By Christopher Conlon
Chatfield, MN
I had a friendly argument about abortion recently with a candidate who stopped by my home while campaigning. We agreed that it’s wrong to directly kill an innocent human being, but they argued that abortion can be an individual’s right because it’s not a human being that’s being killed. We came to an impasse when we disagreed about the biological reality of when human beings begin to exist. They denied that a living, whole, human organism comes into existence at conception.
Science is conspicuously absent from the rhetoric of most abortion rights advocates. This is likely because it’s a basic biological fact that at conception two body parts (sperm and egg) combine to form a new living, whole, human organism – not another body part; and though consensus doesn’t make truth, the academic biological literature is unanimous on this. The candidate didn’t only deny this biological fact, but also denied there’s a scientific consensus on it. A litany of academic texts on embryology could be cited, but the point is concisely illustrated by a recent survey of over 5,577 academic biologists from 1,058 academic institutions – 95% affirmed that human life begins at conception (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703). Even Planned Parenthood agreed to this fact. In Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (2008), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that requiring abortionists to say that the fetus is a “living, separate, whole human being” does not force an abortionist to espouse an unconstitutional religious viewpoint. The Court ruled that this statement was a biological fact that even the affidavit submitted by Planned Parenthood accepted. The ruling declared:
“The State’s evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician…. Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion. Indeed, Dr. Wolpe’s affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, states that ‘to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation.’”
It’s remarkable that political candidates deny what their own sponsor, Planned Parenthood, conceded was scientifically and factually true. This is not some tenet of religious belief, but a biological fact even atheists recognize. Peter Singer, atheist and pro-choice bioethics professor at Princeton University, puts it in simple terms:
“It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens.’ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disabled human being, even of an infant who is born anencephalic –literally, without a brain.” (Practical Ethics, 2nd ed)
Likewise, the late renowned liberal author, journalist, and vehemently anti-religious atheist, Christopher Hitchens, remarked:
“That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed, in an especially vivid sense… The original embryonic “blastocyst” may be a clump of 64 to 200 cells that is only five days old. But all of us began our important careers in that form, and every needful encoding for life is already present in the apparently inchoate. We are the first generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge.” (Vanity Fair, February, 2003)
“Look, once you allow that the occupant of the womb is even potentially a life, it cuts athwart any glib invocation of ‘the woman’s right to choose.’ If the unborn is a candidate member of the next generation, it means that it is society’s responsibility.” (The Crisis magazine, January, 1988)
Hopefully, we all come to terms with this biological reality. We might then see through the fog of euphemism that obscures what a right to abortion really means – the right to directly kill an innocent human being.
Julie Fryer says
Do you believe in religious freedom for all Americans? If so, abortion must be legal because many faiths believe that abortion is acceptable (and sometimes encouraged) if the life of the mother is at risk. And that risk INCLUDES not being able to care for herself or the child. This is a 1A right which you’re all advocating strongly to throw out. Our country is not your church. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t get one? Don’t want women to get abortions? Then get out from behind your keyboard and create a country where children and women have access to healthcare, good paying jobs, childcare, and education.
Christopher Conlon says
Whether your god is Tlaloc, Moloch, or yourself, the First Amendment doesn’t protect the religious practice of killing other human beings.
Dale Eppen says
Isn’t it funny that the same people who argue for climate change and say they follow the science don’t believe in the science of embryology.
Also those who post anonymously either don’t have really believe what they post or are cowards.
Christopher Conlon says
LuAnn,
I am very close to a couple that hasn’t been able to have a baby, and would love to adopt the child. There are millions of couples not only willing, but on waiting lists, longing to adopt the child. And, yes, I will adopt the child if no one else will. But even if this wasn’t the case, the unwillingness of anyone to support a human being doesn’t justify killing that human being.
Stanley,
Since it is never justifiable to directly kill an innocent human being, it is important to know whether what is being killed is a human being. There really is no debate on when a human being begins to exist, except among those who reject biological reality. While one can never use evil means to attain a good end, not all effects, or products, of evil acts are evil. Those who have been conceived through an evil act such as rape are still innocent human beings who have done nothing to justify killing them. If it’s justified to kill innocent human beings concieved in rape while they are still in the womb, there is no valid limiting principle by which it would not be justified to kill them when they are out of the womb at any age.
