Analysis

A simple argument against abortion that even liberals can understand

An almost painfully simple argument (just three parts, and three extra bits if you want them) showing unequivocally that abortion is equivalent to murder. 

Note: I’ve revised this article several times to strengthen it against new objections and criticisms. You may find quotes in the comments, or elsewhere on the web, that don’t match up with what is now written. Lo siento.

1) It is wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons.

2) A human zygote or fetus is a human being.

3) Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human zygote or fetus for personal reasons.

If [3] is a sound conclusion, then we can also strengthen the argument as follows:

4) It is especially wrong to kill a human being (Harry) to the degree that [i] Harry is innocent, [ii] Harry is defenseless, [iii] Harry has more to lose, [iv] the killing is premeditated, and [v] the killing is enabled by someone who is under a special duty to protect Harry.

5) A human zygote or fetus is [i] as innocent and [ii] as defenseless as a human being can be, a human zygote or fetus has [iii] the most to lose in terms of the life it could still live, [iv] abortion is always premeditated, and [v] abortion is enabled by the mother, who has a special duty to protect her child at any early stage of development.

6) Therefore, it is especially wrong, to the greatest degree possible, to kill Harry if he is a human zygote or fetus.

Obviously [5] would have to be built out for a complete and full defense, but I think it is pretty clear and unobjectionable as it stands.

You’ll notice the question of whether Harry is a person is irrelevant to the argument. Indeed, if he is not a person, then killing him is even worse, as per objection #4 below.

You’ll also notice that the argument’s premises are very modest. They don’t require you to believe in God, or even in objective moral laws – only that you have basic intuitions about murder, innocence, and familial duties which all people seem to share.

But you will object…

  1. “A human zygote or fetus is not a human being after all.”
  2. “A blastocyst can twin, therefore it is not the same organism as the human being in its later stages of development.”
  3. “It may be wrong to kill a more developed human being, but it’s not wrong to kill a zygote or a fetus.”
  4. “The relevant distinction between myself now and myself as a zygote/fetus is that I am now a person, whereas I wasn’t back then.”
  5. “Forty percent of zygotes/fetuses spontaneously abort, so it can’t be wrong to abort them.”
  6. “The woman’s right to choose what to do with her body trumps any other considerations.”
  7. “The zygote/fetus isn’t properly alive because it can’t survive independently; therefore you cannot properly kill it.”
  8. “But, but…rape, and…and incest!“
  9. “Self-defense is a personal reason to kill someone, and that isn’t wrong.”
  10. “Experiences are what make us human, or at least what constitute human life, so Harry isn’t really human, or perhaps isn’t alive, or at least his life has less value than his mother’s.”

1. “A human zygote or fetus is not a human being after all.”

But how can this be true? To call something a human being is to say that it’s an organism of the species homo sapiens. I, for example, am a human being, because I am an organism of the species homo sapiens. But obviously I have always been an organism of the species homo sapiens, regardless of my stage of development. And that stage of development included being a zygote and a fetus.

If you want to deny that, you’ll have to show that I never was a zygote or fetus – perhaps that I was created spontaneously out of a fetus, which was a different organism from me. But that’s obviously biologically mistaken – so this objection is a failure.

This is also why the popular butterfly objection fails (i.e., if I’m right, then killing a caterpillar is identical to killing a butterfly). The analogy breaks down exactly where it needs to hold up. A caterpillar is literally liquefied and destroyed, and then a new organism, the butterfly, takes its place out of the same material and genetic code. Obviously nothing like this happens for a zygote or fetus – these are not destroyed and then replaced by a baby.

The related frog objection – “well, then, killing a tadpole is identical to killing a frog” – fails for a different reason: equivocation. The term frog is being used to describe both the organism and its adult stage of development – and the objection trades on this confusion. But killing a baby is similarly not identical to killing an adult, yet both are identical to killing a human being.

2. “A blastocyst can twin, therefore it is not the same organism as the human being in its later stages of development.”

But what relevance does the possibility of twinning have to whether I am the same organism as that blastocyst was? Even assuming that twinning involves the creation of a new organism (which is unclear, philosophically), I did not twin. Now, if you observe an amoeba for two hours and it doesn’t split in two, would you then conclude that the amoeba is a different organism from before, just because it could have split?

3. “It may be wrong to kill a more developed human being, but it’s not wrong to kill a zygote or a fetus.”

This objection runs aground pretty quickly on premise [4], which seems to have a great deal of intuitive strength. And it’s obvious you can’t make a special exception for zygotes/fetuses, because I was once those things (as were you). If it is wrong to kill me or you now, then it was at least as wrong to kill us then, because the victims are the same. Unless you can come up with a relevant distinction between yourself as a victim of murder today, and yourself as a victim of murder at your earliest stages of development, there is just no reason to think it would have been morally permissible to kill you then but not to kill you now.

4. “The relevant distinction between myself now and myself as a zygote/fetus is that I am now a person, whereas I wasn’t back then.”

But this isn’t a relevant distinction. Indeed, if you really weren’t a person when you were a zygote and fetus, then premise [4-iii] is strengthened, and the objection refutes itself – because killing you would have deprived you not only of the life you have lived, but also of the ability to develop into the person you now are.

5. “Forty percent of zygotes/fetuses spontaneously abort, so it can’t be wrong to abort them.”

Even if this figure it accurate, 100% of human beings die, so by this logic it can’t be wrong to kill them. It baffles me that anyone would raise this as a serious objection, yet I’ve seen it many times.

6. “The woman’s right to choose what to do with her body trumps any other considerations.”

This feminist knee-jerk is completely unresponsive to my argument. Notice: I explicitly call out this kind of thinking by stipulating that it is wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons. That covers reasons of personal bodily autonomy. Therefore, if you’re raising this objection, I assume that you’re simply asserting it against my conclusion. If so, you’re conceding my conclusion, and agreeing that killing Harry-the-zygote-or-fetus is wrong. Since you presumably wouldn’t say a woman’s bodily autonomy gives her the right to kill (or enable another to kill) Harry in any other circumstances, you need to explain just what gives her that right in this circumstance.

You might claim that what gives her that right here is that Harry is part of her body. But this is obviously wrong, since Harry is a different human being from her. He has different DNA and his own organs. Plus it seems embarrassing to claim that 50% of pregnant women have penises.

You might claim that what gives her the right here is self-defense. I think this is actually a bit different from the right to bodily autonomy, but more importantly it misconstrues what I mean by “personal reasons” to kill someone. Self-defense is not a personal reason, but a civil one. Moreover, even if it were a personal reason, it would be an exception that you must show applies here. Unless the woman’s life is genuinely in peril from Harry – in which case, see objection #9 – self-defense is obviously off the table.

Be there to speak up. Photo credit: katie.kap on Flickr

You might claim instead that what gives her that right here is that Harry is imposing on her body – à la Judith Jarvis Thompson’s violinist analogy. But even if the woman’s actions towards the violinist are permissible (which I think is much less clear than people suggest), the analogy fails at two crucial points. Firstly, it hardly seems permissible for the woman to kill the violinist by putting him into a blender – the equivalent of most abortions – or leaving him to die if he still had a chance to live on his own after all – the equivalent of partial-birth abortion. Secondly, and more importantly, her relationship to Harry is not of one adult stranger to another adult stranger, but of a mother to her child. This is conveniently glossed over – indeed, obfuscated – by the language often used in this debate (“woman,” “fetus,” etc). Obviously the maternal relationship carries with it the duty to protect and care for the child, and this duty overrides autonomy. For example, we wouldn’t think a mother was justified in killing her infant just because she doesn’t wish to have to get up several times in the night to feed it. Neither would we think highly of a mother who refused to donate a kidney to her child, knowing it would lead to the child’s death. And so on.

7. “The zygote/fetus isn’t properly alive because it can’t survive independently; therefore you cannot properly kill it.”

This is admittedly the most bizarre objection I’ve come across to date, and one that’s obviously just balderdash. As a matter of definition, there isn’t a creature in existence that can survive independently of the environment it depends on for life. So why should we think that the womb is a unique kind of environment in this regard? Or, if the objection is that Harry can’t survive independently of the physical systems of another organism (his mother), then why think this is relevantly different from people who can’t survive independently of the life support systems in a hospital? It’s also hard to find a principled way to exclude infants, toddlers, small children, and the infirm from this logic, because they also rely physically on other organisms for their survival. Why should a physical connection be relevant to distinguishing whether they are properly alive? But once you realize the logic extends this far, it obviously extends to every organism possible, since every organism survives by physically eating other organisms.

8. “But, but…rape, and…and incest!“

While these are obviously awful things to happen to someone, I don’t see the connection between Harry being conceived in such situations and there being a moral loophole to kill Harry. If my argument succeeds, then it succeeds regardless of the circumstances in which Harry is conceived, and regardless of how the mother feels.

This is obvious simply because I’ve shown that there’s no relevant difference between killing Harry as a zygote/fetus and killing him as baby, toddler, child, teenager, or adult. And since it would be wrong for a mother to kill Harry at any of those stages of development – even if he was a constant reminder of a very traumatic event, or even if she hadn’t wanted him – it is also wrong for her to kill him before he is born.

Now, at the risk of giving the impression that I’m diminishing the hardship of rape or incest – which I am not – I also think this is a very odd argument for liberals to make. It seems to treat women in exactly the way liberals despise: as delicate flowers who must be protected or accommodated because they can’t deal with the harsh realities of life. One is tempted to think that, in a similar situation, a man would be expected to buckle down and get through it despite the emotional cost. He wouldn’t be excused for killing his child due to emotional trauma. So why do the very people who believe that women are just as strong as men then turn around and treat them as weaker? Puzzling.

9. “Self-defense is a personal reason to kill someone, and that isn’t wrong.”

I consider self-defense not a personal reason, but rather a civil one, because it involves a duty to oneself or others to prevent injustice. The same applies to capital punishment.

But let’s say this objection goes through anyway. This would suggest that abortion is permissible in cases where the mother’s life is genuinely in peril from the pregnancy (assuming Harry can’t survive outside the body). Yet this seems like an uncontroversial exception, since it is impossible to save Harry’s life here in any case, and it would be a greater wrong to let both him and his mother die. What this objection does not show is that, because it is permissible to kill Harry in self-defense, it is therefore permissible to kill him for any other reason. And so it fails to refute my argument.

Does any human deserve to be ripped apart?

10. “Experiences are what make us human, or at least what constitute human life, so Harry isn’t really human, or perhaps isn’t alive, or at least his life has less value than his mother’s.”

