Opinion

The basic prolife tactic

Pro-Life Abortion Protest
Co-written by Ignacio Reyes.

A woman has the right to choose over her own body.  The world is overpopulated.  What if the mother can’t afford her child?  Do you want more back-alley abortions? What about rape and incest?

Undoubtedly, you have heard one or more of these arguments supporting legalized abortion, all of which make one basic assumption: that the pre-born are not valuable human beings; but when the value in the life of the pre-born human is restored, every pro-abortion argument falls apart.

Take in mind that while abortion may be emotionally, physically, psychologically, and even practically complicated, the morality of it is simple:

  1. It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
  2. Abortion kills an innocent human being.
  3. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

In other words, if preborn children are not human beings, abortion is ok, after all, no controversy is made about extracting a tooth; but if they are human beings, then abortion is wrong because it murders innocent life.

If the argument to keep abortion “safe” and legal is to avoid women from dying of back-alley abortions, and assumes that the preborn child is nothing more than lifeless cells, then of course abortion should be legal and safe (though this is hardly so).  However, if we value the life of the preborn child, whether in a dirty back-alley or a clean clinic, abortion will kill the life of an innocent human being.  The debate on abortion is in considering (or not) the humanity and value of the preborn.

The pro-life tactic is simple and effective:  take the prochoice argument and apply its same logic to an already born child.  As an example, the pro-choicer might mention overpopulation as a justification for abortion, but if the world is overpopulated, why get rid of only the pre-born? Why not get rid of the elderly; the mentally sick; or even the ugly?

A mother might choose to abort her child because she cannot afford to birth him. If a mother has a four-year old and she cannot afford to raise him any longer, is it morally permissible for her to kill him?

If my twenty-year old friend is the product of rape, is her life just as valuable as mine? If so, when did she acquire that value?  At ten years old? At eighteen?

Perhaps a mother chooses to give life to her baby, a product of incest rape, but when the child turns four, she changes her choice about whether or not to have her child; applying the pro-choicer’s morality, can she terminate his life then? What is the difference between a pre-born human and one that has already been born?

Once you know that every prochoice argument fails to endow the preborn their inherent right to life, no argument, old or new, can throw you off!

Live Action on Facebook

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Basic Prolife Tactic | Live Action Blog – Human Rights, Abortion, and Life -- Topsy.com

  • tony

    abortions, human rights, when do u join the human race? is it win ur mother gets prego or when ur born.

    moraly? thats all subjective,what religon u have,where u were grow up.

    or is it black and white. right&wrong. is it ok to take human life,to deffined ur life,the life of family, u still kill human life. the truth of it all is this a world u would put a kid in?

    life is eazy here in usa, but alot of the world u would not wont to live in. but thats just me. i give credit to both. it is a hard choce ether way. some are ready to have a kid some will never be and still do and there kids are realy mest up. so what is better ?

    i think that until ur born u are not alive yet not to say that there is not life there.u are part of ur mothers body not an individual life ur one life, hers.. that is why it is her choice not any one elses. u may think that its not right for her to make that choice or that the child up for adoption. that is always a good option.but to say that it is wrong on the grounds of moraly right or wrong is just a point of view. urs im guessin is from the bible.the only thing i have to say about that is, if it did not wont u to do things like that it would not let us. the last thing is i know my life is not worth much, and nither is most, from the day u are born ur dieing. so it does not matter when i die sooner or later we all die.the true value of life is what u do with it and how much it mint to others.

  • Lina

    Morality is subjective. From everything I've gathered, it's about an even split between those who oppose abortion rights and those who support them. People who support abortion rights have good reasons for doing so, and so do those who oppose them. At the end of the day, it comes down to differences in opinion.

    You don't think that abortion is morally defensible? No one's forcing you to get one. Don't impose your own morality on everyone else.

  • James Douglas

    So a women who is raped is forced to carry the child to full term and then have the choice to either raise the child or give it up for abortion? This would "punish" that women twice. I wonder what Lila Rose would do is she were raped??? I don't see any of these anti-abortion advocates adopting any of the unwanted children here in the United States. We would rather these children grow up in households where they are unloved and unwanted? Sounds like a receipe for disaster. Lila, how many children have you adopted? You are so quick to give away the rights your parents and grandparents fought so hard for, before abortion was legal. In a perfect world no women would ever have or need an abortion but this is not a perfect world.

