Horror from down-under: Ethicists argue in favor of infanticide

With the Personhood bill being effectively defeated (It was technically only tabled until next year, but might as well be defeated in the near term for all practical purposes) I thought it might be appropriate to feature a paper written by a pair of ethicists out of Australia that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They tackled the sticky issue of killing newborns. (I had no idea this was even a debate. Silly me.)

The paper was written by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Here's the abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

I highly recommend reading the entire paper (It's only a few pages long and an easy read), which you can find here. It's very interesting, and by interesting I mean mind bendingly horrific.

The paper contends that newborns, while human and alive, are not persons, but "potential persons". Because only persons have a moral value, and because fetuses are not considered persons as evidenced by abortions being allowable in some situations, they show that newborns are not definitively different that fetuses. Therefore, they are not persons either. So, let the slaughter begin!

Alberto Giubilini, teaching kangaroos to shoot children at the range

What makes a person, you may ask?

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life...

They go on to say that while the mother may assign value to the infant, this is only a projected and "subjective" quantity that does not depend on the infant itself.

In essence because the infant is not capable of attaching any value to its life it cannot be harmed by being deprived of it. So, since an infant can experience pain it has a right not to have pain inflicted upon it, but since it cannot value life it has no right to it. They note that one does not have to be aware of the harm to be harmed; someone who has a lottery ticket stolen from them and never finds out it was the winner has been harmed despite their ignorance, because they are in the condition to appreciate what they would have had, had they been aware of it. Infants are too stupid to appreciate their life no matter how hard you try to explain it to them, so they don't have a right to it.

Stupid baby! Why won't you understand my abstract arguments about life!?

Naturally, this sort of thing should only be permitted in a situation where abortions would be acceptable. Like, if the baby has a horrible defect that isn't revealed till after birth. Or if society could be burdened by having to support another baby. Or if the newborn's parents might be slightly inconvenienced by having it around.

You see, the newborn's existence might harm real people's plans. The financial and emotional well-being of those affected by the baby's life could be worse off, so therefore the rights of real people trumps that of potential people. Because the future person the baby will become doesn't exist yet, and won't if we kill it now, that future person can't be harmed and therefore has a value of zero.

"Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero."

Emphasis mine. I'll go ahead and draw the conclusion the authors didn't here: Since the potential person's moral value is 0, and any positive number is by definition greater than 0, that means that no matter how tiny the inconvenience or upset is to actual people, the baby's "alleged" right to life is trumped by it.

I was gonna have that baby...But that burger looks really good...

The authors naturally wouldn't want to call this practice infanticide. Infanticide has so many negative connotations!

"We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."

Also, the definition of infanticide is REALLY confusing. Just look at the Merriam Webster entry:

Definition of INFANTICIDE

1: the killing of an infant

So much grey area.

Francesca Minerva, putting the "bright side" back into "infanticide"!

The thing is, if you accept their premise of how personhood relates to the right to life, and their definition of a person, everything else falls into place. This paper shows why one should be completely pro-life. It references its justification of infanticide to the acceptability of abortions at least half a dozen times.

As the National Catholic Register states, "The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand."

UPDATE: Personhood bill passes VA Senate committee

HB1, commonly referred to as the Personhood Bill, having been passed by the House of Delegates, is now on to the Senate for review. It has passed its first hurdle, namely being passed by the Senate Committee for Education and Health. They passed the same bill as the House with the same amendment, specifying protection for contraception.

The bill passed the committee with a vote of 8-7, strictly along party lines. It will now be heard by the full Senate. If the Senate follows the same timeline as the House then a vote in the Senate can be expected in the next week or so (There's two more weeks left in the session). The Republicans and Democrats each hold 20 seats in the Senate, with Lt Gov. Bill Bolling having the tie breaking vote. While neither he nor Governor McDonnell have said whether they would vote and/or sign the bill, both have proven to be decidedly pro-life in the past, which would suggest they may look favorably on the bill should it pass.

