Arguments For Abortion
We will logically, rationally, and, with the use of research and science, consider the arguments for abortion to determine if they are, in fact, logically and rationally, justified. If you have any other arguments not addressed, please contact us so that we may consider them and determine a response.
Argument #1: Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies.
Response #1: Can women walk around in public naked? Nope. Can women legally elect to clone themselves? No. Can a woman, who has a conjoined twin, choose to kill her conjoined twin? No. Can a woman choose to have sex in public? Nope. Can woman choose to become prostitutes or not register as porn stars, yes, but it is illegal. We can go on and on about examples of what woman can not do with their bodies.
The injection of the word “moral” does not change the context of the subject, which is, freedom to do with their bodies as they choose. Further more, this “right” is not in the constitution, in fact, the constitution DOES limit this idea in the sense that some choices may interfere with the rights of others. Therefore, we can logically and rationally conclude that woman (and men) do not have an absolute right to decided what to do with their bodies.
Lets look the the ‘moral’ addition. Who’s morals are we imposing here? If the morality is determined by the current trend in society, than that is a problem. “The Moral Majority” justified slavery, segregation, oppression of woman’s rights, and is actually just subjective totalitarianism and authoritarianism disguised as a “universal morality” and forced on to the population by the advocates of this argument. Logically, historically, these were the people that used this same line of ‘moral’ logic that justified the Holocaust. They are not “moral” simply because they say they are or they just feel as though they are.
It is hypocritical for Christians to make this argument. Aside from the fact that threw out the bible, pregnancy is stated as a “reward” and “gift” from God (Gen. 25:21, 29:31, 30:1, 22; Deut. 7:14; Psalm 127:3). What exposes the contradiction and hypocrisy with this argument for any person claiming to be Christian is this: “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Therefore, for Christians, their “body is not your own.” and in demanding this right is in contradiction to their faith. Jesus, himself, in the Bible actually states this: “Jesus said, “Leave the children alone, and don’t try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.” (Matthew 19:14). Abortion would actually be disobedient to the command Jesus gives here. Christians who support abortion aren’t even obeying Jesus or even in agreement with the book that they claim is from God.
Argument #2: The right to abortion is vital for gender equality.
Response #2: The trend in abortion rights legislation actually seeks to exclude husbands and fathers from the decision process; thus, not seeking equality but superiority. If the husband and or father objects to the abortion, there is no legal standing for the husband or father to prevent the abortion of his unborn off-spring. Therefore, the argument for abortion as vital for gender equality, is false, in that, it actually gives a unequal superiority to one gender over the other.
Argument #3: The right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential.
Response #3: The assumed idea as part of this argument is that women who are stay-at-home moms are not achieving their individual full potential. There are mothers who see being a successful mother as the ultimate fullness of life. This argument also degrades single mothers who are successful in raising children and working; that the success of their children is directly caused by them achieving their full potential. The idea of “full potential” is subjective and is dependent on the beliefs and values of different people. To say that a woman, who has an abortion so that she will not have anything to interfere with their career, can now achieve her full potential is an insult to women who see raising children as a greater achievement. Therefore, this argument is solely subjective.
Argument #4: Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists.
Response #4: The case of the legal abortion Doctor, Dr. Gosnell provides a problem for this argument. A woman died in his care, and he was a legal abortion provider. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics there were only 39 women who died from a botched abortion in 1972. That is lower than people who have died from other basic procedures of the same year. The claim that thousands died in illegal botched abortions is just untrue and nonfactual.
The secondary argument is that those doctors were untrained and did not have the proper medical equipment. The secondary response to that is according the former medical director of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone. She wrote an article in 1960 for the American Journal of Health where she cited a 1958 study that indicated 84% to 87% of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. By 1960, Dr. Calderone said that 90% of abortions, illegal though they may be, were performed by trained physicians. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology also disagrees with the increased risk of illegal abortions. In 1978, they stated that Roe V Wade “has had no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion.” They cited their own study which supported Dr. Calderone’s claim that 90% of illegal abortions had been performed by licensed physicians.
Notice that in the first argument, the word “moral” was used. This argument essentially calls for the legalization of an unjust act; which is, of itself, immoral.
