Following the overturn of Roe v. Wade in the U.S., abortion has become a hot-topic across the Western World. Unfortunately, we are now at the point where a lot of people, particularly on the pro-abortion side, are not open to talking. You now even have active members of government, such as Maxine Waters, actively encouraging violence, a call that is being heard and heeded by some very irrational people throughout the U.S. Let it not be forgotten; the devil is alive and well.
Unfortunately, those who are beyond reason are beyond reason. But for those who aren't, it's worth sitting down and talking out this issue. Did the Supreme Court make a good, bad, or neutral call? What about outside the U.S.? Is there a Biblical answer? In this article, I intend to briefly explain the abortion issue from both a Christian and secular standpoint, as well as defend the Christian position.
Foundational principles of the pro-life case
The morality, or lack thereof, of abortion depends on the answer to three main questions:
Does human life have intrinsic value?
Is all human life equally valuable?
Is a human life being ended by abortion?
The sanctity of life is the foundational principle from which the pro-life position takes its name. Most people will agree that, if not all human life, at least some human life has value. Indeed, if you're going to talk about human rights, you have to start with life. If you have no life, you have no ability to enjoy or exercise any other right, and thus if you have no right to life, you have no rights.
In the same vein, equality is essential to discussing human rights. If one group has human rights, but another group is not equal, the superior group has the right to infringe upon the rights of the inferior. This is actually the way in which supremacist groups throughout history have justified their atrocities. By "othering" their slaves, slave owners were able to not only internally justify slavery, but also do so in the eyes of the general public, minimising outcry. In the same way, the Nazis considered themselves "Aryan", the "master race", whereas everyone else, particularly the Jews, were "sub human". If you can infringe the rights of animals, why not "sub humans"?
But of course, none of that matters if abortion does not even prematurely end the life of another human being. You may well find other reasons to oppose abortion, such as the medical complications that almost inevitably result, but none of those are quite as important, or impactful, as whether or not abortion terminates a human life.
The answer to the first and second questions may actually depend on your religion. Not all religions teach the value and/or equality of human life, nor can they necessarily justify it. In fact, I dare say Christianity alone can do this. See, value is ascribed, not observed. Take, for example, money. If I obtained some foreign money and asked you to arrange it in order of value, could you do so? You might be able to say "sure, that coin as a 1 on it, that one has a 5, that has a 10" etc. But assuming each coin or note did not have a fairly obvious, legible, written indicator of its value on it, could you do so based purely on the attributes of the coins? The answer is probably no. Nor would those same coins have the same value in all circumstances. I live in the UK, so I carry GBP, not USD. My GBP wouldn't work in American shops, nor would I be able to buy my weekly coffee with USD. Because value is ascribed, something must exist to ascribe it. Otherwise, it is as fictitious as me claiming my £1 coin is actually worth £1million.
But even from a standpoint of practicality, who would want to live in a society where their value is merely ascribed? Especially by an entity as capricious as just about every government the world has ever seen? We see, then, that whether God exists or not, it is better if we assume He does.
Of course, as it stands, He does, and He is very firmly pro-life. This can be established with one simple Bible verse: "“You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13). This most famous of the so-called "10 commandments" clearly tells us that, under normal circumstances, the deliberate ending of another human life is completely unacceptable. Now, this does not mean there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable. But the word "murder" necessitates that acceptable circumstances are absent.
Long before this commandment was given, shortly after the Noahic flood, God makes a covenant with Noah and his descendants, saying "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it.”"
Now, first, note the presence of one of the aforementioned "acceptable circumstances". Capital punishment is appropriate for murder (though this does not justify pro-life violence; it must be carried out by a legitimate authority, as shown in Romans 13:1-7). But God also explains why this is. God requires an account for human bloodshed because He made us in His image. Thus, when you lash out at another human being, you are lashing out at God. For that, you forfeit your right to life; it may, and arguably should, be ended by a legitimate governing body.
This also establishes equality simply for the fact there are no exceptions stated. It doesn't say "whoever sheds Aryan blood", but "whoever sheds man's blood". As the song goes, "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight". Age does not matter. Gender does not matter. Color does not matter. Even religion, which one could argue did not even exist at this point, does not matter. God absolutely and unequivocally demands that the right to life, for humans, is protected, and He promises restitution for all who fail to do so. God, and God alone, reserves the right to take human life.
