Responding to three main arguments for abortion

Unborn children are human beings at the earliest stages of their development, and all human beings have human rights. That’s why both unborn babies and their mothers deserve our respect, protection, and support. 

But what do those who support abortion say, and what do we say in response? Here’s how to understand three main kinds of arguments for abortion—and show where they go wrong.  

Tough circumstances (assuming that the unborn don’t count) 

Suppose someone says that abortion is necessary because many pregnant women experience poverty, relationship trauma, and other serious difficulties.  

To demonstrate that the argument doesn’t justify abortion, we can do what author Scott Klusendorf calls “trotting out the toddler.” The idea is to consider whether the argument would work to justify the killing of a toddler (or some other already-born human being). If a parent of a toddler faces poverty and a broken relationship, and does not feel able to afford and take care of the child, would killing or abandoning the toddler be justified? 

No, of course not—because the toddler is a valuable human being. But if the unborn child is also a valuable human being, like the toddler, then killing her in those same circumstances isn’t justified either!  

Many (or even most) arguments for abortion are like this. They only make sense if unborn children don’t count as valuable human beings. But that’s precisely the matter at issue in the abortion debate. While making sure to agree with the other person about the hardship women often experience, you can “trot out the toddler” to direct the conversation to the key question: Does the unborn child count as one of us? If so, then she deserves protection, and we should respond to the difficult circumstances women face with real solutions—compassionate, practical support and alternatives to abortion—rather than the violence of ending a child's life.  

Exclusion (arguing that the unborn don’t count) 

But defenders of abortion often do argue that unborn children don’t count. These arguments can take two forms. 

First, some people say unborn children aren’t even human beings in a biological sense (i.e., living human organisms). The problem with this view is that the scientific evidence is clear. We know that, from fertilization, the embryo or fetus is (1) living because she’s growing, (2) human because she has human DNA, and (3) a whole organism because she’s an individual member of our species (not a mere part of one, like a heart or kidney) who is actively developing herself through the many stages of life. Each of us was once an embryo and a fetus, just as we were once toddlers and teenagers. 

Second, some people acknowledge that unborn children are biologically human, but argue that they aren’t yet “persons” with the value and right to life that we have. (In fact, sometimes when a defender of abortion says that unborn babies aren’t “alive” or “human,” this is actually what they mean; you should ask questions to clarify.) Why not? Because unborn humans lack certain characteristics or abilities—they are (for example) less developed than us, more dependent, different in appearance, unable to think and feel in all the same ways we do. And so they don’t meet the standard for having value or rights.  

Here are two questions to think (and ask) about when confronted with such a view. First, who else, besides unborn babies, does this proposed standard leave out? Unborn children are highly dependent on others, for instance, but so are those who are elderly or have disabilities; unborn children aren’t self-aware or rational, but neither are newborns or patients with advanced dementia. Second, is this standard something that the rest of us (e.g., you and those you are talking to) share equally? None of us have characteristics like cognitive ability and dependency to an equal degree. So if those characteristics confer our rights, then we don’t have equal rights. On this view, some of us (those who are smarter or more independent) have greater rights than others! 

These are big problems. You can present the pro-life view as a more inclusive and egalitarian alternative: We matter not because of characteristics that some humans have and others don’t, and that some have to a greater degree than others. Rather, we matter simply because we are human. That’s why every single human counts, and why every single human counts equally. And it’s why human beings in the womb deserve the same respect and protection as the rest of us. 

Bodily autonomy (the unborn are beside the point) 

According to a third category of argument, however, abortion is justified even if unborn children are valuable human beings. That's because those children live inside and depend on the body of someone else—someone who has a right to control her own body. We should acknowledge here that bodily autonomy is an important principle. (Just think about terrible ways it has been violated, such as in sexual assault.) But does it really include a right to abortion? 

One version of this argument says that pregnant women may do whatever they want with whatever is inside their body. The problem with such a claim is that someone else's body and rights are also involved. Here’s a question you can raise: May pregnant women knowingly ingest drugs that will cause horrible birth defects? Most people don’t think so, which suggests that the right to bodily autonomy isn’t a right to harm others. Indeed, if harming unborn children (through drugs) is wrong, then killing them (through abortion) is even worse. 

Another version contends that just as we may refuse to donate an organ to save someone else's life, a pregnant woman may refuse to let an unborn child use her body to survive. Among other problems with the argument, though, here’s one to emphasize: Even if it were the case that a pregnant woman had no responsibility to support her unborn child, abortion isn't merely the withdrawing of bodily support—it is intentional and active killing, often by dismemberment. If unborn children have rights, then they have the right to not be intentionally killed and torn apart. And abortion violates that right. 

Let’s defend life in conversation 

Much more can be said about these and other arguments for abortion, but none of them hold up to scrutiny. Let’s make that case—always while listening, asking questions, and showing respect and compassion—in our conversations with others!

This article appears in the April-June 2025 issue of MCCL News.