By Mitchell Brost, Thomas Aquinas College
The issue of abortion is one of the most controversial topics in the world today. Heralded by its pro-choice supporters as progressive, pro-woman healthcare, it is opposed by the pro-life movement, which asserts that abortion is the murder of innocent unborn children. Unfortunately, each side is expeditious in their attempts to shoot down opposing arguments, often for the reasons of being “too political” or “too religious.” This prevents society at large from addressing the countless questions surrounding the abortion controversy. Is abortion really murder? Is it justified under certain circumstances? Is pro-life legislation unjustly restrictive? Are so-called “pro-life alternatives” such as adoption really practical in the modern world?
These questions and more will be addressed, and hopefully answered, in this article, which has been inspired in large part by Peter Kreeft’s book, The Unaborted Socrates. This book is a brilliantly simple publication which is unique in that Kreeft never argues from the stance of either side of the abortion controversy – he deals only with logic and science, looking at each issue in an objective light. He keeps religion and politics out of his discussions. Please note that most of the arguments and examples I use are entirely credited to him. In an attempt to retain the integrity of his logic, I have used his own phrasing and wording and will credit him as often as possible without disrupting the flow of the argument. I cannot take credit for the creation of these arguments, but I agree with them wholeheartedly.
Before any subsequent issues surrounding abortion can be addressed, abortion itself must be examined. I will begin with Kreeft’s investigation of abortion, which will serve as a reference point for the remainder of the article. From there, I’ll again use Kreeft’s insight to examine some justifications for abortion, as well as arguments against the pro-life movement, with some additional information supplied by myself. Lastly, I’ll address some more specific abortion controversies I’ve seen arise on social media recently, especially concerning the new pro-life legislation coming into existence in several states. I’ll finish with a description of the adoption process, as described by an adoptive father, in hopes of clearing up some misconceptions surrounding that topic.
So, all that being said, let’s begin with our first, and most important, question:
Is abortion murder?
In the very simplest of terms, the dispute between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is this: pro-lifers think abortion is murder, while pro-choicers do not believe that abortion is murder. Already that gives us two terms in need of definitions. First, abortion. Abortion is the deliberate killing of the fetus. At this point in the argument, it doesn’t matter whether you think the fetus is a human being or just a lump of cells, because either way, that’s what abortion is, right? And murder: murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. That one is pretty simple.
So, assuming these definitions are true, the abortion dispute can be summed up in the following syllogism:
Intentionally killing an innocent human being is murder,
and abortion is intentionally killing an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is murder. (Kreeft 50-51)
The three steps that must be taken in order to prove an argument are as follows: First, the terms must be clear. I have defined the terms used in these premises and will continue to explain terms as the argument progresses. Second, the premises must be true, i.e., they must correspond to reality. Kreeft’s argument goes in-depth with this second step. The third step is simply that if the first and second steps are completed satisfactorily, then the argument is valid and therefore the conclusion is true.
To return to the second step, I don’t think anyone will have any issues with the first premise, being, “Intentionally killing an innocent human being is murder.” However, that second premise, “abortion is intentionally killing an innocent human being,” is going to be very hotly contested. Well, what does abortion kill? Abortion kills the fetus. If the fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder. If the fetus is not a human being, then abortion is not murder. It really is that simple. Clearly it’s time to examine exactly what the fetus is.
Kreeft prefaces that examination with a quick note. The perception of something does not change the reality of the thing. For example, you could think a fish was a human. You could try treating a fish like a human. But that perception doesn’t make the fish a human. It isn’t going to wear pants and walk out of a lake and start talking to you about the weather simply because you have the perception that it’s a human. Another example: slavery in the 19th century. Just because certain people had the perception that black people were property, fit only to be slaves, did not change the reality that black people have always been human beings just as much as white people have always been human beings. The case is the same with the fetus. In this argument, perceptions of the fetus are irrelevant. We need to know precisely what the fetus is.
Since the true nature of abortion hinges on whether or not the fetus is a human being, it’s a good idea to go back to defining terms. What is a human being? Well, this is quite a bit trickier to define than abortion or murder. A human being is a conscious animal, a primate, part of the species homo sapiens. But what really sets human beings apart from other animals, or even computers, a worthy comparison given the strength and quickening pace of technology? Human beings alone have the power of reason. We alone have the will to know. Although nobody can speak from experience of being another animal, it can be said, simply from observation, that animals do not possess this will to know. They have their instincts, and yes, a certain kind of basic curiosity, but we have never observed an animal questioning anything. Similarly, human beings differ from computers in that computers do not question their programming, unless programmed to do so. This loop can go on and on, but ultimately there is always one unquestioned program. Therefore, what sets human beings apart from other animals and computers is reason. Human beings alone have the will to know and to ask questions.