So that brings us to whether or not abortion fails to uphold that right? The simplest answer here is "yes". But we could dig a little deeper. After all, at this point, the science is settled, and the theology is established, but that doesn't mean everyone knows it. You will even get the odd numpty who will claim pro-lifers, in order to be consistent, should weep over every wasted sperm.
Scientifically, life is noted for the following characteristics: movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion, and nutrition. Obviously, some non-living objects will exhibit some of these too. A machine can move, but is not alive. Similarly, not all living things reproduce, and of course this applies to an embryo, which has not yet fully developed its reproductive system. But here's the question: Will it?
Under normal circumstances, a sperm cell will always remain a sperm cell. Indeed, the only possible way to turn it into anything else is if it fertilises an egg. Thus, we can conclusively say it is not a human life. The same is true of an unfertilised egg. An embryo, however, left to itself, will continue to grow. It does need to respire, it does need nutrition, it does excrete, and as it continues to grow, it will gain moving parts, and one day, barring medical complications, will gain the ability to reproduce. It is beyond dispute, and indeed was taken for granted prior to the 1960s, that a human embryo is a human life from the moment of conception.
And the Bible agrees. You will notice, it never considers any life, in any womb, as any less than human. And it does talk about the miracle of life quite frequently, from God's active engagement in the formation of a child (Psalm 139:13-16) to the unfortunate stain of sin upon this process (Psalm 51:5) to His intimate knowledge of the person (Jeremiah 1:5), right up to the very emotions of a child in the womb (Luke 1:39-45). To really lay this issue to bed, consider that accidental abortion by striking a pregnant woman in combat was punishable as murder under the Mosaic law (Exodus 21:22-23).
Even if we wanted to be extremely generous and say yes, there is a point where a baby is noticeably human, but we cannot say definitively that a life has begun at X stage in the pregnancy, abortion still remains problematic. Consider this: A hunter is required to verify his shots before firing. If a hunter is wondering around in the woods looking for deer, he cannot fire indiscriminately at every rustle in the bushes. Why? Because it might not hit a deer! There is no excuse a hunter can give for shooting another human walking in the woods that would absolve him of responsibility for pulling that trigger.
Now, indiscriminate firing, especially in a hunting area where people are likely to be mindful of other people's guns, is not guaranteed to hit a human. Yet, if a human is hit, the one who pulled the trigger is still in trouble, even if they thought they were shooting at a deer. But in abortion, the same "target" is always hit. If "I thought there was a deer nearby so I just opened fire" is not an excuse for manslaughter, why should "it might be a life, it might not, I just went ahead and killed it" be an excuse for murder?
There are three common attempts to respond to this Biblically. These three points are:
Life begins at first breath in Genesis 2:7
Numbers 5:11-31 both prescribes abortion and describes how to do it
God gave us free will
On the first point, the easy answer is that Genesis 2:7 refers to Adam exclusively. Yes, Adam's life began when he took his first breath. But Adam didn't come from a womb. He didn't spend 9 months inside a woman. One can no more say all human life begins at first breath, like Adam, than that all women are created from the rib of their husbands, like Eve.
On the second point, Numbers 5:11-31 does not actually describe an abortion. Indeed, only one translation I am aware of, the NIV, makes it sound even remotely like that. As a general rule, if your case depends on a specific translation, your case is, at best, weak. Abortion is not in view in this passage at all. It is simply an admittedly strange ritual designed to punish an unfaithful wife, or absolve a falsely accused one (of course, with the Lord's direct oversight).
It's worth noting that even if this was the case, it wouldn't much help the pro-abortion cause. The abortion ideology presents itself as "pro-choice", yet choice is not in view here. Rather, it is an involuntary ritual imposed on the wife as a result of her wrong choice. No abortionist will ever argue "I think we should force women to abort babies resulting from adultery". Thus, even if you really want to say the NIV is the only translation that accurately represents the original text, you really don't want to bring it in support of your case.
