The Case Against Abortion
The most comprehensive and accessible abortion education in the world.
Abort73’s Case Against Abortion exists to give you a better understanding of what abortion is and does. Start at the beginning, or peruse the titles and page summaries to find something specific.
A new human being comes into existence during the process of fertilization.
It is false to claim that no one knows when life begins and dishonest to argue that abortion does not kill a human being.
Does monozygotic twinning prove that life doesn't begin at conception?
While the zygote's ability to reproduce itself early in pregnancy raises some ethical questions, there are plenty of reasons why this doesn't change the fact that individual human development begins at conception.
Growth in the womb is a rapid process; All systems are in place by week eight.
An accurate understanding of prenatal development makes it impossible to argue that abortion is the mere removal of undifferentiated cell tissue or that the developing embryo is simply a part of the mother's body.
From conception onward, pregnancy involves two (or more) separate bodies.
The slogan, "My Body, My Choice," betrays a tragic misunderstanding of what is taking place inside the womb. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.
A fundamental change occurs to the sperm and egg during fertilization.
Some ethicists try to defend abortion on the assertion that sperm and egg cells are just as "alive" as an embryo or fetus. Biologically speaking, this is an absurd and unfounded claim.
It is unjust and inaccurate to classify certain human beings as “non-persons.”
By definition, humanity and personhood go hand in hand. Developing humans in the womb have an intrinsically personal nature and even demonstrate "personality" in many of the same ways that newborn babies do.
All abortion methods violate the most basic medical tenet: “Do No Harm.”
While some surgeries carry a risk of harm, abortion is intended to harm. It may be one of the most common surgical procedures in the world, but it is hardly a harmless one. A better understanding of the techniques involved makes this abundantly clear.
The original rendering of this historic creed explicitly condemns abortion.
The Hippocratic Oath was revolutionary in its unyielding devotion to the preservation of individual human life. It stood in marked contrast to the more primitive medical traditions that blurred the lines between killing and curing. In its original form, the oath prohibits both euthanasia and abortion.
There is significant debate over when in pregnancy a fetus can feel pain.
Whether or not abortion is painful for the child being aborted, the end result is the same. In talking about the question of fetal pain, we must remember that it ultimately has no bearing on the morality of abortion.
Pain is relative, but many women do find abortion to be physically painful.
Significant pain is often involved in the abortion procedure. This doesn't make abortion right or wrong, but the abortion industry's consistent efforts to downplay the physical pain of abortion hints at a broader agenda. They seem far more concerned with selling abortions than with giving women an accurate understanding of what abortion actually does.
Abortion is an act of violence against an innocent human being.
There is simply no way to accurately comprehend the barbarity of abortion without being exposed to the photographic evidence which so clearly demonstrates that abortion is a brutal act of violence.
Pictures help communicate what words, alone, often cannot.
Educators have long understood the appropriateness of using graphic photographs to teach about harsh realities. Nevertheless, the educative use of abortion photos is broadly condemned. This is politically-driven hypocrisy.
Photography has played a crucial role in the history of social reform.
For as long as photography has existed, graphic images have helped to inform and shape the public conscience. They take an abstraction and make it concrete. Atrocities that remain unseen are easier to trivialize and easier to ignore.
All Abort73 abortion photos come from working abortion clinics.
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) maintains the largest known abortion-image archive in the world and has meticulously verified the accuracy and authenticity of their photographs and video. The content of these pictures have not been digitally altered in any way.
It is reasonable and necessary for society to outlaw certain "choices."
The only way people can successfully live together in community is to give up a measure of personal freedom. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against.
These terms may seem synonymous, but there are subtle differences.
Though "pro-life" is an imperfect and often criticized label, it is more accurate than the alternative ("anti-abortion") and more honest than its counterpart ("pro-choice").
The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnant.
Some people believe that prohibiting abortion makes embryos and fetuses more valuable grown women. This is untrue. Restricting abortion does not imply that the child is more valuable than the mother. It simply recognizes that the right to not be killed is more fundamental than the right to not be pregnant.
Poverty, rape, disability or “unwantedness” do not morally justify abortion.
There are all sorts of circumstances that people point to as justification for their support of abortion. Since none of these circumstances are sufficient to justify the killing of human beings after birth, they're not sufficient to justify the killing of human beings before birth.
The differences between embryos and adults are differences that don't matter.
Human beings inside the womb are smaller, less developed, and more dependent than human beings outside the womb. These are differences of degree, not differences of kind. We can all point to other people who are bigger, stronger, smarter, or less dependent than we are, but that doesn't make our life any less valuable, or any less deserving of protection.
Abortion is condemnable for the same reasons that slavery and genocide are.
Networks of killing centers across the globe are eliminating "unwanted, unborn" children at a staggering rate. Were the context not abortion, the world would be outraged. Call it what you want, when an innocent group of human beings is targeted and exterminated by the millions, that is an injustice on par with any of history's most egregious atrocities.
Repeating history, the Court again turned certain human beings into property.
From an ideological perspective, there are many connections between abortion and slavery. Both fit the classic "pro-choice" model. Both are built on legal decisions which classified specific human beings as property–property that could be legally abused or destroyed.
Like any act of homicide, abortion steals from its victims their future life.
Killing is one of the worst crimes because of the impact it has on the victim. Killing deprives the victim of life. The loss of life is the greatest possible loss anyone can suffer because it deprives us of all the experiences and enjoyments that otherwise would have been part of our futures, which we now value or would have come to value. If the loss of our valuable future is what makes killing you and me wrong, then abortion is equally wrong, because it deprives the fetus of its “future like ours”.
For decades, abortion has disproportionately targeted minority babies.
