The Magical Thinking Of Pro-Choicers

*A few quick thoughts before we begin:
I am not saying this to condemn people who have had an abortion or to demand that they be punished. Read this to understand my motivation: WHAT I WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT ABORTION
There are many more sub arguments that can be addressed. So please, don’t just go through the article saying, “Well what about this, and what about that?” I can’t possibly answer all of the pro-choice arguments here. I do, however, answer nearly every question I have been asked about abortion here: ABANDONING ABORTION: MY JOURNEY FROM PRO-CHOICE TO PRO-LIFE AND WHY YOU SHOULD MAKE THE SWITCH.

We live in a time that values (or at least pretends to value) the intellect, reasoning, and intelligently derived conclusions. Enter the pro-abortion and/or pro-choice movement.

I once was a pro-choicer. I had bought into the narrative that I wasn’t allowed to have an opinion because I am a man. I had bought into the “It’s a woman’s body/ choice” rhetoric. Then I studied. I found out that science and basic reasoning paint a very different picture about the developmental process inside of the womb. I discovered that from the moment of fertilization, a genetically distinct human being exists (that’s science, not religion). I learned that every day, in our great country, we are ending the lives of living human beings (many who have developed hearts, brains, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, lips, etc. Many can hear their mother and father from within the womb. Many can feel pain and sense, at least to some degree, what is happening to them. These are scientifically verifiable facts.

The question(s) we all must ask ourselves from an ethical perspective is a simple one: “When does a life begin and at what point is it no longer acceptable to end that life?” Here is where the magical thinking comes in. As someone who is outspoken about what I believe to be one of the greatest(if not the greatest tragedy) of our modern legislative history, I get lots of pro-choice rhetoric thrown my way (even from people who claim to be against or not like abortion). Here are a few of the most common:

“I don’t like abortion, but I can’t tell someone else what to do!”

“It’s the woman’s body.”

“I don’t like that Planned Parenthood does abortions, but the other services they provide are so important that we can’t defund them.”

Okay… so here’s the problem. What if it was a born child? What if we hadn’t created some random distinction between a born and an unborn child? If it was a born child would you not stop someone from literally cutting them into pieces, giving them a lethal injection “to ensure fetal demise” (PP’s own language there), crushing their skull, etc? If Planned Parenthood was killing 300,000 born babies per year, would you still suggest that we should keep funding their other services? I doubt it… At least, I hope not…

And yet, this is the same kind of thinking put forth (Even by well-intended individuals). Why? They have been duped into magical thinking. I have a question for you. If a new life is not created when science says it is created (genetically distinct from the mother) at fertilization, when does it become a life? Does it not trouble you that even the pro-choice community has countless answers to this? Some say it’s when the baby is born. Some say it’s a heartbeat or brain activity or the ability or feel pain or the ability to live on it’s own without the mother. I have news for you… they can’t all be right at the same time. Someone is wrong. And that means that unless the one person who is correct is the one who says it magically becomes a child at birth, then we are killing at least some babies. What is so magical about the 6 inches and minutes or hours between a child’s pre-birth and birth? What makes it all of a sudden become a human once it’s born?

There is absolutely no scientific or philosophical justification for this kind of thinking. It is purely magical fairy dust sprinkled on the unsuspecting public by some devious hucksters who profit from convincing people that abortion doesn’t end lives. I’m sorry to tell you, but it does -plain and simple. So, next time you contemplate whether or not an action is acceptable (ie- funding abortion providers, not interfering with abortions, etc.) ask yourself one question: “If I didn’t hold an arbitrary distinction between a born and a preborn child, would this be okay? If this child was born, would I respond the same way?”

So, please, dispel the magical thinking that is based on political posturing and not rational thought. This isn’t just about being right. It’s about saving lives.


WHAT DO YOU THINK? Share with someone who needs to hear this! Leave a comment below and share to get your friends in on the conversation.

Subscribe to this blog (on the right) to get updates and to receive exclusive content from Redeemed Royalty Ministries, Chris, and The Daily Rebuke!

For more like this, check out: ABORTION ARGUMENTS EASILY DEFEATED USING BASIC LOGIC


IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, DON’T HESITATE TO REACH OUT TO ME AT REDEEMEDROYALTY.ORG, @CHRIS_EKKLESIA ON TWITTER, OR THE MINISTRY FACEBOOK PAGE!

3 Comments
  • HEATHER Wray
    Posted at 13:39h, 06 January Reply

    Wonderful Article.

  • Bob Seidensticker
    Posted at 17:02h, 09 January Reply

    (Chris: As an aside, it would be nice if I could get email notification of any responses to my comments so I can stay involved in the conversation.)

    “What if it was a born child?”

    I agree—let’s not kill children. But a single cell isn’t a child or a person.

    “They have been duped into magical thinking”

    I do see some magical thinking. In my opinion, it’s thinking that it’s a “baby” or “person” all the way back to that microscopic first cell.

    Call it Homo sapiens. Call it human. But it’s not a baby by any usual, everyday sense of the word.

    There’s a spectrum of personhood going from 0% when it’s 1 cell to 100% when it’s a trillion-cell newborn. No, no fairy dust required.

    And if you do insist that it’s a 100% person or baby all the way across the spectrum, then you tell me what we should call the spectrum. You tell me what the newborn is but the single cell isn’t. I say “person.”

    • admin
      Posted at 21:48h, 09 January Reply

      Hey Bob. Do you know how to do that? I am my own tech support and at this point, I have no idea how to get notifications to send for conversations. I would love to offer that feature. As to your point, there are several problems. One, words like person are vague and subjective. The idea that personhood exists on a spectrum seems to point directly to that problem. How can someone be a 25% person? It seems absurd, does it not? Abortion is not the first time that personhood (or something like it) has been used to arbitrarily devalue certain portions of the population. As to “what we should call the spectrum?” I call it development of a human being. And it continues well beyond the 3 trillion cells at birth. According to your own chart it goes up to roughly 50 billion. By your reasoning, even the newborn baby is only about 1/16th of a person. So why not just kill them as well? The fact that even within the pro-choice movement answers are subjective, variable, and often in direct contradiction (some say person at viability, some say birth, others heartbeat, etc.) means that someone is wrong, and unless the very last person (the one who says birth) is ultimately correct, we are killing human beings. The distinct genetic code exists from fertilization. As far as I can tell, it has all the internal potential to become a full grown adult. Everything after that is just part of the developmental process. We can throw darts at a dart board and attempt to create value based on this growth point or that growth point, but that is all it is after that point. BTW, the chart is very misleading. It skips the 9 months of development. Most, if not all of the appendages, that it references at the birth point are present by 12 weeks. Even if those appendages are the magical markers for a valuable human life, then we are still killing millions of them. Of course that assertion is problematic as well. If someone fails to develop ears, or arms, or legs, etc. are they not human beings? Again, all of this is arbitrary gimmickry attempting to validate abortion as a morally acceptable option. Meanwhile, as I write to you… dozens more die. As for the article, I wasn’t exactly trying to make the case here for fertilization as the necessary point from which we legislate abortion. I am simply pointing to the fact that we allow, at least in certain cases, babies to be killed just prior to birth. The difference between a 9 month baby in the womb and a 9 month baby out of the womb is nil. Yet, we allow this travesty to happen (based, as I see it, on magical thinking).

Leave a Reply

We only ship to the continental United States