This was the last subject, from when I was a social liberal, in which I retained my position after I became ultra-conservative. As a social liberal, my position was that there is no correct answer as to whether abortion should be legal or not. I wasn’t uncertain, my position was positively agnostic – that there was no correct answer. However, that’s all changed as of a couple months ago.
The entire pro-choice argument centers around one catchphrase, does it not? “My body, my choice.” Well, let me explain why that phrase is asinine.
1. The child is a life of its own. (The most important fact.)
2. The child belongs equally as much to the father as it does the mother.
It Is Also the Father’s Child
It is this fact that changed my position from agnostic to firmly anti-abortion. It’s a really obvious fact in hindsight. You’d think I would have realized it sooner, considering I’ve been blogging about fatherhood for years now.
Women cannot immaculately conceive children. It is physically impossible to conceive children without a male’s input, whether it’s done on a bed or in a lab. Will it be that way forever? Probably not, but this is the way it is now and has been for our species’ entire history.
Since a baby cannot be formed without a man’s input, that fact alone makes the “my body” argument purely a power-play. It is nothing but an abuse of power to try to use this argument. If a couple decided together to buy a car, each of them paying for half the total cost, and both of their names are on the title …, if the car was parked at the woman’s garage, would the car suddenly belong entirely to the woman simply because it’s parked in her garage? No, not remotely. Would she have the right to destroy the car – yes, completely destroy the car – simply because it’s parked in her garage?
The point of the analogy is who the car belongs to simply because of where it’s parked. Would that make any logical sense? Of course not. Obviously, a lot more factors are involved than simply where the damned thing is parked.
Women, especially women in western nations, have the choice of who they sleep with, and who they end up in relationships with. Even MORE to the point is the fact that various types of birth control exist in western nations, which women have the freedom to use whenever they want, however often they want. In other words, if a woman in our society gets pregnant, it is ENTIRELY because she chose to allow it to happen.
She chose to have that baby start growing within her.
In the Case of Rape
Yes, obviously rape still occurs, but the rape argument is almost irrelevant, for four main reasons:
1. Pregnancy virtually never occurs after one sexual encounter, consensual or not. The chances of pregnancy occurring after one, and only one, sexual encounter, are extremely slim. You could say it’s astronomical. Yes, it can occur, but it’s extremely unlikely.
2. Most rapes are only a one-time occurrence.
3. Rapes are not that common. We do not live in a world, especially in western nations, where every woman gets raped at some point in her life, or even half of all women, or even a quarter of all women. Thanks to hookup culture, most women have sex they regret, but that is not rape.
4. Even if rape leads to pregnancy, that’s still no excuse to kill a person. A woman can give birth, and give that child away to a family that wants it, literally without ever seeing that child’s face. The adoption could be closed, and the child would never know they were a rape baby, and the woman would never need to be reminded of her rape by seeing her child’s face.
Elisabeth Fritzl was locked in a basement by her own father for 24 years, and during those 24 years, he raped her thousands of times. It led to the birth of seven children, one of whom died shortly after birth. Do you think Elisabeth ever wanted her children dead because they were conceived from incest-rape? Or do you think it’s far more likely that she loves her children despite their paternity? One of those kids is older than I am. They are people. The circumstances of their births were evil and traumatic, but those kids are still people, and their mother still loves them and wants them to live.
Which leads me to my next point…
It is Murder
No matter how you want to spin this, abortion is still one person choosing to end the life of another person. That is murder, plain and simple.
The child is a person once they are conceived. One thing conservatives fail to point out to the pro-choice crowd is: If the fetus wasn’t a person yet, then it wouldn’t be a pregnancy! Trying to claim that it’s not a person, simply because they are at the earliest stage of development is just asinine. Claiming it’s not a person simply because they are so close to the living/nonliving threshold is asinine.
If a 40-year-old got news that their cancer will kill them in six months, would it be morally permissible, in the eyes of the pro-choice crowd, to throw that man off a cliff at the five-and-a-half-month mark simply because he’s so close to not being alive anymore?
So, why would abortion be morally permissible, but that scenario wouldn’t be?
When a person is alive, they are alive, period.
I’m not getting into the morality of pulling the plug on a vegetable. That’s a whole other subject. But in short, that subject isn’t about convenience, it is about whether someone is actually alive, in pain, and/or will ever have their own life again. The subject of abortion, on the other hand, is really just about convenience, not doing the right thing. But I sidetrack.
Doing What’s “Best” For the Child
Who is anyone, including the mother and father, and especially the government, to say that a child should die before it’s born for literally any reason? Let’s say the child is going to have autism, and deafness, and blindness, and spina bifida, and cancer. The argument that “aborting it to save it from a lifetime of misery” is not anyone’s choice but the child itself. If the child is born, and some years later decides it’s in too much pain to continue living, and makes the decision to end their own life … shouldn’t THAT be the only time such a decision is justified?
Fact is, we’ve all met people, of all ages, who have serious debilitations, and in my personal experience, not once, literally not once, have I heard of any of these people being so miserable that they want to die.
Call me crazy, but I think it’s safe to assume that if somebody doesn’t want to die … that must mean they want to live.
Stephen Hawking lived the majority of his life being unable to walk, or speak, or even wipe his own ass, and he still chose to live until he could avoid death no longer. Not to mention, that despite his condition, he was one of the most valuable thinkers mankind has ever known. My ex-wife has a little brother who can’t walk, and will never be able to. I say he, and everyone just like him, or in worse conditions, should be able to decide for themselves how long they want to live.
So, enough with the “I’m just saving them from pain” bullshit.
I’m a firm believer that a person’s life is, morally, in their own hands. I firmly believe that if somebody wants to check out early, they have the right to make that decision. No stranger, no acquaintance, no friend, no relative, no religion, and no government gets to tell anybody that they cannot end their life if they so wish.
I was once emotionally that low. I no longer am, and haven’t been for years. But in the past, when that’s what I wanted … I don’t think it was morally wrong of me to want that. It’s now hard for me to imagine having ever wanted that fate, because I have so much to live for, but the point still stands: If that is what someone wants for themselves, they have that right.
Abortion has nothing to do with what is right, it is entirely about what is convenient. That’s probably what makes abortion not just evil, but remarkably evil: People want to do it, and they encourage others to do it, for the sake self-gratification above all else.
Well, I think that about covers it. Watch dissenters react with emotions instead of rational arguments…