Answering Abortion’s Advocates

By Rob Schwarzwalder Published on July 7, 2018

It is hard to talk about abortion.

The procedure is so gruesome, the victims so very many, the industry behind it so predatory. And we’ve been fighting the battle for so very long.

There have been many small and mid-size victories, but the great prize — correcting Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand – has remained elusive. Until now.

The prospect of a truly pro-life majority on the nation’s highest court is within our grasp. This is why the opposition to anyone the President nominates is so intense.

It’s also why the oft-repeated arguments in favor of so-called “abortion rights” are being heard so frequently and with such near-hysteria.

So, as a refresher course, let’s deal with some of the main ones once again.

“My Body, My Right”

It’s my body and no one has the right to tell me how to care for it. In our country, people have near complete freedom to treat their ailments, minor and major, as they see fit. No one interferes with a person’s choice to get or not get physical therapy, a specific kind of cancer treatment, or a particular surgery.

But abortion is about more than a woman’s body. It’s about two persons’ bodies, each of whom has value independent of one another. The fact that one small, developing person lives within another does not give the latter the moral right to destroy the little one. This is a form of oppression, of cruelty, even if the woman having the abortion does not think in these terms. Neither actual ignorance or conscious denial change the reality of what occurs.

“Some Women Need It”

Some women need abortions, and we shouldn’t deny that option to them. This was a rhetorical device of the last president: We need to reduce “the need for abortion.”

There is no medical need for abortion.

There is no medical need for abortion. Advances in medical science have been such that such instances where the life of the mother is in physical jeopardy are essentially non-existent.

Pregnancies can be difficult, inconvenient and painful. No one disputes this. But do they threaten the lives of women? Virtually never.

“If Roe Goes, Women Will Die”

Women will have abortions as sure as the sun rises in the east. That’s why we need Roe to ensure the safety of the procedure. If Roe goes, women will die.

This is a fake, fear-mongering argument. Even the most strident proponents of elective abortion acknowledge that abortion is a simple medical procedure that can be taught easily. “I like to say that a D and C (dilation and curettage, the standard abortion procedure) is bread and butter gynecology,” according to “a senior doctor at one Texas clinic who is also a medical school professor.” As reported on National Public Radio, the doctor said, “It’s not difficult to teach the procedure.”

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Put simply, there will be many trained doctors and physician assistants available to destroy unborn children, whether in states that maintain abortion-on-demand laws or elsewhere.

And contrary to the standard line hear in the media, abortion can have severe consequences for women’s health. Careful studies show that abortion is not like getting one’s tonsils out. It is a potentially dangerous procedure with potentially devastating consequences. Which I’m sure you’ve heard about in the mainstream press, right?

“Unloved Babies”

If a woman’s right to choose an abortion is found to be unconstitutional, women will be forced to carry to term babies they do not want. It’s wrong to bring a baby into the world who won’t be loved.

It’s less wrong than killing the baby and crippling your own soul.

Sound tough? I think it’s much less tough than the brutality the little one in the womb experiences when dismembered and then suctioned-out like gunk in a gutter. Given the many families so desperately wanting to adopt and given the disincentive for illicit sex correcting Roe would provide, making abortion-on-demand difficult could well have some very beneficial effects — on society at large and on thousands of unborn children allowed to see the light of day.

Can we speak the truth graciously as well as bravely?

The upcoming appointment to the Court will surely be someone who values the lives of women and the children they carry. That’s why it’s truly a referendum on our national character.

Christian friends, let’s examine ourselves. Can we speak the truth graciously as well as bravely? Can we defend unborn life and uphold the text of the Constitution with firmness but without antagonism? Can we advocate and oppose without being strident or harsh?

Let’s win this one, both aspects of it: A Supreme Court justice who believes in the Constitution and an approach to our adversaries that mirrors the grace and truth of our living Savior.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Karen

    These arguments do not answer anything. 1. The right to bodily autonomy is far more complicated than you present here. 2. This is a flat bald-faced lie. Ectopic pregnancies can ONLY be treated by aborting the pregnancy. These conditions are actually tumors, they will never, ever result in a live birth but untreated will kill the woman. Abortion is a safe treatment, while your side insists that the woman go through major surgery. I haven’t even discussed things like pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, the fact that cancer patients have to suspend treatment to endure a pregnancy in your world. Of all the arguments you present, this one is actually evil in that you will convince stupid people to deny women needed health care. 3. Your argument is that there will be people willing to risk prison to provide abortions. Certainly there always were such people, but the likelihood that a criminal will be careful about hygeine is disingenous. (And Kermit Gosnell was in violation of many existing laws.) 4. You want women to be brood mares for wealthy white people. Be honest. The only reason any kids who aren’t white get adopted is because no other kids are available. Your side will leave the dark-skinned and disabled kids to rot in orphanages.

