The Health Of The Mother Exception

Over the years since Roe v. Wade, many have stated that they are against abortion unless it's for the health of the mother. This exception is common when legislation concerning abortion is debated. What does "health of the mother" really mean? In the case of Doe v. Bolton in 1973, the Supreme Court issued their opinion about it. In this companion case to Roe v. Wade, the Court stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her "health." The Court defined "health" as:

"Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."*

In other words, the "woman's health" aspect could cover almost any reason for abortion. A woman could say that her child would cause her stress, or she is not ready to have a family, and that would be sufficient.

In reality, there is one definite condition that will cause the mother to die, and that is an ectopic pregnancy. It basically is when the new human implants on the wall of the fallopian tube instead of on the wall of the uterus. If left alone, the fallopian tube will eventually rupture and cause the death of the mother and child. In this case, there is no way to have a baby born alive, so it must be removed to save the life of the mother. It's better that one should live instead of both dying as a result of this condition.

There are a few other problems that can cause difficulties for the mother but not severe enough to cause her to die. Conditions such as Toxemia (swelling, elevated blood pressure), Placenta Previa (placenta covers all or part of the cervix), and Placental Abruption (placenta detaches from uterine wall) occur occasionally, but the mother can be treated and, if need be, the delivery can be attempted earlier than normal.

When someone brings up the "health of the mother" exception, ask them to specify what they mean. More often than not, they will just say vaguely "when the woman's health is in danger." That's when it can be explained about ectopic pregnancy and also the other conditions that can be treated. If they bring up the general descriptions of health that are in Doe v. Bolton, then those can be easily refuted. Most of those health exceptions given in that case are a just a convenient reason not to have the child. In the woman's mind they may be legitimate, but she must be shown that her reason doesn't justify killing a baby. Then the shift can be made to the discussion of the nature of the unborn and what really is the result of an abortion. Also, an argument could be made that the health exceptions given in Doe v. Bolton are some of the same reasons not to have an abortion. For instance, many women have gone through great psychological, emotional, and physical stress from having an abortion, either at that time or years later.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

What's Really Behind The Abortion Decision

For many years, we have heard pro-choicers give numerous reasons for their position, such as: It's in the woman's body, so it's her decision; it's not a human; it's a human, but it will interfere with my work or school; I'm just not ready to have a child, etc. When you examine all the justifications closely, it seems that there is one underlying reason for abortion. It clearly is a self-centered view of the world by the people involved in the abortion decision. Even the title "pro-choice" could easily be changed to "pro-me" or "pro-self," and it would mean exactly the same.

Over the past 30-40 years, our culture has changed, in general, from one of self-sacrifice and sense of community to one of being self-centered. In the 1950s and 1960s, many families had five or six children. You were taught that you were one of a group, and the world did not revolve around you. In general, children didn't go on long vacations every year. If you did, the parents really sacrificed economically so the whole family could drive to Disneyland or wherever. You learned by watching your parents about the sacrifices you had to make to raise a family.

From the late 1970s until today, most families have had only one to three children. A high percentage of those parents indulge their children in whatever activity they want to do, no matter how much it costs. Many parents give the impression, either intended or unintended, that the child is so important that the world often revolves around them. "If it feels like you should do something, do it." If something does happen to go wrong, the child doesn't have to face the consequences because many parents are there to bail them out. They don't need to have self-sacrifice because parents don't want their children to suffer in any way, even though this suffering often will make them stronger. Of course, these are generalizations, but it is all too prevalent in our society.

When the young woman gets pregnant, the logical conclusion is "How does this affect me personally?" How does it affect my school, career, or social life?" What's the quickest way to alleviate my problem?" These kinds of reasons sometimes do not seem that they are adequate, so those who support abortion have to come up with the other responses as to why abortion should be acceptable. Then they have to justify it by using "it's my body, it's not human, it's a parasite, etc." To many, this reasoning is easy since they are implementing their belief system that has permeated their entire life.

