Guide to defeating pro-abortion arguments

Okay, maybe this isn’t exactly a guide as the title states but it is a good tool in learning how to respond to anti-life thinking.

Today CNN posted an article called, “White House ties pregnancy aid grants to ‘common ground’ abortion plan” and I looked through the comments section and noticed some pro-abortion arguments. I quote them below and provide a response that I hope you find useful:

The fetus (if you are medically educated), is actually an extension of the mother’s body at that point. So no, 1st and 2nd trimesters are not abortions.

My response: It is a scientific fact that the unborn human fetus is not an “extension” of the mother. The unborn child has its own unique DNA and blood type. It is a unique human creature by all scientific definitions. Based on the pro-abortion logic, a mother pregnant with a son would have 2 genders, 4 eyes, and 8 limbs. Now I want to hear them defend telling a pregnant woman that!

Anyone who wants to take [the right to an abortion] away better be willing to pay up for the care of those children we force on our society.

My response: I’m all for adoption and taking care of children but whether I adopt or not doesn’t negate my argument. Using this logic, one could not stop a parent from killing their 2-year-old child unless that person was also ready to raise that 2-year-old. Now isn’t it clear how the pro-abort logic falls flat?

Yes, [abortion] is legal, which means it’s not wrong.

My response: Really simple answer. This was legal, was it right?

It isn’t murder, if it is not yet a child.

It’s *not* murder…… Stop with the evangelical rhetoric spin. It is a ball of cells.

A clump of cells is not a child. Especially an unwanted clump.

My response: Also pretty simple answer that shuts the other side up pretty quickly.

Additional resources:

And the common pro-abort religious hate was on display with comments like:

An obvious catholic!! The sickest religion in the world

Overall there were lots of pro-life comments on the article and the quality of their arguments was strong and contrasted with the ad-hominem attacks from the other side as user Headfake pointed out so well:

As the posts moved chronologically to this point I have noted several traits of your insidious posts. First, though not a single of those arguing for protecting the life of the unborn child made a religious or biblical reference, you chose to attack ALL of your opposition with what can only be interpretted as your intent to verbally abuse: “absolute religious fanatics”, “more evangelical christian fanaticism rearing it’s most ‘ugliest of head’s'”, and so on. Second, you rant on, using steroetypical arguments, infusing topics with no relevance to the debate at hand, such as: “don’t eat ‘animals'”, “attack all of the gays”, and so on. In civilized terms this is called “bigotry”! In philosophical terms, it is called “idiocy”.

I hope this was helpful in providing rational answers to anti-life arguments. That said, if someone is going to resort to just calling names and making personal attacks, the best thing to do is to just leave them alone in their own little work of hate.

To Top

Send this to friend