The pro-choicer should already be thinking, “well fetuses don’t ask questions, therefore from this definition a fetus is not a human being and abortion is not murder.” Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. What about infants? As far as we can tell from observing behavior, infants don’t ask questions, either, and yet we consider infants to be human beings. What about when someone is asleep? Clearly they aren’t asking any questions or consciously wondering about anything. But we still consider sleeping persons to be human beings.
Its clear from this that there is a difference between functioning as a human being and actually being a human being. Just because an infant or sleeping person doesn’t function as a human being by definition, does not mean that they aren’t human beings. Likewise, just because a fetus does not function as a human being does not prove that a fetus is not a human being. Of course, this does not prove that a fetus is a human being, either.
Well, then, what is a fetus? Is it really just a lump of cells? Let’s turn to science. DNA – the unique genetic code that separates each individual living organism from every other living organism in existence – is present at the moment of conception. This is not some romantic sentiment of Christianity or pro-life hippies and “misogynists.” It is a biological fact. The male sperm has an incomplete genetic code, as does the female oocyte (the female cell which matures into the ovum, which is what gets fertilized by the sperm). However, the zygote (the single, first cell that is formed by the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm and later develops into the embryo) has a complete, distinct genetic code. This zygote is described by embryologists Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Muller as “… a genetically distinct human organism.” In addition, leading embryology textbooks such as The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology by Keith L. Moore and Langman’s Embryology by T.W. Sadler affirm this as scientific fact: human life begins at the moment of conception. These are not outdated, obsolete medical textbooks written by a bunch of hacks. These are from well-respected textbooks that are still used today, even in the Western Oregon University nursing program. So, genetically speaking, this proves that the fetus is a human being. It contains a full, 100% complete human genetic code literally from the exact moment of conception. “No,” a pro-choicer might argue, “this only proves that it’s a potential human being. It’s not really a human being until it’s out of the womb.” Well, let’s examine that argument.
The first error is that it says that the fetus is only a “potential” human being. It is scientifically proven that a 100% complete, utterly distinct human genetic code is present in the fetus from the exact moment of its conception as a zygote. With this DNA, can the fetus potentially be a giraffe? Or can the fetus potentially be an acorn? No, because of its DNA, the fetus cannot “potentially” be anything but a human being. Saying it is a “potential human” implies that it can potentially be something other than human, but this is scientifically impossible.
What about the part that says “a fetus isn’t a human being until it’s out of the womb?” Kreeft answers that time and place do not affect personhood. If I lived in California instead of Oregon, would I be more or less of a human being than I am now? Am I more or less of a human being in my living room as opposed to my bedroom? Reason says, of course not. I have the same essence of being a human being no matter where I am. Location does not affect personhood. Similarly, were human beings 2000 years ago less human than we are now? Am I more or less human right now than I was 20 minutes ago? Again, the reasonable answer is no. Just because a fetus spends time in its mother’s womb does not make it a non-human.
“But,” the pro-choicer might argue, “the fetus is a part of the mother. It’s my body, my choice!” Well, is the fetus really a part of the mother? Transitive logic says that no, the fetus is not part of the mother. This idea might be familiar to anyone who’s taken geometry. Transitive logic says that if A is part of B, and B is part of C, then A is part of C. Let’s apply this to the situation of the fetus. Let’s say, for example, the fetus is at the stage of development where it has two distinct feet. Do we say that the mother has four feet? This is what would follow from claiming that the fetus is part of the mother, because if the feet are part of the fetus (A is part of B), and the fetus is part of the mother (B is part of C), then the fetus’ feet are also part of the mother (A is part of C) and the mother must have four feet. Another way of putting this would be saying that the mother has a penis if the fetus is male. This is, of course, absurd. Reason does not say that a car is part of a garage just because it is parked there, or that a cake is part of an oven because it is being baked there. Logically speaking, the fetus is not part of the mother. This destroys the argument of “my body, my choice,” because the fetus’ body is not the mother’s body.
Of course, the pro-choicer may still push back on this. They might say that the fetus is not an individual human being because it is not independent of the mother. What, exactly, is the fetus dependent on the mother for? Its identity? No, because it gets that identity from its genetic code. What about survival? Well yes, but does that affect its personhood? The answer is, no, it does not. Children are dependent on their parents for “survival,” does that make them non-human? Sick and elderly people are dependent on others for survival, does that make them non-human? Of course not. If I wanted to be very general, I could even make the argument that everyone is dependent on someone else. The fetus is not dependent on the mother for identity, only for survival, and that does not prove that the fetus is not a human being.
