The latest craze by leftist protesters is wearing costumes based on Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale. The fear women’s rights would be stripped from them as Atwood depicted culminated with the nomination and confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. Even before the allegations of gang rape emerged, progressive protesters were fearful he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision which stated there was a right to abortion in the Constitution.
The debate on the topic of abortion is likely the most contentious in the nation today. The problem with the vehement attacks of pro-abortion groups is they ignore even the possibility they might understand the arguments and beliefs of the pro-life crowd; regardless of whether they might be swayed by them. Therefore, it is incumbent upon pro-lifers to be able to gently and succinctly make their points whenever they engage with someone who is willing to listen.
The logic of life in the womb:
If we are to logically assess life in the womb then we must first determine what life is. Dictionary.com defines life as: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Does a fetus meets these criteria? A fetus is not inorganic, is currently and will continue to grow if allowed, will likely be able to reproduce, function, and change until its death. A fetus is then necessarily life.
I would then posit that life necessarily begins at conception. To argue otherwise is like saying your day doesn’t begin until your first cup of coffee; you simply mean you weren’t ready or prepared for the day until your coffee, not that the day hadn’t already begun.
The legality of life in the womb:
The legal question of whether a fetus constitutes life is answered in part by the treatment of the crime of killing a pregnant woman, which constitutes a double-homicide. Homicide meaning unlawful killing; kill meaning cause death; death meaning the end of life. Therefore, for a double-homicide to occur two lives must be ended. This begs the question why is it that when the fetus is deliberately killed by a physician, no charge of homicide will necessarily be brought? Have we given women the power to situationally determine what life is and, if so, at what point does a mother’s ability to make this determination end?
The Roe v. Wade decision also makes a claim about life in the womb. Justice Blackmun in the opinion of the court stated: With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. At the time of the decision, viability was 24-28 weeks. Now, however, according to the decision’s own logic the State’s interest can now be as early as 21 weeks. While this aspect of the decision refutes pro-abortion activist blind support of it, it is also a reflection of how poor the decision actually was.
In the 45 years since the Roe decision, there has been a 16% reduction in time until viability. It is not inconceivable that over the next 50 years we see viability move into the first trimester – a collision of Roe v. Wade into itself predicted by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. Justice O’Connor further stated: Without the necessary expertise or ability, courts must then pretend to act as science review boards and examine those legislative judgments. While her contention is apt, one must further contend that science should not determine morality in the first place. Was a 20-week old fetus less valuable 40 years ago than it is today?
What can we do with life in the womb:
The debate between those for and against abortion is not a debate over what life is, but rather what we can do with it. Hardcore abortion advocates ignore the question of life and instead argue it remains the mother’s choice until the baby is free of her womb. If we admit a fetus is life, then we must allot it the same protections as any other human life. It cannot, for example, be owned by another being.
Some argue that, as the fetus is inside her, it is a woman’s property and therefore she gets to decide what is done to it. So let me ask, if you found a baby in your house could you kill it? Even if someone were to break into your house and leave a baby behind could you kill it? Of course not.
A more common argument is the parasite argument. An abortion advocate may say that because a fetus cannot survive on its own outside the womb and depends on the body of the mother to nourish it, it drains the mother of nutrients and can therefore be treated as a parasite and excised at will. This is a question of human dependency. Yes a fetus is dependent upon the mother until viability, but does 5 months of dependency merit the death penalty?
The question of what we can do with life in the womb is no different than what we can do with life outside. Even the generally accepted exemption, “the life of the mother” is no exception to the rule. If something were to do significant physical harm to someone, you would be within your rights to stop them. Any other justification for abortion is wholly inadequate and doesn’t distinguish between life in and outside the womb.
Common claims such as “it’s just a clump of cells”, while accurate, prove nothing. All life is necessarily a cell – a clump of cells being particularly complex. The argument it is not life if it can’t survive on its own implies someone on life support could be killed without consequence. The most troubling defense of abortion comes from Justice Blackmun’s opinion in the Roe v. Wade decision where he stated:
Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
If mental and physical duress give a mother legal power over life and death, why then is there a distinction between life inside and outside the womb? Following this logic, if your three-year-old was too much of a burden you would be within your Constitutionally guaranteed rights to kill him or her. To someone who is pro-life there is no distinction as both lives are sacred. To someone who is pro-abortion the distinction is simply locational.
I have yet to hear a pro-abortion argument that satisfactorily addresses and counters these pro-life arguments and the fact of the matter is there simply isn’t one. We either view life as sacred or something we can determine based on what is convenient for ourselves.
I take it that your concerns with ‘life’ only apply to human life, and that all other life is expendable? Humans are nothing more than animals with more consciousness than non-human animals, but we apply god-like status to ourselves. It’s fine that you have an opinion about abortion – that’s your right – but it is only a personal moral opinion, nothing else. Women have ALWAYS had abortions, and always will. If you really want abortions to stop, then why don’t you target men to stop irresponsible ejaculation? After all, ejaculation is where it all starts. Easier to target women, though, eh?