Anonymous,
This is the argument:
Major Premise: It is never justified to directly kill an innocent human being
Minor Premise: Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent human being
Conclusion: Abortion is never justified
My commentary assumes the major premise, since the candidate agreed with it, and I proceeded to prove the minor premise, by showing that what is being directly killed in abortion is a human being. If you think this is not a valid and sound argument, explain how the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, or why one or more of the premises are false. Do you think the act of abortion does not involve directly killing? Do you think it’s not a human being that’s being killed? Do you think it’s not innocent? If so, clearly state that and make your case. Or perhaps you disagree with the major premise. If so, explain when you think it is sometimes justified to directly kill an innocent human being, and explain your reasoning.
You used twice as many words to respond to my commentary, without addressing anything in my commentary. In all that you said, your premises and conclusions remain obscure. Clearly state your principles, be consistent in applying them to each particular scenario you present, and clearly state the conclusion you think follows.
THEY DON’T LOOK HUMAN
It is never justified to directly kill innocent human beings because of the way they look. Those pictures are, indeed, what the dead tissue of human beings looks like at the earliest stages of development, after having been killed with a plunger that vacuumed them from their mother’s womb, and their blood rinsed out and dried until the remaining tissue was perfectly white. And that’s exactly what the dead tissue of a human is supposed to look like at those earliest stages of development after such a procedure. But the pictures you presented are intentionally misleading (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252619/the-guardian-is-wrong-this-is-what-a-9-week-old-unborn-baby-looks-like). But even if you presented pictures of a living human zygote, which doesn’t look like an adult human being at all, it would simply be what we all looked like at that stage of development. In the early twentieth century putting African pygmies on display in human zoos was considered acceptable because they did not look “human” and were not considered human beings worthy of respect, i.e. they didn’t have white skin and European facial features. They, of course, look just like humans are supposed to look in a certain geographical region. Similarly, a one-celled zygote looks just like a human is supposed to look at that stage of development.
A LAW IN EXODUS
The juridical laws of the Mosaic covenant are often a mixture of criminal law and tort regulations. Punishments of certain laws are based on the extrinsic value of the loss incurred, rather than the intrinsic value of the thing harmed. Under this particular law, which penalizes accidental killings, a greater penalty for causing the loss of a man’s wife than causing the loss of his unborn child is not due to a difference in intrinsic value as human beings, but due to the difference in the extrinsic value of loss the husband suffers when losing his wife compared to losing his child. It simply doesn’t follow, then, that this difference in penalty implies that the unborn child is not a human being. Nor does it follow that because the *accidental* killing of a child is punished with a fine, then this law is approving the *intentional* killing of a child through abortion.
LEGAL COMPLEXITIES – HUMANS IN COLD STORAGE & MISCARRIAGE INVESTIGATIONS
The couple in your cold storage scenario had dozens of human beings placed in cold storage. It’s simply a biological fact. Whatever legal complexities and challenges that may pose will not change that fact, and doesn’t justify denying the reality that they had a dozen human beings created and placed in cold storage. Likewise, whatever legal complexities and law enforcement challenges may be presented by the fact that a woman could make an abortion appear to be a misscarriage, doesn’t change the reality that a miscarriage is a death of a human being without having been directly killed, and abortion is the death of a human being by being directly killed. That this would pose law enforcement challenges, and may be unreasonable to investigate in many cases, doesn’t change the reality that abortion is the direct killing of an innocent human being. There can be no rational discourse about what laws should be enacted, or how they would be enforced, with those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
LACK OF CARE AND INCONSISTENT VIEWS
You mention several different issues that you think those who oppose abortion should be more concerned with, or views you think are inconsistent with opposition to abortion. Pointing out inconsistencies and flaws of someone is not a valid way of arguing. The inconsistencies and flaws of anyone are irrelevant to whether their arguments are true. Many times, though, the inconsistent views some claim “pro-lifers” hold are not incosistent with being “pro-life” at all.