This just in: Babies are people, regardless of geographical location

The House of Delegates in Virginia passed a bill two days ago, on Valentine's day, that declared that in Virginia an infant will be deemed a person from the moment of conception. Its fate in the Senate is unclear.

The bill was proposed by Delegate Marshall, noted a noted pro-lifer. HB1, which can be read here, is being referred to in the media as the "Personhood Bill". Article one and two state the purpose very simply:

"§ 1. The life of each human being begins at conception.

§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."

The bill goes on, but even just those two articles would essentially make abortions illegal in the state of Virginia. After all, if the unborn child is in fact a human with protectable interests, we can't very well go off killing it for no good reason.

I absolutely and unequivocally agree with the premise of this bill. If you want to read my full stance on abortion, check out this article I wrote back in March of 09. Here's the highlight: abortion arguments are really about the moment when life begins. The logical reasoning for this is simple:

• Humans have rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, among them a right to life.
• Intentionally slaying an innocent human is murder (To be contrasted by slaying a human who is not innocent, such as an aggressor or a criminal).
• The above facts are true regardless of geographical position. A person does not cease to be a person if they are moved from point A to point B. Therefore, a person's location in a hospital, living room, or the uterus of another person is immaterial to their rights as a person (unless they got there through nefarious means. I do not consider being conceived terribly nefarious).
  
• Therefore, the abortion argument has nothing to do with whether a child is unborn, but whether the fetus is in fact a human child, and when it becomes one.

I am of the opinion that the only non-arbitrary moment we can define as the beginning of life is conception. Any other point in time is completely arbitrary and beyond our abilities to measure accurately. Only at conception, a well defined moment we can measure, can we be absolutely certain that we are not destroying a life. Show me another time when we can absolutely be certain that the spark of life is not present, and I will be in favor of abortions until that time.

The liberal friend of mine who brought this bill to my attention asked me to imagine that I had a uterus. "How would you feel if the government told you what you could do with it?" she asked me.

I would be outraged, of course! It is my uterus! I would picket the capitol building and demand the stopping of the infringement of my rights. I'd get an "I <3 my uterus" tattoo, and maybe take my uterus on outings to increase bonding time. I would do these things up until the moment I became pregnant. At that point my uterus is no longer simply an organ. It is an organ that contains a unique human life. My rights end where the rights of another begin, and just as I have the right to free speech but cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, I have the right to do with my body as I will but not if in doing so I will kill another.

I, too, have a thought experiment challenge. Imagine that you are transported back to the uterus, aware of your surroundings, with all your experiences. Does your location in said uterus invalidate your humanity? The geographical location of a person is immaterial.

All of the above being said, I am not without concerns about this bill. Any time you give a government power, it will eventually abuse that power. Allowing a fetus to be declared human, which I agree with wholeheartedly, has many consequences which should be considered. The drafters of the bill identified two, specifically.

§ 6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

§ 7. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.

This protects an overactive government from attempting to regulate prenatal care under the auspices of "protecting the unborn child from negligence", which is a clear case of overreach into the private life of a citizen. Likewise, it does not allow for the unintended consequence of shutting down fertility clinics, which exist to allow loving parents to have children of their own, an admirable goal by any estimation.

What happens if a woman smokes while she is pregnant? It is terrible, I agree, and poor parenting, but should the government be able to regulate it? What about drinking? Half a glass of wine can actually be beneficial in some cases for a pregnant woman. What about a full glass? Two? Should the government regulate this?

What if a woman goes out on an icy day, slips, and therefore has a miscarriage. She's killed her baby, who is now a human. Is this murder? Manslaughter? What if the miscarriage is stress induced? What if the woman didn't even know she was pregnant until she unintentionally killed the little human inside of her?

Common sense would disallow nearly every permutation of the above consequences. Unfortunately, relying on common sense to restrict the power of government practically guarantees abuse. I would feel much safer about this bill if a few more paragraphs were added. I am no lawyer, but for example:

"Nothing in this bill will be interpreted as cause of action against a woman who directly or indirectly causes harm to come to her baby unless it can be proven that such harm was intentional and malicious."