"Free will", however, is a common argument that might seem appealing. However, not only is it illogical, it's also hypocritical.
It's illogical because freedom to choose one's sin does not equate to the right to choose one's consequences. Yes, God has given us the ability to choose our own way, but He absolutely expects us to do so properly. Indeed, the very purpose of free will seems to be to legitimise choice. Think about it this way: Do you thank an automatic door? Even if you do, is this because its actions are as weighty as even a stranger who opens a door for you? The freedom to make a choice merely makes the bad choices worse and the good choices better. God will still judge those who do evil, and Romans 13 specifically outlines government as one of His Earthly ways of doing it.
To really drive this point home, consider 1 John 3:15: "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Obviously, the one and only criteria for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. But our works are indicative of faith. James tells us multiple times that faith without works is dead (see James 2), and Paul asks "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Romans 6:1-2). Thus, although works are not sufficient to condemn us, they are good indicators of whether or not we are condemned. If you are saved, you will act saved, as surely as if a man lives, he will breathe. One who hungers and thirsts will seek food and water, and so one who hungers and thirsts for righteousness will seek justice. What, then, does that say about pro-abortion Christians? It is a strong indicator that they may not be saved. My Christian brethren, take that how you will, but when you stand before God, your only plea will be the blood of Jesus. "You gave me free will" is not going to ward off God's judgement for your abuse of that precious gift.
"Pro-choice" is a misnomer
But obviously, free will is a gift with which God has endowed us, and it is one we love to use. Thus, the pro-abortion crowd have dubbed themselves "pro-choice". Indeed, while they occasionally drop the ball by using dumb terms like "forced birth", a term so childish that I'm tempted to advocate free rattles and pacifiers for anyone who uses it, abortionists are experts at dominating the language. The very word "abortion" sounds a lot nicer than "child dismemberment".
"Pro-choice", similarly, sounds nicer than even pro-abortion. It has a lot of implications, both presenting abortionists as champions of freedom, and painting pro-lifers as being overly and unnecessarily restrictive. And this is the way they argue quite frequently, at least depending on how dominant they are at the time. "My body, my choice" is a common abortionist mantra, and they do so love to pretend abortion is a patriarchal control thing.
There is a tacit admission, however, in another common abortionist mantra: "Safe, legal, and rare". This was where abortionists started, and now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned in the U.S., it's where a lot of them are returning. But it's flawed beyond reason. "Safe" abortion is like "dry" water. In a successful abortion, at least one human being dies. Maybe more. Abortion, even "professionally" done, can result in death or injury for the mother. "Legal" is irrelevant. A thing does not become ok just because it's legal. Indeed, the U.S. has a long history of abusive laws, some of which required a violent civil war to overturn.
But note that last word. "Rare". Why rare? If choice should be preserved, if abortion a morally acceptable choice, why should it be rare? No one advocates the rarity of ordering a takeaway. You want to choose pizza for supper every night, you go ahead. But abortion started with safe, legal, and... rare.
But as abortion became more tolerable and people became more ignorant of what, exactly, it is, the rare disappeared. Now, "my body, my choice" is dominant. But here's the thing: Abortion does not include only the mother's body. She made her choice to have sex (I'll answer the question "what about rape" later). That choice resulted in the creation of a brand new body that is not yours, with its own rights.
The strange thing is, even now, pro-lifers remain pro-choice. There are 4 choices pro-lifers typically advocate, two prior to pregnancy, two after. These 4 choices are abstinence, contraception, adoption, and motherhood.
Abstinence is a guaranteed way to not get pregnant. A grand total of one virgin in the history of the human race has gotten pregnant, and that was a literal miracle, 100% voluntary by the mother. If you do not have sex, or replicate it through some means such as IVF (which is even more deliberate pregnancy), you have a 0% chance of getting pregnant. This tends to make pro-abortionists quite angry, because they don't like this choice, but it is still a good choice no pro-lifer would want to stop you from taking.
