On Abortion

February 5, 2008 9 comments

I read an article today posted by a friend of mine. The article was written by an abortion doctor and outlines the reasons he chooses to provide them, and his experience dealing with the criminal violence of a couple of anti-abortion activists. It was published in the National Post (a Canadian paper), and is located here: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=283931&p=1

Below this posting, my friend pointed out that even if abortions were illegal, they’d still happen. Here’s my take:

It is true that abortions would still occur were it to be made illegal. Violations of individuals rights to life and property, such as theft, rape and murder happen all the time too. Should they be made legal?

While the article points out some chilling facts about amateur abortions, it ignores the fundamental issue in the abortion debate. What happens to the mother is completely irrelevant if the fetus is a human being, and not just some meaningless attached tissue as abortion proponents argue. This article then becomes an example of the consequences of an illegal activity, the gory details of which should, if anything, encourage pregnant girls to give their children up for adoption rather than go through such a thing. The fact that legalizing the practice would have fewer consequences for the person who decides to have it has nothing to do with whether it should be legal or not. Either type of abortion (professional or amateur) still has the same, far greater, consequence for the other person in the situation: death.

Legalizing and encouraging social acceptance of rape would save a rapist from a life of incarceration and social stigma, but would obviously be disastrous for society and would deny the victim her personal rights. I’m not saying a girl who gets an abortion is like a rapist, but both are examples of one person stripping away the rights of another in order to satisfy their own desires.

I sympathize with girls who mistakenly become pregnant, but that’s simply the natural consequence that comes with their choice to be sexually active and not use protection (or realize that protection isn’t 100% reliable). Our culture hates to suggest that our actions have consequences, but it is fundamental in keeping social order and, in this case, protecting the constitutional right to life of all Americans, even those not currently capable of living independently. Many mentally challenged and elderly people must depend on others for their survival, should we “terminate” them as well? I seem to remember a certain mustachioed German who thought so.

A criminal who murders a pregnant women and her unborn child is held responsible for two murders. Why the double standard? Apparently a fetus is only a human being if the mother actually wants it. Either way, it still has unique human DNA. If that’s not the definition of a human being, I’m not sure what is. Emotional arguments for why abortions should be legal only work because they sugar coat the issue with words like “fetus” which don’t sound as human as “unborn child” or “infant.”

A couple of final comments:

While I am truly sorry that this abortionist’s life has been threatened on the basis of his profession, his justifiable frustration really proves my point. He’s (rightfully) indignant that another human being would try to deny him his right to life and safety. Yet he sees no problem in denying that same right to his clients’ children in the interest of making his clients’ lives easier.

Finally, the issue obviously becomes a bit ambiguous when an abortion would save the mother’s life, or is a consequence of the woman having been raped. In the case of rape, I’d still have to say that abortion is unjustifiable because even though the pregnancy isn’t the result of a choice the woman made, an abortion would nevertheless result in the death of one person for the convenience of another. In the case of a woman’s life being contingent upon an abortion, if that is really the case, I’m not sure which is the morally right decision. A life will be lost either way, it’s just a choice of which one. Ideally, the child would be the one saved since he/she doesn’t have a say in the matter and has their whole life ahead of them. Still, the death of the mother would, at least immediately, hurt more people. I’m not going to pretend to know the answer in that case. That said, many doctors, including staunchly pro-life Congressman Ron Paul who has delivered over 4,000 babies, have said from experience that abortions very rarely, if ever, are necessary in saving the mother.

Politics & Current Events, Worldview abortion life mother pregnant abortionist crime law fet

Comments

Written by Liz about 17 years ago.

I know our views differ a lot, both coming from two completely different view points and neither of us are likely to change the other. I do hope you understand the underlying difference however between the stance of “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. Its the idea of abortion being a victimless “crime” or not. Of course, not all debate stems from this point, as I am making a generalization.

Also, I did have a question. As it has been brought up through various outlets and I really haven’t been able to talk reasonably with someone lately who has had opposing views. What punishment should those who get abortions receive if abortion was to become illegal?
Written by bfrantz about 17 years ago.

I was under the impression that “pro-choice” people didn’t view it as a crime at all…victimless or no. Again, it comes down to whether the fetus is a human being. If so, the victim is clearly the unborn child who will never have a shot at life. If not, then the argument is moot since it’s nothing more than an amputation of unwanted tissue.