Another by-product of this self-absorption view is the change over the years of being an young, unwed pregnant girl. Thirty to forty years ago there was a strong stigma attached to being pregnant in high school. Thus, it was very rare to see. Of course, today there is very little negative reaction to a pregnant teenager. If something is universally acceptable, it's much easier to engage in that activity. Also, since there are so many more pregnant teens, the possibility of abortion becomes even greater.

The pro-lifer has to find a way to deflect the self-absorption of the pro-choice person and get them to focus on the unborn child. This is a hard nut to crack because you're trying to change someone's belief system they have always had. It can be very frustrating, because it seems so obvious that there is a baby that is being killed in the abortion procedure. Often it may look like you're not making any progress, but you are planting a seed in the pro-choicer's mind. If they actually are confronted with the abortion decision, it is very possible that what they have heard from a pro-lifer will surface.

The Rape Question In The Abortion Discussion

In a span of a half-hour during a pro-life exhibit on a college campus, two women explained to me their rape stories. One said that she was a product of a rape, and her mother put her up for adoption. Of course, she was so thankful that her mother didn't abort her. The other woman said that she was raped as a teenager and had regretted her abortion ever since. There was real pain in her voice. It was such a contrast in emotions on such a powerful issue. They were both so glad that the truth was being displayed about abortion.

What if the woman was raped? This is the question that comes up in most discussions of the abortion issue. Steve Wagner of the organization Stand to Reason states that there is an underlying reason for this inquiry. He explains that they are testing you to see if you're compassionate toward the woman who has gone through this. It is important to focus on how horrific an act it is and to be very sensitive to the suffering of the woman. This is not some ploy to get to your ultimate goal, but a sincere view of the situation. If someone I cared for was raped, it would be devastating. I then wouldn't want a pro-lifer telling them that it's a baby, so they can't abort it, without showing some compassion first.

Eventually, the situation has to be viewed in its entire context. Obviously, the act of rape is horrible, but that is the fault of the rapist and not the baby. The baby is just as innocent as if it was a product of a loving situation. Why should it be punished because of what the father did. If the woman was able to confront the rapist later, she wouldn't be allowed to kill him. Why should she kill the one that is totally innocent in this situation. There are legitimate concerns that if she has the child, she will always connect it to the rape. Many say that this would be devastating for her on a daily basis. Obviously, this could be the case, but I think that once the baby is born, most mothers would love that child just as they would any other. There are many babies born to teenage moms who were with a guy who deserted them once he found out she was pregnant. I don't think they focus on the situation of the father in their day-to-day caring of the child. Of course, it's not the same as rape, but I think the mother-child bond can overcome most obstacles. As always, having the baby adopted is a great alternative to any terrible situation.

Often people justify abortion by using the rape reason. They usually believe in abortion on demand for any reason. Steve Wagner explains a good way to test this. Since only 1% of the women use rape as the reason for abortion, then you will go along with them in justifying abortion for rape. But if you agree with them on this one point, they will need to join with you to try to ban the other 99% of abortions. If they don't agree, they will ultimately have to admit that they are for abortions for many more reasons. Then the discussion can be focused on the nature and value of the unborn baby.

Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: "What if she was raped?" 2005 Justice For All. www.JFAweb.org

Do Pro-Choicers Really Believe What They Say?

There are several reasons that pro-choicers give for having an abortion. The main ones are:

1. Every child should be a wanted child.
2. It's in the woman's body, so she can have an abortion, even if she believes it's human.
3. The baby will interfere with work, school, or the mother's social life.
4. The child will live in poverty or other negative social conditions.
5. If the mother is a drug addict, then the child will likely be addicted.
6. We should be able to abort deformed and handicapped babies.

Do abortion proponents really believe what they are saying? The evidence says emphatically NO. If they really believed this, why aren't they advocating that the children born into tough situations be put to death? This sounds ludicrous, but it logically follows from their argument. Also, do they really believe that they should be able to kill a human inside of them? With a strong self-examination of this belief, I think many would change their mind. What do they tell all the single mothers who are struggling with work or school? I don't believe they would dare tell them that they should have aborted their child in the womb or that their child they now have should be killed.

