Misattribution of Blame via Falsehood and Deceitful Reasoning
The Argument Summarized
The law takes away safe means for me to kill my child.I have to kill my child.
Therefore, the law takes away my safety for something I have to do.
Or, more precisely and explicitly the Formalized Argument:
Premises Related to Anti-Abortion Laws and Their Supporters
P1: All those responsible for anti-abortion laws are supporters of anti-abortion laws.P2: All supporters of anti-abortion laws believe murder is never justified.
P3: All who believe murder is never justified believe abortion is never justified.
Premises Related to Abortion Justification
P4: Sometimes, situations of duress for women make evil necessary.P5: All that which makes evil necessary justifies abortion.
P6: If something justifies abortion, then abortion is justified.
P7: At least some justifications for abortion are usually present.
Conclusion Against Anti-Abortion Views
C1: Therefore, abortion is usually justified.C2: Therefore, all who believe abortion is never justified are wrong.
C3: Since all supporters of anti-abortion laws believe abortion is never justified, they are wrong.
Consequences of Anti-Abortion Laws
P8: All supporters of anti-abortion laws oppose a woman's opportunity to choose abortion when she deems it necessary.P9: All who oppose a woman's opportunity to choose abortion make necessary abortion more dangerous.
P10: All who make necessary abortion more dangerous make women's lives more dangerous.
C4: Therefore, supporters of anti-abortion laws make women's lives more dangerous.
I can grant P9, as it follows logically from the claim that illegal abortions tend to be more dangerous than legal ones. I also acknowledge P1–P3, though P3 is subject to various interpretations, which I will leave to apologists. However, I do not grant P4, and P7 is often accepted by assumption despite being questionable. While many may agree with P7 outright, I find it false. Even if I disagreed with the argument on its truth value alone, I still aim to assess its logical form and identify structural errors commonly found in similar arguments.
Evaluating the Justification for Abortion
Let us first consider P4 and P5, which argue that situations of duress sometimes make evil necessary and that all such cases justify abortion. P5 is particularly interesting because it is often implied rather than explicitly stated, escaping scrutiny as a result. I acknowledge the real duress in cases of incest and rape; however, like suicide, abortion is a quick-fix evil intended to alleviate finite suffering.
Yet, no evil should be committed for the sake of the good it may produce. Evil inherently begets further evil, even if unintended, ultimately making the world and one’s own life worse rather than better. The fact that someone did not cause their own suffering does not justify an evil remedy. This is not to say that suffering is meaningless, but if suffering justified evil, then conscience itself would lose its significance. P5 manipulates fear to convince people that evil is permissible in certain emotionally distressing situations. Thus, P5 is false, and in some cases, it serves as a deception that distracts from the potential good that can be done for the created life, its intrinsic worth, and the good that life may bring into the world.
P6 and P7, which claim that justification leads to moral legitimacy and that such justifications for abortion are usually present, may seem more reasonable than P5 at first glance. However, the definition of "better" in these premises is highly subjective, and the idea that abortion "must" be chosen is deceptive. What if mercy-killing or ending a life for the sake of some other lesser good is not objectively better, even if it appears so subjectively in the moment?
There are ways to reshape one’s perception of happiness in such situations—through compassion for the new life, through recognizing the broader good of human existence (more people mean more love, more workers, and greater contributions to the world), and through acceptance of reality, supported by friends, family, pregnancy centers, Church members, mental health professionals, and, most importantly, the love of God. Thus, if the "quick-fix evil" is merely the momentarily desirable course of action, P6 and P7 ultimately fail.
Addressing the Safety Argument Against Anti-Abortion Laws
Second, the inconvenience created by anti-abortion laws is rarely inherently bad—after all, their entire purpose is to discourage murder. However, a key question arises: if legal restrictions create obstacles that are circumvented illegally, does the law itself become responsible for the resulting dangers? In simpler terms, is the obstruction placed in the way of evil itself evil?
A more appropriate counter-question would be: why is the actor so intent on committing the evil that, even when discouraged by conscience, social standards, and increased personal risk, they still find it necessary? We have already shown that such necessity is a false premise. Perhaps the real responsibility lies not with the law but with the actor and those who convinced them that their actions were justified. If someone is so committed to a particular evil that they are willing to bypass every warning and safety mechanism, can they really claim to be faultless? For this reason, I find the premise underlying this argument to be false, which in turn undermines the conclusion.
Final Thoughts: The Error of Justifying Evil
If every evil were made more difficult for us to commit, would we persist in choosing evil even at great personal cost? Should we resent the obstacles placed before us, or should we be grateful that the temptation to do wrong has been made less reasonable?
The reasoning underlying pro-abortion arguments echoes the deception of the first sin. The tempter told Eve:
"You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4–5)
This argument suggests that God's laws are arbitrary and selfish. Likewise, Eve saw that:
"The tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise." (Genesis 3:6)
Here, evil is falsely presented as a source of goodness, truth, and beauty. Unless one operates with a sociopathic disregard for morality, the evil of sin (and abortion in particular) is ultimately self-evident—such actions lead only to greater suffering.[1] Yet, modern culture rarely acknowledges the suffering endured by those who choose abortion. Not unlike a journal, which anomalous to science, suggests that it is the laws concerning sex work that are the true culprit for the emotional strife faced by those who transgress those laws.[2] It is not the "rules" that cause suffering; rather, the suffering itself is evidence of why the rules exist. The real blame lies with those who insist upon evil and propagate its justification, depriving people of true freedom. In doing so, they bear responsibility for the suffering that follows, misleading others into choices that leave them in greater pain than before, and trampling what is good imagining it evil (Matthew 7:6).
FN:
1. Carter Carruthers, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil", Vivat Agnus Dei, May 30, 2021.
