With the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, the topic of abortion has been thrust to the forefront of American political discourse. Any time that such an emotionally-charged topic becomes the center of discussion, there will always be appeals to emotions and fallacious arguments utilized to make one’s point.
In this article, I will cover some of these topics and why they are stupid. I will try to be gracious, but I cannot make any promises.
“You’re only pro-birth, not pro-life. If you were then you would care about the children outside of the womb as well.”
Yeah, I can agree with that statement if taken at face value. However, the fundamental problem with this is that it is not based in any sort of factual world at all. As a matter of fact, it finds it origins in a George Carlin bit. So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when the entirety of this argument is a joke.
According to Philanthropy Roundtable, Republicans are twice as likely to donate to charity, even when one considers socio-economic disparities between the two demographics. Why is that? Well, to be quite honest, it has to do with the fact that conservatives are significantly more likely to attend church and do their giving through the congregation. Some will make the argument that this isn’t the same, and I can hear it now:
“The money given to a church just goes to pay a pastor, the building, and all that stuff.”
Yeah…and? What about the Salvation Army? Or United Way? Or literally any other organization? The charitable organizations must have facilities, people to oversee the dispersions of funds, etc. The difference between churches and these other entities is that the local congregation is deeply imbedded and invested in the local community. In fact, local churches have a higher charitable return on the dollar than most nationally recognized charitable organizations.
As a pastor, I cannot tell you how often people come to the church needing gas, food, bills paid, etc. That is one of the services we provide in the community. This isn’t just my congregation. This is every congregation. So yeah, conservatives do the bulk of their charitable contributions to their religious institutions, but that money is in turn dispersed back into their local community.
Furthermore, according to Barna Research, Christians adopt at a rate of 5%. That is 3% higher than the general population.
So, in summary: Conservatives are twice as likely to donate because of their religious affiliation, which is then returned to their immediate community, and Christians are over 2.5x more likely to adopt than the general public.
This isn’t looking good for your “yOuR jUsT pRo-BiRtH” argument.
“Women who have miscarriages will be thrown in jail.”
Now, this one is interesting because at face value it seems stupid, but there have been a couple instances where women who have had a miscarriage have been put in jail. One notable instance of this has to do with a case of an Oklahoma woman named Brittney Poolaw.
In January of 2020, Brittney Poolaw sought treatment for a miscarriage. During the autopsy of the child, it was determined that the child had trace amounts of methamphetamine in their system. The medical examiners report noted that “genetic anomaly, placenta abruption or maternal methamphetamine use could have been contributing factors.”
So, not only is this talking point incredibly misleading, but it also fails to take into account the fact that the child had literal meth in its system…
The instances of women that are jailed for miscarriages are not the result of the laws that restrict abortion. They are the result of what is known as “chemical endangerment” laws. The fact that people are trying to use the death of children at the hands of women who use harmful drugs is astounding. This isn’t like they are eating a pot brownie and watching Scooby-Doo reruns. These women are using heroin, crack, meth, and other such substances.
This isn’t the GOTCHA that you think that it is. You are using women who are addicted to meth and heroin to try to prove your point. This isn’t good…
Furthermore, it is important to note that the term “abortion” is simply a medical term used to note the termination of a pregnancy. That is why a miscarriage is known in the medical community as a “spontaneous abortion” and why a woman walking into Planned Parenthood is having an “elective abortion.” To say that this will criminalize miscarriage because of the terms that are used is the result of emotional fearmongering and doesn’t consider the terminology used by the medical community.
“This will only cause abortions to be performed in a back alley and more people will die…”
This may sound callous, but that isn’t my problem. That is the consequences of someone’s actions. Anyone that would take a metal coat hanger and stick it inside of them is assuming the risk that goes along with it. Whether or not that is to cause an abortion.
“What about rape and incest?”
If I were to walk into a bank and start shooting everyone inside, the punishment would land at my feet, and rightfully so. It would be inhumane to strap my daughter to the electric chair because I did something wrong. That is what we are doing when we punish the child because of the actions of the father. Besides if we executed rapists then this wouldn’t even be an issue. So, let’s work on fixing that law instead of allowing kids to be murdered.
The horror of a child suffering sexual assault is something that is unthinkable. It will undoubtedly cause mental health issues in the lives of those who are affected by it. So will an abortion though. Both sides of this conversation will (or should) agree that abortion will have a negative mental impact on the woman who has one. Why would we add that stress that will likely cause Post-Abortive Post Traumatic Stress Disorder onto a person who has already suffered enough?
Does the manner of a child’s conception make it any less human? Should the actions of the father be atoned for by the child?
We can use emotional arguments all we want but that does not reach at the heart of the problem:
When does a child become a person?
That is the question that we must answer. At what stage of fetal development does that child attain the intrinsic value associated with human life? Not only must we answer that, but we must also answer that consistently.
An example that we need to look at is the case of Laci and Scott Peterson. In 2004, Scott Peterson killed his wife, Laci, who was pregnant with their son, Conner. He was subsequently found guilty of the second-degree murder of his son.
In 2015, Dynel Lane was convicted of the first-degree attempted murder, two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault, and one count of unlawful termination of pregnancy, after she attempted to cut a child from a woman’s womb. The child died. The prosecutors sought a murder charge but were unable to due to Colorado law. However, they were still able to charge her with Second Degree Assault and First-Degree Assault for the harm that she did to the child.
The issue that we see here is that when we hear of these actions, we cannot fathom such evil. Why would these people do these things? In these situations we affirm the value of life of the child that is in the womb. But when we talk about abortion we diminish the value. So, which is it? Is the child valued as a human life or is it not?
That is the fundamental question that we must answer. For one to be consistent, they must either be pro-life, or admit that it is evil to murder outside of the womb for any reason.
You cannot be pro-choice and be consistent.
1 thought on “Pro-Choicers: Here are the Answers to Your Ridiculous Arguments”
Good read 🎯
Ty kindly for sharing.