Whatever the intent of the abortion industry may be, by functional standards, abortion is a racist institution. In the United States, black children are aborted at nearly four times the rate as white children and Hispanic children don't fare much better.
Around the globe, abortion is shrinking the female population at an alarming rate.
No matter what you believe about the ethics of abortion, there is no denying the fact that abortion has become the driving force in eliminating females around the globe. Estimates put the global gender gap somewhere between 100 and 200 million people.
Eliminating the "unfit" has always been a goal of Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood, then called the Birth Control League, once shared office office space and board members with the American Eugenics Society. They openly advocated the thinning of minority populations through birth control and sterilization.
Founded by an outspoken eugenicist, there are plenty of skeletons in the closet.
During her lifetime, Margaret Sanger publicly urged the elimination of "human weeds," the "cessation of charity," and the sterilization of "genetically inferior races." She championed the "science" of eugenics, ridiculed God and marriage, and founded Planned Parenthood, which has grown to become the largest abortion-provider in America.
Many abortion supporters have a huge financial stake in keeping abortion legal.
Abortion is a lucrative business. Those who defend it the most ardently often have a financial interest in keeping it legal and commonplace. Couple this with the abortion industry's consistent opposition to measures requiring more full patient disclosure, and there is good reason to wonder if they care more about profits than they do about women.
"Principled" support of abortion often brings significant financial perks as well.
Are all abortionists simply "in it for the money"? Probably not. But how many abortionists would there be if they had to volunteer their services, or even pay for the opportunity to put their principles in practice? It's very easy to follow your "principles" when those principles earn you lots of money.
Financial hardship is not a legitimate reason for taking an innocent human life.
Abortion is often sold as a means of avoiding financial stress. For a few hundred bucks you can free yourself from the cost of raising a child, while also freeing yourself from the eventual care and support of a grown son or daughter. In the process, you free society from the long-term production and influence of an utterly unique human being.
Not content with destroying innocent bodies; they go after minds as well.
Planned Parenthood has an entire website devoted to sexualizing America's youth while happily lifting the restraints of God, parents or marriage. They tout it as being ""values-free". In reality, it simply espouses those values which will help ensure that abortion remains an extremely lucrative business.
Abortion often leaves women with a lifetime of mental anguish.
The psychological implications of abortion are as disputed as the act of abortion itself. Whether or not Post-Abortion Syndrome is a real or imagined condition, there is no denying the fact that abortion has left countless women with feelings of profound regret.
Significant risk factors (like breast cancer) have been associated with abortion.
The morality of abortion is not directly tied to the risks it poses to the mother. Giving birth certainly carries its own set of risk factors. Nevertheless, shouldn't a woman considering abortion know about the potential damage it could do to her own body?
America has become a more violent place for born children since abortion was legalized.
The available data shows that legal abortion has not reduced child abuse in America, as theorized by some, but rather may have contributed to its increase.
Pregnancy care centers help eliminate the financial burden of pregnancy.
In the United States, there are thousands of pregnancy care centers which all exist to help women through the emotional and financial stress of an unplanned pregnancy. Couple their services with the widespread availability of adoption, and it should become immediately apparent that women need not kill their "unwanted" children.
Apart from some kind of moral code, there can be no law.
Every law on the books serves as a reminder that we can and do "legislate morality". Unrestricted, personal "choice" is just another name for anarchy. When the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws against abortion, it was nothing less than the application of their own morality – one that believes you're not a person until you're born.
Elective Abortion flies in the face of classic feminism.
While feminism today in the U.S. is largely in favor of abortion, seeing it as necessary to ensure equality for women within society, the early feminists found abortion to be a societal evil that dishonored woman and killed children.
Prominent former abortion providers now firmly condemn the practice.
The stories on this page highlight the remarkable turnarounds of four former abortion-insiders–including the physician most responsible for the legalization of abortion in America. Taken together, they reveal abortion to be a grisly business that is built on deception, plagued by cover-ups, populated by unethical characters, and largely driven by greed.
Aborting women are vulnerable to the predatory behavior of unscrupulous doctors.
No matter what anyone believes about abortion in theory, no matter how adamantly a woman argues for abortion rights in public, most women go to great lengths to ensure that their own abortion remains a secret. This desire for secrecy gives abortion clinics lots of room to cover-up abuse.
The Bible makes no moral distinction between born children and unborn children.
The issue of abortion is never directly dealt with in Scripture, but it says plenty about children inside and outside of the womb. In light of what is explicitly stated about children, and what is explicitly stated about murder, it is fair to conclude that God hates abortion.
Seventy percent of U.S. abortions are performed on "Christian" women.
It's a mistake to assume that because so many aborting women in America identify themselves as Protestant or Catholic, that the Bible is ambivalent towards abortion. What these numbers do tell us is that lots of self-professing Christians are not behaving very Christ-like, and lots of churches are not sufficiently educating their members about abortion.
Historic writings demonstrate the church's longstanding opposition to abortion.
In writings from the beginnings of Christianity to the Reformation, Christians have stood uniformly against abortion, believing it to be an act of murder and deserving of God’s judgment. Because they viewed life in the womb as the object of God’s care, they believed it should therefore be the object of neighborly love.
A passage sometimes cited as a biblical endorsement of abortion.
Whether Exodus 21:22-25 is talking about a miscarriage or a live, premature birth, it is impossible in either case to conclude from this passage that God is indifferent towards abortion.
God established government to keep sinful people from wronging each other.
Arguing that the government should never restrict "choice" is nothing more than an argument for anarchy. Anyone who understands the biblical role of government and deals honestly with the Bible's portrayal of human life (inside and outside the womb) should recognize that biblically speaking, the government must protect innocent human life.