10+ Popular Pro-Abortion Excuses, And My Responses

Abortion has gone from a hot-button issue to a hyper-polarized searing debate. Screaming irritation, bombastic claims and anti-science opinions spray paint social media threads, emotions dominate and reason recedes. Claims like: “My body, my choice.” “Men shouldn’t be telling women what to do with their bodies.” And “The unborn aren’t human persons.”

“Sexual freedom” is now society’s great value, rather than the ethics of “backward, goody-goody, puritanical, pietistic, prudish, priggish, Victorian, blue-nose schoolmarms.” With sexual freedom comes mass unwanted pregnancies, even in an age of abundant birth control. Pregnancies that parents can’t support, and pregnancies that limit sexual freedom, pregnancies that get in the way of pleasure. This is a time of sin begetting sin.

To give credence to such immorality, many pro-abortion lines are used. Here are some I often hear and here are my responses.

Objection 1) Abortion is fine because the fetus is using the woman’s body

You awake one morning to find a famous violinist connected to you with leads and tubes. In fact, this arrangement must continue for nine months or she will die. Since you have no moral obligation to not continue this arrangement, the argument is made that you also have no moral obligation to carry an unwanted child in the womb for nine months.

Strangely, counter to many pro-abortion arguments, this one assumes the unborn baby really is a human being! However, it still miserably fails. It ignores a fundamental difference, the oughtness of the parent-child relationship, the most fundamental foundation of human civilization, the family. When the family crumbles, society crumbles too.

Parents are to support and protect their children, not kill them!

Additionally, one is a person dying naturally, “letting nature take its course,” while the other is intentionally killing a person.

Objection 2) My body, my right, my choice

Personal autonomy is central to western civilization’s promotion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, just like one can eat too much or too little, drive too fast or too slow, or sleep too much or too little, so also is one’s personal autonomy. Simply put, unbridled personal autonomy can be exponential idiocy, irrational and delusional.

It is folly to place my “right of personal pleasure” over another’s right to life. It is folly to promote my rights over my responsibility. It seems dedication and commitment has been defenestrated for the sake of my own personal peace and affluence.

Society’s great ethic of “I am my own god” is the message of only one side of the coin. The other side is strangely stamped with the idea that life is cheap and disposable. Since postmodernism, secularism and Darwinism have accelerated the divorce of humanity from a higher power, we are not viewed as being made in God’s image. We are not special from the rest of nature, rather we are just chemical bags that emerged from the goo in past eons.

Since there is no designer and higher authority, we are our own authority. And since being a human is not sacred, human life has no ultimate purpose. People are just objects, sex is cheap entertainment, we are to live for self and the unwanted consequence are babies.


Do you enjoy this post? Watch out for new on my book in process. Here is the working title: Seven Big Bangs: How Christianity Matches Reality and Changed the World.” Please follow if you don’t want to miss the latest news.


If we are made in God’s image, however, we are constrained under a greater authority. While we are given freedom and liberty, we are also limited to what we ought to do with our bodies. It is self-evident that arbitrarily cutting off a limb is wrong, without some valid medical reason. However, society’s praise of euthanasia, sex-change surgeries and extreme body modifications show humanity’s delusion. Mental disorders are now claimed to be normality, the definition of human is now gone.

Not only are there obvious limits to “personal autonomy,” this objection fails in another way too: it is factually wrong. While a woman’s body does house her baby, scientifically the baby itself is not the woman’s body. Who would oppose its removal if it was just a random clump of tissue or a tumor, or even a rat or a cat? No justification would be necessary. However, no justification is adequate if it is a unique human being.

The baby has his or her own human genome, unique from fertilization onward. In addition, about half possess “XY” chromosomes, unlike mom’s “XX.” Furthermore, the tissue has separate human biological markers too, such as different blood type from the mother.

Objection 3) Abortion isn’t murder since it’s lawful

Some say murder is defined as illegally killing another person, and since abortion is legal, it’s not murder. If your highest authority is the state, your morals are subjective and not everyone is constrained to that morality.

It is quite obvious that legal chattel slavery is still immoral independent of its legality. Intentionally taking the life of an innocent slave is still murder, even if it’s legal. Racist German Nazis killing Jews, homosexuals and the handicap were still murdering, even if it was legal. Communism’s murderous rampage of over a hundred million deaths of the 20th century, may have been legal, but it was still horrifically evil.

An objective and eternal moral standard grounded upon the Creator of the Universe says taking innocent human life is murder. Regardless of the standards of society or the state, killing innocent human beings is murder. The unborn are innocent human beings and murder is committed when they are killed.

Objection 4) Even if abortion is illegal, people will still do it

This is one of the worst pro-abortion excuses. Consider this: “Even if rape is illegal, people will still do it.”  “Even if theft is illegal, people will still do it.” “Even if pedophilia is illegal, people will still do it.” Sounds bad, right? Just because people break the law does not mean we should get rid of laws. The unborn are real humans, and whether they are killed with a coat hanger in the back alley or at an abortion clinic, it is still wrong.

