Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Pro-Choice Myths

Over time, the pro-abortion side has relied on myths and propaganda to justify the choice of abortion. Unfortunately, these lies and myths have been instilled in our society and caused people to be blinded from the truth. This is perhaps the biggest reason why abortion is still permitted. The following listed are just some of the arguments used by the pro-choice side.

"The fetus is just a part of the woman's body, like an organ."

A body part, like an appendix or a liver, is defined by the common genetic code that it shares with the rest of the body. The unborn child's genetic code differs completely from the mother's. Just because you are inside something does not mean that you are part of that something. For example, a car is not part of a garage just because it is parked there.

If we were to implant a Chinese embryo into an African-American woman's body, would that turn the embryo into an African-American? No. The embryo would always be Chinese because of its distinct genetic code.

If a fetus is only a part of the woman's body, making just one body, then does this mean the woman has 4 legs, 2 noses, and 2 livers?

"The unborn are not really babies. They are either embryos or foetus. Abortion is simply terminating a woman's pregnancy, not killing a baby."

The words "embryo" and "fetus" do not make an unborn child un-human. "Fetus" actually is a Latin word, meaning "young one" or "little child." These words are just referring to a specific stage of development in a person's life, just like we use the words "toddler" and "adolescent." Is a two-year old worth less than a 14-year old? The child in the womb is not a blob of tissue, but very complex. When an egg is fertilized, it contains unique genetic information, which is there to control the person's growth and development for their entire life.

"No one really knows when life begins. When life begins is a moral question, not a scientific one."

Even among scientists who have no interest in abortion is there an overwhelming agreement that life begins at conception. In the book Human Embryology, Dr. Bradley M. Patten states, "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of a new individual". Numerous pro-abortion scientists have admitted, "Life begins at conception."

If we were to walk into a room with a person who appeared to be dead, wouldn't we at least check on him to see if we could perform CPR on him in case he wasn't really dead yet? If we are even the least bit unsure of when life begins, shouldn't we give something as important as human life the benefit of the doubt? "This may or may not be an unborn child, and no one knows for sure if it's life has begun yet, so let's kill it anyway."

"A fetus does not have a meaningful life. It's only inches in size, can't think, and is less advanced than an animal."

A living thing's designation to a species is not determined by its stage of development. If we were to say that the fetus is not human, than we must also say that it's a member of another species, which we all know is impossible. A human is a human because he/she came from humans, just like a dog is a dog because it came from dogs. Lastly, does size determine what makes a person a person? Is an athlete more of a person than someone half his size? If you lose 1/5 of your body weight, do you lost 1/5 of your personhood? Of course not.

According to the pro-choice logic that a life is only meaningful if it can think, does this mean that Bill Gates is worth more than an average person?

The worth of someone shouldn't be determined by what others think of it. For example, if a pregnant woman was experiencing a wanted and planned pregnancy but then miscarried, the fetus would be meaningful to her. If a woman is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy and considering abortion, then of course she would not consider the fetus to be that meaningful. Should we base the worthiness of a fetus on each person's passing opinion of it?

"Ok, so maybe the fetus is alive, but then so are sperm and eggs. The fetus is not a human being."

You don't become human by becoming bigger and older--you must be human from the beginning. When the sperm and egg meet, a new, unique, and genetically distinct human life begins. This life is not sperm, nor is it egg, but a combination of both. It is independent, with its own life, and on a path of self-directed development.

If we were to say a fetus is not a human being, then this must mean it's not Homo Sapiens. What is it then?

"A fetus isn't a person until it reaches viability."

Viability (the point the fetus reaches when it could survive outside of the womb) does not determine when a fetus becomes a person. If viability determined when a person is a person, then why isn't the fetal heartbeat (18 days after conception) or fetal brainwaves (43 days) used to determine when a fetus is a person? The actual point of viability is constantly changing because it depends on technology, not on the unborn. Many years ago, doctors could not save premature babies at 30 weeks. Eventually, however, they were able to save them at 20 weeks. What will happen many years from now when doctors can save babies at 15 weeks?

Babies that could not survive years ago at 26 weeks were not human, but now they are?

Are 22 week preemies human in the United States but not in Africa because Africa does not have as much advanced medical technology?

