Abortions vs miscarriages
Published: 17 March 2013 (GMT+10)
Some pro-abortionists think that since there is not as much overt campaigning against miscarriages as there is against abortion it invalidates the pro-lifer’s claim to care about the well-being of unborn babies. Is this right? Cory D. from the United States writes:
A friend of mine sent an article in support of abortion [Ed.—Link removed as per feedback rules]. I believe the biblical concepts that life begins at conception and that taking an innocent human life is wrong; therefore I think it follows that Christians need to oppose abortion.
However, this article brought up an argument I’ve never faced before. It claims that if the reason someone opposes abortion is to save the lives of unborn babies, there should be more of an effort to save the unborn babies who die naturally. It concludes that because the attention given to abortions far outweighs that given to miscarriages, opponents of abortion are being inconsistent.
I found this to be the most difficult argument to refute. Should there be 5k’s for miscarried babies like the author suggested? I would appreciate any help you can provide.
CMI’s Lita Sanders responds:
I always find it interesting that people use other dying babies as an argument against the pro-life position: “Well, these babies die, so why do you care about this other group of babies that are being brutally killed?” I can’t speak for all pro-lifers, but I care about premature babies, small victims of child abuse, women in desperate situations who may be unable to care for another child without help, and all the other groups that are used to try to make pro-lifers feel guilty about speaking out against murdering babies in the womb.
Many miscarriages result because something went wrong in fertilization, or there was some error in the developmental process which means that the baby could never have made it to term. There are instances now where in utero surgery can help the baby survive, and pro-lifers would fully support such measures. We also support the development of technology to help save the lives of babies born earlier and earlier; I think when smaller and smaller babies are being saved thanks to advances in their care, that’s a win for everyone. If the goal is to save as many babies as possible with medical advances, putting funding into refining in utero surgery and premature neonatal care would be the way to go, given that so many miscarriages are impossible to prevent (but of course preventing miscarriages, where possible, is great too—it’s not an either-or thing). But the babies that are killed by abortion are usually healthy and need no extraordinary medical care to make it to term; they just need to be allowed to develop in their mothers’ wombs. Seeking to prevent people killing them, people who are acting with deliberate intent to end their lives, is obviously and categorically different from the medical/biological things that happen in this fallen world. If I lived in the Jim Crow South last century, would it be wrong for me to speak up about black men being lynched and civil rights workers being attacked and killed, because other people die from drowning in swimming pools? That’s how ridiculous this argument sounds to me, to be honest.
I consider myself holistically pro-life; I support anything that will help women make the decisions that keep them from having the ‘unwanted pregnancy’ in the first place (and if part of that equation is, ‘Don’t sleep around with men you barely know’, is that such a terrible thing? Women are rarely empowered in such circumstances), pregnancy centers that provide resources for low-income and other at-risk women to provide alternatives to abortion, and programs that help women take care of their babies, or put them up for adoption if that’s their choice. But the pro-life issue revolves around abortion for a reason—it is the single biggest threat to the baby in the womb.