A third argument uses stats from other countries and their maternity death rates. They pick data from countries will more legalized abortion showing a lower maternity death rate with other countries where abortion is more restricted with higher maternity death rates and assume its due to the access to abortion. The response is this: What they fail to consider is the healthcare systems themselves in each country. The highest-mortality nations are developing countries with poor maternal health care; the lowest-mortality nations are developed countries with advanced maternal health care. This is true irrespective of abortion policy. Some countries, for example, permit abortion and have high rates of mortality because their health care system is lacking. Other countries prohibit most abortions and have very low rates of maternal death (often lower than that of the U.S.) These countries include Chile, Ireland, Poland, Malta, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Lebanon.
Therefore, given the facts of abortions prior to legalization and now, the argument for an increased risk is untrue. It is more like a bias dishonest talking point, and straw man argument. How do we know there exists dishonest data? Take it from the fundamental Abortion advocate, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the NARAL co-founder who helped lead the effort to legalize abortion. He actually later acknowledged that his movement’s claims about the number of deaths from illegal abortion were wildly inaccurate:
“It was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”
Response #5: This argument is a failed argument when considering history alone. The supreme court justified slavery and segregation. This is a disproved subjective metric for justifying anything.
Response #6: The viability of a fetus is problematic. Where the fetus must be able to survive outside of the womb to be considered a “person” and be granted constitutional rights. The logical problem with that is a 1 year old, born a year after exiting the birth canal, still can not survive on its own, alone. A 1 year old needs the parents to supply them with food, shelter, and care. A 1 year old does not know how to gather its own food and feed itself. If left alone, it will die. Logically, there is no different between a 1 year old and a 23 week old fetus. There are sick 3 year olds that require constant medical care to survive. According to the viability of a fetus logic, they can not be considered a person either.
The secondary argument is the stage of development. But again, runs into the same logical problem. A 23 week old fetus is still developing. But, the human brain does not stop developing until 20 to 30 years old. Most humans don’t stop physically fully developing until the age of 18 years old.
The third argument is that the fetus still requires development inside the womb. But, a 21 week fetus, has survived outside of the womb born in San Antonio, Texas, in 2014. That is 19 weeks less than a full term pregnancy. Did that baby not deserve a right to live? This argument is still dependent on the idea that the fetus requires assistance for development which goes back to Argument #1.
Response #7: This argument focuses on a primary instance. If the fetus DOES feel pain, does it then deserve a right to live? For the sake of argument, let us assume that this would be the deciding factor. But, there is a serious flaw with this. Unlike with blood pressure or body temperature, for example, there’s no definitive way to measure pain. Fetal pain is so controversial because pain is always a subjective experience, said Dr. Anne Davis, an OB/GYN and the consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health. People do have ways of communicating how much pain they’re feeling; for example, doctors often ask people to rate their pain on a scale of 1 to 10. But the experience of pain is fundamentally subjective, Davis said. In other words, what might be very painful to one person may cause very little pain to someone else. “Pain occurs in [the] brain,” Davis said. When a person is injured — say, you stub your toe, for example — a signal travels from the foot up through the nerves in the leg to the spinal cord, and then from spinal cord up to the brain, Davis said. Once that signal gets into the brain, the information is transmitted through a complex web of neurons to an area of the brain called the cortex, she said.
Receptors in the skin that sense injury are developed around the 7th week and continues on into the 15th week. Around the 15th to 19th week, the spinal cord develops the neurons that transmit the sense of injury to the brain. Dr. Anne Davis then states some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later.
If a fetus can potentially feel pain at around 19 weeks, is it worth risking the mothers self perceived “fulfill life’s achievements” to cause that level of trauma to another human life? If “pain” determines “a living human” than “pain” is no longer the question but the sacrifice of that pain feeling human for the “betterment” of the host? Should choosing to cause extreme pain and death to another human even be a choice?
Therefore, because science is increasingly showing us that a fetus can feel a perceived pain earlier than expected, than this argument is ignorant of the science and is actually risking the pain and death of another human life.
Response #8: This argument is truly morally repugnant. At its premise is the idea that special-needs children are a burden and less valuable in life. This is the antithesis of discrimination against the disabled and special-needs. That life may be some how better without them. If this is an argument that someone truly believes, they are heartless, inhuman, intolerant, and subconsciously hateful toward special-needs persons; as they are more willing to sacrifice the fetus than to raise a special-needs child.