Based on the pro-abortion logic that personhood is determined at viability, what about born people that are not viable because they can't survive on their own without the care of others? Should we kill them too?

"No woman should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone else!"

A person's right to live does not increase with age nor size. If this were the case, toddlers and teens would have a less right to live than adults. The mother's lifestyle is at stake, as opposed to the baby's life. No one has an absolute unconditional right to a lifestyle. It's always governed because of its effects on others. For example, there are restrictions on no-smoking provisions, and noise ordinances.

And lastly, it is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live with a temporary inconvenience if the only other alternative is killing a child?

"Life begins at birth, plain and simple. It's not a baby till it's born. That's why we celebrate birthdays instead of conception days!"

Let's see. Do we ever hear a pregnant woman say, 'Ouch! The fetus just kicked me!' or, 'My friends threw me a fetus shower yesterday!'

Just because we celebrate birthdays instead of conception days does not mean that life doesn't begin till birth. In China, the Chinese calculate the person's age from the estimated time of conception. We celebrate birthdays because of culture, not because life begins at birth.

"Every person has the right to choose. To prohibit abortion would be unfair to women. It would be restricing their choice."

Almost all societies would restrict an individual's freedom when their choice would harm an innocent person. Should a man have the choice to rape a woman? After all it's his body, and we shouldn't be imposing our morals on him. By allowing a rapist's right to choose, we're ignoring the rights of the woman. There are laws against false advertising, to protect us against bad foods or products. There are laws against violence. When another's life is at stake, society should restrict the individual's freedom of choice. Most people who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion are not pro-choice when it comes to other issues which have less at stake.

Throughout the years, human rights being violated have been defended by "the right to choose". For example: "You don't have to own slaves if you don't want to, but don't tell us that we can't. It's our right." The Civil Rights Movement fought to take away this choice.

The pro-choice position always fails to look from the victim's point of view. Women don't choose rape, blacks didn't choose slavery, Jews didn't choose to be put in gas chambers, and the unborn do not choose to be slaughtered.

"It's her body, her choice!"

Guess what--every year in the United States alone, 750,000 females do not have control over their bodies. Why? Because they're aborted. Half of the babies aborted are female. And what about when the woman is carrying a male fetus? Since so many pro-abortionists say "the fetus is part of the woman's body", does that make the woman part male? Of course not. In the case of abortion, we're not just talking about the woman's body. In her womb is a unique, separate, body of another human being.

If it's really "our body, our choice", then why aren't we allowed to expose ourselves in public? Why can't we take illegal drugs? In most areas of the country, why aren't we allowed to sell our bodies for prostitution?

"For the advancement of women, abortion rights are fundamental."

Quite the contrary. Our founding feminists were pro-life. Susan B. Anthony called abortion "child murder". Elizabeth Cady Stanton said that "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we wish." Alice Paul, who drafted the original version of the Equal Rights Amendment, called abortion "the ultimate exploitation of women".

Here's what happened: In the 1960's, abortion rights activists tied abortion to women's rights in order to make profit. But many of today's active feminists oppose abortion. "Feminists for Life" was started in the 1970's.

"Abortion is only legal in the first trimester, anyway."

This is entirely untrue. Currently in the United States and Canada, abortion is legal throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy (even up to the point of labor and delivery) for any reason.

"Here's what I believe: I'm personally against abortion, but I would never take that right away from another woman. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice."

If you're pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Take this common pro-choice argument:

"I'm personally against someone having an abortion, but that's a matter of choice between a woman and her doctor. We don't want to go back to the days when abortion was illegal, and women died in back alleys from botched abortions. I personally would never have an abortion, so I'm not pro-abortion. I'm just pro-choice."

Now, take this argument:

"I'm personally against drug dealing, but that's a matter to decide between a drug dealer and his attorney. We don't want to back to the days when drug dealing was illegal and people died in back alleys from bad cocaine. I personally would never buy drugs, so I'm not pro-drugs. I'm just pro-choice about drug dealing."

Being personally against abortion but then being in support of another's right to choose is contradicting yourself. It would be just like saying "Well, we're personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor's right to abuse his child if that is his choice."

Someone who is pro-choice when it comes to rape may argue that it's not the same about being pro-rape. What's the difference, since pro-choice about rape promotes the right to rape? Those who were pro-choice about slavery believed their position was safe since they personally didn't own a slave. Most people in Germany did not favor killing Jews, but did nothing to stop it.