  • Lisa

    If a woman has told you that she already knows that the unborn is a human being but that she still prefers to abort it and just live with the consequences, what could you say? Basically she knew the logical reasons for not doing it. She's right in front of an abortion clinic and the side walk counselor has offered and provided all sorts of help and info but she still decides to go through with the abortion. What would you say or do?

  • http://liveaction.org Ana Benderas

    "u are part of ur mothers body not an individual life ur one life, hers.. that is why it is her choice not any one elses."

    Tony, at the time that abortions are performed, the baby already has her own heart beat, her own blood type different than her mother’s, her own DNA code and her own body that is developing. She became her own human when she got her own set of DNA code that, at the moment of fertilization, determined her gender, hair color, height, ethnicity, etc.

    Because it is a different body than her mother’s, she is entitled to her right to life.

  • http://liveaction.org Ana Benderas

    Lina,

    “You don’t think that abortion is morally defensible? No one’s forcing you to get one. Don’t impose your own morality on everyone else.”

    If you support laws against rape, murder, theft, hate crimes, or any other law that you think prevents injustice you are imposing your morality on the rest of the nation. When you tell the rapist, “don’t rape,” you’re imposing your morality on the rapist who wants to be able to do whatever he wants. When you tell the anti-abortionist, “don’t deny women their right to an abortion,” you’re imposing your morality on us.

    We all need to stand up for what we think is right.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mctIZLn-W_Y

  • http://liveaction.org Ana Benderas

    Mr. Douglas, two things.

    1. So a women who is raped is forced to carry the child to full term and then have the choice to either raise the child or give it up for abortion?

    No one is able to force any woman to do anything. We are hoping that women in this situation will see that their baby is a human being who is not guilty of his father’s crime. Unless you think that those people who are products of rape now are not as valuable as the rest of us. If they are just as valuable, when did they acquire that value? At 15? At 38? At birth? And from what premise would you argue that?

  • http://liveaction.org Ana Benderas

    2. "This would “punish” that women twice. I wonder what Lila Rose would do is she were raped???"

    Do you think the abortion debate would be settled once and for all depending on what Lila Rose would do?

    My logic is simple, if abortion kills an innocent human being, then abortion is wrong.

    It has NOTHING to do with who adopts, who doesn’t, who get’s raped, who wishes others got raped, none of that.

    The pro-abortionist has to PROVE that either:

    -It is NOT wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being OR

    - that abortion does NOT kill an innocent human being

    Any other argument does not stand. So can you give evidence that refutes any of these premises? If not, all your arguments are irrelevant.

  • http://liveaction.org Ana Benderas

    Lisa,

    This is a very good question and a difficult situation.

    I am presenting your question to two women who are great sidewalk counselors and have vast experience with this. I think they'll have a good answer for you and I'll let you know.

  • http://liveaction.org Ana Benderas

    I might also suggest to her the choice of adoption.

  • Lina

    Ann–

    "you support laws against rape, murder, theft, hate crimes, or any other law that you think prevents injustice you are imposing your morality on the rest of the nation. "

    Ask anyone on the street whether murder is acceptable. Chances are, everyone will say "no." Now, ask everyone on the street whether abortion is acceptable. Odds are about 50/50 that they will say yes (of course, this differs depending on where you are, who you're asking, etc).

    People believe that murder, rape, theft, etc. are wrong because they hurt other people. A fetus is not a person. Having a unique genetic code doesn't make something a person. Having a heartbeat doesn't make something a person.

  • Anaisafuturerapevict

    Die in hell!

  • http://liveaction.org Ana Benderas

    Lina, what makes something a person?

    P.S. A few years ago if you would ask anyone on the street whether slavery was acceptable, adds are that a few more than 50% would say yes. The popular consensus, in my opinion, does not determine whether something is moral.

  • Lina

    A person is something with the capacity for self-awareness, that can think and feel complex emotions. By this definition, some non-human animals (such as dolphins, other apes, and elephants) can be considered persons. I do not have a problem with this.

    Before you yank out the argument that infants don't have the capacity for self-awareness and therefore, by my definition, they aren't people, I'm going to say that I have to agree with that statement. It doesn't mean I support the killing of already born babies, but I have to say that when I hear a story about a five-year-old being killed I feel a whole hell of a lot worse than when I hear about a six-month-old baby dying.

  • Duncan

    Hi Ana. You said:

    [The pro-abortionist has to PROVE that either:

    -It is NOT wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being OR

    - that abortion does NOT kill an innocent human being

    Any other argument does not stand. So can you give evidence that refutes any of these premises? If not, all your arguments are irrelevant.]

    Actually, the burden of proof is on you, the one making the affirmative argument, to substantiate your premises here.

