20 Best Pro-Life Arguments That Destroy Pro-Choice Arguments (2024)

February 29, 2020 35 Comments

Welcome to your ONE-STOP shop of DEBUNKING pro-choice myths.

Is abortion legal? WELL, we just found out that Roe vs Wade (Roe v Wade) has been overturned. So, with Roe v. Wade overturned, what does that mean?

Is abortion still legal? In many instances yes - now it's just up to the states to decide whether its legal or not. Is abortion murder, however?  Again, I say yes.

In the argument on abortion pro-life advocates are crying out for the lives of the unborn, as there are close to a million abortions per year in the U.S. (about 876,000 according to this article).

In this blog post, we will go over the 20 MOST COMMON PRO-CHOICE arguments, and we will dismantle them, one by one.

Again, these are the BEST pro life arguments that destroy the BEST pro choice arguments.

Our primary goal is not to sell you pro-life t-shirts (those pro-life shirts will one day fade), but we want you to be educated in your mind with a great pro life argument that will never fade.

Most of these good pro life arguments can be found in the PRO LIFE classic, "Politically Correct Death", by Dr. Francis J. Beckwith, so I highly recommend this book for further reading on destroying "good pro choice arguments".

Before we get started with these arguments for pro life, let's just get one thing out of the way first:

A BABY IN-UTERO (IN THE UTERUS) IS FULLY HUMAN

Let that statement start the pro life-pro choice debate!

Here is a quick lesson of abortion news that Dr. Beckwith talks about in his book, explaining WHY a baby is FULLY-HUMAN at conception (the list is below if you wish to skip ahead).

Fertilization occurs when the male sperm and female ovum unite.

What results is an entity called a zygote (pictured below), a one-celled biological entity, a stage of development through which each of us has passed (just as we ALL have passed through infancy, childhood and adolescence).

Both ovum and sperm, which are genetically EACH a part of its owner, cease to exist at the moment of conception, and a new entity (the zygote) is born.

 

The zygote fulfills the 4 criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

The zygote is a product of HUMAN parents, thus human.

ALSO, resulting from the union of the female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male sperm (23 chromosomes), the conceptus is a new, although tiny, individual with its own genetic code (46 chromosomes), a code that is neither his mothers nor his fathers.

From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity an individual human.

AGAIN, his genetic makeup is established at conception, determining to a great extent his own individual physical characteristics - gender, eye color, bone structure, hair color, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases, etc.

So at conception, the genotype - the inherited characteristics of an individual human being - is established and will remain in force for the entire life of this individual.

The unborn individual, sharing the same nature of all human beings, is unlike any individual who has been conceived before and is unlike any individual who will ever be conceived again (unless identical twins).

The only thing necessary for the growth and development of this human organism, as with the rest of us, is oxygen, food and water, since this organism, like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent, needs only to develop in accordance with his already-designed nature that is present at conception.

THAT is the prolife position, and it is being shared by pro-life organizations throughout the world, like Students for Life and National Right to Life.

If it is wrong to kill a 3-month-old baby who has been born (and that's actually a big IF for some people), why is it all right to kill the same being 4 months earlier?

He is only less mature than he would be right before he is born in terms of development, dependency, and size; considerations that are NOT morally relevant when it comes to the right of born people.

A 2-year-old does not have a lesser right to life than an adult simply because he differs from the adult in terms of development, dependency and size.

Furthermore, doctors say that a single thread of DNA from a human cell contains the information equivalent to 600,000 printed PAGES (with 500 words per page), or a library of 1,000 volumes of specific genetic information, all available right there at conception.

The stored knowledge, at conception, in the new individual's library of instruction is 50 times more than that contained in the Encyclopedia Brittanica full set. 

All of that information inside just one strand of DNA from that small conceptus.

A person did not come from a zygote, she once was a zygote; she did not come from an embryo, she was an embryo; she did not come from a fetus, she was a fetus (late term abortion); she did not come from an adolescent, she was an adolescent.

