Since the early days of Roe v. Wade, there have been vast and varied arguments for abortion. As science has evolved to understand preborn life better, the arguments have shifted from the misguided claim of, “It’s just a clump of cells,” to the more eloquent discussion like the Violinist’s Argument.
The Location Argument for Abortion
Scott Klusendorf, life rights advocate and author of The Case for Life, discusses this argument as an element of the E of S.L.E.D., an acronym of the four main arguments for abortion. Klusendorf, who has dedicated his life to productive conversations about honoring the rights of preborn children, says any pro-abortion argument can be reduced into four categories. Under the category of Environment, falls the abortion argument of location. The location argument takes many forms. Here are two common arguments that, once examined further, reduce into the argument of Environment:
Abortion Argument #1: The "My body, my choice."
This statement can easily be translated to, “What’s inside my body is mine.” The assumption is that because of where an object (or in this case, a person) is located, their rights can be determined or revoked by whoever claims ownership of them.
Abortion Argument #2: "An unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights."
A favorite of former presidential candidates, this statement suggested that, because a preborn person has not yet been born, they have not yet earned the human rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
At first glance, these arguments for abortion seem sound. The cruel reality of this stance can only be seen when approaching it from a different angle.
An Issue of Human Rights
Human rights, by definition, are “rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human, or as a consequence of inherent human vulnerability.” Human rights were not created by the U.S. Constitution. Rather, these rights were outlined within the Constitution by our nation’s forefathers, who believed these rights could only be given or taken by God, man’s creator.
Knowing this, we can check if the location argument is strong enough to revoke the rights of the preborn by checking it against any other human life. If this argument cannot withdraw the inherent rights of any other human demographic, then it’s safe to say this argument can’t invalidate the rights of preborn babies either.
Reworking The "Location" Argument for Abortion
In an interview with Focus on the Family, famous gynecologist and life rights advocate, Dr. Bill Lile, told how he helped medical students overcome biased thinking toward preborn patients. It begins by reworking the question into a more relatable scenario.
“I was speaking at the University of Florida, recently. At the medical school. And I asked the students, ‘If somebody was not born here in the United States, but needed a blood transfusion to save their life—but they weren’t born in the United States—are they entitled to that blood transfusion to save their life?’
The kids were all nodding their heads.
I said, ‘What if the same patient, who wasn’t born in the United States, was going to die unless we do heart surgery on this patient?’
They said, ‘It doesn’t matter if they were not born in the United States. If they’re going to die, that’s the role of a physician, that’s the role of our medical community, to defend them, protect them, and provide them health care.’
I said, ‘Well, what if they need laser surgery? What if they need Spina bifida surgery?’
They said, ‘It doesn’t matter… they are entitled to that access to health care. That is their right.’
I said, ‘I agree! You know, that is the role of medicine, to provide quality health care.’
I said, ‘Now—a couple of things… all of these patients were patients of mine. That’s what they have in common… the other thing they all have in common is that every one of these patients are still in the womb of their mother. They haven’t been born yet.’
All of a sudden, they got really quiet. I said, ‘Yeah. You just told me that patients have rights and that we need to respect patients because they are our patients. And a patient is a person.’”
Responding to the Location Abortion Argument
Despite the U.S. abortion industry’s recent renunciation of its founder, Margaret Sanger, her twisted thinking still seems to have a great influence on our country’s thoughts toward preborn life. So, how is it that today’s abortion providers don’t see their most profitable procedure for what it is—a service to oppress the weak, the different, or the unwelcome?
For some, it’s a case of being conditioned to ignore the reality of life in the womb. This manifests in the use of terms that objectify infant life. For example, this is often done by replacing “baby” or “fetus” with other words. It’s much easier to accept “ending a pregnancy” than “ending the life of a baby.”
For others, it’s the fear of being wrong, and what being wrong might mean in the grand scheme of things. Admitting you’ve supported or participated in the termination of human life isn’t easy.
Until the universal truth about human rights is recognized, we can meet the location argument with grace and patience. Grace, because we all know what it’s like to turn a blind eye when what we’re looking at is too much for us to handle. Patience, because the strength to open our eyes to hard truths often comes with time and maturity.
In Simple Terms
Of course, as Christians, we can always help this process through prayer and by steadfastly defending the truth. And let’s not forget the power of unconditional, Christ-like love. We can always demonstrate the transformational love of Jesus, as He did, through taking action. For pro-lifers, that means providing hope and support to every person impacted by the abortion decision.
Moreover, until preborn rights are recognized and defended in our courts, we can use the simple words of Klusendorf to illuminate the flaws in this argument:
“You were in the womb, now you’re out. But how does where you are change what you are? How does a journey of seven inches down the birth canal suddenly transform you from non-human, non-valuable thing we can destroy, to a valuable human being that we can’t? The answer is, if you’re not already human and invaluable, you’re not going to get there by changing your address.”