People believe that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should still have that right is a compromise between the pro-life and pro-abortion positions. It's not. Both pro-abortion people and pro-choice people oppose protection for unborn babies, and both say it's ok for unborn children to die--even if they do not directly participate in the killing.

Since abortion is legal, that must make it ok."

Slavery was legal, too. Does that make it ok? In many areas of the world, it's legal to mutilate a woman's genitals against her will. Does that fact that it's legal mean it's ok?

The government seems like a protector, but sometimes this isn't true. Abortion is legal, so women go through abortions thinking that if the government says it's ok, then there's nothing wrong with it.

In conclusion, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. In the 1940's a German doctor would not be prosecuted for killing a Jew, but in America, he would. In the 1970's, an American doctor could legally kill an unborn child, but a German doctor couldn't. Abortion was legalized in the US on January 22, 1973. Was it ok on January 23, 1973 but not ok on January 21, 1973? Laws change, but truth and justice do not.

"Pro-lifers are a bunch of hypocrites. They go around bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors!"

It's not the pro-lifers that are hypocrites. It's the people who go around bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors. If one is truly pro-life, they would value ALL human life...yes, even abortion doctors. Unfortunately, it is hate groups like these that give the pro-life side a bad name.

"Until men can carry a fetus in their body, they have no right to be pro-life!."

Men do indeed have a right to have their say in abortion. Sure, the mother is the one that has to carry the fetus, but since a fetus develops from a zygote that was made from half sperm and half egg, the unborn child is as much as the father's as it is the mother's.

If a man does not have legal rights to say no to his partner's abortion, then why does he have the legal responsibility to pay child support for the next 18 years?

Let's look at it this way:

If only women have the right to have their say in abortion, then this must mean that only Jews should be allowed to have an opinion about the Holocaust. Get the picture?

"The Bible talks many times about God giving the breath of life (Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, Ezekiel 37:10). A fetus takes it's first breath of life at birth, so this means that life begins at birth and that both God and the Bible are pro-choice. Abortion isn't even mentioned in the Bible, anyway."

It is correct that breath is a sign of life, but this doesn't mean that the Bible equates breath with life. Yes, the Bible talks of life and breath together many times, but it never says "breath is life." And many times the Bible has talked about life, but meant it to be something else. For example, Jesus stated, "my words are life" and Proverbs states that "wisdom is life."

Many pro-choicers also use the creation of Adam to justify their belief that life begins at birth. Adam was created by God breathing into his nostrils. Pro-choicers, like the ones mentioned above, think that this means that life doesn't begin until a baby takes her first breath of air, which is of course at birth. But here's the problem: They can't use the creation of Adam to say that life begins at birth. The creation of Adam was a unique situation. Adam was never in a womb; therefore, this was a one-of-a-kind situation that cannot be used to "prove" that life begins at birth.

It has been claimed many times that aborting a pregnancy never was mentioned in the Bible. This may not be true. Galations 5:20, Revelation 21:8 and Revelation 22:15 all mention that God hates sorcery. When you translate the term sorcery, it becomes pharmakeia. The word pharmakeia is used in many Greek writings, referring to abortifacient drugs.

"The fetus cannot feel pain until 26 weeks."

This is completely untrue, for at 10 weeks, an unborn baby is fully developed (including her nervous system); she just has to grow and mature. The place where a fetus can feel pain is even before this point. At 8 weeks, a fetus already has sensory nerves which feel pain and which send messages to the thalamus. A thalamus is part of the base of the brain. A fetus also has motor nerves at 8 weeks, which send the message of pain to the base of the brain. Sensory nerves, a thalamus, and motor nerves are all a person needs to be able to feel pain. (See Can the Unborn Feel Pain?)

If a fetus can't feel pain so late into the pregnancy like all the pro-abortionists proclaim, then why do mothers who have had saline abortions (many of which were done before 26 weeks) report their unborn children thrashing around inside of them after given the injection? Why do the unborn experience about a 590% increase of beta endorphin and a 183% increase of cortosol (chemical evidence of pain) during uterine needling?