    • Tim H

      I know from other posts you’ve made that you’ve had difficulties in your life and feel that abortion is a way maintain an ultimate control of your life. I’m truly sorry men have hurt you. But the deliberate taking of the most innocent life that can possibly exist in order to maintain control of an aspect of one’s life is not in keeping with the love you ardently advocate for in other comments. There is no life in that thought. There is no love that direction. Choose another path. Please choose to fight for women without the death of children.

      • gladys1071

        You actually do not know anything about Karen’s life, you are assuming. I am pro-choice, and have a loving and supporting husband. Without birth control and abortion we women are nothing but 2nd class citizens, since we are always at the mercy of our biology.

        • Elijahn Sapuay

          Wait… THAT is your argument of women empowerment?
          The DENIAL of your biology specifically designed to give birth?
          That maybe is a good argument by gender, but telling that a woman needs abortion else they feel like 2nd class citizens is literally a flawed idea. Why?
          There is one thing common on abortion and slavery: the ability to control the amount of individuals born. If you think that a child in the womb is lower than a human is like treating slaves lower than your race. The real 2nd class citizens is literally the child aborted and the slave (with many document had their child aborted to control). So tell me why ’empowering women to consider abortion as valid’ is no different from ’empowering slaves to abort their children is valid’
          Because there is nowhere that is a sound argument.
          Also, don’t get me into considering a child either an animal nor just a bunch of tissue. Argue both and it is 100% guarrantee that abortion violates every single tenant written about animal rights and animal welfare.

          • gladys1071

            forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will by using the power of the state (so much for limited government) is GESTATIONAL SLAVERY.

            A woman that is pregnant is a slave to the gestational process, yes if we cannot control our biology, we are slaves to it. As women we don’t get to control ovulation, we ovulate every month, we can be impregnated without our consent.

            Without hormonal birth control, we cannot stop the ovulation process.

            So you tell me who really is the slave?

          • BrokenPriest

            Yeah, that baby was totally thrust upon them without their consent, wasn’t it? Good grief you people would get destroyed in any honest debate. These aren’t even arguments- they are outrage bereft of logic.

          • gladys1071

            So according to you only virgens have a right to their bodies. The moment you have sex, women lose the rights to thier bodies?

            Sex does not always equal fertilization, fertililization is actually involuntary, a woman cannot make the sperm meet the egg, it does that on its own.

            So tell me does a woman lose the rights to her body as soon as a sperm fertilized an egg?

        • Karen

          Thank you.

    • GLT

      Karen, as an ectopic pregnancy is not a normal, viable pregnancy its rare occurrence is hardly a sound argument in favour of allowing abortion on demand.

      Abortion is not health care, Karen, as pregnancy is not a disease, affliction, malady, disorder, etc.

      “You want women to be brood mares for wealthy white people.”

      On what do you base this claim? Perhaps you have been watching too much TV. Whatever the basis, it is a disingenuous argument.

  • Sapient

    From above…“There have been many small and mid-size victories but the great prize—correcting Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand—has remained elusive. Until now.” And with no thanks to you, Mr. Schwarzwalder, but with many thanks to the evangelical Trump voters!

    Just how strongly do you feel about abortion—really—Mr. Schwarzwalder? In your “Evangelicals and Donald Trump” column only 3 months ago (April 9, 2018) you publicly declared your opposition to Trump and proudly declared and defended your choice not to vote for him—even though you expressed knowing that such a decision could help elect HRC and, resultantly, through Supreme Court appointments, could “calcify abortion-on-demand…”. You clearly understood the ramifications of your decision on critical constitutional and moral matters. Yet you were willing to throw in with the abortionists in getting her elected. So, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that in addition to the four “…oft-repeated arguments in favor of so-called ‘abortion rights…’” you listed above you didn’t include “Never Trump”. After all, that seems to be the one argument for so-called abortion rights you actually buy into.

  • gladys1071

    Rob Schwarwalder, pregnancies most definetly can be life threatening. Women used to die in childbirth in large numbers. Women can develop many complications from pregnancies, which are too many to name here, but i will name a few:

    gestational diabetes
    kidney failure (more severe not as common)
    hypertension (very common)
    needing bed rest/bleeding
    severe morning sickness
    weight gain that can stay after pregnancy
    complications with childbirth (bladder damage)
    labor pains
    push out something the size of a watermelon out of the body

    You completely minimize the complications of pregnancy for your convenience to make is sound like pregnancy and childbirth is a walk in the park. I am not fooled, during pregnancy women to some extent are at the mercy of their bodies and the changes it FORCES the woman to endure.

    You have no right to tell a woman she must endure pregnancy and childbirth against her will.
    Our rights to not get suspended for 9 months.

