Have you ever noticed that members of the pro-abortion crowd rarely engage directly with arguments opposing their positions? Anyone involved in the abortion debate has probably seen that those supporting the practice do two things when confronted with pro-life arguments: They either lie or deflect. No doubt they have done an excellent job of it over the past few decades, but now that they no longer have the federal covering of Roe v. Wade, we are seeing them use these tactics in earnest when participating in the ongoing conversation on the matter.
Deflection is one of the primary methods pro-abortionists use to deal with arguments against abortion. Indeed, one of the main deflections is the idea that the debate centers on what a woman should or should not be allowed to do with her body. It is why they developed clever mantras like “my body, my choice.” Of course, this principle does not apply when it comes to experimental vaccines – but I digress.
But what most of us know is that the conversation isn’t about the woman’s body, it is about the life growing inside of her when she is pregnant. It is the life that is being snuffed out that is the focal point. If this were a matter of a woman wanting a tattoo or plastic surgery, there would be no issue.
Another ruse is also the pro-abortionists’ contention that pro-lifers are just trying to force their religious views on the rest of the public. This is one of their more ridiculous arguments, given the fact that most of the points pro-lifers make are grounded in science, not Christianity. For people who claim to value science, this is a rather odd claim to make when they could just take our arguments head-on if the science is on their side. I discussed this in a recent podcast episode with pro-life apologist Megan Almon:
But that’s the problem. The science isn’t on their side, so they have to use subterfuge to avoid serious discussions on the matter.
What they are trying to avoid is the answer to a very simple question: What is growing inside of the pregnant mother?
In essence, they have to duck and dodge around the issue of life.
This is why they rely on deception, claiming that the being in the womb is merely a “clump of cells.” You have likely heard that one ad nauseam, right? The reason they make this argument is to convince people that what is developing in the womb is not human – it is not alive. This means it is not worthy of saving. In fact, you’re not saving anything by not allowing a mother to terminate her pregnancy because the “clump” is not actually alive.
What they are hoping people will not discern is that the “clump of cells” argument actually disproves their contention. If it has cells, it is alive. There is no such thing as a living being that does not have cells. There is also no such thing as a non-living thing that does have cells. Being alive means having cells.
If there is a life growing inside of a mother, it makes it more difficult to justify ending that life. This is why they rely on “viability” arguments – if the baby cannot survive outside of the womb, it is not worth saving. But again, this argument is also fatally flawed.
Does this mean that if a woman gives birth to an infant, she should be allowed to kill it if having it is inconvenient? When was the last time you saw an infant grow into an older child without the help of adults? Infants are not capable of getting jobs and making money. They can’t clothe and feed themselves. They are entirely dependent on adults – usually their mothers and fathers. Why are these people not arguing that it is okay to end their lives?
But we already know the answer, don’t we?
It is because there is absolutely no rational way to argue that an infant outside the womb is not deserving of life. They cannot persuade people to believe that this child is not viable enough to preserve.
To be fair, there are those who will argue in favor of abortion while acknowledging that it means ending a life – these are some of the few honest ones on the pro-abortion side. But they are fringe elements, and their views are not popular even among those who favor allowing abortion. The bottom line is that the idea that ending a life for simple convenience is odious to the majority of Americans – which is why most support strict restrictions on the practice.
This is why I wrote previously on why the pro-life movement should be more proactive about going on the offense instead of playing defense. When presented with our arguments – especially when we don’t allow them to frame the discussion, pro-abortionists fall apart like a house of cards. We would do well to remember this.
