Many pro-aborts claim that pro-lifers don't care about born children and are only "pro-birth." This argument takes a number of forms - from the bald "only pro-birth" claim to asking pro-lifers if they are going to adopt all the unwanted children if we ban abortion.
The idea that people have to be willing to take care of the babies they save before they can be against abortion is very bad logic, but it is a very common argument. There are several things to point out to these people.
1) It simply isn't true that pro-lifers don't care about born children. Many pro-lifers adopt unwanted children - even those with disabilities. Many give money or food to needy children or work as volunteers in charities. Even those who cannot do these things often wish they could. So, yes, we do care.
2) Whether or not someone can personally care for the unwanted children, it is never okay to murder them for being unwanted. This is not acceptable for born children and it isn't for unborn children either. Making the statement that it is not okay to kill unwanted children does not make anyone responsible to personally provide for all those children.
Of course, the people using this "logic" don't use it in any other cases. If they hear someone speak out against child abuse (of born children), they don't tell them they must care for all the abused children before taking a stand against the abuse. If they hear someone advocating against animal cruelty, they don't claim you must be willing to take care of all the neglected and abused cats and dogs first. These are issues that all people can stand against because they are inherently wrong, whether or not they have the means to do something further to help those in need of care after their lives are saved. Abortion is exactly the same.
3) Pro-aborts using this argument also imagine that if you don't want to care for born people in the way they do, you don't want to help them at all. They often point to welfare, food stamps, school lunches, or other government handouts and claim that those who don't support increased funding for these programs are against helping children. However, these are not the only, or even the best, ways to help children. Thus, if someone thinks a different way to help needy children is better, they aren't opposed to helping children just because they don't support someone's favorite programs. We can disagree on the means without being opposed to helping the needy. We can have a conversation about how best to help these children, but let's save their lives first. You can't help a dead child. And killing those needy children so they aren't needy anymore definitely isn't the right solution.
4) The real relevant analogy isn't about how we take care of needy people anyway. Pro-lifers are opposed to killing innocent children before birth. But we are also opposed to killing innocent human beings at any stage of life. So, no, we're not just pro-birth. We're anti-murder all the way around.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Abortion: More Dangerous Than Birth
Direct abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. More than 900 doctors and other medical professionals have signed their names to that statement. There are times when it is medically necessary and morally justifiable to remove the child from the mother for the sake of saving the mother's life, even if this causes the death of the child. However, it is never morally justifiable to purposely seek the death of an unborn child.
People claiming that abortion must be legal to protect women's lives are making a false claim. Remember that the goal of an abortion isn't simply to end a pregnancy, but to first kill the child and then remove his dead body - usually in pieces. There is no reason that the death of the child (as opposed to merely the removal of the child from her body) would ever help the mother or be necessary for her health. Abortion that seeks the death of an unborn child is not a treatment for any disease or health problem of the mother, and we don't need legal abortion in order to give women the best medical care.
But there's more that they aren't telling you.
In a number of cases, particularly late in pregnancy, abortion is actually more dangerous to the mother than removing the baby alive. In late pregnancy (after about 20 weeks or so), the fastest and most efficient way to make a woman unpregnant is to remove the child via c-section. A c-section can be done in a matter of minutes with minimal danger to a woman's life and to the baby's.
Of course, if the baby is less than full-term, he may need extensive medical care to keep him alive. And he may die, even with the best medical care. However, a c-section offers the quickest way to remove the child from the womb and also gives the child a chance to live. In an emergency that necessitates quickly removing the child from the womb, c-section is usually the best option, even if we're only talking about the mother's health.
In contrast, an abortion in late pregnancy increases the risk to the mother. For one thing, late term abortions usually involve dilating the mother by inserting a small dilator around 24 hours before the procedure. That's 24 hours of waiting that allows the dangerous situation to continue. There is a reason that there is such a thing as an "emergency c-section" but not an "emergency abortion." A c-section is much faster.
Plus, during an abortion, it is possible for parts to be missed (leading to infection), for damage to be done to the cervix during the procedure, for the forceps or suction device to perforate the uterus, or for some of the floating baby parts to cause damage inside the uterus. When you take out an intact baby by c-section, the risk to the mother is lower. Some doctors have even argued for "after birth abortion," claiming it is safer for the mother to remove the child from the womb intact and then kill him.
Of course, abortion is never safe for the child. But it really isn't so safe for the mother either. All those late term abortions the pro-aborts keep telling you only happen in medical emergencies aren't really so justified after all.
People claiming that abortion must be legal to protect women's lives are making a false claim. Remember that the goal of an abortion isn't simply to end a pregnancy, but to first kill the child and then remove his dead body - usually in pieces. There is no reason that the death of the child (as opposed to merely the removal of the child from her body) would ever help the mother or be necessary for her health. Abortion that seeks the death of an unborn child is not a treatment for any disease or health problem of the mother, and we don't need legal abortion in order to give women the best medical care.
But there's more that they aren't telling you.
In a number of cases, particularly late in pregnancy, abortion is actually more dangerous to the mother than removing the baby alive. In late pregnancy (after about 20 weeks or so), the fastest and most efficient way to make a woman unpregnant is to remove the child via c-section. A c-section can be done in a matter of minutes with minimal danger to a woman's life and to the baby's.
Of course, if the baby is less than full-term, he may need extensive medical care to keep him alive. And he may die, even with the best medical care. However, a c-section offers the quickest way to remove the child from the womb and also gives the child a chance to live. In an emergency that necessitates quickly removing the child from the womb, c-section is usually the best option, even if we're only talking about the mother's health.
In contrast, an abortion in late pregnancy increases the risk to the mother. For one thing, late term abortions usually involve dilating the mother by inserting a small dilator around 24 hours before the procedure. That's 24 hours of waiting that allows the dangerous situation to continue. There is a reason that there is such a thing as an "emergency c-section" but not an "emergency abortion." A c-section is much faster.
Plus, during an abortion, it is possible for parts to be missed (leading to infection), for damage to be done to the cervix during the procedure, for the forceps or suction device to perforate the uterus, or for some of the floating baby parts to cause damage inside the uterus. When you take out an intact baby by c-section, the risk to the mother is lower. Some doctors have even argued for "after birth abortion," claiming it is safer for the mother to remove the child from the womb intact and then kill him.
Of course, abortion is never safe for the child. But it really isn't so safe for the mother either. All those late term abortions the pro-aborts keep telling you only happen in medical emergencies aren't really so justified after all.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
"Pro-Choice" means Pro-Abortion
When I discuss the issue of abortion, I usually refer to the other side as “pro-abortion.” They like to refer to me as “anti-abortion” and it seems appropriate to identify the sides of the issue using terms that clearly spell out what they are for or against. But for some reason, the pro-abortion side doesn’t like that term applied to them. They consistently reject the term and substitute “pro-choice.”
However, the distinction they are trying to make between pro-abortion and pro-choice doesn't really exist. The reason they like the pro-choice label is because it sounds better. It’s a euphemism. And, like most euphemisms, it’s designed to cover up the reality of the topic being discussed by framing it in more palatable terms. We use euphemisms to refer to things we find distasteful or embarrassing. We use euphemisms for sex and sexual organs. We use them to refer to a death. We use them to make crimes and bad choices sound better. And we use them to obscure the reality of horrendous acts like abortion.
Not only is “pro-choice” a euphemism, but it isn’t even accurate. The “pro-choice” liberals aren’t talking about being for choice in every regard. They’re usually against school choice and school vouchers, for example. They’re typically against the choice to own guns. They don’t want women to choose to stay home with their children and home school them. They don’t want parents to have the choice of what their kids eat for lunch at school. They don’t want choice in health insurance. The only time they trot out the “choice” rhetoric is when the topic of abortion comes up. So what is this choice they are so adamantly in favor of?
They only apply this issue of choice to a woman’s pregnancy. But it can’t be the choice to have the baby they’re talking about. Everyone agrees that a woman has a right to choose to have her baby. It can’t be the choice to put the baby up for adoption. No one disagrees with that choice either. So what is the choice that differentiates the two sides? What choice is it that the "pro-choice" crowd is in favor of? It's the choice to have an abortion. The fundamental issue is that "pro-choice" people think it is okay to make the choice to abort, and that makes them pro-abortion.
As an analogy, let’s look at some other topics. If you think a person should have a legal choice to take someone else’s property if he so chooses, you’re pro-theft. If you think parents should be able to abuse their children if they feel like it, you’re pro-child abuse. If you think it's okay for a man to choose to rape a woman if he wants to, you're pro-rape. You don’t have to think every man should rape every woman to be pro-rape. All you have to do in order to be pro-rape is think that rape is a legitimate choice a man has a right to make. So, by the same token, if you think it is okay for a woman to choose to abort her unborn child if she wants to – in other words, if you think that’s a legitimate choice a woman has a right to make – you're pro-abortion.
Really, the “pro-abortion” term is already a sanitized version. Abortion is such an innocent sounding term to describe such a horrific reality. We’re tearing an unborn baby limb from limb, crushing his skull, or burning him alive with a strong saline solution. We’re taking the life of an innocent human being in some of the most inhumane ways possible. But we don’t talk about that. We refer to it as “aborting,” like we do when we start a computer program and need to stop it before it completely loads. It sounds like just an “oops” we need to fix. Just something we started and decided not to finish. No big deal, right? We describe it as anything but the reality of what it is: the gruesome and purposeful murder of the smallest and most needy among us.
For the sake of clarity, I’ll give them the pro-abortion label, even though I would rather call them pro-murder, pro-torture, and pro-death. But I won’t refer to them as pro-choice any more. The millions of unborn babies sacrificed in the name of “choice” deserve better than to have me euphemize their deaths and disregard their lives like that. Ending their lives isn’t just some innocent choice and I won’t pretend that it is.
Not only does the pro-abortion side euphemistically label themselves “pro-choice,” but they label their opposition as “anti-choice.” Like their own self label, this one is inaccurate. I’m not against choice. I think people should have a lot of choices. Remember all those choices I mentioned above that liberals don’t want you to have? Well, I’m in favor of them. I think people should have the freedom to make any choice that doesn’t harm another person or otherwise infringe on their rights.