    So no, you article is flawed

    • Elijahn Sapuay

      You are just sensationalizing the dangers of pregnancy towards a minority of pregnancy complications. Also, stuff like hypertension (the need of the body to compensate by having to support 2 bodies) and weight gain (due to an increased portion of appetite) are normal, reversible and mitigated gestational diabetes isn’t even dangerous as you claim to be (just a sign that the mother needs to eat more), experiencing pain is normal even on animals, and the rest is just complications attributed to a number of factors that can occur even if pregnancy does not happen.
      Tell me, what if we say that you have a pet dog, and send it to a veterinarian pregnant and claimed that she is feeling pain and need to be aborted. He/she will simply laugh at you, tell you it’s normal and send you home, and if you insists the abortion, the service will be denied because ANIMAL WELFARE laws state that no one has the right to abort developing animals nor use such tissues for research (which itself needs a plethora of waivers, security permits including environmental ones, etc, which even some abortion clinics to not comply). Oh, and ectopic pregnancies in animals is extremely rarer than in women to the point that even if it does happen, the animal just reabsorbs the fetus to prevent that. So that argument will not work here.
      Also, don’t you think that onstead

      • gladys1071

        Just so you know puppies have been aborted as part of the sterilization process, if the female is pregnant at the time. As pet owner’s we have the power to put our pets to sleep, so please do not lecture me on animal rights.

        animals do not have any rights, women do, as women we have the right to bodily autonomy which includes terminating a gestation process.

        Women are thinking feeling people we are not just incubators that lose our rights for 9 months.

      • gladys1071

        How would you like to be throwing up every morning or several times a day for 3 months. You know women have lost control of thier bladder due to pushing during labor, how would you like to have to wear diapers?

        How would you like to push something the size of a watermelon out of your body and have your legs spread out in front of total strangers?

        How would you like to gain 50 pounds, and possibly never be able to regain your old body back.

        Your ideas about artificial wombs and transplantation and space travel all sound great, but for NOW those technologies do NOT EXIST.

        So what about the woman, is she invisible now to you, she only matters to you as an incubator?

        Does a woman no longer have a say as to whether she wants to continue being an incubator?

        You have made me even more pro-choice for your utter disregard for the pregnant woman, just as expected.

        • BrokenPriest

          Umm…a woman has a voluntary RIGHT to not take part in sex in the first place– which leads to the pregnancy and all these “rights” you’re talking about. “How would you like…” is not a valid argument against someone who very much DID like the act of getting pregnant.

          • gladys1071

            bodily rights are not suspended due to having sex.

        • Ann Morgan

          Space travel is not as easy as fetal fantasizers want. I don’t think they have the slightest clue as to the incredible DISTANCE between objects in space. But that not surprising, they don’t have the slightest clue what it takes to earn a living, or care for a child either, they think if a woman pops out a baby, that’s all that is needed, and it will somehow dance around in fields of flowers forever, with no further action or effort necessary.

          They have the mindset of a child, which was exemplified to good effect in the book ‘Neptune’s Children’. The premise of the book is – a plague suddenly kills all adults. The main characters in the book are children who are left in a sort of Disney-like amusement park called ‘Neptune’s Island’. They have great fun for a couple of days riding the rides and eating all the snacks. Unfortunately what they are blissfully unaware of is the small army of adults who formerly worked in the amusement park after hours every night, performing maintenance on the rides, maintenance on the electrical grid and sewer lines, bringing in fuel, cleaning the trash, trucking in food and medical supplies, etc. Basically – all the effort required for children to be able to dance around in the flowers at the amusement park all day.

          After a few days, some of the rides start to break down. Needless to say, they have little clue, until it is too late, that all their gleeful riding of rides (those that don’t break down for mechanical reasons) is rapidly using up the fuel in the generators that they ought to be conserving for survival uses only, all their gorging on snacks wastes food, and after a few weeks, things get pretty Lord of the Flies…

      • Karen

        Can you please cite the laws that ban abortions on dogs?

      • Karen

        I agree that artificial wombs and transplantation technologies should be the subjects of research grants. I note, however, that fetal personhood laws would immediately eliminate any research for this on humans because it is illegal to experiment on persons who cannot give valid consent. So, if you win your policy preferences, you will foreclose any research that would provide a technology that would make the abortion debate obsolete.

  • If you want to reduce abortions, making abortion illegal won’t do it. Look at US abortion rates before Roe. Or look at countries where abortion is now illegal.

    What you want is to reduce the demand. Not only will you be working with pro-choice advocates, but you will be able to (arguably) reduce the abortion rate by a factor of 10.

    Ever wonder why our abortion rate is dramatically higher than many countries in Western Europe? Maybe we should be doing what they’re doing.

If the Foundations are Destroyed, What Can the Righteous Do?
David Kyle Foster
More from The Stream
Connect with Us