Thoughts on Abortion, II

Establishing the Biblical position on abortion is valuable, but that doesn’t help when trying to persuade people who aren’t Christians. So, what should the secular position be on abortion? Let’s look at some of the most common arguments in favor of abortion being legal, and see how strong they really are.

As a frame of reference, I used to be an atheist who was pro-choice. The reality was I was having sex, and wanted an escape route if birth control failed. While I’m not saying that’s the attitude of all people who are pro-choice, one thing to consider for all the arguments that follow is whether they’re the real argument, or the palatable excuse.

A Woman’s Right to Her Body

The idea behind this argument is that a woman should have medical say-so over her body, and therefore the government shouldn’t interfere with her access to an abortion.

The problem with this argument is it’s treating the fetus as if it were a cyst. Consider, if you want to have a mole removed, you are removing a part of your body. The mole has your DNA. However, a fetus does not have the same DNA as the mother, and is therefore not a part of her body.

An abortion is a medical procedure that ends the life of an organism other than the woman having the abortion.

It Doesn’t Count as Alive if it Can’t Survive Outside the Womb

Humans have a wide variety of symbiotic organisms, such as gut bacteria, that require the human body as an environment to survive. Many parasitic organisms are also unable to survive outside a host organism. The fact that they are alive is the problem when they infect a host.

Simply stated, every living organism has an environment it requires to survive. Some organisms, such as mosquitoes and dragonflies, transition from one environment (water) to a very different environment (air) over the course of their lives.

Further, the scientific basis for an organism being alive is based on cellular reproduction and cellular processes. A fetus is very clearly alive.

It’s a Fetus, Not a Person

The idea behind this argument is that a fetus is a parasite, rather than a human being. Again, this is based on the idea that at a certain stage of development, which is never clearly defined, the organism “becomes” the species it is. The problem is, what species is the fetus before it becomes a “human being”?

Scientifically, your DNA determines your species. That means that as soon as a human egg is fertilized, it is a living, human organism. It has a long way to go before it is obviously human, but genetically, it is fully human.

What About the Case Where the Mother’s Life is in Danger?

First, this is an unusual case. There are two basic options: have the baby be born prematurely and see if it survives, or terminate the pregnancy and not attempt to save the baby’s life. Ultimately, this is a medical decision that requires a doctor’s input, and will vary on a case-by-case basis. Regardless, attempting to save the baby’s life seems reasonable. Premature babies have an ever-increasing rate of survival, however, so abortion doesn’t need to be the default “solution”.

What About the Case of Rape/Incest?

At this point, we shift from scientific arguments to emotional/moral arguments. The rape/incest argument is arguing that sometimes a woman can experience a traumatic event, and it results in a pregnancy. Now, the woman’s pregnancy is worsening the violation she initially experienced, and this is an immoral emotional burden on her.

First, let me be very, very clear: rape is a horrible crime. It is one of the very few crimes that was deemed worthy of the death penalty in the Old Testament Law. Rape was viewed as being on the same level as murder, and I completely agree with that.

With that said, her emotions are not an argument. There are rape survivors who view the children they conceived as a blessing. There are others who view the child as a painful reminder. Perhaps our problem is we don’t have sufficient resources to counsel rape survivors.

Additionally, if we accept that the fetus is a human being (see above), then the argument is to kill one person to protect the emotional well-being of another. At this point, we are now making a decision about when it is acceptable to kill one person to protect the feelings of another. How do you place one person’s feelings ahead of another person’s life?

What About the Case of Birth Defects?

This is another emotional argument, where the idea is that the child will either be an extreme burden on the parent(s), or that the child will have a low quality of life. If the argument is that you are putting the parent(s)’ comfort ahead of the child’s life, then we’re again setting a dangerous precedent where life is not an absolute right.

The other perspective is the “quality of life” argument. The idea is that a child born with birth defects will have a lower quality of life, and it is a kindness to end that person’s life. This ignores the evidence to the contrary all around us. Watch people compete in the Special Olympics. You see people smiling and having fun, regardless of the nature of the birth defect. In fact, people with Downs Syndrome tend to be MORE happy than most people!

What if the Mother Can’t Care for the Baby?

Examples of this often involve mothers addicted to drugs, are poor, etc. In every case, there are two issues involved. First, why is the mother having sex? If the mother cannot care for her baby, then the responsible action is to not perform the actions that led to conception. For some cases, such as drug addiction, we do have an obvious case of irresponsible behavior on many levels, but in others, there is no such excuse.

Second, it ignores the reality of adoption. Many states have numerous laws that allow a woman who cannot care for a child to give that child up for adoption, no questions asked.

The Adoption/Foster Care System is Overloaded

This is a complicated issue. The nature of the argument is basically, “The adoption system is overloaded, so better to kill the unborn child.” An alternative argument, however, would be, “The adoption system is overloaded, so it needs to be overhauled to become more efficient.”

The reality is that the demand for children of all ages is much higher than the supply. Bureaucratic red tape does more to keep children available for adoption than anything else. With reforms, most children waiting for adoption could be adopted, with thousands of parents still waiting for children.

A Baby is a Burden

Barack Obama once stated that he wouldn’t want his daughter to be “burdened” with a baby. In many ways, this is the most honest argument for keeping abortion legal. Raising a child can be challenging and expensive. However, as I stated above, pregnancy is a consequence of having sex. The easiest way to avoid the “burden” of raising a child is to not have sex.

My Takeaway

If we look at our culture, the attitude towards sex is that it is a “harmless recreation”. This is the message communicated through movies, television, and even advertising. The problem is that sex has consequences, including pregnancy and disease. Abortion attempts to remove the consequence of pregnancy, while ignoring the behavior that led to it. Moreover, calls to change our attitude towards sex are regularly derided as unrealistic, despite being calls to a return to behavior that used to be the norm.

My challenge to someone who is in favor of abortion: if I agree to keep it legal in the case of rape, incest or life-threatening conditions, will you agree to ban it in all other cases? For me, it would vastly reduce the number of abortions, and supposedly it would address the most pressing concerns of those who are pro-choice. Personally, I am skeptical of having my offer accepted.