As for pregnancy, I think women should have a choice of whether or not to be pregnant. But a woman exercises that choice when she consents to sex. Once her choice to engage in sex creates a child, the time for choice is past. A new human being exists and she shouldn’t have the choice to murder him. So, I’m all for choices, including reproductive choice. But once conception has occurred the choice to reproduce has already been made. The only choice remaining is whether or not to kill the child. I don’t think anyone should have that choice.
As for the term “anti-abortion” that is often applied to my position, I really don’t mind that one. I know it is usually used as a put down. It’s supposed to paint me in a negative light by pointing out what I’m against rather than what I’m for. But in this case I don’t mind being described by what I am against. Yes, I’m against abortion. I’m proud to be against abortion. I’m also anti-rape, anti-theft, and anti-child abuse. Nobody thinks those are bad labels. I lump abortion right in there with the rest of those crimes. So I’ll wear the anti-abortion label with pride. All the pro-abortion people are welcome to call me that.
Note: This post first appeared on Lindsay's Logic.
However, the distinction they are trying to make between pro-abortion and pro-choice doesn't really exist. The reason they like the pro-choice label is because it sounds better. It’s a euphemism. And, like most euphemisms, it’s designed to cover up the reality of the topic being discussed by framing it in more palatable terms. We use euphemisms to refer to things we find distasteful or embarrassing. We use euphemisms for sex and sexual organs. We use them to refer to a death. We use them to make crimes and bad choices sound better. And we use them to obscure the reality of horrendous acts like abortion.
Not only is “pro-choice” a euphemism, but it isn’t even accurate. The “pro-choice” liberals aren’t talking about being for choice in every regard. They’re usually against school choice and school vouchers, for example. They’re typically against the choice to own guns. They don’t want women to choose to stay home with their children and home school them. They don’t want parents to have the choice of what their kids eat for lunch at school. They don’t want choice in health insurance. The only time they trot out the “choice” rhetoric is when the topic of abortion comes up. So what is this choice they are so adamantly in favor of?
They only apply this issue of choice to a woman’s pregnancy. But it can’t be the choice to have the baby they’re talking about. Everyone agrees that a woman has a right to choose to have her baby. It can’t be the choice to put the baby up for adoption. No one disagrees with that choice either. So what is the choice that differentiates the two sides? What choice is it that the "pro-choice" crowd is in favor of? It's the choice to have an abortion. The fundamental issue is that "pro-choice" people think it is okay to make the choice to abort, and that makes them pro-abortion.
As an analogy, let’s look at some other topics. If you think a person should have a legal choice to take someone else’s property if he so chooses, you’re pro-theft. If you think parents should be able to abuse their children if they feel like it, you’re pro-child abuse. If you think it's okay for a man to choose to rape a woman if he wants to, you're pro-rape. You don’t have to think every man should rape every woman to be pro-rape. All you have to do in order to be pro-rape is think that rape is a legitimate choice a man has a right to make. So, by the same token, if you think it is okay for a woman to choose to abort her unborn child if she wants to – in other words, if you think that’s a legitimate choice a woman has a right to make – you're pro-abortion.
Really, the “pro-abortion” term is already a sanitized version. Abortion is such an innocent sounding term to describe such a horrific reality. We’re tearing an unborn baby limb from limb, crushing his skull, or burning him alive with a strong saline solution. We’re taking the life of an innocent human being in some of the most inhumane ways possible. But we don’t talk about that. We refer to it as “aborting,” like we do when we start a computer program and need to stop it before it completely loads. It sounds like just an “oops” we need to fix. Just something we started and decided not to finish. No big deal, right? We describe it as anything but the reality of what it is: the gruesome and purposeful murder of the smallest and most needy among us.
For the sake of clarity, I’ll give them the pro-abortion label, even though I would rather call them pro-murder, pro-torture, and pro-death. But I won’t refer to them as pro-choice any more. The millions of unborn babies sacrificed in the name of “choice” deserve better than to have me euphemize their deaths and disregard their lives like that. Ending their lives isn’t just some innocent choice and I won’t pretend that it is.
Not only does the pro-abortion side euphemistically label themselves “pro-choice,” but they label their opposition as “anti-choice.” Like their own self label, this one is inaccurate. I’m not against choice. I think people should have a lot of choices. Remember all those choices I mentioned above that liberals don’t want you to have? Well, I’m in favor of them. I think people should have the freedom to make any choice that doesn’t harm another person or otherwise infringe on their rights.
As for pregnancy, I think women should have a choice of whether or not to be pregnant. But a woman exercises that choice when she consents to sex. Once her choice to engage in sex creates a child, the time for choice is past. A new human being exists and she shouldn’t have the choice to murder him. So, I’m all for choices, including reproductive choice. But once conception has occurred the choice to reproduce has already been made. The only choice remaining is whether or not to kill the child. I don’t think anyone should have that choice.
As for the term “anti-abortion” that is often applied to my position, I really don’t mind that one. I know it is usually used as a put down. It’s supposed to paint me in a negative light by pointing out what I’m against rather than what I’m for. But in this case I don’t mind being described by what I am against. Yes, I’m against abortion. I’m proud to be against abortion. I’m also anti-rape, anti-theft, and anti-child abuse. Nobody thinks those are bad labels. I lump abortion right in there with the rest of those crimes. So I’ll wear the anti-abortion label with pride. All the pro-abortion people are welcome to call me that.
Note: This post first appeared on Lindsay's Logic.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Abolishing Human Abortion was NOT Invented by Abolish Human Abortion
Let me make it clear that while I do propose that we support intermediate pro-life legislation restricting abortion, I strongly and rationally object to this being characterized as a "compromise," or as "regulating" abortion, and I also wish to point out that "intermediate" is a better, more accurate way to characterize these laws than "incremental." Unfortunately, there is a group of abortion activists known as Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) who routinely condemn the pro-life movement using these mischaracterizations, and I think that it is time that we set the record straight.
First, let me explain why intermediate restrictions on abortion does not involve compromise. It is not compromise to pass an intermediate restriction so long as we do not stop short of total abolition. We do not need to abolish abortion in one step - so long as we do not stop until we abolish it completely.
IF we were in the position where abortion were illegal, and some liberal came along pushing for unrestricted access to abortion, and we agreed to allow abortion in some but not all instances (i.e. restricted abortions), then that would be a compromise. We are NOT in that position, and so passing a restriction on abortion (which is currently legal) is NOT compromise on our part, and it is not rational to suggest that it is.
Second, let me explain why this is not merely "regulating" abortion. We regulate activities (such as driving, banking, etc) which we wish to remain legal, but well regulated. That is NOT the case for abortion. Therefore, it is insane, dishonest and intentionally deceitful to say that these abortion restrictions are intended to merely "regulate" abortion. Again, the people who make that claim are not being rational.
Finally, let me explain why "intermediate" is a more accurate characterization that "incremental." The main problem I have with the term "incremental" is that one can refer to an "incremental" improvement without implying any intention of further progress. However,
when you refer to something as an "intermediate" step, you suggest that
it is only intermediary. That's why it is a better, more accurate term.
For example, slapping a coat of paint on a porch that needs to be completely replaced is an incremental improvement, but is not an intermediate step towards the new porch.
As a movement, we do not wish to see abortion abolished incrementally. In other words, we do not prefer that it be done slowly in many steps. We see those steps as merely intermediate steps along the road road to a total ban. In fact, we wish these steps were not necessary, and we wish them to be as large as possible. In face, this is another problem with the term "incremental" - it has the connotation that these steps are or should be relatively small. "Intermediate" has no such connotation.
Granted, I do agree that "incremental" is not entirely inaccurate, but "intermediate" does a better job of conveying that these restrictions are not the endgame, but only intermediate steps along the way. We do not prefer to take incremental steps. We only see them as intermediate steps which advance and strengthen the right to life position and save lives.
In summary, each of these characterizations as I have presented them here are really based on the observation that abolishing human abortion was NOT invented by Abolish Human Abortion! Instead, it was invented many years before anyone ever heard of AHA. It was invented by those of us in the pro-life movement.
For example, slapping a coat of paint on a porch that needs to be completely replaced is an incremental improvement, but is not an intermediate step towards the new porch.
As a movement, we do not wish to see abortion abolished incrementally. In other words, we do not prefer that it be done slowly in many steps. We see those steps as merely intermediate steps along the road road to a total ban. In fact, we wish these steps were not necessary, and we wish them to be as large as possible. In face, this is another problem with the term "incremental" - it has the connotation that these steps are or should be relatively small. "Intermediate" has no such connotation.
Granted, I do agree that "incremental" is not entirely inaccurate, but "intermediate" does a better job of conveying that these restrictions are not the endgame, but only intermediate steps along the way. We do not prefer to take incremental steps. We only see them as intermediate steps which advance and strengthen the right to life position and save lives.
In summary, each of these characterizations as I have presented them here are really based on the observation that abolishing human abortion was NOT invented by Abolish Human Abortion! Instead, it was invented many years before anyone ever heard of AHA. It was invented by those of us in the pro-life movement.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Legal Battle over Frozen Embryos shows our Dehumanization of the Unborn
An actress and her ex-boyfriend are in a legal battle over two of their frozen embryos. She wants the embryos destroyed. Her boyfriend believes life begins at conception and thus views these embryos as his children (and rightly so). Thus, he wants to protect these human lives and give them a chance to be born. He has even said that he will assume all financial obligations and parental responsibility for the children and will not hold his ex-girlfriend responsible in any way.
The problem is that, due to abortion laws, embryos are not recognized as human beings. They aren't legal persons. Thus, an embryo is only considered property. Instead of prioritizing the life of these two little girls (they're female embryos) and giving them to the parent who wishes to care for them instead of kill them, the courts will most likely resolve the case based on property laws.
There are few things we can learn from this.