The term “pro-life” is typically used as a short-hand way to refer to a view or person opposed to abortion. But a problem of equivocation occurs if it is also used to mean something much broader, as though “pro-life” was some philosophical system of being “for all life”, and, therefore, not just a descriptive label, but the major premise of an argument for why anyone is opposed to abortion. It’s not a premise of the argument, and the use of this vague sense of “pro-life” leads to misunderstandings about how some people can be consistent in being opposed to abortion (“pro-life”), but not opposed to all killing, or supporting legislation or actions that might effectively permit harm to some humans, or opposing legislation or actions intended to help humans be healthier and live longer, etc. This apparent inconsistency seems to be what you are referring to by mentioning capital punishment, poverty, environmental regulations, firearm regulations, and war. The confusion is resolved by ignoring the vague term, “pro-life”, and realizing that it’s not a premise of an argument. The major premise, rather, is that **it’s never justified to directly kill an innocent human being**.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Capital Punishment is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. While it is the direct killing of a human being, it is not the direct killing of an *innocent* human being.. The difference is that while the unborn child has committed no crime, the adult killed under the death penalty has committed a crime, and the state, having authority over the public that individuals lack, has the right to inflict penalties that are proportionate to the gravity of the crime. One may argue that no crime could ever be grave enough to be penalized with death, or that the possibility of error in the state’s conviction means no one should ever be punished with death, or many other things against the death penalty. The point is that there are significant differences in the argument against abortion and the argument for the death penalty, and no necessary inconsistency or contradiction between the arguments because of those differences. Even if one thinks the argument for the death penalty ultimately fails (e.g. that there is no crime grave enough to be penalized with death, or that the state has no more authority than the individual over life and death, etc.), that argument, despite its failure, would still maintain consistency with the argument against abortion. Holding incorrect views or bad arguments does not necessarily entail inconsistency.
POVERTY
Poverty is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. It is a broad term describing a state of life, not a human act. Poverty might in some ways be a contributing factor leading to intentional homicides, but those homicides are already illegal and widely condemned (unless the victim is in the womb). It’s simply not the case that those who are opposed to abortion don’t care or do anything to help the poor, but even if they were opposed to helping the poor, their opposition, in itself, is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. If there was some cold-hearted Scrooge that didn’t think the poor deserved any help, and never took any action to help them, he would be wrong about that, certainly, but nothing in his wrong and heartless view about the poor would be inconsistent with the principle that it’s never justified to kill an innocent human being. Refusing to help the poor, as wrong as it may be, is not the same as directly killing the poor. We can take this further and imagine a vastly more evil Scrooge that held that it was never justified to kill an innocent human being, and yet proceeded to directly kill innocent human beings. His actions would be inconsistent with his views, but as long as he maintained that his actions were unjustified, his views would remain consistent.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND FIREARM REGULATIONS
Opposing environmental regulations is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. The relaxation of environmental regulations may indirectly lead to more deaths, but the act of opposing laws that might save lives by preventing environmental damage isn’t, in itself, the act of directly killing anyone. Likewise, opposing firearm regulations is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. The relaxation of firearm regulations may indirectly lead to more deaths, but the act of opposing laws that might save lives by preventing firearm violence isn’t, in itself, the act of directly killing anyone. One could rashly support the least restrictive environmental or firearm regulations imaginable, or the complete lifting of all restrictions, and still be consistent in opposing the direct killing of innocent human beings. There’s simply no logical inconsistency in opposing environmental or firearm regulations and holding the principle that it’s never justified to directly kill innocent human beings.
WAR
A war with the sole purpose of expanding an empire is an unjust war, and involves the act of directly killing innocent human beings. A just war involves defending one’s nation or another from an unjust aggressor. In principle, while even a just war involves direct killing of human beings, the enemy combatants aren’t *innocent* in the relevant sense because they participate in an unjust attack on others, even if they are not guilty from a moral or legal point of view.
DIFFICULT SCENARIOS
To address the other difficult scenarios you presented:
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they have health problems, or may potentially have health problems
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they have an extremely difficult life, or may potentially have an extremely difficult life.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they may die from some other cause.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because neither the state nor anyone else is able or willing to give them financial support.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mothers don’t have the emotional or financial resources to take care of them.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their existence poses challenges for psychiatric hospitals, state hospitals, correctional facilities, and taxpayers.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they don’t want to pay taxes.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mothers are young.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their fathers abandoned them.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mothers can’t find a job.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mother receives no financial support from her family.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because those who think it’s wrong to kill them are unwilling to pay additional taxes to support them or their family in any way.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mothers are extremely young.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because of concerns about how a community will look upon anyone.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they are an extreme burden to their mother or anyone else.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their existence causes severe health problems for their mother or anyone else.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being to ensure their mother might have other children.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their father is a rapist and they were concieved in rape.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their they were conceived in incest.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being in order to save anyone’s life.
