By James Carnegie
If one thing is evident in the abortion debate, it is the difference in argument of those in favour of abortion and those who oppose it. You can see this by listening to speakers or reading literature from either side. While pro-lifers often refer to their opponents as ‘pro-aborts’ the pro-choicers often use the term ‘anti-choice.’ In seeing how names are used in this debate one thing becomes clear: those opposed to abortion and those who support it are arguing two separate issues.
The argument of Brock Students For Life, along with all other pro-life advocates, is based upon demonstrating the inherent dignity of all human life from conception to natural death. Our opponents, however, build their argument upon the idea of choice. For this reason, rather than arguing why the unborn are not human, the pro-choice side tends to argue why the woman has a right to control her body.
In my experience, the abortion advocates I have encountered have avoided the question of the humanity of the unborn by turning to the worst-case-scenarios. By resting upon the cases of rape, incest, and the endangerment of the mother’s life the pro-choicer turns the argument back to ‘choice,’ thus appealing to the “mushy middle,” those who do not have a strong belief in either direction.
What the pro-life advocate must do is keep the conversation focused on the topic of ‘life’ as opposed to ‘choice.’ When the opponent argues that abortion should be legal because of the cases listed above we must explain why in both the case of the rape of a minor and the inconvenience of another child to a married couple the fetus is, in fact, a human being and, therefore, aborting him or her is murderous.
Without disrespect to those I have debated in the past, I have noticed a tendency to deny the reality of factual evidence. Usually this is justified by the argument that “there is nothing wrong with aborting a clump of cells.” Otherwise the facts I’ve presented are glossed over and ‘choice’ is again trumpeted.
In my opinion, this is further proof that it is essential that we, as pro-life advocates, have the tools and skills necessary to defend our position. We must be able to explain to persons of any opinion that the unborn are human, that it is not a matter of choice but a matter of life and death.
In future posts I will dive further into pro-life arguments and the how to defend our position when challenged (apologetics = “to speak in defense”). If anyone has a particular pro-choice argument to which they would like a pro-life response please leave it in the comment section and I will include it in my next post. Until next time, keep fighting the good fight!