Are you seeing the point?

In Conclusion

The pro-life advocate believes that full humanness begins at conception for at least 4 reasons (from pg. 45 of Dr. Beckwith's book which covers these abortion statistics):

1. At the moment of conception a separate human individual, with its own genetic code and needing only food, water, shelter, and oxygen (just like us) in order to grow and develop, comes into existence.
2. Like the infant, the child, and the adolescent, the conceptus is a being who is in the process of becoming.
3. The conceptus is the sexual product of human parents, and a developing conceptus that is the sexual product of members of a particular mammalian species is ITSELF an individual member of that species.
4. The same being that begins as a zygote continues to birth and adulthood.

We will show you why many advocate for an abortion ban.

 

OK, NOW let's get into the list

Here are the 20 Best Pro-Life Arguments That Destroy Pro-Choice Arguments!

If you want to skip ahead, here is a Table of Contents:

  

• 1. Women should have the right to choose.
• 2. My Body, My Choice
• 3. It is between a woman and her doctor.
• 4. No one knows when life really begins.
• 5. You can't force a woman to be pregnant.
• 6. Cases of rape and incest
• 7. Unless you are going to support/adopt the baby, you have no say.
• 8. The unborn is not even a baby yet.
• 9. Men shouldn't have opinions on abortion.
• 10. Women would die from back-alley abortions if you made them illegal
• 11. Since abortions will occur regardless, we should keep it legal so women can get medically safe abortions
• 12. Disabled children won't have good lives, so they should be aborted
• 13. Children who are not wanted by their parents are being set up for a life of failure
• 14. If their parents don't want them, they will most likely be abused after they are born
• 15. For career-minded women, they need abortion to fall back on
• 16. I am personally against abortion, but I don't object if a woman feels it is right for her
• 17. Pro-lifers should stop trying to force their morality on others
• 18. Aren't pro-lifers inconsistent if they support capital punishment
• 19. The unborn becomes fully human only after it takes on the appearance of a human
• 20. Abortion is legal, so why are you trying to prevent it?

1. Women should have the right to choose

• Quick answer: Choose what? Do women have the right to choose anything that has to do with their bodies? Can women flail their bodies or arms around and hit people?

• Further information: What are you choosing to do exactly? We established above that the unborn is a human, so the answer then is that you do NOT have the right to CHOOSE to murder another human being; we don't need another aborted baby.
• Let's get into more detail with the next myth, "My Body, My Choice".

2. My Body, My Choice 

• Quick answer: You cannot always just do what you want with your OWN body.  As indicated above, you can't just flail your body around if it starts hitting people.
• There are already laws on the books prohibiting how you use your body, including prostitution, and suicide.  Are THESE LAWS wrong as well?
• Also, the baby's body is actually separate.  The baby has a different heart beating, different arms, legs and other body parts.  

• Further information: The conceptus, or zygote, is a genetically distinct entity with its own individual gender, blood type, bone structure, and genetic code. 
• Again, to say that the unborn entity is part of her mother is to claim that the mother possesses 4 legs, 2 heads, 2 noses, and with the case of a male fetus, a few reproductive organs women don't "usually" possess.
• If you put a petri-dish, or test-tube baby (conceptus) with WHITE parents into a BLACK mother, the BLACK mother will birth a WHITE baby.  Therefore, it is NOT the mother's body, but a separate entity.

• Again, you cannot just do WHATEVER you want with your own body, especially if it interferes with another person who also has rights.
• Smoking is another example of this.  Since the NON-SMOKER has a personal right over his own body, and he chooses NOT to fill it with nicotine, the SMOKER'S personal right to smoke and fill his own body with nicotine is LIMITED by the NON-SMOKER'S personal right to remain healthy. 
• As we have shown that the conceptus is a person (at a different stage of development), the same rights exist for him or her.

If You Enjoy This Blog Post, You Might Like Our Post, "Transgender Truth - What They Don't Want You To Know".

