Article adapted from episode content.

As a pro-life advocate, I’ve learned that defending the unborn often requires more than just presenting logical arguments. Sometimes, you encounter opposition that resembles street fighting more than rational debate. In these situations, it’s crucial to recognize the tactics being used and respond effectively. I was reminded of this recently when we received a comment on our site from someone named Paul, who believed he had definitively refuted the pro-life argument. Paul’s approach, however, was riddled with logical fallacies and undefended assertions, requiring a different kind of response than a typical intellectual discussion.

The Importance of the Pro-Life Syllogism

Before diving into Paul’s specific arguments, it’s essential to reiterate the core of the pro-life position. As I always emphasize, the three most important words in pro-life apologetics are “syllogism, syllogism, syllogism”. This means stating our formal argument clearly and consistently to keep the discussion focused and prevent opponents from changing the subject.

Our pro-life argument is as follows:

• Premise one: It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
• Premise two: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
• Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

When engaging with someone who opposes this argument, the first step is to determine whether they are actually refuting the syllogism itself. Are they demonstrating that the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises, or are they showing that one or more of the premises are false? If not, the argument stands, regardless of any emotional appeals or rhetorical distractions.

Deconstructing Paul’s Assertions

Paul’s comment was a classic example of “street fighting” in the abortion debate. Instead of directly engaging with the pro-life syllogism, he posed a series of questions and assertions designed to shift the focus and appeal to emotion. He wrote, “If you can’t, perhaps you shouldn’t be telling others how they must lead their own lives in matters of personal reproductive choice”. He then raised several points, including:

• The varying beliefs about when an embryo or fetus becomes a human baby.
• The question of who decides when a fetus is considered a human being under the law.
• The analogy of vegans whose religious beliefs dictate dietary choices.
• The issue of miscarriages and whether God is performing abortions.

Exposing Hidden Premises and Fallacies

One of the most common tactics in these types of arguments is the use of hidden and undefended premises. For example, Paul asserts that millions of people believe an embryo measuring 1/100th of an inch in length is a human being. He seems to imply that size is a relevant factor in determining humanity or value. However, he never actually defends this premise. Where does he present a formal argument that how large you are determines whether or not you have a right to life? By that standard, two-year-olds are smaller than 20-year olds, so do two-year-olds have less of a right to life? He nowhere presents an argument. He just asserts a hidden premise and thinks he can pull it over on us. I need to see your argument for why body size determines value.

Similarly, Paul suggests that the varying opinions on when life begins undermine the pro-life position. He’s basically saying here is there’s such a wide variety of opinion, why should your particular view be the one that is law? However, the absence of consensus does not mean an absence of truth. The fact that people disagree has no bearing on what’s reality. You have to make an argument for it. In fact, I could respond by saying his own claim here is self-refuting. Because people disagree with his view that abortion should be legal until birth and that the decision should be solely that of the mother. A lot of people disagree with that. So if a lack of consensus means you can’t put your position into law, his own position can’t be put into law because lots of Americans disagree with it, including me. So his argument here is literally self-refuting.

Another fallacy Paul employs is dismissing the pro-life argument as merely a religious view. He says, some of you say your religious view is that the fetus is not a child until they breathe. Others of you believe it’s at conception. But who gets to decide? However, simply labeling an argument as religious does not refute it. As Francis Beckwith points out, it’s a category error, like asking how tall is the number three. Arguments are sound or unsound, valid or invalid. You have to do the work of refuting the argument. Pro-lifers support their argument with science and philosophy. They support it from science by arguing from embryology the very obvious truth in every medical textbook in the world that each of us began at the point of fertilization that from the very beginning from the one cell stage uh you were a distinct living and whole human being.

Turning the Tables

In responding to these types of arguments, it’s important to expose the underlying assumptions and demand justification. In Paul’s case, I would respond by saying, “I agree with you completely. Prolifers like me and every other proer on the planet ought to butt out of this issue and leave the decision solely to the mother. I’ll agree with that. I’ll also agree that our tax money should be spent funding abortions for every woman in the world. I’ll further agree that no prolifer should seek to legislate his position in law. I agree with you completely if…if what? If the unborn are not human. But I need you to argue for that. You need to present an argument from the science of embryology showing the unborn are something other than a human being. In other words, you’re going to have to argue how it’s possible for two human parents to create offspring that isn’t human but later becomes human. And then you’re going to have to argue philosophically why any of the differences we mentioned between you the embryo and you the adult justifies killing you at that early earlier stage of development. If you can’t do that then I don’t know why I need to pay attention to your raw assertions here.

Regarding Paul’s question about miscarriages and God, the response is that nature spontaneously triggers a miscarriage that a the embryos in question are not human or b you can intentionally kill them. That does not follow at all. Look uh nature causes all kinds of people to die. Does it follow that mass murder is justified?

Natural Rights and the Role of Government

Paul also raised the question of whether a majority vote should determine individual rights. Here, I agree with him. Our founding fathers made sure we are not ruled by majority vote. That’s why we’re a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, you just take the majority vote, the popular vote, and that’s it. The founders understood that human beings have natural rights that transcend government. These rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are pre-political and not contingent on government or majority approval.

Therefore, when we argue that the unborn have a right to life, that right is secure not because a majority approves of it, but because it’s written into our nature as human beings, uh, or as Christians would say, as im bears.

Recognizing Thoughtful Opposition

Finally, it’s important to remember that not everyone who supports abortion is engaging in intellectual dishonesty. There are thoughtful people out there that are mistaken. In my book, The Case for Life, I discuss thinkers like Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, and David Boonin, who present formal arguments that, while I disagree with them, deserve to be taken seriously. We need to be careful as pro-life Christians that we not assume that there are no people on the other side that are using their brains on this issue. They may be mistaken, but at least they’re presenting formal arguments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, defending the pro-life position requires both intellectual rigor and the ability to recognize and counter fallacious arguments. When faced with “street fighting” tactics, it’s essential to expose hidden premises, demand justification, and steer the conversation back to the core syllogism. By doing so, we can effectively defend the unborn and promote a culture of life.