Contraception, while less moral, is at the very least an acceptable choice from a practical standpoint. Obviously, the Bible says God will judge fornicators (Hebrews 13:4), so as a Christian, I'm not going to advocate this as a good choice. But from a practical standpoint, it makes sense to let it remain legal and just let God sort you out later. If you're going to fornicate, do it "safely". If it results in pregnancy anyway, tough, you made your choice. Just because it's a bad one doesn't mean you should be allowed to make another, far worse choice.
After pregnancy, adoption is a better option. Many couples would love to adopt children, some of whom are infertile, others of whom are just altruistic like that. Adoption is a beautiful practice, which I can't imagine any pro-lifer, particularly not Christian pro-lifers, would ever want to do away with. Abortionists often viciously reply to this by suggesting this is cruel because children tend not to do well in orphanages. I like to reply to this by asking if it is therefore acceptable to shoot up those orphanages? The obvious answer is no. You don't get to just kill kids because you don't think they're happy. This actually extends to a good 90% of abortionist arguments. They can all be used to justify killing someone else.
The final choice is motherhood. Take responsibility for your own child, ideally with the father doing likewise. Abortionists actually recognise this one, too. Take this gem as an example:
100% agreed! A man who abandons his children is called a "deadbeat", and as far as I can tell, most women don't respect them much for it. We could even flip this, then: If men abandoning their children is bad, how much more so women killing their children? But women who take on the responsibility of motherhood are to be admired, particularly if they do have to do so "alone".
So, that's four choices. Are they ideal? Abstinence and marriage, actually yes. These two are all but guaranteed to erase abortion completely, and will also minimise the number of "unwanted" children. Contraception, while it does mean promiscuity is still running rampant, and isn't foolproof, isn't ideal, but it's still better than abortion. Adoption, likewise, means there are "unwanted" children in need, but again, far more noble than slaughtering 800,000 innocent human beings per year. All that to say, even if you are selfish and reckless, so much so that abstinence and motherhood are repugnant to you, you do have choices. Abortion just shouldn't be one of them. Abortion is the most selfish, reckless, and frankly violent decision you could possibly make.
"Pro-birth" is still pro-life
But this is where some abortionists spread the vicious lie that pro-lifers aren't really pro-life, but pro-birth. Allegedly, we don't care what happens after birth, we just care that a birth happens. Of course, this then gets used to springboard into Socialist propaganda.
But the logic is ridiculous. I obviously can't speak for all pro-lifers on any issue, but the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers absolutely do care about the children after their born, as is highlighted by the fact that abortionists have become so radical, they're starting to advocate abortion after birth! Up until now, most people find abortion up until birth (as is still legal in Colorado) repugnant, so there's never really been a need to say "hey, don't murder your newborn!" But now, apparently there is.
Of course, keep in mind, even if every pro-lifer on the planet only believed murder is wrong, but didn't care enough to aid the survivors, that still wouldn't justify abortion. Believing murder is wrong and taking personal responsibility for every individual survivor are two different things. Again, abortionists already know this, as is shown when they speak out against Vladimir Putin. If I call Putin out as a murderer, does that obligate me to do anything for Ukraine? Do I have to sail overseas and enlist in their militia? Should I take in a refugee or two? Am I even remotely obligated to donate to a relief charity of some kind? I can do at least some of those things, but doing so is not a pre-requisite for condemning Russia's assault.
In the same way, even if it was true that every pro-lifer in the world cared only about protecting the children from murder, but didn't do anything else, that still wouldn't make us hypocrites for condemning abortion.
What makes it worse, however, is that it's not even true. I've never actually met a pro-lifer who wouldn't at least want to help struggling mothers and their babies even after birth. In fact, many pro-life charities not only exist for the sole purpose of providing alternative help to mothers in crisis, but these charities operate in spite of violent opposition from abortionists!
Now, if abortionists really are pro-choice, would they not appreciate, even help fund, organisations that provide aid to mothers who choose not to abort? Why are they so angry with organisations that encourage mothers to choose life, and help them out any way they can? I can tell you this much: While I have never met someone who only cares about birth, I would respect such a person far more than someone who only cares about abortions.