Do they really believe that if a baby is born into poverty, addicted to drugs, or whatever they deem not to be a perfect situation, then the child is going to be in that condition the rest of its life? Often they don't look at the big picture. They don't want to give the child a chance to live and usually have their conditions change. What do they tell the parents taking care of a disabled child? I don't believe they would ever tell them that it would have been easier on them and the child if he or she was aborted.

The pro-life argument, though, follows consistently from conception to death. The belief is that every life is valuable no matter what the unborn child might face when born. When the baby is born into whatever situation, it still is a life that should be cherished until death.

It then seems that the pro-choice advocates are pro-life after the baby is born. This means that if someone lives to be 75, then the pro-choicers are actually pro-life about 99% of the time. Their view of euthanasia would change this percentage slightly. Then we have the pro-lifers who are pro-life 100% of the time. The result is that the 1% view is the one that is legal in this country, with a disregard for the 99% pro-life belief.

It's Time To Take Action!

The mainstream media has had their own agenda concerning abortion and the pro-life perspective. Basically, they have ignored the issue, except when it is pertaining to some new court ruling. Their view is based on many premises they have about abortion and the people who are against it:

1. Abortion is a private matter between the woman and her doctor.
2. It's a reproductive health issue.
3. Pro-lifers belong to two groups that they do not like: Christians and conservatives.
4. It's the law, so these two groups should just shut up.
5. If they actually had positive pro-life stories, they would have to answer to their colleagues at cocktail parties. It's not worth it.

As a result of seeing or reading the media for years, many Americans start believing the media's perspective and, thus, keep quiet about the issue. Also, their thinking is probably that if they don't see abortion stories on the news, then the issue must not be that important. Unfortunately, conservative talk radio, magazines, or television generally do not give the topic it's proper airing either.

It's time for the pro-lifers in our country to be on offense and control the agenda and premises that go with it. We need to force the media to explain their views by exposing them to the truth about abortion. Now it's time for the masses to actively support the pro-life position. We need to convince the people who are not passionate about the pro-life movement, but agree with it, that it's time to take action.

How do we do this? Here's a few suggestions.
1. Write letters to the newspaper. Contact your local radio and television stations if they have a story where a pro-life viewpoint is missing.
2. Discuss the issue with friends or co-workers. Of course, you might need to ease into the conversation so they won't get turned off.
3. Ask people who agree with you to spread the message in a like manner.
4. Get involved with any local pro-life group or church organization that is actively spreading the message.
5. Go to monthlycallforlife.com or prolifeunity.com and see how you can help. Also check their calendars for events in your area.
6. Research the many online sites that give you the tools or training to advance the pro-life view to the public.
7. Contact the legislators and government leaders and tell them that now is the time to eliminate abortion in this country. Also, corresponding with them about a certain bill can make a difference.

Should We Show Abortion Images?

We live in a visual age where people often don't respond to any crisis until they see videos or pictures of it. Every few years there turns up a new dire condition in a different country in Africa. We see news reports of starving citizens or mass killing of people by some tyrannical leader or government. Often these problems have been going on for years, but we don't react until we see footage of them on the national news or photos in a magazine.
Even the horrors of the holocaust have more impact when you see pictures from the extermination camps.

That is why it is totally appropriate to show either video or still photos of aborted babies, especially to someone who is considering an abortion. It brings to light what the result of an abortion is. That is why pro-choice proponents don't want them to be shown. But if they are pro-choice, wouldn't they want people to see them, along with the use of the most advanced ultrasound technology. Women would then be given all the information they need to make an informed choice. Most would agree that when you have to make a difficult choice in life, then you should have all the information possible.

It Makes No Sense!

There are many interesting aspects of the abortion issue that make no sense.

