Toronto March for LifeDealing with Common Assumptions
Here are some common examples of how abortion advocates make unproven assumptions and how pro-lifers can reveal these assumptions:
Assumption: Abortion Advocates are Neutral
Abortion Advocate:
“Unlike anti-choice groups, the pro-choice movement also promotes sexual health education, contraception and services for mothers, such as public accessible childcare. Because of this, pro-choice and anti-choice are not two opposite sides of the abortion debate; anti-choice promotes forced pregnancy, the opposite of which is forced abortion. The pro-choice movement opposes both extremes, instead it holds the position that women should have the right to choose what is best for them.”
Pro-Life Response:
When the debate is about whether or not abortion should be legal, is
your position “neutral” if it advocates for legal abortion? If abortion
kills a human child, is it neutral to say that women should have a right
to choose to kill children?
Assumption: The Number of Unsafe Illegal Abortions and the Safety of Legal Abortions
Abortion Advocate:
“According to the WHO, tens of thousands of women around the world suffer long-term health consequences resulting from unsafe abortions. With the legal right to choose safe abortion, women can better ensure their ability to have a healthy pregnancy in the future.”
Pro-Life Response:
That’s interesting. Tell me, how do you accurately count a procedure that is illegal? How do they know these numbers?
Furthermore, when you refer to illegal abortions as being unsafe, thus implying legal ones are safe, you’re assuming a pre-born child isn’t human. After all, if she is human, and abortion kills her, then there’s no such thing as a safe abortion for her.
Also, did you know that pro-life groups work in those countries too? Wouldn’t it be fair to say that pro-lifers oppose abortions whether they are performed legally or illegally because both kill pre-born children? And if abortion does kill pre-born children, then should we make it legal so that others can kill them safer?
Finally, if illegal abortions are unsafe and dangerous, would you agree with me, then, that we should punish people who perform illegal abortions? For example, did you know that Henry Morgentaler performed thousands of illegal abortions—should we then arrest him?
Assumption: Pro-lifers are Religious and Therefore Cannot be Accurate
Abortion Advocate:
“Anti-choice groups advocate for the legal restriction and criminalisation of abortion and other sexual and reproductive rights. This political agenda is often based on subjective moral or religious beliefs held by its proponents.”
Pro-Life Response:
You’re assuming that the pre-born aren’t human. After all, just as we
have legal restrictions for killing born people, it would make sense to
have legal restrictions for killing pre-born people, right? Since
religious people are against killing toddlers, will you dismiss that
legitimate view of theirs simply because they happen to be religious?
Furthermore, are you saying that it is wrong to be anti-choice on abortion? But isn’t that your moral belief? Aren’t you insisting that all Canadians adopt your moral point of view on abortion? If it is wrong to impose subjective moral beliefs on Canadians, then why do you have a right to impose your subjective moral ideas on Canadians while pro-lifers don’t have that right?
Isn’t it fair to say that all law forces someone’s morals on someone else? Then shouldn’t the question be which morals should make the law, not that we should make laws based on morals?