An anonymous person posted a comment asking, “What are your reasons for abortion to be kept legal?” It’s such an important question that I’ve decided to dedicate an entire post to answering it. But before I begin I want to address one of his claims that:
“Science has unambiguously determined when a new life begins, and that is at conception… I hope your argument isn’t based only on that weak and unscientific argument of ‘a fetus isn’t a human’.”
Well, my argument isn’t solely based on that so much as it is on the idea that some human lives are worth less than others. Still, I feel obligated to point out the other side of this coin. Science doesn’t unambiguously know much about life. Physics is another story entirely, gravity is pretty unambiguous for example, but as far as biology and life goes science doesn’t even know what life is let alone when it begins.
What is the definition of life? One classic definition is that life is anything that grows, consumes food, and produces offspring. But what about fire, you might ask? Fire isn’t alive even though it fits that definition. Fine, life is anything that grows, consumes food, produces offspring, and thinks. What about plants? They don’t think and they are alive. Pretty quickly you discover that the only definition of life we have so far is, “I know it when I see it.” SETI, the search for extraterrestrial life, is really the search for extraterrestrial life like ours. Who knows what kind of life there could be out there that we could never understand or even recognize?
Since we don’t even know what life is, it’s very difficult to unambiguously declare that life begins at conception. I would argue that life begins at birth. Why? Because before then you only have one living being, not two. In the words of Dr. House, a fetus is a parasite that cannot live on its own. Saying a fetus is a distinct living being is like saying my arm is a distinct living being. My arm is alive, yes, but you can’t murder my arm.
Anyway, my argument doesn’t have much to do with that, I’m perfectly willing to grant that a fetus is alive, I just wanted to point out that things aren’t that simple. For example, cutting off a finger and murdering a person are totally different, as is killing a fetus versus killing a baby.
The crux of my argument in favor of abortion is that killing is basically okay. Human beings kill everything. We kill cows because they taste good, trees because we like furniture, germs because they make us feel bad, deer because we love hunting, cockroaches because they are disgusting, and thousands of other species because we just hate those rain forests so much… Pretty much every species on Earth has been killed by humans at some point for some reason.
“Wait a minute,” I hear you cry. “That may all be true but we draw the line at killing other humans!” No, we don’t. We kill old people (euthanasia, and insurance companies will even pay for it), we kill criminals (capital punishment), we kill ourselves (suicide), we kill each other (war), we kill in self-defense, we kill when we are temporarily insane, and we pull the plug on people who are in comas. I haven’t even started listing all the indirect ways we kill people: drug companies pushing dangerous drugs, insurance companies not paying for lifesaving procedures, people starving in Africa because our fat asses can’t be bothered to share some food, athletes playing dangerous sports, smoking, alcohol, and McDonald’s.
99.99% of the time it’s perfectly okay and legal to kill any living thing you want. The only exception is that you can’t kill another human being for no apparent reason. That’s murder. That’s where the line is drawn.
Why is this? Because we understand that fundamentally some lives are worth more than others. The lives of cows and trees are basically worthless. Besides, what would we do without our hamburgers and chairs? Killing those insignificant beings dramatically increases our quality of life, so we do it.
It’s not just a “human versus everything else” thing, either. Some human lives are worth more than others. Women are worth more than men, and children are worth more than women. If a man kills another man, he’s a dick. If a man kills a woman or a child he’s evil. “How could anybody do such a thing?!” everybody gasps. We also recognize this in abortion: pro-lifers are often in favor of allowing abortions if the mother would otherwise die because the mother’s life is more valuable than the fetus. As for killing in general, we all want to kill terrorists and assassinate dictators (and blow up abortion clinics) and in such a manner ironically spread peace throughout the world.
Although the anonymous commentator didn’t bring this up, lots of people like to mouth off about the sanctity of life and that all life is sacred. No, no it isn’t. All non-human life is basically canon fodder, and as for human life, a large portion is up for grabs as well. The simple fact is that killing, including killing other humans, is necessary and unavoidable in order to make our lives easier.
Have you ever slapped a mosquito? Did you feel bad? No! You hate mosquitoes and they deserve to die! After five weeks, a human fetus is one quarter of an inch long which is smaller than the smallest mosquito in Florida. Given that a mosquito doubles in size when it feeds, it could probably eat the fetus. How has an act as casual as slapping away a mosquito suddenly become murder simply because it’s a fetus? It’s because the fetus is human and a mosquito is not. We should ask ourselves, though, does that matter?
Calling a fetus “human” is very misleading. “Goo” is a more accurate term. A fetus is nothing more than a gooey pile of cells (at least for the first few months). In fact, at this stage in the game a mosquito is far more alive than a fetus. The mosquito can fend for itself, feed itself, procreate, and a fetus can’t do a damned thing. Why then are we so concerned about the well-being of the fetus? It’s because the fetus has the POTENTIAL to grow up into a human being.
In my post Women Commit Murder If They Don’t Have Sex I talk about the treacherously gray area of worrying about the potentials of things. Every time a woman doesn’t have sex a potential life is lost. We don’t care about that. Every time a man uses a condom a potential life is lost. We don’t worry about that (well, some people do). I mean, just think about it: do we throw people in jail for having knives in the kitchen because they could potentially kill someone?
Calling a fetus a “human being” is like calling me “dead”. Of course I’m not dead, but I’m on my way there. Of course a fetus isn’t a human being, but it might be in the future. You cannot ascribe a potential future property (being human) to the fetus right now. Right now, the fetus is a pile of goo. Right now, a mosquito is biologically more alive than the fetus. In every way that matters, killing a mosquito is worse than killing a fetus. If you want to quote me on something, quote me on this:
Killing a fetus is no worse than killing a mosquito, and neither are crimes.
Speaking of potential, think how much potential mosquitoes have. One billion years from now they could evolve into hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional cosmic beings that rule the universe. Right at this moment we could be slaughtering the greatest race that could ever live. Doesn’t anybody feel bad about that? No, because it’s just potential! It’s not real!