This would place the burden of proof on the state to demonstrate a clear motive before being able to prosecute (which would be the case in nearly all abortions, but not for an after dinner glass of wine).

I would also be careful not to disallow the mythical "abortion to save a mother's life" case. These cases are exceedingly rare. While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.

Note, I personally would hope that even in the case of a mother's life, the mother in question would have the moral character to place the life of an innocent child above her own. Who among us would laud a woman for jumping out of the way of a bus, instead of throwing her child to safety, essentially trading her child's life for her own? I would not be in favor of legislating this sort of morality, however.

There are few times when I am genuinely proud of my legislature. This is one of them. I applaud them for their intentions, and caution them on their consequences. Tweak this bill just a little bit more, Virginia Senate, and we can have the protection that the unborn deserve without the potential for grave Orwellian consequences.

Insanity: British pundit supports suffocation of suffering children (and my position on abortion)

When someone disagrees with me, I am not offended. It does not bother me personally. I can hold a heartfelt, even passionate debate and at the end laugh along with the other person despite differences, given one caveat: The only thing I require is a rational opinion.

There are times, however, when I hear an opinion that is so amazingly, stupendously, breathtakingly ridiculous that I wonder if I'm actually the victim of some cruel practical joke. I attempt to examine it logically but there's always the nagging voice in the back of my head that refuses to believe another person is truly spouting the nonsense I'm examining and calling it a position.

One of these times occurred when I read the position of one British Pundit, Victoria Ironside. Her position starts with:

“Abortion can often be seen as something wicked and irresponsible, but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act. Sometimes the decision of a good mother is not to have the child.”

If only she had stopped there, I likely would never have heard of Ms. Ironside. Unfortunately, she just had to continue. She went on to say (and I swear I am not making this up)

“If I were the mother of a suffering child — I mean a deeply suffering child — I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face. If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.”

...

I am truly at a loss for words. All that comes to mind is this: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Since it has been over a year since I posted this, I figured I would take this opportunity to repost my position on abortion. Here it is:

"My Pro-Life Argument. No exceptions, no exclusions.

Many people believe me to be passionate about a lot of issues. Truly, this is the only one that really deserves the title. I believe that abortion is murder. Period. How could you not be passionate with a position like that?

A coworker of mine wanted to hear my reasons for being pro-life, so I wrote her the following paper. I figured I might as well post it for the rest of the world.

"I’m going to lay out the Abortion Argument as best I can, and give you my reasons for being pro-Life. First, some definitions:

What is an abortion? Webster’s defines it as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” It also states: “spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE” So, all miscarriages are abortions. Not all abortions are miscarriages. In the political sense, the term “abortion” is generally applied only to non-natural, intentional terminations of pregnancy. This is the definition I will be using.

What is pregnant? “Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body”. Note: No exclusions are given based on the stage of pregnancy. If you are gestating a human that is yet unborn, you are pregnant. Thus, you are pregnant from conception to birth.

What is infanticide? Webster’s says it is simply “the killing of an infant.”

What is an infant? “A child in the first period of life”.

What is murder? “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Obviously, if the law itself is in question, then we must disregard it (to prevent circular reasoning) and cut straight the latter half.

The definition of murder gives no leeway as to the age or position of person (though the unlawful clause excludes criminals). Therefore, if it is alive, human, and innocent, to kill it is murder, which is a universally accepted wrong. Since all infanticides are murder, and murder=wrong, infanticide must therefore also be wrong.

There are many different forms of abortion, depending on what stage the pregnancy is in when terminated. You can find a listing of many options at this site. They range from drugs to induce delivery early on, to surgical options, including sucking the fetus out. Another form of abortion, rarely performed, is the infamous partial birth abortion. This can be done during the third trimester, though it is more often done in the second. Here they induce labor and deliver the fetus until only the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted to pierce the skull. The skull and tissue is then collapsed and it is then delivered the rest of the way and disposed of.