This objection is so incomprehensible to me that I’m honestly not sure I can recreate it in my own words—so here’s how one pro-abortion advocate put it to me:

I believe that experiences make up life. Touch, sound, sight, taste, the sun hitting one’s face, making memories with another person, etc. A fetus has had none of those things…it is being removed before it has a chance to have any experiences that would make qualify as “life.” We put SO much significance on this fetus that we ignore the rights and well being of a fully formed, functioning woman who has already breached the canal and had the experiences that make her “human”.

Now, obviously it’s mad to think that someone is “less human,” or perhaps even not alive or not human at all, just because he or she has had minimal experiences. Either you are human or you are not. Either you are alive or you are not. I already dealt with this under objections #1 & #7. But what about the idea that maybe Harry’s life is less valuable, or he has less of a right to life, because he hasn’t had the quantity or diversity of experiences his mother has had?

Well clearly that’s wonky too, because nearly all young humans – babies, children, teenagers, and even younger adults – have fewer and less diverse experiences than older adults. Therefore, if this objection succeeds, all these people should have less valuable lives, or less of a right to life, than those older adults. Yet I doubt that many people will agree with this notion, since it’s plainly mental. We especially don’t believe this about babies and children; most of us, if push comes to shove, have a very strong intuition that not only does a child have just as much right to life as an adult does, but its right trumps the adult’s. For example, we think an adult ought to give up her life to save a child if only one of them can live, such as when having to deal with a lifeboat shortage on the Titanic.

This really comes back to premise [4-iii]. This objection is completely unresponsive to that premise. So if the premise is sound – and it seems very hard to find something wrong with it – then the objection is stillborn.

Got any other objections? Feel free to share them in the comments.

Editor’s Note: This article was first published November 21, 2012 at Developing the Mind of Christ and is reprinted with permission.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Steve Farrell

    How refreshing to have pregnant women dehumanized with such precise logic. According to Dominic Bnonn Tennant, women aren’t subjects worthy of consideration or rights, but rather a “kind of environment” and “another organism” inside which the all-important innocent child develops.

    Would it matter if I said that your argument is invalid because abortion doesn’t kill another human being, it merely prevents a human being from being born? That you can’t really define someone as being “alive” the way you do if he is still in mommy’s tummy?

    I didn’t think so.

    • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

      “How refreshing to have pregnant women dehumanized with such precise logic.”

      The pro-life logicians trot their stuff out every new moon or so and every single time they’re sure they’ve found some sort of pro-life Rosetta Stone that will translate their earnestness into a language the rest of us will have to receive favorably.

      Maybe when they realize that the complexities of a pluralistic society can’t be solved with what they learned in sophomore year Logic, they’ll stop trying to impress themselves with debate team calisthenics.

      • Steve Farrell

        Major premise: Anything Dominic Bnonn Tennant says is true.
        Minor premise: Dominic Bnonn Tennant says abortion is murder.
        Conclusion: Abortion is murder.
        Q.E.D.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        Sneering about “sophomore year Logic” might be more impressive coming from someone who (a) made the teensiest effort to refute it or (b) ever gives the impression that she could manage a passing grade in freshman year Logic, let alone sophomore.

      • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

        Astraspider:

        Since your thinking on this issue is obviously well in advance of mine, perhaps you could give us a hand by pointing out at which premise my argument goes wrong.

        It’s easy to say my argument fails. Surely if it’s so sophomoric, you’d find it equally easy to show that it fails.

        • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

          If you want your column judged on it’s internal workings, I’ll say this: it contains an awful lot of petitio principii (i.e.: a zygote “is a human being”, killing for “personal” reasons is a special class of killing), appeals to ridicule (i.e.: feminist “knee-jerks” need not be taken seriously), appeals to pity (“innocence” is an overused trope), appeal to emotion (ie: it’s “especially” wrong to kill under circumstances that hurt the “innocent”), and circular reasoning (impregnated women have a “special duty” to see their fertilization to it’s conclusion).

          But I didn’t tackle the mechanics of your argument because I think they don’t matter. I’ve seen LA give space to this kind of debate workflow pep rally many times before. I’m sure it’s popular with some of the pro-life neophytes who crave some logos to go with their pathos, but, frankly, if pro-life and pro-choice advocates were honest with themselves, they’d acknowledge that there are moral trade-offs inherent in both positions that no debate flowchart can solve (or absolve). Politics, where rhetoric is as important as logic, is unfortunately the best tool we have to bridge the gap between these moral trade-offs. Not debate class. You might accuse me of arguing to moderation there, but I don’t care; that’s how public policy is hashed out.

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            Astraspider:

            Throwing around words like “petitio principii” doesn’t impress me. If you could actually show I’d committed that fallacy by interacting with, say, objection #1 and showing how I am mistaken in my supporting argument for premise [2], then I would be impressed.

            I think it’s sad that you deny the kinds of basic moral distinctions I drew in my argument. If you don’t believe that killing someone for personal reasons is relevantly different from killing them for reasons of justice, for example, then it would appear you have very little moral discernment. The same goes for thinking that it is circular to believe that a mother has a duty to protect her child. I hope you are not a parent; it doesn’t seem you have the moral fortitude for it.

            Btw, do you think politics exists in a vacuum? Or is it perhaps the case that convincing “common folk” that abortion is wrong might have something to do with implementing a morally right-headed public policy?

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Maybe you should look up “petitio principii” or “assuming the point” or “begging the question”, because your piece repeats that fallacy over and over again. I mark with interest your repetition of the word “obviously” before trying to make a point. By declaring your arguments as “obvious” before delving into them, you are, by definition, “assuming the point”. Dusty P’s post does a fairly comprehensive deconstruction of your arguments, look to that for examples, I needn’t repeat them here.

            Ignorance of “petitio principii” aside, you’re obviously comfortable with “ad hominem”. I’m not sure how questioning the moral fortitude of your critics advances your argument, but I’ll respond nonetheless. As Dusty P points out, a “personal” reason for killing is an impossibly broad and subjective proposition. Does a victims’ family not have “personal” reasons to see justice lead to capital punishment? Is lethal self defense not “personal”? How would you define directing a doctor to administer a lethal dose of morphine to a terminally ill family member, other than to categorize it as “personal”? So, no, I reject your claim in #1.

            You last conjecture actually makes my point. Politics does not operate in a vacuum. But you know what does? Debate theory. It’s a useful tool for firming up your

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            Astraspider:

            It doesn’t look good when you assume your opponent doesn’t know basic logical terms. That said, since you believe my piece is an exercise in circular reason, whereas it is not, there isn’t much more I can say to you.

            With regards to personal reasons, your counterexamples are jejune. In the case of a victim’s family desiring capital punishment, for example, the offender is not killed because of the family’s feelings, nor is he killed by the family. And I have explicitly discussed self-defense in the argument itself. Also, remember that this is an argument for laymen, not a philosophical journal, so I take it that people are able to grasp the connotations of “personal reasons” without my having to rigorously define it as a category.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Oh, man. Sorry. Maybe stick to blogging in New Zealand. That’s not an insult; I’m Australian. We’re practically cousins. But really, your piece is a mess. You want it to follow logical strictures, but then in the same breath you don’t, because it’s just for “laymen”? Can’t have it both ways.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      You are intentionally misrepresenting the author’s use of those terms,
      conjuring up asinine implications that no reasonably-competent person
      would see. You’re merely repeating the same “dehumanize the mother!”
      slander you give everyone who disagrees with you – without the slightest
      regard for what your opponents actually said or meant. It isn’t plausible that you could sincerely believe Tennant considers the mother a mere “environment”; you only say it because it satisfies your emotional hostility toward the objects of your prejudice.

      As to your second paragraph, it would indicate that you don’t have the slightest grasp of what the terms “human being,” “kill,” or “alive” even mean…despite the fact that they’re discussed in the very article you’re whining about (and they’re, y’know, obvious to anyone with a functioning brain).

      • Steve Farrell

        Calvin, instead of just launching your usual slew of insult and invective at me, perhaps you could point out where Tennant made mention of a pregnant woman as anything other than potential baby-poison or some vague location where the fetus lodges before continuing on its precious life journey. For all his expertise in sophistry, Tennant appears to believe that women are merely incidental to gestation and needn’t be considered as human beings with rights.

        • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

          Steve, instead of just launching your usual slew of insult and invective, perhaps you could point out where you made mention of a fetus as anything other than a potential tool for the suppression of woman’s rights, or some vague organic mass that exists inside her body without life or being of its own. For all your expertise in sophistry, you appear to believe that fetuses are merely incidental to sex and needn’t be considered as human beings with rights.

          • Steve Farrell

            I saw what you did there! And you’re right, I don’t feel justified in forcing women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth because I think everyone should be as comfortable as I am making completely arbitrary distinctions about when human life begins. I don’t know when a fetus becomes human, so I choose to err on the side of caution and leave such decisions to the women and families directly involved with the pregnancy.

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            As I pointed out on my blog, even if you’re right, you are patently not erring on the side of caution. To err on the side of caution is to choose the option with the least possibility for wrongdoing. Since what is being weighed is the woman’s comfort on the one hand, and the possibility of killing a human being on the other, erring on the side of caution can only mean avoiding abortion.

          • Steve Farrell

            Again, D Bnonn, you misunderstand me. I’m erring on the side of caution by leaving the decision to the woman and family who are truly involved with the matter, not dictating to them exactly what they need to do to avoid my accusing them of murder.

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            By the same token, we should err on the side of caution by leaving all decisions about issues of morality to the people who are truly involved in the matter. But obviously that would entail anarchy.

            I’m not impressed by your supposed respect for the decision of the mother and her family. For one thing, that’s the exact attitude that lets oppressive parents or partners brow-beat women into having abortions they don’t actually want. So far from standing up for the rights of women, you’re merely paying lip-service to them.

            For another thing, your deference betrays a lack of moral fiber. You’re so enraptured with feminist ideology that you’re not willing to take a stand on a moral issue where the argument is clear-cut and you have no counter-argument. (One assumes you have no counter-argument or we’d have seen it by now.) You’d rather be seen to defend the rights of women than to defend the rights of the unborn. But that’s not noble; it’s depraved.

            Finally, your position is double-minded. You project the air of open-minded beneficence regarding the status of the unborn, but as soon as someone presents an argument for why we should definitely regard zygotes as human beings you launch into an emotive attack. You’re not genuinely open-minded on this issue; you’re just a hypocrite.

