Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments: A Complete Guide


Two signposts, one reading 'Answers' and the 'Questions' pointing in two opposite directions

Welcome to a complete guide of Pro-Life answers to Pro-Choice arguments. With ten arguments that fall into one of four categories of Pro-Choice objections and simple and easy answers for each one, you can sit back, relax and start a bag of popcorn, because by the end of this article you will be fully able to rebut any question a Pro-Choicer sends your way.

Even that genius one about what you would do if you had to choose between saving a container with 1000 human embryos or a five-year-old child, that ‘shuts down’ the anti-abortion argument.

As a bonus I’ve also included the answer to something that’s not technically a Pro-Choice argument but since it’s one those who are Pro-Choice often make, I thought I might as well have a crack at it.

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments: An Overview

Here is an overview of the four categories of objections and the ten arguments in this guide, as well the non-Pro-Choice argument that those who are Pro-Choice often make.

Category 1: Arguments About the Status of the Foetus

Argument 1: A Foetus Is Not a Life / Person

Argument 2: Abortion Is Not Killing If the Foetus Is Not Viable

Argument 3: A Foetus Is a Parasite

Category 2: Arguments That Making Abortion Illegal Would Create Inequality

Argument 4: Making Abortion Illegal Would Take Away Women’s Rights

Argument 5: Men Who Are Anti-Abortion Hate Women and Want to Control Them

Category 3: Arguments That Making Abortion Illegal Will Have Negative Ramifications

Argument 6: Making Abortion Illegal Would Destroy Women’s Lives

Argument 7: Making Abortion Illegal Will Result in Women Dying of Unsafe Abortions

Argument 8: How Is It Fair Not to Let Victims of Rape Have an Abortion?

Category 4: Arguments That Those Who Are Pro-Life Are Hypocrites

Argument 9: If You Really Thought a Foetus Was a Human Being How Comes …

Argument 10: You Don’t Care About the Child After Birth

The Non-Pro-Choice Argument That Those Who Are Pro-Choice Often Make: Men Aren’t Allowed an Opinion on Abortion Because It Only Affects Women

Your Own Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments

Now you’ve seen the Pro-Choice arguments feel free to stop reading for a few minutes and come up with your own answers. It should be fairly easy.

Then you can compare them to mine and decide whose are better.

It’ll be fun!

Category 1: Arguments About the Status of the Foetus

Argument 1: A Foetus Is Not a Life / Person

This is the longest objection that goes back and forth over several stages. This should come as no surprise because at the end of the day the status of the foetus is the key to the entire abortion debate. All the other seemingly valid points are in truth pure misdirection: an attempt to emotionally provoke you (but equality … you hate women … rape … you’re a hypocrite) so that you don’t notice you’re justifying murder.

Here are all the stages of the foetus is not a life / person argument.

The Argument Stage 1: A foetus is not a life.

The Answer: This is what I like to call ‘the argument from ignorance’. The answer to this as all those who were listening in biology class will tell you, is that there are four criteria that science requires to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction. And a fertilised egg has all of them.

The Argument Stage 2: Yes, a fertilised egg is indeed life, it’s just another part of the mother, it’s her own life so she can do with it as she pleases.

The Answer: This is not true, the foetus is a new life.

Science distinguishes one cell from another based on two criteria. It must have a different composition and a different behaviour from another cell. At fertilisation, the zygote is a new cell with a new and unique molecular composition which, while containing the components of the sperm and egg that created it, is distinct from both. It also has a different behaviour from both sperm and egg whose goal is to fuse, as the new cell works to prevent any further fusion.

The Argument Stage 3: Yes, a fertilised egg is indeed a life, and a new life, but it’s like other parts of the body, for example a kidney or an arm that are also made up of human cells and are therefore life but are not a life in the same way a normal human being is. Otherwise removing your kidney or arm would be murder.

The Answer: Once again this is not true as unlike your kidney or arm the fertilised egg is also an organism.