3. It is between a woman and her doctor.  The medical abortion procedure decision is a very private and intimate one which should be kept between a woman, her physician, and her family.

• Quick answer: A woman can have an abortion performed by a physician she met 30 seconds ago; no law requires that it be performed by her regular physician.
• Further information: And legally, she is not obligated to either inform or receive consent from any family member, including in most cases, her husband.
• And if the unborn IS FULLY-HUMAN, who cares how intimate or private a decision is? The question is whether or not the child has protection from murder.
• Killing a child, in the most intimate and private of settings, is STILL EVIL!
• And if the unborn is NOT fully human, then her death is of little moral significance, whether or not it is performed in the MOST intimate and private of settings (privacy and intimacy are irrelevant).
• It is actually THE MOTHER that violates any sort of intimate and private setting toward the baby, who is defenseless, nestled and hopes to be protected in the womb.

LEARN THESE ARGUMENTS IN A FAST AND FUN WAY WITH THE FIRST EVER CHRISTIAN EDUCATION/ APOLOGETICS BOARD GAME.

4. No one knows when life really begins.

• Quick answer: THE QUESTION IS INVALID.  Pro-choice individuals have already defined when life begins (by murdering everything before birth), so they can’t claim that “no one knows when life begins”.
• Pro-life individuals have defined when life begins, too (at conception). (If you’re not sure if there’s someone living in the school, don’t blow up the school).

• Further information: Ignorance of a being's status is NOT justification to kill it (again, benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life).

5. You can't force a woman to be pregnant.  The Pro-Life position is like compulsory pregnancy.

• Quick answer: No one is forcing anybody; the woman is already pregnant.
• Furthermore, a law that forbids the brutal victimizing of another person is inherently a JUST law, whether the victim is an unborn child, adult woman, a youngster, or a person of another race.
• Further information: Can you imagine a father or a mother arguing that he or she is not obligated to obey child-support laws because they are “the same as advocating compulsory parenthood?"
• A rapist could argue on the same grounds and conclude that laws against rape are “the same as advocating for compulsory chastity”.
• In cases of rape (less than 1%), rapists force women to be pregnant, not pro-lifers.
• The question is NOT whether or not she can be forced to be pregnant (SHE IS ALREADY PREGNANT).  The question is whether or not she has the right to END her pregnancy by killing the child inside of her womb.
• In most cases, a woman chose to have sex (or chose to be drunk/impaired, then have sex), which naturally leads to pregnancy. Again, the woman is ALREADY pregnant.

Here is a "spoken word" piece, that goes over all this information quickly, in musical form.

6. What about in cases of rape and incest?

• Quick answer: Less than 1% of abortions are performed to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

• Do you (pro-choice advocates) want to limit abortion to only cases of rape and incest? Most likely not.
• Further information: Rape is evil for the same reason abortion is evil: an innocent human being is brutally violated and dehumanized.
• Should we be able to murder a 2-year-old if it was born as a consequence of rape or incest?
• To argue for abortion on demand (at any time) from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital.

• Proving an exception (even if it were granted) DOES NOT prove a general rule.
• However, keep in mind again, the rapist is the aggressor, the unborn is just as innocent as the mother.
• Further, an abortion will NOT change the fact that the woman was raped. 
• Aside from its moral shortcomings, the argument from rape and incest makes the questionable factual assumption that abortion is the only or best way a pregnant woman can be relieved of the trauma and violation of rape.

7. Unless you are going to take care of the baby, you cannot be against abortions.

• Quick answer: This statement would be similar to asking:
• Are you against pedophilia? If so, how many molested boys have you adopted?
• Are you against wife-beating? If so, how many abused women have you taken into your homes?

• Further information: As moral human beings, we have the right and responsibility to protect the innocent, but just because someone can’t take in all unwanted children doesn’t mean that the children should be aborted.
• In the same way, just because you can’t house every abused woman doesn’t mean that women should be beaten.
• By illegitimately shifting the discussion from the morality of abortion to whether one has a "solution" to certain social problems, the abortion-rights advocate avoids the point under question.
• There is a fundamental difference between 'eliminating a problem' and 'finding a solution'.  

