Abortion: Disposable Lives
Arguing Against Abortion "Rights" (Part-3)
By David Wood

In this final look at the subject of abortion, we will respond to a few more arguments used by the pro-abortion groups as well as look at the issue of whether any conditions exist where an abortion would be morally justified.

As I mentioned in part-1, many pro-abortion groups now admit that life does begin at conception. So to keep abortion legal they have changed the wording used concerning this unborn life, with the word “personhood” used in attempt to defend abortion. Basically their stance is that although the unborn are of the human species, the unborn have not yet reached the status of personhood, hence an abortion isn’t the killing of a real person.

It’s important to again remind ourselves what abortion is all about to the pro-abortion groups. To their flawed way of thinking, a women should have the "choice" to legally abort a perfectly healthy child simply because the pregnancy was “unintended”.

“Yet bearing and raising children entails significant risks and burdens which not all women can assume at all times and under all circumstances. If a pregnancy is unintended, the serious physical risks imposed from prolonged discomfort and pain to substantial medical complication and even death increase measurably.” (Excerpt taken from the NARAL website)

We will now take a look at a few of their arguments concerning keeping abortion legal including the issue of “personhood.”

1) Even if the unborn can be considered biological life, it doesn’t have full personhood because it isn’t aware of what is going on around it.

It’s difficult to understand how one can say that just because someone might not be fully aware of what is taking place around him or her, they cannot be a real person. For example, a person in a temporary comatose state might not be aware of what is going on around them but does this mean they aren’t a real person? Or what about a 6-month-old baby sleeping in a crib? This baby might not be aware of what is going on around it, so does this mean this 6-month-old isn’t really a person?

2) Certainly an abortion performed during the first 5 weeks of pregnancy is morally justified because the brain has not yet started to function. In this case the unborn “entity” cannot feel any pain. If it can’t feel pain, you wouldn’t be harming a real human person.

It is true that at about 40 days after conception the brain starts to function. Using an EEG to measure brain waves and activity has proved this. But the problem with this argument is that it puts the feeling of pain on an equal stance with causing harm to someone. For example, if there was a paralyzed person with no feeling in their legs and someone stabbed that person in their leg, does this mean they wouldn’t be harmed because they didn’t actually feel the pain? In short, one does not have to actually experience harm to actually be harmed.

3) A woman should be able to have an abortion before she can feel the baby moving. When she can actually feel and experience the movement of the baby, it is then that the baby can be classified as a real human person.

This is an argument from ancient times that was used by many law scholars. The term they used was quickening, which meant that when the mother could feel the first movement of the baby, the baby was considered alive. Many of America’s forefathers used this term and time of a woman’s pregnancy to indicate when the life of the child actually started.

This doesn’t mean that our forefathers were pro-abortion. At that time in history these people didn’t have the scientific evidence that we have today, and today we know that at the time of conception the zygote has full biological life, full human nature, and a complete genetic code for the life of this human. The ancient law scholars believed that the life of the child should be protected at the time of quickening because that was the best physical evidence they had at that time. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that if America’s forefathers were alive today and aware of the scientific evidence for when life begins, these men would say that life begins at conception, not only morally but also legally.

4) We should keep abortion legal in the event the baby is deformed or handicapped. The mother might not want to raise a child like this, and no person wants to grow up handicapped.

For the sake of argument, lets say we agree with this. So all “pro-lifers” tell Planned Parenthood, N.A.R.A.L., and the other pro-abortion groups: “Ok, let us outlaw all abortions except in the cases of the deformed or handicapped baby.” What you would then hear from these pro-abortion groups is: “No! We must keep abortion legal for the health of every woman.” You see, the “pro-choicers” will use the more “difficult cases” of rape, incest, and the handicapped child in attempt to defend abortion for any reason.

To address their specific argument about the deformed or handicapped child, we must first ask, “how many handicapped organizations promote abortion for the handicapped?” The answer is none! Second, is a handicapped person not a real human being? Basically what these pro-abortion groups are doing is telling other human beings, “You are much better off not existing.”

If the “pro-choicers” are correct in their stance, then it logically follows that the suicide rate would be higher for the handicapped compared to the non-handicapped. There has never been one study that has shown that handicapped persons are more likely to want to commit suicide than those that are not handicapped. There are numerous people alive today that would consider themselves handicapped, yet they are actors, business owners, therapists, ministers, authors, and in every field and profession imaginable. Hence, what the “pro-choicers” are saying is, “We know you are a human being, but maybe your mother doesn’t want to take care of you. So for the “health” of your mother we must always give her the option of legally killing you before you can be born.”

Possibly the most extreme case that pro-abortion groups use to defend keeping abortion legal for any reason is the case of the anencephalic baby. Just as in the cases of rape and the handicapped child, if everyone would agree to outlaw abortion except in the case of the anencephalic baby, pro-abortion groups would do nothing but complain. I once spoke with a woman from Planned Parenthood and she was upset that I was against abortion. She finally did what all “pro-choicers” must eventually do, that is, bring up the subject of the anencephalic baby. Her response to me was: “what about the anencephalic baby?” I responded to her that we could allow an abortion in the case of the anencephalic baby, but we should outlaw all other abortions. She then informed me that wouldn’t be fair, and we should keep abortion legal for all women in all cases. A perfect example of how the pro-abortion groups will bring up the most extreme cases hoping to win sympathy for their cause.