Nowhere in this blog did I target women. I agree, “irresponsible ejaculation” as you put it should be frowned upon or, at least, men who make such an act should be held responsible for the life they had a had in creating. You seem to think that because something has always happened it will forever continue. By that logic, we must look away when murder is committed because after all… As for the human life as gods, I encourage you to read some of the posts by Connie from this site talking about being vegan to get a sense of our view hear at Liberty Hippie of the animal kingdom as a whole. Disclaimer, I am not vegan but I am against factory farms and animal abuse in all its forms.
One of three abortions are medically necessary. Really, if you anti-choicers continue to go on about this, you should probably get the facts.
No woman wants to carry a non-viable fetus to term. Pregnancy is a delicate and dangerous thing – things can and do go wrong, and abortions are often medically necessary or appropriate. I suggest you read this: https://www.verywellfamily.com/termination-of-a-desired-pregnancy-for-medical-reasons-2371777
I’d also encourage you to listen to this woman’s story about having to abort her very much wanted daughter in the conservative state of Mississippi, and the ramifications of the (pointless) anti-choice laws there: https://themoth.org/storytellers/lynn-ferguson
As for the other 2 out of 3? Justice Blackmun was 100% correct – as are you. Trauma is a very personal thing, which is why this should be a personal choice. You know what I found traumatizing? Being pregnant. I felt like I was being possessed – like I wasn’t in control of my own body. One might compare it to…a parasite. You know what I found absolutely not traumatizing? Aborting it. Were I forced to carry that pregnancy to term, I know I would have not stayed mentally stable, been able to continue to work, stay on medication I take for depression, and a host of other things. On the other hand, I have a friend with two children. They weren’t planned, and she is pro-choice. Her choice was to carry those pregnancies to term.
As Katrina stated above, women have always had abortions and always will. This is for two reasons: firstly, because medical abortion is a thing that happens. Most people know it as miscarriage. Secondly, even when it was illegal, it was happening. It was just resulting in botched surgeries, shady doctors taking advantage of desperate patients, horrific infections, and death. They can make it illegal, but they can’t stop it.
You may be a more liberal anti-choice individual, not believing in factory farms as you stated in your above comment, but you have to admit most people who share your view are also pro-war, pro-death penalty, and pro-gun. How is that justifiable? As you said, “To someone who is pro-life there is no distinction as both lives are sacred.” The fetus should be just as important as the serial killer on death row, right? So why are we not seeing protests about their sanctity of life?
I have no problem with abortion in cases involving the life of the mother. Non-fatal conditions are a different issue. The most common is Down Syndrome. Can you kill a Down Syndrome child after it’s born? No. What makes its location an exception to the rule? I cannot imagine how hard it would be to have such a diagnosis given to your unborn child, but that doesn’t change the fact it is still life.
As I said to Katrina, because something has and will continue to happen doesn’t make it okay to continue e.g. murder, rape, etc. Abortions today can and do go wrong, see the case of Kermit Gosnell.
I am pro-death penalty and pro-gun (no one I know is pro-war). To compare abortion, the killing of innocent life, to the killing of a serial killer or to killing in self-defense is a false equivalency. A proven serial killer has thrown away the ability to be trusted in society as they have shown complete disregard for life. Unlike an unborn child, they were given a chance.
Unrelated to my take on the issue, I find it interesting you claim an abortion was okay because the fetus was like a parasite and yet, the alternative to the death penalty, life in prison, necessarily turns the would-be death row inmate into a parasite: they produce nothing for society and yet live off its bounties. In other words, the death penalty for your unborn fetus due to its “parasitism” is fine but executing a murderer rather than turn them into a parasite is not.
You are totally targeting women, because who else has abortions? If you were truly brave, you would target men and their role in preventing abortions as well – i.e. preventing conception in the first place. An abortion can’t take place if conception hasn’t occurred. The above piece is solely focussed on your beliefs on what’s right and wrong after conception has taken place.
In regards to veganism, I have been a vegan for about fifteen years, so I know all about those who love animals and are against animal abuse, but who still eat them.
Correct. This blog is about what life is, which includes that in the womb. Both my sister and I have touched on the necessity of men being responsible as I said in my previous reply. I did not and will not disparage or attack women who are put into a situation where they feel they are helpless and hopeless. I believe we need to accurately describe our choices – in this case abortion meaning an end to life. If you agree with the premise a fetus is life and still think killing it is okay, there is no reason for further discussion on the matter. Thank you for reading and your comments.
We all cherry-pick the lives we hold more valuable than others. You quite happily see innocent animals going to slaughter so you can eat them, whereas I don’t. You are pro-gun, and guns take many innocent lives, so I am anti-gun. I think a woman’s life is more valuable than that of a foetus’s, and that women have the absolute right to choose whether or not they use their bodies to grow and produce another being, whereas you don’t believe that. So, I guess you’re right – nothing more to see here.
I am currently working on a post in which I point out the inconsistences and issues with all the prochoice arguments. Good to see a few of the same arguments being debunked here. I will be sure to check out the rest of the blog.