This post is the third and final post in a series involving slavery in America. Click here to see the previous post, or here for the first post.
In the previous post, we saw how slavery was tolerated for most of human existence. I often find myself thinking, how could anyone possibly support and defend slavery in early America? How could treating another human being not as a person but as a piece of property possibly be rationalized? It disgusts me how people could call what was clearly evil good and right. And if they were to say it was a necessary evil or had to be done to compete with other economies… that’s just WEAK! Evil must not be excused out of fear to do what is right.
A few weeks ago I was involved in a highly fruitful and productive Facebook discussion on abortion. My stance was when a woman chooses to abort her baby she chooses to murder it. A friend of mine who I love and respect said:
Please stop making women feel guilty. This is the law and regardless of religious belief we are within our right.
I was pretty appalled at this retort. I immediately thought of how slavery was once legal. Did that mean slave masters “were within their right,” and we would be wrong to point out slavery’s injustice as this may make them “feel guilty”? Technically, slave masters were within their legal right, but that certainly doesn’t mean what they were doing was right! It was very good and proper to cause them to feel guilty for what they were doing – because what they were doing was evil!
I followed this line of thought some more, and I slowly became astounded with the vast similarities between people who used to support slavery and people who currently support abortion. In both instances, an unquestionably evil practice is being actively and vocally supported! Just like how I cannot imagine what type of contorted rationalization allowed individuals to defend slavery, it baffles me how anyone can argue for the legality of abortion.
The Question at Hand
The abortion debate is split between two fiercely opposed sides. The anti-abortion camp labels themselves as “pro-life” while the pro-abortion camp labels themselves as “pro-choice.” Those who support abortion believe the woman has the right to decide what is done with her body. Let’s evaluate both this claim and the legitimacy of abortion in light of the philosophical foundation of our society (the preamble of the Declaration of Independence).
The Declaration of Independence asserts all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By this principle, we can determine what actions should be legal and which should be made illegal. Because a human being has the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they are free to pursue happiness as they see fit.
Now this cannot be a completely unchecked pursuit. For example, a serial killer would certainly claim the action of murder would bring them happiness. Obviously, this does not mean society should tolerate such individuals committing murder because they are free to pursue happiness as they see fit. This is intuitively true to us, but how do we state this in light of the Declaration of Independence? An individual is not permitted to pursue happiness by committing murder because it violates the murdered individual’s God-endowed rights. Therefore, stated generally, this is our principal for judging the legality of actions:
An individual is free to live their life and pursue happiness as they choose as long as they do not violate any other individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now we have our general principle for determining if an individual is free to act in the manner in question. Let’s apply this to abortion.
Those who support abortion would say the woman is free to pursue happiness as she sees fit, up to and including deciding to have an abortion. It’s her body and she is the one who has the right to make the decision. This is a dishonest and false line of reasoning. Why? Because the woman is not the only human being involved. The unborn baby is also a human being with God-endowed rights. Hence, killing it is clearly a violation of its right to life. Therefore, the only possible way for abortion to be legitimate is to say the unborn baby is not a human being. This would imply the fetus does not have the rights endowed to it, and the woman does not violate anyone’s unalienable rights by choosing to abort the baby.
When Life Begins
Certainly a crying baby just born is a living human being. Now if we go backwards, when did this baby first become a human being? Was it after birth? Or was it during conception? We need to define a starting point for human life in order to decide when the fetus/baby has human rights which deserve the protection of law.
If we step back and examine the timeline for the beginning of human life we first have a period before conception. This can be broken down into before human intercourse and after intercourse. The “after intercourse” period may or may not end with conception. If this does happen, then there is the period of pregnancy. The pregnancy period ends with birth. Lastly, there is a post-birth period.
Should this “post-birth” period alone be considered the time a human being is alive?
Life Begins at Birth?
When we sit down and write out the different periods before and during human life, it may seem real easy to draw the line. There’s a “pregnancy period” and a “post-birth period.” Clear and simple. Birth is the transition from one to the other, and they appear to be clearly distinct. Therefore, there shouldn’t be any difficulty in labeling the latter period as “life”, right?
Not so fast. First of all, the transition in real life is not as clean as a line drawn on a piece of paper. Birth is a process: the baby is gradually pushed out of the woman. Obviously, birth is complete when the baby has fully exited its mother. So is this moment when the baby has completed being born the moment it becomes alive? When we examine this closely, it becomes hard to take seriously.
