COMMON-SENSE ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS FOR
ABORTION
by Dr. Norman L. Geisler
Abortion is the number-one
killer in the
·
How do we
know when human life begins?
·
Doesn’t the
mother have the right to control her own body?
·
The unborn
baby is not really human until it is born, right?
·
Unborn babies
are not conscious beings, are they?
·
Doesn’t every
child have a right to a meaningful life?
·
Isn’t it
better to have an aborted child than to have an abused one?
·
If we don’t
stop overpopulation, won’t we all starve?
·
But isn’t
pro-life legislating morality?
·
What about
mentally retarded children?
·
Why should a
rape victim be forced to bear a child she did not will to have?
·
People are
going to have abortions anyway, so why not keep them legal?
·
Isn’t
pro-life projecting one’s morality on others?
·
Isn’t
abortion the solution to unwanted pregnancies?
·
Why allow an
unwanted baby to be born?
Answer: If
no one knows when life begins, it might begin at conception. If it does begin
at that point, then abortion is murder. Can we justify killing what might be a
human being? Should we shoot at a moving object in the woods if we are not sure
whether or not it is human? Then neither should we kill babies if we are not
sure they are not human.
Actually, we do know when
human life begins. It begins at conception. A sperm, with just its 23
chromosomes, is not a human being; nor is an ovum, with its 23 chromosomes. But
when they unite into one entity with 46 chromosomes, the result is a human
being. This is a medical fact. Genetically, the fertilized ovum is a human
being, with its own lifelong, characteristic code and identity. From this point
on, it is simply a matter of its growth, not of its kind.
By the seventh day of its
life, it is planted in the uterus, its home for the next nine months. By day
17, the blood cells and the heart are formed. By day 24, there is a heartbeat.
By day 30, it has grown 10,000 times its original size and has millions of
cells. By six weeks, its nervous system is controlling its own body. It now
looks distinctly human. By day 45, it has its own brain waves, which it will
keep for life. By seven weeks, it has all the internal organs of an adult
(though it weighs only one-thirtieth of an ounce and is less than one inch
long.) By eight weeks, all external organs are formed. By nine to ten weeks, it
can drink and breathe amniotic fluid. From here on, it is just a matter of
growth. Before it is born, it can suck its thumb, cry (if it had air), and
recognize its mother’s voice and heartbeat. In short, it is a tiny, growing
human being.
Answer:
First of all, a baby is not part of its mother’s body. It is an individual
human being, with its own separate body. To be sure, the mother is “feeding”
the inborn baby, but does a mother have the right to stop feeding her baby
after it is born? This would be murder by starvation, and to cut off the source
of life for a preborn baby is also a morally culpable act.
Second, even if the unborn
baby were part of its mother’s body, it would not be true that she has a right
to do just anything she wants to her own body. For example, she does not have a
moral right to mutilate her own body by cutting off a hand or a foot. Nor does
she have a right to kill her own body (commit suicide).
Seldom do abortionists
properly complete the sentence that they so glibly proclaim. “A woman has the
right over her own body. . .” A right to do what? A right to murder? This is nonsense. There is no moral right
to do a moral wrong. But if the unborn baby is a human being, then the
so-called right of the mother turns out to be a “right” to do a wrong: to
murder. Of course, it is absurd to say that a mother (or anyone) has a right to
commit murder.
Answer:
First of all, if it is not human before it is born, then what is it? It is not
a mineral or a vegetable. It is not an animal such as a dog or a monkey. In
fact, it is not an animal at all; it is a human being. Cows give birth to cows;
horses give birth to horses. No medical person has any difficulty identifying
an unborn dog as a dog, or an unborn pig as a pig. Why should there be any
question about an unborn human?
Does this statement mean
they are human only when they change their location and move outside the womb?
Since when does where one lives
determine one’s humanity? The difference between babies that are born and those
that are unborn is not their essential nature; it is simply a matter of size
and location. Accidental or circumstantial characteristics such as size or
place cannot determine whether or not a being is human.
Answer: This
objection assumes that one must have consciousness in order to be human. But if
consciousness determines humanness, then sleeping adults are not human. And if
consciousness is the test for humanness, then whenever someone lapses into a
coma, they instantly lose their humanity. The logical conclusion from this is
that it would never be murder to kill an unconscious person. And so all a
killer need to do to escape murder charges would be just to knock out their
victim before shooting them!
Furthermore, babies in the
womb are conscious. By four to six
weeks after conception, they have their own brain waves, which they will keep
for life. The absence of a brain wave is considered a sign of death; why, then,
is the presence of a brainwave not considered a sign of life? And as early as
three months after conception, babies react to stimuli. They can consciously
sense pressure and pain.