Objection 5) Making abortion illegal will make abortions unsafe

This objection is just as bad as the one above. By definition, every abortion is unsafe. How unsafe? Well, when mom goes in for an abortion, she is carrying her baby. After the abortion, she walks out the front door and her dead baby is tossed in the trash bin outside the back door. The safest place on planet earth, the womb, has become a death chamber!

Objection 6) A man shouldn’t condemn abortion, since he has no uterus

Strangely enough, many men use this line on other men, which is self-defeating to say the least. Even more strange is this line is used by pro-abortion men on anti-abortion women! We also must not forget to appropriate today’s leftist confusion by replying to this comment with “Are you assuming my gender?”, a SJWs sin. To add to the confusion, what if one is an anti-abortion male who identifies as transgender female, does that person’s opinion now count? And on a more serious note, aren’t about half the babies in the womb biological male? Don’t they get a say in the matter too?

As you can see, while this identity politics objection is rhetorically powerful, it is logically absurd. Sure, I as a male will never have the responsibility of carrying a baby in the womb. However, as you also probably noticed, this “argument” is a fallacious argument to authority.

Can a female judge never comment on a male criminal? Can a male judge never judge a female in the stand? Can a man never condemn a woman who sexually assaults an underage student? Should a woman never have anything to say about the morality of one man raping another man? While we are at it, can we never judge someone who is of a different ethnicity, age, weight and income level? Really, who are you to judge? And to add to this, why is a woman judging a man for judging? Self-defeating, it seems to me!

In addition, to say men should not have a say in the life of the unborn is also the farthest from the truth. Isn’t it a man’s responsibility to protect the innocent, especially his family? Instead of a man shirking his duties, shouldn’t he be a man and support both the mother and his unborn child? When the family structure has broken, dads are not dads with responsibility. Moms and children are not supported and the the family crumbles.

Objection 7) I’m against abortion, except for in cases of rape or incest

Emotionally and rhetorically, this objection is brilliant. Logically and rationally, this objection is hideous! The politically correct line of “Personally I’m against abortion, except for cases of rape and incest” sounds so nice, fair and empathetic. The one who opposes such language is seen as cruel, insensitive and barbaric.

However, I’d rather be correct than politically correct. Simply put, this line is incorrect because it ignores the unborn’s identity. If the unborn is not a unique human being, no justification would be necessary for abortion. However, if it is a human being, no justification is adequate, including cases of rape and incest. The unborn is a unique human being, so abortion, including in these cases, is wrong.

This position is not just immoral, murdering the life of an innocent human being, but it is also unjust. Why punish an innocent unborn child rather than the serving proper justice to the father? Are we okay if judgment is twisted and not justly served to the offending person?

Now, maybe the constant sight of the baby will cause ongoing trauma for the raped woman, as some say. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case, at least from the accounts I’ve come across. But, even if it was the case, wouldn’t moral adoption be better than immoral murder?

Objection 8) Abortion isn’t wrong since many zygotes don’t get implanted in the womb

In a video titled, “Can We Stop Telling Women What to Do With Their Bodies?” Bill Nye says the following:

“Many, many, many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized then become humans. Eggs get fertilized by sperm, gets accepted by ovum a lot, but that’s not all you need, you need to attach to the uterine wall, the inside of the woman’s womb.”

“But if you are going to use that as a standard, that it is to say when an egg is fertilized it has the same rights as an individual. Then whom are you going sue or imprison, every woman who has had a fertilized eggs pass through her, every guy whose sperm has fertilized an egg and it did not become an human. Have all these people failed you?”

“It’s just a reflection of a deep scientific lack of understanding, you apparently literally don’t know what you are talking about.”

Here’s the problem, as we already talked about, the fertilized egg is already a human being, scientifically. We know that the unborn baby has a full set of human chromosomes, not identical to his or her mother. We also know that the baby is in the correct location for his or her stage of development, a place designed to hold, carry and nurture the next human generation.

Since we established that fact, Nye’s thinking, and people of his persuasion, are making a totally fallacious point. Consider it this way, since your child may die of a natural disaster or a natural disease, why not just kill him or her now? Since you may be in a deathly car crash, why not just kill yourself? Since a meteorite may hit your neighbor on the head, why don’t we just strike him on the head with a rock?

We all know these all would be beyond evil, so why is Mr. Nye making such a bad and immoral argument? Simply put, one dying of natural causes is different morally then one who is killed intentional by another human.

Objection 9) The Fetus is just a little bundle of cells, like Cancer

YouTuber Rachel Oates once compared the unborn to a little bundle of cells, like cancer. Strangely, she says that while she doesn’t like abortion, she thinks women should have the right. Curiously, if it’s just like a bundle of cancer cells, why not like it? Who’s not for cancer destruction?.

