For obvious reasons (all of which are bad), abortion advocates tend to play their intellectual hand close to the vest.  Instead, they choose to hind behind emotivism and the smokescreen of the “right to choose.”  Every once in a while, however, their sinister logic escapes and their unvarnished train of thought escapes.  This is exactly what happened recently when a self-described “left-wing” advocacy group called the Agenda Project released a pro-abortion ad in support of Planned Parenthood.  The ad, dubbed “The Chosen” opens with video of a cooing baby shortly followed by a caption “she deserves to be loved.”  Flashing back to the baby, now smiling and laughing, a second caption follows, “she deserves to be wanted.”  Then a third time, “she deserves to be a choice.”   And there you have it, abortion logic untwisted and devoid of all verbal gymnastics.

Now, it is first worth noting that this particular video committed a capital sin when it comes to defending abortion.  Never, ever, equate the “fetus” or “embryo” or even a “clump of cells” with a child.  Usually their arguments are fatal, but not in this way.  Inadvertently or not, they made a very Pro-life argument by featuring a little baby.  That very same baby was at some point in her development an embryo or fetus just like she will be a toddler, a teenage girl and an adult.  And the video makes this very clear. Perhaps that is the point.  To drop all the ridiculous pretexts and simply finally admit what abortion really is.  Perhaps abortion advocates are “coming out” and finally admitting what they are exactly defending.  Maybe they are not actually talking about abortion but are now lobbying for infanticide.

Revealing the Logic

Maybe, but probably not.  More likely is that they tried to make a “reasonable” argument and ended up revealing just how unreasonable their position really is.  In an age where we often argue by meme, it is helpful to lay out the logic of an argument  piece by piece and see where it leads us.

The first line of the argument is that “she deserves to be loved.”  Some would say this is self-evident, but let’s state the reason why in order to connect the dots.  Borrowing from St. John Paul II we can say “She deserves to be loved” because a person “is a good toward which the only adequate response is love.”  In essence the first statement recognizes that persons have a unique value, not based upon anything they do, but solely because of what, or more to the point, who they are.  I think we can all agree that this is true.

Adding the “why” to the first statement helps to see why the second declaration, “she deserves to be wanted,” logically follows from the first.  Admittedly “want” is a rather vague word, especially when applied to a person.  We usually “want” objects but as premise 1 of their argument states, we should love subjects.  Nevertheless we can look at this as adding on to the first premise by saying that “because a person should be loved, then she should also be wanted.”  This too logically follows.

The fact that a child deserves to be wanted is not actually saying anything other than children are by nature “wantable.”  Unwanting adults are the real problem and this is because they see the subjects as objects that they can use to accessorize their life.  It is beginning to a “planned” parenthood feel to it.

Finally we get to the third premise—“she deserves to be a choice.”  This logically follows from the other two premises if all the caveats above are made.  Love requires an act of the will and a child has a right to be brought into existence through an act of love between the parents.

The Pro-Life Argument

The problem of course is that they are leaving out a hidden premise along with the conclusion.  Now if we trace out the line of argument we find a big problem

1. A child, because she is a person, deserves to be loved.
2. Because she is a person, they deserve to be wanted.
3. Because she deserves to be wanted, she deserves to be conceived as an act of the will (i.e. chosen).
4. (Hidden) But if she is not wanted, then the mother can choose to kill her.

But this is a contradiction with (1) since the right to be loved would include a right not to be deliberately torn apart in the womb and therefore by reductio ad absurdum we can conclude that the child has a right not to be killed.

And now we see why the pro-abortion people never resort to reason—it leads away from their position.  They almost distracted us with the cute baby and the lullaby music, but reason prevailed.  So perhaps rather than vilifying them, we should hire the Agenda Project.