          • Steve Farrell

            D. Bnonn, since you’ve achieved escape velocity from the bounds of civil discourse, I’m done with this. I appreciate that you think the argument is so clear-cut that anyone who disagrees with you deserves abuse, but I prefer to discuss matters like an adult.

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            Steve, it’s ironic that you’re morally outraged by me calling a spade a spade, going so far as to describe this as “abuse”. Yet you are morally apathetic about killing unborn children.

            Your priorities seem to be completely backward.

    • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

      Steve:

      1. Since my argument explicitly establishes that abortion does kill another human being (see objection #1), and that it is nonsensical to think a zygote/fetus is not alive (see objection #7), your attempt to show the opposite by sheer force of will is embarrassing to the pro-abortion position. If you want to show that my argument fails, you will need to actually interact with the argument instead of emoting.

      2. Could you point out where I have said that women aren’t subjects worthy of consideration or rights? Or, if you think that is an indirect consequence of my argument, could you illustrate: (i) How you deduce it; and (ii) Your justification for thinking that I intended that conclusion? Otherwise you just come across like you can’t refute my argument, so you’re trying to smear me instead. But obviously throwing out libel instead of arguments is a pretty poor showing for the pro-abortion side.

      3. Your comments about my view of women are particularly smelly given that the entire thrust of my argument is that all human beings share the same basic rights. Do you honestly believe I consider women sub-human, or something like that? It seems very unlikely that you do since this would completely undermine my argument in 50% of cases.

      Btw, you’re obviously free to keep emoting without reasoning when you reply. But I think now that tactic has been called out, it will be rather transparent. So I will only feel inclined to respond if you actually give reasons for why we should doubt some premise of my argument.

      • Steve Farrell

        D Bnonn, how predictable that you didn’t bother trying to respond to the argument I made, and merely repeated the claims you made in your article with insults at the end. You say that a zygote is a human being, without coming to terms with the fact that a zygote in gestation inside its mother’s body is closer to a parasitic form of life than one we can consider fully human. This notion you have that abortion “kills” a human being merely ignores that the being is inside its mother’s body; once again, aside from removing a parasite, there’s no analogous form of “murder” that takes place inside someone’s body. Is there? It seems like the burden is on you to support such an odd argument.

        Instead of getting irritated at my suggestion that you are dehumanizing women, perhaps you should (as I asked Calvin to do) point out where you allow for the fact that since the gestation process takes place inside a woman, her rights and intentions need to be taken into consideration. I noticed only that you referred to a woman as the “environment” in which the human lives; am I supposed to believe that reducing her to a vague location for the fetus is recognizing her humanity? Elsewhere you compare a woman’s body to a life support machine in a hospital, or some other “organism” on which dependent humans rely. I don’t think I’m being unfair in the least when I point out the lack of regard for the woman in your argument.

        The bottom line is that I don’t feel justified in making family planning choices for others. If a woman wants to undergo pregnancy and childbirth, I say good for her. If she doesn’t, I don’t see why she should be forced to do so.

        • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

          Steve:

          You didn’t make an argument. You simply asserted that a zygote isn’t human. You need to interact with what I say in objection #1 if you want to establish that a zygote is not human. Let me put it into syllogistic form for your benefit:

          1. I have always been a human being.

          2. I was once a zygote.

          3. Therefore, that zygote was a human being.

          If you want to deny the conclusion you have to show that [1] or [2] is wrong.

          there’s no analogous form of “murder” that takes place inside someone’s body. Is there? It seems like the burden is on you to support such an odd argument.

          Why does there need to be an analogous form of murder? Do you think if I can conceive of some radically new way to kill an adult, which has no other analogy, it is therefore not murder? You’re simply assuming what you need to prove.

          I noticed only that you referred to a woman as the “environment” in which the human lives

          Either you’re lying or you’re a poor reader. I refer to the woman as a mother numerous times under premise [5] and objections #6, #7, #8, #9 & #10. I take it you have or had a mother, and know what one is…

          I also explicitly commented on her rights and intentions, but argued that these do not trump the child’s right to life. You are conveniently ignoring everything I have said in the article, and are forcing me to repeat them here. If I am irritated, that is why.

          • Steve Farrell

            Um, D. Bnonn? Since you object to anyone making unsupported assertions, I should point out that your “deduction” that a zygote is human is assuming what you need to prove. Similarly, your claim that a woman’s rights don’t trump a “child’s” rights is something no one who doesn’t already agree with you is obliged to grant.

            What you were at birth developed during gestation inside your mother’s body, it wasn’t there at conception. This bizarre fetish about calling a fertilized egg a human only serves to perpetuate the misogyny that allows you to feel virtuous about accusing a woman of murder for terminating a process of gestation that was going on inside her own body.
            Preventing a child from being born isn’t murder.

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            In what sense is it assuming what I need to prove? The fact that I haven’t reiterated the fuller defense I gave under objection #1 doesn’t mean that fuller defense magically disappears. I’m not repeating everything I’ve already said. Either you can respond to it, or you can’t. But don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

          • Euler

            “What you were at birth developed during gestation inside your mother’s
            body, it wasn’t there at conception. This bizarre fetish about calling a
            fertilized egg a human only serves to perpetuate the misogyny that
            allows you to feel virtuous about accusing a woman of murder for
            terminating a process of gestation that was going on inside her own
            body.
            Preventing a child from being born isn’t murder.”

            I’m sure you can see the paradox of your argument because under this logic, sex-selective abortions are justified.

            “To clarify, I deny that a zygote is a human *being.*”

            Really? If embryos or fetuses are not human beings that don’t deserve any protection and can be disposed off anytime then why do smoking packs or alcohol bottles (even roller coaster rides) warn consumers that smoking or drinking can damage the fetus or embryo? Why all of a sudden there’s concern for “non-humans”?

            “A zygote is human, I suppose, since it’s made of human cells, in the same way that we could refer to human sperm or human hair. The distinction, I assume, is lost on our amigo here.”

            http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/658686/zygote

            A zygote is human because it’s essentially a human. In fact, we call human hair and human sperm because its part of a human being. A zygote already has the genes for its human hair color and if the zygote has the XY chromosomes then he may be destined to produce human sperm. Remember we all went through this stage, so we weren’t a human thing or something but rather we were already a new living human being.

          • Steve Farrell

            Euler,I don’t know why it should matter that each of us has always been a human being, but it’s just not so. A fertilized egg, a zygote, is not a human being except in the overheated imaginations of pro-life fanatics. A full complement of chromosomes somehow makes it irrelevant that the gestation process takes place completely inside a woman’s body?

            But you never mentioned the woman. Please tell me you realize this “new living human being” is inside a woman’s body. Do you?

          • Euler

            “Euler,I don’t know why it should matter that each of us has always been a human being, but it’s just not so. ”

            It does matter because we as human beings have the natural, inherent right to life. It’s a right that we all have since we were brought into existence. Nobody has any right to take away our lives just because it suits them. Remember the Declaration of Independence guarantees this fundamental right.

            “A fertilized egg, a zygote, is not a human being except in the overheated imaginations of pro-life fanatics”

            This is an Ad Hominem fallacy. Be careful with insulting people who disagree with you, you wouldn’t like it if someone said that you’re a pro-choice fanatic who advocates killing unborn children. Besides, you don’t even explain why the zygote is not a human being.

            “A full complement of chromosomes somehow makes it irrelevant that the gestation process takes place completely inside a woman’s body?”

            Ok, what’s your point? What are you trying to say?

            “But you never mentioned the woman. Please tell me you realize this “new living human being” is inside a woman’s body. Do you?”

            Of course, I know I’m not stupid. I make these arguments because I believe that the unborn child deserves protection just like all of a us. Just as that woman deserved protection when she was inside her mother’s womb, so does the next child.

            Also, you have proven yourself that you do believe that the unborn child is not a human being with no rights whatsoever. Therefore under this reasoning sex-selective abortions are fine. The social approvals of female gendercide in China and India are OK.

          • Steve Farrell

            “you don’t even explain why the zygote is not a human being.”

            Because a human being is more than a bundle of cells or a developing organism, undergoing gestation inside its mother’s body. A “human being” isn’t still in the process of growing basic organs while inside its mother. The “deduction” from the article is merely a couple of unsupported assertions that its author expects people to accept as fact.

          • Legomyeggo

            Steve, you are confusing different stages (or states) of being, with different types of beings when you suggest that a human zygote is not a human being. A zygote is not the same thing as a toddler. But both are human beings at different reference frames. To say that a zygote isn’t a human because it doesn’t have a brain or organs like a baby does is no less arbitrary that it is to say that a toddler isn’t a human because s/he lacks secondary sex characteristics.

            But let’s examine a consequence of your assertion–namely, that a zygote is not a human being. What kind of a zygote is it? How can it be a cell if it does not possess DNA? And if it does possess this DNA, how can this DNA lack specifications for the proteins it codes for? In other words, you can’t have an organism at ANY point in its lifespan that lacks a specific genotype. And we know that biogenetically, a human mother paired with a human father cannot together conceive a zebra embryo. So, on what basis do you suggest that a zygote is not a human being? It has the genes. It’s just smaller than what *looks* like a human being to you. It’s younger. But none of these are sound justifications to deny that a zygote is as much a human being as you yourself are.

          • Arielle

            assuming that a zygote is a “human”. may I ask what gives it the right to use nutrition from another human’s body? A woman can choose to give her child for adoption at any time or she can choose not to breastfeed her newborn but there is no way she can stop a zygote form using nutrition from her body. not all abortions are done with a suction pump that result in the destruction of the fetus, there are abortion pills that imitate a miscarriage. there is no ” killing” in taking the pill just the ejection of the fetus.

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            Arielle:

            1. Your attitude that a child must justify its existence to its mother is chilling.

            2. In the vast majority of cases, a fetus comes into being by the informed, consensual action of the mother.

            3. Even in cases of rape, the mother still has a maternal duty to her child.

            4. As regards your contention that taking the pill isn’t equivalent to killing, obviously this is mistaken. If you take an action with the express intent of abortion, then you are intentionally killing the fetus. It’s not as if this is an unintended side-effect.

          • http://www.facebook.com/noblebaker Noble Baker

            I’m still trying to find where Steve asserted that a zygote isn’t human. Can you point it out?

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            Noble:

            In his very first comment, Steve said:

            Would it matter if I said that your argument is invalid because abortion doesn’t kill another human being, it merely prevents a human being from being born? That you can’t really define someone as being “alive” the way you do if he is still in mommy’s tummy?

