(Oregon Right to Life) — Have you ever noticed that conversations about abortion frequently become conversations about something other than abortion? Issues like the availability of resources – or even larger societal problems like crime and poverty – frequently take center stage in dialogues about abortion.
The result is that the real reason for opposing abortion gets lost.
In a social media post late last month, Catholic podcaster Matt Fradd cut through the confusion and shared the simple syllogistic argument that clearly and accurately presents the pro-life position:
National pro-life organization Live Action reshared Fradd’s post, commenting: “It’s this simple.”
And it really is that simple.
But to better understand how to defend these premises and the conclusion, let’s break them down.
Premise 1: It’s always wrong to kill an innocent human being.
It’s one of those things we feel we shouldn’t really have to say. Thankfully, most people already agree with this basic premise, but somehow things get muddled when the conversation is about abortion.
So let’s go step by step.
Killing the innocent is clearly wrong.
That’s why every state and nation has laws against it. Sometimes, killing can be justified in cases like self-defense, which includes situations like fighting in a war. But it’s always wrong to intentionally kill innocent people.
The unborn are human beings.
At fertilization, a human zygote comes into existence. During pregnancy, the zygote becomes an embryo, who then becomes a fetus, who then develops into an infant.
Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence who previously served on the President’s Council on Bioethics and as the U.S. member of UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), put it this way:
“A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. Unless severely damaged or deprived of nutrition or a suitable environment, the embryonic human will develop himself or herself by an internally directed process to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.”
It’s scientifically clear that “zygote,” “embryo,” “fetus,” and “infant” are not separate entities. These are just biological terms that describe different phases of human development: like “baby,” “toddler,” “child,” “teenager,” and “adult.” People don’t become human by degrees. A fetus is just as human as a newborn, in the same way that a toddler is just as human as a teenager. An adult is nothing more or less than the fully developed form of the very same organism that began as a single-cell “zygote” at fertilization.
The unborn are inherently innocent.
The unborn haven’t done anything wrong, and they aren’t even responsible for their own existence. In the vast majority of cases, they are conceived when their parents make the free choice to engage in an action that can result in a pregnancy. In the tragic case of rape, this action occurs against the will of the mother – but a human embryo conceived in rape still isn’t responsible for the circumstances that brought him or her into being. Pro-life advocates believe rapists should be brought to justice. But the unborn lives conceived in rape are not at fault and should not be given the death penalty through abortion.
Nothing justifies intentionally killing an innocent human being.
As we’ve mentioned, circumstances like self-defense and war can legitimize taking a life. But no considerations can ever justify the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Often, people who support legal abortion will bring up external issues to justify it.
For example, they might argue that…
- An unsupported pregnancy means the child will have a poor quality of life;
- Abortion is a compassionate alternative to a child being born with a disability; or
- A family who can’t afford to raise another child should have the option to abort
But none of these justifications could pass muster if the unborn are human beings, too.
- Concern about quality of life in impoverished neighborhoods wouldn’t justify the killing of needy people.
- Disabled people have the same right to life as anyone else.
- A family struggling to make ends meet would never be justified in killing their newborn or toddler.
So, the first premise is true: It’s always wrong to kill an innocent human being – and the unborn are innocent human beings.
Premise 2: Abortion kills an innocent human being.
Sometimes, people who support abortion will remark that, technically, C-sections and natural birth “terminate” pregnancies, too. And it’s true that C-sections and natural birth end the gestational period, causing the baby to exit the womb.
But abortion is very different.
Abortion is intended to terminate a pregnancy in such a way that it “does not result in a live birth,” according to the CDC. In plainer terms, abortion is when practitioners intentionally kill a growing human fetus and remove him or her from the womb.
There are various methods to accomplish this. In surgical abortions, the fetus is killed through suctioning, induced cardiac arrest, poisoning, or dismemberment, and removed using metal tools or vacuums. In chemical abortions, the fetus is starved to death. Then, contractions are induced to expel the body from the womb.
Visit abortionprocedures.com to learn more from former abortion practitioners who have since become pro-life advocates.
It’s often hard to watch or listen to descriptions of abortions. But what’s clear is that abortion doesn’t stop a living person from coming into existence or make a pregnancy simply go away. Instead, it’s a violent act that consists of deliberately killing a living human being.
So, the second premise is true: The unborn are innocent human beings, and abortion terminates their lives. Therefore, abortion kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Abortion is always wrong.
Anyone who’s taken Philosophy 101 in high school or college will likely remember the criteria for a syllogistic argument like this one to be accepted as true.
If the premises of an argument are correct, it’s “sound.” If those premises logically lead to the argument’s conclusion, it’s “valid.” Arguments that are both sound and valid are to be accepted as true.
The pro-life argument is clearly “sound.”
We’ve shown that each of the premises is true:
- Is it always wrong to kill an innocent human being? Yes.
- Is that what abortion does? Yes.
The pro-life argument is clearly “valid.”
If it’s true that it’s always wrong to kill an innocent human being, and if it’s also true that abortion kills an innocent human being, then it logically follows that abortion is always wrong.
Therefore, the pro-life argument should be accepted as true.
The next time you find yourself having a conversation about the ethics of abortion, be careful not to get bogged down responding to claims that do not have to do with these central premises and their conclusion. External issues can make pregnancy, child-raising, or family life more difficult, and that’s deserving of empathy. But if those challenges wouldn’t justify killing a more developed human being, they can’t justify abortion.
Make sure to listen with compassion and thoughtfulness to those who disagree on this issue. And when it’s time to present your perspective, consider using these premises and their conclusion to clearly and succinctly defend the pro-life position.
Go deeper:
To learn more about pro-life apologetics, check out these resources:
- Standing Strong Under Fire: Popular Abortion Arguments and Why They Fail – Presentation by pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf
- Persuasive Pro-Life – Book by pro-life apologist Trent Horn
- Equal Rights Institute – Pro-life apologetics courses (email ORTL Community Outreach Director Makyra Williamson at makyra@ortl.org for free access)
Oregon Right to Life believes in the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death. Abortion ends the life of a genetically distinct, growing human being. We oppose abortion at any point of gestation. In rare cases, a mother may have a life threatening condition in which medical procedures intended to treat the condition of the mother may result in the unintended death of her preborn baby. At the same time, ORTL recognizes that modern medical practice has and will continue to increase the ability to save both the life of the mother and the baby. Read this and all of our position statements here.