In her heart of hearts, she knows they are separate human beings, dissimilar to a bundle of cancer cells. Not only is the unborn biologically alive, it is also a whole organism unlike cancer. Every unborn baby possesses a unique human genome and about half have different genders from mom. Each one also has unique human biological tissue markers, like different blood types.

Cancer cells are mutated “immortal” host’s cells, they continue to reproduce. If left unchecked, cancer cells will kill the host, metastasizing and are a deviation of the design of the body. The unborn is not an “immortal” tumor that metastasizes and invades the host, rather it grows in a location designed to carry it for only nine months.

Without exception, every mature human has gone through the exact same stage of life and process of development. In a womb designed to carry they body, the woman’s body are intentionally trying to keep it alive.

Objection 10) The fetus is just a parasite

If the thing in the womb is just useless tissue like a parasite, who would be against aborting it? I’m not. However, if the unborn is a human person, then it would be wrong to kill it. Here are a number of reasons that the unborn are obviously not parasites, rather a human being.

  1. Live off other species. While intraspecies parasites exist, most parasites live off other species. The parent-child relationship is not parasitical, rather a system that perpetuates the species’ next generation. Plus, the unborn is in the proper location for formation, development and growth, while the mother’s body is intentionally keeping it alive and healthy.
  2. Detriment. As a rule, parasites are detriments to the host, a human baby is not. The womb is designed for human propagation, which is good. Humanity would be extinct if this wouldn’t happen.
  3. Invasive. While parasites originate from outside humans, sex cells are human derived via mitosis and meiosis. In a complex diversification process, the gametes are united for human procreation. It seems as if there is some sort of collusion to grow this thing.
  4. Direct contact. Parasites usually live in direct contact with the host’s tissue while the placenta is a temporary interface organ to choreograph the mother body and the baby’s well-being.
  5. Fights to feed. A parasite is at war with the host’s immune system for survival. The unborn, rather, is not in conflict. From the formation of sex cells, to the fertilization, implantation and maturation of the unborn, the host intentionally is making a nurturing environment for the unborn baby. In fact, the parent’s own body suppress its own immune system at times to make this all happen!
  6. Weakens reproduction. While parasites usually weaken the host’s reproduction, the opposite is the case with the unborn. The unborn is the product of reproduction!

Objection 11) It is hypocrisy to be both pro-life and pro-capital punishment

While it is legitimate to argue the pros and cons of capital punishment, it is illegitimate to say being both pro-life and pro-capital punishment is hypocrisy. There’s an apples to oranges moral difference between the two: the issue of innocence. In the first case, an innocent baby is killed for actions of his or her parents. Not only is this obviously immoral, it’s also unjust. In the second case, one is served justice for his or her crimes. While there could be an unjust criminal legal system, that doesn’t diminish the evils, immorality and injustice of abortion.

Devaluing humanity and injustice to the innocent

The problem of abortion is grounded on deeper problems. For one, there is an imbalance between our pleasure and our view of humanity. We have ejected justice on the altar of personal “rights”, prosperity and affluence. Rights are no longer coupled with responsibility. We have become our own gods, and the unborn have become non-human, maybe a bag-o-cells or just a cancerous tumor.

These dehumanizing ideas have made us as bad as the Nazis to the Jews, Jacksonians to American Indians and Democrats to black slaves. We have ignored the biblical mandate of justice and righteous judgment. Humanity’s injustice screams, in politically correct language, that the most innocent should be least protected.

Humanity’s biggest scandal was when the most innocent human was crucified, Humanity’s ultimate injustice. Why should we be surprised then, when innocent and vulnerable unborn babies are literally ripped from the womb? Sure it is done in a sterile medical clinic, before we see them, but whether crucifixion or evacuation, it seems society loves death of the innocent.

Join me as we share with the world the Good News life and justice, as we make abortion unthinkable!


I have a passion to have answers for Christianity as Peter taught us to do. I would love for you to come along with me and not miss a post! In the future, I plan on giving more resources and answers you can share with both believers and unbelievers. Plus, I want to send you a Free Quick Guide why I think science points to God. I would love for you to have this Free Quick Guide and the latest posts straight to your inbox. 

If you like what you read, feel free to come along side and partner with iApologia. Thank you to those who help keep iApologia going!


So, what did you think? Feel free to share your thoughts below!

Share With Others!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
John Jaeger Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
John Jaeger
Guest
John Jaeger

Draw a straight horizontal line on a sheet of paper. Put a vertical hash mark at the left end and label this time line start “0 Months”. At the right end of the horizontal line, put a second vertical hash mark and label it “9 months.” Now pick a point between 0 and 9 months where YOU claim that the unborn child may be killed on the left side of your line but not on the right side of your line. Split the second and explain your reasoning, or lack of it.