Response #9: So let me understand this argument a little better. Aborting a fetus so that a woman does not have to raise a child saves them money. The goal of this is money. Apparently, being a very good mother, raising a child for the betterment of the future, while having to live at a financial disadvantage; is not worth it. The issue here is how the person views the value of parenthood and motherhood. To someone who wants an advantage financially, and values that over motherhood; of course, abortion would be more desirable. But this again, brings us back to the ‘moral’ aspect. What is more valuable, motherhood or money?
Response #10: A person who chooses to perform acts that creates fetuses, and does not use the readily available contraceptives and protections; is surprised by pregnancy? This argument attempts to justify the behavior without the consequences. It indirectly implies that the consequences, a baby, is less valuable. Simply put, abortion should be an option simply because the mother does not want to be a mother. This elevates the desires of a person above the value of human life itself. This logic would also then justify this: A adult should not remain in the world if others do not wanted them. Congrats, this argument justifies suicide and assisted suicide- even genocide.
A secondary argument to this is that it would be morally wrong to bring a child into poverty and hardship and about the fetus to save a life from suffering. The response to this secondary argument is three fold. First, how do these proponents suddenly know the future life of that fetus? They are so selfishly blind, they disregard all the successful happy individuals that were raised in abuse and poverty. Second, suddenly there is a moral element of the wrongfulness of suffering and hardship that this future person shouldn’t experience. And some how, imposing a hardship and causing suffering of the fetus is excused from the immorality of hardship and suffering. This hypocrisy is only justified when morality is relative, which ultimately makes it arbitrary. Third, the argument disregards, eliminates, and discriminates against the rights of that future person to choose for themselves what they want to do with their body. At the core of the secondary argument is contradictory and hypocritical justifications which renders the argument invalid and completely ignorant of its own arguments.
An argument for abortion to prevent future pain and suffering of that future person is the same logical argument for infanticide, genocide, and forced euthanasia all the while denying the rights of that future person.
Argument #11: Many religious organizations and people of faith support women’s reproductive choice.
Response#11: Much like Argument #5, this is a terrible metric for justification. Many religious organizations and people of faith supported slavery, segregation, and in many parts of the world today, don’t even support woman’s rights as a whole. This is nothing more than subjective ‘feel-good’ self justifying argumentation.
Argument #12: A fetus, up till birth, is just a group of cells.
Response #12: The logic behind this argument is almost laughable. Technically, we are all a group of cells. Does the number of cells constitute a human life? Does the look/development of a fetus constitute a human life or not? The problem is that the human body is constantly growing and replacing cells, throughout all your life. The human body is constantly developing and replacing cells. This argument is nothing more than an attempt to make someone feel better about abortion and to dehumanize a human fetus.
Argument #13: A fetus is no different than any other organ in the mother.
Response #13: The implied argument is that by removing the fetus, it would be no different than a medical procedure to remove tonsils or spleen. The issue with this is that a fetus is far more complex than a single organ. In fact, the fetus has its own organs; the same kind of organs as the mother.
On day one, the fetus has its own DNA, different from the mothers. The fetus’s own brain begins to form at 7 weeks. At 10 weeks the kidneys, intestines, brain, and liver are developed and starting to function. At 11 weeks the fetus can now hiccup but is too small for the mother to feel. At 12 weeks you can start to hear the heart beat. At 14 weeks the fetus’s kidneys are functioning and releasing urine into the amniotic fluid. At 19 weeks the fetus can hear the mothers heartbeat. At 24 weeks the fetus’s taste buds are developing and hair may even be growing. At 27 weeks, the fetus’s lungs are developing but won’t be fully functional for several more weeks. The fetus may be “practicing” for life on the outside by inhaling and exhaling amniotic fluid, sleeping and waking up at regular intervals, opening and closing his eyes, and sucking its fingers. All before the 3rd trimester. Does this sound like just another organ of the mother? It is far more complex than ALL other organs of the mother. It has all the same (gender-less) organs as the mother, of its own! To call this fetus, just another organ of the mother, is to be willingly or unwillingly ignorant of science.
