Debunking “Pro-Life” in 300 Words

We’ve been having the wrong argument.

Erik Devaney
2 min readSep 23, 2022


It doesn’t matter when life begins — at conception, at a certain number of weeks, when a heartbeat can be detected. This “magic moment” is irrelevant to the debate over abortion’s legality.

The question we should be asking is:

Should the government force people to risk their lives to save the lives of others?

Because in states where abortion is illegal, state governments are doing exactly that: they’re forcing pregnant people to risk their lives to save the lives of unborn children.

Putting Bodily Autonomy to the (Hypothetical) Test

Imagine your great uncle, Albert, is in need of a new kidney. Without it, he’ll die within the year.

After testing, it’s determined that you — yes, YOU — are the only suitable match for a kidney transplant.

You are, quite literally, the only person on planet earth who can save your great uncle’s life.

But donating a kidney is not without risk. It’s a major operation.

So the question is: Should giving your kidney to your uncle be your choice? Or should the government force you to do it?

But What If It’s “God’s Will” That a Child Be Born?

If the argument is, Well, if a person gets pregnant, that’s God’s will, and thus the government should make terminating that pregnancy illegal, then by extension the government should also forbid people from donating life-saving organs to family members, as “God’s plan” is clearly for those family members to die.

If one believes the universe is managed by an interventionist god—a deity that takes an active, hands-on role in human affairs, acting out “His” plan—then one must also admit that that same god oversaw the development of life-saving medical procedures, like abortions and kidney transplants.

Who’s to say using those options aren’t also part of “God’s plan”?



Erik Devaney

Full-time stay-at-home dad, part-time ghostwriter, retired pub musician, recovering marketer