Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Abortion’s arguments

The man who regards his own life and that

of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not

merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life

—Albert Einstein [1]

This article serves as an introduction of a series that will explore some of the most common Pro-Abortion arguments and will determine whether or not they stand up to scrutiny.

Pro-Abortion arguments are highly specialized. As you read over them note that not one single one of these would be acceptable if it were applied to a human being already outside the womb. This is true even if the child were one minute old (though some would like to change this or, change is back to this, see next quote). But what is the difference between a child in the womb and one outside the womb? A few inches with regards to location and nothing else.

I think we must reevaluate our basic assumptions about the meaning of life. Perhaps…no one should be thought of as alive until about three days after birth…If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then…the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose.

—“Dr.” James D. Watson, director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, writing in the May 1973 issue of Prism in an article title, "Children from the Laboratory."

Not one single pro-abortion argument would ever be entertained when applied to a post-natal baby, child, or human being of any age at all. All Pro-Abortion arguments also fail because they begin with a woman being pregnant without wanting to be pregnant. Since this ignores cause and effect, is it a diversion from the real issue which is why are women who do not want children getting pregnant?

Since this question deals with morals or at the very least issues of self-control, abstinence, this question is simply avoided and the issue is high-jacked by being referred to as a “women’s rights issue,” or “women’s reproductive rights issue,” while the babies are treated as a mere clump of cells to be as readily discarded as earwax.

To a large extent the typical view of abortion is premised upon a shockingly cynical, malicious, and pessimistic worldview that considers beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies to be nothing but obstacles, children are merely getting in our way, other human beings are to be discarded in order to facilitate our particular wants.

The issue of abortion has been wrongly turned into an issue of deciding who should have the right to choose to have an abortion. This is redirection, or spin-doctoring, because first we must define what is meant by “abortion,” then decide whether abortion is right or wrong and only then can we argue about who would have the right to do decide that it take place. This has also been termed a “women’s issue” or a “women’s health issue.” While it certainly is just that, for obvious reasons, once this issue was incorporated into the women’s rights movement they all but forgot about the real victim of abortion.

This also stacks the deck with the result that, on this definition, if you oppose abortion then you oppose women’s rights and women’s health.

If you are the kind of person who is easily offended and cannot handle brutal honesty or words that are not sugar coated please skip the next paragraph or rather, read it and face the facts. You should not decide if abortion is right or wrong based on your emotions and should not discount these articles based on being emotionally offended.

Pro-Abortion supporters have done a great job of clouding the issue by defining abortion as “getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy,” by referring to human babies as “byproducts of conception,” and by referring to abortion as a women’s rights issue. Yet, the true definition of abortion is that it is: the inhuman, subhuman and inhumane, brutal, dismembering and painful murder of beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies.

Now, if you respond with something to the likes of, “Well, abortion is also conducted on unhealthy babies who threaten the mother’s life, so you are wrong” keep in mind that you are now seeking to escape the harsh and factual reality that the overwhelming majority of abortions are just as has been described. You are attempting to appeal to the minority in order to deny the facts of the matter. The fact that there are issues of women’s health, etc. is why this is a series and not an oversimplified statement.

My wife and I watched one of our son’s heart beating at 2 weeks old. This issue is very simple: if something has a beating heart and you do something to stop its heart from beating you have taken its life.


Here are some relevant essays and books.


Bernard Nathanson, The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind

Randy C. Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?: Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers

Randy C. Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated

Scott Klusendorf, Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively


"Sacred Abortion"

Richard Dawkins - On Abortion, Tadpoles, Rape, Cows, Murder and Sheep

The Exorcist’s Abortion and the Satanist’s Repentance

George Tiller, Abortionist Murders, and the Richard Dawkins Correlation

Is pro-life and pro-death penalty a contradiction?

Dan Barker - His Views On Human Dignity

The Abortion Money Machine Rolls Out the Ads in the UK

Pro-abortionists target pro-lifers

Greg Koukl on pro-abortion “logic”

Abortion and the Intolerance of the Pseudo-Tolerant

Abortion and Homosexual Marriage - The Faulty Correlation

Sam Harris - The Dehumanizer


Note: [1] Quoted in John Clover Monsma, ed., The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1958), p. 235


Feel free to take advantage of the free subscription to this page so that you will get an email notification when something is posted herein—see subscribe link above, next to my name…or just CTRL+F and search for “subscribe.”

Find us on:

Main (repository) homepage




Report this ad