The Texas Heartbeat Law has abortion advocates on full attack, and they are using every tactic in the book to convince you that they are the heroes standing up for healthcare freedom, but these tactics cannot stand up to the facts.
The pro-abortion advocates have proven once again that they are far from the heroes of freedom they claim to be and that their opinions are far from being healthcare. While they often claim to be on the side of “science”, pro-abortion supporters repeatedly show themselves to be the real “science-deniers” in our world today.
This time, they’ve attempted to take on another controversial, politically-driven argument in order to make two cases in one, but the reasoning they espouse falls flat when held up to the gauge of actual scientific data. As they often do, they also rely on logical fallacies in order to make their point, which is commonly wrapped up in some sort of emotional appeal so that you don’t notice the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of their arguments.
An example of this is a recent post I came across on a self-professed liberal social account, which stated:
So the state can mandate that a 14-year-old girl carry the pregnancy forced upon her by a rapist to term and endure delivery at her age, BUT the state CANNOT mandate that same girl wear a mask at school, because that’s too great a burden for the state to impose. WHAT?
From reading this quote, it becomes quite clear that their mantra of “My Body, My Choice” comes into question at the very least, as it now seems more accurate to say that they closer align with the idea of “Your Body, My Choice” seeing as how mandates logically exclude any option of personal choice.
In a world of relativism, contradicting statements may hypothetically co-exist without issue, but relativism is fantasy, not reality. Contradictions cannot both be true at the same time in the real world. Facts are facts whether we choose to believe them to be or not.
Arguments based solely on emotion rather than facts commonly showcase multiple flaws, and once you know how to identify these flaws, it becomes obvious that they are often self-defeating arguments that have little to no grounding in reality or truth.
In the case of the pro-abortion argument quoted above from the liberal social account, it ultimately destroys itself through its own logical fallacies of Appealing to Emotion (rather than logic and fact), and Faulty Comparison. These fallacies are used to twist your emotions by twisting the facts.
Here are the actual facts of the matter:
It has been scientifically proven that life begins at conception (new genetic makeup/DNA is present), and therefore abortion ends that life, especially by the six-week mark. That is why the Texas law is called the “heartbeat law” because it stops abortion from happening once a heartbeat can be detected at six weeks – and it’s hard to argue against a heartbeat as one of the most indisputable indicators of human life.
On the other hand, following the science has also led to the conclusion that mask efficacy is highly, highly debated among reputable scientists and medical personnel, especially regarding children (just as countless respected medical entities have said numerous times, both in the U.S. and in other countries).
But let’s set aside the mask argument for a minute because that’s not actually what this particular argument from the left is actually about if we are being honest with ourselves. It’s really about abortion.
Abortion in the case of rape:
Abortions in the case of rape are in the extremely small minority in comparison to abortions that are performed because the baby is unwanted for other reasons (rape cases make up only 1% of all abortions).
Be very aware of this – it is common for hardcore abortion advocates to appeal to rare cases in order to back you into a corner and play with your emotions, but the end goal is always to legalize all abortions of every kind, otherwise, they would have no problem with making all other forms of abortion illegal.
We can see this exact reality playing out with the so-called “Woman’s Health Protection Act” in the United States, which (if made law) would legalize abortions for any reason through all nine months.
The left in America has made it clear that this isn’t about “rare” cases to “protect” women’s health, despite whatever lies they feed to their supporters. They want to be able to terminate a child’s life for any reason up until birth.
And even if we were to discuss such a situation as rape – regardless of the fact that it is a rare occurrence – why is the answer to something as horrible as rape to do something equally as horrible in killing the baby? In the case of rape, the only person who should be punished in this situation is the rapist.
This often leads to someone saying, “But we can’t always catch the rapist to see justice done”, but this is not a solid argument. Regardless of whether or not the rapist is caught and dealt with, true justice will never be to kill the child in place of the rapist. In what other case would a good-hearted, caring person ever say that an innocent person should be punished by death for the evil of someone else? That would not be considered justice in any other case.
As Abort73.com states:
Aborting a child conceived through rape simply extends the pattern of violence and victimhood. It does not ‘unrape’ the woman, but will almost certainly increase her regret and misery. Whereas rape is an act of violence for which she bears no responsibility, abortion is an act of violence for which she is morally culpable.
