Now that I’ve gotten your attention with a title that screams controversy, I hope you’ll stick around while I pose some rational questions. I recently watched the Andrew Solomon TED talk which I wrote an article about. In the article I was disputing his “solution” to women who are pregnant with children who have been identified as potentially having Down Syndrome. His solution was an abortion. I completely disagree with that as a solution. Delving into research there was much more information than I could fit in that one article, so I will share some of it here. I looked further and found another TED talk about abortion by Diana Whitten which I can only call radical and also feel the need to address later.
Definitions are important so I will share a few before I get to the meat of this article.
Pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. – From Planned Parenthood
Abortion – the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. – Google
Using these 2 simple definitions should allow us to avoid all conversation about moment of conception, implantation, fertilization, zygotes, fallopian tubes, etc. and other things that come up before the point of pregnancy, defined by Planned Parenthood.
So working with this definition of pregnancy and abortion we can look at some facts of this pregnant woman and her baby. Technically called a blastocyst at this point but from here on out we will understand that when I say baby, I am referring to a fertilized egg that has been implanted in the uterus.
One of the main arguments that anti-life people use if that “It’s my body It’s my body and I’d rather not have anyone telling me what to do with it.” – As this anti-life advocate put it so eloquently. I agree. Do what you want with your body. Unfortunately that baby in you is not your body. The baby has it’s own DNA. That’s enough evidence for me right there. Of course there are many other arguments showing that the baby is in fact it’s own entity, such as the development of measurable brain activity, eyes, heartbeat, etc.
The baby is protected (from everyone but it’s own mother!) by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) which basically says that if anyone kills a pregnant woman, they get charged with 2 murders. But if the mother chooses to kill the baby (abortion), it’s not murder? That’s just ridiculous double-speak legal jargon. You tell me why that makes any sense.Hopefully you are reasonable enough to say that you’d never kill your already born child at least? Apparently I can’t even make that as a blanket statement if you consider the document published by the Journal for Medical Ethics. (seems they need a rename to the Journal of Questionable Ethics). While I completely support their right to publish an article like this, I completely disagree with their findings, but it (hopefully) helps me make a case to end abortions.
“They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
As far as I know it’s always been illegal to kill a child once they are born. Working back from birth, what is fundamentally different for the child at 1 day before he or she is born? Nothing. There is the discussion of viability. What is the definition of viability? From my understanding it’s a pretty general term of when the baby would have a chance to survive outside the mother’s womb (with no life support, etc). The reason this has no importance in the discussion of abortion is there is no reason the child would need to be outside the womb. The baby is right where it needs to be in that phase of it’s life. And also, the baby isn’t viable by itself once it is born, iit still needs someone to care for it once it’s outside the womb, which is what the Journal argues above is a good reason for infanticide! In fact, very few people in the world are viable all by ourselves. You are? Did you build the car you drive to work every day? Did you make the computer you are reading this on? Did you grow all the food in your house? Did you build your house? No. Civilization is founded on community, not killing anyone who can’t take care of themselves. So if viability is your argument for abortion, please reconsider your stance.
One question I’ve always had for the abortion people is “Why is abortion the solution?” In our society we know what happens when 2 people have sex, you can get pregnant. Shouldn’t we focus on having strong families that will raise and love children, instead of having as much sex as we want and destroying any life that comes from it?
I’d like to highlight some abortion statistics from the Guttmacher Institute below.
Women in their 20’s account for more than half of all abortions: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.
Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).
Here are some statistics from the CDC.
In 2010, unmarried women accounted for 85% of all abortions (CDC).
Black women were 3.7 times more likely to have an abortion in 2010 than non-Hispanic white women (CDC)
Do you fall into any of those categories?
Do you think you might actually be being targeted for abortions?
Abortion happening any time after pregnancy (as defined above) is wrong.
I want to close with a few quotes
“It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times before than to believe a fact that one has never heard.” – Robert Lynd (Maybe, quotes are notoriously misattributed, but that doesn’t take away from their truth.)
The lies I’m referring to here are
- Abortion is ok.
- A baby is not a person.
“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
― Ronald Reagan (The actor, and former President of the United States)
Thank you to Amy Entwistle at Flickr Creative Commons for the cover photo.