“Just hold on,” the pro-choicer might say. “This all seems to be saying that there’s a bigger difference between a pre-zygote and a zygote, than there is between a zygote and a fully-grown human adult. Just looking at the two you should be able to see how ridiculous an assertion that is.” Well, let’s unpack that. Let’s start by identifying the differences between an infant and an adult. In general, there are four major differences: size, development, dependence, and mobility, with the adult obviously having the higher degree of all of these. Now, since our argument surrounding abortion concerns murder, the next question is this: is it worse to murder a fully-developed, full-sized, independent, highly mobile adult rather than a toddler who lacks all of these traits? Or, in other words, is it really, really bad to murder an adult rather than an infant, and only a little bit bad to murder a 13 year old rather than a 12 year old? Reason says, no, murder is murder. As I’m sure a pro-choicer would agree, black – white, rich – poor, young – old, a human life is a human life. In fact, I’m sure most people would argue the opposite, that killing a younger person is worse than killing an older one, as children are often more innocent than adults. The degree of age and functionality – observable in the differences between size, development, independence, and mobility – are irrelevant in the discussion of the morality of murder. So, what are the differences between a fetus and a toddler? Exactly. The fetus is smaller. It is less developed. Less independent. Less mobile. This can be traced all the way down to the zygote. Murder is murder, no matter the degree of age or functionality.
Let’s return to the beginning of the argument. Kreeft is testing the validity of his second premise: “abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.” We’re trying to determine if the fetus is a human being. If it is, then the premise is true. If it is not, then the premise is false. Keeping in mind that perceptions and feelings do not change the reality of what something is, Kreeft first proved that although a fetus does not function as a human being by definition, that does not prove that a fetus isn’t a human being, since human beings sometimes do not function as such (like during sleep). He proceeded to turn to science, which tells us that a totally complete, distinct human genetic code is found in the zygote at the moment of its conception. Leading embryologists and embryology textbooks agree that scientifically speaking, this is the beginning of human life. This DNA code is the reason why the fetus is not a “potential human,” since the fetus cannot be anything else. Since human beings are not judged by genetics alone, Kreeft turned to logic. He showed that time and location, such as the fetus’ life in the womb, does not affect its personhood any more than time or location affects my personhood right now. Kreeft also showed that a fetus is not part of the mother’s body according to transitive logic. A car is not part of a garage just because it is parked in it. There is no choice to be made in “my body, my choice,” because the body of the fetus is not part of the body of the mother. He went on to discuss how yes, the fetus is dependent on the mother, but only for survival and nourishment, not identity. Dependence does not reduce personhood since, truthfully, everyone is dependent on someone else in some way. Lastly, Kreeft proved that the degree of age and functionality between human beings – as judged by differences in size, development, independence, and mobility – does not affect whether their murder is more acceptable or not, such as whether killing a fully-grown adult is worse than killing a still-developing child.
Remember that this discussion has not contained any mention of religious beliefs, political beliefs, opinion, or emotion. Kreeft argues strictly with reason, logic, and scientific fact. Where does that leave us? Well, unless there is some logic or science that disproves what has been said, the logical conclusion we have come to in our investigation is that objectively, a fetus is a human being.
Our next step is far easier: proving the fetus’ innocence. What has it done? Did it cause the pregnancy, or, in rarer, more tragic cases, the rape? Of course it didn’t. Any harm caused by the pregnancy is not the fault of the fetus, as it did not willfully cause the pregnancy to occur. The fetus is innocent.
So, with this new-found information about the nature of the fetus, let’s return to the abortion syllogism:
Intentionally killing an innocent human being is murder,
and abortion is intentionally killing an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is murder.
We granted that the first premise was true. We have just proven that the fetus is a human being, and is also innocent. Since both premises are valid, it follows that the conclusion, “abortion is murder,” is also valid. The pro-life argument is the more logical and scientifically-supported stance.
One thing that is definitely worth pointing out about Kreeft’s argument is that he never argues his point from either of the opposing sides of abortion. He never says, “the pro-life argument is correct and here’s why,” or, “the pro-choice argument is correct and here’s why.” Instead of focusing on views of abortion, he focuses on abortion itself.
However, Kreeft does address these views. Specifically, he talks about the pro-choice view, including both justifications for abortion and arguments against the pro-life stance.
