The Pro-Choice Fallacy

by | Oct 18, 2019 | Church, Health, Questions, Society

Very recently on social media, I was debating someone about abortion and while it was a very respectful debate, one thing came to mind as this was happening. What came to mind is that the entire pro-choice argument has changed over time, while being careful not to use the word “progressed”.

As the arguments are debunked by the pro-life movement, most especially the science aspect of it, the next argument of the decade arises that is completely out of left-field compared to the previous one. This effectively leaves pro-choice individuals with an interesting predicament because in one instance, the pseudo-logic behind protecting the health of the mother will be completely abandoned once challenged and then the next argument of the negative social impact of keeping an unwanted child will be presented. Almost as if arguments are being thrown against the wall in the hopes that one will stick.

All the while, the pro-life person may be wondering at what point the far-reaching topic of greenhouse gases will somehow be used as a point of contention in favor of aborting the child.

Near the end of my particular debate, this individual seemed to throw their hands in the air and provide a website that is supposedly the end-all of any possible hopes for any pro-life advocate. This is the website that I would like to break down because I believe it sums up everything the left throws at the right and for the sake of time and length, only a few points will be discussed and certain portions of it will also be condensed. The article can be found here: How to argue pro-choice: 11 arguments against abortion access, debunked

Pro-life argument: A fetus is a human being, and human beings have the right to life, so abortion is murder

Pro-choice argument: A fetus can’t survive on its own. The “right to life” doesn’t imply a right to use somebody else’s body. Bearing a child is always a threat to the life of the mother. A “right to life is, at the end of the day, a right not to have somebody else’s will imposed upon your body.

The first human cell formed is called a zygote. This zygote carries its own DNA apart from the mother and this DNA includes a set design of instructions that guides how the child will form both physically and mentally. Several scientists have even stated that this first cell qualifies as biologically alive because it contains the four criteria for life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction.

Nevertheless, the tired old “a fetus can’t survive on its own” holds no merit because an infant also cannot survive on its own. By this logic, an infant is fair game for termination as well. It’s always astonished me how pro-choice advocates have legitimately convinced themselves that one of the biggest merits to their argument is that a developing, vulnerable human being is a biological and civil rights threat to its own mother.

Contrary to this argument, the right to the life of a child is always intrinsically a fundamental right and placing stipulations on that right, loses its designation as a right to begin with. When a society starts placing barriers on a child’s right to life for any reason whatsoever, but most especially under the arrogant façade that there is just too much concern for a woman’s civil rights as well as the undue burden that this child will place on the world, then that society is moving in a direction that is pompous and evil. Furthermore, when, in today’s modern medicine, is bearing a child “always” a threat to the mother?

Pro-life argument: If a woman is willing to have sex, she’s knowingly taking the risk of getting pregnant and should be responsible for her actions.

Pro-choice argument: If a mother knows she won’t be able to provide for her child, it’s actually more responsible to have an abortion. If you think getting an abortion is avoiding responsibility then it sounds like you’re dictating what a woman’s purpose is and less like you’re making an argument about the child. No contraception is 100% effective. Presumably, you oppose abortions even in cases where contraception fails (and it does sometimes fail, even when used perfectly). If that’s true, you’re saying that, by merely choosing to have sex — with or without a condom — a woman becomes responsible for having a child. And that’s a belief that has everything to do with judging a woman’s behavior, and nothing to do with the value of life.

Here’s a completely radical, wild, and outrageous idea. How about avoiding sex entirely until both people are married? The pro-choice argument always, nauseatingly drones on about the crime of imposing on women’s rights, as if to guilt trip any pro-life person into retreating for fear of coming off as a misogynist. Yet, the objectivity remains the same despite the accusation of “judging” and that’s the fact that abortion is still ending a human life, regardless of whose feelings are hurt.

I am a male in my 30’s as I write this and I possess a physical strength that may likely be stronger than a woman’s. Yet, this doesn’t grant me the moral authority to do what I want with this strength simply because it’s my body. The laws govern my actions regardless of my gender and even if it did not, simply doing what I want and shrouding this with “my body” and “civil rights” adds no merit to the ethics of my actions.