Here is an interesting thought experiment: what if one day science figures out how to grow a human being from a finger, are we now going to declare that all broken fingers are murder because that finger could have grown into a human being? Ah, the danger of potential.
This is very closely related to the classic philosophical question of whether or not you would sacrifice lives now in order to save lives later. If you were a genius scientist and knew that you could cure cancer at the small expense of performing horrible genetic experiments on 1000 unwitting folks, would you do it? Surely the 1000 lives lost today are nothing compared to the millions of lives that would be saved. Still, I hope you wouldn’t do those experiments. I think it’s morally reprehensible to sacrifice people’s lives, real people living in the here and now, to potentially maybe perhaps save other people in the future who don’t exist yet.
Volunteers are a whole different story. If 1000 people want to volunteer for the genetic experiments, go for it. Remember that abortion is a volunteer procedure. Nobody is going to force anyone to ever get an abortion. If a mother wants an abortion, fine. If she doesn’t, also fine.
How is this for a Catch-22: lots of women get an abortion and then later on in life have a child. If they hadn’t gotten an abortion that child would never have been born (because it would’ve been the aborted child instead). No matter which way you slice it, you are always going to lose a potential life. If you talk to the mother, I think you’ll have a hell of a time trying to convince her that she is raising the “wrong” child.
By now you should have a pretty good grasp of my basic argument. A fetus is barely alive and we don’t think twice about slapping a mosquito, so what’s the big deal about abortion? “The big deal,” I hear you say, “is that even if a fetus is a pile of goo after five weeks, it’s a human being after five months.” I don’t remember what the cutoff stage for abortion is, but you are right and I purposefully chose five weeks for my example. The longer a fetus grows the more human it becomes. It won’t take much to convince me that aborting a child five minutes before it’s born is much closer to the murder side of the line than the slapping-a-mosquito side of the line. If I grant you that aborting a child five minutes before it’s born is murder, will you grant me that aborting a fetus five minutes after conception is fine?
That’s the million dollar question. If I’ve convinced you that aborting a two-celled organism is fine (by the way, you lose approximately 60,000,000 skin cells per day) then we are no longer arguing about whether or not abortion is okay and instead we are arguing about when it’s okay. This is a much more useful question. It means we are finding middle ground. It means we are cooperating. It means we are coming to an understanding. The exact cutoff date isn’t important. What’s important is that we understand there are gray areas and extenuating circumstances.
Philosophically, I’m done; I’ve made my case. However, I’m also going to take a few moments to point out some of the other reasons why abortion is okay (and in fact good for society). What is the alternative to abortion? Babies in dumpsters, babies abandoned, and just the other day a woman stuffed her child into a Wonder Bread bag and tried to flush it down the toilet. Surely these babies would have been better off being aborted months ago.
Letting them live isn’t necessarily a good alternative, either. Is it really “humane” to let the child grow up with a 13-year-old single mother that can’t care for him, can’t feed him, can’t provide for him, is addicted to heroin, and whatever else? In some situations, not having a kid is a good thing. Kids are not always blessings. Is it any wonder that abortion reduces crime? The states with the highest abortion rates also have the highest drops in crime. If we didn’t force or encourage poor families to have kids they can’t afford, their kids wouldn’t grow up to be criminals.
Let me emphasize that I’m not encouraging abortion. Condoms are obviously a much better way to avoid having unwanted kids. The morning-after pill is obviously preferred to getting an abortion. Raising the kid is obviously preferred if you can, if you are happily married and have the means. Unfortunately, sometimes people make mistakes, and shouldn’t we allow them abortions in those situations? It’s cliché, but what about the case where the woman is raped? Let’s also not forget that humans are basically the worst thing that has ever happened to this planet and the last thing the Earth needs right now is more people.
I find it curious that women are overwhelmingly in favor of abortion (perhaps somebody can tell me why?). Women, the most sensitive and caring people on the planet who ooh and aah whenever they see a baby, are totally for killing fetuses. If there’s any group of people in the world against abortion, it should be women. But they aren’t. That should tell you something. Don’t you think it’s a little bit arrogant for us men to be telling women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies, and what is and is not alive inside them?
We also have to ask ourselves what the punishment should be if abortions are made illegal. There is a hilarious YouTube video where a guy goes to a pro-life rally and asks people what should happen to women if they get abortions, and nobody can provide an answer. I can:
- Murderers go to prison
- Abortion is murder
- Women who get abortions should be sent to prison
The logic is beautifully simple. If you are going to take the stance that abortion is murder, you also have to take the stance that we should lock up the 1.6 million women who commit murder every year (there are roughly 1.6 million abortions per year). It’s funny how when you mention that people suddenly say, “Oh, well, I didn’t mean they should be punished for it.” What, are we suddenly going to let murderers roam free now?
The logic is even more beautiful. If you don’t believe women should go to jail then you simply cannot be against abortion. Watch:
- Women who get abortions don’t go to prison
- Murderers go to prison
- Abortion is not murder
QED. I’m sorry, but you cannot argue with logic.
The anonymous poster seemed concerned with spending taxpayer money on abortions. I don’t really care if the government pays for abortions or not seeing as they are very cheap operations, but beyond that abortions save lots of money. Getting an abortion is hundreds of thousands of dollars cheaper than actually raising the child, and it saves the state thousands upon thousands of dollars it would otherwise have needed to spend educating the child, providing health care for the child, and providing welfare to the mother. Even if abortion is a morally gray subject, it is black and white as far as money is concerned: abortion is good for the economy. Abortions save billions of dollars every year (1.6 million abortions times $1000 per abortion equals billions of dollars, and that’s assuming a child only costs $1000).
In the end, we have to ask ourselves what’s more important: the good of society, the welfare of the mother, and women’s rights, or the rights of an unborn, barely alive pile of goo? Remember that this pile of goo is far less alive than a mosquito and we don’t mind killing them to make our lives more comfortable. A fetus can’t think, it doesn’t feel pain or regret that it was never born, and it’s not going to get mad at you. We pull the plug on people who are in comas, why can’t we pull the plug on fetuses?
