argument you should be making. At least until the end, where you use the word “battle against abortion.” This more or less tells me that you have no real interest in discussing the issue and that you have no desire to consider arguments otherwise. That’s a bad thing.

    2. I’m not sure what to make of the quote. However, you say that the billboard you’ve shown a picture of is “prompting conversation.” Conversation is a good thing—usually. Productive conversation involves people from both “sides” getting together and having well reasoned discussions, listening and learning from each other.

    1. The United States believes in secularity. I have absolutely no problem with whatever religion you choose to believe, but invoking anything from your religion in public discourse is a quick way to tell me that you are possibly incapable of thinking outside of your religion, and that is a problem when crafting secular legislation. Just so we’re clear, by all means, be Christian. I support you in this. I do not support you in bringing your Christianity and using it as an argument in government.

    Overall I wish you would make well reasoned arguments that really tell me WHY you are against abortion, tell me WHY you think it’s wrong in 100% of cases. Personally I think something like abortion is not clear cut. I think a woman who has been raped should be given the option. I don’t think a couple should have an abortion simply because they want a boy instead of a girl or vice versa. That sickens me. But it also sickens me when a woman undergoes the tremendous emotional stress involved with an abortion, only to be called a murderer. I know you, specifically, haven’t done such a thing, but try and understand that no woman who chooses to have an abortion does not take it lightly. Or, if such a woman does, maybe that woman is an idiot.

    In short, make good arguments, really explain your reasoning instead of avoiding the issue, and understand that not everything in life is clear cut.

  17. fow says:

    It appears a link was removed from my comment. It was the following, in the context of the non-abortion services Planned Parenthood provides: http://www.racialicious.com/2011/03/01/support-planned-parenthood/

  18. Mohamed Fakhreddine says:

    Same here, man. To the blogger: Are you really attacking Planned Parenthood for giving medical treatment to young girls?? I’m pro-life too but you give pro-lifers a bad name.

  19. Ryan K. says:

    Fair enough Alex, but that only moves the problem back a few yards. Why does abortion cause mental anguish and emotional problems for women?

    What is it that seems to disturb them about aborting their baby?

  20. Ryan K. says:

    Also to those who are under the impression that Planned Parenthood provides a plethora of health services to women, including things like mammograms and such, this is false and a talking point PP tries to manipulate with.

    They do not provide the services themselves, rather they give referrals for women’s health services. Basically they do what Google does and tell you where you can get a mammogram.

    To act like PP is just as much involved with providing medical health to women as they are in aborting babies is just a false.

  21. JC says:

    Fow, you take a hard stance at the end of your argument against “invoking anything from your religion in public discourse” because we are dealing with, as you put it, “secular legislation.” I understand what you’re saying here, but I’d like to push back a little. I’m not sure that what you’re suggesting is possible. In other words, how is it possible to keep your faith based assumptions out of an argument for public policy?

    For instance, you said yourself that arguments under the third point–that the fetus is scientifically being shown to be a human life and therefore abortion is wrong–are perfectly appropriate. But isn’t that argument itself based on the assumption that human life has value. What gives it value? A human life may be more scientifically complex than say, plant life, but what gives it value? The idea that human life has value is derived from an assumption that is not based on science–it’s a faith assumption. It’s a “religious” belief of sorts.

    Author Tim Keller in his book The Reason for God says, “Broadly understood, faith in some view of the world and human nature informs everyone’s life. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not. All who say, ‘You ought to do this’ or ‘You shouldn’t do that’ reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position. Pragmatists say that we should leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about ‘what works’–but…any picture of happy human life that ‘works’ is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life. Even the most secular pragmatists come to the table with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be human.”

    As Keller points out, many are now arguing against this idea of not invoking religious beliefs in public discourse, as you suggested. He offers two examples: Stephen L. Carter, Professor of Law at Yale says, “Efforts to craft a public square from which religious conversation is absent, no matter how thoughtfully worked out, will always in the end say to those of organized religion that they alone, unlike everybody else, must enter public dialogue only after leaving behind that part of themselves that they may consider to be the most vital.”

    This is why the legal theorist Michael Perry says that it is “quixotic, in any event, to attempt to construct an airtight barrier between religiously grounded moral discourse…and [secular] discourse in public political argument.” According to Perry, if one makes the case that controversial faith based statements (like “God Hears,” for example) should be thrown out of the public discourse, they must realize that that itself is faith based statement which is incredibly controversial and so should be thrown out on its own terms.