1. Don't create children with someone you're not married to or someone who doesn't value unborn life. In this case, the man believed life begins at fertilization and is against abortion. But he made the very bad choice to create children with a woman who disagrees with him. If she were pregnant with the children, he would have no recourse at all and it would be completely her choice whether or not to kill his children. So, men, if you don't want your children killed, don't make babies with pro-choice women.
Because the babies are not in the woman's body, the father has some chance of saving their lives, but the fact that this argument is even taking place is evidence that this was a very bad choice of a woman to breed with. His children may yet be killed because their mother does not want them to exist.
2. Abortion laws have not only allowed the killing of millions of innocent children, but they have caused us to reduce unborn human lives to mere property. Think of the dehumanization of two people arguing over possession of these two children as if they were arguing over the furniture after a break-up. And the law sees these children as property and will rule accordingly. The needs of the children are never considered. The lives of the children are never seen as worth saving.
3. You know, this case reminds me of a similar legal battle that once happened in the Bible. Only in that case, there were two women fighting over a child they both claimed. The wise king Solomon offered to divide the "property" in half by killing the child and cutting his body in two to give half to each woman. The real mother stood up and pleaded with the king to spare the child, even if she had to give him to the other woman. King Solomon knew the real mother would care about her child and save his life above all else and thus he determined which woman had the rightful claim. The woman who held the child's life sacred was the one who should have him.
In this case, the issue is similarly clear. One parent wishes to destroy the frozen embryos while the other wants to save their lives and care for them. Let us hope the judge will be as wise as Solomon and give the children into the custody of their father.
Unfortunately, because of the legality of abortion, the law dictates that the judge should not be wise in protecting the lives of the unborn children, but that he should treat the children as property to be evenly divided, even at the expense of their lives. This is a deep flaw in our law that we must address in order to protect the lives of children.
4. It is a sad state of affairs when we have a culture that rightly hates slavery and looks back upon our history of enslaving an entire people group with revulsion and horror and yet, apparently, cannot see that we are doing the exact same thing with a different group of people. We have dehumanized the unborn and turned them into legal property to be kept or discarded at the whim of the "owner" just as we did for blacks in the days of slavery. It was a shame then and it is a shame now. It must stop. We have to recognize and protect the inherent human rights of all human beings, regardless of race, age, gender, disability, or location.
The problem is that, due to abortion laws, embryos are not recognized as human beings. They aren't legal persons. Thus, an embryo is only considered property. Instead of prioritizing the life of these two little girls (they're female embryos) and giving them to the parent who wishes to care for them instead of kill them, the courts will most likely resolve the case based on property laws.
There are few things we can learn from this.
1. Don't create children with someone you're not married to or someone who doesn't value unborn life. In this case, the man believed life begins at fertilization and is against abortion. But he made the very bad choice to create children with a woman who disagrees with him. If she were pregnant with the children, he would have no recourse at all and it would be completely her choice whether or not to kill his children. So, men, if you don't want your children killed, don't make babies with pro-choice women.
Because the babies are not in the woman's body, the father has some chance of saving their lives, but the fact that this argument is even taking place is evidence that this was a very bad choice of a woman to breed with. His children may yet be killed because their mother does not want them to exist.
2. Abortion laws have not only allowed the killing of millions of innocent children, but they have caused us to reduce unborn human lives to mere property. Think of the dehumanization of two people arguing over possession of these two children as if they were arguing over the furniture after a break-up. And the law sees these children as property and will rule accordingly. The needs of the children are never considered. The lives of the children are never seen as worth saving.
3. You know, this case reminds me of a similar legal battle that once happened in the Bible. Only in that case, there were two women fighting over a child they both claimed. The wise king Solomon offered to divide the "property" in half by killing the child and cutting his body in two to give half to each woman. The real mother stood up and pleaded with the king to spare the child, even if she had to give him to the other woman. King Solomon knew the real mother would care about her child and save his life above all else and thus he determined which woman had the rightful claim. The woman who held the child's life sacred was the one who should have him.
In this case, the issue is similarly clear. One parent wishes to destroy the frozen embryos while the other wants to save their lives and care for them. Let us hope the judge will be as wise as Solomon and give the children into the custody of their father.
Unfortunately, because of the legality of abortion, the law dictates that the judge should not be wise in protecting the lives of the unborn children, but that he should treat the children as property to be evenly divided, even at the expense of their lives. This is a deep flaw in our law that we must address in order to protect the lives of children.
4. It is a sad state of affairs when we have a culture that rightly hates slavery and looks back upon our history of enslaving an entire people group with revulsion and horror and yet, apparently, cannot see that we are doing the exact same thing with a different group of people. We have dehumanized the unborn and turned them into legal property to be kept or discarded at the whim of the "owner" just as we did for blacks in the days of slavery. It was a shame then and it is a shame now. It must stop. We have to recognize and protect the inherent human rights of all human beings, regardless of race, age, gender, disability, or location.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
No, Sperm are not People (and Stop Using that Bad Argument)
When I debate pro-aborts, I often hear some version of this argument: "But aren’t sperm and eggs alive? Does masturbation kill children? Or are there children on used tampons?" It’s a really bad argument, but I hear it a lot. The idea seems to be to ridicule Christians and try to throw out life at conception arguments by pretending that sperm are people too (or at least that Christians think so).
The root of this idea, that Christians think it is murder to kill a sperm cell, seems to come from a passage in Genesis 38:8-10 where a man named Onan is killed by God after engaging in coitus interruptus.
King James Version
“And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.”
The argument that Onan's sin was ejaculating outside a woman is a Catholic interpretation that is not consistent with the rest of the Biblical text or an understanding of Bible times. Furthermore, this is one of the ideas that has put ammunition in the hands of pro-choicers to claim that Christians think sperm are human beings and shouldn't be "killed” – either in an attempt to ridicule Christian beliefs or to argue that life doesn’t begin at fertilization.
In interpreting this passage, it’s important to look at the context, the rest of the Bible, and also to have an idea of the culture at the time. Onan's actual sin was marrying a woman (Tamar) and then flat out refusing to provide for her. The problem wasn't that he "spilled his seed on the ground," but that he didn't ever plan to get her pregnant at all. The text even says that was his motivation.
Onan only married Tamar, his dead brother's wife, because it was his duty to provide an heir for his brother and a child to care for Tamar in her old age. Refusing to give her a child meant that Onan would inherit more (his brother would have no heir to get a share of the family inheritance), so he planned never to get her pregnant, even though that would mean Tamar would be left alone with no child one day.
Other translations make this even more clear.
English Standard Version
"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother."
Note that it says "whenever" he had sex with Tamar, he spilled the semen on the ground. This indicates, not just one contraceptive act, but a pattern intended to deprive her and his dead brother of an heir. The wording in the King James version is vague as to whether it was one time or a pattern. It could be either, although the phrase "and it came to pass" usually indicates the passage of a period of time and thus suggests multiple instances. Most translations, however, use wording that indicates an on-going pattern of refusal to produce a child. Thus, the sin of Onan is made more clear in being a refusal to produce a child out of selfishness, not a one time act of placing sperm outside a woman's vagina.
Also, given that the sin of Onan was serious enough to cause God to strike him dead, one would think it would be clearly spelled out elsewhere in Scripture. If the sin was putting sperm somewhere besides a woman's vagina, there is no mention anywhere else in Scripture that this is forbidden. On the other hand, if the sin was refusing to provide a child to his wife and thus to fail to provide for her old age as well, there is other Scripture that is consistent with this. For example, the Bible tells us in I Timothy 5:8 that a man who fails to provide for his family is “worse than an infidel” (i.e. an unbeliever). So, apparently, God does consider it a grave sin for a man to fail to provide for His family.
So the Bible does not teach that sperm are sacred or that they can only be placed inside a woman. And it certainly does not teach that they are human beings.
My position makes much more sense of the Bible as a whole, I think, but it also makes sense of the science involved in human reproduction in which sperm die naturally every day. Sperm die and are reabsorbed in the male reproductive tracts if they aren't ejaculated. Sometimes sperm are released during nocturnal emissions (i.e. "wet dreams"), which is perfectly natural. Of the millions of sperm that are ejaculated at any one time, the vast majority never even reach the egg (assuming there is even an egg there), and of those who do, only one (at most) will actually fertilize it. Human biology sure doesn’t seem designed to keep sperm from dying. The design of the human reproductive system doesn't seem to indicate any principle that sperm are anything more than just cells or that the death of a sperm cell is cause for alarm or that sperm must be conserved and only released inside a woman.
Most importantly, we know from science that only after a sperm and egg fuse is there a separate human being. Sperm and eggs by themselves are just cells - no different than a skin cell or blood cell in that regard. They're part of the body they came from, but broken off, as it were. They aren't separate living organisms.
Of course, there are Christians who disagree with me on the topic of contraception and do think it is a sin. However, even these people agree that contraception does not kill a human being. Nobody is claiming that sperm are human children.
Killing sperm is not the same thing as killing a human individual. That's biological fact, regardless of anyone's position on contraception. Sperm are not human beings.
The root of this idea, that Christians think it is murder to kill a sperm cell, seems to come from a passage in Genesis 38:8-10 where a man named Onan is killed by God after engaging in coitus interruptus.
King James Version
“And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.”
The argument that Onan's sin was ejaculating outside a woman is a Catholic interpretation that is not consistent with the rest of the Biblical text or an understanding of Bible times. Furthermore, this is one of the ideas that has put ammunition in the hands of pro-choicers to claim that Christians think sperm are human beings and shouldn't be "killed” – either in an attempt to ridicule Christian beliefs or to argue that life doesn’t begin at fertilization.
In interpreting this passage, it’s important to look at the context, the rest of the Bible, and also to have an idea of the culture at the time. Onan's actual sin was marrying a woman (Tamar) and then flat out refusing to provide for her. The problem wasn't that he "spilled his seed on the ground," but that he didn't ever plan to get her pregnant at all. The text even says that was his motivation.
Onan only married Tamar, his dead brother's wife, because it was his duty to provide an heir for his brother and a child to care for Tamar in her old age. Refusing to give her a child meant that Onan would inherit more (his brother would have no heir to get a share of the family inheritance), so he planned never to get her pregnant, even though that would mean Tamar would be left alone with no child one day.