This individual on social media stated and I quote “I have used birth control for so long and for the life of me I can’t prevent pregnancy and have to have access to abortions. Do you have a solution then?” This is like saying “I like to jump off into the Grand Canyon and wear as much padding on my body as I possibly can. Yet, I can’t seem to prevent my bones from getting broken. Do you have a solution?” Yes, I do. How about not jumping into the Grand Canyon at all? Problem solved.

Pro-life argument: But I’m ok with abortions in cases of rape

Pro-choice argument: Why only in this case? Are the lives of children who were conceived in rape worth less than the lives of children who were willfully conceived?

First off, no real, devoted pro-life person would say this if they truly believe that the child is a life from conception. However, according to the pro-choice stance, the answer is yes, this child is worth less. Interesting that this argument is simply put out there only for the sheer purpose of arguing against the pro-life person but ultimately ends up disproving its own pro-choice merit.

Pro-life argument: Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion

Pro-choice argument: Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34.

So now abortion is being justified because of a high price-tag. The cost of one human being living a full life is extraordinarily high, and so by this logic, it sounds as if humanity doesn’t even deserve to live due to our expensive nature. Furthermore, this statistic from the National Vital Statistics Report is used exhaustively to express the dangers of pregnancy.

The problem with this? It’s completely taken out of context. The age range of 20 to 34 isn’t even cited in this study but rather 20-24 and 25-34. Indeed, the study cites all races, all females ages 25-34 as pregnancy being the 6th leading cause of death. However, while “sixth most common cause of death for women” sounds incredibly high, the author of the pro-choice website I’m quoting takes this out of context. First, the report states in its introduction that ranking cause of deaths is incredibly arbitrary and no standard of reporting is established for it. Secondly, for argument’s sake, while sixth place seems high, the actual percentage of total deaths comes in at under 2%. Hardly the epidemic of mortality that this is made out to be. Never take a pro-choice advocate’s cherry-picked research at face value.

For the sake of time, we will limit these arguments to this. However, one can see that there is a very common progression in the pro-choice logic and it is summed up as such:

The fetus is not a life –> Yes it is, here’s the science explaining why –> Ok, but don’t you dare dictate what a woman can and can’t do with her body –> It doesn’t matter whose body it is, evil is evil –> Well, kids are expensive and could lead a miserable life –> There’s no price-tag on life –> Fine, here’s a study that agrees with me –> You didn’t read it in context –> The fetus isn’t a life to begin with…

And the cycle repeats itself. The most recent invention concocted by the pro-choice movement in hopes that it will stick?

Pro-lifers are hypocrites because they preach about saving fetuses but don’t care about anything that happens after they are born. Will they adopt them? This is just being pro-birth, not pro-life. Poor child will live in poverty.”

This is yet another tactic to blind people from seeing the truth with a blanket of guilt and also under the smokescreen that the pro-choice advocate cares so deeply about the wellbeing of society that they are just beside themselves that anyone could selfishly not terminate.

Let’s say that there is a homeless man living in a park who is about to have his life taken by someone else. I have the ability to intervene in order to stop this from happening. If I do, will I take in this man and provide him with food and shelter and take him into my home so as to make sure that he always has shelter until he gets on his feet financially? Truthfully, with a family of my own and a responsibility to the safety and financial wellbeing of my child, probably not. But does this mean that I should allow the man to be shot and killed because I won’t take him in? The pro-choice logic and argument would be yes, I should let this man die just because I don’t have a long-term solution for his life and I’m selfishly saving what will be a burden to society.

When you strip away all of the ever-changing deceitful guilt-trips of women’s rights, judgment, price-tags, health, and blame, you will always be left with the same objective stance on abortion: it is evil and no amount of rationale can ever justify it.

Patrick Hernandez

Patrick is married to his wife Allison and together they have one boy named Luke. He has a Masters degree in Finance as well as a second Masters in Information Technology, both from Colorado Technical University. He has worked for Agape Catholic Ministries since early 2017. In his spare time, Patrick enjoys hiking, fishing, and cheering on both the Denver Broncos and the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame.


Share This