I am uncertain at this point if most people truly know of the atrocities that take place in an abortion. I do, as I have done extensive research and dug deep into the infamous past of the abortion industry, and I have seen horror that most could not bare to imagine. I can tell you it is much too graphic and stomach-turning to describe here — so much so that they could never show the actual “procedure” on tv or in a movie, even with an R rating.
Forcing a girl to “endure” delivery:
The quote from this liberal social account also makes you believe that a girl is being “forced” to “endure” delivery at a young age. This is another wordplay to twist your emotions in an attempt to make you feel guilty. The fact of the matter is that abortion is not an easy-going walk in the park – it is excruciatingly painful, physically and emotionally.
A woman must “endure” the abortion procedure through just as much (if not more) pain as labor, and data shows that it can be extremely dangerous for the woman (there truly is no such thing as a “safe” abortion). “Forcing” a female to “endure” delivery is another misdirection and misrepresentation of the true natures of pregnancy and abortion.
Right to choose:
If a person is going to argue that a woman has a “right” to choose (particularly based solely on an emotional appeal that stands contrary to science), then why don’t parents have the right to choose and make medical decisions for the children in their care? It’s their child, and in the United States their tax money helps fund the schools. So where’s the freedom of “choice” in that situation?
For those who may say “This is different, a woman is choosing for her own body, while the parents are not” – firstly, there are technically two bodies involved in abortion, and secondly this argument refutes the idea that the school boards and government should be able to mandate medical decisions since it isn’t their bodies they are choosing for either.
Emotion vs logic and facts:
As I’ve already stated, the entire premise of the argument in question is completely flawed and appeals to emotion rather than facts and logic, and it tries to divert your attention from those same facts and logic. But if one is going to insist on appealing to emotion for the basis of their argument, they must at least allow for the fact that emotion is completely subjective, so by these rules, no one has any right to judge a person who fights against abortion because they are moved emotionally by the loss of an innocent human life.
To put it another way – you truly can’t have it both ways, and that’s why morality cannot be based on emotion alone. Morals must be objective and based upon truth, facts, and reality.
I understand that this is a sensitive topic for many people, but it is a deep conviction for me to correct the lies that have been fed to women for decades (which I have personally researched – this is the reality of what we are dealing with), as well as my deep conviction that abortion ends an innocent life. I know that there are countless others who have these deep convictions as well.
If we truly believe that abortion is the wrongful ending of an innocent life, then how can we in good conscious remain silent?
People try to say pro-life people don’t care, but that is a very inaccurate and insensitive thing to say. The truth is that we care so much that we are willing to put ourselves through ridicule and being ostracized, even by our friends, in the hopes to save even one woman from the pain of abortion and even one innocent life from being ended. And we do (despite the never-ending false accusations) spend our time and money to help support life-affirming choices and the women who find themselves in difficult situations.
If we truly and honestly desire to stand up for the helpless and the innocent, then it must begin with being honest with ourselves and others about the truth and the facts.
 Princeton University, “Life Begins at Fertilization” (https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html); Cleveland Clinic, “Fetal Development: Stages of Growth” (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth); Arizona Reproductive Medicine Specialists, “Genetics and Fertility” (https://arizonafertility.com/fertility-library/genetics-overview/); Dianne N. Irving, When Do Human Beings Begin? “Scientific” Myths and Scientific Facts (https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html); Maureen Condic, A Scientific View of When Life Begins (https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/); National Geographic, “Cell Biology” (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/topics/resource-library-cell-biology/?q=&page=1&per_page=25); Richard Garnett et. al., BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS AND REVERSAL (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185234/20210729114228086_19-1392%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Ethics%20and%20Public%20Policy%20Center.pdf)
 Guttmacher Institute, “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives” (https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf); USA Today, “Rape and incest account for hardly any abortions. So why are they now the focus?” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/)
 LiveAction, “BREAKING: U.S. House votes in favor of abortion up to birth for any reason” (https://www.liveaction.org/news/breaking-house-passes-bill-enshrine-abortion-right-reason-time/?fbclid=IwAR3qq7TMSCXduhc_4JohdNM2QfcO9zSulwWf9fBIjESB5Vg7MYHlWmMvYFg)
 Abort73.com, “The Case Against Abortion: Common Abortion Fallacies” (https://www.abort73.com/abortion/common_objections/)