For the longest time, the abortion debate had been centered around whether a fetus is a human being or not. It is both politically and morally logical that humans have the right to life. Thus, if the object of abortion is a human being, it should not be legal.
The pro-choice movement’s argument was centered around the idea that fetus’ are no more than tissue and cells.
What has happened in this debate? The Church won.
That’s right, we won. It is now undeniable that, from any perspective, the human being begins at conception. The scientific evidence has won the day. Rarely will an abortion apologist even argue against this. Any one who does has simply not done recent research. Both the pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides now agree. It’s over. The unborn is human.
So abortion is banned right? Wrong.
All that has happened is that the argument changed. Now the argument is a women’s rights campaign. Now the argument is that the woman’s body and rights are more important than the child’s.
“Abortion undoubtedly ends life. I am not here to argue that today. Of course a fetus is a human being, of course a fetus is living and growing inside of a womb.”
See what happens when the evidence wins the day? The unbeliever, enslaved to love their sin, continues in their sin. It didn’t change a thing. This next quote is undoubtedly the most honest and brutal take to date. For the pro-choice apologist, it is the only possible opinion to now hold:
“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always. When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of ‘scraping out a bunch of cells’ and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?“
– Mary Elizabeth Williams
Christopher Hitchens was another staunch Atheist who was pro-choice and who affirmed that it is obvious, scientifically and philosophically, that the unborn is a human life. That doesn’t matter to sin.
What’s the point of this post? Other than being a shameless plug for presuppositional apologetics, it is a reminder of the importance of the Gospel. Science and evidence will not convert the unbeliever. They will only change their arguments. The Gospel of Jesus Christ can save. Apologetics are biblical, mandatory, and important. However, we must adopt an apologetic method that puts evidence in its proper place. And apologetics should always be a responsive endeavor. The Gospel will end abortion. When people oppose the Gospel, we engage in apologetics. But apologetics is not the weapon we use against abortion, the Gospel is.
If you want to see the Gospel in action against abortion, please watch this: