Manipulation – the Pro-Life Arguments 

Recently I’ve seen a few blog posts and Twitter entries that are very good at playing the emotional card – using certain imagery and ideas to convey an agenda. 

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B: 

Exhibit C:

All these images have something in common – they are all appeals to emotion. In one sense, I understand this – abortion is an emotional subject, and not something undertaken lightly. However, each and every one of these images is not only trying to emotionally manipulate the reader with pictures of babies, they were all posted by a man. 

Here are some facts that they missed:

70,000 women die every year because they rely on ‘backstreet abortions’ and cannot access safe medical facilities. You don’t tend to hear the pro-life crowd mention that detail. 

Over 1 billion women cannot access abortion services.

Late abortions (classed as after 22 weeks) account for one percent of abortions.


It is not for me, or anyone else, to decide when a woman should become a mother. It is not for me to decide whether they should keep the child if that child were conceived by rape. Is it not for me to decide for anyone else if a mother should take to term a child that is likely to suffer poor quality of life or a low life expectancy. The impact of the mother is irrelevant in the eyes of the pro-life crowd, to the point of hypocrisy. 


14 thoughts on “Manipulation – the Pro-Life Arguments 

  1. Interesting post. I think you’re right – appeals to emotion are a weak means of argument.

    I’m glad I found this post, as I have been on the hunt for a pro-choicer who will enter into a rational, logic-based, discussion about abortion.

    So, if you would, please lay out your logic-based reasons as to why a human fetus is not a human being, and – if it is a human being – why a mother should be free to kill it.

    I’ll admit, I am currently pro-life; however, living in a world where up to 50,ooo,ooo babies are killed each year is not a fun place to be. Thus, I am very open to logical, non-emotional reasoning from the pro-choice stance.

    Thanks for your time. God bless, and have a Merry Christmas!


    1. Hello again,

      Firstly, thank you again for your comment. It has been providing me with something to think about, and unlike another ‘conversation’ going on, I suspect this one will be carried out on the basis of civility and respect.

      Logical reasons for abortion – a good question, and a challenging question. Let’s begin.

      1. If the foetus (or embryo, to use another term) is unviable for any reason, being likely to either not survive the pregnancy or die shortly after birth, is it logical to risk the life of the mother to bring the child to term? Women are 14 times more likely to die during childbirth than they are getting an abortion. Should the mother be placed at greater risk in order to satisfy someone else?

      2. In cases of rape, the mother is still expected to carry the child to term in many cases. Aside from the obvious emotional and psychological trauma of this experience, the mother may not be in a financial position to raise a child. Is it logical to expect her to proceed with a pregnancy that she didn’t want and has only ended up with through violent means? For that matter, is it logical for anyone to bring a child into the world without the means to properly care for it?

      3. I have yet to see a logical argument for why anyone, least of all men, should be able to dictate to women as to whether they should keep a child that will trigger considerable physical change in the mother. It is the mother’s body that is placed under greater strain. Over 300,000 women die every year from pregnancy or childbirth, not a single man will die from these things, yet it is men who often decide the rules on abortion. Is this logical?

      4. One of the largest proponents of the pro-life argument is the Catholic Church (and this is the case with other religions as well). Yet the Catholic Church (and again, some other religions) also argue against contraception. It is not logical in the least to be against birth control measures and then be against abortion as well. This type of thinking is creating ‘a rod for one’s own back’, and one has to wonder at the thought process behind this.


  2. Thank you for the reply. This discussion can most definitely be carried in a respectful way. I value and appreciate the tone you used while laying out your points in the previous comment. Clear, concise. No name calling or eye rolling.

    That said, I will offer why I’m struggling with the pro-choice stance.

    I read all your points several times. And there is a fundamental issue with the reasoning. Practice vs. Principal.

    Your stance seems to be that abortions are helpful to society, to women, and their health. You seem to be saying that without abortion rights, women could be forced to carry out a life altering event (pregnancy/birth/raising a kid). And that this is potentially dangerous to their lively-hood. . . so in instances where pregnancy could hurt, inconvenience, or otherwise make difficult the life of the woman she should have the right to end the pregnancy. You seem state that nonviable babies shouldn’t be forced on women, that Catholics contradict themselves, and that men are men, and not women, so they should stay out of abortion. Am I accurate in believing this is your view? Please correct me if I made any assumptions. I mostly agree with these points, if we are conversing based on practice. But we’re not.

    You are arguing based on the practice, not on the principal. I agree that having abortion as a societal option can be beneficial to post-pubescent women’s health. That said, because something is good in practice, does not mean it is good in principal, at least from my perspective. Because an action is beneficial to a certain people group does not make that action morally acceptable. Some examples:

    Slavery. From an American, societal, and economical standpoint, slavery was beneficial – but only for a given people group. It was NOT beneficial for black people. Their were many in favor of slavery who argued that without slavery, many Americans would be at a greater risk for ailments and disease – that Americans would suffer more without slaves – and they were right. Those same people were also right in believing that free labor was greatly beneficial for the economy. But again, only for a certain people group. Because slavery was “good” in practice, does not make it good in principal. Indeed, in principal, slavery was – and is – a very evil thing.

    The Armenian genocide. Evil Turkish leaders believed that the Armenians were a thorn in the lives of themsleves and their citizens. So, they attempted to exterminate the Armenian people. Women, men, and children. Was this genocide good for the Turkish society? Debatable. I’m sure those leading the genocide thought it was good. But, it certainly wasn’t good for the Armenian people. Yet another example of people doing something that was “good”, but only in practice. To kill a whole people group is a very evil thing in principal – it would seem to me.

    Abortion. This practice has always been around, though in the past fifty years it has gained more attention. It is based on the idea that because the unborn child could potentially harm the mother, she has the right to kill it. Most abortion supporters also believe that even if the child isn’t going to harm her, the woman should have the right to kill it. The problem here is eerily parallel to slavery, and the Armenian genocide. One people group believes their rights are above another people group. Americans over Africans. Turks over Armenians. Women over unborn babies.

    The answer to this practice vs. principal discussion lies in the humanness of the unborn. If it’s a human being, no one has the right to kill it – no matter the inconvenience. To explain why an unborn child is not a human being and, if it is a human being, why people should have the right to kill it – is all that matters. What does NOT matter is why abortion is good for society, or good for women, or good for families. . . I’m sure we could have sub-debates about these matters, but that would only serve to put off from the true issue.

    Forgive me if I seem blunt at times. Defaming you is not the intention of this discussion.

    Thank you for your time, God bless, and I hope you have a Happy New Year.


    1. Hello again Gid-Z,

      Before proceeding any further, I wanted to establish how long we wish this discussion to last? Such things have the potential to spiral onwards without any end, and we undoubtedly both have other things going on in our lives beyond online debates. Would you want there to be a set number of posts each?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s