Science defines an organism as: a complex structure of interdependent elements that acts in a coordinated manner to carry on the activities of life by separately functioning but mutually dependent organs. In other words, although a cell which is the basic unit of a living organism, exhibits the activities of cellular life, it doesn’t engage in coordinated interaction to sustain the life of the entity as a whole or achieve a higher level of organisation. An organism, which is a discrete and complete living thing, does.

For a more detailed explanation of all this, please see here and here.

The Argument Stage 4: Ok. Fine. Science proves that human life does indeed begin at fertilisation. But the important point is not when life begins but when personhood begins. A human being is only a person when it has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness.

The Answer: But Leftists don’t have the capacity for reason and they’re still people. No, you’re right, they do have the capacity for reason it’s just that they choose not to use it because they think it makes them morally superior. We’ll have to try something else.

The Answer Take 2: It’s true that when life begins is irrelevant and that it’s personhood which determines when you can’t kill something, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to kill animals. Killing is wrong when the life you’re ending has a high degree of value. When the life has the capacity for reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness. In other words, a person.

But a foetus despite not being a person is also a life with a high degree of value. And the high degree of value is that it will become a person with reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness. In other words, there’s a second factor that determines when you can’t kill a life and that is when it will become a person.

And everyone agrees with this. Otherwise you’d be able to kill newborns who don’t have any characteristic that define personhood. The reason why you can’t kill newborns is because they will become people.

This is the significance of saying a foetus is a human life. Not simply that it can be defined scientifically as human life but because it’s the type of life that will become, if only you just left it alone, a person.

Argument 2: Abortion Is Not Killing If the Foetus Is Not Viable

The Argument: A viable foetus is one that can survive outside the uterus. A non-viable foetus is one that can’t. The abortion of a non-viable foetus can’t be killing because the entity lacks value, as it would not have been able to survive outside the uterus anyway.

The Answer: But it is able to survive inside the uterus? Meaning the premise of this argument is ridiculous. Why should the inability of a foetus to survive in an environment different to the one it is able to survive in mean it has no value? Does a life only have value if it’s able to survive in all environments?

If it were, we’d be able to kill people because they can’t survive in water or space and newborns because they can’t survive inside the uterus.

Argument 3: The Foetus Is a Parasite

The Argument: No being has the right to be a parasite and live off someone else, literally, so the mother has the right to get rid of a foetus that’s doing just that.

The Answer: It’s true you can kill a non-human life that’s living off a human being but not a human life that’s living off a human being. That’s because even if the human parasite is wrong for being there, it’s right to life (a corollary of being a life that it would be wrong to kill) is far more important than your right not to be host to a parasite.

And it’s not wrong for being there, as this parasite only exists because you willingly (in most cases) created it. Even if you used contraception and want to argue that means you didn’t willingly create it, at the end of the day you consented to engage in an act that carries the risk of pregnancy which means you consented to that possible outcome. You can’t participate in a dangerous activity knowing that you could hurt yourself and argue that because you didn’t want to hurt yourself, you’re not responsible if you do. That’s absurd.

If you willingly create something that needs to live off you, you can’t argue that you can kill it because it’s doing something you don’t want it to but knew it would when you created it!

The truth is that even Pro-Abortionists don’t believe the, ‘you have the right to kill a human life that’s living off you’ argument. Children live off their parents for at least 18 years and no one’s ever suggested that parents have the right to kill or even not to look after their children properly because of that. In fact, everyone believes exactly the opposite. Because the parents are the ones who created their child, they are the ones who are responsible for looking after it until it’s capable of looking after itself.

And I know that the technical definition of parasite is an organism that lives off another organism’s body and that’s not the case with children who are born who are only living off their parents’ time, money, effort and energy, but as anyone with children will tell you, the effects of nine months of pregnancy on a woman’s body are nothing compared to the effects on the mind and body that occur as a result of looking after that child … forever.

