Regarding Abortion
Whether or not life begins at conception, whether or not abortion is murder, whether or not the Bible is definitive and final in its implications on abortion, abortion is wrong.
Sometimes, I read that men are forbidden from having an opinion on abortion. I am male, so I am compelled to address this. John DeVore, a man, states it the following way in his medium article regarding this topic.
Men should not have opinions on abortion. Like Victorian children, we should be seen not heard. That includes me, of course. I do not have female reproductive organs and so, therefore, I do not know what I am talking about when it comes to a woman’s reproductive health choices.
This claim is typically made on the basis that men cannot assume the experience of women, and do not have the capacity for pregnancy, so should refrain from constraining those they cannot understand. But this argument assumes that abortion is no more than a woman’s choice, that no broad ethical concerns are not at play. It’s circular reasoning. If abortion is not wrong, then the decision to terminate the fetus or to not terminate the fetus is entirely up to the woman. I would contend that abortion is actually worthy of ethical debate, and therefore my opinion is worthy of consideration.
With that in mind, let’s proceed into three claims regarding abortion, decidedly pro-life, but not the typical pro-life tenants (which, I believe, are largely valid, too).
Abortion is not a preferable outcome.
A subset of pro-choicers view the legalization of abortion as a means to reduce the overall number of abortions, increasing safety, too. Many other pro-choicers view abortion as a necessary evil. Yet more pro-choicers say that they view abortion as a completely ethical decision, but these people would still prefer that unwanted pregnancies never occurred in the first place. Even Planned Parenthood states that reducing the overall number of abortions, out of diminishing the need for them, is a goal of theirs. Nobody prefers getting an abortion over not-being-pregnant-in-the-first-place. Abortion is only ‘necessary’ after a series of decisions that are generally viewed as non-preferable, by most people on both sides of the issue. You would never sit down with your 6-year-old daughter and recommend that she eventually receive an abortion. I would even go as far as to say that the near-consensus preferred outcome among objective observers for a woman considering abortion would be her decision to bear the child. In deciding to carry her pregnancy to term, she would surely be met with approval, commendation, praise, and encouragement from all, pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike (and rightfully so!). This is the most valiant decision, given the circumstances. Abortion is not a preferable outcome, and nearly everyone agrees, if not in their words, it is evident in their actions.
Abortions are selective.
In Britain, 90% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted before birth according to the National Down Syndrome Cytogenic Register.
This compares to an estimated 32.4% of pregnancies ending in abortion in the UK (in 2019). That means that fetuses with down syndrome are nearly 3 times as likely to be aborted than the general populace. This means that roughly 60% of mothers who are told their child will have down syndrome elect to terminate their fetus because of his or her disability.
This is not limited to down syndrome.
Today, around 140 million women are believed to be “missing” around the world — the result of son preference…
Since the 1990s, some areas have seen up to 25 per cent more male births than female births.
This is due to females being aborted by virtue of their gender.
Abortion is selective. The decision to abort, or not to abort, a fetus (to assign value, or not assign value) based on his or her characteristics, is prevalent in the world today.
What does that say about the people with down syndrome who are born? What does that say about females who are born?
What does that say about any living individual who is born?
Aborting a potential human is a statement that the world is better without them in it.
To answer the above question, it says that they would be unwanted, due to conditions that they cannot change, by massive groups of society. It says that they are a burden that is not worthy of bearing, according to 32% of British women. It says the world would be better off if they had never existed at all, according to 18% of American women. And in the case of those with down syndrome, it says that 60% of women in the UK would elect that they are too burdensome to exist, because of their disability.
Somebody very close to me told me that his father tried to persuade his mother to abort him. This is emotional for him, and by extension, this is emotional for me. It is indication that his father believed that, either the world would be better off without my friend in it, or that my friend was too much of an inconvenience to bring into the world.
I disagree.
*To address a major, and semi-valid, counterpoint to my general argument, it could be said that any time a person chooses not to reproduce, they are deciding that the world is better off without their potential child in it. But the important distinction is that this potential child has not yet been formed, in the womb or out of it. Abortion is stopping a potential life that is already in motion, a decision that a specific and measurable being, with a specific and measurable, unique and already-formed DNA identity, is better off not coming to fruition. Deciding not to reproduce at any moment is a decision that a hypothetical, unformed, non-defined child is better off not existing at the immediate moment. This is a very important distinction.
Links to sources:
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-state