They all have one thing in common: They end the pregnancy of the mother, through the destruction of the fetus. Is this infanticide? Since the only qualification for murder is “life and humanity”, which in this case go hand in hand, the only real question is: When does life begin? After all, if something is not alive, then there is no moral value and the destruction of such a thing cannot be wrong.

There are very few who would support any sort of abortion post-birth. Once outside the womb, all children are considered human. But what about before that? To answer, we turn to science.

This site says: “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cacti, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, and four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

I’m not sure that I can be any more profound or eloquent than the experts, so I will leave their argument to speak for itself.

Moving on, common arguments for the pro-Choice stance.

1: It is a woman’s right what she does with her own body.

Yes, undeniably, it is her right. This argument makes the assumption, however, that the infant is simply another organ attached to the mother with nothing special to distinguish it. Yet, there are many differences. First, this “organ” very quickly has organs of its own. In fact, within the first month, the little ‘organ’ has a brain of its own which directs a heart of its own to beat to its own rhythm. Show me the kidney that can do that, and I will recant my position!

Also, a liver, stomach, or kidney will never, ever be anything else other than a liver, stomach, or kidney. They have one specific purpose which they fulfill without any other reason for being, and they will remain in the body indefinitely. The child, by contrast, is in the womb only temporarily and will eventually be birthed.

Finally, I firmly support a woman’s choice. That choice happened when she chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is conceived, that was what was supposed to happen. We do not murder out of convenience. (Note: Rape will be dealt with later.)

2: If abortion is murder, then so are periods and masturbation.

Again, the difference here is potential. An egg, on its own, will never be anything but an egg. A sperm, on its own, will never change. Fertilize the egg, however, and barring anything unfortunate, the new cell will divide and reproduce a brand new human.

3: It can’t be human before “x” day because it is not viable outside the womb. (Another variation of this argument claims that since the child is wholly dependent on the mother for survival, it is a parasite and not a human.)

This argument states basically that since the fetus cannot survive on its own, it is not human. In that case, abortions should be allowed at least up until age 2, and possibly much later. A newborn child, fresh out of the womb, will die if not cared for. A toddler is unable to find food and fend for itself in the world. According to this argument, we should be allowed to slay said children if they become inconvenient.

Likewise, this argument also lumps together anyone on life support (they cannot survive without it. They aren’t independently ‘viable’), including those who artificial hearts.

Obviously, viability cannot be used as a yardstick for life. If this were so, Aubrey, Alexis, and millions of others would be candidates for abortion.

4: I don’t agree with abortion personally, but I can’t dictate that to someone else.

Abortion is only wrong if it is the intentional slaying of a human. As outlined above, if the thing is not alive then there is no reason to be against it. If it is alive and human, and it is not guilty of some crime, then destroying it intentionally is murder. It is either A, or B. Wrong, or not. There is no middle ground allowed in this logical argument.

Thus, this argument says “I believe abortion is the intentional slaying of a defenseless child, but I can’t tell someone else they can’t do it.” This is obviously insanity.

5: What about when the mother’s life is in danger or the child will be born with some sort of defect?

First: Who defines defect? Today a defect is a horrible disease. Tomorrow? Missing a hand, a leg? Brown hair as opposed to blonde?

Second: Tests are not completely accurate in this regard. For example, my wife’s family’s youngest daughter, Kara, was supposed to be born with several deadly diseases and defects. She was going to die instantly, and if she somehow survived, her entire life would be full of pain. Today she is a healthy and very intelligent 6 year old girl.

Third: From EPM.org: “While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.”

Last: Even if you allow that this circumstance could happen, ask yourself this: You are walking across a road, and next to you is a small child. Suddenly, you see a bus bearing down on the both of you. You only have time to jump out of the way yourself, or push the child to safety. Only one of you can survive. Who do you pick? The answer in a moral sense is obvious: You save the child. The answer is even more obvious if this child is your own.

The last question is the most controversial.

5: Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

The argument contends that because the mother did not choose to have the child, she should not be forced to carry it to term. The pregnancy is seen as a punishment on the victim.

