Abortion – Logical Points In An Emotional Debate

September 8, 2011 by
Filed under: Uncategorized 

I have always been troubled by the debate over whether or not abortion should be allowed in America.  The problem with this debate is that it’s simply emotion vs. logic in many ways.  And I want to make crystal clear, up front, that I do not harbor ill feelings towards any woman who has had an abortion, and I would never object to an abortion in the situation where the life of the mother is in jeopardy (though exceptions such as that are extremely rare).  If you’re a Christian, no, you’re not “going to hell” if you’ve had or facilitated an abortion.  I’m not going to throw red paint on you and call you a murderer or protest in front of an abortion clinic, and I would never, ever condone killing a doctor who performs abortions, or any destruction of or violence towards their person or their property.  Yes, I’m very pro-life, for moral and logical reasons.  However, I don’t think marching in the streets, violence, or name-calling does anything positive in this debate, and only serves to strengthen resentments.  I believe it’s important to educate what abortion is, present a logical debate, and thereby change hearts & minds.

So first, let’s start with the basic facts.  In any birth there are two responsible parties and one innocent or accidental party (meaning completely by chance): even if rape or incest is involved.  Now, before you try to twist my words or misinterpret what I’m saying; by “responsible,” I AM NOT implying that a victim of rape or incest is “responsible” for their abuse.  I mean simply that one cannot conceive on their own; we cannot spontaneously procreate.  There always needs to be sperm and egg; two parties. The result of that is an innocent and accidental human being.

Now, here is where logic/emotion comes in.  If the child is, in fact, an innocent and accidental creature, then why can a woman kill that innocent creature growing inside of her for any reason, even if she is a victim? If indeed we agree that the unborn child is an innocent human life, what is the difference – logically – between the woman killing that innocent unborn child in her womb, that same innocent child outside her womb; an innocent child of another person inside or outside the womb, or an innocent man or woman on the street? Just because she got pregnant by horrible circumstances, or because she got pregnant consensually but doesn’t want the child; does she now possess the “right” to kill an innocent human being, in an attempt to make herself feel better given her circumstance?  Does it matter if it was by expected, unexpected, or even tragic means?  Is there – logically – any difference between killing an unborn child in the womb or a newborn child fresh out of the womb; or even weeks, months, or years outside the womb?  One argument I’ve heard numerous times is that the child is growing inside her, and therefore requires her care to grow and be born, and that’s why she has the right to decide its fate.  Well, a newborn child will die without care for the first few years of life anyway, so does that mean that if she carries the baby to term, delivers it, and then decides that she doesn’t want the baby, that she can kill it at any time during the first three years?

Furthermore, people always talk about “women’s rights” in this debate, but what about “men’s rights?” Again, TWO people made that baby, why does only one get to decide its fate? What if the woman wants the baby, but the father doesn’t?  Logically, shouldn’t the father be able to force the woman to abort the baby? If not; why not? If we’re going to argue that one party can make the determination of the innocent creature’s fate, shouldn’t either party be allowed that “right”?  Does a woman’s “rights” trump those of a man?

If I punch a pregnant woman in the belly and kill her unborn, I can be charged with murder – which makes sense – yet she can choose to kill that baby herself, and it’s a “courageous choice.”

But here is an even better one; and you have to really think about this one.

I could punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and be charged with attempted homicide, even if the fetus was in no way harmed.  The same woman could then decide that she didn’t want the baby, and get an abortion.  She could then show up in the courtroom as a witness for the prosecution in my trial.  I would still be on trial for my life, for the attempted homicide of a human being that no longer exists, whom I did not actually harm or kill: meanwhile, she would be walking free, helping the prosecution to put me in jail for attempting to kill that person who she did kill: and of course I would be the alleged “criminal” on trial!!

That’s why I say, it’s not a logical position, it’s an EMOTIONAL position.  These points are logical points in an illogical debate.  You have probably assumed that I’m a Christian based on my position – which I am proud to admit that I am – even though to this point I have not mentioned God, Christ, Savior, or Redemption; nor touched on the issue of morality.  The pro-life position is often associated with Christianity by most people, perpetuated by the main stream media, as though this is a strictly moral debate.  Yes, this is a moral position for me, but it is also a logical position.  The fact is that with abortion you have no choice but to completely ignore logic in favor of emotion to make arguments on its behalf.

The killing of an unborn child is a choice that no civilized and moral society should ever offer. I don’t believe a woman should ever be charged with a crime for killing her unborn child, though we as a society should not offer that choice as a legal option.  Any person who performs an abortion, however, should be charged with a crime – but that’s another debate.

As a Christian, I believe a very important aspect of this debate is what God says in Jeremiah 1:5; “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.”  I am morally and ethically opposed to such atrocious behavior, and yet my tax dollars are confiscated and used against my will to fund such acts – but again, that’s another debate.

We are charged with keeping our society in good, moral standing. The only way we can do that is to openly call good, good and evil, evil: and no matter how, where or when, killing innocence is evil.  Let us never forget what Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who fought against the unfathomable evil of Nazism, said: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Now, many point out the horrible lives some children experience in orphanages.  While I don’t deny that those examples exist, I’m not going down this road in great detail.  But it inevitably ends in this maxim: attempting to save potential future pain is not a logical excuse for ending an undeniable current human life.  Besides, one of the problems with this argument is that we ignore the elephant in the room – overregulation in our society.  The problem is not that there are too many unwanted children – there are millions of Americans who want to adopt.  The problem is that the regulations are so burdensome that it’s easier and cheaper to adopt children from overseas!!  I personally have two friends, and know more than a dozen other people, who have adopted from overseas for that very reason. It is what Frederic Bastiat illustrates in one of his essays; “What Is Seen, and What Is Not Seen” (his argument pertains to economics, but it’s valid in all aspects of life). We see that there are too many un-adopted children, but we fail to see that overregulation and involvement by the State is to blame.  Is it wise to kill unborn children in lieu of reducing regulations which make it burdensome for orphaned children to be adopted?

I acknowledge that there are further arguments in this debate, however, they are of little consequence.  They, too, are largely emotional, and are therefore quickly and easily trumped with a little logic.  Regardless of all, the fact still remains that we do not possess the right to take an innocent human life; period!  We can follow scripture and end the life of one properly convicted of a crime, but not the life of an innocent.  If you can prove to me an instance in which you have the right to kill an innocent human being…well I’m all ears.  Until that day, I will stick with logic and abhor emotion in this important instance.


One Comment on Abortion – Logical Points In An Emotional Debate

  1. make money online on Mon, 6th Jan 2014 8:43 pm
  2. This is a very good tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
    Brief but very accurate information… Thank you for sharing this one.
    A must read article!

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

order antabuse online