Morality transcends borders, and religion
Another argument that always amuses me is "America isn't a Christian country". Why does this amuse me so much? Because I'm not even American. As much as I would love to emigrate, I am, for financial reasons, still a citizen and resident of the UK. "But the UK isn't a Christian country either". Ok? Neither was Nazi Germany. Neither are Iraq, or Afghanistan, or North Korea. This goes back to the sanctity of life thing. Morality transcends both borders and religion. Your right to life is absolute. You could fly to the moon, it wouldn't make a difference.
Consider the example of honor killings. This is a common practice in Islam, and in some Islamic countries, it remains either legal, or laws against it are minimally enforced. For sake of argument, let's just point out that thanks to Joe Biden's utter incompetence, Afghanistan is now completely under the control of the Taliban. Their laws are now the law of the land. Do you think they would hesitate to kill their own family members for dishonoring Islam? If their daughters married a Hindu man? If their sons converted to Christianity? Of course not. These are evil men following an evil religion. Yet even the most hardcore, screaming Leftist who will call me an Islamophobe for even daring to say such a thing should, in theory, admit that honor killings are bad, even if they are "legal". You don't get to say "Afghanistan isn't a Christian country" to justify honor killings.
The moral difference between abortion and honor killings is negligible. Just as "Afghanistan isn't a Christian country" does not justify honor killings, "America isn't a Christian country" doesn't justify abortion. Morality, and the sanctity of life, transcend borders.
What's particularly interesting here is that while America is not a Christian country, it is a country with Christians in it. And these Christians have a right to vote. The overturning of Roe v. Wade, sadly, did not go so far as to recognise a child's natural and constitutional right to live, but it does recognise the constitutional right of citizens to elect representatives who will. That's right, Democracy! The thing that abortionists, ironically, claim is "dead" because of the ruling, may well be what makes abortion illegal in some states. Pro-life candidates can now be voted in, using nothing but the U.S. legal system, and fix the law!
Abortionists are therefore faced with a painful (for them) choice. They can stick with Democracy and just surrender whenever the pro-lifers win. This would be nice, especially if pro-lifers always won, but abortionists are rarely so calm and collected. Indeed, you have to be quite irrational to know what abortion is and still support it, so the riots around the U.S. since the ruling aren't surprising. But the alternative is abortionists can recognise the flaw in Democracy, admitting that human rights are not up for a vote, or debate.
Uno problemo. Once you admit human rights are objective, you lose the border argument. But you also need to find something to attach it to. It can't be the government, they can become pro-life on a whim. It can't be God, He's pro-life. It can't be yourself, you're fallible and lack authority. So abortionists can't win no matter what. They will never be able to explain why any law against abortion anywhere on earth is a problem. They will never be able to explain why abortion is a right.
Common hypocrisy: Gun control
Compare this with the opposite end of the debate. Abortionists cannot explain why abortion is a right, but most abortionists, ironically, tend to be anti-gun, because "guns kill". At first glance, it seems both sides have a consistency problem here. However, pro-gun pro-lifers have a far stronger, far more consistent case than abortionists.
The consistency problem for anti-gun abortionists exists on three main levels. The first is obvious: One way, they want to kill the innocent, yet on the flip side, they argue life as their basis for trying to ban guns.
The second way is a little less obvious: They have opposite views of the criminal mind. With gun bans, they think they'll work, even though such bans would only really affect the law abiding. Criminals will not suddenly hand over their guns. On the flip side, they argue abortion bans would result in masses of previously law-abiding women turning criminal, seeking illegal abortions instead.
The third way ties in nicely to the pro-gun argument: The innocence of the lives being taken or protected. For a pro-lifer, the priority is always the innocent lives. The point of carrying a gun isn't to kill people, it's to make sure you don't get killed. The mere sight of a gun is enough to deter many criminals, and even the use of it is not a guarantee of death. In the U.S. alone, a low estimate of 1 million defensive uses of firearms happen per year. Are there 1 million gun deaths?
On the flip side, there are close to a million abortion deaths. Not quite so high, 600,000 on a good year (good, of course, meaning less abortions), but that's a far cry from the 30,000 gun deaths per year. 99% of abortions kill, but most defensive uses of firearms save lives. In other words, pro-gun is pro-life. Anti-gun is almost as pro-death as abortion.
