1

The government does not have the right to kill innocent people after their birth; therefore, it has no right to license expectant mothers or their doctors to kill unborn children in the womb. A government that kills innocent human beings (except in the case of justified war) is totalitarian. Pro-choicers who claim government has no right to ban abortion have the matter exactly backward: The government has no right to legalize abortion.

2

Consider the claim, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but it’s a woman’s right to choose.” This is a contradiction. To vote for pro-abortion politicians and/or legislation is to indirectly participate in every abortion—acquiesce in genocide, and, in the case of minors, child molestation. Pro-choicers who advocate for abortion while saying they are personally opposed to it are like war criminals whose defense is “I was only following orders.” They refuse to accept accountability.

It simply isn’t true that prolifers are interfering with the integrity of women’s bodies. It is the abortion industry that is interfering with women’s bodies, with the participation of those who call themselves pro-choice.

3

Do you know whether or not you believe nine-month-abortion, or abortion on demand, should be legal? I will give you an answer. You support abortion-on-demand if you believe:

1) the government has no right to ban abortion

2) men have no right to participate in efforts to make abortion illegal

3) “it’s my body, my choice!”

4) life does not begin until birth

5) abortion is “reproductive rights”

6) anti-abortion laws are unacceptable because women will be “forced” to get back-alley abortions

7) you supported Roe v. Wade or would welcome its return (Roe v. Wade, together with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, deceptively legalized nine-month-abortion in every state for any reason).

4

If you don’t want to be a nine-month-abortion pro-choicer, simply draw the line somewhere. Say you oppose abortion before that point. When? After six months? Or, if you want to be a three-month pro-choicer, make that your line. And then don’t vote for a politician who supports a single abortion beyond that point. Don’t say, for instance, “This politician supports murdering children in the fourth month, but I will vote for him anyway because he is great on other issues.”

5

Pro-choicers will acknowledge that the unborn is a human being, then ask us to “prove” he or she has a right to stay alive. Actually, a human being has intrinsic value simply by being a human being, and this value is equal to the value of all other human beings. This is the sanctity of life ethic (also called the “equality of life” ethic), which prolifers support.

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, defend a “quality of life” ethic, where human status in and of itself does not grant anyone a right to live. Quality-of-life advocates say only certain types of human beings have the right to live. They use adjectives to kill people: terminal humans, sick humans, single-celled humans, pre-viable humans, viable humans, non-sentient humans, small humans, old humans, Jewish humans, whatever.

But what if someone uses adjectives that you do not use in order to render certain humans killable? Only those who believe in the intrinsic value of every human life can defend those humans. Pro-choicers are in reality “unbornist” bigots, sacrificing their normal ethic of equality for the choice issue. It is difficult to see how dangerous people are when they believe the value of human life is a variable. If an individual’s right to live cannot be defined, it cannot be defended, so the individual is disposable, and all human beings are worthless. Quality-of-lifers may not want to kill you and might not get away with killing you if they try, but their value system nonetheless says they have the right to kill you.