          • http://www.facebook.com/noblebaker Noble Baker

            It’s interesting that you can read that again and still not see that the distinction Steve was making there was not over the humanity of the zygote, but whether it is alive in the same sense that you and I are. “…it merely prevents a human being from being born.” Steve referred to it as a human being. Steve now says that the being part probably doesn’t apply. I tend to agree; just as I wouldn’t consider a brain-dead person on life support to be a living human being. They, like the zygote, are a collection of living human cells without consciousness. Please don’t try to equivocate “human”, “human being” and “person”.

          • Steve Farrell

            To clarify, I deny that a zygote is a human *being.* A zygote is human, I suppose, since it’s made of human cells, in the same way that we could refer to human sperm or human hair. The distinction, I assume, is lost on our amigo here.

          • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

            The distinction is not lost on me; it is just that I already refuted it in my argument, and since you have brought nothing new to the table, there is no point refuting it again.

        • Callie

          Your argument is that any “parasite” can be justly killed. What if society started thinking of you as a “parasite” to the human race? You’d say, “Oh no, I’m a human being, they can’t do that!” But they’ll say, “You said yourself that parasites are not people!” Be careful what you say or else your words can be so easily thrown back at you.

    • http://twitter.com/Bhutto Human Rights

      Slave owners and traders employed the same anti-logic, thinking they could simply remove the humanity of their victims. Nobody is killing pregnant women. Lots of people are killing children in utero, and we know that you have called them babies hundreds of times yourself if only they were/are “wanted.” Well, you can become unwanted anytime also..

  • http://www.facebook.com/lesforlife Leslie Hanks

    Superb! Deserves to go viral !!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

    Still no responses addressing the equivalence between mandatory pregnancy and mandatory blood/organ donations. Funny that.

    I don’t expect to see an ironclad case against that argument anytime soon.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Simple: they’re not equivalent at all. I suggest you re-read the author’s post and comments, because I’ve seen him address several elements of this bodily autonomy angle, but here’s my take:

      1. For the vast majority of pregnancies, there’s nothing “mandatory” about it. Those who have consensual sex freely and knowingly choose to risk the possibility of creating another human being. (True, that choice is robbed from rape victims, but not by society – society punishes the one who “mandated” her impregnation.)

      2. It is manifestly dishonest to compare abortion to a mere refusal to donate – see Tennant’s point about putting the violinist in a blender. None of us care whether someone avoids pregnancy, gets pregnant, or stays pregnant; if you can end your pregnancy in a non-lethal way, more power to you. The issue is that the way you want to be able to go about it is by having lethal force applied to the innocent person you’ve already created.

      3. The relationships involved are fundamentally different. Donation brings together two strangers; the patient has no natural claim to another person’s parts. But the parent-child relationship couldn’t be more different. A mother DOES have certain natural responsibilities to her sons or daughters, the most basic of which is to let them grow and be born. Your quarrel is not with pro-lifers, but with nature.

      • Timmehh

        I like your points Calvin, except for the nature one. Nature is a very unforgiving place, and if humans behaved by what is considered “natural,” then mothers would kill or eat their sick children, and it would be no big deal for a mother to kill a child if she had too many mouths to feed. I get what you were saying about the natural responsibility, but I think we have to be careful with this argument.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          I certainly agree that something’s mere occurrence in nature isn’t an automatic Darwinian moral justification for anything. I had in mind more of a Lockean exercise in examining the situations and interactions nature puts people in, and seeing what natural-rights implications can be drawn from that. (Of course, Lockean natural law presupposes a Creator, but that’s a whole other discussion.)

      • http://www.facebook.com/noblebaker Noble Baker

        To point number 3, what if a child needs a kidney and the only suitable donor is its mother? Should it be the law that she must do so? Why or why not?

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          They’re not analogous at all. Being allowed to develop to birth is one of the ordinary needs of every child, and as such falls well within a mother’s basic duties. And it could be argued that a developing child does have a natural claim on those parts of a mother’s body that exist and function for the biological purpose of sustaining his or her development.

          A faulty organ, however, is an extraordinary need that would require a donor to go above and beyond her natural obligations, take on additional risks, and give the child an organ that the child *doesn’t* have a natural claim to. Also, there’s still the aforementioned difference between withholding aid and direct harmful action.

          • NobleBaker

            Shorter Calvin: Because nature!

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Gee, I’m sure glad I took the time to give your question a serious, respectful answer, only to get snotty oversimplification in response. I’ll remember that for future interactions with you.

          • NobleBaker

            But all you did is repeat the naturalistic fallacy several times. The only other argument you made was the difference between withholding aid and direct harmful action. Removing a fetus from a woman is withholding the aid of her organs just as much as not giving a child a kidney is withholding aid.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            As I’ve already explained above, I emphatically *don’t* believe that occurrence in nature automatically defines something’s rightness. But since (I assume) we’re trying to operate within a moral framework more objective than emotion, popular will, tradition, religion, etc., it seemed to me looking at it from a Lockean natural rights perspective – basically, trying to discern what individuals have a claim on by observing what nature gives them – was the best bet. Perhaps you should define your overall conception of where justice and natural rights come from so we have a clearer starting point to work from.

            Although, if you think “removing a fetus from a woman” suffices to describe the essence of abortion, the gulf between our very perceptions of reality may be uncrossable…..

          • Sorites Paradox

            ‘They’re not analogous at all. Being allowed to develop to birth is one
            of the ordinary needs of every child, and as such falls well within a
            mother’s basic duties.”

            Utterly unsubstantiated assertion. Here’s your next paragraph, with two terms changed. Substantiate the morality of this:

            And it could be argued that a [man] does have a natural claim
            on those parts of a mother’s body that exist and function for the
            biological purpose of [passing along his genes].

            Do you see the problem with your reasoning yet? Good god.

            “lso, there’s still the aforementioned difference between withholding aid and direct harmful action.”

            Also, read some James Rachels. It’s clear you think this “withholding aid and letting die” thing is your trump card, but its obvious you haven’t given this part of the issue a lick of thought.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            It’s funny when you pretend to care about concepts like “substantiated” and “reasoning.” Found a good therapist yet?

          • Sorites Paradox

            Hahahah that’s the best you’ve got, little boy?

            Slander! Slander! Defamation!

  • ProTruth2

    One is tempted to think that, in a similar situation, a man would be expected to buckle down and get through it despite the emotional cost

    In a similar situation, I would absolutely support the pregnant man’s right to have an abortion.

    • peach

      In a similar situation, I would expect that abortion would be 100% free and legal. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

      • Steve Farrell

        All kidding aside, if men could get pregnant, this wouldn’t be as significant an issue. It’s male insecurity about females having the last say in procreation that gives rise to anti-choice misogyny and the attitude that women have a sacred duty to deliver the man’s baby without complaint.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Hey, speaking of insecurity, maybe that’s the explanation for why you saturate your every comment with hyperbole and defamation?

        • marie27

          “man’s baby” Because it’s not her baby too?
          We believe that a man has the duty to care for their child too.

          “male insecurity” polls show that women are more prolife than men, and men are more in favor of abortion.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        I know this is an article of faith among you people, partly because of liberal culture’s obsession with dividing life into demographic tribes with delusions of perpetual victimization, and partly because so much of pro-choice “thought” doesn’t extend far beyond parroting superficially-pleasing things pro-choicers hear other pro-choicers say.

        But the idea that support and opposition to abortion falls along any sort of dramatic or concrete gender lines is simply untrue:

        http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/22/do-men-and-women-view-abortion
        http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314640/abortion-and-gender-gap-numbers-ramesh-ponnuru
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/the-elephant-in-the-exit_b_2094354.html

        If anything, one reason support for abortion is as high as it is is because lots of liberal men are pigs who just want no-strings-attached sex.

        • Mickey

          Wow! Making a blanket statement about people with a different political view than you. Congrats Calvin!

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            I follow the evidence where it leads. Try it sometime.

          • Mickey

            You mean wonderful evidence of conservative men like Scott DesJarlais, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, David Vitter, Bob Barr, Larry Craig, John Ensign, Mark Standford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Joe Walsh, Herman Cain, Mark Foley, Henry Hyde, Bob Packwood, Rudy Guiliani, Randy Hopper, Mike DuVall, Mark Souder, John McCain, Ted Haggard, Paul Stanley (the legislator from Tennessee and not KISS), Bob Allen, Chris Lee, and Bob Livingston.

            There are more strip clubs in the south than the rest of the US as well as more porn watched in red states over blue. And men in Scandinavia who are more to the left than America’s left have such a bad reputation in the world. Yeah right Calvin.

            But please keep your attitude up Calvin, I am sure calling an entire demographic of men “pigs” is going to win the hearts and minds of people. 2014 election here we come!

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            1.) Your list contains several people who are either zeros without major followings on the Right (like Barr & Hopper), who got rejected by the GOP in large part BECAUSE of their misconduct (like Gingrich & Foley), or who ARE LIBERAL, particularly ON ABORTION (like Giuliani, Packwood, & Schwarzenegger).

            2.) I could just as easily cherry-pick a similar list of liberals and Democrats: Bill Clinton, JFK, FDR, Ted Kennedy, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer, Jesse Jackson, Jim McGreevy, Marion Barry, Barney Frank, Gary Hart, Gary Condit, Tim Mahoney, Henry Cisneros, Jerry Springer, Mel Reynolds, Kwame Kilpatrick, Gavin Newsom, Robert F. Kennedy, David Paterson, Gerry Studds, Fred Richmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, Neil Goldschmidt, Paul Patton, Wayne Hays, Brock Adams, Bob Wise, Allan Howe, Joe Waggoner.

            3.) You’ll notice in that list some rather bigger, more powerful names than in your GOP list. Of course there will be a minority of powerful people on both sides who act sleazily, but the real question is how the rest of the party reacts to them. Affairs tend to be a black mark against Republican politicians, but Democrats fight to the death to protect slime like Clinton; in fact, for him they pioneered the “it’s just sex” line of thought! Ted Kennedy’s record didn’t impair his standing in the party at all, the media looked the other way for Edwards & Weiner as long as there was the teensiest sliver of plausible deniability, and Villaraigosa got to chair this year’s Dem convention.

            4.) In any event, whose party has more adulterers wasn’t even what I had in mind. For the real proof, look no further than the culture of promiscuity and sexual indulgence the Left and Planned Parenthood actively cultivate.

            5.) Lastly, you seem not to understand that the word “lots” is not a synonym for “all” or “most.”