Finally, it is not
consciousness as such that distinguishes a human being from an animal, but
rather self-consciousness. For higher
animals are conscious too. However, self-consciousness does not occur until a
child is about 18 months old. So by abortionist’s logic, the killing of anyone
under the age on 18 months could be considered justifiable “abortion.” (While
this view is not yet widely accepted, some noted scientists are already pushing
for babies not to be given legal status as human beings until they are several
days old. By then, they argue, all the tests for wholeness will have been
completed, and it can be determined whether or not this particular baby should
be allowed to live.)
Answer:
First of all, what are the criteria for a meaningful life, and who decides
whether or not a life is meaningful? This kind of reasoning has already gone so
far that some courts have convicted parents for giving birth to children that
they knew ahead of time, from prenatal tests, would be deformed!
It should be kept in mind
that this same logic leads to the murdering of larger deformed human beings who
live elsewhere (that is, outside the womb.) The logic of abortionists leads
inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia. Even some pro-abortionists (Joseph Felcher, for example) admit that the two issues are
logically tied together. In fact, there would be greater logical justification
for taking the life of someone already known
to be deformed than one which prenatal tests have simply indicated might be.
Answer: In
the first place, this assumes that non-abortion of unwanted babies leads to
abuse. Statistics show just the opposite. Child abuse cases have actually increased as the number of abortions has
gone up. Apparently, the disregard for human life reflected in the acceptance
of abortion is extended from the prebirth to the postbirth attitude toward
offspring.
Second, the objection
assumes wrongly that abortion is not in and of itself a real abuse. Actually,
abortion is one of the worst abuses that can possible be inflicted on a human
being. The abortion process itself is horribly abusive. One common process
tears the tissue of the tiny, defenseless unborn into pieces, by violent
suction; these pieces are then thrown into the garbage can. The D&C method
of abortion uses a sharp instrument to chop the little baby into pieces; it is
then scrapped from the womb and trashed. The saline method replaces the
amniotic fluid surrounding the baby with salt water; the brine into which the
baby is immersed then eats it skin off, and when the baby inhales this salt
water, it burns up from the inside out. This process can scarcely be called
“responsible parenthood,” as pro-abortionists describe it.
Besides the abusive and
cruel manner in which the baby suffers death, there is the further (and final)
abuse of murder itself. Not only is the baby abused in the way it dies, it is
abused in losing the privilege of life itself. In view of this, it is twisted
reasoning which claims that abortion avoids abuse. Abortion is abuse one of the worst abuses of all.
Finally, if we can murder
the unborn to prevent potential abuse, then why not murder the born who are
undergoing actual abuse? Or, to put
it the other way, if we protect the born who are
undergoing child abuse, then should not we all the more protect the unborn, who
are even more defenseless? Abortion is child abuse of the worst kind.
Answer:
Abortionists propound a false dilemma: We must choose between abortion and
overpopulation. There are other alternatives. First, birth control can limit
overpopulation without murder. The real choice is whether to control population
by killing the innocent or without killing them. Here, as elsewhere, an ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Furthermore, starvation is
not the automatic result of increased population. Starvation is not a simple
problem which would automatically disappear if only there were fewer people.
Hunger and poverty have not been eliminated in the
Finally, who would
recommend that we kill all our welfare recipients, just because they cannot
earn the food that they need? Why then, should we take the lives of people that
we think might turn out to be poor?
Those who are poor would be more
likely candidates for our hit list. It is interesting to note that those who
suggest abortion as a means of combating overpopulation,
seldom offer their own lives as a means cutting down the population. They are
glad, however, to offer a sacrifice of innocent and defenseless human beings so
that they themselves will not starve! How noble of them.
Answer:
First of all, if this is so, then we should get rid of all the legislated
morality we now have on the books. We could start by rescinding our
prohibitions against murder, cruelty, theft, child abuse, incest and rape. All
of these are cases of morals being legislated. We could also eliminate
antislavery laws, along with all civil rights laws, for these also legislate moral behavior. It would be clearly wrong to do
so, and few abortionists would suggest that we do away with any of these laws.
If this is the case, then why should we not have laws to protect the moral
rights of the unborn humans.
Further, the present
abortion-on-demand law itself is an instance of morality being legislated. For
it says, in effect, that it is morally right to take the life of an unborn
human being. It is, in fact, impossible (and undesirable) to avoid legislating
morality. The aim of all good legislation should be put into law what is just
and right. And by no stretch of the imagination can it be deemed right to take
away an innocent human being’s right to life. For the right to life is the door
to all other rights. Without life there is no right to anything else.
Finally, changing a law can
help to change public opinion regarding a moral evil. In the
Answer: It
is worth noting that no organization of parents with mentally retarded children
has endorsed abortion on demand. All families I have known with Downs Syndrome
children regard them with real joy because of their capacity for unfeigned
love.
