The radio program 1A recently produced a segment about reproductive care in states that have banned abortion. 

The host talked with four different interviewees (two reporters, a professor, and a Planned Parenthood medical director), and the picture they painted was generally negative. As they saw it, abortion bans harm women and are an example of politicians taking over the province of real medical experts. 

But several of the points raised during their conversation quickly fall apart under close scrutiny. 

Let’s take a moment to examine three of their points which all overlook the fact that a preborn baby is just as much of a person as we are.

First, one of the interviewees observed that in the 14 states with strict abortion bans, 478 more babies died than would have otherwise. The interviewee gave two reasons for this. 

First, abortion bans prohibit mothers from aborting preborn children who are afflicted with terminal conditions and will die shortly after birth. 

Second, abortion bans mean that more mothers in disadvantaged communities are giving birth than otherwise, and babies in these communities tend to have higher rates of infant mortality to begin with. 

On its own, this sounds horrible. It would seem that almost 500 babies have died because of abortion bans. To be sure, each of these infant deaths is tragic in God’s sight and should break our hearts as well. 

But it shouldn’t take long for the irony of this claim to rise to the surface. Abortion—by definition—wouldn’t have saved any of these lives! Babies dying under surgical instruments is no solution for babies dying of terminal conditions or economic circumstances. 

It’s as if we’re supposed to kill babies in the womb so we can keep them from dying outside of the womb.

In fact, a statistic surfaced during this interview that brings me much joy, but which was hardly celebrated by the conversationalists. One study estimates that 22,000 more babies have been born because of abortion bans. 

In other words, abortion bans have saved 22,000 lives! So while abortion doesn’t save the life of any baby who was already going to die, abortion bans certainly save lives of babies who were slated to be aborted. That one statistic alone should be enough to convince anyone who’s on the fence about whether abortion bans protect life.

Second, one of the interviewees responded to a statement by pro-life OBGYNs. They had observed that abortion doesn’t save any babies, but just makes them die earlier. The interviewee’s response was chilling: 

“Our primary patient is the pregnant person, not the pregnancy that can’t survive outside of the uterus.” 

In other words, the role of an OBGYN is to take care of the pregnant woman. The well-being of the baby is shoved backstage—if it’s even allowed in the show at all.

But don’t you think that obstetricians, who are experts in “pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period”—all of which is centered around a baby—should have to consider the well-being of that little human person as equally important? 

If obstetrics refuses to acknowledge what a human baby is, then it deals with pregnant women without acknowledging what they are pregnant with. Imagine a cardiologist who intensely studies the human heart, but doesn’t see the value in blood. We could apply the interviewee’s words here: 

“My primary subject is the heart, not the blood that does no good outside of the circulatory system.” 

Of course blood does no good outside of the circulatory system, because it’s not designed to leave it. Likewise, preborn babies at very young ages die outside of the uterus, because they aren’t designed to leave it yet.

It’s foolishness to specialize in the reproductive system and have no regard for the little humans that the system is designed to nurture. By the nature of the biological system they have chosen to specialize in, obstetricians are always dealing with two patients, not one.

Third, one of the interviewees told the story of a mother who got pregnant in Texas shortly after the state banned abortion after six weeks. She tried to get an abortion, but it was very difficult to arrange one, and so she ended up giving birth to her son. This mother says she loves her son very much and cares about him. Yet she says she still wishes she could have had that abortion because her life would have so many more opportunities without her baby’s existence. 

It’s deeply troubling when a mother allows her personal ambitions to override one of the strongest bonds God has written into her nature—her affection for her own child. 

By wishing that her child were out of the picture so that she could pursue her own opportunities, this mother shows us that she doesn’t truly love her son like she should.

In fact, I recently had a conversation with a pro-abortion woman who was incensed at me for standing up for life. She threw out many common arguments for abortion, and I noticed that some of her points were awfully self-centered.

Because of this, I took a hard left in our conversation and asked her what character qualities make a good parent. We agreed that parents ought to sacrifice for their children, and we love our own parents for giving us that kind of sacrifice when we were young. I then showed her that her argument was solely focused on the mom’s well-being, and not the baby’s. 

That attitude is exactly backwards from how parents ought to treat their kids. 

Overall, these three arguments simply crumble when you realize that the preborn are people as well. If you recognize this, then you would never kill them now “so they won’t die later.” 

You would never disregard them just because “they can’t survive outside of the uterus.” 

And as a parent, you would never put your own well-being over your children’s. 

The adage is true—throughout all of human history, whenever a group of people has been dehumanized or depersonalized, they always have ended up enslaved or killed off. 

May God open our eyes.