If this is when life begins, then if a baby has completely exited the birth canal except for one pinky then it is not yet alive. At this point, it is still not a living human being and it has no rights. The doctors and mom at this moment can decide to “abort” it (because how can you kill something that’s not alive???). So pulling the baby’s hand out of the woman is what causes it to become alive? A matter of inches and seconds is the difference between a living human being and a clump of cells?
This example reveals the incredulity of stating life begins at birth. Or at least that it begins when the birthing process is completed. But if that isn’t where we draw the line, then where do we? An entire limb still has to be in? Half the baby? These all have the same problem. If we walk backwards to just before birth, it becomes even murkier. There is no place to draw the line which is significantly different than what immediately precedes it. Except for one.
Life Begins at Conception?
Conception’s uniqueness in the timeline enveloping human life makes it the clear choice for the starting point of human life. For every single other point in time, if one is to take a minuscule step backwards, there is nothing significantly different between the “non-living” cells and the “now living” human. But with conception, if we take a step back .00000000001 seconds there is an incredibly stark difference! Before successful conception, there is no guarantee there will ever be a successful conception. Conception is the only point in time for which the following are both true:
- Immediately beforehand, in order for a human being to eventually be born a specific action has to take place (the conception).
- At the precise moment and for all moments following, deliberate action has to be taken to prevent a human being from being born.
Therefore, both by the laws of cause and effect and by taking limits to every moment in time along the time scale, conception is the only acceptable moment in time to label as the start of human life. Since human life starts at conception, the unborn fetus has the same God-endowed rights as all other humans. Hence, abortion is a violation of its unalienable rights and should be outlawed.
Rejecting the Sanctity of Human Life
Now there’s still one way out for abortion supporters: it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a living human or not, it still doesn’t have the rights all other humans have. This is really the only way to support abortion. It is illogical to place a starting point for human life at birth. This is even admitted by Ann Furedi, an abortion supporter and chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. As she said at a debate about abortion, “there is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.“[ref]http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5755/[/ref]
So why does she still support abortion?
Because what changes at birth is that the baby is no longer in the woman’s body. Therefore, the real reason abortion is supported is because while the baby is in the mother’s body, the wants of the mother have a higher value than the infant’s right to life. The infant’s right to life is over-ruled by the mother’s right to pursue happiness as she sees fit. Is there anything wrong with this elevation of one human’s God-endowed right over another?
Yes! Beyond being a total rejection of the principles our society was founded upon, this is the worst of all slippery slopes to begin going down. Obviously, the right to life would be the preeminent right. If one’s right to life is taken away, then they have no chance of exercising any of the others. Thus, supporting abortion is a case of exalting the lesser over the greater. And most importantly, if this right can be trumped in this circumstance, what prevents it from being trumped in other circumstances?
It has throughout human history, and it’s beginning again in Western civilization.
Mainstream medical journals have published articles arguing for the legalization of “after-birth abortion” (a politically correct term for infanticide).[ref]http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shocking-case-for-legalizing-infanticide-2012-2[/ref]
Infanticide already exists in the Netherlands as an extension of their euthanasia policy.[ref]http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/after_birth_abortion_already_exists_in_the_netherlands/10499[/ref]
Our American society is slowly shifting from a political system built on individualism to one of collectivism. Unfortunately, the terms make the former seem selfish and the latter seem noble. But nothing could be farther from the truth. In collectivism, the rights of the collective reign supreme. In individualism, the rights of the individual can never be trumped by the collective. The preamble of the Declaration of Independence establishes our country as one built on individualism. The rights of the individuals were clearly stated, and the government was established knowing these were God-endowed rights and legitimate government could never take them away.
In collectivism, the rights of the individual are subordinated to the general well-being of the collective. That may sound reasonable, but here’s the problem: individual rights can be clearly stated and upheld. But how does one calculate the “general well-being” of the collective? It’s subjective, not objective. Therefore, different groups will determine their own calculations, and largely it is up to those in government to make the final determinations.
This is literally the exact opposite of the system of government we were supposed to have. The power was supposed to come from the individuals, and the government was restricted to never rule over and oppress them. But in collectivism it is the government which decides what rights the individuals have, and how much they are honored. Instead of the people restricting the government, the government restricts the people.
Now when we have politicians who make wonderful promises and state noble intentions, we may trust them to rule over us. But even if you like what your particular political party is saying about their version of collectivism, you should still be opposed to it! Why? What happens if a political faction opposite of yours gains power and starts limiting you in ways you don’t want? When the government is granted that type of power and authority, it is very dangerous. The same force lifting you up can turn around and cut you down.