I would hate for my daughter or anyone to be in the position of having to choose to accept death rather than directly kill an innocent human being, but that doesn’t change the fact that it would not be justified for anyone to directly kill another human being in order to save their own life.
No amount of worrying that birth control may be next on the chopping block will change the reality that human beings begin to exist at conception, and abortion is the direct killing of an that innocent human being.
The views between between men and women on abortion are statistically similar, with some polls having shown more women as “pro-life” than men. But even if the entire world population of men opposed abortion while the entire population of women supported it, or vice versa, it doesn’t change the reality that it is the direct killing of an inncocent human being.
The importance of acknowledging this biological reality is crucial to any discussion on this. As mentioned previously, there simply can be no rational discourse with those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
Christopher Conlon says
LuAnn,
I am very close to a couple that hasn’t been able to have a baby, and would love to adopt the child. There are millions of couples not only willing, but on waiting lists, longing to adopt the child. And, yes, I will adopt the child if no one else will. But even if this wasn’t the case, the unwillingness of anyone to support a human being doesn’t justify killing that human being.
Stanley,
Since it is never justifiable to directly kill an innocent human being, it is important to know whether what is being killed is a human being. There really is no debate on when a human being begins to exist, except among those who reject biological reality. While one can never use evil means to attain a good end, not all effects, or products, of evil acts are evil. Those who have been conceived through an evil act such as rape are still innocent human beings who have done nothing to justify killing them. If it’s justified to kill innocent human beings concieved in rape while they are still in the womb, there is no valid limiting principle by which it would not be justified to kill them when they are out of the womb at any age.
Anonymous,
This is the argument:
Major Premise: It is never justified to directly kill an innocent human being
Minor Premise: Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent human being
Conclusion: Abortion is never justified
My commentary assumes the major premise, since the candidate agreed with it, and I proceeded to prove the minor premise, by showing that what is being directly killed in abortion is a human being. If you think this is not a valid and sound argument, explain how the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, or why one or more of the premises are false. Do you think the act of abortion does not involve directly killing? Do you think it’s not a human being that’s being killed? Do you think it’s not innocent? If so, clearly state that and make your case. Or perhaps you disagree with the major premise. If so, explain when you think it is sometimes justified to directly kill an innocent human being, and explain your reasoning.
You used twice as many words to respond to my commentary, without addressing anything in my commentary. In all that you said, your premises and conclusions remain obscure. Clearly state your principles, be consistent in applying them to each particular scenario you present, and clearly state the conclusion you think follows.
THEY DON’T LOOK HUMAN
It is never justified to directly kill innocent human beings because of the way they look. Those pictures are, indeed, what the dead tissue of human beings looks like at the earliest stages of development, after having been killed with a plunger that vacuumed them from their mother’s womb, and their blood rinsed out and dried until the remaining tissue was perfectly white. And that’s exactly what the dead tissue of a human is supposed to look like at those earliest stages of development after such a procedure. But the pictures you presented are intentionally misleading (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252619/the-guardian-is-wrong-this-is-what-a-9-week-old-unborn-baby-looks-like). But even if you presented pictures of a living human zygote, which doesn’t look like an adult human being at all, it would simply be what we all looked like at that stage of development. In the early twentieth century putting African pygmies on display in human zoos was considered acceptable because they did not look “human” and were not considered human beings worthy of respect, i.e. they didn’t have white skin and European facial features. They, of course, look just like humans are supposed to look in a certain geographical region. Similarly, a one-celled zygote looks just like a human is supposed to look at that stage of development.
A LAW IN EXODUS
The juridical laws of the Mosaic covenant are often a mixture of criminal law and tort regulations. Punishments of certain laws are based on the extrinsic value of the loss incurred, rather than the intrinsic value of the thing harmed. Under this particular law, which penalizes accidental killings, a greater penalty for causing the loss of a man’s wife than causing the loss of his unborn child is not due to a difference in intrinsic value as human beings, but due to the difference in the extrinsic value of loss the husband suffers when losing his wife compared to losing his child. It simply doesn’t follow, then, that this difference in penalty implies that the unborn child is not a human being. Nor does it follow that because the *accidental* killing of a child is punished with a fine, then this law is approving the *intentional* killing of a child through abortion.