    Thanks for letting me share some thoughts. I appreciate the dialogue.

  22. Great post!

    Recently, the Alliance Defense Fund co-hosted a Youth for Life Conference in D.C. that drew close to 2000 college activists prayerfully committed to seeing legalized abortion end in their lifetimes.

    May it be so.

  23. Andrew says:

    Fow,

    I think you misunderstood the point of the blog. The point is why we can be optimistic about the success of the pro-life cause. These are not arguments for the pro-life cause. I’m sure you could engage Trevin to find his arguments for the cause itself.

  24. Ian John Philoponus says:

    Add to this list the fact that thousands and thousands of kids are currently growing up with the knowledge that they were adopted rather than aborted. I know many of these little miracles personally and have watched them grow up as they happily walk the halls of my church. When this generation of kids becomes old enough to speak out against the crime against humanity known as abortion, it will fall.

    But, perhaps it falls before then. Every day abortion is not abolished, over three thousand human beings are legally slaughtered in the womb.

    We must not rest until we have effected the total abolition of human abortion.

  25. Tommie says:

    Loved it, gives me hope.

  26. Jess says:

    I still think it is much harder to reverse legislation than to make it. And even if Americans think it is “morally” wrong, I think as a whole they are still more opposed to being told they “can’t” do something. It is hard for me to have hope about this issue. I don’t mean to rain on any parades though.

  27. john says:

    I am preaching on Micah 3 this Sunday and will use some of your reasons for hope. Although, I will comment that none of your reasons come from our government. They are our representatives and they will be held accountable to the wrath of God. They had better “kiss the Son” now before it is too late. Psalm 2

  28. Rod says:

    Quote:

    “The Third Wave points to the victory of our movement and the downfall of abortion as a business, when Black and Hispanic Christians not only join this movement, but lead it.”

    Definitely gives pause as a sign of hope.

  29. furious says:

    I’ve noticed that most of the arguments here are brought out from a male rather than female perspective. No matter what absurd excuses people can make up to have abortions, the fact still remains that many young women become pregnant by accident through the careless actions of an uncommitted boyfriend/partner. Would it be fair to force these women to keep the child, subsequently bringing the child into poverty, as well as putting the mother into the position of an un-educated single mother, simply because of some moral belief on the value of human life? These are peoples lives you are playing with by trying to sway opinions on abortion laws. Please stay away from making black and white accusations.

  30. Nathan N says:

    furious,

    “These are peoples lives you are playing with by trying to sway opinions on abortion laws.”

    This is exactly the point the anti-abortion advocates are trying to make. When you abort a fetus, you take a human life. No one believes it is okay to kill a human being that makes your life difficult. Why would anti-abortion advocates back down at such a petition?

    Defenseless human lives are at stake.

  31. fow says:

    Andrew, you’re absolutely right; indeed I did misunderstand the point.

    JC, yeah, that was the weakest thing I said. Honestly it was more visceral than the rest of what I wrote. For some reason, I just thought of people who are against gay marriage for the sole reason of “God says it’s wrong.” I understand that point, but I don’t think that’s a valid argument in the context of secular law. By all means, let your religion guide your views, but I think it’s a mistake to use your religion as your argument.

    Those are some great quotes, by the way, and they’re making me realize that I did exactly what I was blaming the author of this blog of doing: simplifying a complex issue. My apologies.

    1. Meagan says:

      You probably won’t see this comment, but thank you for giving me hope that people (no matter which “side they are on) can be civil, reasonable, kind, and open-minded in a discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

  32. Fred says:

    _10. This is not a very good argument. Or maybe it is. I was going to mention how everyone used to think the world was flat and now no one does, but that’s not a good counterargument. Your argument says that society believes abortion to be incorrect. That’s a fair argument, I suppose, but society once also believed slavery to be acceptable and women’s suffrage unacceptable. I guess I’m saying this isn’t a very good argument as it says that other people agree with you, so you must be right; instead, you should argue why you say what you say._

    This was not, in itself, supposed to be an argument against abortion, only an argument that those of us who believe abortion is a crime can hope that we are persuading or will eventually persuade enough people to our point of view to institute protections for the unborn.