Let's say that the myth was true, that a fetus really can't feel pain until 26 weeks into the pregnancy. Does the fact that the fetus can't feel pain until 26 weeks still make it justifiable to terminate it's life? If someone were to give another a lethal pill to make them simply fall asleep and die, would that make it acceptable to kill them because they wouldn't feel any pain during death?

"Pro-lifers are anti-choice!"

That's right. We're anti-choice on rape, child abuse, slavery, not wearing a seat belt, running red lights, molesting children, speeding, shoplifting, drug dealing, etc......oh, and we're also anti-choice on slaughtering an unborn child.

On another note, abortion only offers one result, one choice: a dead baby. Choosing life, on the other hand, has several different choices: adoption, different situations for the mother to raise the child, etc.

"We shouldn't bring unwanted children into the world. Every child a wanted child!"

Every child is wanted by someone. There are currently 200,000 couples in the U.S. trying to adopt, but there are only 25,000 babies available. And not just "normal" babies are wanted--there are also requests for babies with Down's Syndrome and spina bifida. Taking away people's rights is always easier when we tell ourselves we're doing it for their own good rather than our own.

"If we brought all the unwanted children into the world, there would just be even more child abuse."

Within only 10 years after abortion was legalized, child abuse increased by 500%. Is that any surprise? If the law makes it ok to kill our unborn children, why not our born children? In fact, studies have shown that child abuse is more common among mothers who have had a previous abortion.

Most abused children were wanted by their parents. Edward Lenoski, a professor at the University of California, found that 91% of abused children were from planned pregnancies. In society today, 64% of pregnancies are planned. This means that among abused children, a much higher percentage were wanted children compared to the percentage of wanted children in society at large.

On another note, it's interesting that there's so much talk about unwanted children being abused. You frequently hear horror stories about how children are being burnt to death. They're having their brains sucked out, being ripped into pieces, and even starved to death. Well, guess what--this not only happens to born children but to unborn children 126,000 times a day. It's called abortion. If it's considered so wrong and barbaric to rip born children apart and suck their brains out, why is it considered a "choice" to be able to do this to unborn children? Is this not abuse?

"We need abortion to help control the world population."

This is untrue. The current birth rate in American is less than what's needed to maintain our population level. There are now 6 billion people on Earth. The population will probably continue to climb until 2050. It will then peak at 9 billion. Other scientific studies have shown that the world population will peak at 7.5 billion in 2040. In both of these cases, it will then go into a sharp decline. Currently in Europe, the fertility rates are low and anti-foreigner sentiments are rising. The United Nations produced a report that said South Korea, Russia, Japan, and Europe are facing the problems of decreasing population. If Japan continues to practice its abortion policies and does not raise its average birth rate of 1.4 children per couple, there will be fewer than 500 people by the year 3000. In Russia by 2050, the population will go down to 150 million.

And then lastly, the whole world population could be placed in one giant city, about the size of Texas.

"Even if abortion were made illegal, people would still be having abortions."

Well, rape, burglary, and drug dealing are all illegal, but these still happen every day. Does the fact that they still happen cause us to want to make them legal? Of course not! Laws banning abortion would certainly influence a woman considering abortion. In a survey done, 72% of women said that they would not have an abortion if having one would be illegal.

If we made abortion illegal, there would probably be around 100,000 abortions a year. What a difference from 1.5 million a year, like today.

"If abortion were made illegal, thousands of women would die from back-alley, botched, clothes hanger abortions!"

This is perhaps the most favorite myth of all put on by pro-abortionists. Before abortion was legalized, 90 % of abortions were done by licensed physicians in doctors' offices, not in back alleys. And even now, with it being legal, thousands of women still are injured and/or killed from LEGAL abortions in the United States (see Safe and Simple?)

If abortion were made against the law, then just like any other action that is illegal, common sense would tell an individual not to do it. If a woman tries to perform an illegal, botched abortion on herself, then yes, it's sad and unfortunate. But that woman chose to do that to herself. We know the risks of the actions we do and we pay consequences for everything we do. The same goes for those who drink and drive or those who inject themselves with heroin and die from it--they are the ones who chose to do that to themselves, knowing very well the risks.

"Abortion is a safe and simple medical procedure. It's even safer than pregnancy and childbirth."