Category 2: Arguments That Making Abortion Illegal Would Create Inequality

Argument 4: Making Abortion Illegal Would Take Away Women’s Rights

The Argument: This argument is made in many forms. Pro-Choice, bodily autonomy, or you’re taking away women’s rights. The point they are making in all three forms is essentially the same. The foetus is inside a woman and unless she has complete control over what goes on inside her own body, making abortion illegal would take away her rights.

The Answer: The far more important right to life of the foetus always trumps (who?) the far less important right of a person to do what they want with their own body. Yes, her rights are being taken away, but this occurs in all cases where the rights of two people, conflict. We don’t often resolve conflicting rights cases with, “Of course your freedom of movement allows you to kill anyone in your way”.

This is so obvious that Pro-Abortionists have had to resort to rewording the issue for it to have any impact.

Because when you think about it in terms of rights it’s easy to see that the more important right should win, but if you think about it in terms of the fact that making abortion illegal would mean more laws governing what women can do with their bodies than men, then it becomes a matter of inequality – the ultimate debating trump (again!) card because all you have to do to win in a debate is to point to some inequality and people lose their ability to see anything else, including the fact that inequality doesn’t justify murdering a human being.

Also, this is a childish argument. Yes, making abortion illegal would mean there would be laws that govern what women can do with their body but not men.

So what?

We’re only talking about one restriction that would create one difference between men and women, being made for a very good reason. It’s not as if they wouldn’t have every other right that men have. It’s not as if making abortion illegal would mean that men would now rule over women and be able to tell them exactly what to do in every aspect of their lives. Women would still retain the vast majority of their rights, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose. They just wouldn’t be able to kill babies.

I agree that ideally there should be equality, but if there’s a very good reason for it then inequality is acceptable. On the other hand, giving women the ability to decide whether or not to kill their own children because otherwise there would be the smallest degree of gender imbalances, is embarrassingly small minded.

Argument 5: Men Who Are Anti-Abortion Hate Women and Want to Control Them

The Argument: The reason why you believe a foetus is a life is because you hate women and want to control them.

The Answer: The reason why you believe a foetus is not a life is because having a baby will be a major inconvenience that you don’t want. Now you can murder your baby and pretend it was all about equality.

Oh sorry, I forgot that it’s only your side that has a knowing-the-real-motivations-for-believing-something superpower.

Let me know when you want to have a reasonable debate.

By the way if the one instance of wanting to stop women from doing something proves that men hate and want to control them, then surely all the other instances where men don’t want to stop women from doing something proves that they don’t hate or want to control them.

And even if it’s true that men who are anti-abortion do hate women and do want to control them, that doesn’t change anything about the morality of abortion. It’s wrong regardless of whether men hate and want to control women or not. There’s never any causal link between a person’s motivation for declaring something morally wrong and whether it’s actually morally wrong. It’s not a winning argument to claim, ‘my spouse wants to control me that’s why they think my having an affair is wrong’.

Category 3: Arguments That Making Abortion Illegal Will Have Negative Ramifications

Argument 6: Making Abortion Illegal Would Destroy Women’s Lives

The Argument: There are several ways that being forced to carry a foetus to term can destroy a woman’s life. Pregnancy and childbirth often physically harms the mother. If she cannot afford a child or if having a child would be at the cost of completing her education or advancing her career, then her life can be ruined.

The Answer: You forgot to mention death. Making abortion illegal can destroy a mother’s life because she could die as a result of having a baby.

Wait for it …

If you’re against making abortion illegal because it would destroy the life of a women due to the physical harm, financial burden, prevention of education or career that may occur as a result of having a baby, why aren’t you against abortion being legal because it destroys the life of a foetus by … well destroying the foetus.

A child’s right to life is more important than almost any impact (barring death or genuinely severe medical issues) a child will have on the mother.

Besides, any impact a foetus causes is temporary. Nine months of pregnancy then you can give your child up for adoption. On the other hand, the impact of abortion for the aborted is permanent.