1) There are laws in 36 states that, in general, say that killing a fetus by anyone but the mother and the abortion doctor is a crime. In our society, do we call any other act a crime or not depending on who is committing it? Is the fetus a person only when it is killed by somebody other than the mother or doctor?

2) One of the main issues for the Catholic Church is the sanctity of life, but a large percentage of Catholics vote for Democrats, who are almost 100% pro-choice.

3) Why doesn't anyone ask a pregnant mother how far along she is with her fetus? When she's expecting she often will say she's going to have a baby or she can feel the baby move. When the pro-choicers want to abort it, the term "baby" is never used. It's then just a fetus, a parasite, or a blob.

4) It's interesting how our society reacts when a newborn is found dead in a dumpster, or wherever. There is the appropriate reaction of sadness, disgust, and outrage. The news reporters give the report with a grim face and solemn tone of voice. But if the woman killed it a short time earlier when it was in the womb, then there would be no reporting of it or no societal indignation. In fact, it is so inconsequential to most people that they don't even care to know it happened.

5) The Democrat Party and liberal view is that they are for the little guy. Also, they often shout from the rooftops about human rights violations somewhere in the world. But, of course, they exclude being a proponent of the littlest guy and disregard its human rights.

Distracting From The Discussion

Often in a discussion of abortion one side will try to distract the other by not focusing on the topic at hand, but defending their position by repeating the mantras of their side. For example, when a pro-life view of the nature of the unborn is given, the pro-choicer's rebuttal sometimes is, "It's the woman's right to choose" or "It's her body" or any number of arguments. The goal is to distract the pro-lifer from their view because the pro-choicer is very uncomfortable about talking about what the unborn is. Then the pro-lifer should state "Let's first discuss what the unborn is before we move on to one of your assertions." If they agree, then you can take each claim one at a time. If they continually distract you before you're done with the original discussion then there is no need to pursue the conversation any further. A helpful way to get the pro-choicer focused is to say "Let's talk through my claim first, and you will have an opportunity to show me that I possibly could be wrong. I want to listen to what you have to say about my assertions on the issue."

The reverse is also true. If the pro-choicer first makes a claim, then the pro-lifer shouldn't automatically dismiss it. They also shouldn't start with their own mantras, such as "Abortion is murder," or "Aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?" It's the pro-lifers responsibility to work through the pro-choice arguments, one at a time, and attempt to show the fallacy of them.

In both cases there needs to constantly be a focus on one particular area of the debate. It must be done in a logical fashion or emotions often will take over on either side and little progress will be made.

Short Pro-Life Statements

What if you have only a short time to make a case for the pro-life position? Here are a few statements that can help:

1) If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. If it has human parents, it must be human. And living humans like you and I are valuable.

2) If you don't know if the unborn is alive, then why take the risk by having an abortion? If it's not alive, then why is an abortion necessary?

3) The heart of the unborn begins to beat at three weeks and the brain begins to function at six weeks.

4) The unborn has the three characteristics of being alive: growth, metabolizing food for energy, and reacting to stimuli. Its DNA is distinctly human and also different from its human parents.

5) The Law of Biogenesis states that each living thing that reproduces creates its own kind. Obviously, human parents can only produce human offspring.

6) How can two humans create something that is not human but later becomes one?

7) We don't allow the killing of toddlers, so why should the killing of unborn humans be accepted?

The Burden Of Proof In The Abortion Discussion

In discussions about the abortion issue, there are often claims made that are not backed up by facts. For instance, a pro-choicer will often make the claim that the unborn is not a human at a certain stage of development. The burden is on them to back up their statement with evidence. It is not the time for the pro-lifer to begin stating his argument. Several questions could be asked to the pro-choicer, such as: Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have for that claim? If it is not a human, then what is it? What makes you think that it is not a human at this stage of development, but it is at another? Thus, the subject of the discussion stays focused on defining the unborn. Also, a potential volatile situation is often diffused because the pro-choicer must rationally defend his statement. If he can't explain what the entity is, then it is time for the pro-lifer to move in with the statements: If it has human parents, it must be human. It also has its own genetic makeup that is uniquely its own. By putting the burden of proof on the one making the claim, then the pro-life argument is often made for the pro-lifer without them having to make a long convincing argument.