LEGAL COMPLEXITIES – HUMANS IN COLD STORAGE & MISCARRIAGE INVESTIGATIONS
The couple in your cold storage scenario had dozens of human beings placed in cold storage. It’s simply a biological fact. Whatever legal complexities and challenges that may pose will not change that fact, and doesn’t justify denying the reality that they had a dozen human beings created and placed in cold storage. Likewise, whatever legal complexities and law enforcement challenges may be presented by the fact that a woman could make an abortion appear to be a misscarriage, doesn’t change the reality that a miscarriage is a death of a human being without having been directly killed, and abortion is the death of a human being by being directly killed. That this would pose law enforcement challenges, and may be unreasonable to investigate in many cases, doesn’t change the reality that abortion is the direct killing of an innocent human being. There can be no rational discourse about what laws should be enacted, or how they would be enforced, with those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
LACK OF CARE AND INCONSISTENT VIEWS
You mention several different issues that you think those who oppose abortion should be more concerned with, or views you think are inconsistent with opposition to abortion. Pointing out inconsistencies and flaws of someone is not a valid way of arguing. The inconsistencies and flaws of anyone are irrelevant to whether their arguments are true. Many times, though, the inconsistent views some claim “pro-lifers” hold are not incosistent with being “pro-life” at all.
The term “pro-life” is typically used as a short-hand way to refer to a view or person opposed to abortion. But a problem of equivocation occurs if it is also used to mean something much broader, as though “pro-life” was some philosophical system of being “for all life”, and, therefore, not just a descriptive label, but the major premise of an argument for why anyone is opposed to abortion. It’s not a premise of the argument, and the use of this vague sense of “pro-life” leads to misunderstandings about how some people can be consistent in being opposed to abortion (“pro-life”), but not opposed to all killing, or supporting legislation or actions that might effectively permit harm to some humans, or opposing legislation or actions intended to help humans be healthier and live longer, etc. This apparent inconsistency seems to be what you are referring to by mentioning capital punishment, poverty, environmental regulations, firearm regulations, and war. The confusion is resolved by ignoring the vague term, “pro-life”, and realizing that it’s not a premise of an argument. The major premise, rather, is that **it’s never justified to directly kill an innocent human being**.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Capital Punishment is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. While it is the direct killing of a human being, it is not the direct killing of an *innocent* human being.. The difference is that while the unborn child has committed no crime, the adult killed under the death penalty has committed a crime, and the state, having authority over the public that individuals lack, has the right to inflict penalties that are proportionate to the gravity of the crime. One may argue that no crime could ever be grave enough to be penalized with death, or that the possibility of error in the state’s conviction means no one should ever be punished with death, or many other things against the death penalty. The point is that there are significant differences in the argument against abortion and the argument for the death penalty, and no necessary inconsistency or contradiction between the arguments because of those differences. Even if one thinks the argument for the death penalty ultimately fails (e.g. that there is no crime grave enough to be penalized with death, or that the state has no more authority than the individual over life and death, etc.), that argument, despite its failure, would still maintain consistency with the argument against abortion. Holding incorrect views or bad arguments does not necessarily entail inconsistency.
POVERTY
Poverty is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. It is a broad term describing a state of life, not a human act. Poverty might in some ways be a contributing factor leading to intentional homicides, but those homicides are already illegal and widely condemned (unless the victim is in the womb). It’s simply not the case that those who are opposed to abortion don’t care or do anything to help the poor, but even if they were opposed to helping the poor, their opposition, in itself, is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. If there was some cold-hearted Scrooge that didn’t think the poor deserved any help, and never took any action to help them, he would be wrong about that, certainly, but nothing in his wrong and heartless view about the poor would be inconsistent with the principle that it’s never justified to kill an innocent human being. Refusing to help the poor, as wrong as it may be, is not the same as directly killing the poor. We can take this further and imagine a vastly more evil Scrooge that held that it was never justified to kill an innocent human being, and yet proceeded to directly kill innocent human beings. His actions would be inconsistent with his views, but as long as he maintained that his actions were unjustified, his views would remain consistent.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND FIREARM REGULATIONS
Opposing environmental regulations is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. The relaxation of environmental regulations may indirectly lead to more deaths, but the act of opposing laws that might save lives by preventing environmental damage isn’t, in itself, the act of directly killing anyone. Likewise, opposing firearm regulations is not the direct killing of an innocent human being. The relaxation of firearm regulations may indirectly lead to more deaths, but the act of opposing laws that might save lives by preventing firearm violence isn’t, in itself, the act of directly killing anyone. One could rashly support the least restrictive environmental or firearm regulations imaginable, or the complete lifting of all restrictions, and still be consistent in opposing the direct killing of innocent human beings. There’s simply no logical inconsistency in opposing environmental or firearm regulations and holding the principle that it’s never justified to directly kill innocent human beings.