    _9. I think this interpretation of the events in the MTV documentary tries to make something complex into something simple, when it’s not. While I think that such words from the Planned Parenthood counselor were not chosen well, I don’t think the point is that those who undergo an abortion are conflicted and therefore must know that abortions are wrong. I think the point is to show that these girls who have chosen to undergo an abortion are not taking it lightly; they’re suffering; they’re not just cavalierly thinking, “oh, I can just kill the damn thing and be done with it.” There’s a lot of emotional stress the girls feel._

    My initial reaction to this was “Boo effing Hoo.” Who cares how a killer “feels” about taking innocent life? But, on further reflection, it does raise the question several other commenters have noted, why on earth would they feel any emotional stress over removing a growth, flushing a “clump of cells”?

    _8. Ignoring the fact that you’re saying this occurs here, in the US, and then provide an example that took place in Australia, again I think you’re taking a complex issue and trying to make it simple. I think an abortion for the purpose of sex selection is a terrible thing, but I do not think that means all abortions are abhorrent. More on this later._

    So killing a baby because it is male or female is wrong, but killing it because it is inconvenient is ok? Nice moral reasoning there.

    _7. Judging from other comments, it appears the authenticity of this video is suspect. However, if it’s true that any Planned Parenthood worker has knowingly did not report a supposed underaged sex worker, then that worker should be reprimanded and punished according to the law. However this does not mean Planned Parenthood is all bad (though I would chide them for choosing to remain silent to such accusations instead of taking appropriate action, if this is true). Anyway, this argument is trying to attack the character of the other side rather than actually discussing the issue. This is called an ad hominem, and it’s not a good (or even valid) form of argument._

    If I understand correctly, it was not just an isolated instant attributable to the indescretion or incompetence of a single employee but a consistent pattern of behavior by Planned Parenthood staff in different locations. In any case, this is not a simple ad hominem argument (you seem to like complexity). Arguably, the fundamental immorality of abortion has deleterious effects on morality in general (I remember several cases of what I called “post-natal abortion” in the 90s, kids having their babies and dumping them somewhere. After all, if it’s not human two seconds before it’s born, why is it human two seconds afterwards?)

    _6. Since this point lacks any links or citations, I’ll have to take your word on the events. This argument again avoids the issue. It’s using weak reasoning to say that “abortion is a problem.” I’m not entirely sure how to respond to this, to be honest. It is true that they offer services besides abortions (see ), and I suppose they’d like to highlight these other services in an effort to retain funding. Whatever their reasons, I dislike it when people avoid talking about the real issue.

    See my reply to #5.

    _4. I’m not actually sure what your point is here._

    The same as point #1. It is not an argument against abortion per se to say that young people are turning against it. If it is true, however, it is an argument that there is hope for those of us who oppose it.

    _3. This is the closest thing to a real argument I’ve read here. As you surely know, a somewhat common argument from pro-choice advocates is that the fetus is not a human being, and here you’re arguing against that with decent evidence. This is the sort of argument you should be making. At least until the end, where you use the word “battle against abortion.” This more or less tells me that you have no real interest in discussing the issue and that you have no desire to consider arguments otherwise. That’s a bad thing._

    There are some issues, slavery for example, that do not admit of “sides”. There can be no rational agreement on killing innocent people. That is what the pro-life “side” believes abortion is. How does one compromise on murder? How do you “sort of” take a human life? If the fetus is, in fact a human life, there is no moral, or even rational, compromise on taking it unecessarily. There is room for disagreement on some extraordinary cases, e.g. life of the mother. An argument can be made that that is an exeptional case on the order of killing in self-defense or collateral damage in a just war. But that is a relatively rare circumstance. Killing for convenience is never right and there is no compromise position on that point.

    _2. I’m not sure what to make of the quote. However, you say that the billboard you’ve shown a picture of is “prompting conversation.” Conversation is a good thing—usually. Productive conversation involves people from both “sides” getting together and having well reasoned discussions, listening and learning from each other._

    See my response to #3.

    _1. The United States believes in secularity. I have absolutely no problem with whatever religion you choose to believe, but invoking anything from your religion in public discourse is a quick way to tell me that you are possibly incapable of thinking outside of your religion, and that is a problem when crafting secular legislation. Just so we’re clear, by all means, be Christian. I support you in this. I do not support you in bringing your Christianity and using it as an argument in government._

    More than adequately answered by JC.

