Three of the Weakest Pro-Choice Arguments You’ll Hear Over and Over Again
With Justice Brett Kavanaugh installed on the high court, watch for the slams against the sanctity of life
With this weekend’s confirmation of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, many abortion advocates across the nation are extremely nervous.
With the conservative-minded Justice Kavanaugh taking his seat on the high court, abortion advocacy groups are terrified that should the topic of abortion come again before the high court, the new 5-4 conservative majority might overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. If anyone was shocked by the screaming protesters, partisan speeches, and organized marches that took place during the Kavanaugh nomination process, think what may transpire if and when the subject of legalized abortion is revisited by the justices.
Over the past two weeks, as the nation pondered the future impact of Justice Kavanaugh’s lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, many left-wing activists seized every opportunity to champion their favorite arguments for abortion.
Here are three of their most popular arguments — and where those arguments go wrong, along with how we refute them with biblical truth.
1.) “Abortions should be permitted as part of a woman’s personal right to privacy.” Abortion advocates have long insisted that what happens inside the womb is a private matter — and no one, not even the federal government, should determine what happens there.
At face value, we do affirm that a woman has reasonable rights over her own body. She has the right to eat and drink and wear what she wants. She has the right not to be abused, assaulted or raped.
But she doesn’t have the moral right to do whatever she wants with her body. She doesn’t have the moral right to tackle another woman on Main Street and steal her purse. Thus, a woman’s rights of body and privacy are not absolute. They are limited by the rights of others not to be acted upon.
A woman does have a right to privacy — but that right is not superior to the right of life of the person inside her womb.
Some say the woman should have the right to decide the baby’s fate, as it is connected to, and part of, her body. But a baby is more than just an appendage. That baby is its own living person, unique and distinct in every way from the mother. While every baby shares some of the same geographic space with its mother, it is not the same essence as the mother.
Each baby has his or her own brain, blood type, heartbeat, fingerprints, and DNA. Examine the child biologically and physiologically, and you will see the many lines that clearly separate baby from mother. Time and again, the Bible affirms that infants in the womb are real people with real lives and real destinies.
Each one is a real person made by God, known by God, and valued by God as unique and important (Psalms 139:13-16).
2.) “Abortions should be permitted because it is inappropriate for government to legislate any particular morality.” The truth is, every government legislates morality because every law is inherently moral. In other words, it is impossible to separate laws from morality. It doesn’t matter whether we’re examining laws from the smallest hamlet to the largest nation; every law has some basic moral component to it.
For instance, most states mandate annual inspections on gasoline pumps. This law protects consumers from greedy retailers bent on stealing. Here is an ordinary law legislating a particular morality.
When abortion advocates claim that government must stay away from issues of morality — that is quite impossible because morality undergirds all law. As one lawyer with the Department of Justice once said, “It is not a question of whether there will be morality, but whose morality and values will be reflected in our law and public policy.”
For the past 1,000 years of western civilization, we have based our laws on the Judeo-Christian worldview of the Bible. That worldview has a morality, and it is a good morality that promotes human flourishing and God’s blessings. Under that morality, innocent children in the womb are protected, families thrive, nations are built, and societies flourish.
3.) “Abortions should be permitted so that parents retain the right to decide on ‘quality of life.'” Abortion advocates maintain that in “hard cases” where the mother’s physical health, mental health, emotional state, or life journey would be adversely affected by a pregnancy, the “quality of life” concern is enough to permit abortion.
Pro-choice advocates appeal often to the “hard cases” impacted by rape, incest, teenage pregnancy, or birth defects. But in reality, only about 1 percent of all abortions are related to these “hard cases.”
Most often, abortions happen when parents-to-be don’t want their current lifestyles to be inconvenienced by a baby.
In contrast, the Bible reminds us that what transpires in the womb is not terrible but tremendous. Even when a child is conceived or born into challenging physical circumstances, he or she is still a miracle of life and a gift from God (Psalms 127:3).
God loves all children, and so should we. Our nation needs to awaken from the madness that chooses “quality of life” over “sanctity of life.”
With his Senate confirmation complete, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will now take his place on the Supreme Court. Pro-abortion supporters will continue their efforts to influence the culture and perhaps even the court with their arguments — while pro-life advocates battle back with biblical morality and common sense.
But in the end, we’re not expecting Justice Kavanaugh to give us the final answer about abortion. That’s because the Judge we answer to does not wear a black robe.
Pastor Ryan Day is senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, where he has served for 19 years.