I must say that this was one of the best of a few theses on pro-death/pro-abortion that I have read. But, sadly, like all of pro-abortion advocates it is contradictory. I am pro-life for a reason. Although you catch some pro-life individuals on youtube making assumptions about things, many pro-abortion advocates uphold equally uninformed ideas about pro-abortion.
You may bash Casey (first reply) for not saying much more than calling you out, but I agree with the fact that this is an ignorant article in regards to the philosophical pro-life argument. Perhaps you did not intend to address the philosophy behind the pro-life movement, but I must agree with Casey that you are guilty of a strawman fallacy. You assume that your arguments address the pro-life position. You prove this by becoming concerned with positive law instead of natural law. You offer no more than a sentimentalist’s viewpoint of morality, one based upon feeling, namely what you feel is correct. You call out science for being “ambiguous” but you fail to recognize that it is not a fault of science, but of human knowledge. What do you know with absolute certainty? But yet you write an article that stands upon the very ambiguous foundation you want to pull away from. But yet man can know things. We do not know things perfectly, but we do know things. To disagree with this is to sweep the carpet out from under your feet. To say that you don’t know what life is, means you can’t say much about it, yet here you are writing a whole article about it.
“Well, my argument isn’t solely based on that [science stating that human life begins at conception] so much as it is on the idea that some human lives are worth less than others” You claim that science doesn’t even know what life is, and since you don’t offer a definition yourself I assume you conclude no one does. But if you don’t even know what life is, then how are you attributing value to it? If it isn’t knowable, then it can’t be given a value. But that is precisely what you are doing.
Thus your first statement is a contradiction. How are you to say one’s human life is more or less valuable? And who are you to place a value on it? Didn’t Hitler do the same thing? He placed a value on some people’s lives more than others. Ironically, you go on to say in a reply above: “And who gets to decide who is “less than human” and who isn’t?” Well you most certainly do in your article. You berate someone for “begging the question” all the while doing so yourself.
Quit acting intellectual and realize what you are saying. Your first statement admits that murder is relative. You advocate murder, saying “some human life has more value,” and then you wonder if pro-lifers can figure out if women who have abortions should go to jail or not. Meanwhile, you have already admitted that murder is relative and therefore punishment is relative. By your own necessary admission that murder is relative you would have to agree with the very pro-lifers that you ridicule: punishment is also relative, therefore who is to say that they go to jail? What you do is ensnare pro-lifers into an argument that you yourself can’t answer and then declare victory when they (just like you) can’t provide an answer.
Then you go on to quote that a fetus is a parasite. So is an infant. So is a toddler. So is a mentally handicapped person, so is an elderly person with intellectual dysfunction. But of course, you wouldn’t disagree with that. You have already said in another reply: “Are you actually against people who are in unbearable, excruciating pain being able to end their lives in peace?” So, once again, killing/murder would be relative for you. But this is a slippery slope we have already been on more than once, not only in America but throughout the world. For instance, racial intolerance. But you have already said that some human life is worth less than others. You can have no argument against racial discrimination because of your “feelings”. Nor should you complain if someone murders or commits a crime against another, because, after all, you have made it quite clear that a value can be placed on life. Who are you to say what that value is? Actually, who is anyone to say? If life can have a value placed upon it, there really is no right or wrong. Therefore, your entire article is moot from your very first statement. What you really mean to say is that the value of life is relative and there is no such thing as morality. And what a storm you have unleashed. You are not the first, nor will you be the last. You think similarly to Hitler who placed a value on human life. And not Hitler alone, but like the people who said that a black man is less of a human than a white man. Like Stalin who cared not for the lives of his own countryman, for here you are saying that to kill a baby is justifiable… and you advocate the death of America’s future. Like the genocides in Africa etc. You are one more pawn in the cogs of nihilism and sentimentalism. Because someone may feel pain, you “feel” that they should be able to end their lives or someone else do it for them.
But at least you admit your own nihilistic ideas. You say that “killing is basically ok” not even drawing the line at killing humans. But instead of making a moral judgement about killing, you simply say that man kills man historically. You say because murder happens murder must be ok. What a weak argument! Because humans kill other humans, you say that it should continue! That’s like saying because there is rape, rape should continue. Do you say that? You compare cutting off the tip of your finger to cutting out a fetus from a mother’s womb.
If the fetus is alive, then what is it? A hunk of living cells? What about a fire, which seems to have stumped you. A fire does not have cells at all, but yet all living things do. But you compare snuffing out a fire to snuffing out human life.
What is man? Do you look at your fellow man as a hunk of living cells? We are composed of both living and dead cells. By comparing a fetus to a bunch of living cells, you must also compare yourself to a bunch of living cells. If that is all you are, then say it. You just have more living cells than another. What now? A fat man has more worth than a skinny man? A tall man has more worth than a short one?
We can break down this world into molecules, atoms if you will, but yet you seem to regard some molecules to be an animal, some to be a human. Saying that a human is a bunch of living cells is obvious. What is your point? If it is only a bunch of cells we can kill it? Then, once again, murder is relative, or not even murder at all. It seems you approach this mathematically almost, that if it is a small amount of living cells, then it can be killed. But then again, what about euthanasia? Or what about midgets… people with downs syndrome… aids?
For me, I adhere firmly to the Natural Law theory. This theory is neither religious, nor scientific. And I echo the curt words of Casey, “It seems that your education in mathematics far outpaces that of philosophy or ethics.” Let’s indulge, shall we?
The Right to Life comes from the fact that no one can place a value on human life. I ask the question, what value can you place on a human life, and why? None, for there is no material value that can be placed on a human life. Look to yourself, what value would you place on your own life? What profit would there be in material things if you lost your own life obtaining them? Sure, Phillip, you seem to have no problem putting a value on other human life, but not your own. Oh no. Kill others, but don’t kill me is what you are saying. How ridiculous. What is true about your own value is true for the value of others. You may kill a baby, placing a value on its life, but is it equivalent? I think the aborted baby is getting quite the rotten deal you are proposing.