Rape is a very traumatic and tragic event. Sometimes, a child will be conceived out of this forced union. No one would wish further suffering on someone who had to go through something like this. If you choose to have an abortion, however, all you are doing is committing a crime yourself. In your hurt and distress, you are choosing to slay a completely innocent child whose only crime is being conceived. The child cannot be held responsible for who its parents were. Your right to choose was forcibly taken away, but if you abort, you are committing an even worse crime upon the child.

Perhaps the mother does not think she can raise the child because of where he came from. The truth is, though, that she doesn’t have to! There are literally thousands of parents who are waiting in line to be blessed with this baby. They will pay for every penny of expense, and you never even have to lay eyes upon the child if you do not wish to.

Rape is a crime. So is murder. As horrible as the crime committed upon the mother was, it does not make committing an even worse one upon another innocent excusable.

[Here I took out a very personal story related to this issue. It is relevant, but not appropriate to post to the world. If you want to know it, ask and you may receive.]

I’m sure you can tell that this is a very important issue to me. Of all the people on Earth, children are the ones most deserving of our care and protection. It is one of the greatest tragedies that our generation is seeing millions upon millions being murdered every year. They cannot speak for themselves. We must speak for them. I hope this helps."

Dr. Tiller, abortion doctor, slain

On May 31st Dr. Tiller was shot on the foyer of his church. He was 67 and was most well known for his controversial abortion practices.

Normally when I write up my opinion on a story, for myself and Fluffy the monkey, there's some kind of grey area. It takes a little bit of thought and time along with a healthy dose of sarcasm. Here goes my analysis: Shooting an abortion doctor in the face is murder, and ought to be punished as such.

Well, that didn't take long.

Now I have a dilemma. You probably stumbled in here on your way to something more entertaining, and that one sentence of in depth analysis won't keep you here long. So, I've attached below my complete position on abortion itself. It was written as a letter to an inquisitive co-worker. Enjoy:

Many people believe me to be passionate about a lot of issues. Truly, this is the only one that really deserves the title. I believe that abortion is murder. Period. How could you not be passionate with a position like that?

A coworker of mine wanted to hear my reasons for being pro-life, so I wrote her the following paper. I figured I might as well post it for the rest of the world.

"I’m going to lay out the Abortion Argument as best I can, and give you my reasons for being pro-Life. First, some definitions:

What is an abortion? Webster’s defines it as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” It also states: “spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE” So, all miscarriages are abortions. Not all abortions are miscarriages. In the political sense, the term “abortion” is generally applied only to non-natural, intentional terminations of pregnancy. This is the definition I will be using.

What is pregnant? “Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body”. Note: No exclusions are given based on the stage of pregnancy. If you are gestating a human that is yet unborn, you are pregnant. Thus, you are pregnant from conception to birth.

What is infanticide? Webster’s says it is simply “the killing of an infant.”

What is an infant? “A child in the first period of life”.

What is murder? “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Obviously, if the law itself is in question, then we must disregard it (to prevent circular reasoning) and cut straight the latter half.

The definition of murder gives no leeway as to the age or position of person (though the unlawful clause excludes criminals). Therefore, if it is alive, human, and innocent, to kill it is murder, which is a universally accepted wrong. Since all infanticides are murder, and murder=wrong, infanticide must therefore also be wrong.

There are many different forms of abortion, depending on what stage the pregnancy is in when terminated. You can find a listing of many options at this site. They range from drugs to induce delivery early on, to surgical options, including sucking the fetus out. Another form of abortion, rarely performed, is the infamous partial birth abortion. This can be done during the third trimester, though it is more often done in the second. Here they induce labor and deliver the fetus until only the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted to pierce the skull. The skull and tissue is then collapsed and it is then delivered the rest of the way and disposed of.

They all have one thing in common: They end the pregnancy of the mother, through the destruction of the fetus. Is this infanticide? Since the only qualification for murder is “life and humanity”, which in this case go hand in hand, the only real question is: When does life begin? After all, if something is not alive, then there is no moral value and the destruction of such a thing cannot be wrong.

There are very few who would support any sort of abortion post-birth. Once outside the womb, all children are considered human. But what about before that? To answer, we turn to science.

