Abortion

Imagine each person possesses a pleasure button. Pressing this button releases an intense (albeit fleeting) physical sensation through its owner’s body. This device comes with a rather strange and unfortunate yet very clear warning label. Apparently, a potential side effect of pressing the button is that drones will sometimes be deployed to capture one of your neighbors. The drones will abduct, deliver, and inextricably connect this neighbor to you to the extent that if you disconnect her, she will die. Consequently, if someone else presses your button without permission, the same chance of drone deployment exists, albeit WITHOUT the guaranteed accompanying rush of pleasure. Instead, you’ll be traumatized, yet with the same odds that your neighbor will become your prisoner. In neither case is your neighbor responsible for her imprisonment, nor has she done anything deserving of death. Most importantly, she wants to live. The only way to prevent your neighbor’s death is to keep her attached to you for nine months. During that time, she’ll rely on you to care for her and take her everywhere you go. She may inadvertently cause stress or harm to your body. It’s even possible that her mere presence unintentionally increases the possibility that you will die. And if for any reason you do die, she dies too. Lifesaving experimental disconnection procedures exist, but they are in their infancy. Since the neighbor cannot live without you, it is thought that disconnection should only be attempted if the connection is threatening your life, but always with the intention of trying to save both of you. The neighbor often dies in these situations, which is regarded as a tragedy. Yet, medicine proceeds by seeking answers to such problems.

Would you give serious thought to pressing that button? Would you wait to push it until you are ready and willing to experience that particular scenario? If someone else pressed it, and there were no life-threatening complications, would you be absolved of wrongdoing for killing her? Might it be loving and right to care for her until she can leave despite the inconvenience? Do we, as individuals, have a responsibility to care for others?

It’s comforting to think that people on both sides of the abortion argument agree that unwanted pregnancy is a crisis and that killing an innocent person is wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to identifying who qualifies as “persons” and determining realistic solutions to the problem of unwanted pregnancy, disagreements abound. Because the solutions and definitions proffered by abortion’s advocates and opponents are mutually exclusive (a baby in the womb either is or is not a person. Killing a preborn human either is or is not a moral solution to unwanted pregnancy.), the law of non-contradiction affirms that one side or the other is wrong. Regardless, each side stands undeterred, seeing their opponents as villains and themselves as heroes.

Most who hold a belief do not remain open to the possibility that they are wrong. What would it take for the actual villains to admit their error and change? Generally speaking, people won’t even associate with those who possess different viewpoints. Instead, we take shelter in an echo chamber, surrounding ourselves with people who think like us and with experts who provide justification for our espoused views. We banish information, arguments, and thoughts that contradict our own. In a way, it makes sense that we do this. It’s relatable. Believing we’ve got the world figured out provides comfort and security. Challenges that stand to invalidate our understanding threaten that security. Critically evaluating our worldview requires purposefully doubting ourselves long enough to ask, "What if I’m wrong?” And that can be an extremely uncomfortable exercise, especially when it comes to processing the potential validity of our opponents’ revulsion and the condemnation of our sins.

It’s certainly easier to just not think about it.

Even more debilitating is the thought of being rejected by our friends. Our echo chamber provides a sense of belonging because we’ve filled it with people who always affirm and never challenge. If we admit we’re wrong about something as polarizing as abortion, our friends will cast us out. Rather than risk rejection and the discomfort and disorientation of a shattered worldview, we avoid contradictory evidence and arguments. We subconsciously decide that the truth really doesn’t matter. We demonize those who think differently to feel justified in shielding ourselves from their arguments. Some even blow whistles and airhorns to drown opponents out. There’s just too much at stake. 

But the truth is better than a lie. Only a sociopath can escape that reality. 

Ask yourself, “If I am wrong about this, would I want to know? Am I really objective?” If the answer to those questions is “yes”, consider this…

Both sides agree that unwanted pregnancy is more than just a “problem.” It’s a crisis. We only differ as to identifying who qualifies as “persons” and determining realistic solutions to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. The pro-choice argument casts doubt over the humanity of the baby by dehumanizing it. This tactic has been used before. During WWII, Germans didn’t believe they were slaughtering “people”, they were merely disposing of Jewish parasites. Likewise, scientific racism emboldened those involved in the trading of African slaves since it was thought that blacks were “less human,” merely a primitive animal ancestor. Today, those wanting to be politically correct will only refer to an unborn child as a “baby” if the child is wanted. If not, she’s labeled a “fetus” or, with more obvious disdain, “a clump of cells”, a “tumor”, or a “parasite.” Dehumanizing the baby in this way certainly makes things a lot simpler. An “unwanted pregnancy” consisting merely of a pesky "clump" seems incredibly easy to solve.

Conversely, the abolitionist argument begins by reminding us what we agree on. Everyone (on both sides) agrees that killing innocent humans is wrong. Killing is wrong regardless of how tiny, weak, unwanted, or dependent that human is on another human. Is it ok to kill a human the day before she is due to be born? How about the day before that? The same logic, which endows personhood only at some arbitrary developmental stage between fertilization and birth, can be extended to deprive any born human of personhood and life at any age - and this has been done - in the previously mentioned atrocities of the holocaust and the slave trade. The abolitionist seeks to teach people to acknowledge the simple truth: that a person becomes a person at the moment she comes into existence, at fertilization. And it is always wrong to kill an innocent person. Still, because recognizing the baby's humanity alone does not necessarily make her any more “wanted,” how are we to solve the pressing problem of unwanted pregnancy? The answer is more straightforward than you might imagine. Just as we teach our children to love people who are different, just as we teach them to appreciate different races, cultures and ethnicities, we must teach and encourage people to love and want their babies.

Yes, Want. Your. Baby. 

Just as the evil of racism persists because children aren’t properly taught to love people of other races, unwanted pregnancy persists because people aren’t being properly taught to want their babies. Parents are responsible for the well-being of their children, whether they want them or not. And if you can’t bring yourself to want your own child, know that someone out there does. Killing is not a reasonable solution to unwanted pregnancy. Only a sociopath kills someone thinking, “If I won’t have her, no one will.”

Now, when it comes to the so-called “exceptions,” we must remember that every “exception” is an innocent human killed. We ought never to justify intentional baby killing. Punish the rapist. Protect the child. If the mother’s life is at risk, the doctor must acknowledge there are two patients and try to save both. Sometimes, a baby will have to be delivered prematurely to save the mother’s life, and sometimes that baby will die, but we should never intentionally kill an innocent human. Medicine proceeds by solving problems, and in time, even an ectopic baby can be saved by safely relocating her to her mother’s womb or perhaps to an artificial womb! As we work toward solving the problem of ectopic pregnancy, we ought to cherish and TRY to help every single baby.

Remember, in no case is your daughter responsible for her imprisonment, nor has she done anything deserving of death. Most importantly, she wants to continue living.

Abortion is on the wrong side of history. It advocates that people engage in sexual activity with utter disregard for the lives of their children. The abortion-minded person who engages in sex is no different than a drunk driver putting others at risk on the road. Our society does not have to tolerate such reckless behavior.

Abortion is murder, but God forgives repentant murderers who believe in Jesus Christ. We beg you to process the possibility that you have been misled into becoming the villain in this story and that history will condemn you. Now is the time to recognize the truth that nothing justifies the killing of the innocent, admit your error and join us! We are ready to welcome you with open arms.

Abolish human abortion.