Abortion is an example of collectivism in action. If individual rights reigned supreme, then the mother’s pursuit of happiness could not involve abortion as that would violate the infant’s right to life. But with abortion the “collective” in mind is actually just one person: the mother. The government is saying her rights matter more than the infant’s, so it is okay to violate the infant’s rights.
None of us should ever allow a government which does not respect the sanctity of human life. If you do, then someday the government may decide it’s your life which doesn’t matter.
So does the line stop here? Can we confidently say that for our entire country’s existence, the only humans whose right to life will be rescinded are fetuses? Absolutely not and honest abortion supporters even admit it.
Read this article on Slate.com titled “After-Birth Abortion: The Pro-Choice Case for Infanticide.” The author William Saletan readily admits a certain future struggle for abortion supporters: all of the logic used to justify killing a baby before birth can be extended after birth. Saletan shares the arguments for infanticide from two philosophers and is never able to refute them. Instead, he simply says it is a challenge for those in the pro-choice camp.
Of course it is. Many individuals are not honest with themselves about the logical implications of their personal beliefs. They have their own personal opinions and ideas, and they don’t really care about the unintended consequences. But if we are to be honest with ourselves about our beliefs, then we should certainly take the likely consequences into account.
The same arguments which work for supporting abortion are the very same arguments which justify killing babies after they are born.
Similarities to Supporting Slavery
Abortion is murder. The fetus is a living human being, and it is shameful to support the murder of an innocent human being for any reason. Now that we’ve established this (and also shown that the only argument which works for supporting abortion also supports the murder of babies already born), let us return to the original premise:
Those who support abortion are just like those in the past who supported slavery.
Take a look at this list of similarities:
- The victim’s personhood. Slavery dehumanized the slaves from people to property. Abortion dehumanizes a fetus from a living human to a clump of tissue.
- The victim’s rights. Slavery said slaves were not entitled to the same rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness that their master’s were. Abortion says the fetus isn’t entitled to the same rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that the mother is.
- The elevation of one class of society above another. Slavery exalted free people – and particularly masters, over slaves. Abortion exalts those born – and particularly mothers, over fetuses.
- Unethical transfers of well-being. The masters specifically, and those free indirectly, benefited economically at the expense of the labor and lack of liberty of the slaves. With abortion the mothers’ and fathers’ pursuits of happiness are benefited at the expense of the termination of the fetus’s life.
- The establishment of unethical economic markets. With slavery human beings were sold as property. With abortion the body parts of murdered babies are sold and burned for energy.
- The disproportionate impact to the African-American demographic. Slavery in America was largely race-based with nearly all slaves being African-Americans. According to the CDC, between 2007 and 2010, black babies were 36% of those aborted despite blacks only being 13% of the population.[ref]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/21/j-kenneth-blackwell-black-abortions-a-crisis-in-am/[/ref]
Defending Abortion is Defending Evil
It’s amazing how many hundreds of thousands – even millions! – of people used to staunchly support slavery.
And it’s just as disgusting that millions of human beings support the murder of another group of humans.
Just as slavery supporters dehumanized slaves into property, if you support abortion you dehumanize unborn babies.
Slavery supporters were okay with fellow humans living a life devoid of liberty and pursuit of happiness. If you support abortion, you are okay with an entire group of humans being killed before they have a chance to be free and experience happiness.
Just as slavery supporters exalted the masters over the slaves, if you support abortion you exalt one set of humans above another.
Just as slavery supporters were okay with one group of people benefiting at the expense of another, if you support abortion you are okay with mothers and fathers “benefiting” by murdering their own children.
Just as slavery supporters allowed a marketplace to thrive where human beings were sold like a product on a shelf, if you support abortion you are allowing the sale and transfer of the chopped-up remains of murdered babies.
Just as slavery supporters stood by while African-Americans were grossly mistreated by their country, if you support abortion you support an evil practice which disproportionately ravages the African-American community.
History left many people behind. Millions died never having the back bone to stand up and admit slavery was an evil practice which destroyed human lives. Abortion is the great civil rights issue of our day. Do you want history to place you in the same class of people who supported enslaving other human beings to the bitter end?
Abortion terminates human lives and is murder.
If you support it, you are supporting a practice akin to slavery.
Don’t be a coward and stand idly by as one group of persons serves themselves at the expense of another.
Now is a chance for you to repent and renounce this abomination.