What do you think about slavery? Is it good? For that is placing a value on a man. But from your own definition of value and human life, slavery is not only acceptable, but ought to exist. Do you think that murder is acceptable? Seems to me that you do, at any rate. How about rape? Why would rape be wrong according to you? There is no value you can place on another human life. Because of that, even though there are people who have killed, we can say “that is wrong”. And why? Because someone has placed a value on another’s life.
But yet, throughout your work you ignore the primary pro-life rationale which upholds that no one has a right to place a right on human life. Instead, you adopt the argument that “some lives are worth more than others”, without qualifying why that is, except because of your feelings. And you “strengthen” your argument further by saying that “Calling a fetus “human” is very misleading”. Actually, that can’t be further from the truth. That’s like saying calling a baby a human is misleading, or calling a teenager a human is misleading. What you mean to say, perhaps, is that calling a fetus a toddler is misleading, or calling an infant a grown adult is misleading. Embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult… well, those are all stages of being human. Science clearly identifies this… it seems that you might not be very informed about science after all… perhaps we’ll leave you to physics?
I said at the outset that this was one of the better written essays on pro-abortion. However, just like all the other ones I’ve read, it is the same selfish perspective of a nihilistic sentimentalist author who does not truly follow his own logic, nor understand the can of worms he has opened.
Thank you. People who are against abortion aggravated me with their lame excuses, but I have never found a good response that won’t leave them enraged. This is a great write up that is VERY persuasive.
abortion is ok… thats all i have to say
Most of you would’ve really enjoyed Hitlers company. He loved genocide as well.
I’d follow Rothbard and Block in saying that abortion commits no injustice to the fetus who, when unwanted, becomes a parasite and trespasser on the mother’s property, i.e., her body.
Rothbard even argued that the parents of a baby have no positive legal duty to care for the baby and are allowed by libertarian law to let it die. No Smith can be forced by the state to care for or pay for care of any Jones, unless agreed, even when Jones is a small child. Block has improved on this by saying that a baby that’s not being cared for has the status of “abandoned” and the parents have the legal duty to notify authorities and institutions like adoption agencies that the guardianship rights over the baby have been relinquished and are up for grabs. This relieves the absurd consequence of Rothbard’s theory that the parents can take a child to a dark forest and leave it there to be devoured by wild beasts.
I am in basic agreement with this. So, abortion is not unjust toward the unborn child. Moreover, for pragmatic reasons, the state should not seek to discourage abortions with punishments and prison time, either for mothers or doctors, so it should be legal, within reason. As you say, “88% of abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks. I’m perfectly happy to outlaw the other 12%.” This seems like a reasonable thing to say.
However, I would insist that a mother who aborts her child, no matter when, commits a _sin_. She harms her own soul. The possibly strongest love, between mother and child, is despised. In general, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, this is a crime against natural charity. The woman becomes a wicked person. Society, including you and me, as well as “high” society, should treat abortionists, again both mothers and doctors, with contempt and use all sorts of non-coercive incentives to minimize abortions. In other words, culturally, abortions should be considered to be most disreputable and improper things to do.
Here’s a pretty sophisticated discussion.
http://www.anthonyflood.com/sadowskyabortion.htm
You also confuse _possibility_ and _potentiality_. It is possible that a woman has sex and conceives a child, and it is possible that she does not.
Potentiality is something very different; it is an inherent drive, impulsion, disposition, imperative of a thing to become actual and flourish.
Take an acorn. It is possible that you plant it, and it is possible that you fail to plant it. Regardless of what you do, the acorn has within itself the potential to become a mighty full-fledged oak tree.
There is a possible world in which a child is aborted, and a possible world in which it lives; no matter what happens, however, the child, even in the early form of “goo,” has the potential to become an adult.
This particular mosquito is just a mosquito; _it_ has no potential to turn into a “cosmic being.” Therefore, it is OK to slap it.
A woman aborts child A and a year later conceives child B; if she had not aborted A, there would be no B. The problem is that when she aborts A, she destroys a _potentiality_; B at this point is a mere _possibility_. The former is more real than the latter.
Whoa…I wouldn’t want to be in your home at night…
Murder isn’t just murder for “killing another human for no reason”. It’s also murder when you kill for reasons: anger, jealousy, etc.
Sorry, man. There’s a difference between killing for convenience (large majority of abortions) and killing in a war. Killing in a war is a whole other issue, and to put them both on equal ground is not “logical” as you so snubly put it. Euthanasia is illegal in the U.S. Pulling the plug on a person in a coma is also extremely controversial and unusual. You make abortion and killing a casual thing. Hey, last time I checked they don’t serve human burgers at McDonald’s…yes, there is actually a difference between cows and people, and if you can’t tell the difference, then you should not be allowed out in public, as you would just kill any person you saw walking down the street. Your paper is full of holes and you know it. I’m sure that if your little boy (you’re probably not a parent) was deathly sick, you’d be the last guy to suggest pulling the plug. Suicide is hard to prosecute, as the perpetrator is often dead…
Dmitry: hey, did you ever put yourself as an “intruder” or a “parasite” in your parents’ home when they were sick of you when you were a baby/infant/small child? Would it have been okay to have killed you when you were a pain in their ass?
Good post. I am Pro Life, but i dont believe in imposing my will on others. I would never impose my will on others and could care less if others get abortions but hear me out for a second. Aside from rape, abortion is the product of being irresponsible. Not using 2 different forms of contraceptives, or not using any at all. Its the females mistake, its her bad thats why she is pregnant. Its not the fetus’s fault. Even in cases of rape, its the rapists fault not the fetus’s fault. I like hamburgers, and furniture and i kill mosquetos but my line is at a fetus. That fetus did not do anything wrong. The way i see it, every human being brings possibility of bettering mankind. The child that was aborted today in denver could have grown up to be the scientist who discovers the cure for cancer!
