My Case Against Abortion

The blog below is my written opening statement from my debate on abortion from this past November 2025.

In the 7th grade I had an opportunity to participate in an activity called, Youth Legislature. We were formed into teams and had the chance to produce and debate mock legislation in the Tennessee State capitol which I thought was an amazing experience. Truthfully I don’t recall too many details about that day aside from the awe of the architecture, the bullet hole in the railing of the stairs inside of the capitol from a dispute between lawmakers many years ago, and the fact that the pretend bill that our team put forward was a bill to abolish abortion.  

Over the past several years, through multiple changes of presidential administrations, George Flloyd and the BLM riots, COVID…like many or even most of us, I’ve been forced to reconsider the role of our government and what its most basic functions are, or really what they should be. In the Declaration of Independence, which certainly wasn’t a governing document, but rather an expression of our baseline principles, our founding fathers expressed an unalienable right to life. A right that I wholeheartedly affirm. Every human being has a fundamental right to life. To coincide with that right, and the main thesis of my argument tonight, is this: every human being deserves equal protection under the law. 

Before we proceed further, I want to spend a moment on defining a key term. If I’m advocating for abortion to be illegal, then I should probably give some attention to what I mean. The term abortion has two unique definitions: medical and legal. Medically speaking, abortion is the “termination of a pregnancy” or “expulsion of a human fetus.” This definition is not in view regarding my proposition tonight. Rather our concern is the legal definition. Legally speaking, abortion has been defined as the “act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child”

If every human being has a right to life, and every human being deserves equal protection under the law then this certainly begs the question: when does human life begin? Fortunately, science is on our side. Embryology textbooks universally agree that human life begins at fertilization. There is no path to refute this biological reality. If my opponent chooses to disregard the science, she’ll be forced to attempt to separate personhood from being human (which hasn’t played out well in human history), or she’ll have to prescribe some arbitrary standard such as location (inside vs outside the womb), consciousness, physical size, or some other metric that is void of any scientific grounding at all.

We even have existing laws on the books today that recognize the reality of human life in the womb. Every jurisdiction within the United States criminalizes the killing of preborn children in utero when the mother is harmed by another person. A drunk driver who kills a pregnant mother will be charged with two homicides. We rightly punish drunk-drivers who cause a miscarriage; we should not permit anyone to cause that same type of harm on request.

The foundational argument goes like this

1. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being

2. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being prior to birth. 

3. Therefore, abortion is always wrong. 

At the very foundational level, it is essential that our government provide the same basic, legal protections afforded today to the majority of human beings, to all human beings. I’ll repeat and rephrase again: all human beings deserve equal protections under the law. Can my opponent affirm this?

And what actually happens in an abortion?

As we’ve already established life begins at conception. Things like gender, ethnicity, hair color, eye color and countless other traits are all determined at this point. By 22 days the heartbeat can be detected. At 28 days buds of arms and legs appear and spontaneous and reflexive movements can begin after just five weeks after fertilization. Thumb sucking, begins at 9 weeks. The fetus swallows, grasps, sighs and stretches. At 29 weeks, and with lots of help, it’s possible for the babies to survey outside of the womb. 

During the first trimester a mother can kill her own baby with an abortion pill (often Mifeprestone).This pill starves the baby of essential nutrients, killing it in the womb. It is actually possible to reverse the effects at this stage if progesterone is administered as soon as possible After this another pill (Misoprostol) is taken that causes the uterus to contract to force the dead embryo out.  Also during the first trimester the abortionist may elect to use a suction catheter that breaks the baby apart, and removes the fetus from the womb via a vacuum like tube. In the second trimester a Dilation and Evacuation will be necessary. The cervix is dilated and the abortionist uses various instruments to dismember and extract the baby limb by limb. The baby's body is then reassembled on the table to ensure that no tissue is left behind in the womb. If there is any doubt how horrific this is, you can find these documented images online. Finally in the third trimester an induction abortion is necessary. The baby can survive outside of the womb at this point and the abortionist usually kills the baby first in the womb by injecting a substance to cause cardiac arrest, and then induce a stillborn delivery. Abortion isn’t healthcare. Abortion is violence. 

But even if science confirms that the life in the womb is human from conception, and that we already have laws on the books that protect this life in some form, how big of a problem is abortion really?

The Problem

Seven years ago the rate of abortion in the United Kingdom was around 25%. One out of every four preborn children were being intentionally killed. Staggering new data was released by the UK just this week. The rate of abortion is now approaching 50%. 48 out of 100 preborn humans are intentionally killed before ever having a chance to live outside the womb. These numbers are staggering. 

Iceland’s population has achieved a record low rate regarding humans with Trisomy 21, more commonly known as down syndrome, that is a rate 4 times less than that of the United States. If you search for information on how Iceland achieved this genetic success you’ll see that advancements in prenatal testing are often credited. But the truth is much more grim. Along with advancements in prenatal testings, mothers and fathers in Iceland, are electing to kill their preborn children when diagnosed with down syndrome. This fits the very definition of eugenics. I think Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood would approve. After all, she writes in her 1921 article titled the “Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda" that ““the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” I think Sanger would admire Iceland’s achievement. Would my opponent as well?

Shifting past foreign nations or distant histories for a moment. How serious is this problem today and in our nation? As you might have been able to guess by what I’ve mentioned about our friends in Europe, abortion numbers in the United States are increasing. According to the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion research and policy organization), we’ve seen a 13% increase in abortions from 2020 to 2024. We now end the lives of nearly 3,000 preborn babies every day in the United States alone. The estimate is that nearly 65 million human beings have been killed by abortions from 1973 to 2025. 