Anencephaly is a condition where the brain, top of the head, and the spinal cord is missing. “Most affected infants are stillborn or survive only a few hours. It occurs due to a failure in development of the neural tube, the nerve tissue in the embryo that eventually develops into the spinal cord and brain.” (American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine)

There are a few different opinions on how to classify the anencephalic baby. Many “pro-choicers” will say that the anencephalic baby cannot be classified as a real human, hence, because it is a non-human, an abortion is justified. If a “pro-choicer” were to make this statement, it is a good opportunity to show them the falsity of their belief in abortion on demand. If the “pro-choicer” states an abortion is justified because this anencephalic baby is so damaged it is non-human, point out to them this logically implies that an abortion on a healthy human baby would not be justified.

The other view is this baby is truly human. Although the anencephalic baby is conceived as a human, it is a severely damaged human. If this baby did actually make it to term, he/she will die shortly after birth. In all honesty, there is no easy answer concerning the anencephalic baby. It is possibly the toughest case there is, which is exactly why the pro-abortion groups will bring it up. Keep in mind that even if we were to allow an abortion in the case of the anencephalic baby, do not allow the “pro-choicers” to use this extremely difficult case to justify the killing of the vast majority of healthy babies.

Although we have looked at only a few pro-abortion arguments here in part 3, I believe the arguments we looked at in parts 1 and 2 are adequate to show that life does indeed begin at conception and for a woman to have a doctor assisted abortion would cause the death of a human being.

One thing we didn’t look at was the issue of partial-birth abortion. This is an issue that is now front and center in the abortion fight, and currently the issue is being debated in the Congress of the United States. As we have seen with the arguments the “pro-choicers” use in defense of abortion on demand, pro-abortion groups have no good arguments for keeping abortion legal. The issue of partial-birth abortion shouldn’t even be considered a problem to outlaw. But it has been a problem, hence the reason partial-birth abortion is currently legal.

For those of you that aren’t aware of what partial-birth abortion is, allow me to give you an overview. First, a woman can be in the process of childbirth with the healthy baby being partially born. At this time she can tell the doctor that she wants the baby killed, at which time the doctor uses a sharp instrument and punctures the baby’s head and vacuums the baby’s brains out thereby killing it.

The argument used by pro-abortion groups to keep partial-birth abortion legal is this: Partial-birth abortion should be kept legal to protect the health of the mother, if needed. This is the most insane argument ever used by “pro-choicers!” Never will you see a doctors group saying that partial-birth abortion has anything to do with the mother’s health. Once the baby is partially born, killing the baby has no effect on the mother’s physical health.

To give you an example of the absurdity involved, the pro-abortion groups want the law worded to say that a woman can legally have a partial-birth abortion for emotional health concerns. This means the woman could be in the process of delivering her baby and then tell the doctor that having the child would cause her mental stress and anguish, and the doctor could legally kill the child for that reason.

This further shows that pro-abortion groups have absolutely no concern for human life. Although I cannot remember the exact details, hence I can’t directly use a quote, I once heard a Congresswoman from California say that a baby isn’t really a human baby until the mother gets back to her home with the baby! It is this kind of evil absurd thinking that keeps abortion legal.

Now, is there any condition where an abortion could be classified as morally justified? Yes, I do believe there is an instance during pregnancy where an abortion would be morally justified and performing an abortion would be in the best interest of the mother. This is the only condition during pregnancy where it should be legal, based on saving the woman’s life, that an abortion should be allowed. Let’s take a look at a tubal pregnancy.

Tubal pregnancy happens when the conceptus plants in one of the woman’s tubes instead of implanting in the womb. The tube is very small and cannot accommodate a growing baby. In life, moral conflicts do occur and this is one of those cases. If a doctor does nothing concerning a tubal pregnancy, the tube will eventually burst and at that time, the baby will die. Furthermore, if this happens the woman will experience severe internal bleeding, and there is a very good chance the woman will die. It is clear that in the case of a tubal pregnancy, the woman’s life is in real danger. This is why I believe that in the case of a tubal pregnancy, and only in this case, a doctor-assisted abortion should be performed.

What we must realize is that even if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, the baby will certainly die as soon as the tube bursts. There is no doubt about this. But then the mother will likely die from internal bleeding. Many people will say we should choose to do the lesser evil in this circumstance. But I believe the wording should be we should choose to do the greater good. This means that morally we have to choose between knowing that two lives will be ended if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, or we can end one life to save the life of another. Because the baby will die no matter what happens, we should choose to do the greater good and abort the baby before the tube bursts, therefore saving the life of the mother.

In conclusion, it is clear that abortion on demand is the great American holocaust. Sometimes people ask, "Where is the doctor that finds a cure for cancer?" Who knows, maybe he was aborted. Or, "Where is the scientist that discovers a cure for AIDS?" Maybe she was aborted. Furthermore, with what we have seen in this 3-part paper it is clear that in the abortion debate, the phrase "pro-choice" should be replaced with the phrase "anti-life."

Note: For further in-depth study of the issue of abortion: Politically Correct Death, by Francis Beckwith. Abortion and the Christian, by John Jefferson Davis. The Life and Death Debate, by J.P. Moreland and Norm Geisler.