Doc A, you couldn’t be more wrong. It is not always the product of irresponsibility and definitely NOT only the female’s mistake. It takes two to conceive. You need a sperm and an egg. Females do not have sperm.
I am assuming you are male. How would you like it if you took all precautions, but ended up having something growing inside of you that had a one in a billion chance of being able to cure cancer in the very distant future? You could go the completely other direction with that argument and say that the mound of cells growing inside of you could be the next Hitler. Would you keep it then? I don’t think you realize the repercussions the nine months of carrying around the fetus has on the mother either.
I wish pro life men could get pregnant. I want to see how many of them would change their opinions on abortion.
I was not going to say anything in reply to this post, but DocA really annoyed me. Sadly, I do not have anymore time to waste on here because I need to study and not waste my time on ignorant people such as yourself (DocA). I am not saying all pro-life enthusiasts are ignorant and I believe that the moral implications of abortion are always going to be up for debate, just make sure your arguments are sound, meaning your premises are true and your inferences are valid.
ya’ll all need Jesus.
okay then if its not a human how come when the baby is inside
you can see the gender of what it will become (it even sometimes is a different gender from its own mother) even a different Blood Type..it has a nervous system and a brain and this is several days after SPERM MEETS EGG so if you could please explain how that doesnt make the baby a “Human Species” that has its own life please do ..i dont mean to impose my thoughts on others because abortion is clearly a very serious decision becaue it brings consequences to the mother herself and can cause death but the only thing that gets to me is that there is a LIFE in that fetus…that baby and because the parents made a stupid choice of either having sex to early or being unprotected that life has to pay for it.
If by several days you mean several months, then yes.
“Calling a fetus “human” is very misleading”
Hm, if it is not “human” what is it? You call it “Goo”, however, what is this “Goo” going to form? It’s not going to be a dog, or a cat, or any other animal. It’s going to be HUMAN. It is “living” cells, we are all made of “living” cells. Believe what you wish to justify pro-abortion, but a “fetus” was derived from Latin meaning little person.
A fetus cannot speak for itself, but neither can most babies or toddlers until a certain age. Does that mean it is OK to kill them? How about those who cannot communicate or take care of themselves?
Abortion should not be a form of contraception. It’s completely wrong.
“All human life — from the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages — is sacred because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person…If a person’s right to life is violated at the moment in which he is first conceived in his mother’s womb, an indirect blow is struck also at the whole moral order.” – Pope John Paul II
I am not a religious person, however if you read between the lines even you should realize that killing any life is wrong.
There are some religions which believe killing any life (EVEN A MOSQUITO) is wrong. So when you state that “Killing a fetus is no worse than killing a mosquito” you are infact wrong. Yes, most people do not see killing a mosquito as wrong but you cannot say that ALL see it as right.
If you done a survey on women who had abortions, a great percentage do not know what happens to their “fetus”.
Everyone has a right to life, even if they can not communicate their wishes.
Dear Mr. Philip Brocoum,
You are a joke. Enough said.
Mike,
Claiming that the article is meaningless by basing it upon the assertion that no one knows the meaning of life and then proceeding to make the conclusion that because no one knows the meaning of life, then abortion is bad is illogical. If you accept that there is no meaning to life or no one can define the meaning of life, you not only destroy the pro-choicer’s arguement but also your own. You cannot draw the conclusion that abortion should not be allowed and make the assertion that it should just be left alone. And if it is left alone, then people are free to make their own choices, which again benefits the pro-choice side. Pro-choice is called pro-choice and not pro-abortion for a reason because the woman can either say “yes” or say “no.”
To everyone else,
I for one do believe that life is undefined. Life must have cells or a cell, must take up some amount of space, and must have a general striving to survive at some point in its lifespan. Fire does not fit this description because it has no cells. Plants do fit this description. But take into account that I have just defined “life,” not “human being.” A human being must be able to survive on its own for even a short while without complete biological support (life-support is artificial support, NOT biological). A woman’s womb IS complete biological support. When the fetus can be taken out of a woman and put in artificial support, then it is alive and an abortion should not be allowed because then it is truely murder. But it is rediculous to suggest that a clump of cells in a woman’s womb should not be touched because it is “alive.” It is alive, yes, but it is not a human being. It is a clump of human cells. We do kill plenty of things that are alive and because we are the most arrogant race on the planet, we believe that WE are untouchable, WE are great, WE are superior, WE are chosen, and therefore WE must not be killed.
But we do not mind killing cancer, which is by the way, human cells that have mutated and become malicious. By saying that a clump of human cells in the human body that was produced by the human body are human, we (by the laws of morality we have somehow arrogantly come up with) relinquish our right to kill them. They also have the potential to grow. And here is where everyone screams “But all they do is HARM when they fulfill their potential!” Yeah? What about an unwanted fetus that fulfills it’s potential? It makes a woman miserable for nine months, then makes her endure the pain of childbirth, then feeds on her work for 18 years. “But it brings joy, too!” To you, maybe, but not everyone loves their children. Some really do want them to get lost. “Oh, well, they just don’t understand the beauty of life!” But at least they understand the burdens of life. Should they be forced to endure 18 years of annoyance and burden because YOU think that they SHOULD enjoy the beauty of life? Well, they DON’T! I don’t ENJOY doing homework, no matter how much the Asian kid that sits across from me THINKS I should.
And as for making a woman give up so many years of her life just because she was raped, that is just sick. A girl suffers a night or several nights or weeks or months being physically, emotionally, and sexually abused with her body used as a plaything of a sick and twisted jerk, and then when she is saved, “Oh I’m so sorry about what happened to you, but regardless, you’re obligated morally to have this jerk’s kid. Take the high road.” No. Why should she suffer even more? Has she not suffered enough? Is the fact that she suffered that much loss of control, that much pain, has that many scars, not enough? She needs to suffer some more? See the fruit of that horrible night/nights for the rest of her life if she does not want to break the law and risk being imprisoned? If that is so, pro-lifers are no better than the rapist, himself. He quenched his own thirst for sex and got personal pleasure at the expense of a woman’s control over her body. Pro-lifers quenched their thirst for righteousness and got personal pleasure at the expense of a woman’s control over her body. Is that moral?