Other translations make this even more clear.
English Standard Version
"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother."
Note that it says "whenever" he had sex with Tamar, he spilled the semen on the ground. This indicates, not just one contraceptive act, but a pattern intended to deprive her and his dead brother of an heir. The wording in the King James version is vague as to whether it was one time or a pattern. It could be either, although the phrase "and it came to pass" usually indicates the passage of a period of time and thus suggests multiple instances. Most translations, however, use wording that indicates an on-going pattern of refusal to produce a child. Thus, the sin of Onan is made more clear in being a refusal to produce a child out of selfishness, not a one time act of placing sperm outside a woman's vagina.
Also, given that the sin of Onan was serious enough to cause God to strike him dead, one would think it would be clearly spelled out elsewhere in Scripture. If the sin was putting sperm somewhere besides a woman's vagina, there is no mention anywhere else in Scripture that this is forbidden. On the other hand, if the sin was refusing to provide a child to his wife and thus to fail to provide for her old age as well, there is other Scripture that is consistent with this. For example, the Bible tells us in I Timothy 5:8 that a man who fails to provide for his family is “worse than an infidel” (i.e. an unbeliever). So, apparently, God does consider it a grave sin for a man to fail to provide for His family.
So the Bible does not teach that sperm are sacred or that they can only be placed inside a woman. And it certainly does not teach that they are human beings.
My position makes much more sense of the Bible as a whole, I think, but it also makes sense of the science involved in human reproduction in which sperm die naturally every day. Sperm die and are reabsorbed in the male reproductive tracts if they aren't ejaculated. Sometimes sperm are released during nocturnal emissions (i.e. "wet dreams"), which is perfectly natural. Of the millions of sperm that are ejaculated at any one time, the vast majority never even reach the egg (assuming there is even an egg there), and of those who do, only one (at most) will actually fertilize it. Human biology sure doesn’t seem designed to keep sperm from dying. The design of the human reproductive system doesn't seem to indicate any principle that sperm are anything more than just cells or that the death of a sperm cell is cause for alarm or that sperm must be conserved and only released inside a woman.
Most importantly, we know from science that only after a sperm and egg fuse is there a separate human being. Sperm and eggs by themselves are just cells - no different than a skin cell or blood cell in that regard. They're part of the body they came from, but broken off, as it were. They aren't separate living organisms.
Of course, there are Christians who disagree with me on the topic of contraception and do think it is a sin. However, even these people agree that contraception does not kill a human being. Nobody is claiming that sperm are human children.
Killing sperm is not the same thing as killing a human individual. That's biological fact, regardless of anyone's position on contraception. Sperm are not human beings.
Friday, March 6, 2015
West Virginia Bans Abortions After 20 Weeks Over Governor Veto
According to this article, West Virginia lawmakers have passed a ban on abortions after 20 weeks over a governor veto. The bill was passed and then vetoed by Governor Tomblin. It was then passed again, 77-16, to override the veto and make it law.
Bans on late-term abortion are overwhelmingly supported by the people across the country and of different political views. But they still have a hard time passing in many areas because of leftist senators, representatives, and governors who fight these protections for unborn children.
Babies at 20 weeks are known to be capable of feeling pain and babies as young as 22 weeks have survived outside the womb. All of the organs and organ systems are in place and starting to function. Babies of this age and younger have also been successfully operated on while still in the womb.
Of course, unborn babies of any age are human individuals and should be protected, but even people who cannot see this fact can recognize that a 20 week old fetus looks like a human baby and has all the usual organs. And since they can feel pain, it is especially cruel to allow them to be dismembered and crushed during an abortion.
Vetoing the bill was a despicable thing to do. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing young human individuals who can feel pain to be barbarously murdered simply because they are unwanted.
But thankfully, the legislators of West Virginia have stepped up and provided protection for these vulnerable members of the human race. Good for them. Keep it up, West Virginia. There are more babies needing protection.
Bans on late-term abortion are overwhelmingly supported by the people across the country and of different political views. But they still have a hard time passing in many areas because of leftist senators, representatives, and governors who fight these protections for unborn children.
Babies at 20 weeks are known to be capable of feeling pain and babies as young as 22 weeks have survived outside the womb. All of the organs and organ systems are in place and starting to function. Babies of this age and younger have also been successfully operated on while still in the womb.
Of course, unborn babies of any age are human individuals and should be protected, but even people who cannot see this fact can recognize that a 20 week old fetus looks like a human baby and has all the usual organs. And since they can feel pain, it is especially cruel to allow them to be dismembered and crushed during an abortion.
Vetoing the bill was a despicable thing to do. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing young human individuals who can feel pain to be barbarously murdered simply because they are unwanted.
But thankfully, the legislators of West Virginia have stepped up and provided protection for these vulnerable members of the human race. Good for them. Keep it up, West Virginia. There are more babies needing protection.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Abortion is Not Compassionate
In discussing abortion with someone who is pro-choice, it doesn’t take long to realize that they consider supporting abortion to be a compassionate choice. They know that a lot of women have very bad situations and aren’t prepared to take care of a baby. So in sympathizing with these women, they want to offer them the choice to abort.
But abortion is not really compassionate. It’s false compassion that is more about making people feel better, not addressing the underlying issues in their lives and really helping them.
Here’s a hypothetical scenario.
A woman has a boyfriend who has a minimum wage job, drinks to excess sometimes, and hates kids. She wants to get married and have a family someday, but the current guy isn't husband and father material, nor is he in a position to take care of a family. But he's what she has for now and she doesn't really expect it to be permanent. Or maybe she's hoping he'll come to his senses and see what a perfect match they are and marry her. They live together and have a 2-year lease. They share phone and utility bills. She's finishing up a degree and working nights. All the sudden, she finds out she's pregnant.
Of course she's panicked because she was definitely not planning on this. Her boyfriend is mad when he finds out and tells her to get rid of the baby. She knows she can't afford a baby now and couldn't afford to pay the rent and other bills by herself if her boyfriend leaves. She doesn't want to be a single mother, but her boyfriend is showing no interest in marrying her or raising a child. She feels trapped and scared. "If only there were no baby," she thinks. If only there was a quick fix, an undo button. A baby will ruin everything.
So she considers abortion.
This is a VERY common scenario. Lots of women find themselves in this very situation or one very similar. They’re pregnant at a time when they truly are not prepared and having a child would be tremendously problematic. And it's very sad.
It’s also totally avoidable.
While I am all for helping this woman learn about adoption possibilities or find financial help and childcare services so that she can continue to work and go to school and keep her child, wouldn't it be better if she had avoided the situation all together?
The thing is, this woman chose to get herself into this situation. She chose a boyfriend who wouldn’t commit to marriage and she chose to have sex, even though she knew that she was in no position to take care of a baby. There is no quick fix or undo button in real life. Actions have consequences, and sometimes you have to live with them. Killing an innocent unborn child to take away the consequences of your own bad choices is not the right answer.
Wouldn’t it be better if she had chosen another path – one of abstinence and logical choices? Why can’t we advocate that women avoid sex when they know they aren’t in a position to have a baby. After all, conceiving a child is a very real possibility whenever you have sex - even if you use contraception! That’s just a fact of life. And it’s better to face the facts than to live in denial, only to have a rude awakening when the unexpected happens and you’re totally unprepared and terrified.
What we’re currently doing, as a society, is encouraging women to live in denial about the consequences of sex. And then we wonder why they end up in such bad situations where they feel trapped and scared and are desperate for someone to tell them they’ll make it all go away. It’s not a much of a choice when they feel so desperate and everything is screaming at them to take the easy road and kill their baby.
I want women to have the information to make good choices and avoid getting into bad situations in the first place. Advocating abortion as a quick fix is not only wrong, but it keeps us from finding a real solution to this kind of difficult situation.
The truth is that it’s not okay to kill a baby in order to make a woman’s life better or easier. It’s not okay to make bad choices that lead to the creation of a child at a time when a pregnancy would be catastrophic and then get out of the consequences by ending an innocent life. If you’re going to engage in activities that make a baby, you have to live with those choices. Making the baby pay the price for her parents’ bad decisions isn’t fair or right.
Offering abortion as a “solution” to women like this is not only wrong, but it’s not helping them either. It’s enabling their bad decisions. It’s preying on their fears and hardships. And it’s killing their children. Abortion is NOT compassionate.
But abortion is not really compassionate. It’s false compassion that is more about making people feel better, not addressing the underlying issues in their lives and really helping them.
Here’s a hypothetical scenario.
A woman has a boyfriend who has a minimum wage job, drinks to excess sometimes, and hates kids. She wants to get married and have a family someday, but the current guy isn't husband and father material, nor is he in a position to take care of a family. But he's what she has for now and she doesn't really expect it to be permanent. Or maybe she's hoping he'll come to his senses and see what a perfect match they are and marry her. They live together and have a 2-year lease. They share phone and utility bills. She's finishing up a degree and working nights. All the sudden, she finds out she's pregnant.
Of course she's panicked because she was definitely not planning on this. Her boyfriend is mad when he finds out and tells her to get rid of the baby. She knows she can't afford a baby now and couldn't afford to pay the rent and other bills by herself if her boyfriend leaves. She doesn't want to be a single mother, but her boyfriend is showing no interest in marrying her or raising a child. She feels trapped and scared. "If only there were no baby," she thinks. If only there was a quick fix, an undo button. A baby will ruin everything.
So she considers abortion.
This is a VERY common scenario. Lots of women find themselves in this very situation or one very similar. They’re pregnant at a time when they truly are not prepared and having a child would be tremendously problematic. And it's very sad.
It’s also totally avoidable.
While I am all for helping this woman learn about adoption possibilities or find financial help and childcare services so that she can continue to work and go to school and keep her child, wouldn't it be better if she had avoided the situation all together?