8. The unborn is not even a baby yet.

• Quick answer: As stated above, the zygote (at conception) fulfills the 4 criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction (in terms of twinning).
• Further information: The conceptus is a new, although tiny, individual with its own genetic code, a code that is neither his mothers nor his fathers.
• His genetic makeup is established at conception, determining to a great extent his own genetic individual physical characteristics - gender, eye color, bone structure, hair color, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases, etc.
• The unborn individual, sharing the same nature of all human beings, is unlike any individual who has been conceived before and is unlike any individual who will ever be conceived again (unless identical twins).
• The only thing necessary for the growth and development of this human organism, as with the rest of us, is oxygen, food and water, since this organism, like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent, needs only to develop in accordance with his already-designed nature that is present at conception.

 

If You Enjoy This Blog Post, You Might Like Our Post, "Homosexuality and the Bible - What God's Word Actually Says".

9. Men shouldn't have opinions on abortion.

• Quick answer: If this is true, then women can’t be against pedophilia and molestation of boys. Apparently, these male-centered crimes have nothing to do with them.

• Further information: We would have to reject the Roe v. Wade policy, because it was arrived at by 9 men.
• Mothers could never rightfully consent to having their baby boys circumcised.  
• Arguments don't have sexual reproductive organs, people do.
• The arguments must be dealt with regardless of whether I am a man or a woman.
• Pro-life women throughout the world are aware of this.

Here is a "spoken word" piece, from the Pro-Life Music Album that goes over all this information quickly, in musical form.

10. Women would die from back-alley abortions if you made abortions illegal.

• Quick answer: Sometimes when murderers are killing people, the murderer gets hurt or killed in the process. Should we make murdering legal so that the murderers don't get hurt or die?
• Sometimes when robbing a bank, a thief might get hurt.  Should we legalize robbery so the thieves are OK?
• Further information: No, that’s ridiculous. The goal should be to stop the first murderer before they start killing. That way they won’t get hurt/killed or kill anyone else in the process.
• Furthermore, the question is assuming that the unborn is not fully human, which we have shown to be false (above).
• And if they are human, then they deserve the same protections to life that we all have.

11. Since abortions will occur regardless of whether it is legal or not, we should keep it legal so women can get medically safe abortions.

• Quick answer: First of all, you are assuming that the unborn is NOT fully human (refuted above).
• Heroin is illegal. People die from dirty needles. Should we make heroin legal so that people can get medically safe needles?
• Further information: This doesn’t solve the problem of drugs. It just makes drugs easier to find and use.
• In the same way, making abortion legal didn’t solve the problem of murder, it just made murder safer and easier to do.
• Also, you are assuming that all these women will break the law.  If it's illegal, why would they still do it?
• If the point of this statement is to say that the law cannot stop ALL abortions, it is quite a trivial claim, for this is true of ALL LAWS which forbid evil acts.

12. Children with disabilities won't have good lives, so they should be aborted.

• Quick answer: Are you saying that it is impossible for someone born with a disability to have a good life?  Is it better if we just killed all the disabled people?
• Further information: Have you met and asked every disabled person whether or not they had a good life or were happy to be alive? If not, you cannot assume that just because someone is disabled, they won’t have a “good life” or want to be alive at all for that matter.
• It is amazingly presumptuous of us to say that certain human beings are better off not existing just because they have a disability.
• The question is not whether a particular unborn entity is physically or mentally handicapped, but whether it is fully human and deserving of all rights of a human.
• Are not ALL handicapped adults still human?  The same with smaller people. Disability should not dictate whether or not someone has a right to live. If they are a person, they should have the right to live.

13. Children who are not wanted by their parents are being set up for a life of failure.

• Quick answer: Children are dependent on their parents for love and support up until the age of 18. If the parents of a 2-year-old girl decide that they don’t want her anymore, would it be OK for them to kill her? Obviously not.