And, finally, going back to cancer. I know it is what people will jump on first. “You claim that a baby and cancer are the same thing? That’s immoral! You’re horrible.” No, they are not the same thing. But they have the same principle. And not seeing that principle is caused by a mindset that I cannot argue against but only insult: the close-minded belief and condescending, last-minute, and annoyingly “superior” guilt-trip that nothing can compare with the sanctity of a baby and how could anyone even dare compare them. That is always the final answer and why pro-choicers can never truely win the arguement. It is the same reason why atheists will never truely make their point that God is illogical. Because the final answer is “Well, He works in mysterious ways. He can do anything and it’s not our job to question it.” Because the final answer is “Well, isn’t human life worth more than anything?” And that’s it. Logical arguement is gone and emotional, helplessly arrogant, manipulative propaganda comes into play. And yet we persist in beating down the door that is six feet thick of centuries of preaching and hypocritical morality that is accepted as right because, at the end of the day, people simply cannot mind their own business.
ABORTION IS SO WRONG! You can not justify killing a baby just because you justify killing. A baby can survive from 28 weeks, so you are incorrect to presume that a baby cannot survive without being in the womb and is therefore not technically alive.
It’s time to take some responsibility people. A woman gets pregnant because she forgot to take the pill and doesn’t want to go through the pregnancy or child birth. Hello, YOU got pregnant! YOU take some responsibility! Or what if you are raped. Rape is tragic and wrong but don’t kill a baby just because it is conceived under unfortunate circumstances.
THE BABY HAS NO CHOICE IN WHO IT’S PARENTS ARE OR UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS CONCEIVED! Don’t kill the baby to solve your problems.
Take faith and miracles and the amazing lives that come out of the painful trials of unwanted pregnancies and seeing God come alive when all hope is gone and feeling Him hold you out of the equation, and His existence, and I would say this is a brilliant atheist argument (not that all atheists dont value life). If we are truly randomly created, then abortion is fine, just like you say. But i believe in a God who takes the lives of His children very seriously. And yours too.
You are a very ignorant, stupid human being.
Your argument relies on a ridiculous assumption that we will answer your way. Can a “fetus” fend for itself and do all that a mosquito can do? No, of course not. How about if a mother gives birth to a healthy baby, and then leaves it on the floor in her house, will it be able to fend for itself and do all that mosquitoes can do to survive. No.
Also, you talk about “potential” but pro-lifers believe your “fetus” is a child. You’re basing your whole argument on the assumption that the “fetus” is just goo, a lump of cells. Read up on your science because each of those cells has it’s own DNA. Your “fetus” is unique and growing, just like a baby when he’s born, or a 3 year old child, or an 18 year old teenager. EVERYONE has potential and is growing. Throughout your whole argument, you’ve proved to me that there is nothing different between you and a mosquito because mosquitoes can fend for themselves, and so can you.
I dont think abotion is the right thing to do,1 because if someone dont want a baby they must prevent by using condoms,or take pills.if there’s a mistake u must drink morning after pills before something develop.if someone is raped also must drink morning after pills. if not terminated we must also remember that god plain and control everything and has a peposed for everything.if u try and not suicide live it or u will kill your self. other people they dont concevi because of some circumstance so i think its fair to live does kinds for them. so that they can adorpt them.
It is not okay. people that did abortion they cry a lot because u can think that is simple but after that u will suffer the qeunstiqency. its even more if u will never conceve again. if people get pregnant honestly they must give it for adoption please good people. we kill our president we kill nation. after three month we can tell that this is a fool human beig. we must think very care carefully before we do such a things.
For a man to post such a nauseating blog like this is insulting. You are way too shallow to understand. Women aren’t given alternatives to abortion, there’s way too much money involved. I ought to know. I had a botched one thirty years ago this October. Was I given alternatives? No! I was sent home, began to bleed heavily, and was told not to go to an ER, to wait until Monday. I passed off my child Monday morning, it fit perfectly in the palm of my hand, and its legs were missing. Ten years later in nursing school did I find out what laminaria was, and it wasn’t used on me. I had a D&E without one. The abortionist who messed mine up, Dr. Edward Allred, has made so much money from all his clinics that he bought a horse racetrack. Two years prior to my botched abortion, in an interview with a San Diego newspaper, he admitted to doing them “assembly line.” That it was necessary to “reduce physician-to-patient contact.” In the same interview he stated that he wanted to go to Mexico and do them for free “The Hispanic lack of respect for democracy is frightening,” I didn’t know about his statements until years later, also the deaths and lawsuits. You come across as lacking knowledge in the area of science. It’d be a good idea to know what you are writing about. Really embarrassed for a man to be writing this absolute nonsense.
it is a very difficult issue.
Wow. Always been pro-choice but this really put things into perspective for me during the after thoughts and feelings after surgery. Thank you
abortion is okay is saying bad is good killing people should be okay I can type up 10 paragraphs of why I should be allowed to drink and drive down a busy highway not that I dont give any forethought to what im doing but hey… its okay …I say so
Ok, that is all a bunch of junk. First of all God created every living being in a special way, and to kill one of them in any stage if life is murder. And in abortions side it is a ruthless slaughter of a defensless being. Second of all, the rude comments and explicit words make this paper extremely unprofessional and no one will take you seriously. But who cares the less people that take this seriously the better. Just food for thought, do you know one women that did not regret killing her child.
[...] http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=402 [...]
Hi Phillip
I have to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your words helped me to see things, not just black and white. And it helps me, to go on living my life, like the person I truely am. <3
I will never forget U!
Jannie, from Denmark
[...] blog post I have chosen as an example of these fallacies entitled ‘Why abortion is okay’ begins with an [...]
