How Pro-choicers Argue: Part Three - Assuming what they Need to Prove

Intro, Part One, Part Two

Assuming what they need to prove

One of the most common pro-choice tactics is that their arguments assume what they need to prove: principally, that the unborn aren't human beings. Their arguments assume that the unborn aren't human beings even though that is the exact thing that they need to/are trying to prove.

Pro-choicers need to prove that the unborn aren't human beings but instead of proving this using science or logic they argue like they've already proven the unborn aren't human. They make blanket assertions without providing any reasons or evidence to why you should accept these assertions.

For almost all of these arguments you can usually just replace the unborn with a newborn infant. If the argument doesn't work for a newborn infant then it doesn't work for the unborn. Pro-choice people must prove that the unborn aren't human beings not just assert it in their argument and act like you're going to accept their assertion.

1. "Every child should be a wanted child."
Some one could also say, "every infant should be a wanted infant." Does that mean that we should be able to kill infants that aren't wanted? What about the homeless? They, for the most part, are unwanted. Can we kill them? This argument assumes that the unborn aren't human beings because we all recognize that we can't kill innocent human beings solely because they aren't wanted.

2. "Women will be forced into dangerous, back alley abortions if abortion is made illegal."
This argument might be a good argument if the unborn weren't human beings and if legal abortion was a good thing but that's exactly what pro-choicers are trying to prove. Would anyone ever argue, "Thieves will be forced into dangerous armed robberies if they aren't allowed to pickpocket legally." This argument also says that because some women might break a law prohibiting abortion that abortion should be legal. Pretty much every law is broken. Should we repeal these laws too?

3. "A woman has a right to control her own body."
This argument assumes that the unborn is a part of a woman's body and no other human being is involved or would suffer consequences which is exactly what they need to prove.

4. "No one knows when life begins so abortion should remain legal."
This argument is actually a defacto way of assuming that life begins at birth. I couldn't kill a 2 year-old and say, "No one knows when life begins" and get away with it. Instead of proving that human life begins at birth which is what they're trying to do, pro-choice people argue like it is an established fact.

In the first few days after September 11th, rescue workers used their hands and buckets not bulldozers and cranes to clear the wreckage of the World Trade Center because no one was sure if there was life underneath the wreckage. If we're not sure if there is life shouldn't we find out before we destroy something that could be a living human being? Don't we make sure that there are no humans inside a building before we implode it? Why? For the sole reason that there is a possibility that there could be human life inside.


On to Part Four