• Further information: What about a 4-year-old? Is it MORE wrong to kill a 4-year-old because she is more mature?
• What about a 1-year-old? Is it LESS wrong to kill a 1-year-old because she is less mature?
• Regardless of the age a child is, it is wrong for her parents to kill her. If her parents don’t want her, the logical solutions are:

1. Go to counseling/parenting classes.
2. Enlist help from family.
3. As a last resort, put him/her up for adoption.

• In no case is the “best option” for her to be killed.
• Only by assuming that unborn children are not fully human does this argument work. If the unborn are fully human, then to execute them would be much worse than not being wanted.
• You wouldn’t kill a homeless person just because no one wants them.  They have inherent value as human beings.

14.If their parents don't want them, they will most likely be abused after they are born.

 

• Quick answer: There is no evidence that unwanted pregnancy produces child abuse.  One study claimed that 90% of battered children were wanted children.
• Further information: Abortion on demand has been legal in America for decades, and yet reports of child abuse continue to go up.  
• Again, to make this argument, you have to assume that babies in-utero are not human.
• If they ARE human, then killing them would be the WORST form of child abuse.
• FINALLY, why is it better to be killed than beaten?

15. For CAREER-MINDED women, a woman needs abortion (if her contraception fails) to fall back on, or she won't be able to advance in the labor force.

• Quick answer: What would we think of a mother who murdered her two-year-old because he interfered with her ability to advance in her occupation?

• Further information: There are laws preventing the discrimination of women on the basis of pregnancy and maternity leave:
• (https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-preg.cfm)
• If a mother of a 3-year-old girl received a promotion offer, so long as she could work 6 days a week, would it be better for her to hire a nanny or kill her daughter?
• Government assistance is available for mothers who cannot afford daycare. (childcare.gov)
• This is again a question (as most of these are) of whether the unborn are fully-human.

16. I am personally against abortion, but I don't object if a woman believes it is right for HER to have one.

• Quick answer: Why are you against abortion?
• If you believe it kills an innocent human being, why are you okay with other people killing innocent human beings?
• Further information: If someone was killing their 2-year-old in the front lawn, would you object? I hope you would! You should feel the same way toward the unborn.
• If a politician is personally against abortion, shouldn’t he be publicly against permitting it?
• What would we think of the depth of the convictions of an individual who claimed that he was personally against the genocide of a particular race, but if others thought this race was not human, they were certainly welcome to participate in their genocide if they so choose?

17. By attempting to forbid women from having abortions, pro-lifers are forcing their religious morality on others.

• Quick answer: Do you think it’s wrong to force your morality on others?  If so, why are you forcing your morality on pro-lifers? 
• Further information: You believe abortion is a right. They believe abortion is murder. They believe they should defend the innocent who are being murdered. You are preventing them from acting out their own morality. You, therefore, are forcing your morality on them.
• Whether your morality is based in God, or based in there NOT being a God, it is still someone's morality.
• If the unborn entity is fully human, forbidding abortions would be a just thing (since nearly every abortion limits the free agency of another (i.e. the unborn human)).
• Laws against drunk driving, murder, smoking crack, and child molestation are all examples of laws with the intent to impose a particular moral perspective on the free moral agency of others.
• Some abortion-rights advocates do not hesitate to impose their moral perspective on others when they call for the use of other people’s tax dollars (many of whom do not approve of this use of funds) to help pay for the abortions of poor women.
• If the unborn IS fully human, a woman receiving an abortion is imposing her morality upon another.

18.  Aren't Pro-Lifers inconsistent if they support capital punishment?

• Quick answer: It is wrong to take the life of an INNOCENT human person, but the capital offender is NOT innocent; therefore, we are morally justified (if proven guilty of murder in a court of law) in killing them.

