Have you noticed how often pro-lifers, unknowingly, use rhetoric that reinforces pro-abortion positions. For example, when we focus on the horrible and indefensible nature of late term abortion, we are suggesting that earlier abortions are less horrible and more defensible. This creates an artificial distinction between one human being and another human being based on how old it is, how developed it is or how large it is. That is not far from the pro-abortion position.
Another example of this relates to the revelations that some hospitals are doing what are called “live birth abortions.” This is where they induce a pregnant woman to give birth and then put the baby in a closet and let it die. Horrified pro-lifers have responded by talking about the fact that these hospitals are “killing living babies!”
As understandable as this outrage is, such language undermines the pro-life position. It suggests that there is a difference between killing someone inside the womb or outside. The reality is, whether they are put in closets to die or ripped apart in the womb, all abortions happen on living babies and we must be careful not to ever say or do anything which suggests otherwise.
We also get tricked into supporting the abortion lobby’s agenda by the way we talk about teen pregnancy. The abortion industry wants people to believe that when a teenage girl has a baby her life is over. She is doomed to be single forever, poor as a church mouse, uneducated, and on welfare for the rest of her life. Their goal is to convince people that abortion is her only hope.
While it is true that no one believes 13-year-old children should be getting pregnant, it is not the end of the world. In fact, many unmarried teenage girls have babies and go on to lead happy lives. Moreover, among those who don’t, a significant number come from socio-economic environments where, by abortion industry standards, their chances for a “successful and productive” life are limited whether they have babies or not. For these girls, the problem is not their baby but their environment. When we ignore that and focus instead on the pregnancy, what we are really saying is that the baby is the problem. Again, that’s the pro-abortion position.
It is also common for pro-lifers to attack abortion by saying we may have aborted the next Beethoven, or Mother Teresa, or the doctor who would have discovered a cure for cancer. While this sentiment is understandable, it is inconsistent with the pro-life position. The unborn child who might grow up to cure cancer has no more right to life than the unborn child who will spend his life on welfare and living under bridges. The “aborted Beethoven” argument suggests that it is a bigger tragedy to kill Baby A than Baby B because Baby A is more valuable to society. Clearly, that is not what the pro-lifer meant to say, but that is certainly what the listener might conclude.
The point is, always be aware that what you say may not be what your audience hears.