WAR
A war with the sole purpose of expanding an empire is an unjust war, and involves the act of directly killing innocent human beings. A just war involves defending one’s nation or another from an unjust aggressor. In principle, while even a just war involves direct killing of human beings, the enemy combatants aren’t *innocent* in the relevant sense because they participate in an unjust attack on others, even if they are not guilty from a moral or legal point of view.
DIFFICULT SCENARIOS
To address the other difficult scenarios you presented:
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they have health problems, or may potentially have health problems
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they have an extremely difficult life, or may potentially have an extremely difficult life.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they may die from some other cause.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because neither the state nor anyone else is able or willing to give them financial support.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mothers don’t have the emotional or financial resources to take care of them.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their existence poses challenges for psychiatric hospitals, state hospitals, correctional facilities, and taxpayers.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they don’t want to pay taxes.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mothers are young.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their fathers abandoned them.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mothers can’t find a job.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mother receives no financial support from her family.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because those who think it’s wrong to kill them are unwilling to pay additional taxes to support them or their family in any way.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their mothers are extremely young.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because of concerns about how a community will look upon anyone.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because they are an extreme burden to their mother or anyone else.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their existence causes severe health problems for their mother or anyone else.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being to ensure their mother might have other children.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their father is a rapist and they were concieved in rape.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being because their they were conceived in incest.
It is not justified to directly kill an innocent human being in order to save anyone’s life.
I would hate for my daughter or anyone to be in the position of having to choose to accept death rather than directly kill an innocent human being, but that doesn’t change the fact that it would not be justified for anyone to directly kill another human being in order to save their own life.
No amount of worrying that birth control may be next on the chopping block will change the reality that human beings begin to exist at conception, and abortion is the direct killing of an that innocent human being.
The views between between men and women on abortion are statistically similar, with some polls having shown more women as “pro-life” than men. But even if the entire world population of men opposed abortion while the entire population of women supported it, or vice versa, it doesn’t change the reality that it is the direct killing of an inncocent human being.
The importance of acknowledging this biological reality is crucial to any discussion on this. As mentioned previously, there simply can be no rational discourse with those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
Cecilia says
Does being conceived in rape or incest determine how human a person is? That is what people who use those arguments to support abortion are actually saying. What is really sick is that a lot of folks who push abortion also support sodomy, gender dysphoria, trans-grooming of children and are now moving into supporting incest “rights”, and rape through child grooming.
Right to Choose? Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL, explains how he and a board of other abortionists coined that term in order to frame the narrative. He performed around 10,000 abortions before repenting of his heinous acts and later producing the video documentary Silent Scream, and later converting from Judaism to Catholicism.
Quoting Guttmacher is just quoting Planned Parenthood, it being PP’s propaganda arm.
Keep in mind that we need to think about the purpose for things when discussing them. What is the purpose of the womb? A woman has no need for a womb, it is not essential to her survival, if she had no womb she would still be healthy. The womb’s sole purpose, its reason for being, is not for the woman, but entirely for another human being who is not her. So who has the greater claim, the greater right? When we deny the greater right of the weaker and most defenseless one whose very existence depends on that womb, we dehumanize them. Abortion is about dehumanization, because the only way you can commit atrocities is by dehumanizing your victims.
We aren’t even starting from the religious basis. I understand that many Jewish groups claim that banning or restricting abortion violates their religion, the Satanic Temple said the same thing. Those groups aren’t ridiculed by the Left for bringing religion into it. It is important to ask yourselves “why is that?”
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107722531/some-jewish-groups-blast-the-end-of-roe-as-a-violation-of-their-religious-belief
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2022/09/27/satanic-temple-lawsuit-indiana-abortion-law-violates-religious-rights/69521905007/
https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-centre/abortion-facts/witnesses/dr-bernard-nathanson
Anonymous says
Does being conceived in rape or incest determine how human a person is? That is what people who use those arguments to support abortion are actually saying. What is really sick is that a lot of folks who push abortion also support sodomy, gender dysphoria, trans-grooming of children and are now moving into supporting incest “rights”, and rape through child grooming.