• The murder suspect goes through due process to ENSURE that they are guilty. The unborn child does not have this luxury.
• Further information: Pro-life advocates, for the most part, believe that there are legitimate instances in which killing is justified, such as in the cases of self-defense and capital punishment, both of which do NOT entail the taking of an innocent human life.
• Those who do not support abortion but do support capital punishment support the protection of the innocent (abortion) and the killing of the guilty (capital punishment).
• Those who support abortion but do not support capital punishment, on the other hand, support the killing of the innocent (abortion), and protection for the guilty (capital punishment).

19. The unborn becomes fully human only after it begins to take on the appearance of a human.

 

• Quick answer: Mannequins in department stores resemble human beings, and they are not even remotely human.

• Further information: What about when a child is born at 23 weeks old?
• This baby does not look “fully human” yet, but it has all of the components of a human, and no components of another species.
• Yet it is outside the womb. Can the mother kill this baby?
• What about a person whose face or body is deformed? Are they not human and deserving of life?

20. Abortion is legal, so why are you trying to prevent it?

• Quick answer: Just because something is legal does NOT mean it is right.  If the baby in the womb is a human (as we have demonstrated) then it is absolutely wrong to abort them.  
• Further information: Slavery was legal in this country for a while, does that mean it was right?

Let me end here with a story

Once upon a time, there was a small, brick schoolhouse that was going to be completely demolished because the principal and mayor agreed that they didn’t want it there anymore.

While the townspeople stood around, waiting for the dynamite to be lit, murmurs hummed through the crowd and waves of faces became pale and anxious.

Just then, the town seamstress shuffled hurriedly under the protruding elbows of suited businessmen and around the huddled circles of gossiping teens to the rusty fence taped off to the public and shouted to the head contractor as loud as she could, “EXCUSE ME! SIR!”  

After throwing his hands in the air and briskly trekking up the small hill to the small aging woman, he did his best to maintain his composure, since after all, the town’s new mayor was standing a couple rows back.

“Ma’am, we’ve got a deadline. What’s the problem?” asked the contractor in his deep, frustrated southern accent.

“Do you KNOW that no children are in that school?” exclaimed the seamstress, her voice shaking.

“No one knows, ma’am. That’s above my pay grade” he shrugged.

“WHAT?! You mean you’re going to blow up a school, whether or not you know FOR SURE that there is no life in it?” she questioned.

“It’s the principal’s decision. His school. His choice” he replied, losing patience.

The seamstress began to hyperventilate.

Mustering up the her strength, she furrowed her brow, stomped her brown leather loafer on the dirt-packed grass and asserted, “You cannot just – ”

“Hey! Mind your own business, lady. This is a decision between the principal and the mayor. Keep your opinions to yourself!” snapped the contractor.

And with that he shook his head, stomped back down to his control booth, looked back at the old woman, gave a smirk, and lit the dynamite.

Everyone knows very well that this would never happen in real life.

Why?

Because we value life. 

But this analogy gives us a great example of what abortion arguments actually boil down to, and maybe the most important question in this whole blog post.

If we don’t know FOR SURE that the baby inside the womb is alive, why would we destroy it?

 

Just as the seamstress wanted to prevent the school from exploding to protect what could be a child, the pro-life position stands with her against the ones who hold the “ignite button”, too.

People may give thought-provoking reasons as to why someone should be able to have an abortion, but the conversation always comes down to this: Is there a child in the womb or not?

And if you are not 100% sure that the baby in-utero is not a child, don’t blow up the school. Choose life.

If you loved this blog post, you are going to LOVE our blog post, "Pro-Life Survivors - 23 Celebrities Almost Aborted".

Well, now we would like to hear from you. 

Which PRO-CHOICE misconception have you heard most frequently? 

Was it, "My body, my choice," or, "if the child is unwanted, they should be aborted?"

Let us know in the comments section below.

And for more information on the pro-life position or other Christian evidence, sign up for our emails at WelcomeToTruth.com.

 

 

---

35 Responses

Leave a comment

Name *

Email *

Comment *

---

Also in Apologetics