          • Mickey

            Speakers of the house and men running for President are not prominent and powerful? Senators are not prominent and powerful? Several people on your list are dead while I decided to stick to people who are still living. Yes, there are liberals who are not all that wonderful, but I don’t see them acting morally higher than thou or telling others how they should run their sex lives. I also don’t see anyone claiming that Republicans are “lots of pigs”. If a liberal claimed that they would be called all sorts of names, especially by yourself.

            For the rest of what you have to say you have obviously not lived much of an adult life for saying ridiculous things like a “culture of promiscuity and sexual indulgence”. You are a silly little kid, get back to me when you grow up and live a little. As a female I know for a fact that republicans are not any better than anyone else.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “Speakers of the house and men running for President are not prominent and powerful?”

            Huh? I guess we can add the word “some” and the suffix “-er” to the growing list of elementary concepts you don’t grasp.

            “I don’t see them acting morally higher than thou or telling others how they should run their sex lives.”

            (A) You basically just said that it’s okay when liberals act like scum because they don’t claim not to be scum. What a great point! (B) Conservatives aren’t telling people how to run their sex lives.

            “I also don’t see anyone claiming that Republicans are ‘lots of pigs’.”

            Then you’re not paying attention. Racist, sexist, homophobic, Nazi, theocratic, fascist, wingnut, fanatic, fundamentalist, warmonger, hatemonger, bigot, misogynist….is there any name Republicans *aren’t* called routinely?

            Lastly, apparently my being familiar with things you aren’t somehow means I’m the one who hasn’t lived enough. Oooookay……

          • Sonya

            Okay. So if women just “grew up” and “lived a little more”, we’d be okay with men using us for sex then pressuring us to abort the resulting children? I guess we should just learn to lay back and enjoy it more, so that one day, the almighty orgasm will be just as important to us as it is to the men willing to kill their children just so they can have them hassle-free?

            I speak from personal experience as a woman too, by the way.

      • marie27

        You do realize that polls show that women are more pro-life than men, right?
        You probably don’t even know what a sacrament is, so don’t profane them by saying that murdering a child could ever be one.

  • Kathryn R.

    It isn’t just the mother’s “comfort” at risk when she is forced to bear a child. Besides the definite health risks of pregnancy and birth these women are far more likely to require welfare and remain in life threatening in life threatening situations.

    You advocate against abortion even in cases of rape when most states grant paternal rights to rapists. This forces women, and children, to endure ongoing contact with a man capable of such violence. Perhaps if people focused more on the social issues of poverty, domestic violence and violent crimes against women–and less on blaming the victims of these crimes–we could see a drop in the number of procedures needed each year.

    • Steve Farrell

      You bring up a good reminder about the pro-lifers’ cavalier attitude toward the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth. You’d think that every woman, at the instant of conception, acquires the emotional and financial means to have a baby, a job that gives her plenty of time off, a secure, nurturing relationship, and a support system to help with the task of carrying and delivering a baby. And it must be just pro-choice propaganda that hundreds of women still die in childbirth in the USA every year.

      Get knocked up, ladies, and your worries are over!

      • marie27

        Oh yeah, that’s why pro-lifers don’t have 1000′s of pegnancy centers across the country that don’t give all sorts of emotional and financial help to pregnant women and don’t provide a support sytem. *sarcasm*
        We know that often she is in difficult situation, that’s why we help her as best we can instead of telling her to kill her unborn child.

    • marie27

      “most states grant paternal rights to rapists”. I agree that those laws are horrible. Change to law, don’t kill the child. It’s not his/her fault.

  • peach

    “It seems to treat women in exactly the way liberals despise: as delicate flowers who must be protected or accommodated because they can’t deal with the harsh realities of life.”

    WOW. Rape is a harsh reality of life so women should just deal with it? Women should just take it like a man? Allowing a rape victim to get an abortion is not treating her like a delicate flower. It’s treating her like a human being.

  • lol

    Nonsense.

  • Dusty P.

    //1) It is wrong to kill
    another human being for personal reasons. //

    This is too broad a statement. You do have a
    right to DEFEND YOURSELF against UNWANTED USE of YOUR body for personal
    reasons. In fact, your reasons are irrelevant, personal or not. The only
    relevant part of the equation is that the use is not, or is no longer,
    consented to.

    //2) A human zygote or
    fetus is a human being.//

    Well, this depends on your definition of
    “human being”. Yes, it has human DNA, and therefore is member of the
    species Homo Sapiens. Refer to my response to number one, because it applies to
    all things considered “human beings”, no matter the definition.

    //3) Therefore, it is
    wrong to kill a human zygote or fetus for personal reasons.//

    You are still begging the question. Your number one is not shown to be
    relevant, therefore your conclusion cannot be found to be true.

    //If [3] is a sound
    conclusion, then we can also strengthen the argument as follows://

    Technically, I don’t have to refute anything
    from this point on because your conclusion is not sound. However, I will go on
    an continue to refute the following points.

    //4) It is especially
    wrong to kill a human being (Harry) to the degree that [i] Harry is innocent,
    [ii] Harry is defenseless, [iii] Harry has more to lose, [iv] the killing is
    premeditated, and [v] the killing is enabled by someone who is under a special
    duty to protect Harry.//

    In reference to (i) – This is incorrect. This
    logic actually doesn’t apply to one’s right to self-defense against unwanted use
    of their body. Whether or not the user eventually is found guilty of a crime is
    irrelevant to whether or not the force used to stop the unwanted use of their
    body was justified.

    ii) Being “defenseless” doesn’t grant someone/thing the right to
    continue to use another person’s body, for any length of time, once explicit
    non-consent it present. Therefore, this idea is also irrelevant.

    iii) Again, irrelevant. Someone having “more to lose” doesn’t grant
    them the right to use, or continue to use, another person’s body against their
    explicit non-consent. Furthermore, it doesn’t remove someone’s right to stop
    that unwanted use by necessary force. Therefore, this idea is irrelevant.

    iv) You’d be hard pressed to prove that it is
    the killing itself that is the actual goal of a woman seeking to end their
    pregnancy. Even if you could prove this for just one woman, it wouldn’t apply
    to any other woman. Each case would require its own proof. Furthermore, this
    really is no more true than the idea that a woman that learns self-defense and
    plans to use any force necessary to stop a rape, and that force resulted in a
    death of the user, was pre-meditated killing in a legal sense. The fact that
    she knows she would use necessary force to stop a rape doesn’t remove her right
    to defend against that rape.

    v) There is no legal obligation to care for anything or anyone if that care
    requires the use of your body, harm, or medical risk.

    //5) A human zygote or
    fetus is [i] as innocent and [ii] as defenseless as a human being can be, a
    human zygote or fetus has [iii] the most to lose in terms of the life it could
    still live, [iv] abortion is always premeditated, and [v] abortion is enabled
    by the mother, who has a special duty to protect her child at any early stage
    of development.//

    i) Again, “innocence” doesn’t negate
    someone’s right to self-defense. See i) from number four. Furthermore, if you really want to argue
    “innocent”, you would be incorrect to call a fetus/embyo totally
    innocent because they attach themselves to a woman’s body and actively use that
    body, causing medical risk and harm to that body.

    ii) see ii from above. This is irrelevant.

    iii) see iii from above. This is irrelevant.

    iv) see iv from above.

    v) see v from above.

    //6) Therefore, it is
    especially wrong, to the greatest degree possible, to kill Harry if he is a
    human zygote or fetus.//

    Your conclusion is incorrect by virtue of your
    premises being incorrect.

    //Obviously [5] would
    have to be built out for a complete and full defense, but I think it is pretty
    clear and unobjectionable as it stands.//

    Obviously, it is
    objectionable.

    //You’ll notice the question of whether Harry is a person is
    irrelevant to the argument. Indeed, if he is not a person,
    then killing him is even worse, as per objection #4 below.//

    We agree on one thing:
    personhood IS irrelevant. Being deemed a person doesn’t grant you the right to
    use, or continue to use another person’s body, for any length of time, once
    explicit non-consent is present.

    //You’ll also notice that the argument’s premises are very modest.
    They don’t require you to believe in God, or even in objective moral laws –
    only that you have basic intuitions about murder, innocence, and familial
    duties which all people seem to share.

    But you will object…//

    Why, yes, I do object. But, not for the reasons
    you list below. For the reason already stated above. I’m going to ignore most
    of the following counter arguments, because they are irrelevant and have
    nothing to do with why your reasoning is incorrect. I am only going to reply to
    number 6 and number 9.

    //6. “The woman’s right
    to choose what to do with her body trumps any other considerations.”

    This feminist knee-jerk is completely unresponsive to my argument.
    Notice: I explicitly call out this kind of thinking by stipulating that it is
    wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons. That covers
    reasons of personal bodily autonomy. //

    And, you were incorrect.
    Again, legally speaking, all that need to be present is NON-CONSENT of ANY
    usage of a body, and one has a right to defend against that usage. Your reason
    for that non-consent is irrelevant, legally, and that includes what you call
    “personal reasons”. You do realize that your idea of a personal
    reason is completely subjective, which is precisely why there is no legal
    support for your claim.

    //Therefore, if you’re raising this objection, I assume that
    you’re simplyasserting it against my conclusion. If so,
    you’re conceding my conclusion, and agreeing that killing
    Harry-the-zygote-or-fetus is wrong.//

    You would assume wrong.
    Your conclusion has not been conceded. In fact, it has been shown to be
    incorrect.

    //Since you presumably wouldn’t say a woman’s bodily autonomy
    gives her the right to kill (or enable another to kill) Harry in any other circumstances,
    you need to explain just what gives her that right in this circumstance.//

    Ah, here lies your crux.
    Of course it gives her the right to kill another person, Harry or not, IF that
    killing is NECESSARY to stop the usage of her body once explicit non-consent is
    present. Her right to her body trumps the fetuses right to use it, just as in
    any other scenario where person 1 (fetus) is using person 2′s body (woman)
    against their explicit non-consent. Again, this is only true if the force used
    is necessary force. The only time killing of a fetus becomes questionable is
    after the point of viability because at this point there are methods of removal
    that can lead to the survival of the fetus. But, we’re talking about 1% of all
    abortion – and those 1% are usually performed because of the health of the
    woman. This point doesn’t apply to 99% of all abortions. If you’d like to argue about that 1%, we can
    certainly do that at another time.

    //You might claim that what gives her that right here is that Harry
    is part of her body. //

    Nope. Not at all. What
    gives her this right is the fact that Harry is using her body without her
    consent. She, therefore, has a right to stop that usage, even if necessary force results in the
    death of Harry.