As for that question, it’s a tough one and while it’s not relevant to whether abortion should be legal or not, it is something that would have to be determined, probably at a state level by voters. I think a penalty in this case should be whatever is necessary to prevent it from happening in most cases, so a hefty fine and/or limited jail time would probably be enough to convince most women to have the kid and put him/her up for adoption. And I’d suggest a similar penalty for the provider of the abortion, but in proportion to how many abortions they are convicted of performing (which could add up to a life sentence if they had done a lot).

And thanks for reading! I respect your opinion, even though I disagree.
Written by Tess about 17 years ago.

Nice essay Brian- clear and concise….
Used to get into so many really crazy debates in high school that I almost hate bringing up the topic these days. I had a class that focused ENTIRELY on current events and controversial issues. Most common classes focused on abortion and gay marriage…. it was… chaotic to say the least.

I really like the point you made about a murderer being held responsible for TWO murders in the case of pregnant women. A very poignant consideration. Makes me wonder what would happen if a woman was murdered on her way to an abortion clinic…

In my experience- ALL controversy really stems from when exactly life begins- an issue no one seems to have strong arguments with any debatable quality (either “at conception” or “at birth.”) In my opinion any in between opinion doesn’t seem easily arguable, and I don’t see any new facts coming out that are swaying anyone’s opinion. In my view, I have no doubt life “begins” in our world at conception- if God knows how many hairs are on our heads I’m quite confident just being inside our mom’s womb and not fully developed doesn’t keep Him from knowing and loving us as His children. Im curious though- have you heard any information on that matter with strong debatable potential? The science is there- when heartbeats start, fingerprints, etc… but in my experience it seems generally known and not effective in swaying opinions. I’ve just never heard a really strong argument made thats based on when life begins- its always just “everyone’s opinion.”
Written by bfrantz about 17 years ago.

Thanks, Tess!

Yeah, that is somewhat of a “gray area,” hence the fact that some pro-choice people will support the banning of partial birth abortion, but not earlier forms of abortion.

But like you say, the science is there. At conception, the fetus has unique human DNA, distinct from both parents. That alone proves that the child is not just a part of the mother that can be removed like an appendix, but is a unique human being. Thus, to kill it is murder.
Written by Peter about 17 years ago.

I enjoyed that, it was a good read.

I think it’s interesting that a new tactic pro-lifers are using is giving the mother an ultra-sound before she decides to abort, and it’s causing them to reconsider. It seems like people are starting to mellow out and listen to the facts about this issue recently.
Written by Liz about 17 years ago.

I have a question about your response. If you state the idea that abortion is murder, but then do not say the punishment should be the same as murder. If the crime is just as equal, then why then, is not your idea of the punishment?
Written by bfrantz about 17 years ago.

Very true, and that’s probably a good reason why a fine actually isn’t a viable punishment.

Aside from that, though, there are different punishments for murder depending on age, motive, etc. An adult committing premeditated murder and a minor murdering someone without really thinking about it are handled very differently under the law. Thus, just because a life sentence or death penalty applies to some murders, doesn’t mean it’s an appropriate punishment for abortion due to the extenuating circumstances (fear, confusion, desperation, etc. on the part of the mother, as opposed to it being something cold-blooded and well-thought out).

Additionally, it’s kind of unreasonable to incarcerate a woman for a long time for doing something that just days/months earlier was completely legal. So perhaps there should be a sort of grace period out of fairness to those who may not understand the consequences of what they’re doing. That leniency wouldn’t be due to abortion not being murder, but a tragic consequence of the mistake of legalizing abortion in the first place.
Written by Rachel about 17 years ago.

This varies state-to-state, but if someone murders a pregnant woman, it is considered a double murder only if the fetus is over 24 weeks (NY). This is, of course, regardless of whether or not the mother is planning on keeping it.

I disagree with you on the issue, but I can see where you’re coming from and you argue it well (minus the over-generalized double-murder part).
Written by bfrantz about 17 years ago.

Thanks for the comment, Rachel. I wasn’t aware of that. I wouldn’t say it fundamentally changes the argument too much, but I appreciate the fact-check!

Piqued

On Abortion

Comments

Recent Posts

Tags

All Categories

Follow on Fb

Archives

Tools