Actually, the truth to this myth is exactly the opposite. Less than one in 10,000 pregnanies results in the death of the mother. Statistics from the government show that the chances of death from abortion death are even less, but this is because at almost all times, deaths from abortions are not accurately reported. Abortion only increases the chance of death in later pregnancies. Risks of abortion are uterine and cervical injuries, urinary tract problems, infection, hemorrhaging, heart failure, embolism, sterilization, ruptured intestines and bowels, coma, and death. In fact, there are uncountable cases of abortionists sexually assaulting their patients while under anesthesia. Reports have shown that women who have abortions suffer mental health decline, while those who go through pregnancy and childbirth have improved mental health (see Safe and Simple?)

"Abortion is needed because the mother's health or life could be at risk because of the pregnancy and childbirth."

Is abortion needed to save the mother's life? The simple answer to this is no. Medical advisors from the American Life League and countless other doctors across the country agree. More than 100 physicians, including former abortionists, have signed a statement saying that abortion is not necessary to save the mother's life. The statement reads like this: "I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life is needed to be intentionally destroyed by procurred abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."

Dr. C. Everett Koop, the former United States Surgeon General, publicly stated that while in his 38 years as a surgeon, had never seen a single situation in which an unborn child's life had to be taken to save the mother. He said that using the "mother's life argument" was just a way to justify abortion, and that it was a "smoke screen".

"Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

Interesting. Does this mean that if we don't like cancer (which no one does), we shouldn't do anything to help cancer patients?

This common pro-abortion saying, 'Don't like abortion, don't have one' is equivalent to saying, "Don't like the way Hitler is treating the Jews? Don't work in a concentration camp!" Now ask yourself if the second saying makes any sense.

"Surely women who are pregnant due to rape should not be expected to carry a rapist's fetus for 9 months and give birth to it."

Less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape/incest ( about 98% of abortions are done as "birth control convenience"), yet this is probably the situation that pro-abortionists dwell on the most to justify abortion.

Since conception does not occur right after intercourse, pregnancy can be prevented in almost all rapes by a medical procedure that removes the semen before the egg is fertilized.

Nearly all the women interviewed in a recent survery said they regretted aborting the children conveived by rape. More than 90% said that they would discourage other victims of rape from choosing abortion.

Finally, ask yourself these questions:

Say you were to find out today that you were conceived by your biological father raping your mother. Pro-abortionists would say that you were not worthy of life. Would you feel the same way as them?

Is it ok to trade one violent act for another?

Was the baby the one who raped the woman?

"There are situations in which the fetus has some sort of mental or physical disorder, found out through prenatal testing. It should be up to the parents to decide whether to terminate or not!"

Just like the rape and incest situation, this type of situation only makes up for less than 1% of why abortions are performed.

Unfortunately, though, it does still occur. So we have to ask ourselves, who decides who lives and who dies? Do we as human beings have the right to decide who is worthy of living and who is not? The answer is no. When we do this, we approach the "slippery slope", which is a dangerous road to be on. We don't have the right to terminate another's life because that person is not physically or mentally healthy. That person is just as worthy of life as you and I am. It would be selfish to abort a baby because he or she is not "perfect" or not "normal enough".

But we must realize that there are many cases in which the parents do NOT terminate for selfish reasons, or because their child isn't normal enough for them. Many parents feel that they are doing an unselfish thing for their unborn baby. They think that they are saving their child from a lifetime of pain, and we must have compassion for people who have to make this devastating decision to abort or not. However, we must go back to the fact that we do not have the right to decide what is best for another person. If abortion is really about choice, let the ultimate victim of it (the unborn baby) choose if he or she wants to live or die.

"Abortion can be an advantage to society because it reduces crime."

When abortion was legalized, illegitimacy went upwards from 5% in 1962 to 33% of babies born now. Illegitimacy is strongly believed to contribute to many crimes.

In a study done by Levitt and Donohue, the crime rate began to fall 18-20 years after 1973 (which was when abortion was legalized). This could mean that the people born after 1973 should have grown up to be law-abiding teens in the early 90's, which was considered a conservative cultural climate.

Wrong! This generation born caused the worst youth murder spree in American history. According to FBI statistics, the murder rate by teens was 3.6 higher in 1993, compared to children born before the legalization of abortion.

Source: Alcorn, Randy. Pro-life Answers to Pro-choice Arguments. Multnomah Books.

Back to Home