The thing is, this woman chose to get herself into this situation. She chose a boyfriend who wouldn’t commit to marriage and she chose to have sex, even though she knew that she was in no position to take care of a baby. There is no quick fix or undo button in real life. Actions have consequences, and sometimes you have to live with them. Killing an innocent unborn child to take away the consequences of your own bad choices is not the right answer.
Wouldn’t it be better if she had chosen another path – one of abstinence and logical choices? Why can’t we advocate that women avoid sex when they know they aren’t in a position to have a baby. After all, conceiving a child is a very real possibility whenever you have sex - even if you use contraception! That’s just a fact of life. And it’s better to face the facts than to live in denial, only to have a rude awakening when the unexpected happens and you’re totally unprepared and terrified.
What we’re currently doing, as a society, is encouraging women to live in denial about the consequences of sex. And then we wonder why they end up in such bad situations where they feel trapped and scared and are desperate for someone to tell them they’ll make it all go away. It’s not a much of a choice when they feel so desperate and everything is screaming at them to take the easy road and kill their baby.
I want women to have the information to make good choices and avoid getting into bad situations in the first place. Advocating abortion as a quick fix is not only wrong, but it keeps us from finding a real solution to this kind of difficult situation.
The truth is that it’s not okay to kill a baby in order to make a woman’s life better or easier. It’s not okay to make bad choices that lead to the creation of a child at a time when a pregnancy would be catastrophic and then get out of the consequences by ending an innocent life. If you’re going to engage in activities that make a baby, you have to live with those choices. Making the baby pay the price for her parents’ bad decisions isn’t fair or right.
Offering abortion as a “solution” to women like this is not only wrong, but it’s not helping them either. It’s enabling their bad decisions. It’s preying on their fears and hardships. And it’s killing their children. Abortion is NOT compassionate.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Proof that Life Begins at Fertilization
It is well-known and well-established from science that life begins at fertilization. A new human individual comes into being when a human sperm and human egg fuse. This is no secret. There is no controversy in scientific circles. It's at least as established as the theory of gravity.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Here is an article with 41 quotes from scientific sources that show this scientific consensus on the topic. And if you don't believe these, you're welcome to speak to any biologist or embryologist or read any human anatomy or embryology text for yourself. Even better, you could study these subjects, get a degree and become an expert on the topic. No matter how deep you decide to dig, you'll come to the same conclusion. It's not difficult at all to determine when life begins. It's already been done. It's been verified many, many times. It's a simple fact that life begins at fertilization.
Here are some of the quotes from the article:
These are just a few of the many, many such quotes from scientists and medical professionals that affirm that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life. This is well-known fact that no biologist contests.
The ONLY reason remaining for doubting this obvious fact is that people don't like it. They don't want to believe it. Why? Perhaps they don't want to have to face the fact that abortion kills a human individual. If they can stick their heads in the sand and pretend they don't know when life begins, they can keep their position that abortion is okay. I can't think of any other reason.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Here is an article with 41 quotes from scientific sources that show this scientific consensus on the topic. And if you don't believe these, you're welcome to speak to any biologist or embryologist or read any human anatomy or embryology text for yourself. Even better, you could study these subjects, get a degree and become an expert on the topic. No matter how deep you decide to dig, you'll come to the same conclusion. It's not difficult at all to determine when life begins. It's already been done. It's been verified many, many times. It's a simple fact that life begins at fertilization.
Here are some of the quotes from the article:
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012).
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30.
“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”Landrum B. Shettles, “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40. (Landrum Shettles was the first scientist to successfully complete an in vitro fertilization.)
“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co.
“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985).
“Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex …structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.”Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99.
These are just a few of the many, many such quotes from scientists and medical professionals that affirm that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life. This is well-known fact that no biologist contests.
The ONLY reason remaining for doubting this obvious fact is that people don't like it. They don't want to believe it. Why? Perhaps they don't want to have to face the fact that abortion kills a human individual. If they can stick their heads in the sand and pretend they don't know when life begins, they can keep their position that abortion is okay. I can't think of any other reason.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Amazing Photos that Show the Humanity of the Unborn
This picture shows an ultrasound of my nephew, Kyler, in the womb compared to a picture of him at about a year old. The similarity is amazing! His distinctive facial features were already present, long before he was born.
Of course, scientifically speaking, that isn't really so surprising. After all, his genetic blueprint has been there since he was a zygote. Yes, Kyler was a zygote, then he was an embryo, then he was fetus, then he was a neonate, and now he is a toddler. But going through different stages of development didn't change who he is. He was the same person before and after birth. Birth didn't change who he was. It only changed his location.
This example is just one of many that demonstrates the humanity of children in the womb. We are all distinct and unique human individuals from conception onward.
If it would be wrong to kill Kyler now (and it is), it would also have been wrong to kill him in some earlier stage of development. That previous stage was the same child, just a little younger. It was still Kyler.
The arguments that are often given for abortion don't hold up when you consider this simple fact - that the child who is born is the same child that was in the womb. It's the same person.
So if it would NOT be okay to kill a toddler because of these reasons:
- his mother's life is difficult
- he is unloved
- he'll grow up poor or abused
- his mother was raped
- he's a burden on his mother
- he has a physical deformity
- his parents are closely related
- his mother isn't ready to be a mother right now
Then it is NOT okay to kill that same child when he's younger and still in the womb for those reasons either.
It's really very simple. Abortion is not okay. Abortion is wrong. It's the killing of a defenseless human child. No excuses or sad stories about the mother make it okay to kill the child.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Republicans Drop Bill to Protect Unborn Children After 20 Weeks
The Republican party suddenly and incomprensibly just scuttled a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks gestation. The bill was known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The vote was scheduled for today.
The bill had a lot of momentum and around a 60% approval rating from the people. Most people, even those who are mostly pro-choice, agree that killing babies that can feel pain and that can survive outside the womb is not okay. Republicans have a majority in both the House and the Senate, so there should easily be enough votes to pass this legislation, even if no Democrats vote for it.
So, why did they scuttle the bill? The official explanation is that it was "controversial" and they didn't think they had the votes. If I was a swearing person, this is where I would insert it. That's absolutely a bold-faced lie and a pitiful excuse all wrapped into one.
Ok, if a Republican majority in both houses can't or won't pass even something as non-controversial as this (most Americans agree with limiting late-term abortions) and as necessary as this (protecting the inalienable rights of an entire persecuted group of people), then we all have to leave the GOP and pick a new party to bring to power. This is the last straw!
We've been patient with the GOP and hoped they were actually going to do something this time. We accepted their past excuses of not having enough power to do anything yet. That's all over. They have the power and they're making it clear that they have no real intentions of doing anything good with it. They aren't representing us. They have no moral compass. They're spineless cowards who only say what they think we want to hear and then do nothing for fear of having someone get mad. It's time to move on.
The bill had a lot of momentum and around a 60% approval rating from the people. Most people, even those who are mostly pro-choice, agree that killing babies that can feel pain and that can survive outside the womb is not okay. Republicans have a majority in both the House and the Senate, so there should easily be enough votes to pass this legislation, even if no Democrats vote for it.
So, why did they scuttle the bill? The official explanation is that it was "controversial" and they didn't think they had the votes. If I was a swearing person, this is where I would insert it. That's absolutely a bold-faced lie and a pitiful excuse all wrapped into one.
Ok, if a Republican majority in both houses can't or won't pass even something as non-controversial as this (most Americans agree with limiting late-term abortions) and as necessary as this (protecting the inalienable rights of an entire persecuted group of people), then we all have to leave the GOP and pick a new party to bring to power. This is the last straw!
We've been patient with the GOP and hoped they were actually going to do something this time. We accepted their past excuses of not having enough power to do anything yet. That's all over. They have the power and they're making it clear that they have no real intentions of doing anything good with it. They aren't representing us. They have no moral compass. They're spineless cowards who only say what they think we want to hear and then do nothing for fear of having someone get mad. It's time to move on.
Friday, November 28, 2014
Abortion Should be Completely Abolished Immediately
Let's make this statement very clear right up front. Abortion should be completely abolished immediately. Make no mistake, we when it comes to human abortion, we are definitely and undeniably in the abolitionist camp.
Clearly, the abolition of abortion includes making it completely illegal, and that should be done as rapidly and efficiently as possible. Until that complete abolition can be accomplished, abortion should be restricted as much as possible, as often as possible, in any way possible.
However, this does NOT mean that we should tell our elected representatives to propose restrictions rather than a total abortion ban. In other words, do not focus on the statement that abortion should be "restricted" as the primary focus or the main desire. The primary, first, and most important goal is to abolish abortion as rapidly and efficiently as possible – immediately, if at all possible. The restriction alternative is a distant second choice which is still far better than nothing at all.
The point is that while we should not try to have restrictions *proposed* by our representatives, we should support those that are proposed. We should take the ground that is available while continuing the fight for total abolition.
Second, this does NOT mean that we should preferentially select representatives who do not support the total abolition of abortion. Instead, we should vote for the strongest pro-life candidate available.* That does not mean that we should throw our vote away on someone that no one’s ever heard of, but of the candidates who actually have any chance of getting elected, we should choose the strongest right to life candidate available – ideally, another abolitionist.
So the point is that as abolitionists, we should make the abolition of abortion our primary goal, and one that we request of our elected representatives. However, if we have the opportunity to restrict abortion in the meantime, we should take that opportunity do so. We should certainly not oppose such restrictions. Instead, we should actively support those restrictions while making it clear that we are not trading restrictions for abolition.
This IS the rational approach to abolition.
--
* "Pro-Life" not a bad term, abortion abolitionists are pro-life by definition.
Clearly, the abolition of abortion includes making it completely illegal, and that should be done as rapidly and efficiently as possible. Until that complete abolition can be accomplished, abortion should be restricted as much as possible, as often as possible, in any way possible.
However, this does NOT mean that we should tell our elected representatives to propose restrictions rather than a total abortion ban. In other words, do not focus on the statement that abortion should be "restricted" as the primary focus or the main desire. The primary, first, and most important goal is to abolish abortion as rapidly and efficiently as possible – immediately, if at all possible. The restriction alternative is a distant second choice which is still far better than nothing at all.