The Middle Ground Approach

Recently I saw a video on Youtube where Bill Clinton was speaking with a crowd, and two onlookers held up signs that said, "Pro Life" and "Abortion Kills Children." Immediately Clinton verbally attacked the two, stating basically that if they were really pro-life, they would want to put women and their doctors in prison. He never addressed the message of "Abortion Kills Children" but instead attacked the pro-lifers holding the signs. This whole scenario lasted about a minute-and-a half, and nothing really was accomplished.

What occurred at that confrontation is what frequently happens when the pro-life and pro-choice sides interact. Both groups will loudly express their well-worn slogans, which provokes their particular group into a frenzy. Since Roe v. Wade, there have been plenty of marches with both pro-life or pro-choice convictions, chanting and possibly hearing a few speeches, but something has been obviously missing. Constructive dialogue has been sorely lacking between the two persuasions. If one side were to listen to the other's arguments and conclusions, they could determine if their position could stand up to scrutiny. One constructive way to discuss the issue is to find the common or middle ground between the polarized positions and progress from there.

For instance, a pro-choice proponent often says that the three-week old embryo is just a blob of cells and tissue and nothing else. Instead of going right to the "it's a human" argument, the pro-lifer could say "Yes, I totally agree with you that it looks like a blob to me. I don't see any arms or hands or many other features." A way to ease into your position it to ask, "Have you every thought that even though it's so small, it's still a human, because it has human parents and has its own DNA? I'm sure you realize that the blob is basically what we looked like at that stage of our development."

If a pro-lifer is confronted with someone who is for abortion, possibly the best way to make your argument is to keep asking them questions so you can meet in the middle. Then you can eventually work your way back to the pro-life position. A possible dialogue could be, "So what do you think of partial-birth abortion?" Most of the time, they will be against that procedure. The next step is to work your way backwards in the development of the fetus. "How about a seven-month-old fetus that could live outside the mother's womb?" Often they are hesitant to agree to an abortion at that point. Finally, ask them, "At what time should be the appropriate time for an abortion?" When they get pinned down, then it's, "Why at that time and not a month or a few weeks from then?" You can move the discussion to the subject of what really is the unborn child.

One issue that pro-choicers think pro-lifers tend to ignore is that there are pregnant women in difficult circumstances. If these women give birth, the result will be dire beyond belief. This has to be recognized as a reality before the dialogue can be advanced. One way of doing this is to say, "Yes, you are right. Often there is not a perfect time to have a baby no matter what your situation is. There are many occasions when a young married woman is pregnant but is struggling with finances, school or career. Even someone who is financially stable and living in a nice neighborhood could have a difficult time putting a career on hold to raise a child. I totally agree with what you are claiming, but in most cases, the problems are temporary or one can learn to adjust possibly with some assistance." Usually there are personal stories that can be used to back up this argument.

Pro-choice advocates could improve their dialogue by not diverting the subject into another area that is off topic. An example is a discussion about the nature of the unborn. The diversion would be, "It's a woman's body or choice" or "Quit trying to force your religion down my throat." If they would meet the pro-life argument halfway, possibly they could see the reasoning behind the pro-life viewpoint. An example would be "Yes, I agree that the fetus at that stage has a heartbeat, but I still feel it is a woman's right to choose to abort it."


Often the person who is pro-choice tries to divert the discussion by attacking the pro-lifer personally, which, of course, gets the dialogue bogged down. They will say, "You're just a Christian!" or "How many babies have you adopted?" or "You're a man, so you'll never have to face this decision." Those rebuttals have nothing to do with them making their case about the pro-choice position and discussing the actual abortion of the unborn.

