The pro-life laws passed in nine states this year have released an avalanche of pro-abortion media, entertainment and political pressure on lawmakers and voters alike. Some of the pressure is pure power play, like the Netfix CEO’s threat to pull production from Georgia over its new law. But much of it comes from cleverly crafted messaging designed to play on our sympathies and sense of fair play.

It’s hard to be rational when our emotional levers are being pulled. But some common assumptions underlie most of these messages. I’ve boiled them down to seven and attempted to provide answers from a biblical worldview. I hope you find them helpful.

1. First assumption: Man is the measure of all things. Life is sacred only under certain conditions, conditions chosen by man.

But if a thing is sacred only under certain conditions, then it is not sacred at all. Is it a human life we’re ending? If so then it is sacred, no matter what stage of development, no matter the conditions of its conception.

2. Second assumption: Because man is the center of the universe, society is always able to optimize conditions for everyone everywhere and has the responsibility to do so for every unplanned pregnancy.

But are we really that powerful? Does anything in human history teach us that we can rescue everyone every time, especially when they don’t want to be rescued? And does our inability to achieve moral perfection in one area justify blatant immorality in another? As someone has said, does the fact that we are unable to care for every homeless person mean it’s OK to kill them?

3. Third assumption: The climate change argument. The natural environment is the most significant determinant of the well-being of children, and human beings can end war, spend the money to improve society and create environmental utopia.

Three responses are required.

First, all reliable research shows that the most significant predictor of successful development for children is a home with a mom and a dad in a traditional marriage. That is true across the board, from criminally polluted Shanghai to environmentally pristine Washington State.

Second is another worldview assumption: that humans will one day stop fighting one another, and all wars will end. Five thousand years of human history tell us otherwise. The best that can be hoped for is that the strong will protect the weak from the predators that have been with us since Tubal Cain.

Third, life has no value if the utopian ideal for society cannot be achieved. This reveals the dark thread that runs through the entire pro-abortion argument: Anything short of perfection as we define it justifies death for the unborn.

Got a problem with the world as it is? Just kill the kid. Problem solved.

4. The fourth assumption: That society is responsible to provide comprehensive and responsive health care, a decent standard of living and economic opportunity for everyone, so that every child will be provided for.

In the real world, economic opportunity is created by entrepreneurial risk-takers who put their own well-being on the line to found successful businesses that employ others with a living wage and pay taxes that enable all the elements of a decent standard of living.

But if we somehow fall short of that utopian ideal? Never mind, just kill the kid. They don’t have any rights anyway.

5. Fifth assumption: The LGBT argument for abortion. Pro-abortionists know that no one is arguing against moms and dads of any and all ethnicities having children. They know that Asian-Americans have the same rights as African Americans who have the same rights as every other American couple that wish to have children. But the LGBT argument says that if same-sex couples aren’t allowed to have children then we’ve failed as a society and that justifies abortion.

The thing is, life is never born to two men or two women. It’s a biological impossibility. A man and a woman are always necessary for the creation of a child. A child born of surrogacy is a child robbed of its ancestors.

6. Sixth assumption: We should stop spending money on war machines and the militaries that use them because they are only and always about ending life. They aren’t. In the right hands they are about protecting civilization by ending the lives of aggressors.

Again, 5,000 years of history tell us one thing: nations that do not provide for their own defense cannot provide peace, equality, justice, education, health care or a clean environment for anyone. They must be well-regulated and accountable to civilian authority and just-war ethics. But until Christ returns, warriors and the weapons they employ are necessary evils.

But in the pro-abortionist worldview, and in America since Roe v. Wade, the most defenseless of all have no right to be defended by anyone.

7. Seventh assumption: If we didn’t intend for a human life to be created, or if that life is somehow defective according to someone’s standards, then it’s OK to kill it.

This one requires four separate responses.

First, pro-abortionists don’t come right out and say this, but the way the argument is cast makes it sound as if most abortions are due to rape, incest, failed birth control devices or some form of coercion i.e. religion. The facts are otherwise—1.5 percent are due to rape—and they know it.

Second, pro-abortionists nurse a utopian view of technology and a truly naïve view of human sexual passion when they argue that birth-control methods can somehow be made 100 percent effective. Life has a way of overcoming every barrier, and the effectiveness of all of them (short of surgery) depend on some level of self-control.

Third, pro-abortionists routinely recommend death for Down Syndrome children and others with birth defects. The reason is that they come with special challenges for the parents to raise and life-long challenges for the child to overcome. Granted.

But have you ever asked the parents of a Down Syndrome child if they wish the child were dead? And are they somehow less than human because of their defects? Is that what makes it OK to kill them? I have friends who’ve lost limbs and been brain-injured in accidents. Are they somehow less human? Is it OK to kill them?

Where does it stop? That’s the real problem. It doesn’t end there. Once we decide one form of human is less-than-human and therefore disposable, we are only a step or two away from the Nazis, the Hutus, the Turks and every other civilization that justified genocide.

Fourth, pro-abortionists pound away on the word choice, as if most of the women who get pregnant have no choice in the matter. But barring sexual assault, addressed above, all women have a choice in the matter. In fact, they have more than a choice, they have tremendous power in their relationships with men. But that power lies in an understanding of their personhood and sexuality that has been systematically dismantled over the last 60 years.

This isn’t popular, but it is truth: Women have the power to demand mental, emotional, financial and physical support—in short faithfulness—from men in the covenant of marriage. Within that covenant, all their rights are protected, and all their children are provided for. All the research shows that marriage is not only the safest place for sex and for children, it is also the most satisfying.

But the new sexual orthodoxy teaches women that sex is for fun, marriage is optional, and babies are disposable. Every time we abort a baby, we disintegrate our humanity.

And we wonder why depression and anxiety disorders are on the rise.

Abortion is almost never necessary. It is always a choice based on assumptions, all of them bad. Choose life.

Dane Skelton is pastor of Faith Community Church in South Boston.