I think its okay to have an abortion. I don’t think anyone skips and dances down to the clinic on whim. Nobody wants to torture the thing, they just want it to be gone. I’m a woman and I can think of several people who shouldn’t reproduce, for instance; all the 13, 14, & 15 year olds who are quoting their parents, those are going to be the single mothers on welfare. Sex is something that eventually most people will do and accidents happen, I don’t think its the right of anyone to tell anyone what they should and shouldn’t do with their own genitalia, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
Telling someone they can’t have an abortion is just much an infringement as forcing abortions.
Ideations change anyhow, it used to be masturbation was immoral and illegal, god was going to send you straight to hell for touching your own wiggly bits.
In my opinion, if you have to use contraceptives you have no business having sex, but that will soon be a laughable notion.
The problem with your argument is that it is based at least in part that if abortion is murder, then women who abort should be sent to jail, and they’re not, so it’s not murder. Your relying on the law to back you up makes your argument weaker:
1. A woman murders her one year old
2. She doesn’t get caught or jailed
3. She doesn’t go to jail
4. It’s not murder
Your other argument is that humans are first piles of goo. These piles of goo miraculously, or magically if we’re going by your flawed ‘logic’, change their species and turn into humans. A human being can never change species. If it is born a human it will die a human, so the when it grows inside the womb it has to be a human.
The sad thing is that this way of thinking is not based on logical thought. It is made up by women who -must- believe this is true and that what they killed as teenagers or adults was in fact a mosquito. Because if it’s not a mosquito, it’s a person. And they probably cannot handle that. A well-known female comedian was on Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago joking about her abortion and how her child would be 19 that day. It was quite sad; obviously she had been keeping track of how old the baby would have been.
I cannot change your mind, but perhaps I can better myself as a morally-correct human being by this reflection. Thank you for the opportunity.
You are completely disgusting
Abortion is a medical procedure that exists. If you want one, get one. If you don’t want one, don’t get one. If you want abortion to end go start by helping to prevent pregnancy in the first place so that were not left with tons of orphans, abused children and welfare leeches. Also, go ahead and donate every single dollar and possession you have to caring for these people.
What is funny about this debate is in the USA the republican are pro life no question about it right then why are the republican also support the death penalty isn’t “contradicting” god bless us all and hope you will never be in position facing the issue whether or not to have abortion
Oh, I see. So, just because we kill bugs, it’s okay to kill a child. Oh wait. That’s not right. An insect, a cow, a tree, none of them are even close to being a helpless child. We squash bugs because we don’t like them, so we can rip a baby apart limb by limb and it’s the same exact thing? No. It’s not. You kill a cow so that we can eat, because we need the food. So, it’s okay to kill an unborn infant? No. At least the cow got a chance to live. We kill ourselves, so it’s fine to kill our innocent children? No, they don’t have a choice, but you do. You disgust me. You are a disgraceful and complete idiot.
I love this. lol! great comparison.
This entire post is a straw man. There’s a big difference between latent potential, and causing that potential yourself.
“Here is an interesting thought experiment: what if one day science figures out how to grow a human being from a finger, are we now going to declare that all broken fingers are murder because that finger could have grown into a human being? Ah, the danger of potential.”
That’s false equivalence. It would only be valid if you went to go get a finger-human operation and decided to change your mind after it was already developing.
I read the philosophical and logical assessment but I would lean more towards a spiritual perspective. If one believes in God and his word then lets address the reasoning behind most abortions. People want their cake and they want to eat it to. First, we want sex without marriage. Secondly, the bible states that the Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and woman is the head of the house. As a side note, the bible gave man and woman dominion over the earth and all inhabitants. As man and woman fell, killing came into existence and GOD also stated then that man should Rule over woman. Before then nothing was to die and man and woman had similar authority.. We would eat only the fruit of harvest (leaving life intact). Anyway with that in mind, it gives room to ponder our right to kill for necessity’s sake seeing that we have dominion and man’s opinion should definitely matter when he speaks. Man can’t force a woman to do anything but if bible principles are followed the last word should rest with him. We have been conditioned over time to believe orherwise. However, if you are a leader it is your responsibility to consider and account for the feelings and concerns of those that you have leadership over. Also, GOD gave commands for some people to be killed (reason- based) in scripture. Back to the issue of abortion though. Like I stated, abortion wouldn’t be as big of an issue if people would do right. 1) Man should prepare financially and mentally for marriage as a “head” should do (Jesus did the same as our head). All should abstain from lust-filled, happy-go-lucky sex (sex is meant for marriage for intimacy and procreation between two people that have become one). 3) live a good upright life before GOD and have faith in his word that he will supply all of your needs!
These are just a few things but notice that abortions usually comes about because 1) we have had unprotected, lust driven sex and now don’t want to suffer the consequences of our actions- given the thought of the unborn child that could be no thought whatsoever. Think if someone had aborted you or I before we had a chance to live because of their own selfish reasons 2) had sex unmarried or got married and got pregnant without being financially ready (being financially ready, to both partners standards, should be a prerequisite for marriage. And marriage a prerequisite for sex) and 3) your body is not your own. You have been bought with a price. Also, the children you have belong to GOD. He only allows us to be stewards but their lives are not in our hands to determine wether they should exist or not. If GOD decides to use your body as a vessel of HIS creation in the earth, then who are we to determine otherwise. There are many hard and painful things GOD asks and requires of us but blessed be the name of the LORD.
First, this was a great article and puts many contemporary ideas in perspective. Many of this articles aspects question the basic tenets of human morality. Abortion, whether ethical or not, is not the underlying notion of this post. Many people will take it as that, but it calls into question philosophical rights and wrongs that many humans justify in our own ways. We justify war because our cause is right and the opposition is wrong. We justify the death penalty because someone else has done harm to others. We justify allowing people to die of starvation and disease that are less well off than ourselves because we have earned our position in the world and some justify the right to an abortion because it was an unintended consequence. Each of these cases represents a fundamental quandary of human ethical behavior.