This site says: “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, and four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

I’m not sure that I can be any more profound or eloquent than the experts, so I will leave their argument to speak for itself.

Moving on, common arguments for the pro-Choice stance.

1: It is a woman’s right what she does with her own body.

Yes, undeniably, it is her right. This argument makes the assumption, however, that the infant is simply another organ attached to the mother with nothing special to distinguish it. Yet, there are many differences. First, this “organ” very quickly has organs of its own. In fact, within the first month, the little ‘organ’ has a brain of its own which directs a heart of its own to beat to its own rhythm. Show me the kidney that can do that, and I will recant my position!

Also, a liver, stomach, or kidney will never, ever be anything else other than a liver, stomach, or kidney. They have one specific purpose which they fulfill without any other reason for being, and they will remain in the body indefinitely. The child, by contrast, is in the womb only temporarily and will eventually be birthed.

Finally, I firmly support a woman’s choice. That choice happened when she chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is conceived, that was what was supposed to happen. We do not murder out of convenience. (Note: Rape will be dealt with later.)

2: If abortion is murder, then so are periods and masturbation.

Again, the difference here is potential. An egg, on its own, will never be anything but an egg. A sperm, on its own, will never change. Fertilize the egg, however, and barring anything unfortunate, the new cell will divide and reproduce a brand new human.

3: It can’t be human before “x” day because it is not viable outside the womb. (Another variation of this argument claims that since the child is wholly dependent on the mother for survival, it is a parasite and not a human.)

This argument states basically that since the fetus cannot survive on its own, it is not human. In that case, abortions should be allowed at least up until age 2, and possibly much later. A newborn child, fresh out of the womb, will die if not cared for. A toddler is unable to find food and fend for itself in the world. According to this argument, we should be allowed to slay said children if they become inconvenient.

Likewise, this argument also lumps together anyone on life support (they cannot survive without it. They aren’t independently ‘viable’), including those who artificial hearts.

Obviously, viability cannot be used as a yardstick for life. If this were so, Aubrey, Alexis, and millions of others would be candidates for abortion.

4: I don’t agree with abortion personally, but I can’t dictate that to someone else.

Abortion is only wrong if it is the intentional slaying of a human. As outlined above, if the thing is not alive then there is no reason to be against it. If it is alive and human, and it is not guilty of some crime, then destroying it intentionally is murder. It is either A, or B. Wrong, or not. There is no middle ground allowed in this logical argument.

Thus, this argument says “I believe abortion is the intentional slaying of a defenseless child, but I can’t tell someone else they can’t do it.” This is obviously insanity.

5: What about when the mother’s life is in danger or the child will be born with some sort of defect?

First: Who defines defect? Today a defect is a horrible disease. Tomorrow? Missing a hand, a leg? Brown hair as opposed to blonde?

Second: Tests are not completely accurate in this regard. For example, my wife’s family’s youngest daughter, Kara, was supposed to be born with several deadly diseases and defects. She was going to die instantly, and if she somehow survived, her entire life would be full of pain. Today she is a healthy and very intelligent 6 year old girl.

Third: From EPM.org: “While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.”

Last: Even if you allow that this circumstance could happen, ask yourself this: You are walking across a road, and next to you is a small child. Suddenly, you see a bus bearing down on the both of you. You only have time to jump out of the way yourself, or push the child to safety. Only one of you can survive. Who do you pick? The answer in a moral sense is obvious: You save the child. The answer is even more obvious if this child is your own.

The last question is the most controversial.

5: Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

The argument contends that because the mother did not choose to have the child, she should not be forced to carry it to term. The pregnancy is seen as a punishment on the victim.

Rape is a very traumatic and tragic event. Sometimes, a child will be conceived out of this forced union. No one would wish further suffering on someone who had to go through something like this. If you choose to have an abortion, however, all you are doing is committing a crime yourself. In your hurt and distress, you are choosing to slay a completely innocent child whose only crime is being conceived. The child cannot be held responsible for who its parents were. Your right to choose was forcibly taken away, but if you abort, you are committing an even worse crime upon the child.

