Today I would like to continue this pro-life blog series by briefly responding to something which is regularly brought up during discussions on abortion.
Objection
I have often heard it said, even by people who think that abortion is terrible and wrong, that they would prefer to see abortion remain legal for fear that, if it were made illegal, it would just drive the abortion industry underground:
“I think abortion is wrong, but I think it’s much better to keep it legal so that we can make it as safe as possible”
On the Internet, this is often expressed in images such as this:
Of course, whenever a person says he doesn’t like abortion but still wants to keep it legal, a really good starting place to begin the discussion is to ask him first why he don’t like abortion… But does the logic presented here stand up to scrutiny? Is it better for abortion to be legal and regulated?
Those who are pro-choice will often chastise those who are pro-life for “judging women who have abortions” and “failing to love them”. Today I’d like to look at the substance of these charges. Is that true? Is it unloving to speak out against abortion?
Last year I posted on Facebook that I was at the March For Life in Washington DC and a lively Facebook thread ensued among my friends concerning my pro-life position. Last year I wrote a couple of posts in response, but got distracted and cut short the series (Seriously, I have ADD when it comes to blog series!).
This year I’ve been writing a new series of posts on the subject of abortion and today I would like to address one of the comments written by a friend of mine in the format of a “Quick Apology“.
Objection
Last year, one of the objections raised was as follows:
“If something is not illegal it is not democratic to try to prevent people from going about legal (if unpleasant) activities”.
Below I’d like to give a rough outline of my reply.
For many people, the fundamental question which must be answered in the abortion debate is this: when does human life begin? If the aborted child does, in fact, represent an innocent human life, then abortion must be recognized as immoral.
(Some would disagree with this last statement, but I’d suggest that such people are in the minority and I’ll address their position some other time).
So when does human life begin? Personally, I think it’s clear that life begins at conception. I think that this position can be defended both scientifically and philosophically since, from conception onward, you have a distinct, growing, human organism with its own unique DNA. However, for the sake of this post I’m going to set aside my own position…
Differing Pro-Choice Opinions
You see, not everyone holds to my opinion (I know, who’d have thought it?!). The thing is that among those who would identify themselves as “pro-choice”, there are a vast range of opinions as to when the unborn child can be considered a living human person worthy of protection.
Who’s understanding should we accept? For example, some say that the child is only human after certain organs have formed. Some people point to the moment when the heart starts to beat. Others say the child should only be considered worthy of protection once brainwaves are discernible, and still others withhold protection for the unborn until the child is viable outside of the womb. Still more readily admit that they just don’t know…
Given this cacophony of opinions, we can establish that, among those who identify themselves as pro-choice, there is no consensus as to the moment from which the unborn child should be recognized be a human person and be deemed worthy of protection.
I think the uncertainty on the side of pro-choice advocates is a powerful argument against the legalization of abortion. If one is not sure when life begins, then it must be admitted that there is, at least the possibility, that abortion results in the death of an innocent human person and is therefore immoral.
Continuing the series of posts on the subject of abortion, I would like to discuss a strategy which you might consider adopting when talking about abortion with those who are pro-choice.
Types of Objection
I would suggest that, when we’re talking about abortion, the discussion really needs to focus on the unborn themselves. What actually are they? In the process of having an abortion, what exactly is being killed?
You see, when pro-choice advocates object to the pro-life position, their objections fall into one of two categories:
1. On-topic Objections
These objections are fetus-focussed. For example, if someone says “It’s just a clump of cells”, their objection is on-topic and allows us to discuss the central issue: the unborn child.
2. Off-topic Objections
These objections relate to some peripheral issue and don’t concern the unborn themselves. For example, these following arguments are sometimes given in favour of abortion:
(a) “The world is overpopulated”
(b) “Raising a child is extremely expensive”
(c) “Not all children will have a stable home life”
(d) …
All of these objections are off-topic.
With regards to the off-topic objections, pro-lifers and pro-choicers will, by and large, agree that the problem being raised does need to be addressed by society. For example, both groups want to see poverty eradicated, vulnerable women protected, children born into stable, nurturing homes. However, the difference is those who are pro-life don’t think that the problem raised is sufficient justification for the killing of a defenseless, innocent life.
The March For Life in Washington DC is quickly approaching, so for the next week or so I’m going to be posting exclusively on the subject abortion, even dispensing with some of my “regularly scheduled programming”, such as Music Monday and Friday Frivolity.
To kick off this series of posts, here’s a video of Catholic Apologist Trent Horn speaking with Dr. Malcolm Potts on “Issues on Reproduction”:
(Unfortunately, the audio quality isn’t good, but the content is great)
Picking up from where we left off 