Let's look at these staggering numbers in a different way. It’s hard to get an exact number of abortions each year, but according to a cross-reference of abortion data from the Guttmacher Institute, the CDC, and Kaiser family foundation we can get pretty close numbers from 1999 onwards. Gen Z lost over 16 million people. Gen Alpha has lost upwards of 12 million. When these numbers are compared with the total numbers of births, 21% of Gen Z and 18% of Gen Alpha have been killed by abortion. `

But let’s pause for a moment and say, well maybe…maybe the 65 million deaths in the last 50 years were medically necessary. Maybe it’s really a tragedy that couldn’t be avoided, however the data tells us a different story. 

An eight-state study in 2022 (Charlotte Lozier Institute) revealed that upwards of 95% of abortions are considered elective. A 2024 report by the state of Florida revealed that 73% of abortions were elective and another 22% were for social/economic reasons. Even a 2004 study by the Guttmacher institute (again, a pro-aboriton organization) revealed that only 7% of post-abortive mothers named a health issue as their most important reason. The data overwhelmingly demonstrates that the vast majority of abortions done in the United States are not done out of medical necessity. 

Not only are the vast amount of abortions done for elective reasons, the medical community is becoming even more vocal and outspoken regarding the fact that induced abortions are not medically necessary at all. Dr. Kendra Kolb, a neonatologist who routinely works with mothers experiencing high risk pregnancies states that, “that mothers deserve to know that even in the most high risk pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended through an abortion procedure.”  There are circumstances when the baby must be delivered through what is called a pre-term delivery, but this is not an abortion. These circumstances stem from high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. These babies and mothers deserve to be treated with respect and compassion and told the truth about what their options are. 

The movement is obviously bigger than Dr. Kolb. Last year the “Statement on Abortion by 170 Obstetricians/Gynecologists” was produced which describes how intentionally killing the preborn human beings is not necessary in order to provide best evidenced-based care for mothers. 

So let’s recap a few things that we’ve covered so far. First, it’s a central function of our government to provide basic protections for human life. Second, science demonstrates that human life begins at fertilization. It’s a unique human being with completely unique DNA. Next, abortions are not necessary in order to provide evidenced based care. And lastly, the overwhelming majority of abortions are done not out of any reported medical necessity, but for purely elective reasons. 

Now there are a few objections my opponent may raise, and as you’ll see, all of them are either arbitrary, inconsistent or even both. We’ll spend more time in the coming rebuttals addressing those in more detail but I wanted to prepare you on some of those objections now. 

Bodily autonomy is often cited in protest against the abolishing of abortion, and yes bodily autonomy is extremely important. However your bodily autonomy does not give you the right to kill another human being. Humans don’t have two hearts, to heads, to brains, etc. Science informs us that the body inside the womb is an entirely unique human being.

The location of the baby. Some will argue that abortion is acceptable up until the moment of birth. That once the baby is born the mother no longer has the right to kill it. But what changes regarding the life of the child the moment before birth and the moment after birth? Nothing. Essentially this argument says that if the baby is located in the womb you can kill it, if it’s located outside of the womb you can’t. It’s an arbitrary and meaningless standard that is not rooted in any science, and location is never a way in which human value should be determined. 

Others may argue that stages of development can warrant an abortion. This is to say that less developed humans are somehow less human than those fully developed. And when you hear languages such as zygote, fetus…these are just references to development stages not much different than baby, toddler, teenager, etc.  How does this play out in adults and older children? Are children with developmental disorders less humans than those without them? 

Additionally, our humanity is not based upon our level of consciousness. It’s not ok to kill people that are sleeping, that are in temporary commas. Even unborn babies in the womb. All human beings have a natural capacity for consciousness and their place in humanity is not based on their memory or level of awareness. 

Lastly, you say, “Well what about instances of rape? What about inceset?” And while those are surely tragic situations, and the rapists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, we shouldn’t also then extend that penalty of death that the rapist deserves,  to the innocent human being who is now very real, and not at all guilty of the crimes of his father. And wouldn’t you know, that 73% of women who conceive in rape choose life. 93% of the rape victims who aborted said they would not recommend abortion to someone in the same situation. 

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly affirm that all human beings have inherent worth and value. This is informed by my Christian worldview that teaches us that all human beings are made in the image of God. And as such we affirm that parents have an obligation to care for their children. Governments ought to pass laws that protect even the smallest among us. Much of this is already reflected in our laws today. We would be naive to believe that Sydney’s worldview is not informing her stance on this either. In an atheistic or naturalist worldview, there is no objective morality, no obligation for parents to care for their children (even if she believes they should), and no inherent value regarding any human being. And be that as it may, even those with atheistic worldviews and progressive political ideologies see the problems with pro abortion arguments. This is not a uniquely Christian position to hold. Renowned atheist and debater, Christopher Hitchens, was prolife. He openly affirmed the humanity of newly formed humans in the womb. There are also organizations rising up such as the Progressive Anti Abortion Uprising working to end the atrocity of abortion in our nation. Don’t let partisan politics or heartless politicians keep you from affirming the value of all human beings. 

With all of this considered I look forward to getting into more detail during the cross examination, and hearing from my opponent during her opening. 

-Tim Tant, Opening Statement, "Debate: Should Abortion be Illegal?" Nov. 2025