top of page



Advocates of abortion have a myriad of false justifications for their defense of the cruel murder of innocent children. Nonetheless, the basic arguments, for both Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion, can be reduced to the following...

The central Biblical, Anti-Abortion, Abolitionist arguments are very simple:

“Thou shalt not kill.” −Exodus 20:13

“They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.” −Psalms 94:6

“Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood,  even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of  Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood."   −Psalms 106:37-38

“...the LORD hate(th): hands that shed innocent blood” −Proverbs 6:17b

“...and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” −1 John 3:15b

A. It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

B. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.

C. Therefore, abortion is wrong.


With this in mind, let’s debunk two of the primary arguments used in a vain attempt to justify abortion:


1. The unborn fetus is not a human being.

2. It’s my body, so it’s my choice.

Let’s look at these one at a time.




The Scriptures are very clear: life begins at conception and individual personhood in the womb...


“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.” −Psalms 139:13

“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself...” −Isaiah 44:24

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” −Jeremiah 1:5

“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace...”

                                                                                                                                           −Galatians 1:15

Nonetheless, advocates for abortion, defy both sound reason and conscience, clinging to this absurd excuse. They insist, contrary to both Scripture and modern science, unborn babies are neither fully human nor individual persons. While this belief is often implied rather than explicitly stated, it provides the underlying basis for most pro-abortion arguments.

Have you noticed that the arguments used to justify killing an unborn child are never used to justify killing a toddler? Why not? Because those in favor of abortion do not consider an unborn child to be fully human or an individual person like they perceive a toddler.


Dr. C. Ward Kischer, former Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, points out that, “Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).” If life begins at conception—as the Bible teaches and science demonstrates—then the life of an unborn infant must be fully human. If not, at what point do we become human? If our humanity is not inherently tied to our existence, consider the implications:

• If humanity depends on the level of development, should children not be considered human because they are still developing?

• If humanity depends on the degree of dependency, what about toddlers, the elderly, or the severely disabled?

• If it depends on self-awareness, do people in a comatose state cease to be human?

• If it depends on location, can we kill a baby minutes before birth?

Placing the beginning of human life at any point other than conception leaves human rights on uncertain and subjective ground—for both those outside the womb as well as those in the womb. It would mean that our humanity is not inherent, but conditional. Simply meaning our humanity and personhood can be lost if certain conditions are not met. Therefore, if our humanity can be lost, so can our inalienable rights.


However, even if the fetus is regarded as a human being, many still argue the unborn baby has no right to the mother’s body. This is referenced by a second common pro-abortion argument...



The mantra above is a major pro-abortion talking point. It attempts to cast abortion supporters as ‘pro-choice’, while framing supporters of life as ‘anti-choice’. For example, regarding the battle over ‘abortion rights’, Planned Parenthood Action states: 


“Our ability to control our health, our bodies, and our future is at stake.”


Pro-abortion talking points and policies tend to ignore the second, innocent human being who is affected: the unborn baby. Therefore, we must ask, how many bodies are involved? Consider a C-section versus an appendectomy—is anyone with intellectual integrity willing to actually believe removing a baby from a mother is equivalent to removing her appendix? 


Some abortion supporters acknowledge that the unborn baby is a separate entity from the mother. Science confirms what common sense tells us, that the mother and the baby are distinct, different individuals with unique DNA. Still, advocates for abortion argue that a pregnant woman shouldn’t be forced to use her body to support her developing baby; therefore, her right to abortion remains intact. What sort of sane human being, much less a mother, reasons so selfishly? Is this a legitimate definition of rights? Doesn’t the unborn baby have rights? Remember, if the unborn fetus is a human being, then he or she inherently possesses human rights, including the right to life and protection from assault and battery. 


If a mother has the right to harm or kill her baby in the name of bodily autonomy, it logically follows that:


  • A mother should be able to abort her baby at nine months instead of giving birth (which is technically legal in several states). 

  • A mother should be able to abort her unborn girl because she wanted a boy (as many tragically did in order to preserve the family name during China’s one-child policy). 

  • If breastfeeding was a mother’s only available option to feed her newborn baby, she could refuse to use her body for that purpose, starving her baby in the name of bodily autonomy. 


These horrific positions are where the ‘my body, my choice’ argument ultimately leads. The simple, plain, self-evident truth is crystal clear for those willing to be intellectually honest: the body inside a pregnant woman’s body is not her body.

In the end, always remember: Intentionally killing an innocent human being is murder, murder is sin, and all murders go to hell (Gal 5:19-21; 1 Jn 3:15; Rev 21:8). Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human-being, therefore abortion is wrong. No claim to ‘bodily autonomy’ will change this foundational moral absolute.

bottom of page