    1. It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. (Why? Where does this moral claim come from?)

    2. Abortion kills an innocent human being. (Does it really? Need to define "human being" here.)

    But to speed things up, I'll tell you why I disagree – with both of them.

    [1. It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.]

    Morality is a funny thing. Many people feel that there is an objective morality that exists beyond the human condition, immutable like the laws of logic. I do not think so. I think each person derives his or her own set of moral rules to live by, and these are influenced by their upbringing and the societal pressures that surround them.

    In any case – I reject the claim that you can say, in an absolute sense, that it is morally “wrong” to kill an innocent human being. For instance, what if, by killing an innocent human being, you save the lives of 3,000? I don’t see morality as black and white.

    I also don’t see humans as being fundamentally different from other animals.

    [2. Abortion kills an innocent human being.]

    These debates always come down to this question – when does a human being become a human being? I won’t sugar coat the question – it’s a tough one. For me, I think humanness occurs somewhere around the time of sentience. Other factors to consider – when the preborn child can suffer, and when it can live independently of its mother.

    Do I think a cluster of cells is a “human being”? No. And I don’t think that cluster should be treated as such under the law.

    Anyway, that’s how I feel. I’ll remind you again before I close – the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your above claims.

  • lala

    Duncan,

    I think you bring great points to the issue in question. And I agree with you that prolifers MUST present such evidence!

    When you started to define "humanness" you said, "for me…" Before I go on, would you agree that to define humanity we must use objective facts and not personal opinions and biases? If objective facts, let me present you with this information: The Harvard Medical Institute as well as Stanford Medical Institute, the Medical Encyclopedia and pretty much any mainstream, reliable book on biology or embryology maintain that humans are characterized by these 5 traits: 46 chromosomes, growth, metabolism, reaction to stimuli, and cell reproduction (not one or a few of these, but all of these put together), all of which zygotes have. Also, the law of bio-genesis states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, meaning that a rabbit will only naturally reproduce a rabbit and a human a human. These prove that the unborn are humans, at least biologically. If they are humans biologically, what else do we need to include them as part of the human race? Characterizing a human by their ability to suffer or viability are not founded on facts but on personal opinions and biases, unless I'm missing information on this?

    About intrinsic, objective morality: well, I could argue that there IS in fact such a code, but for now, I'd rather argue that even if it's not objectively true of any society that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong, I will argue that it is of this society in which we live, as well as functional and necessary. In fact, whenever that moral code has been broken, only atrocities and injustice has come out of it. What do you think?

    Also, if someone disagrees with any of these claims, do you think they have to explain why with logical reasoning, or can they just say they disagree and not bring any new facts?

  • Ana Benderas

    Sorry, that was me but it put lala on there by accident :)

  • Duncan

    On “humanness”

    I don’t think the question at hand is whether an unborn human child is biologically human. Obviously a zygote within a human womb is a “human” zygote. We are discussing whether a human zygote should carry the rights and privileges of a fully grown human. Though, you mentioned rabbits—don’t they also have 46 chromosomes and espouse growth, metabolism, reaction to stimuli, and cell reproduction?

    On my use of “for me…”

    I agree that, where possible, we should use objective facts rather than personal opinions. But on this question there is no objective fact. At the end of the day, there is no clear answer to whether an unborn child carries the full weight of the law, and at what point. Yes, we can discuss facts. For instance, a human zygote is alive. It is. Another – a human zygote is essentially equivalent to the zygote of most mammals. Another – a newborn baby has the cognitive capacities of the average adult house cat. What do we make of all these facts? That is a matter of opinion, and so all we can really do is make appeals to one another.

    On the off chance that this is what you believe – A human zygote has a soul. That is NOT a fact.

    On morality

    Unfortunately, really the only way forward for you here is to prove to me that there is an objective moral truth and it states that it is absolutely wrong to take the life of a human being. If you accept any form of moral relativity here (even though I know it’s just for the sake of argument) there’s not much to talk about. You suggest that societies that depart from espousing some form of “do not kill” morality result in “atrocities and injustice”…well that is interesting, but how does that relate to whether or not it’s ok for me to abort a 10 day old embryo?

    On the burden of proof

    Sorry if I went overboard with this – I have argued with a lot of people on the internet who don’t understand this concept. Really, you have done an admirable job of providing evidence to support your claims.

  • http://liveaction.org Ana Benderas

    Duncan,

    Thank you for making this such a pleasant conversation! I do appreciate and deeply consider all your points.

    I looked up some websites and most agree that a rabbit has 44 not 46 chromosomes, but again, the law of bio-genesis confirms that when a person is pregnant they are carrying a human. I think we both agree that a zygote is biologically human and, of course, alive. You said the issue in question was the right of a preborn human vs. one of a full-grown. I wonder when a human is considered full-grown?

    My opinion is that the best way to guard against discriminating or targeting any group of human beings is to protect the right to life of ALL members of the human race, otherwise, we fall into a slippery slope. If we can agree that humans without attached umbilical cords can be killed for any reason (as current abortion laws allow), what prevents us from agreeing that we can kill humans of dark skin color, or of Jewish religion, or humans not considered smart, or humans that are poor, or humans that are sick? This, I think also answers this question: "… how does that relate to whether or not it’s ok for me to abort a 10 day old embryo?" IOW, if I can kill one member of the human race arbitrarily, what stops me from killing another member of the human race arbitrarily? What do you think?

    You said that this issue has no objective facts and that "there is no clear answer to whether an unborn child carries the full weight of the law, and at what point." Well, objective facts showed us so far that we are human from the moment of fertilization, and we do know whether or not they are protected by the law- they're not… my argument is that they should be- again, on the grounds that, at least in this democratic society, the protection and the right to life is necessary and practical.

    Do you think that a 40 year old human who has not committed a crime should have a lawful protection of its life?

  • Duncan

    Hi Ana.

    [You said the issue in question was the right of a preborn human vs. one of a full-grown. I wonder when a human is considered full-grown?]

    Exactly! That is the question. I already told you what I think – and what I don’t think. I DON’T think that a zygote or an embryo is a fully grown human, and I DON’T think that they should be protected under the law as such. But this, of course, gets tricky when we’re talking about a fetus that has been developing for 6 months. I’ll throw this out there – I think the line should be drawn at the point where the child can live independently of its mother. That makes sense to me, because it’s a clear line that signifies the independence of a child from its mother. Up until that point, the child’s life is dependent on its mother, and as such I think the destiny of that life should likewise be dependent on the choice (buzzword!) of the mother.

    On the slippery slope

    Eh, I don’t buy this. I don’t see how the abortion of preborn children can lead to the breakdown of society that you describe. We are a gregarious species that thrives on nurturing relationships with other human beings. I see the abortion of preborn children is categorically different than, say, the murder of a stupid person. Now, are there times when it IS prudent to kill an innocent individual? Yes, I think so. (see my kill 1, save 3,000 example)

    [in this democratic society, the protection and the right to life is necessary and practical.]

    Why? Why is it necessary to ban the practice of aborting babies?

    [Do you think that a 40 year old human who has not committed a crime should have a lawful protection of its life?]

    Yes. But – again – I see the life of a 40 year old is categorically different than the life of a preborn human. The preborn human has not yet joined society, and as such I don’t think it should be considered to be a member of society/protected by its laws. (That is until, as I proposed above, it can live independently of its mother)

    I’ll ask a question of you – why should a 10 day old embryo carry the same weight of the law as a 40 year old human, as you propose?

  • Ana Benderas

    Duncan,

    Just because you can't recognize the full humanity of a 10 day old embryo (which abortions are legal here through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason) doesn't take away its humanity. Just because slave owners didn't see the full humanity of Black slaves, or the Nazi's the full humanity of Jews does not take away their humanity.

    My bottom line is this: that if the preborn are humans, they are humans. Whether we admit it, see it, fail to recognize it, they are humans. If we allow one set of humans to be killed unfairly, we leave every other group of humans vulnerable. I don't know why you can't see this (probably because you still don't fully grasp the humanity of the unborn), but think about it just in theory without your feelings about the unborn and it should make sense.

    Anyway, that's my shpill, thoroughly enjoyed the convo. You have also challenged me to think more about objective morality, and will be looking more into that these next days :)

  • Duncan

    On humanity

    Like we discussed above, the issue is not whether preborn child is biologically “human” – it is. A 24 cell zygote is comprised of 24 “human” cells. But I see preborn life as CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT from born life. And as such, I think they should be governed by different laws. It’s easy to make emotional appeals and tug on heart strings, but this issue is more subtle than to equate abortions to Nazis killing Jews.

    [If we allow one set of humans to be killed unfairly, we leave every other group of humans vulnerable.]

    I agree with this, with one major caveat. I would rephrase it to say “If we allow one set of BORN humans to be killed unfairly, we leave every other group of BORN humans vulnerable.” Pardon the crude terminology, but I think you see my point.