Right to Choose? Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL, explains how he and a board of other abortionists coined that term in order to frame the narrative. He performed around 10,000 abortions before repenting of his heinous acts and later producing the video documentary Silent Scream, and later converting from Judaism to Catholicism.
Quoting Guttmacher is just quoting Planned Parenthood, it being PP’s propaganda arm.
Keep in mind that we need to think about the purpose for things when discussing them. What is the purpose of the womb? A woman has no need for a womb, it is not essential to her survival, if she had no womb she would still be healthy. The womb’s sole purpose, its reason for being, is not for the woman, but entirely for another human being who is not her. So who has the greater claim, the greater right? When we deny the greater right of the weaker and most defenseless one whose very existence depends on that womb, we dehumanize them. Abortion is about dehumanization, because the only way you can commit atrocities is by dehumanizing your victims.
We aren’t even starting from the religious basis. I understand that many Jewish groups claim that banning or restricting abortion violates their religion, the Satanic Temple said the same thing. Those groups aren’t ridiculed by the Left for bringing religion into it. It is important to ask yourselves “why is that?”
Stanley J Gudmundson says
Two points. 1) IThe debate over when life begins is wrong. The important question is whether or not people are interfering with a growing fetus for some other reason than to save the mother’s life. Whether you support abortion or don’t support it, humans are killing other humans for reasons that do not include saving the life of a mother. Or for a pregnancy caused by rape or incest, the Billy Graham position. He believed those pregnancies were caused by evil acts. 2) The commentators comment about guns. All of us have a natural right to defend ourselves. No one can rightly take that away. As for serious crime and murder, if you remove the murder rates in the big cities, the US is extraordinarily safe. Funny, the vast majority seem to be controlled by Democrats.
Anonymous says
I sure that we have all seen photos of fetuses, with a head, neck, arms, legs, torso, fingers and toes clearly visible, and may well imagine that that is how they look once the mother’s egg has been fertilized. This recent news report includes photos of fetal tissue removed between five and nine weeks after conception.. Many of you will likely be surprised. Here’s that story, courtesy of The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue
Some cite a biblical basis for denying early termination of pregnancy. But consider Exodus 21:22 (RSV) — “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” If the fetus is lost, there is only a fine, however, the verse that follows indicates that if the mother were to die that a similar price would be paid by the person causing that injury. This does not suggest that a fetus in the womb was accorded the same status as an already born, living, breathing person.
If taken to its extreme, a young couple couple place dozens of fertilized eggs in cold storage and since they are paying for that fertilized egg’s support, and since it is a person (just like you and me), that fertilized eggs should be assigned social security numbers and those parents should be able to claim them as dependents on their federal income tax return.
If absolutely all life is sacred, wouldn’t those opposing any termination of pregnancy (for any reason) also be at the forefront of abolishing capital punishment, fighting poverty that kills millions every year, opposing relaxation of environmental standards that lead to countless more deaths, fighting wars to expand empire and subjugate free people under the invader’s dictatorial rule, and demanding that wars of any kind be a last resort, only when it can be clearly shown that it’s purpose is to save innocent life.
How about the matter of drawing a reasonable line somewhere regarding firearms? The Second Amendment included the language “as part of a well-regulated militia”, but seem to have forgotten or eliminated the term “well-regulated” from that sentence. For the most part, our reddest states provide the widest latitude regarding gun proliferation. If guns keep us safer, having more guns should save more lives. Here’s a recent U. S. map, and accompanying article, listing states according to the number of gun deaths per capita. Ask yourself how many of the reddest states are the safest, and then ask yourself if the safest states are primarily blue. See for yourself here, courtesy of the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
Up to one in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, and many more are likely to have occurred, unbeknownst to the mother since they take before she is aware of her pregnancy. In some areas of our country, women are being investigated for potentially bringing about the death of that fetus, allegedly causing that miscarriage. Do taxpayers want to pay for the additional resources to investigate and prosecute these women who have miscarriages? If you need a reference, here’s one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/08/02/miscarriage-risk-pregnancy/
Some mothers are simply not in a position to safely bring a child into this world. In some cases, women who seem unable to break their addiction to street drugs and/or alcohol may become pregnant, posing a significant likelihood of severe damage and/or death of the fetus. If the fetus survives until childbirth, they may present with some extremely difficult challenges throughout the remainder of their lives. Not all mothers have the emotional or financial resources to deal with the numerous difficulties entailed in raising such a child. Challenging clients confined to state psychiatric hospitals assigned diagnoses such as fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects are not uncommon. The cost to taxpayers for those housed in state hospitals or correctional facilities is extremely high. I’m sure that those insisting that every fetus is brought into this world will be more than willing to pay those increased taxes.
