“Be it resolved that abortion is harmful to women.”
That was the statement late-term abortionist Dr. Fraser Fellows and I were asked to debate in our third public forum, this time at the University of Toronto this past November 8. In preparation for the event, and in reflection afterwards, I was reminded of the hierarchy of pro-life argumentation.
In no way was I arguing that abortion is wrong because it is harmful to women. After all, what medical procedure doesn’t have some risks? Open heart surgery has risks. So does chemotherapy. But plenty of people opt for these medical interventions because the benefits outweigh the risks.
And so, an abortion advocate could simply rebut, “Okay, even if I grant that abortion has some risks, it doesn’t logically follow that abortion is wrong—how many basic prescriptions come with risk and we don’t consider those wrong? Even if abortion has some risks, it simply means, like with all medical procedures, that women should be fully informed of those, and make a decision based on a careful measuring of the pros and cons.”
If the pro-lifer rested their case on the harm argument, the pro-lifer just lost. The best they got is an admission from abortion advocates of the importance of informed consent, but if that doesn’t end abortion then how great an accomplishment is it? This is not to say the negatives of abortion should not be highlighted; rather, it’s to point out that while such information has a place (for the sake of women considering abortion), it is not the foundation from which we build the anti-abortion argument.
After all, consider this: What if no woman was ever harmed by abortion? In fact, what if more than simply being neutral, abortion was proven to be beneficial? What if studies showed that with every abortion women received multiple health benefits?
Would pro-lifers still reject abortion? If yes, then why? If the answer is because abortion kills an innocent child, then we have now isolated and identified the real reason why abortion is wrong. It is wrong because it kills children.
Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!
And so, when I introduced the meta-analysis by Dr. Priscilla Coleman on the devastating emotional effects abortion has had on some women, I started with why that would be the case: I explained how the pre-born are alive because they’re growing and how they’re human because their parents are; and if we believe in human rights, then it follows that the act of abortion takes away the human rights of living human beings. As a result of these facts, it follows that abortion would have negative emotional effects on women because it goes against our nature to end the lives of our offspring. And this isn’t just a theory, it’s supported in the literature (at which point I introduced research by Coleman and Fergusson).
Yet we mustn’t confuse the effects of abortion with the act of abortion itself.
The week of Fellows’ and my debate, the deVeber Institute launched its new book, “Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women.” When pro-lifers use this excellent tool it’s important they know how—namely, not to argue that abortion is wrong, but to inform the public at large and women in particular that actions have consequences, and for some women those consequences are utterly devastating.
Reprinted with permission from Unmasking Choice