The point is that while we should not try to have restrictions *proposed* by our representatives, we should support those that are proposed. We should take the ground that is available while continuing the fight for total abolition.
Second, this does NOT mean that we should preferentially select representatives who do not support the total abolition of abortion. Instead, we should vote for the strongest pro-life candidate available.* That does not mean that we should throw our vote away on someone that no one’s ever heard of, but of the candidates who actually have any chance of getting elected, we should choose the strongest right to life candidate available – ideally, another abolitionist.
So the point is that as abolitionists, we should make the abolition of abortion our primary goal, and one that we request of our elected representatives. However, if we have the opportunity to restrict abortion in the meantime, we should take that opportunity do so. We should certainly not oppose such restrictions. Instead, we should actively support those restrictions while making it clear that we are not trading restrictions for abolition.
This IS the rational approach to abolition.
--
* "Pro-Life" not a bad term, abortion abolitionists are pro-life by definition.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Growing Support for "Post-Birth Abortion"
This article discusses the new reality that many people (college students, in particular) are beginning to support the idea of "post-birth" abortions. In other words, infanticide. One number that seems to be widely accepted is 4 years old.
That's right, folks! There are growing numbers of people who think it's perfectly fine for a parent to decide to kill their own child up until age 4. The rationale seems to be that young children are not self-aware, and thus are not people.
Well, at least they are being consistent. Consistently stupid, but consistent.
Here's what I mean by that:
They recognize the truth that there is nothing magical about birth, and if (in their distorted world) abortion is OK just before birth, it must be OK just afterwards, as well.
If they were a bit more rational, they would take this the other way. They have it exactly backwards. They should note that since infanticide after birth is wrong, and since birth is not magical, it must also be wrong to kill children before birth.
Finally, I would like one of these idiots to provide a single objective proof that self-awareness is what matters when it comes to protecting one's right to life. Second, I would like for one of them to present an objective proof of just how much awareness a human being must possess before he has the right to live. And third, I would like one of them to present an objective test of self-awareness such that we can objectively tell precisely when one has acquired that level of awareness.
In other words, their criteria are quite subjective, and based on nothing more than their opinion of how they wish things to be. That is hardly sufficient justification for violating the right to life of an entire segment of human beings.
That's right, folks! There are growing numbers of people who think it's perfectly fine for a parent to decide to kill their own child up until age 4. The rationale seems to be that young children are not self-aware, and thus are not people.
Well, at least they are being consistent. Consistently stupid, but consistent.
Here's what I mean by that:
They recognize the truth that there is nothing magical about birth, and if (in their distorted world) abortion is OK just before birth, it must be OK just afterwards, as well.
If they were a bit more rational, they would take this the other way. They have it exactly backwards. They should note that since infanticide after birth is wrong, and since birth is not magical, it must also be wrong to kill children before birth.
Finally, I would like one of these idiots to provide a single objective proof that self-awareness is what matters when it comes to protecting one's right to life. Second, I would like for one of them to present an objective proof of just how much awareness a human being must possess before he has the right to live. And third, I would like one of them to present an objective test of self-awareness such that we can objectively tell precisely when one has acquired that level of awareness.
In other words, their criteria are quite subjective, and based on nothing more than their opinion of how they wish things to be. That is hardly sufficient justification for violating the right to life of an entire segment of human beings.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
The Supreme Court and Constitutionality
Earlier, I made the case that abortion is unconstitutional. It is neither Constitutionally-protected, nor a right that anyone possesses. Of course, that raised the ire of many pro-aborts who think I have encroached upon their own sacred territory. Many of them (while ignoring the actual content of the article) have expressed their opinion that the Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of a matter, and whatever they say goes.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) does NOT "determine" what is or is not Constitutional. The Court has simply been given the authority to declare what it considers to be Constitutional. As history has shown, the Court IS fallible (being made up of humans with their own political agendas and religious convictions) and sometimes gets it wrong.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter:
The Supreme Court has the authority to make rulings based on its perception of Constitutionality. However, this does NOT mean that they always get it right. In fact, every single time they overturn an older ruling, they tacitly admit that the earlier ruling was wrong. Of course, this is rare because no one likes to admit that they were wrong, and court justices are no different.
The Constitution does not permit the SCOTUS to reinterpret the Constitution in any way that it so desires (as many critics seem to think). The Court is required to stick to the original intent of the Constitution and its amendments. That was the point I made in the article.
Roe v. Wade is a Court ruling. It is NOT to be conflated with the Constitution itself. And like any other ruling, it is subject to error. As I have shown in this article, it is a bad ruling because it ignores the original intent of these amendments.
The main point here is that the actual text and original intent of the Constitution always trumps any court ruling. Thus, the Constitutionality of abortion is decided by the actual text of the Constitution - not by a Supreme Court ruling. Appealing to the Court is an appeal to authority.
Abortion IS unconstitutional based on the actual text of the Constitution. Of course, we are required to abide by Court rulings. However, this does NOT mean that the ruling is, by definition, Constitutional. In order to determine that one must check the Constitution itself.
For what it's worth, ALL jurists on the Supreme Court should be strict constructionists. Any who are not are violating their oath of office, and are acting contrary to one of the most important principles of civil government - namely, that we each must approve (through representation for new laws or by tacit consent for laws that predate us) of any law to which we are bound.
This means that the original meaning and intent MUST be the only accepted meaning, and that all court justices are bound to interpret the law in that particular way. If they do not, then they have no business serving on the court, and should be impeached.
The Founding Fathers were very clear on this matter. Having laws forced upon us which we do not consent to is tyranny. The same is true if laws are reinterpreted by a court (i.e. a unelected body of people in which we are not represented).
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) does NOT "determine" what is or is not Constitutional. The Court has simply been given the authority to declare what it considers to be Constitutional. As history has shown, the Court IS fallible (being made up of humans with their own political agendas and religious convictions) and sometimes gets it wrong.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter:
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....
Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Jarvis (September 28, 1820).
The Supreme Court has the authority to make rulings based on its perception of Constitutionality. However, this does NOT mean that they always get it right. In fact, every single time they overturn an older ruling, they tacitly admit that the earlier ruling was wrong. Of course, this is rare because no one likes to admit that they were wrong, and court justices are no different.
The Constitution does not permit the SCOTUS to reinterpret the Constitution in any way that it so desires (as many critics seem to think). The Court is required to stick to the original intent of the Constitution and its amendments. That was the point I made in the article.
Roe v. Wade is a Court ruling. It is NOT to be conflated with the Constitution itself. And like any other ruling, it is subject to error. As I have shown in this article, it is a bad ruling because it ignores the original intent of these amendments.
The main point here is that the actual text and original intent of the Constitution always trumps any court ruling. Thus, the Constitutionality of abortion is decided by the actual text of the Constitution - not by a Supreme Court ruling. Appealing to the Court is an appeal to authority.
Abortion IS unconstitutional based on the actual text of the Constitution. Of course, we are required to abide by Court rulings. However, this does NOT mean that the ruling is, by definition, Constitutional. In order to determine that one must check the Constitution itself.
For what it's worth, ALL jurists on the Supreme Court should be strict constructionists. Any who are not are violating their oath of office, and are acting contrary to one of the most important principles of civil government - namely, that we each must approve (through representation for new laws or by tacit consent for laws that predate us) of any law to which we are bound.
This means that the original meaning and intent MUST be the only accepted meaning, and that all court justices are bound to interpret the law in that particular way. If they do not, then they have no business serving on the court, and should be impeached.
The Founding Fathers were very clear on this matter. Having laws forced upon us which we do not consent to is tyranny. The same is true if laws are reinterpreted by a court (i.e. a unelected body of people in which we are not represented).
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Constitutional Support for Right to Life Arguments
Last time, we pointed out that abortion is thoroughly unconstitutional, and that the pertinent texts of the 5th and 14th Amendments are the following, respectively:
The second argument was supported by the following premise:
"No person shall ... be deprived of life ... without due process of law; ..."
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, ..., without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Earlier, we presented logical arguments deriving the following conclusions:
C1: One does not have the right to kill a child who has not yet been born.
C2: A child who has not yet been born possesses the exact same right to live as any otherNow, we would like to show how these arguments are supported by the United States Constitution. As you may recall, these conclusions were each based on a set of premises. The first argument employed the following premise:
human being.
P1.1: One does not have the right to kill an innocent human being.Clearly, this premise is supported by the 5th Amendment ("No person shall ... be deprived of life ... without due process of law; ..."), and by the 14th Amendment ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, ..., without due process of law;").
The second argument was supported by the following premise:
P2.1: All innocent human beings possess the exact same right to live as any other humanClearly, this premise is supported by the last clause of Section 1 of the Amendment 14 ("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws").
being.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Abortion is Unconstitutional
We too often hear that abortion is a right or that it is Constitutionally protected. These statements are simply not true. As we have shown earlier, one simply does not have the right to commit abortion because it takes the life of an innocent human being. Now, I would like to show that it is not protected by the United States Constitution either.
In fact, there are two different amendments to the Constitution which actually make abortion unconstitutional. Of course, I am referring to the 5th and the 14th amendments.
Here is the text of the 5th amendment:
Note that this amendment is a bit lengthy and includes text which is not relevant to the issue of abortion. So let me clarify the pertinent parts:
As you can see, this is perfectly consistent with the full text above. So I am not taking anything out of context when I point out that this amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Now, let's take a look at the 14th amendment:
This is the full text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and it also addresses topics which are not pertinent to the right to life issue. So here are the pertinent parts:
Note that although this amendment begins with a reference to "All persons born or naturalized," the parts which are pertinent to the right to life issue are NOT so prefaced and do NOT rest on that premise. In fact, the text is separated by a semicolon which isolates the pertinent text from earlier topics (such as citizenship) which were addressed and which are so prefaced.
Now, IF the latter portion of this amendment stated that "no state shall deprive any 'citizen' of life,...," then that statement would rest on the stated requirements of citizenship. However, this amendment clearly and intentionally does not do so. Rather, the text clearly states that "no state shall deprive any 'person' of life, ...." This fact is a clear and profound rejection of the idea that citizenship or birth is required for the protection of life.