And yes, I do appreciate the enormous impact of pregnancy, birth and looking after children, but impact is not a factor in whether abortion is right or wrong. Just like it’s not a factor at any time of the child rearing process. You can’t have a child, then realise it will affect your career and use the impact it’s having as justification for killing it.

Argument 7: Making Abortion Illegal Will Result in Women Dying of Unsafe Abortions

The Argument: Even if abortion would be made illegal, some women would still seek to have abortions, only now they would have them done illegally. Illegal abortions are not as safe, and more women would die as a result.

The Answer: Making abortion illegal would also mean that less babies would die as a result of being aborted. Even if more mothers would die than babies survive, I think it’s important to protect the innocent unborn foetuses more than those who are trying to kill them.

By the way, this is probably the worst of all Pro-Abortion arguments. They’re actually trying to convince us that we must allow mothers the option to kill their unborn children because if we don’t, they will ignore the law and have abortions anyway only this time in an unsafe way where the mother is more likely to die too.

This is completely absurd. It’s essentially arguing that we shouldn’t create a law to try and protect an innocent victim from being killed because those who would break the law and kill them anyway would have an increased likelihood of getting hurt too. Instead there should be no law protecting unborn children from being killed so that those who want to kill them can do so safely.

Somebody has lost their mind!

Argument 8: How Is It Fair Not to Let Victims of Rape Have an Abortion?

The Argument: How is it fair to demand that victims of rape carry a resulting child to term and look after it forever? This was not her fault and she is being punished for something she didn’t do.

The Answer: This argument is completely correct. It’s not fair and she is suffering the consequence of something she didn’t do.

But there’s still the pesky little problem of the fact that the baby is a life and the right to life is more important than the right to be treated fairly or to not suffer the consequence of something you didn’t do.

Yes, it’s mean. Yes, it’s unjust. But life is often unfair and unjust and demands that you suffer the consequences of somebody else’s bad behaviour. The response to such situations is to deal with them as best as you can, because it’s wrong to use murder as a way of escaping unfairness.

It’s also unfair.

Category 4: Arguments That Those Who Are Pro-Life Are Hypocrites

Argument 9: If You Really Thought a Foetus Was a Human Being How Comes …

The Argument: … you don’t have a funeral when a woman has a miscarriage? … you don’t think a woman who is having a period and flushing her system of a fertilised egg is a serial killer or committing involuntary manslaughter? … you’re not angry with IVF clinics that dispose of fertilised eggs?

The Answer: Should be obvious by now.

As explained in the complete guide of Pro-Life answers to Pro-Choice arguments, answers 1 through 3, the Pro-life argument is not that a foetus is a human being just like any other human being and should be treated in exactly the same way. The Pro-Life argument is that despite not being a person a foetus has a level of value that gives it the right to life and the right to not be murdered.

That value is that it will become a person.

The proof is that it’s wrong to kill newborns despite them not having the characteristics that make up the definition of a person.

And when I say you can’t kill a foetus because it’s a human being, I don’t mean you can’t kill a foetus because it’s just like a fully grown person, I mean you can’t kill a foetus because it’s a human being that unlike anything else known to man will become a person, if you just left it alone.

This means that unlike a fully grown person where their value is in who they are, with a foetus there’s a difference between where their value is and who they are. So on the one hand it’s wrong to kill them because of their value as life that will become a person, but on the other hand they’re not people and negative things happening to them won’t elicit the same degree of emotional response.

This also means that a woman who flushes her system of a fertilised egg is not a serial killer or committing involuntary manslaughter. The reason why a fertilised egg is flushed from the system is because for some reason, it has failed to move on to the next stage of development. If its value were independent of development and based on it being just like any other human being, then you could argue that another part of the body destroying it is wrong. But since its value is in its development and it’s not developing, then it’s lost its value and it would not be wrong to flush it from the system.

The same thing applies to IVF clinics disposing of fertilised eggs. If fertilised eggs would have a value independent of development and based on them being just like any other human beings, then it would be wrong to dispose of them, but since their value is based on their development and since the natural process of a fertilised egg outside the uterus is to die, disposal is not doing anything that wouldn’t occur anyway, and it’s certainly not getting in the way of it developing into a person.

