Since we live in a soundbite, meme-driven generation, here are some soundbite responses to standard pro-abortion talking points, followed by fuller answers for those who want to dig deeper.
“I’m pro-choice.”
Then why not encourage women to seriously consider all their choices and not just abortion?
If you are truly pro-choice, you should advocate that abortion clinics lay out all possible choices for pregnant women, encouraging them to take time and make the best decision for themselves and their baby. And if you are really pro-choice, you should be pro-intelligent choice, which means looking at ultrasounds and thinking through all your options. And you should actively support pregnancy crisis centers that exist to give women choices other than adoption.
Women who used to work at Planned Parenthood clinics testify that they were put under pressure to meet quotas, like salesmen closing a deal, since abortions bring in so much income. Do you think that is fair to the mother (and her baby)?
“My body, my choice.”
What about the other person’s body inside of your body? Your choice is robbing them of having a chance.
And when it comes to our bodies, do we have the legal right to hire a doctor to cut off a perfectly healthy limb? A doctor could go to jail for amputating a healthy arm or leg. Why, then, should anyone have the legal right to terminate a perfectly healthy baby living inside the womb? (Abortions performed on babies believed to have serious health defects make up the tiniest percentage of abortions, meaning that nearly all abortions are performed on healthy babies.)
“What about rape and incest?”
That’s a great question, but can we focus on the 98+ percent of abortions that do not involve rape or incest?
In reality, abortions for rape or incest count for less than 2 percent of all abortions (likely even less than 1 percent). So, do you agree with me that those should be illegal? And even in cases of rape and incest, if you agree that there is a human being inside your womb, whatever the cause, should that baby now be a victim too?
“I have a Constitutional right to abortion.”
I’ve got a Constitution handy. Could you show me where in the Constitution you have that right?
Even the pro-abortion Women’s Center website, which first states that “there is no clear answer when it comes to whether or not the right to an abortion is a constitutional right,” follows that sentence with this: “The right to an abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution.” Precisely so.
As noted on the pro-life Human Life International site, “Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as such under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it as a ‘living document,’ as ‘progressives’ like to call it.”
In the words of Brian Clowes, Ph.D., “the Supreme Court literally conjured [the right to abortion] out of thin air.”
“Abortion should be safe and legal.”
Safe and legal for whom? Abortion is a death sentence for the baby.
Since there is no Constitutional right to abortion, and since many legal experts, including liberal lawyers, recognized that Roe went too far, where is it written that abortion should be safe and legal? Just because people say this is true doesn’t make it so.
And if you can make abortion safe for the baby, which is often ripped up alive in the womb before being sucked out, then let me know.
“This is all about male control.”
On the contrary, many pro-life leaders are women, while men pressure many women to get abortions.
Some of the best-known pro-life leaders have been (and are) women, like Phyllis Schafly, Abby Johnson, Vicki Thorn, Alveda King, and Lila Rose. And among the three Supreme Court justices appointed by President Trump, it is probably Amy Coney-Barrett who is the most staunchly pro-life. As Bill Maher recently said, “I learned most people who are pro-life are women.”
“This is yet another white attack on poor black women.”
Actually, we’re working to stop the black genocide since a disproportionate percentage of black babies are aborted.
The truth be told, the ones taking advantage of poor black women are the abortion clinics which stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars should they lose the business of poor black women, subsidized by the government.
The most dangerous place for a black female today is her mother’s womb. Do you feel that is right and good for black Americans?
“Abortion is often an act of mercy to save a severely disabled fetus from terrible suffering.”
By your logic, wouldn’t it be an act of mercy to kill that baby after birth?
Doesn’t your argument also justify euthanizing severely disabled babies and children, especially those suffering terribly? And is it only the healthy and strong who get to live or have a purpose or meaning in their lives? As for the number of abortions performed because of health concerns for the baby, it is well under 1 percent.
There’s a difference between a clump of cells and a baby.
A clump of cells does not have a beating heart or a detailed, totally personalized DNA coding.
Every human being, including you and me, began as what looks like a clump of cells. (The word “embryo,” describing the first stage of the baby’s life, speaks of the “embryonic” development of a human being.) But does a “clump of cells” have a detectable heartbeat? A baby does, within several weeks of conception. As one pro-life website pointed out, “Between conception and birth, the heart beats approximately 54 million times!” And does a “clump of cells” have its own unique DNA? A baby does early in the first trimester.
What if the mother’s life is in danger?
We are pro-life, which means that every effort is made to save both mother and child.
Today, there are hardly any medical situations where performing an abortion will save the mother’s life. As noted already in 1967 by pro-abortion leader Dr. Alan Guttmacher, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
That’s why, in 1980, former Surgeon General Dr. Everett Koop could say, “Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. . . . If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature and perhaps immature depending on the length of gestation. Because it has suddenly been taken out of the protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
This is a fetus, not a baby.
If you plan to abort the unborn child, you call it a fetus. If you plan to keep the unborn child, you call it a baby.
Be honest. If you welcomed or planned the pregnancy, wouldn’t you call the unborn child a baby as soon as you found out you were pregnant? Wouldn’t you say, “We’re having a girl” (or, boy)? Wouldn’t you tell your friends, “Look at my baby bump” rather than “my fetus bump”? Wouldn’t you say, “The baby just kicked!” rather than, “The fetus just kicked!”? And wouldn’t you talk to your baby – in the womb – and give it a name? Why is it that babies you want to keep are babies while babies you want to abort are fetuses?
The American people do not want Roe overturned.
Then let the people decide.
Overturning Roe puts the decision back in the hands of the people you and I elect to office in the states in which we live.
As for the polling data that indicates that most Americans do not want Roe overturned, is that data really accurate? Most Americans think that overturning Roe means outlawing all abortions nationwide. Once they understand that this would just push this decision back to the states, their attitudes are different.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.