Perhaps the mother does not think she can raise the child because of where he came from. The truth is, though, that she doesn’t have to! There are literally thousands of parents who are waiting in line to be blessed with this baby. They will pay for every penny of expense, and you never even have to lay eyes upon the child if you do not wish to.

Rape is a crime. So is murder. As horrible as the crime committed upon the mother was, it does not make committing an even worse one upon another innocent excusable.

[Here I took out a very personal story related to this issue. It is relevant, but not appropriate to post to the world. If you want to know it, ask and you may receive.]

I’m sure you can tell that this is a very important issue to me. Of all the people on Earth, children are the ones most deserving of our care and protection. It is one of the greatest tragedies that our generation is seeing millions upon millions being murdered every year. They cannot speak for themselves. We must speak for them. I hope this helps.

Jordan"

My Pro-Life Argument. No exceptions, no exclusions.

Many people believe me to be passionate about a lot of issues. Truly, this is the only one that really deserves the title. I believe that abortion is murder. Period. How could you not be passionate with a position like that?

A coworker of mine wanted to hear my reasons for being pro-life, so I wrote her the following paper. I figured I might as well post it for the rest of the world.

"I’m going to lay out the Abortion Argument as best I can, and give you my reasons for being pro-Life. First, some definitions:

What is an abortion? Webster’s defines it as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” It also states: “spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE” So, all miscarriages are abortions. Not all abortions are miscarriages. In the political sense, the term “abortion” is generally applied only to non-natural, intentional terminations of pregnancy. This is the definition I will be using.

What is pregnant? “Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body”. Note: No exclusions are given based on the stage of pregnancy. If you are gestating a human that is yet unborn, you are pregnant. Thus, you are pregnant from conception to birth.

What is infanticide? Webster’s says it is simply “the killing of an infant.”

What is an infant? “A child in the first period of life”.

What is murder? “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Obviously, if the law itself is in question, then we must disregard it (to prevent circular reasoning) and cut straight the latter half.

The definition of murder gives no leeway as to the age or position of person (though the unlawful clause excludes criminals). Therefore, if it is alive, human, and innocent, to kill it is murder, which is a universally accepted wrong. Since all infanticides are murder, and murder=wrong, infanticide must therefore also be wrong.

There are many different forms of abortion, depending on what stage the pregnancy is in when terminated. You can find a listing of many options at this site. They range from drugs to induce delivery early on, to surgical options, including sucking the fetus out. Another form of abortion, rarely performed, is the infamous partial birth abortion. This can be done during the third trimester, though it is more often done in the second. Here they induce labor and deliver the fetus until only the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted to pierce the skull. The skull and tissue is then collapsed and it is then delivered the rest of the way and disposed of.

They all have one thing in common: They end the pregnancy of the mother, through the destruction of the fetus. Is this infanticide? Since the only qualification for murder is “life and humanity”, which in this case go hand in hand, the only real question is: When does life begin? After all, if something is not alive, then there is no moral value and the destruction of such a thing cannot be wrong.

There are very few who would support any sort of abortion post-birth. Once outside the womb, all children are considered human. But what about before that? To answer, we turn to science.

This site says: “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, and four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

I’m not sure that I can be any more profound or eloquent than the experts, so I will leave their argument to speak for itself.

Moving on, common arguments for the pro-Choice stance.

1: It is a woman’s right what she does with her own body.

Yes, undeniably, it is her right. This argument makes the assumption, however, that the infant is simply another organ attached to the mother with nothing special to distinguish it. Yet, there are many differences. First, this “organ” very quickly has organs of its own. In fact, within the first month, the little ‘organ’ has a brain of its own which directs a heart of its own to beat to its own rhythm. Show me the kidney that can do that, and I will recant my position!

Also, a liver, stomach, or kidney will never, ever be anything else other than a liver, stomach, or kidney. They have one specific purpose which they fulfill without any other reason for being, and they will remain in the body indefinitely. The child, by contrast, is in the womb only temporarily and will eventually be birthed.