    //But this is obviously wrong, since Harry is a different human
    being from her. He has different DNA and his own organs. Plus it seems
    embarrassing to claim that 50% of pregnant women have penises.//

    See above.

    //You might claim that what gives her the right here is self-defense.//

    Why, yes I do claim
    this. But, not because Harry is part of her body. But, simply because Harry is
    using her body against her explicit non-consent.

    // I think this is actually a bit different from the right to
    bodily autonomy, but more importantly it misconstrues what I mean by “personal
    reasons” to kill someone. //

    It is different than
    bodily autonomy. But, they are connected. It is because you have a right to not
    have your body infringed upon by outside people/things that the right to
    self-defense even exists.

    //Self-defense is not a personal reason, but a civil one. Moreover,
    even if it werea personal reason, it would be an exception that you
    must show applies here. Unless the woman’s life is genuinely in
    peril from Harry – in which case, see objection #9 – self-defense is obviously
    off the table.//

    This is not correct.
    Self-defense applies to ANY situation where someone’s body is being infringed
    upon by another being. A person’s life need not be in danger in order to have a
    right to self-defense. You have a right to stop someone from pinching you. From
    punching you. From stealing your kidney. None of these are situations where the
    person’s life is “genuinely in peril”, yet, they still have the right
    to self-defense. What is true is that any defense used must be warranted, ie.
    the force you use must be necessary force. However, for EVERY SCENARIO, you
    have the right, at the VERY LEAST, to SEPARATE from the user. In most cases,
    this probably would not require that you use force that results in death. For
    example, if someone is pinching you, you can push their hand away and doing so
    is legal because it was necessary force. If someone is punching you, you can
    legally punch them back without the threat of repercussion, as long as the
    force was necessary to stop the usage of your body. In the case of an unwanted
    pregnancy, where the fetus/embryo is using your body against your explicit
    consent – you have a right, at the very least, to separate from the
    embryo/fetus, just as you do in any other scenario. That the fetus/embryo
    cannot survive that separation is not of legal or moral concern for the woman. Because
    it cannot survive ANY METHOD of
    separation at all (at the time that 99% of abortions occur), the
    separation itself is justified. It is legally justified because there was not
    method of separation that would lead to the survival of the fetus/embryo.

    //You might claim instead that what gives her that right here is
    that Harry is imposing on her body
    – à la Judith Jarvis Thompson’s violinist analogy. But even if the
    woman’s actions towards the violinist are permissible (which I think is much
    less clear than people suggest), the analogy fails at two crucial points.
    Firstly, it hardly seems permissible for the woman to kill the violinist by
    putting him into a blender – the equivalent of most abortions – or leaving him
    to die if he still had a chance to live on his own after all – the equivalent
    of partial-birth abortion.//

    So, it appears that your
    argument is merely opposing the actual method used, not the end result of
    ending a pregnancy. Can we agree that she, at the bare minimum, has a right to
    separate from the fetus/embryo? Once we determine this to be true (see above),
    the method can be considered. Of course, there are many considerations like 1)
    will the method matter in regards to the survivability of the fetus and 2) does
    the method matter to the woman, who will survive the procedure? We can argue these points if you would like,
    but, anything you may say won’t alter the fact that she, at the very least, has
    a right to separate if the usage is unwanted.

    //Secondly, and more importantly, her relationship to Harry is not
    of one adult stranger to another adult stranger, but of a mother to her child.
    This is conveniently glossed over – indeed, obfuscated – by the language often
    used in this debate (“woman,” “fetus,” etc). Obviously the maternal relationship
    carries with it the duty to protect and care for the child, and this duty
    overrides autonomy.//

    No, it actually does
    not. A duty to protect never obligates
    someone to provide the use of their body, especially when that use causes
    medical risk and harm. Furthermore, there is no legal support that being
    biologically related to a person somehow allows someone to use another person’s
    body against their explicit non-consent, nor does it negate someone’s right to
    self-defense. Let’s use an analogy to bring the point home: A man decides to
    rape his mother. Does the fact that she is his mother, and this so called
    “duty to care” alter her right to stop him from doing so by any means
    necessary? No, it does not. Being someone’s biological parent doesn’t obligate
    someone to give up their rights to their body if the offspring want to use that
    body, physically, in some way. It’s the same reason we can’t legally compel a
    parent to provide an organ to a child who needs one, even if it is something
    small like blood donation. There is NO duty to care, not matter the
    relationship, if that care requires the physical use of all or part of another
    person’s body.

    // For example, we wouldn’t think a mother was justified in
    killing her infant just because she doesn’t wish to have to get up several
    times in the night to feed it.//

    This is what we call a
    red-herring. It’s a false analogy and it is irrelevant. You can’t compare
    social dependence to biological dependence and then use the social analogy to
    defend an example of biological dependence. You can’t simply kill an infant in
    this scenario because there are other methods of separation which don’t result
    in the death of the infant. The killing is not necessary force, and therefore
    is not protected legally. You can let someone else get up with the child. You
    can give the child to someone else to care for. There are other methods of
    separation that one can utilize. I actually can’t believe that I have to explain
    this. It seems so obvious to me.

    // Neither would we think highly of a mother who refused to donate
    a kidney to her child, knowing it would lead to the child’s death. And so on.//

    Think highly? This isn’t
    about what one thinks about the scenario. This is about whether or not
    something is legal. You can’t legally
    obligate a parent to donate that organ, you can’t legally stop them, and their
    refusal to do so is not punishable by law.

    //9. “Self-defense is a
    personal reason to kill someone, and that isn’t wrong.”

    I consider self-defense
    not a personal reason, but rather a civil one, because it involves a duty to
    oneself or others to prevent injustice. The same applies to capital punishment.

    But let’s say this objection goes through anyway. This would
    suggest that abortion is permissible in cases where the mother’s life is
    genuinely in peril from the pregnancy (assuming Harry can’t survive outside the body).//

    It’s not permissible
    just in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. It is permissible in cases
    where 1) the woman does not consent to the usage of her body, for any reason
    and 2) the force is justified: ie. there is no method of separation that will
    result in the non-death of the fetus/embryo.

    // Yet this seems like an uncontroversial exception, since it is impossible to
    save Harry’s life here in any case, and it would be a greater wrong to let both
    him and his mother die. What this objection does not show is
    that, because it is permissible to kill Harry in self-defense, it is therefore
    permissible to kill him for any other reason. And so it fails
    to refute my argument.//

    See my explanation
    regarding self-defense above.

    Therefore, I come to the conclusion that your argument is absolute bunk.
    Your premises are incorrect, therefore your conclusion is not valid.

    • http://www.facebook.com/noblebaker Noble Baker

      Thank you for wading through the entire article. Well done. I don’t think there’s anything more that needs to be said.

    • http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant

      Dusty:

      There’s so much wrong with your reply that I won’t be able to respond to it all. But here are some representative examples of your poor reasoning:

      This is too broad a statement. You do have a right to DEFEND YOURSELF against UNWANTED USE of YOUR body for personal reasons. In fact, your reasons are irrelevant, personal or not. The only relevant part of the equation is that the use is not, or is no longer, consented to.

      It’s ironic that you say my statement is too broad, and then immediately replace it with an even broader one. By your reasoning, I am justified in killing someone who shaves my head for laughs while I’m asleep. Obviously reasons are not irrelevant. Also, since I’ve discussed self-defense in the article, this comment is unresponsive to my actual reasoning.

      Well, this depends on your definition of “human being”. Yes, it has human DNA, and therefore is member of the species Homo Sapiens. Refer to my response to number one, because it applies to all things considered “human beings”, no matter the definition.

      Since I have argued that a zygote/fetus is a human being precisely because to kill it would be to kill the same organism as the later adult, your comment is completely unresponsive to my argument.

      Your “refutations” of point #4 all presuppose that we’re talking about “letting” someone use our body for personal reasons without our consent. But that is explicitly not the context of my premise, which is purely with regard to a general principle of murder.

      You are also equivocating on your “refutation” of [5-v], since I have at no point suggested that legal obligation is under consideration. Indeed, since abortion is legal, that would be self-defeating. What I am appealing to is ethical obligations. I can understand why you’d want to obfuscate this point, since the ethical obligations are clear, and defeat your objection.

      As regards consent, in the vast majority of cases that is irrelevant, since it is already implicity given by engaging in consensual sex. If you engage in sex knowing that you could get pregnant, then you don’t have a right to kill your child if you do.

      I’ll leave the rest of your comment, since it is just full of the same tendentious stuff I’ve just refuted.

      • Dusty P

        It’s ironic that you say my statement is too broad, and then immediately replace it with an even broader one. By your reasoning, I am justified in killing someone who shaves my head for laughs while I’m asleep.

        This doesn’t follow my reasoning at all. The statement you quoted simply stated that one has a right to defend themselves for personal reasons, even if that defending leads to the death of the user, and the fact that the reasons were personal are irrelevant as long as the usage of one’s body that they are
        defending against is NOT CONSENTED TO. The important part of the equation is NOT why one does not consent (the personal reason you keep mentioning), but instead is the fact that consent is not present.

        I fail to see how this idea is in any way broad, the way simply stating “personal reasons”, without defining your term, is broad.

        Obviously reasons are not irrelevant.

        Yes, they are, as long as the usage is not consented to. The reason WHY you don’t consent is irrelevant. The reason why you don’t want someone to have sex with you may be simply that it is tuesday, and you don’t like sex on tuesdays. Any other day and you would have sex. But, not on tuesday. That personal reason has no bearing on your right to stop the sex – because
        there is explicit non-consent. Get it?

        Also, since I’ve discussed self-defense in the article, this comment is unresponsive to my actual reasoning.

        Actually, it wasn’t. But, nice try.

        Since I have argued that a zygote/fetus is a human being precisely
        because to kill it would be to kill the same organism as the later adult, your
        comment is completely unresponsive to my argument.

        I’m sorry, but this really doesn’t make sense to me. You are going to have to elaborate.

        Your” refutations” of point #4 all presuppose that we’re talking about
        “letting” someone use our body for personal reasons without our
        consent. But that is explicitly not the context of my premise, which is purely with regard to a general principle of murder.

        And, my explanations show why it is NOT murder, but justified self-defense.

        You are also equivocatingon your “refutation” of [5-v], since I have at no point suggestedthat legal obligation is under consideration. Indeed, since abortion is legal,that would be self-defeating. What I am appealing to is ethical obligations. Ican understand why you’d want to obfuscate this point, since the ethicalobligations are clear, and defeat your objection.