Furthermore, this amendment also states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So not only is the right to life specifically protected, this amendment also makes the more general equal protection under the law a Constitutionally protected right.
This much alone should be sufficient to show that abortion is thoroughly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, some people try to defend abortion by expressing their opinion that only born human beings are "persons." As we have shown earlier, this is an irrational proposition.
Furthermore, neither of these amendments define personhood in any way that is consistent with that opinion, and I find it telling that these people wish to redefine "person" in such a way as to include themselves while excluding those other human beings that they wish to be allowed to kill.
If "person" and "human being" are distinguishable, then proponents of that view should present objective evidence of that distinction, and provide an objective, scientific test by which we can objectively determine just when a human being has developed into a person. Without such an objective test, this distinction is meaningless and cannot be objectively implemented (i.e. in law). Of course, no such objective personhood test exists, and those who try to make the unsubstantiated distinction between humanity and personhood do so arbitrarily and without any objective support.
Finally, let me direct the reader to Webster's Dictionary of 1828. The English language has evolved somewhat since these amendments to U.S. Constitution were adopted. The 5th Amendment was adopted along with the rest of the Bill of Rights in 1791, and the 14th Amendment was adopted just after the Civil War in 1868. Thus, it is important to determine how "person" was used in those times. Webster's Dictionary of 1828 provides an excellent and timely resource for answering such questions.
Of course, science clearly shows that the unborn are human individuals. They are human beings in the same sense that any born person is. Therefore, since "person" is defined to be any human being, this must include the unborn. So the definition of "person" used at the time of writing of these amendments applies to all human beings from fertilization to death. The opinion that "person" is not synonymous with "human individual" is simply not supported by either science or history.
Thus, it should be clear to any rational, thinking person that the United States Constitution clearly supports the right to life position and the truth that all human beings possess the right to life. One must remember that the Supreme Court is staffed by people who have their own political and religious views, and so is not infallible in its interpretation and application of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade should be reconsidered and overturned because it can be clearly shown that abortion is thoroughly unconstitutional.
In fact, there are two different amendments to the Constitution which actually make abortion unconstitutional. Of course, I am referring to the 5th and the 14th amendments.
Here is the text of the 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-- 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (emphasis added)
Note that this amendment is a bit lengthy and includes text which is not relevant to the issue of abortion. So let me clarify the pertinent parts:
"No person shall ... be deprived of life ... without due process of law; ..."
As you can see, this is perfectly consistent with the full text above. So I am not taking anything out of context when I point out that this amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Now, let's take a look at the 14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-- 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 1 (emphasis added)
This is the full text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and it also addresses topics which are not pertinent to the right to life issue. So here are the pertinent parts:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, ..., without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note that although this amendment begins with a reference to "All persons born or naturalized," the parts which are pertinent to the right to life issue are NOT so prefaced and do NOT rest on that premise. In fact, the text is separated by a semicolon which isolates the pertinent text from earlier topics (such as citizenship) which were addressed and which are so prefaced.
Now, IF the latter portion of this amendment stated that "no state shall deprive any 'citizen' of life,...," then that statement would rest on the stated requirements of citizenship. However, this amendment clearly and intentionally does not do so. Rather, the text clearly states that "no state shall deprive any 'person' of life, ...." This fact is a clear and profound rejection of the idea that citizenship or birth is required for the protection of life.
Furthermore, this amendment also states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So not only is the right to life specifically protected, this amendment also makes the more general equal protection under the law a Constitutionally protected right.
Furthermore, neither of these amendments define personhood in any way that is consistent with that opinion, and I find it telling that these people wish to redefine "person" in such a way as to include themselves while excluding those other human beings that they wish to be allowed to kill.
If "person" and "human being" are distinguishable, then proponents of that view should present objective evidence of that distinction, and provide an objective, scientific test by which we can objectively determine just when a human being has developed into a person. Without such an objective test, this distinction is meaningless and cannot be objectively implemented (i.e. in law). Of course, no such objective personhood test exists, and those who try to make the unsubstantiated distinction between humanity and personhood do so arbitrarily and without any objective support.
Finally, let me direct the reader to Webster's Dictionary of 1828. The English language has evolved somewhat since these amendments to U.S. Constitution were adopted. The 5th Amendment was adopted along with the rest of the Bill of Rights in 1791, and the 14th Amendment was adopted just after the Civil War in 1868. Thus, it is important to determine how "person" was used in those times. Webster's Dictionary of 1828 provides an excellent and timely resource for answering such questions.
Definition 1: "An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person It is applied alike to a man, woman or child."
Definition 2: "A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them."
Definition 3: "A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only."
Definition 4: "A human being, indefinitely; one; a man."These are the first four definitions for "person" provided, and it is clear from them that birth is not considered in any of these definitions. Nor do any other character traits enter into these definitions. Although many modern critics try to invent criteria for personhood which exclude those who haven't been born, this dictionary does not employ any of them in defining personhood. For instance, none of these qualities are employed:
Thus, when these amendments were adopted, none of these kinds of things were considered in defining personhood. Quite the contrary. In fact, three of these definitions specifically refer simply to "a human being." It is clear that these amendments actually refer to human individuals, and do not distinguish some humans as persons who will be protected while leaving others unprotected. The notion that personhood can be distinguished from humanity is simply a misrepresentation of the term "person" that some critics have invented in order to justify such violations as slavery and abortion.
- sentience
- self-awareness
- autonomy
- consciousness
- heartbeat
- brainwaves
- personality
- independence
- self-sufficiency
Of course, science clearly shows that the unborn are human individuals. They are human beings in the same sense that any born person is. Therefore, since "person" is defined to be any human being, this must include the unborn. So the definition of "person" used at the time of writing of these amendments applies to all human beings from fertilization to death. The opinion that "person" is not synonymous with "human individual" is simply not supported by either science or history.
Thus, it should be clear to any rational, thinking person that the United States Constitution clearly supports the right to life position and the truth that all human beings possess the right to life. One must remember that the Supreme Court is staffed by people who have their own political and religious views, and so is not infallible in its interpretation and application of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade should be reconsidered and overturned because it can be clearly shown that abortion is thoroughly unconstitutional.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Acquiring Personhood
Personhood is an either-or proposition. You either are one or you aren't. You can't be partially a person. There aren't some people that are more of a person than others. There are only persons and non-persons.
Because of this fact, it is necessary for persons to form from non-persons instantaneously. It has to go from "non-person" to "person" all in one step.
A long slow process like development cannot be the method by which a person comes to be a person. If "person" were synonymous with "consciousness" or "self-awareness" or having certain physical features like eyes or nose, then born humans who don't have these things are not persons and can be killed at will. And if a slow development process of growing ability makes a person then there would have to be degrees of personhood to match the varying abilities of different humans. Maybe I'm more of a person than you are because I'm smarter or taller or more awake at the moment. Maybe I should have more legal protections than you because of that. That is the kind of logical problem that this kind of thinking introduces. But of course, there are no degrees of personhood. There are only people and non-people.
Since there must be a point at which a non-person becomes a person, it is imperative that we find it. If we cannot find that point - specifically and definitively - we must give all humans the benefit of the doubt so as not to kill actual persons and thus violate their rights.
It's actually pretty easy to find the point at which a person is formed. A person can't be formed through a slow, gradual process like development. There is no transition point in the process of developing self-awareness, for example. There are many shades of awareness, both before and after birth, but they do not affect personhood. So if development can't produce personhood because it is too slow and gradual, we must look for a radical event that produces a sudden change in the nature of the organism in question. We must look for something that precedes development because development still happens to what we know is a person and development can't produce personhood, so the event that produces a person must occur before development begins. The only event that qualifies as a sudden, radical event that precedes development is fertilization.
Only fertilization produces the radical change necessary to provide a turning point from non-person to person. Fertilization produces a new human individual who didn't exist before. Fertilization changes two mere cells - parts of a larger body - into a brand new organism that develops and grows itself and works to further it's own bodily integrity. This new entity has all the instructions present to form an adult human body. This entity is already either male or female. This entity, like any other child, is merely less-than-fully developed.
You see, personhood isn't something we attain through gaining abilities. Nor do we lose personhood if we lose those abilities. Personhood isn't something we do. It's something we are.
Of course, if you disagree, you either have to claim that there are degrees of personhood (to correspond with degrees of ability) or you have to come up with a specific and definitive point at which a non-person suddenly becomes a person and a way to justify that point. It can't be something nebulous like "a few weeks after conception" or "in the second trimester" or "when consciousness is developed." It has to be something specific and defensible as a transformation point. If you cannot objectively identify a point at which a person becomes a person, then you must, ethically, treat all human individuals as persons since you do not know if they are or not.
Because of this fact, it is necessary for persons to form from non-persons instantaneously. It has to go from "non-person" to "person" all in one step.
A long slow process like development cannot be the method by which a person comes to be a person. If "person" were synonymous with "consciousness" or "self-awareness" or having certain physical features like eyes or nose, then born humans who don't have these things are not persons and can be killed at will. And if a slow development process of growing ability makes a person then there would have to be degrees of personhood to match the varying abilities of different humans. Maybe I'm more of a person than you are because I'm smarter or taller or more awake at the moment. Maybe I should have more legal protections than you because of that. That is the kind of logical problem that this kind of thinking introduces. But of course, there are no degrees of personhood. There are only people and non-people.
Since there must be a point at which a non-person becomes a person, it is imperative that we find it. If we cannot find that point - specifically and definitively - we must give all humans the benefit of the doubt so as not to kill actual persons and thus violate their rights.
It's actually pretty easy to find the point at which a person is formed. A person can't be formed through a slow, gradual process like development. There is no transition point in the process of developing self-awareness, for example. There are many shades of awareness, both before and after birth, but they do not affect personhood. So if development can't produce personhood because it is too slow and gradual, we must look for a radical event that produces a sudden change in the nature of the organism in question. We must look for something that precedes development because development still happens to what we know is a person and development can't produce personhood, so the event that produces a person must occur before development begins. The only event that qualifies as a sudden, radical event that precedes development is fertilization.