Of course, this all sounds like a fantasy pro-life/pro-choice situation, and it appears difficult to do. For instance, if a pro-lifer thinks abortion is murder and won't budge on that point or a pro-choicer thinks it's only the mother's choice, then it's not their nature to back down at all. I have seen this middle- ground method be successful in many instances. It cracks the door open enough so one side can see how the other thinks and also breaks down prejudices each has against the other. On the surface it seems that when you try to meet the other side in the middle you abandon your principles, but, in reality, if you can slowly move that middle to your end of the spectrum, then you have made tremendous progress. It sure beats chanting or yelling your message to someone who is returning the fire with their viewpoint.


An excellent resource to study this approach is a book titled "Common Ground Without Compromise, 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion" by Stephen Wagner. He delves into great detail about how to have common ground discussions concerning abortion.

The "It's My Body" Argument

When someone is engaged in an activity that our society might deem inappropriate or illegal, many say, "I can do what I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else." I have never heard the "I'm not hurting anyone else" phrase associated with the "it's my body" argument for abortion. Usually the statement is "It's my body, so I can have an abortion if I want to." Their argument stops there. In our society we don't allow someone to use their body to commit an act that would harm someone else's body. so why should a pregnant woman be allowed to have an abortionist kill an unborn baby that is in her body? After the mother gives birth, she is not allowed to use her body to kill her newborn baby. She can face criminal charges if she uses her body to throw the newborn in a dumpster. Why should she be able to kill her unborn just because it's her body and she can do what she wants?

Another similar argument is that the unborn is part of her, so she can do what she wants. One could ask the woman, "Do you have four arms, four legs, two heads, etc.?" When she says, "No," then she refutes her own argument. Those extra two arms and legs, etc., thus must belong to another human. The unborn is an entity with its own unique genetic makeup. Obviously, it's a separate, distinct human that is not the woman's body. It is in the environment it is supposed to be in for nourishment, growth, and development of its organs and features.

Once again, the "it's my body" argument is just another reason in a long list of reasons that people use to decide to have an abortion. The common theme among nearly all reasons for abortion is the focus on the woman and her situation and the disregard for what the unborn entity actually is. If the unborn is considered "nonhuman" or not a person, then the "it's my body" argument logically works for the woman.

Everyone has their own morality!

In response to the pro-life position, I have heard many college students say, "Everyone has their own morality, so someone shouldn't tell me what to do." Another popular response is "If my morality isn't affecting you, then just leave me alone. If I want to have an abortion, I will."


There are a few rebuttals to this. First, you can ask them if the Holocaust was wrong. Most of the time they will agree. Using their logic, one can say that Hitler's morality was that killing Jews was the right thing to do. Was slavery wrong? Many slave owners believed it was moral to have slaves. They may have an answer that states, "Well, I'm talking about just personal morality, not on the level of the Holocaust or slavery."

"What if I go up to you and take your backpack or purse because my morality says it's right?" If they say that it's wrong to do that, tell them that they may really believe in moral standards much more than they think they do. They may come back with, "I should be able to do what I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone or negatively affecting another person." Then the subject can come back to the abortion issue and the nature of the unborn. "Isn't an abortion hurting someone else?" Then they will have to defend their morality position in the light of an abortion.

Another pro-choice approach is seen often on a bumper sticker "If you don't like abortion, don't have one. This is easy to debunk. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking abortion. The pro-life belief is that abortion is morally wrong. One could insert any subject matter into that slogan that often would create an outcry. If you don't like robbing banks, don't do it. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave. If you like chocolate chip cookies and I hate them, it doesn't say chocolate chip cookies are morally bad; it just states that I prefer them and you don't. The pro-life view is that abortion is an absolute moral wrong while the pro-choice view is one of preference.

Abortion, Church And The Bible

I have attended evangelical churches who taught strictly from the Bible, churches whose pastors discussed societal and familial issues, and traditional denominational churches. Coincidentally, this covers 35 years, which is the same time that Roe v. Wade has been in effect. I have never heard one sermon or teaching on the atrocity of abortion. During that time, the pastors have mentioned a couple of times about the need for a "culture of life," and that was about it. Maybe I didn't attend the right church on the right Sunday, but I have a strong suspicion that most churches avoid the issue, just as our society does. I suppose they feel this is such a controversial subject that they don't want to upset the masses and have parishioners leave the church.

