Advocates of elective abortion generally believe that the unborn are not fully human.[2]  But instead of proving this conclusion with facts and arguments, many people simply assume it within the course of their rhetoric.  We call this "begging the question" and it’s a logical fallacy that lurks behind many arguments for abortion.

A person begs the question when he assumes what he is trying to prove. Suppose federal prosecutors confronted you with this question: “Have you stopped cheating on your taxes?”  Obviously, the question is unfair.  It assumes that you have broken the law, which is in fact the very point prosecutors are trying to prove.  Your defense attorney would be outraged, insisting that they prove guilt with facts and evidence rather than assume it with rhetoric. 

Arguing that abortion is justified because a woman has a right to control her own body assumes there is only one body involved—that of the woman.  But this is precisely the point abortion advocates try to prove.  Hence, they beg the question.

Or, take the claim that no one knows when life begins, therefore abortion should remain legal.  But to argue that no one knows when life begins, and that abortion must remain legal through all nine months of pregnancy, assumes that life does not begin until birth—the exact point abortion advocates try to prove.  This is hardly a neutral position.  It is a clear case of begging the question.

Trot out a Toddler

Here’s how to clarify things.  If you think a particular argument begs the question regarding the status of the unborn, ask yourself if this justification for abortion also works as a justification for killing toddlers or other humans.  If not, the argument assumes the unborn are not fully human, like toddlers. 

Now, it may be the case that the unborn are not fully human and abortion is therefore justified.  But this must be argued with evidence, not merely assumed by one's rhetoric.

Suppose, for example, that a friend justifies elective abortion this way: “Women have a right to make their own private decisions.  What goes on in the bedroom is their business and no one else’s.” 

When you hear this, don’t panic.  Trot out a toddler:

Pro-lifer: Okay, you say that privacy is the issue.  Pretend that I have a two-year old in front of me (hold out your hand at waist level to illustrate this).  May I kill him as long as I do it in the privacy of the bedroom?

Abortion-advocate: That’s silly--of course not!

Pro-lifer: Why not?

Abortion-advocate: Because he’s a human being.

Pro-lifer: Ah.  If the unborn are human, like the toddler, we shouldn’t kill the unborn in the name of privacy anymore than we’d kill a toddler for that reason.

Abortion-advocate: You’re comparing apples with oranges, two things that are completely unrelated.  Look, killing toddlers is one thing.  Killing a fetus that is not a human being is quite another.

Pro-Lifer: Ah.  That’s the issue, isn’t it?  Are the unborn human beings, like toddlers?  That is the one issue that matters.

Staying Focused

Notice that you’ve not yet argued for the humanity of the unborn.  You’ll do that in a moment.  For now, all you are doing is framing the issue around the question, What is the unborn?  That is the crux of the debate. 

As the conversation continues, keep trotting out the toddler each time your friend assumes the unborn are not human.  That will keep the discussion focused on the one question that really matters: the status of the unborn.

Abortion-advocate: But many poor women cannot afford to raise another child.

Pro-lifer: When human beings get expensive, may we kill them?  Getting back to my toddler example, suppose a large family collectively decides to quietly dispose of its three youngest children to help ease the family budget.  Would this be okay?

Abortion-advocate: Well, no, but aborting a fetus is not the same as killing children.

Pro-lifer: So, once again, the issue is, What is the unborn?  Is the fetus the same as a human being?  We can’t escape that question, can we?

Abortion-advocate: But you're being too simplistic.  This is a very complex issue involving women who must make agonizing decisions.

Pro-lifer:  The decision may be psychologically complex for the mother, but morally it is not complex at all.  When black children are denied schooling and other community services, do we spin a tale about complex and agonizing decisions for the white people in power or do we condemn the evil of racism?

Abortion-advocate: Aborting a fetus that is not human is one thing; discriminating against a black person is quite another.

Pro-lifer:  So we’re agreed: If abortion kills a defenseless human being, then the issue wouldn’t be complex at all.  The question remains: What is the unborn?

Abortion-advocate: Enough abstract philosophy.  Let's talk about real life.  Do you really think a woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world?

Pro-lifer:  The homeless are unwanted; may we kill them?

Abortion-advocate: No, but your forgetting something.  It’s also not fair to the child to bring him into a family where he is not wanted.  He’s better off not being born.

Pro-lifer: You’re still missing the point.  Suppose the toddler we’ve been discussing is unwanted.  In fact, by the time he’s five, he’ll be abused and neglected.  Should we kill him now to spare him future trouble?

Abortion-advocate: No, I suppose not.

Pro-lifer: But why shouldn’t we kill him?

Abortion-advocate: Okay, I see where you are trying to go here, but it's not the same thing.  Toddlers and fetuses are not the same.

Pro-lifer:  That’s the issue, isn’t it? Are they the same?  If the unborn are human like the homeless, then we can’t kill them to get them out of the way.  We’re back to my first question, What is the unborn?

Abortion-advocate: What about mentally disabled fetuses?  You know, we can detect that problem before birth now, allowing the mother to avoid the difficult task of raising a handicapped child with multiple defects.  Surely your would agree that no woman should be forced to raise a child like that.

Pro-lifer: Actually, I agree: We can kill the unborn—including those with physical disabilities—IF.  If What?  If they are not human.  Again, we’re back to just one question, What is the unborn?  Let’s trot out our toddler and see if your objection works as a justification for killing a three-year old.  Suppose I have in front of me a small boy who is mentally disabled.  He’s not very bright, cannot speak or understand much of what we say, and has a strange looking head to boot.  Would it be morally permissible to kill him because he’s, as you would put it, a damaged human being? 

Abortion-advocate: No, we cannot do that.  A damaged human is not a non-human.  We should treat him with care as we do all human beings that have injuries or cannot speak for themselves. 

Pro-lifer: I agree.  However, if the disabled unborn are human, like the disabled toddler, we shouldn’t kill them for not meeting our standard of perfection anymore than we would kill a three year-old for that same reason.  Again, we are back to just one question, What is the unborn?

Abortion-advocate:  Okay, I see your point, but you still shouldn’t force your morality on women.  Every woman has a right to decide what is right and wrong for herself.  When you force your views on women, you are demonstrating that you don’t trust them to make their own responsible choices. 

Pro-lifer:  You don’t really believe what you just said, do you?  I mean, you’d feel very comfortable forcing your morality on a mother who was physically abusing her two-year-old, right?

Abortion-advocate: But again, the two cases are not the same.

Pro-lifer: Oh? Why is that?

Abortion-advocate:  Because you're assuming the unborn are human, like toddlers.

Pro-lifer: And you're assuming they're not.  So the issue is quite simple, isn't it?  It's not about forcing morality; it's not about privacy; it's not about economic hardship; it's not about unwantedness.  It's just one question: What is the unborn?  Now, this does not mean that I’m right about the unborn and you are wrong.  Abortion may in fact be perfectly moral.  But we cannot answer the morality question until we answer the factual one, What kind of being is the unborn?  My only claim here—and it’s a very modest one—is that we mustn’t assume the unborn are disqualified from membership in the human family without first making a credible argument.

Toddler Tactics for Tough Questions