Only fertilization produces the radical change necessary to provide a turning point from non-person to person. Fertilization produces a new human individual who didn't exist before. Fertilization changes two mere cells - parts of a larger body - into a brand new organism that develops and grows itself and works to further it's own bodily integrity. This new entity has all the instructions present to form an adult human body. This entity is already either male or female. This entity, like any other child, is merely less-than-fully developed.
You see, personhood isn't something we attain through gaining abilities. Nor do we lose personhood if we lose those abilities. Personhood isn't something we do. It's something we are.
Of course, if you disagree, you either have to claim that there are degrees of personhood (to correspond with degrees of ability) or you have to come up with a specific and definitive point at which a non-person suddenly becomes a person and a way to justify that point. It can't be something nebulous like "a few weeks after conception" or "in the second trimester" or "when consciousness is developed." It has to be something specific and defensible as a transformation point. If you cannot objectively identify a point at which a person becomes a person, then you must, ethically, treat all human individuals as persons since you do not know if they are or not.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Woman Writes Open Letter to the Baby She's Planning to Abort
Take a look at this letter, presumably written by a pregnant woman who is planning an abortion to her unborn child. It's entitled "I am getting an abortion next Friday. An open letter to the little life I won't get to meet."
I'm not sure if the story is true. I don't know the circumstances. I don't know if this is somehow an attempt to justify her actions and absolve herself of guilt. What I do know is that it is deeply disturbing.
In this letter, we have a woman who apparently realizes that the child she is carrying is, in fact, a baby. She also realizes that this baby is going to die. She says:
I am sorry that this is goodbye. I'm sad that I'll never get to meet you. You could have your father's eyes and my nose and we could make our own traditions, be a family. But, Little Thing, we will meet again.
She knows this is a baby. Yet she is going to kill him anyway. She says she is "both sorry and not sorry." She wishes the circumstances were different and she's sorry that they aren't in the same reality (whatever that means), but she can't be a mother right now. She realizes the wrong in killing her child, but has determined to do it anyway.
She also makes some strange comments about wanting her baby to be happy, and that it "wouldn't be fair to bring a new life into [the] world..." Perhaps someone should tell her that her baby is ALREADY in the world. She isn't preventing someone from entering the world by having an abortion. She's taking them out of it. And maybe someone should explain to her that killing someone isn't a way to make them happy.
Perhaps most confusing about this letter are a couple comments she makes about seeing her baby again later. She seems to have some very mixed up ideas about how this whole pregnancy and birth thing works.
She says "[W]e will meet again. I promise that the next time I see that little blue plus, the next time you are in the same reality as me, I will be ready for you." And again, "I promise I will see you again, and next time, you can call me Mom."
The problem is, there won't be a next time. She seems to think that this baby will come back to her womb someday, when everything is all better for her and she's ready to have a child. But it doesn't work that way. This is that child's only chance at life. Once he's dead, he'll stay dead. Once the mother aborts, that child will never have another chance to live. Sure, this mother may get pregnant at some point in the future and give birth, but it won't be the same baby. It will be a different child. The baby now in her womb is a unique, irreplaceable human being. This is that child's only time on earth. That baby won't ever get to meet her mother or see the blue sky or laugh or sing or dance if she kills her now. This is it. This is only time that child will ever be on this earth.
That's the tragedy of abortion. The murdered children don't come back. They don't get another life on earth at some point in the future. Just like all the rest of us humans, one life is all we get.
So whether this mother is deluded or ignorant or simply trying desperately to justify her actions, we all need to realize the gravity of the situation. Abortion kills a human being and ends the one life they have to live. Children in the womb are irreplaceable, one-time miracles, just like all humans are. Ending an unborn life is every bit as serious as ending any other human life and every bit as tragic.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Logical Arguments Against Abortion: Part 1
Valid logical arguments show that one does not have the right to commit abortion
____________________________________________________________________________________
Let me begin by discussing what it takes to make a valid logical argument, and what it takes to make a valid argument which has a conclusion that must logically be true. You see, not all valid arguments yield conclusions which are true (as I will show below). OK, here is an example of a valid argument:
P1: All humans are mammals.
P2: George Washington was a human.
C: Therefore, George Washington was a mammal.
Clearly, this argument is not only a valid argument, but it has a conclusion that is true. How do we know that the conclusion is true? We have confidence that the conclusion is true, because BOTH of the following conditions are met:
- The argument is a valid argument. In other words, the conclusion follows logically from the stated premises – that is precisely what we mean when we say that it is a valid argument.
- The two premises are true.
If an argument is valid, and the premises upon which the argument is based are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
Now let’s take a look at an argument that is not valid – one in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises:
P1: All humans are mammals.
P2: George Washington was a human.
C: Therefore, George Washington was the first President of the United States.
While both premises are true, and the conclusion happens to be true also, the argument is not valid. You cannot come to the conclusion that George Washington was the first President based on the premises. The premises do not lead to the conclusion, so the argument is invalid – even though all three elements are true statements.
Here’s another invalid argument that’s a little more subtle:
P1: Some mammals are humans.
P2: George Washington was a mammal.
C: Therefore, George Washington was a human.
While the premises and conclusions are all true, the argument is not valid. For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow inescapably from the premises. That is not the case for this argument. If we knew nothing about George Washington except what the premises tell us, we could not be sure that George Washington is a human because not all mammals are humans. Only some of them are. For all we know, “George Washington” might be a dog and be a mammal, but not a human. Thus, the argument is invalid because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
Now, let’s show a valid argument that is false:
P1: All humans are amphibians.
P2: George Washington was a human.
C: Therefore, George Washington was an amphibian.
Clearly, this conclusion is false. However, you should note that the argument IS a valid argument. IF both premises were true, then the conclusion would also be true. Unfortunately, the first premise (P1) is not true, and so the conclusion is false.
In general, one can only say that since the premise is false, the argument does not show that the conclusion is true. It is possible that the conclusion may be true coincidentally. Here is a hypothetical example:
P1: All humans are male.
P2: George Washington was a human.
C: Therefore, George Washington was male.
Clearly, the conclusion IS true, but the first premise (P1) is obviously false. So the fact that the conclusion of this argument is true is merely coincidence.
Let’s review. If the conclusion of a logical argument follows directly from its premises, we consider the argument to be a valid logical argument, and in that case, the truth of its conclusion rests upon the truth of the stated premises. If the stated premises of a valid argument are objectively supported by observation (or science) or by the conclusions of other valid logical arguments which are objectively supported, then we consider the conclusion to be true.
The truth of these conclusions do not rest merely on opinion, doctrine, or religious texts. Instead, these conclusions rest directly upon logic and science.
---
Now that we have reviewed logical arguments, let’s apply this knowledge to the abortion debate. Here is what I consider to be the most basic argument, and I will refer to it as Argument 1:
P1.1: One does not have the right to kill an innocent human being.
P1.2: A child not yet born is an innocent human being.
C1: Therefore, one does not have the right to kill a child who has not yet been born.
Stated this way, it is difficult to imagine how any sane person would object to the truth of this conclusion. Clearly, the conclusion (C1) follows directly from the two stated premises (P1.1 & P1.2), and so this IS a valid logical argument. In addition to this, the premises of this argument are true. This means that we can have confidence that the conclusion is in fact true.
Of course, P1.1 cannot be proven to be true using science because such things as human rights do not fall within the purview of science. However, this principle – that one does not have the right to kill an innocent human being – is widely accepted as true among civilized societies and was specifically addressed by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence when they pointed out that it is “self-evident” that all humans possess certain unalienable rights, including the right to live.
Of course, the second premise (P1.2) is objectively shown to be true. In defense of that statement, let me address three important elements of this premise. First, one cannot object to my use of the term “child” here because “child” universally means “son or daughter,” and a child who has not yet been born is a son or daughter. That fact is simply undeniable, and it is this meaning that is used here. Second, that this child is indeed innocent is evident because he or she has not had the opportunity to commit any crime worthy of death. And third, the fact that this child is a human being (defined as a member of the human species) is abundantly clear since there is no possible way that two human beings can produce an offspring that is not also a human being.
Now, let me turn to the second most fundamental argument, which I will call Argument 2:
P2.1: All innocent human beings possess the exact same right to live as any other human
being.
P2.2: A child not yet born is an innocent human being.
C2: Therefore, a child who has not yet been born possesses the exact same right to live
as any other human being.
As before, the first premise (P2.1) is not one that can be supported with science because (again) the subject of human rights does not fall within the purview of scientific investigation. However, in order to argue that this premise is false, the critic must take the bigoted position that some human beings (like themselves) possess human rights that other human beings (those they wish to be allowed to kill) do not have. Furthermore, one can see that the second premise (P2.2) is identical to P1.2, and so has the same justification.
Therefore, since the conclusion (C2) follows directly from the premises, Argument 2 IS a valid logical argument, and so, like Argument 1, we have confidence that the conclusion is in fact true. Thus far in this article, we have shown that the following two statements are true:
C1: One does not have the right to kill a child who has not yet been born.
C2: A child who has not yet been born possesses the exact same right to live as any other
human being.
As you can see, these two well-proven truths alone are sufficient to show that abortion is a violation of the right to life of the child being aborted. Surely, any rational person will agree that if these two statements are true, then it should not be legal to commit abortion.
Notice that these two conclusions are not based in any way upon consent to sex. This means that they are true in general and are not subject to consensual sex. Whether or not the mother has consented to sex is not even addressed at all in these two arguments. These two arguments demonstrate logically that, regardless of the circumstances, children who have not yet been born have the same right to life as those of us who have been born. Thus, birth does not convey the right to live, and neither does any other event in an individual’s life. This right must come into existence when the human individual comes into existence, and that happens at fertilization (as we have shown earlier).
In Part 2, I will apply this logical method to the subject of consensual sex and show that consent to sex is indeed consent to pregnancy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)