Abolish Abortion UK
Pregnant? Need help?

← The Learning Hub

How to advocate for the preborn

Apologetics training: making the case winsomely, and answering the common objections.

DRAFT — awaiting editorial review.

The case in one paragraph

From fertilisation, the preborn are living, whole, distinct human beings — that is embryology, not theology. And there is no morally relevant difference between an embryo and a newborn that justifies killing the former: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (remember SLED) do not determine the right to live, or the weakest among the born would forfeit it too. Therefore, if it is wrong to kill an innocent newborn, it is wrong to kill an innocent preborn child. As Christians we go further: every human bears God’s image (Genesis 9:6), so this is not merely inconsistent — it is bloodguilt.

Answering common objections

  • “My body, my choice.” Her body is hers; the child’s body is the child’s. Nobody’s autonomy includes the right to kill an innocent other.
  • “What about rape?” Rape is a monstrous crime deserving real justice — against the rapist. We do not execute children for their fathers’ crimes (Deuteronomy 24:16). Compassion for the mother and protection of the child are both required of us; they are not alternatives.
  • “It’s just a clump of cells.” So are you — the question is whose cells. From day one the embryo is a self-organising, genetically distinct human organism. “Clump of cells” is rhetoric, not biology.
  • “You only care about birth.” Come and see: pregnancy help, baby goods, adoption, post-abortion support. The charge is answered with works, not words (James 2:18).
  • “Isn’t this just a religious view?” The embryology is not religious. The image of God is — and we make no apology for it, any more than the Christian abolitionists of slavery did.

How to carry yourself

Tell the truth without flinching and without sneering (Colossians 4:6). Never lie, never exaggerate a statistic, never dehumanise the people you are trying to persuade. Pray before you argue. And keep mercy loaded in the front of every conversation: the person in front of you may be post-abortive, and your next sentence may be the one they remember.

Check yourself

3 questions on what you have just read. Answering is what makes it stick.

1What does the SLED test name as the four differences that do NOT determine the right to live?
  1. Speech, language, education, dependency
  2. Size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency — correct
  3. Status, legality, ethics, duty
  4. Sex, location, ethnicity, disability

None of the four justifies killing, or the weakest among the born would forfeit their right to live too. If it is wrong to kill an innocent newborn, it is wrong to kill an innocent preborn child.

2How does the article answer "my body, my choice"?
  1. By denying bodily autonomy matters
  2. Her body is hers; the child’s body is the child’s, and no one’s autonomy includes killing an innocent other — correct
  3. By pointing to the law
  4. By arguing pregnancy is not a bodily matter

The answer concedes what is true in the objection and denies what is not: autonomy over one’s own body has never included a right to kill someone else.

3What does the article say to keep "loaded in the front of every conversation"?
  1. The statistics
  2. Mercy, because the person in front of you may be post-abortive — correct
  3. The legal argument
  4. A leaflet

Tell the truth without flinching and without sneering; never exaggerate a statistic; pray before you argue. Your next sentence may be the one they remember.