Argument #14: The Bible says life begins at first breath.
Reason #14: This argument brings religion and The Bible into the discussion. Seeing that this issue is directly related to morality, that would actually make sense. So, let us consider The Bible verse used to justify late-term abortion. “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being, (Genesis 2:7).
On its face value it seems this settles it, but, when we actually take time to think about the verse in its entirety and in full context, that is not the case. According to this verse, these humans were formed from the dust of the ground… after that, they are formed in the womb. So these, first persons, were unique in their origin. From then on, in Genesis, it says that life is in the blood (Genesis 9:3-6) which the rest of the Old Testament continually affirms. So THIS initial statement about “becoming a living being” is the initial beginning of humanity, not every person after.
Then, as we research more into what The Bible actually teaches, we find this verse: “Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me,” (Psalm 51:5). Hu, how can a person be guilty of sin, before they are even considered a sinful person? This verse reinforces the later Genesis verses about life (after Adam and Eve) is directly related to flesh and not breath.
The nail in the coffin for this breath argument is this: “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret,” (Psalm 139:13-15). The author makes it clear he was HIMSELF, a living person, made in secret (in the womb), before his first breath.
Since people want to bring in the opinions of God, let’s do that. Here is a verse where God himself spoke through the author : “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). God himself, makes known, that we are a PERSON long before our first breath. An Apostles of the Christian faith also affirm this when the Apostle Paul stated: “But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace” (Galatians 1:15). Paul admits that he was a PERSON, before birth and his first breath.
The BIG dilemma for this argument is anyone of faith, who adheres to this problematic contradictory argument must then admit that JESUS, The Son of God, was NOT a person until his first breath… if that was the case, than he could not be The Son of God, or even God as Christians believe.
A second verse that some of these adherents use is Job 33:4. But in full theological context, this is affirming the new life that God gives to those who come to faith and are “born again”.
A third verse is used, but usually, cut short to avoid the other verses after it. It is this: “When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Exodus 21:22-24). The “born prematurely, but there is no injury” does NOT mean the baby died. It means there was no injury in the total situation. That means, the baby, did not die. BUT, notice verse 24, “If there is an injury, then you must give life for life…” That includes both wife and or baby. THAT MEANS, if the baby died, then… “life for life…” This is why it is important to read the context and include the totality of what The Bible teaches, not just out of context cherry picked verses. That is real research for those who are searching for truth, not selfish justification.
But, given the full context and totality of Bible verses, we can conclude that The Bible does not support this argument, but, in fact, teaches the exact opposite; that an unborn person, is a person before birth.
A nagging related consideration is, what about people are on life support and do not breath on their own, and if left on their own, they don’t breath and die… are they no longer a person because they are not breathing on their own?
When Is a Fetus, a Living Person?
This is THE question that answers all objections and arguments; and actually reveals at what point are people committing murder, the absolute universal moral wrong.
Does the stage of development determine our “Personhood”? No, it cant, because WE are continually developing as young adults as well.
Does being dependent on the mother determine our “Personhood”? No, because, even toddlers are completely and absolutely dependent on the mother for food, shelter, and care; or they too, die.
Does simply being in the womb exclude us from being a “human being”? No, because it is the same in respect to dependency. The only difference is the location. So then does the location determine our “Personhood”? No because that doesn’t change, who we are, no matter where we are at. Even outside of the womb, infants and toddlers must remain intimately close to the mother. When the mother feeds an infant they are, in fact, only inches away from where they were a few months before, in the womb…
Does not having certain organs or certain feelings, such as pain, determine our “Personhood”? No, because one does not stop being human if they have an organ removed or are born without certain organs. Even some adults don’t have the same feelings of pain or have neurological disorders that prevents them from feeling certain ways. Are they less human? No.
Does not looking human determine our “Personhood”? No, because there are people born without arms and or legs. Some are born with deformities. Are they less of a human? No.
Is a person, still developing, but has their own DNA and organs, who is completely dependent on the mother, and must live in close proximity to the mother, who does not have a certain organ or legs, can be financially and emotionally costly, and does not look like a normal person… is this “person” not a person? Congrats, I just described a fetus and a toddler, at the same time. Of which abortion justifies the killing of both.