So who are these people who seek early termination of pregnancy? These answers, provided by the Guttmacher Institute should help shed some light on that topic: https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion/demographics
What about the young mother who might want the child, however, the father has skipped town, she has no job skills and no financial help from her family? Are those who contend that every fetus must be born willing to pay additional taxes so that the mother can receive the support necessary to maintain living conditions needed to bring a healthy child into this world, to provide competent pre-natal and post-natal care, in addition to paying the costs of any complications that can develop? Once that child is born, will those advocates be willing to pay yet more taxes, so that the young mother has the resources necessary to provide that child with every opportunity to grow into a strong, healthy and productive member of society?
If parents who have numerous fertilized eggs in cold storage, and due to changes in life circumstances, possibly the death of one spouse, severe health problems, divorce, or any number of other life events and decide that they don’t need those fertilized eggs anymore and do not need to keep paying the company that stores them, if they “pull the plug”, are they guilty of multiple murders?
The youngest mother to give live birth on record did so in 1939, aged five years, seven months and twenty-one days. So the case of the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who was forced to travel to neighboring Indiana to end her pregnancy is most certainly not outside the realm of probability. Imagine that you live in a small town in southeastern Minnesota and your daughter or granddaughter, who is in first, second or third grade becomes pregnant. How would those in your community look upon you, the parents of the young girl and the young girl herself as she goes through the visible changes that accompany pregnancy.? Does the young girl, once the child is born (assuming that the mother survives), find a job that has good health care benefits, go to school to learn her ABCs, or both, while also taking care of an infant at home? Girl’s bodies have not yet made the anatomical changes necessary to safely bring a child into this world, and if the mother survives, the damage may be sufficiently severe that she’ll never be able to have a child again.
If the would be mother is likely to die if the pregnancy is not terminated, should she be forced to proceed anyway, regardless of such a possibility or probability? If you had a daughter would you want her to be in that position?
Why is it that, having seen dozens, if not hundreds of letters to the editor such as this one, that I have yet to see any mention of providing support for would be mothers, additional measures to insure payment of child support by biological fathers, and making birth control much more freely available to all? Removing the means of preventing pregnancy will not magically cause people to become celibate. History tells us that.
Ending all early terminations of pregnancy, regardless of the outcomes, will not necessarily be an end point for those who most zealously promote such measures.
For a married couple to use birth control was not legal in every state in this country until the U. S. Supreme Court issued Griswold v. Connecticut decision of 1965. Don’t believe it? Look it up.
But what about unmarried couples? In some jurisdictions for unmarried persons to use birth control was illegal until 1972, when the U. S. Supreme Court issued their decision in the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird.
In 1973, the U. S. Supreme Court added further clarification to the Roe v. Wade decision, allowing the right to choose for any woman.
In 1977, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles at least 14 years of age had the right to contraception, in the case of Carey v. Population Services International.
One could well imagine that all the above could potentially appear on the chopping block.
I don’t believe the author of the above letter to the editor made any mention of situations in which rape or incest have occurred. In neither of those cases, did the person who became pregnant do so voluntarily or willfully. Such persons have already had one choice taken away from them. Should we compound that injury by taking away the only remaining choice?
On a final note, I find it interesting that men, who will never be faced with the potentially agonizing decisions that may need to be made by a female of child bearing age, are so eager to insist what women can and cannot do. I’m not sure that those males who wish to exert control over women in this manner would appreciate turning over the guidelines for those receiving Viagra to a panel of women.
Kristen Asleson says
Thank you for writing this. I couldn’t agree more!
LuAnn Wilcox says
Will you provide support for the pregnant woman? Will you adopt her child? Will you support the child if you won’t adopt it?
Andy says
LuAnn the question you ask are important questions however not related to the point of the article.
As for you anonymously you provide a abundant amount of emotions. With all the emotions aside (such as a horrific rap or tragic incest ect).
The article purely is providing the information that biologically at consumption life begins. If we accepting abortion, we as a society are killing another human being.