Whether or not abortion is right we need to first examine our actions against other human beings. We discriminate every day due to race, religion, sexual orientation, or sex and justify it to ourselves. If killing another human is wrong then it is wrong in every sense, no matter the justification.
I believe… well I can tell from the other comments, what I believe has little relevance. What I know is that the above essay does not follow logic, rather it is composed of contrived hypotheses and circular reasoning. Perhaps this post was meant as a satire. Definitions used in logic are specific, as they are in mathematics. The definition for human is intentionally being set arbitrarily for the purpose of debate. Defining what is or what isn’t human is not relative(dependent upon opinion); unless you are simply planning to use it to justify a later argument. The greatest travesty of discussions such as these is when people speak authoritatively about experiences they have never had. It is a disservice to use “evidence” that is imaginary to support flawed views.
Most of the pro life arguments on here give misinformation and their only arguement is that he didn’t use facts. Yet neither of you did either! Are you really calling each other morons for your opinions because there are no facts? Hello!!! This is a moral and personal opinion. You can’t use facts on something like this. It’s just like debating religion. I thouroughly enjoyed reading this. It made me see this in different perspectives than the ones that you commonly hear in the media! And your arguments that you can tell if it’s a boy or girl and that it has nerves and a brain etc…All invalid! Why? Because abortions are illegal after a certain amount of weeks into the pregnancy. You can’t go in with a 3month old in your belly and kill it! But you can when all it is is an egg. Do you realize that 999,000 sperms are killed off naturally every time you do the deed?! Be smart people. I mean really!
@Anonymous Hear, hear!
I admit I didn’t finish reading this article. But it’s only because with every paragraph I read and every logical point made, I kept saying to myself “yeah but…”. There’s always something missing. And throughout the history of time women have been at times, devastated to find out they’re pregnant, and it’s been done that they would t try to do anything they could to terminate pregnancy, but the only difference is that it’s been made easier now. But when a child is conceived, it is not nature’s intention for people to terminate their own pregnancies. Animals don’t decide to not be pregnant because it’s inconvenient. It might be human nature to kill but no matter how many reasons there are to kill a fetus, the bottom line stands, and that is not right. And I might not be able to put it into the right words, we know it’s not.
next time you see a ripped up baby that could have survived and been born to be like you or I, I hope you remember that they were not a mosquito and you are a complete and utter dick
Your argument is ignorant. Here’s why:
1. Comparing a mosquito to a baby, really? Even though they are small, a mosquito is a fully developed. Do I even have to point out that mosquitos are carriers of disease and have in fact killed a great number of humans throughout the years?
2. Your argument that capital punishment and “pulling the plug” on someone are the same as abortion is completely illogical. Mainly, the difference is that people who murder have had their chance to live and have forfeited that right to life when they took the life of someone else. “Pulling the plug” is not killing someone; modern medicine has found ways to sometimes prolong an otherwise lifeless body. Making the decision to let nature take it’s course, while a hard decision to make, is nothing compared to killing a child for the simple leisure of making their life less difficult.
3. The way you speak of the fetus makes me sick to my stomach. I am not sure if you are a parent or not, I’m assuming not, but if your are/were then maybe you remember the joy of hearing the good news of the pregnancy, the first heart beat, watching the ultrasounds,etc. Even in the early stages, it is evident that there is life.
4. Just because someone who has had an abortion has since then had children, does not make the initial act any more justifiable or less wrong.
5. I could keep going but I will finish with this: the fact that you can quantify human life, or declare that one life is more deserving than another is pathetic. All your “logic” did was shine an even brighter light on the types of people pro-abortioners are.
God bless the unborn!
It’s a tough issue though, I get why many people are pro-life. Human beings empathize with causing pain to other humans, so no one likes the idea of hurting a fetus. I think part of the issue stems from the fact that we want clear cut rules for morality – killing = wrong. If we can’t kill a 10-year old, why can we kill a fetus? If the death penalty is wrong, isn’t abortion wrong (or vice versa), etc….
But, abortion is not a black an white issue. Although the idea of killing a fetus is very sad, there are a lot of costs with making it illegal. People carry out abortions whether they are legal or not. Not in a controlled, safe environment – mothers can die from unsafe abortions along with the child. What about abortion following rape? What about when the baby and family will grow up in poverty as a result? Then there is a big difference between taking a morning after pill, between ending the life of a 1-month old fetus humanely, and ending the life of a fetus very close to birth.
I think abortion is something that has a place as a moral gray area in our society. It’s better to allow it than to make it illegal. We have to draw the line somewhere, and that line is currently at birth.
There was a girl that got pregnant. It was forced upon her, and she felt very scared and alone.
She decided to keep the baby and carried him full term. He had blue eyes and brown hair and a huge smile. He grew up next door to his best friend during elementary and learned loss at age of ten when he lost his grandma. His mom taught him how to treat girls and by age 12 girls were swarming him to be his friend and mire because he was a good boy. At age 13 he won spelling bee, and helped his uncle his a car for the first time. He spent middle school helping out his uncle from then on and staying active around the neighborhood with friends. At 15 he talked his friend our of suicide and got him to go to a psychiatrist, he was always known for being helpful and kind. His second year in high school he started in an advanced engineering program to design cars. He loved working on automobiles. At age 18 he graduated from high school along with some best friends, including the one that would not be alive without him. Shortly after in college he met a girl. By the time he got his degree they were married and five years later at 27 they had their first child and when his mom came into the room to see her new grandchild her daughter in law smiled and said thank you for raising my husband. He is a wonderful man that would not have been so great if you had not taught him well. The mom smiled and reached to hold her new granddaughter.
But wait, that never happened. Because she aborted her baby boy. The neighbors kid never met him and grew up just a little more off on his own. The kid in middle school killed himself, the girl married someone else and that marriage ended after 3 years.
When you kill a baby that is not yet born you destroy every good thing that person could ever do say or be in their lifetime. And you cheat yourself as well.