Common hypocrisy: Identity politics
It's also pro-rape. A gun gives a woman a mechanical advantage over even the strongest of rapists. No man is bulletproof. By contrast, a man has a natural physical advantage over a woman. It sucks, but it's true.
Ironically, that's a "transphobic" thing to say. The modern Left, who for so long have been clinging to the idea that, since men can't get pregnant, we can't have an opinion on abortion (unless it's pro-abortion), has more recently opened the door wide open to transgenderism, an ideology which posits that men can get pregnant too.
This is to the extent where comedian and political commentator, Steven Crowder, actually went into a Planned Parenthood centre to get a pregnancy test, which came back positive. Why? Because he borrowed a real woman's pee and had that tested. The test? To see if Planned Parenthood would call him on it. See, if a man gives a positive pregnancy test, any competent doctor will either immediately figure out what Steven did, or suspect testicular cancer.
Of course, the issue being discussed here isn't supposed to be transgenderism, but abortion. Still, Leftists do have to pick one. They can confess that transgenderism isn't a thing; men can't get pregnant, only women can, or they can ditch the whole "no uterus, no opinion" nonsense.
Of course, the best scenario would be if they dropped both. Biologically speaking, men cannot get pregnant, only women can. One might say a "good" and relevant definition of woman in today's society is... "birthing person". So yes, they should definitely drop the transgender ideology.
But more relevant to abortion, it's actually the ad hominem fallacy. Sexism is a terrible way to argue for your case, simply because truth is equal in every mouth. That's why pro-abortion men are just as wrong as pro-abortion women, and pro-life women are just as right as pro-life men. Strange, that, isn't it? See, we could go around telling pro-abortion men "no uterus, no opinion". But it's an illogical argument, so pro-life women, at least the ones who know how to argue, don't do it. Why, then, is it the most common talking point for abortionists?
On top of that, pro-life men have less motive to be pro-life than pro-abortion men or women have to be pro-abortion. Believe it or not, men like sex too. As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango". Lesbians can't get each other pregnant. So, if a woman gets pregnant during a hook up, who's she hooking up with? A man. Now, do you suppose that man wants the responsibility of a child any more than the woman does? He'd much rather hear "I'm getting an abortion" than "it's your kid too, you support it".
So, who's really more likely to "control women" in that scenario? On the one hand, there's pro-life men, who, if they're consistent, will at the very least man up and take care of their own kids. Sorry boys, don't stick it in her if you can't stick with her. The most consistent of Christians will abstain from sex until they get married, loving their wives and resulting children, maybe even adopting abortion survivors. All of that requires self-sacrifice. On the other hand, you have selfish, reckless men who want all of the fun and none of the responsibility. This often results in men pressuring the woman to get an abortion so his children won't be a burden on his life. You will never be able to make the case that this is an issue of selfish, sexist men who just want to control women by banning abortion. It's all about morality, decency, and personal responsibility.
Exceptions should be just that
But there are some scenarios in which even the most hardcore pro-lifer, if they will not agree should excuse abortion, at least ought to garner sympathy for the women who can't get one. The three most common examples, which also happen to be the three rarest reasons for abortions, are rape, incest, and medically necessary abortions.
The first response to these arguments should always be "we'll talk about exceptions when we establish the rule". Most abortionists do not care how a child came into existence, rape and incest are just excuses to them. Frankly, that's just rude. You're using a rape victim as a pawn for your agenda? I think a rape victim is in a different category than some chick who doesn't remember the name of the guy who put that baby in her, don't you?
But let's suppose you're dealing with a rare abortionist who is actually willing to give more than lip service to "safe, legal, and rare". In fact, let's say they agree that rape etc. should be exceptions to the rule: no abortions should be performed apart from these exceptions. Now let's ask, do these qualify as exceptions?
When it comes to "medically necessary", we have to define it first. For many abortions, "medically necessary" can mean anything from "this woman will die if she carries to term" to "there's a slight chance this baby will have some kind of deformity". The latter is quite easy to dismiss. Indeed, Frank Stephens, a member of the most commonly targeted class, said it best: "...I don't feel I should have to justify my existence...".