Retarded children are
human, and killing them is killing humans. Just because the unborn are smaller
(and defenseless) does not justify killing them. Again, the logic by which
abortionists justify therapeutic abortions would also justify infanticide.
Let’s take, for example,
two babies born in
Answer: Rape
is one of the worst indignities a person can suffer. One must have great
compassion for rape victims. However, several things must be kept in mind.
First, there is no way to become “unraped.” Becoming “unpregnant” (via
abortion) cannot make one “unraped.” Second, justice cannot be obtained for the
rape victim by punishing the unborn baby resulting from the rape.
Further, two wrongs do not
make a right. It will not help the mother to burden her with the guilt of a
murder on top of the indignity of rape.
It is noteworthy that
conception seldom occurs from rape, so the percentage of babies born of rape is
actually quite small. But the few babies who are conceived by rape also have a right to live.
Who has not been blessed by
the music of that wonderful gospel singer, Ethel Waters? Yet her mother was, at
the age of thirteen, a rape victim. Should we have aborted Ethel? Why should we
punish the innocent product of a rape? Let’s punish the guilty producer of rape
– the rapist!
Answer:
Should we also legalize rape and child abuse, since people are going to do them
anyway? Should we add incest and cruelty to the legal list because people
persist in doing them? Legalizing an evil does not
make it morally right.
Some argue that
anti-abortion laws are as wrong as anti-drinking laws. However, legalized
abortion does not fit into the same category as legalized drinking. First of
all, legalized drinking, does not necessarily involve a crime against another
innocent person. Secondly, legalized drinking does not in itself take the life
of another human being, but abortion does. So what argues against prohibition
does not argue for abortion.
Further, legalizing an
activity does not necessarily curb its abuse. Sometimes it promotes it. Such
has been the case with abortion in the
Answer: If
this is so, then why are the abortionists projecting their morality on the
unborn? They are saying, in effect, “It is my moral belief that you should not
live.” Actually, this is not a projection of morality, but a projection of
immorality. What is needed in the case of abortion is that we do project morality into the situation, because certainly it is better to
project morality than to project immorality. If those who are able to protect
the innocent in this way do not do so, then who will?
Contrary to what the
abortionist says, what our society needs most is a projection of morality.
People need, for example, to project moral concern on others whenever they get
behind the wheel. This would save many lives. In fact, if those who drink would
not drive, this would be a greatly appreciated projection of morality for the
25,000 people who will otherwise fall victim to drunk drivers this year.
What is wrong is not
projecting our moral beliefs on others, but destroying the moral rights of
others, which is precisely what happens with abortion. Someone is taking away
the moral right of the innocent to live.
Answer:
Adoption is a better solution. It is no doubt difficult to give up one’s child
to a stranger, but it is easier than killing it. On the date an aborted child
was due to be born, the mother often suffers depression. This depression
sometimes recurs for years thereafter on that day. Sometimes the feelings are
so strong, the mother becomes suicidal. The fact is,
the baby can be scraped from a mother’s womb a whole lot easier than it can be
removed from her heart.
Some time ago, CBS ran a
program on black-market babies which revealed that some people were willing to
pay up to $40,000 for a healthy baby. This is an indication of the great demand
there is for babies to adopt. The solution to unwanted babies is not abortion,
it is adoption. Most women with unwanted pregnancies only need counseling.
Counseling clinics are the solution, not abortion clinics. We should be helping
mothers, not killing babies.
Answer: First,
there is the assumption here that an unwanted conception will automatically
result in an unwanted baby. Many an unpleasantly surprised mother changes her
mind once the initial shock of her unplanned pregnancy wears off, and she has a
chance to reflect more calmly on the situation. And even more of these
reluctant mothers feel different once their babies are born.
Further, even if the mother
does not want to keep the baby, there are many families out there who cannot
have children, and who do want them. As a matter of fact, there are at present
more people who want children than there are children to want.
Finally, just because we do
not want someone else around does not mean we have a right to kill them. We
should never place our wishes ahead
of others’ rights, especially their
right to life itself.
One can easily see how this
logic of killing unwanted unborn children could be extended to unwanted, deformed
babies, undesired retarded children, and severely ill adults. Hence,
infanticide and euthanasia would follow logically from this reasoning. In fact,
the argument for infanticide of a deformed baby is more compelling, for there
is actual proof that they are deformed, not simply a possibility (or
probability). Some top scientists are already arguing in favor of infanticide
for the deformed. Newsweek (
Let me close by relating
the story of a young girl who learn that she is
pregnant. She is engaged, but her fiancé is not the father of the baby. Her
family is poor, so another mouth to feed is just going to add to the family
hardship. Her family has a good name in the community, and she does not want to
drag it into the mud. An abortion would be a quick solution to her problem. But
she doesn’t have an abortion. She has the baby. It’s a boy. She names him
Jesus.