Maybe they are thinking that since abortion isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible then they don't need to discuss it. The word "abortion" isn't used, but, of course, the Bible is clear on its opposition to murder. Also, The Bible doesn't mention car bombs, shootings and the like, but they are all covered in the condemnation of murder in the Ten Commandments. Possibly, pastors may agree with many in our society that the unborn is not a person yet. There are instances in the Bible where the unborn is mentioned as a child. In Genesis 25-22, speaking of Rebekah, it says, "But the children struggled together within her." In Jeremiah 1-5 God said about Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations. " The Bible says in Luke 1-41, "And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb." Thus abortion is the killing one of God's creations and consequently is an affront to God.

Another reason for this inaction on the abortion issue is that the churches may think that this is a political matter that has been already decided in the courts and the legislatures. On the contrary, I have heard many people say when the pro-life view is espoused that it's just the Christians trying to force their pro-life beliefs on everyone.

The Catholic Church may be the exception. In general, they are strong defenders of the unborn and at times are very vocal about it. Since I am not Catholic, I don't know how often it's discussed during mass. One interesting aspect is that in my state of New Mexico, the majority of Catholics are Democrats, and they vote for candidates who are strong proponents of abortion.

Shouldn't churches be leading the charge against such a horrendous act that kills 3,500 people a day in this country? Maybe Americans feel that if the churches don't find abortion immoral enough to lead an aggressive fight against it, then why should they. Possibly, pastors don't want to broach the subject because there might be members of the congregation who have had an abortion. I think one can balance their opposition to abortion along with compassion to someone who has had one.

The Value Of Human Life

What is the value of a person, and should that person be eliminated from society because he or she has perceived lesser value in the eyes of someone else? Do we kill the disabled because some have deficiencies that others don't have? Many elderly have difficulty functioning without a tremendous amount of support. Do we kill them because they may be unwanted or a burden even to their own family? What about a person who is in a coma from a car accident? At that moment they are not at the same human state of alertness that most of us are. Should we have the choice to kill them knowing that they even might come out of the coma?

Why then do we often give so little human value to the unborn? Just because they cannot function as some other person thinks a human should function they are inherently a person. They are at the stage of their life that they are supposed to be in, relying on the mother to support them in the womb. The unborn doesn't at one time in his life change to a different entity. He is a human at conception, at the fetus stage, the toddler stage, and throughout life. He has a nature that is human and should be treated that way, just as we treat the previously mentioned examples. All humans have an inherent value no matter how they may function or what stage of their life they are in.

The Albuquerque Journal

From the Albuquerque Journal, Tuesday, April 8, Speak Up! section:

The media are all over the fact of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq. It's very interesting that we kill nearly the same number every day in this country in the name of abortion, but it is never mentioned. - M.R.H.

Those initials look familiar.

The Political Response

Have you ever heard a politician respond to the abortion issue? There are a few who are strictly pro-abortion or pro-life, but most fall in a category that attempts to please both sides. When faced with this issue they will usually say, "Personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but if a woman wants to have one that's her decision." Often they will respond with, "I think abortion should be rare, but I can't stop a woman from having one. It's her choice." This type of logic is also shared by quite a few Americans. When they take both sides of the argument it seems that their real purpose is to avoid the issue completely because they don't have to passionately debate either side.

This response sounds foolproof and a very "nice" way of answering the abortion issue. But if you think closely about the response, it could be asked, "Why do you personally oppose abortion or why do you think it should be rare?" It seems that their answer would be that it is the taking of a life, or a similar response. The rebuttal would be "So you're against abortion because it takes a life, but it's perfectly fine for someone else to take a life." "You're against the killing of a human, but also for the killing of a human."