In a similar vein, I often challenge abortionists who think this way to stand in an auditorium full of people with genetic disabilities and explain to them exactly why they don't think they have the right to live. A disabled child has as much of a right to live as any other person, and it is sheer bigotry to say otherwise.
But when we're talking genuinely medically necessary abortions, the game changes. Suddenly, it goes from a matter of convenience to urgency. Self preservation. Surely, being pro-life would require an exception to be made here, right? Now we're in trolley dilemma territory. On one track, we have two lives: A woman and a baby. On the other track, the baby alone. Do we switch the track, killing the baby but saving the mother, or do we, through inaction, enable both to die? God alone can judge, but personally, with great sorrow, I'd switch the track. If life is my goal, I'd have to pick the option that preserves the maximum number of lives. Since the baby dies either way, the issue switches from the baby's right to life to the mother's right to the same. It's an issue of self preservation, which of course I believe is the one and only time a civilian should be "allowed" to kill another human being.
As for rape and incest, both of these are tragic, and the mothers should be given all possible care and attention, but if pregnancy is not preventable, unfortunately, the child's right to life does trump the mother's right to prematurely end the pregnancy. It is worth noting that as far as rape survivors go, this is actually helpful. Aborting mothers have a significantly higher rate of suicide, whereas delivering mothers have a lower rate. If preventing a mother from taking her child's life can also prevent her from taking her own, I see that as a good thing. Pro-life is just that: Pro-life.
The newest, dumbest, and most backwards pro-abortion argument
In a world where everything is seen as white supremacy, of course abortion is too. Not surprisingly, abortionists have found a way to turn it into that. How, you ask? Well, obviously, preventing abortion prevents black women from getting abortion. But black women have higher maternal mortality rates, and tend to be poorer overall, so apparently, black women suffer more from abortion bans than white woman. Aren't the left clever?
But here's the thing: First of all, abortion, by design, disproportionately affects minorities. Speaking of black women specifically, in 2015 alone, the CDC reported that black people, despite making up a mere 13.4% of the U.S. population, made up 36.9% of abortions. Planned Parenthood founder, and notorious racist, Margaret Sanger, would be very proud of those numbers.
And apparently, so are the radical Left. See, one side of this issue wants equality of life. Pro-lifers do not want black people to die, nor do they want white people to die. Yet, the radical, pro-abortion Left are championing the cause of abortion by pointing out that if abortion is outlawed, less black babies will be killed. White women? Well, to heck with them, it's all about slaughtering the black population by killing about half of their offspring. I never thought I'd say this given the political connotations, but for goodness sake, black lives matter! Is there any other scenario where it would be tolerated to so flippantly argue otherwise?
It's not a simple issue
Abortion will never be a simple issue. Now that we live in a hyper-sexualised culture that has also become accustomed to killing its own children by the masses, bringing the world back into balance will naturally be quite difficult. It will never be as simple as "let's just ban all abortions". Indeed, while their conclusion is abominable, abortionists are correct when they say we need a system that helps mothers in crisis. But the contrast is not "ban all abortions" vs. "abortion on demand up until and including birth". It does, however, come down to this: Abortion is a stain on human history, no less than slavery or the Holocaust, and we need to deal with it now. You don't even have to be a Christian to see it, but if you are a Christian, you have no excuse for not seeing it.
Furthermore, although the Bible does say each Christian is a different part of one body, i.e. not all Christians play equal parts on equal issues, those who feel lead to support the pro-life cause, be it through education, lobbying, financial support, volunteer work, or even just voting for sensible candidates, should do so. Everyone else, whatever your ministry may be, should at the very least not impede that goal. The body of Christ must be united, and that requires a healthy balance of caring for humanity while opposing evils.
The good news
Although I imagine the majority of my audience, particularly those who have read this far, are Christians, many might not be. In that case, you might be feeling quite uncomfortable right now. But there is good news: Even if you are the most bloodthirsty "doctor" on planet earth, having killed thousands of babies in your lifetime, God loves you, and seeks reconciliation with you. His word says that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. But only in Christ. To receive this forgiveness, you must confess Him as Lord and believe God raised Him from the dead. If you do that, your salvation is assured.