        In no way did you make this clear. You also contradict yourself, since you also
        just claimed that the context of your premise “is purely with regard to a
        general principle of murder”. Last I checked, murder was a legal term with
        legal implications which do not apply to abortion for the reason I have
        already pointed out (self-defense). Furthermore, the same logic applies to the
        morality of abortion. It is no more immoral than any other form of
        self-defense. That something cannot survive the necessary steps needed to stop it from using, or continuing to use, your body against your explicit
        non-consent is not of moral or legal concern to one doing the defending.

        As regards consent, in the vast majority of cases that is irrelevant, since it is already implicity given by engaging in consensual sex. If you
        engage in sex knowing that you could get pregnant, then you don’t have a right to kill your child if you do.

        Wrong. Consent to sex is consent to sex. It is in no way consent to be pregnant. Just as you can stop sex in the act, you can
        stop pregnancy in the act. You can revoke consent of the direct use of your
        body at any time. Thus far, you haven’t actually proven that consent to sex
        equals consent to pregnancy. There is NO OTHER legal situation where such a thing is true – Consent to act A by person A is not implicit consent to act B
        by person B. Each require their own consent, and certainly require their own ongoing consent.

        I’ll leave the rest of your comment, since it is just full of the same tendentious stuff I’ve just refuted

        Please, don’t cop out on me. I’m going to assume that you simply cannot refute my argument if you refuse to even try (and, no, the above is not really an attempt…or it’s a really bad one if it is).

  • jkjk

    wwqeqwe

  • Ward Ricker

    “Even liberals can understand”?? I beg your pardon!!!

  • http://twitter.com/Bhutto Human Rights

    Well, now that the partisan tact has failed in a national election, Live Action’s response will be to continue the partisan tact. Let’s just keep insulting and/or ignoring all the pro life liberals and democrats, and keep right on pretending all those pro choice conservatives and republicans aren’t really there. Yeah, good luck with that Live Action!

  • http://www.facebook.com/constanfisher Constance Davis Fisher

    I think that most people will agree that there needs to be limits on abortion. Surveys have shown that a majority of americans think that there should be time limits, especially after viability. What I don’t understand is how the mother’s rights trump the baby’s/fetus after viability. I dont give a darn if a woman’s feelings are going to be hurt by giving up the child for adoption! If that baby is past viability, GIVE BIRTH TO IT! Especially with that partial birth abortion Boloney! Even the creator of that horrid procedure said that over 80% of those that he performed were NOT medically necessary. So tell me why, for example, are women getting abortions at frigging 35 weeks? “I can’t afford the baby,” they say. DARN IT, give him/her up for adoption! I could care less about you stupid feelings in that case! Viability needs to be the new focal point for the Republican party. Stop messing around with the darned zygote crap! And this coming from a pro life Catholic. Its time to prioritize people! AND I don’t wanna hear any bull about this hardly ever happening. If it happens ONCE, then that is one too many times. Thank you.

    • Dusty P

      The woman’s right to her body ALWAYS trumps the fetuses right to use that body for survival. There is no excuse to remove her right to separate from something that is using her body against her current, explicit non-consent. Just as in any other situation. What may alter once viability is reached, is the method of separation. At this stage, unless there is a medical reason for the abortion itself, the woman should at the very least have the right to induce labor, or have a C-section performed, in order to separate the fetus from her body. The fact that the fetus has reached viability doesn’t somehow magically and arbitrarily remove her right to her body and to control what uses it and for how long it uses it.

      Also, there is absolutely no support to the claim that most late term abortions (less than 1% of all abortions) are done for reasons other than medical. None at all. It’s all pro-life propaganda, and it’s all lies when people start claiming this. The reality is that women who get to that stage of the game very much want their pregnancies and they don’t make the decision to discontinue the pregnancy lightly.

      • Fire and Mirth

        “The woman’s right to her body ALWAYS trumps the fetuses right to use that body for survival.”

        Why? On what grounds?

        If we live in a materialist universe, sans God, this statement is meaningless. The universe doesn’t care whether we preference the woman or the fetus. It doesn’t care whether we save or slaughter anyone. You cannot argue any action as better than any other.

        Put God in the picture, and you have to contend with a morality outside of yourself. Tell me, what theistic system privileges the woman over the baby?

      • http://www.facebook.com/constanfisher Constance Davis Fisher

        That’s why Kermit Gosnell is being prosecuted for doing late term abortions, one as late as 35 weeks, against state law and for NO medical reason. Like I said before if there is only ONE done, then that is one too many. Such a low percentage of women don’t realize that they are pregnant after missing their menstrual cycle that I don’t buy this Boloney that women need to have a convenience abortion done after 20 weeks. That partial birth abortion doctor I quoted, It wasn’t on a pro life site my friend, he was quoted in MEDICAL literature that I read about that percentage. Don’t give me that enlightened pro abort bull about pro lifers making it up. Sheesh, do your own research at a Library instead of the darned internet where everything is biased. Everyone knows that there are women out there that use abortion as birth control also, which is ridiculous! I have been on those feminist sites that proudly proclaim that they DO IT! Most women there, I have to admit, don’t approve of using it as birth control or getting an abortion after 20 weeks. This fallacy of ALL women wanting abortion at any point in pregnancy and for any reason is just that, a fallacy. Most women want it available in the beginning of pregnancy and for health, rape and incest, nothing more. You go and ask most people on the street if they approve of Convenience abortion at any time and a majority will say no. That is the biggest problem is that there should be a limit, excluding life or death, up to what point an abortion can be done. Spare me your liberal idiocy of the woman’s rights. I am a woman and if I was dying then the doctors could do a c-section on me right then and there. I KNOW cause I had it done. I had to have an emergency c-section for a complete placenta previa. I would have bled to death. My condition is one of the reasons that liberals give for having abortion on demand. Well I can tell you, you just give Birth via c-section. You do not, I repeat, do not have to murder your child after 24 weeks or viability to take care of that condition. And don’t twist it around, I said after viability. Its time some of the feminists and liberals look at the medical books and do research at a library.

  • Lark

    We pro-lifers can’t seem to win. If we appeal to morality or ethics, that’s just all too subjective for the pro-abortion crowd…if we play their game and appeal to logic, to science, suddenly the science or logic we employ is too subjective also, so it’s just gotta be flawed. “But what about the woman, you heartless jerk? What about her needs?” (like that’s not subjective…). I only say this because it’s been my personal experience.

    No one here would ever say that a woman’s needs are second to the child’s (yes, I’m using the word child intentionally). We are saying that they BOTH have needs that must be met, not ONE at the expense of the other. And my daughter’s needs were not met at my bodily expense while I was pregnant (some of you have asked “How can we FORCE a woman to feed and care for a child she doesn’t want?”). I had no serious conditions, though I was considered high risk, that greatly affected my daily life. If I fed myself, rested, and took care of myself (which I needed to do regardless of being pregnant) she was also taken care of. If a woman is in an abusive household or relationship, abortion is not her answer…removal from that harmful household or relationship is the answer! Again, if the WOMAN is taken care of, the child’s care follows. If a raped woman has no legal recourse and must co-parent with the rapist after the child is born, abortion is not the answer, legal reform is the answer. Abortion helps *ensure* that women stay in abusive relationships and laws that need to be reformed won’t be reformed at all or as quickly.

    Abortion is meeting the woman’s “needs”, whatever they may be, at the expense of the baby’s. I would rather pay for the food stamps, welfare, etc. that child will need than have its mother murder it. That argument–”Would you really want to pay for that kid to be on welfare after it’s born rather than allow its mom to abort?”–is often used to appeal to fiscal conservatives, and as a conservative, I find it just plain silly. I would rather that child be alive, screw the cost.

    It’s clear that some people simply want to define a “being’s” worth by how much (if at all) someone outside that being’s self wants them (could not think of a better way to word that awkward sentence). Then magically, after being physically born, they have innate worth and dignity (because that’s not arbitrary at all, right?). Again, I find that to be extremely subjective and, quite frankly, ridiculous. But perhaps I am missing something, I only took one logic & rhetoric course during college.

    And why do so many liberals get their panties in such a twist when the word “liberals” is used? Their party/ideological platform is what’s being referred to. So what? I don’t see why so many are taking it personally…especially since those taking it personally are mostly of the pro-abortion persuasion (thus proving that the use of the term is accurate…no?). If you are a pro-life liberal who agrees with this article, than say so, and be peeved about that. But if you are a liberal and you are pro-abortion in any respect…well, you can’t really be upset about use of the term here…Again, I’m only speaking from my experience, which seems to fall right in line with discussions being had here. I’ve never met a pro-life liberal. I’m sure there are some, but they are not the majority being referred to here.

  • Fire and Mirth

    Very well said Dominic. Thank you.

  • jd

    The obvious solution is to have children temporarily serialized until they are ready to have children and go through child rearing courses. Baring this solution, early abortion with penalties for later abortions laws should prevail. Products are available that can be used to detect pregnancy with in the first few days of intercourse. Less emotion and more practicality
    will eventually resolve this problem if we can apply deductive reasoning without emotion. Your attempt to evoke emotions by naming the zygote did not go unnoticed. It is this kind of reactionary attempt at winning an argument instead of finding real solutions that will keep this problem from ever being rationally resolved.