What if we settled other issues this way? "I'm personally opposed to murder, but if a person wants to commit it that's their decision or choice." In 2001 Andrea Yates killed her five young children. Using this logic one could say "I'm personally opposed to Andrea Yates killing her children, but it's her decision, her choice." We basically could use this logic concerning any law in this country.

Pro-Life Persuasion - A Synopsis

The main focus of all discussions should be “What is the unborn?” Pro-choicers often will skirt around that issue with several different reasons for abortion. They will often say: It’s my choice. The birth will interfere with school or work. It’s just a blob of tissue or clump of cells. The child will be disabled. The mother is a drug addict. The baby will be born in an abusive environment or in poverty. The woman was raped. The health of the mother is in danger.

The premise behind almost all reasons for abortion is that the baby is not a human or that it doesn’t have the value that a born person has. There are two ways of handling most arguments. The first is the SLED test. The letters in SLED stand for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.

Some will say that the unborn is so much smaller than a born person. You can respond by saying “Yes, that’s correct, but a toddler is smaller than an adult but they are both humans with the same intrinsic value.”

Many pro-choicers will say that the unborn is just not as developed as a born child. You should respond by saying that “Yes, you’re right, but young girls are less developed than adult women, or toddlers are less developed than high school students but they are all human.

The argument used mainly by people in the pro-choice movement is that the unborn is in a different location so it should be able to be aborted. Do we change our value when we go from one room to another? What is the big difference between a baby born premature and placed on a mother’s stomach? If that same baby was inches away inside the mother’s womb it could be killed. We are not allowed to kill that born baby so why should society be allowed to kill the unborn. The main difference is the location which should be irrelevant when discussing the value of a person.

Finally, the unborn is more dependent than a toddler, but toddlers are more dependent than adults. Some adults are dependent on medications or devices such as kidney machines or pacemakers but that doesn’t lessen their value.

The next group of arguments can be responded to by using the toddler question. For instance, if someone says that it’s their choice to have an abortion, you can say “Do women have a right to kill their two-year olds?” Also, “There are going to be unwanted children if we don’t have abortions.” A response could be that there are many children in the inner city who have miserable lives. Should we also kill them if we want to?

Another argument is to say that we have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. There have been mothers such as Andrea Yates who used their bodies to kill their children. Do we have a right to tell them not to do that? After using this tactic many will often say that it is different because the toddlers are born and alive. Then you can revert back to the SLED test to show the value of the unborn. Remember to steer the discussion back to defining the value of the unborn. They may then say, “Well, that’s just your opinion that the unborn is human. I don’t think it is.” Then you can say that the science of embryology states from many different sources that from the moment of conception the unborn is a living and distinct human organism.

The unborn has the three characteristics of being alive: growth, metabolizing food for energy, and reacting to stimuli. Its DNA is distinctly human and also different from its human parents. The Law of Biogenesis states that each living thing reproduces its own kind. Obviously, human parents can only produce human offspring. If someone rejects this scientific evidence they must explain two things. They must say what the unborn entity actually is, and then they must explain how two human beings can create a separate being that is not human.

There are a few more reasons that are given for abortion. The health of the mother issue often comes up especially in legislative issues. Actually, there is only one occasion when the health of the mother will be a factor as to the baby being aborted. In an ectopic pregnancy the newly conceived human implants on the wall of the fallopian tube. When it grows the tube will rupture. If we do nothing both mother and child will die. The child should be removed to save the mother. In other conditions the mother and child can be both treated as patients.

One very sensitive argument that is given is that a woman who is raped should be allowed to abort her baby. Always discuss with the person how horrible rape is and what a tragic thing it is to go through. This discussion can lead to the question of “Why should the unborn baby have to be punished for the crime of the father.” Also, if you met the rapist later in court or wherever, you would not be allowed to kill him, so why should the baby be killed. In this case, as in all abortion discussions, the topic of adoption can be brought up.

Often you may only have a short time to talk to someone about the issue. A ten second pro-life view could be used. If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. If it has human parents, it must be human. And living humans like you and I are valuable.