Finally, I firmly support a woman’s choice. That choice happened when she chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is conceived, that was what was supposed to happen. We do not murder out of convenience. (Note: Rape will be dealt with later.)

2: If abortion is murder, then so are periods and masturbation.

Again, the difference here is potential. An egg, on its own, will never be anything but an egg. A sperm, on its own, will never change. Fertilize the egg, however, and barring anything unfortunate, the new cell will divide and reproduce a brand new human.

3: It can’t be human before “x” day because it is not viable outside the womb. (Another variation of this argument claims that since the child is wholly dependent on the mother for survival, it is a parasite and not a human.)

This argument states basically that since the fetus cannot survive on its own, it is not human. In that case, abortions should be allowed at least up until age 2, and possibly much later. A newborn child, fresh out of the womb, will die if not cared for. A toddler is unable to find food and fend for itself in the world. According to this argument, we should be allowed to slay said children if they become inconvenient.

Likewise, this argument also lumps together anyone on life support (they cannot survive without it. They aren’t independently ‘viable’), including those who artificial hearts.

Obviously, viability cannot be used as a yardstick for life. If this were so, Aubrey, Alexis, and millions of others would be candidates for abortion.

4: I don’t agree with abortion personally, but I can’t dictate that to someone else.

Abortion is only wrong if it is the intentional slaying of a human. As outlined above, if the thing is not alive then there is no reason to be against it. If it is alive and human, and it is not guilty of some crime, then destroying it intentionally is murder. It is either A, or B. Wrong, or not. There is no middle ground allowed in this logical argument.

Thus, this argument says “I believe abortion is the intentional slaying of a defenseless child, but I can’t tell someone else they can’t do it.” This is obviously insanity.

5: What about when the mother’s life is in danger or the child will be born with some sort of defect?

First: Who defines defect? Today a defect is a horrible disease. Tomorrow? Missing a hand, a leg? Brown hair as opposed to blonde?

Second: Tests are not completely accurate in this regard. For example, my wife’s family’s youngest daughter, Kara, was supposed to be born with several deadly diseases and defects. She was going to die instantly, and if she somehow survived, her entire life would be full of pain. Today she is a healthy and very intelligent 6 year old girl.

Third: From EPM.org: “While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.”

Last: Even if you allow that this circumstance could happen, ask yourself this: You are walking across a road, and next to you is a small child. Suddenly, you see a bus bearing down on the both of you. You only have time to jump out of the way yourself, or push the child to safety. Only one of you can survive. Who do you pick? The answer in a moral sense is obvious: You save the child. The answer is even more obvious if this child is your own.

The last question is the most controversial.

5: Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

The argument contends that because the mother did not choose to have the child, she should not be forced to carry it to term. The pregnancy is seen as a punishment on the victim.

Rape is a very traumatic and tragic event. Sometimes, a child will be conceived out of this forced union. No one would wish further suffering on someone who had to go through something like this. If you choose to have an abortion, however, all you are doing is committing a crime yourself. In your hurt and distress, you are choosing to slay a completely innocent child whose only crime is being conceived. The child cannot be held responsible for who its parents were. Your right to choose was forcibly taken away, but if you abort, you are committing an even worse crime upon the child.

Perhaps the mother does not think she can raise the child because of where he came from. The truth is, though, that she doesn’t have to! There are literally thousands of parents who are waiting in line to be blessed with this baby. They will pay for every penny of expense, and you never even have to lay eyes upon the child if you do not wish to.

Rape is a crime. So is murder. As horrible as the crime committed upon the mother was, it does not make committing an even worse one upon another innocent excusable.

[Here I took out a very personal story related to this issue. It is relevant, but not appropriate to post to the world. If you want to know it, ask and you may receive.]

I’m sure you can tell that this is a very important issue to me. Of all the people on Earth, children are the ones most deserving of our care and protection. It is one of the greatest tragedies that our generation is seeing millions upon millions being murdered every year. They cannot speak for themselves. We must speak for them. I hope this helps.

Jordan"