Getting to the Heart of the Matter: The Only Two Real Abortion Arguments

“My body, my choice.”

“It’s just a clump of cells.”

“Abortion is self-defense.”

“Don’t like abortion, don’t get one.”

“Have you heard the violinist argument?”

“What about the burning IVF clinic argument?”

“What about women who can’t afford to care for their baby?”

“You vote against abortion? I hope you plan on fostering or adopting.”

“All children should be wanted.”

“If you want to stop abortions, then you should vote for livable wages.”

Have you ever stopped to wonder exactly how many pro-choice arguments are out there? Maybe it’s just me, but I’ll sometimes catch myself lost in thought, thinking about the sheer amount of pro-choice material that exists. So many arguments to swallow, process, and respond to. So much confusion spread about such an important topic. 

Okay, maybe it is just me that spends time thinking like this, but when entering the unpleasant world of online abortion debates, it’s undeniable that anyone who ventures a pro-life claim will be instantly bombarded with pro-choice argument after argument. Their points are endless and varied. Some of them are old arguments, some completely new, some of them sound almost sane, and then others completely wild and outlandish. There are arguments made by atheists, arguments made by Catholics (“Mary had a choice, and you should too”) and arguments made by other Christians. We even have a few arguments that belong almost exclusively to Latter-day Saints:

“We don’t know when the Spirit enters the body.”

“What about showing Christlike love for the woman?”

“We believe in agency.” 

“What about the exceptions?”

So when faced with this mountain of material, how are we to sort through all these arguments and understand them? Do all arguments deserve detailed responses, or are some completely irrelevant?

There’s one key guiding principle I’ve found for sorting and dissecting abortion arguments that can help when faced with an overwhelming amount of pro-choice material.

Here’s the truth: when all is said and done, there are only two primary arguments for abortion that mean anything:

Rachel Crawford with the Equal Rights Institute has an excellent article titled “Arguing From Equality: The Personhood of Human Embryos” (2020) in which she explains this much better than I can, so here it is:

“When I teach pro-life apologetics, I usually explain that there are two primary disagreements between the pro-life side and the pro-choice side and then a bunch of distracting arguments that are about other issues that do not address abortion ethics. Most pro-life people are familiar with the first primary disagreement. These are pro-choice arguments that deny the personhood of the unborn child. In other words, they say that the human embryo doesn’t have the same equal rights as people. These arguments about personhood definitions largely dominate the philosophical literature on abortion. People argue about what constitutes a person and then explain how the human embryo does or does not qualify. Notice that this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science tells us what is killed during abortion: an embryo or fetus that is living, whole, and human. Philosophy tells us whether or not that human embryo’s life is valuable.

The second disagreement in the abortion debate is centered around bodily rights; in other words, the slogan that we have all heard before: “My body, my choice.” This argument is different from the first disagreement about personhood because rather than denying that abortion kills a person, it addresses whether or not the killing can be justified by the woman’s right to her own bodily autonomy.” (Emphasis added)

In simple terms, someone making a pro-abortion argument must believe either: 

1) An unborn child does NOT have the same value as you or me,

OR 

2) An unborn child DOES have equal value to you or me BUT the mother’s right to do what she wants with her body supersedes that value.

Note: A combination of BOTH of these arguments is also often used by those defending abortion.  

Unfortunately, the abortion debate is bogged down by “distracting arguments” which often prevent any sort of productive conversation or understanding happening between the two sides. In my experience, this convolution tends to be far more common on the pro-choice side (pro-lifers seem to struggle more with responding to the correct argument), and it is no different with pro-choice Latter-day Saints. Laying aside the fact that Latter-day Saints believe that life is sacred and that we, as children of God, are meant to come to earth and to receive a body, most pro-choice arguments used by Latter-day Saints do not address the actual issue and are nothing more than distracting points. To illustrate, I’m going to apply this to two common arguments which I hear used by Latter-day Saints in order to justify abortion. 

Latter-day Saint Argument #1: What about Christlike Love for the Woman?

In an article titled “Being “Pro-Choice” as a Latter-day Saint,” from the Prodigal Press in January of 2025, Amelia Hapgood argues that “we are taught to embody Christ and walk with those who cannot walk alone. Many members choose to vote against the needs of the women who need us most.” 