Happily, this principle also deals with the question that ‘shuts down’ the anti-abortion argument mentioned at the beginning, but I’ll leave that one to you.

Argument 10: You Don’t Care About the Child After Birth

The Argument: You only care about a foetus from conception to birth. After that you don’t care about a person at all.

The Answer: How do you know?

The Argument: These children will have a lot of needs after birth and for the rest of their lives and you don’t care about that.

The Answer: Are you suddenly changing the subject from caring about whether a human being is killed to caring about their financial condition?

The Argument: What’s wrong with that. Isn’t everything the same?

The Answer: No.

Those who are Pro-Life do still care about a child after it’s born. In exactly the same way as they care about a child before it’s born. Just like they think it’s wrong to kill a child before it’s born, they think it’s wrong to kill a child after it’s born too. It’s a miracle!

And I’m not so sure that those who are Pro-Life don’t care about the financial needs of the post born. Let me know when you find a significant number of people who are Pro-Life who are also against the welfare state? And no, a person who doesn’t agree with free everything for everyone who wants, at any time, is not against financial assistance.

This is the stupidest Pro-Abortion argument of all – no, the one you’re thinking of is the worst argument of all. Are Pro-Abortionists seriously arguing that unless you’re willing to look after this baby for the rest of its life and make sure it wants for nothing, you can’t say it’s wrong to kill it?

I mean obviously they are, but can’t they see how stupid it is? Obviously not. Nevertheless, the principle of this argument is absurd. You can only declare something morally wrong if you’re prepared to make a huge financial contribution too. That’s right, you can only tell me I’m not allowed to kill my fifteen-year-old if you’re prepared to pay for their college education.

How sad that innocent, defenceless children are being killed because moronic halfwits think the above is a great argument to justify it.

The Non-Pro-Choice Argument That Those Who Are Pro-Choice Often Make: Men Aren’t Allowed an Opinion on Abortion Because It Only Affects Women

The Argument: Men are not allowed an opinion on abortion because it only affects women. Unless it’s to agree with them.

The Answer: Congratulations on believing the worst idea ever. Namely, if it doesn’t affect you, you’re not allowed an opinion on the matter.

Surely this goes against freedom of speech.

Surely this is just an attempt to sidestep a real debate based on logic and reason, by denying the people who have a different point of view the right to speak about it in the first place.

Surely this is just an attempt to scare people into thinking that being Pro-Life is really about men wanting to make rules for women – what they’re really saying is, ‘you’re only getting involved in something that’s none of your business because you want to control me’.

Surely one can argue the opposite in two ways. Firstly, I’m not convinced that men are not affected by abortion too. After all, some of the foetuses that have and will be killed by abortion would have gone on to become men. Surely as an affected party they have the right to an opinion on the matter. Secondly, being affected by abortion is the reason why women can’t have an opinion on the matter as it would be clouded by their bias.

Oh, by the way, the ability to look at an idea and make a moral judgement on it, is based upon objective logic and reasoning, not some random aspect of the issue like whether or not it affects you.

And since that argument doesn’t affect you, you can’t have an opinion on it.

Conclusion

This guide has presented ten Pro-Life answers to Pro-Choice Arguments. It has explained that the status of the foetus has value because of what it will become, that if abortion were made illegal any inequality would be appropriate and minimal, that men do not hate or want to control women, and that those who are Pro-Life are not hypocrites and do care what happens to a person after they are born.

And we’ve explained why anybody can have an opinion on any matter.

Although putting the above two points together means you can have an opinion on abortion but with these Pro-Life answers to Pro-Choice arguments, unless it’s anti-abortion, you’d be wrong.

Sam Taylor

I'm Sam Taylor. I don't really like pointing out stupidity when I see it, but I'm going to. It's my way of reaching out to those who can actually think.

Recent Posts