  33. Trevin Wax says:

    Fred,

    I think you’ve misunderstood the point of this post. I am not giving arguments for the pro-life position. I’m giving reasons why I think the tide may be turning in favor of the pro-life view. For legal argumentation for the pro-life position, I recommend “Defending Life” by Frank Beckwith.

    Thank you for your comment.

  34. Fred says:

    Trevin,

    I was responding to an earlier post that was criticising you for having bad arguments against abortion. My response to his points 1 and 4 were that the intent of those arguments was not to argue against abortion but to argue that there is hope for opposition to abortion. Still, I think there were some pretty effective arguments against abortion in your post, even if that was not its main thrust. I just hope you’re right that the signs you see point to optimism.

  35. Pat says:

    Hi Ryan,
    If you are referring to “post abortion syndrome,” where all women supposedly feel immense guilt and depression, etc, for a very long period of time after an abortion, it does not exist. It is not recognized by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, and it is not listed in the DSM-IV. There are no causal links between abortion and negative mental health.

    The APA put together a task force to investigate mental health and abortion, which looked into articles published in peer reviewed journals post-1989. You can read more here: http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx

  36. David Richards says:

    Alex, you may be right that “a pro-choice view might simply assume that abortion per se is a morally neutral act, but may have negative psychological/financial/health effects on the woman.” But here is the problem for pro-aborts. Let us look just at the supposed negative psychological effects of abortion on women. What is missing from this analysis is the distinction between an action or event which is psychologically painful, and one that is psychologically harmful. I would ask an Abortion Rights advocate who wanted abortion to be “rare” because it causes negative psychological effects, if they believe abortion causes psychological harm or merely psychological pain? If they believe abortion causes psychological harm, then my follow-up question is how a morally neutral decision can cause psychological harm. If they believe abortion causes only psychological pain, then my follow-up question is what is the difference between the painful decision of abortion and ‘a painful decision’ like studying for your college exam when you want to be watching the game? In other words, is abortion a *specially* painful decision, distinct in kind from other ‘painful decisions’ and if so, then why?

    There are problems if one wants to campaign for Abortion Rights yet believes abortion causes negative financial and [physical] health effects. First, socioeconomic difficulties is usually cited as one of the main reasons women have abortions. It’s easy to see that paying a few hundred dollars today to kill your child will help one avoid years of caring for a financial dependent. Second, abortion was marketed to this nation (and assumed by Roe / Doe) to fall under the category of “healthcare.” It was thought that abortion should be legal precisely for reasons of women’s health. So to maintain that abortion should be legal but rare because it has negative effects on women’s health is to undermine one of the primary motivations behind abortion legalization in the first place.

    In other words, I don’t think the “safe, legal, and rare” claptrap can go through either way without massively begging the question. Sure, one may be able to give what appear to be a more nuanced position of “safe, legal, and rare,” but even then it’s empty rhetoric desperately grasping at straws to validate an unconscionable decision without any moral or constitutional foundation. It basically acknowledges that abortion is problematic but ignores the *reason* it is problematic.

    I think slavery should be safe, legal, and rare too, but only rare because of the negative psychological, financial, and health effects it has on slaveholders.

  37. David Richards says:

    Furious, here is a woman’s perspective:
    http://www.feministsforlife.org/

  38. Hannah says:

    So basically, you think it’s fine and dandy to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, no matter how harmful, traumatic, or even life-threatening that might be for them? Just because a woman is pregnant doesn’t mean that she should be forced to continue her pregnancy, as though her mental and physical health don’t matter one bit.

    1. Abigail says:

      Yes. That is exactly what we expect.

      Or let me put it another way. You expect a baby to be brutally murdered just because it is unable to live outside the mothers body for 8 more months? Just because it is dependent on the mother for food and oxygen doesn’t mean it should have to die as if it’s life doesn’t matter.

  39. Hannah says:

    (And that comment is meant for Trevin Wax, by the way. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trevin Wax


​Trevin Wax is managing editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay Christian Resources, husband to Corina, father to Timothy, Julia, and David. You can follow him on Twitter. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books