  • eleanor

    can i just say something about babies being parasites? in my biology class we are taught by my pro-choice teacher that a parasite is an organism that lives on or in another organism and benefits from it in a way that harms the host. There is plenty of evidence that babies actually benefit the mother during pregnancy. Cells travel between the mother and the baby and the healthier cells from the baby improve the mothers health. Pregnancy and giving birth can reduce or even eliminate cramping during menstruation, as well as decreasing the frequency of periods. Pregnancy reduces the risk of breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Pregnancy also enhances you senses. Throughout pregnancy the effects of crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis as well as asthma. Having a baby halves a woman’s risk of getting multiple sclerosis; if she already has MS then having a baby reduces the chance of relapse. Heart disease is the biggest killer of women in the US. However one study found that women who had had four or more kids were half as likely to die from a stroke as women who had less or no kids. Even the symptoms of rheumatoid athritis frequently go into remission. Pregnancy is the reason women live longer than men, on average. Also many women start healthy habits during pregnancy so they don’t harm their baby which last the rest of their lives. Many women experience a boost in confidence after delivering their baby. Despite the nasty short term effects, such as morning sickness, pregnancy is ultimately beneficial to the mother so the relationship between a mother and her baby in the womb so the relationship, on a strictly biological level, is beneficial to both mother and baby. Even if babies were parasites, abortion is definately not the way to deal with them. Abortion obviously kills babies, but it has harmful effects on the mother too. Abortion increases the chance of getting breast cancer by 50% women who keep their first baby cut their risk of breast cancer by half, while those who abort double the risk. Women who have 2 or more induced abortions have a 2.1 relative risk factor for liver cancer, those who have had one have a relative risk factor of 1.6 compared to women with no abortive history. There is a 2.3 relative risk for cancer of the cervix for women with one abortion and a 4.92 relative risk for women reporting two or more induced abortions compared with women with no prior abortion history. Women are up to 3.7 times more likely to die from abortion than giving birth. Having an abortion means a mum is 58% more likely to die during a later pregnancy. In a d&c procedure there is a 1/100 chance of uterine perforation. Having an abortion increases the chance of an ectopic pregnancy. A woman’s risk of death in the year after an abortion is 4 times as high as the risk of dying after miscarriage or delivery. Women who have an abortion are 6-7 times more likely to commit suicide. They are 60% more likely to die of natural causes and 4 times more likely to have a fatal accident. Women who have abortions are also more likely to smoke. They are also more likely to smoke during a future pregnancy. Smoking, in turn, has it’s own health risks. Induced abortion is a direct cause of drug abuse in 15-20% of post-abortive women. Women with a history of abortion are more than twice as likely to be heavy drinkers. Having an abortion can also cause nightmares and insomnia. A study on maternal drug use at UCSD Medical Center in San Diego found that women who used cocaine and/or methamphetamine averaged 1.7 abortions compared with 1.2 abortions for nondrug using women. Women who used heroin or methadone had an average of 2.4 prior abortions and women who used both heroin and either cocaine or methamphetamine had an average of 2.7 prior abortions. One report found that women who abort are almost 4 times more likely to be involved in alcohol or drug abuse. Women who have induced abortions have, on average, higher rates of alcohol consumption than women than those with a history of stillbirth, spontaneous abortion, or those with a mentally or physically handicapped child. There is also a high chance of infection. Infection is the highest cause of death associated with legal abortion in the US. One study found that 47% of women surveyed had one or more physical comlications following their abortions. Of these 47%, 35% reported severe complications. I have more i could right about harmful effects of abortions but for now i’m going to stop writing.

    • Lark

      Thank you a million times for sharing this information…I’ve heard many of these facts as well. Seems like women are so used to hearing “pregnancy is *such* a burden!” that they forget the many, many benefits. And it makes sense! Pregnancy is one of the, if not the, most natural thing in the world.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        It’s also, in a very real and sometimes dangerous sense, labor. We, as a society, have decided that the consent to sex does not force women into nine months of conscripted labor.

        • Lark

          No one is claiming that there aren’t risks involved. But the statistics are pretty clear: pregnancy will significantly lower risks for things, abortion raise them. “We, as a society…” Yes. That’s the problem. I don’t think that the sexual promiscuity promoted in our society as “sexual freedom” is a healthy thing. I think it’s incredibly harmful to women, for one. We are not biologically or neurologically wired for it, and it further allows men to take advantage of women.

          Pregnancy results from a healthy and functioning reproductive system, not the other way around. If a woman consents to sex, she must be reconciled with the possibility of becoming pregnant. Can she really be surprised when it does happen? Does she then have a right to terminate the life growing inside her as a direct result of her own choices? No. And please don’t throw the rape scenario at me…that’s already been discussed in detail in previous parts of this thread. We are talking consensual sex here.

          I simply don’t understand the mindset so many of you have…pregnancy is not the death sentence you all make it out to be. Whatever happened to the idea that children are a gift? Is only a wanted child a gift?

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            I don’t need to “throw the rape scenario”; it’s clear that consensual sex is what I’m talking about. And, listen, I didn’t call pregnancy a “death sentence”, you crafted that straw man; I merely stated the obvious — pregnancy has risks (see Savita Halappanavar). Children are certainly a blessing for women who embrace the pregnancy that results from sex. But the women who don’t aren’t indentured by the results of sex.

            Blame that on a promiscuous society or women who are too blithe about sex or the psychobabble of what we might or might not be hard-wired for, but it appears, in the end, what you really want is women to face what you see as the repercussions of nature when they become sexually active. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is conscripted into that not by her partner or her family or by nature, but by her government. Would you see it as a “gift”?

          • Lark

            I used the term “death sentence” because so many people here are in fact treating pregnancy itself like a disease, like something terrible. If the pregnancy isn’t planned, it’s not at all the worst thing that could happen to a woman…not at all. I simply fail to understand why it’s being treated as such. And using the word “indentured”…as though it’s a life sentence (calling to mind indentured servitude) is doing just that: treating pregnancy like some horrible, life-long condition. It’s not. And “conscripted”? She chose to have sex. The government did not force her. She was not drafted into pregnancy. She chose to do what she knew could lead to pregnancy.

            It’s true, the obvious is that “pregnancy has risks”. Also obvious is “pregnancy has benefits”. Far as I can tell, barring a serious condition, those benefits outweigh the risks. A woman who is pregnant for nine months and delivers her baby, then puts that baby up for adoption has: 1) brought a child into the world, which is in itself an act of love (only my opinion), 2) given a family a child they very much want and 3) lowered her own risk of developing several different types of cancer, among other things.

            And it is certainly not psychobabble to say that we are not “hard-wired” for promiscuous sex. It’s science. Just look at nervous system responses to sex, let alone the emotional and psychological components.

            And in the end, “what I really want” is not just for women to be responsible, but to embrace the fact that they can give life. Planned or not, that in and of itself is amazing. Children are amazing. If you cannot care for the child, there are many people and places that will help you. That’s what I wish more women would realize.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            That’s provocative language, I admit, but only used to illustrate just how an unwanted pregnancy can derail a woman’s life. The picture you paint of a mother ready to welcome her child into her family or able to carry to adoption is idyllic. My point remains that there must be some approbation for women who aren’t as ready or able.

            Lastly, despite finding your reply thoughtful and empathetic, I must say I think you’re leaning on some dubious science. I can infer that you’re making reference to the debunked-many-times-over idea that abortion leads to breast cancer. Yeah, debunked. And most science points to homo sapiens being a naturally promiscuous lot. Here’s just one example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/anthonybrowne.theobserver

          • Lark

            First of all, I have known many people who are adopted/have adopted. I know of and know personally women who were diagnosed with breast cancer, leukemia and other illnesses during pregnancy. I’ve known women and my family has known women (both very young and older) who became pregnant in very difficult circumstances. These women all had their babies (and no, they don’t all share my personal beliefs). I know that many women find themselves pregnant in less than idyllic circumstances.

            And I am not at all leaning on debunked science. I urge you to listen to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi. I’ve heard her speak and the evidence she’s compiled on top of her own experience and knowledge, of breast cancer specifically (she is a surgical breast oncologist), is quite convincing. She laid out, step by step, what happens with a woman’s breasts before, during and after pregnancy and explained how abortion affects tissue development, etc. She also explained how full-turm pregnancies can reduce risks. The various types of cancer links aside, abortion procedures are also very dangerous. Women still die from botched legal abortions–women with no previously existing conditions.

            She only lightly touched on contraceptive use and the breast cancer link there. With regards to other risks, you need look no further than the New England Journal of Medicine or read about the massive lawsuit in England a few years back. There are indeed serious risks involved, even for women who have no previous conditions.

        • marie27

          If you believe that the woman needs an additional consent to the pregnacy beyond sex, and she can kill the child if she doesn’t want him/her.
          Then it follows logically that the father needs an additional consent to the parenthood beyond sex, and he can kill the child if he doesn’t want him/her. (or else it’s “forced parenthood”)
          If you don’t agree with this you have a double-standard: sex is consent to parenthood for men, but not for women.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            The father’s body isn’t being conscripted for nine months of work, so you’ve either missed my point or you’re deflecting away from it.

          • marie27

            The father must at least pay child support after the child is born. So yes he is working for the child until she/he becomes an adult.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Still avoiding the point (risk). The mandate to pay child support is nothing like the mandate biology exacts on a woman. One is avoidable; one is not. One requires real physical risk; the other requires you draw a paycheck.

          • marie27

            Let’s not pretend that most mothers get abortions because they are scared of the risks of childrbirth. If someone is that scared about it, they should avoid sex, since pregnancy, childbirth, abortion, miscarriage, all have physical risks to themselves.
            BTW, most people don’t just draw a paycheck, they have to work (using their bodies) for it.
            You still haven’t answered why sex is consent to possible parenthood for guys but not for women.

          • Jamie

            “Let’s not pretend that most mothers get abortions because they are scared of the risks of childrbirth. If someone is that scared about it, they should avoid sex”

            Not scared of it, completely and totally disinterested in the entire thing. Married, though, for many years now so I’m most certainly not avoiding sex. When it’s a question of contraception, most people never mention married people whose families are complete nor can they even imagine a marriage in which children were never desired. I would have much rather gotten a tubal when I got married at 22. Eleven more years of hbc and an IUD, both of which were vastly inferior to a permanent method. Doctors should NEVER have assumed that they knew better than I what contraception choice was appropriate for me. My husband had a vasectomy 4 years before my tubal, and no one questioned HIS wishes at all.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Durham/100002906757423 Daniel Durham

            Even if I agree with you that pregnancy is infringing on a woman’s right to her body (which, if it is happening, is clearly wrong), I am absolutely certain that killing the baby is far more wrong. I’d be willing to accept a compromise whereby the baby is delivered by C-section as soon as medically feasible, and then put up for adoption (lots of people would love an adoptive baby. I know a family personally who’ve adopted 14 children from all across the world.)

          • NobleBaker

            Compromise is slicing open her belly? Yeah, that’s not infringing her rights at all.

  • Glenn

    The problem with trying to argue with someone that is pro-abortion is that they are not intellectually honest and therefore will never admit the fact that a human zygote or fetus is a human being.

    • NobleBaker

      Actually the bodily rights argument does not depend on the definition of a human being. Even if a zygote has the same rights as a born person those rights don’t extend to being able to use another’s body without their consent.

      • Glenn

        Really? Then why am I paying so much in tax from my bodily work to support those that refuse to work? Is my body not being used by another’s body without my consent? As to consent by the mother, in most cases the consent can be implied by her actions in becoming impregnated.

  • Pingback: 4 reasons the consent argument for abortion is sociopathic—Dominic Bnonn Tennant