Another significant line from the article included “Let us show empathy and love to the mothers who cannot afford to feed another child, who cannot mentally make it through another pregnancy.”

The argument of “empathy” falls almost squarely in the “distracting arguments” category when it comes to discussing abortion ethics. One might ask someone using the “empathy argument” whether it would be “empathetic” to allow a mother who cannot afford to feed her child to put poison in her three year old’s milk. Assuming the pro-choice individual would say no, he or she must then justify why that situation is ethically different from abortion, and they can only attempt that by using the two, real arguments. Either a preborn child is not considered to be a person with equal rights, or the mother’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes the baby’s right to life, or a combination of those arguments. Otherwise, one could use the principle of empathy to justify hurting anyone that is causing you difficulty. 

Now, to be fair to the author of this article, she did briefly discuss both the bodily autonomy argument and the fetal personhood argument (e.g. “Why should we worry and dread the termination of unfeeling cells?” and “In what world could a fetus have more rights than a fully developed woman with hopes, dreams, and professional pursuits?”) BUT that is exactly my point: these are the only important disagreements, and it is completely irrelevant and meaningless to bring up “empathy” when talking about abortion if the people you are addressing do not agree on those points. The principle of empathy cannot be used in order to justify abortion.

Latter-day Saint Argument #2: What About Agency?

(Example: “I’m pro-choice because I believe that God gave us agency to act for ourselves, and we shouldn’t take that choice from someone else.”)

As Latter-day Saints, we believe that agency is God’s gift to us. In our premortal life, Jesus Christ offered to be a sinless sacrifice for us so that, as we made mistakes on Earth, we could repent and continue in our journey towards becoming like God. This contrasts with Satan’s plan, who wanted to force us to always choose the right. Choice would not be necessary. But the trouble is, without choice, we could never progress to become like God. Change and growth are only possible if we are able to choose with our own free will. 

Because abortion supporters put “choice” in their mantra, some Latter-day Saints seem to have latched on to such a precious word. Pro-choicers believe in the right to choose to have an abortion, Latter-day Saints believe in choice… this argument sounds pretty convincing right?

Before I continue, I should point out that this argument has been addressed and defeated over and over again. “What About Agency,” Dallin H. Oak’s talk "Weightier Matters," and the FAQ section here at latterdaysaintsforlife.org are a few examples. But laying that aside, let’s take another look at it all the same. 

This argument about agency can be confusing because different Latter-day Saints mean different things when they defend abortion using the words “choice” and “agency.” In my experience, however, it is very rare for a pro-choice Latter-day Saint to articulate this point in such a way that it actually touches on one of the two primary arguments. Instead, they frame “agency” as  the supreme virtue. If choice is the ONLY principle that I am defending, then the next time my neighbor wakes me up in the middle of the night with their loud music, I might go over, shoot them, and shout “agency!” on the way out. And it’s true, I DO have the agency to do that. But the question is whether my actions should be legal and encouraged. They shouldn’t be. And the question about abortion comes down to the same thing. Should it be legal and encouraged?

Now, in order to justify their argument about agency, a pro-choicer must then tell us why abortion is different from the scenario I just presented. And there are only two possible explanations why. Abortion, like everything else, cannot be justified simply because of the supreme virtue of “agency.” 

With this in mind, even the name “pro-choice” is a poor response to the actual arguments, because the idea that “choice” is relevant to abortion already relies on previously believing one of the two arguments. Hence the name “pro-abortion” has arisen. It may not be particularly flattering, but it is at least a bit more accurate. 

Keeping the Two Arguments in Mind

So the next time you’re on the receiving end of an abortion argument, whether it is a secular argument or a religious one, think about whether it actually discusses the ethics of abortion or whether it is an extraneous argument. You will then be much better able to lead the discussion into a meaningful direction. We will save time and improve clarity in our conversations about abortion if we can bypass the distracting arguments and get to the heart of the matter. 

And the heart of the matter is this: The preborn are living, human beings worthy of our protection and care, and their right to life is not outweighed by their mother’s right to bodily autonomy. 

What did you think of this article? Comment below one of the most common “distracting arguments” that you hear used in the abortion debate, or any specific topics you want me to tackle next.