Arguments Against Abortion #2 – “Right to Choose”

Pro-Choice Argument: Our society is based on free-choice isn’t it? Shouldn’t a woman be able to choose?

The logical, winning Pro-Life rebuttal:

No, actually, our society is based on the right of all human beings to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, not a universal right of every individual to choose whatever they want, whenever they want it. The latter would be a form of government known as anarchy. The spin, half-truths, and vagueness surrounding pro-choice arguments run so deep. In fact, the self-given title that abortion proponents carry (‘Pro-Choice’) is rife with deception. Take Barack Obama’s statement following the Supreme Court decision in 2007 to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion, for example. He said,

“this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose.”

It’s mind boggling that a presidential candidate could regularly make such a vague statement and not be called out on it. What is he arguing for? A woman’s right to choose anything? There are many instances where a woman’s right to choose is restricted by the government for the common good. John Piper does a remarkable job illustrating this in his article Let the Python Eat Its Tail. See the excerpt below:

“All laws that protect children limit the rights of moms (and dads) to choose. You can’t choose to starve them. You can’t choose to lock them in closets for three weeks. You can’t choose to abandon them. You can’t choose to strangle them five minutes after they are born.”

The key with this debate is to get your pro-choice opponent to try to explain with some specificity exactly what they are advocating that the woman be able to choose. Usually, it’s difficult to get a straight answer, but, when you do, likely it will be that they say they are defending “the choice of a woman whether or not to have an abortion.” In other words, this means they are arguing that a woman should be able to choose whether or the fetus should have a chance to be born. If such is the case, then you have cut through the deception and led the debate exactly to where it should be – the debate over whether or not the fetus is a human life (and I would argue it most certainly is). Does a woman have the right to end life in her desire not to be pregnant? I’ll try to cut through some of the spin surrounding the topic of "equal rights" and the topic of life in the womb for the next “Arguments against Abortion.”

Piper is so gifted at articulating the folly of a totally "choice-oriented" society and cutting through the rhetoric. I'll leave you with the following quote from him, which rings so true in my mind:

The difference lies in the choice of the mother. If the mother chooses that her fetus live, it is murder to kill it. If she chooses for her fetus not to live, it is not murder to kill it. In other words in our laws we have now made room for some killing to be justified not on the basis of the crimes of the one killed, but solely on the basis of another person's will or choice. If I choose for the embryo to be dead, it is legal to kill it. If I choose for the embryo to live, it is illegal to kill it. The effective criterion of what is legal or illegal, in this ultimate issue of life and death, is simply this: the will of the strong. There is a name for this. We call it anarchy. It is the essence of rebellion against objective truth and against God.