“The Morality of Abortion is a Religious Issue”
The main argument against the pro-life stance is that the morality of abortion is a religious – and therefore subjective – issue. In addition, this argument claims that the reason why religious institutions, especially the Catholic Church, are so vocally anti-abortion is because they want to control others and force their own morality on them. To answer the first part of this argument, let’s return to the discussion we just had about abortion. Never once did Kreeft’s argument bring religion or theology into the picture. As he describes it in his book, “science provided the facts about the fetus and philosophy provided the principles about murder.” (Kreeft 89) You don’t need to talk about God to talk about a fetus. But is the stance of the Church a power play?
Kreeft makes a very important point about the motives of the Church. He says,
The Church’s opposition, as I understand it, is not so much to suffering as to sin. Poverty and pain and illness and even death are not sins, though they may have been caused by sin. (Kreeft 90)
That begs the question: is it worse to commit evil, or to endure evil?
Kreeft elaborates on this in several examples. If, hypothetically, you absolutely had to choose one, would you rather be a sadistic torturer of martyrs, or a martyred victim of a sadistic torturer? Or suppose your son was in a war, was captured by the enemy, and was forced by his captors to either kill three of his fellow prisoners, and survive himself, or spare his fellow prisoners and be put to death himself. Which would you rather he choose?
The point of this uncomfortable questioning is not to indict mothers who have aborted their children as evil. If anything, this shows that it is not just the fetus, but also the mother who is a victim of abortion. The pro-life defense protects the mother from committing evil.
“You Can’t Just Legislate Morality”
The issue of “legislating morality” is another argument against the pro-life movement. Shouldn’t morality be a free choice, not something compelled by threat of lawful punishment? Well, there is a difference between freedom of action, and freedom of thought. Freedom of action is the permission to act without restraint to a reasonable extent, that extent being when that action endangers others or the person themselves. This is not to be confused with license, which is the “freedom” to act as if actions have no consequences. Freedom of thought is the freedom to have an opinion or sentiment about anything without threat of punishment. Obviously, in a functioning society, there must be some restrictions on freedom of action, and no restrictions on freedom of thought. We have to determine whether or not laws prohibiting abortion must be included among those restrictions on freedom of action.
In general, these restrictions protect freedom. For example, the laws of the road protect our freedom to travel in safety. Pro-choice laws protect the choice of the mother to get an abortion. But giving that choice to mothers forces the fetus to be murdered in abortion. This is not an issue for pro-choicers as they think that the fetus is not a human being. This is an issue for pro-lifers because they think that the fetus is a human being. This circles back to Kreeft’s first argument, deciding if abortion is murder.
And yet, it doesn’t seem fair that pro-choicers don’t want to force pro-lifers to have abortions, but pro-lifers want to force pro-choicers not to have abortions. However, if abortion is indeed murder (again, circling back to the initial argument), then there are people far more severely restricted by pro-choice laws than those restricted by pro-life laws. Isn’t being forcefully deprived of life the severest restriction of all?
Pro-life laws are not an imposition of personal values and morality but rather a protection of innocent human life. Let’s put the same principles in a different context. In general, if something is harmful to others, it should be illegal, regardless of what it is. Say the KKK began to strengthen and was pushing heavily to legalize lynching. Should lynching be legalized since it is a value to them, but not to you and me? No, because innocent human life must be protected.
“But a black person is a human being and a fetus is not,” the pro-choicer might argue. Well, that just circles back to Kreeft’s first argument. You can see why Kreeft calls the fetus the “crux” of the argument.
“But everyone agrees that lynching black people, or exterminating Jews like the Nazis did, is wrong.” Well, not everyone. Clearly the Klansmen and the Nazis thought their actions were morally acceptable. “But the majority of people agree that those things are wrong. The majority of people also think abortion is permissible.” In certain areas, the Klansmen once had majority support. In Nazi Germany, the Nazi party once had majority support. Just because a majority of people agree that something is right does not make it right. Another example of this was slavery in America. However, these majorities nevertheless continued on with their actions and committed a lot of evil. So, how do we protect minorities against ignorant or unaware majorities? By restricting freedom of action when it endangers innocent human life.
This is all a roundabout way of showing that the fact of the matter is, if the fetus is a human being, then pro-life laws are not unjustly restrictive. If the fetus is a human being, then the restrictions imposed by pro-life legislation are far less severe than those imposed by pro-choice legislation. Kreeft’s first argument must be answered before any other issue surrounding abortion can be considered.
But isn’t this still trying to force morality, when morality should be a free choice? Well, laws can be disobeyed, right? Stealing is against the law but people still commit theft. Rape is against the law but people still sexually assault others. Although a law may compel you to act a certain way, freedom of action – and freedom of thought – is still entirely up to you.
“Anti-Abortion Laws Are Unenforceable”
“But abortion laws are unenforceable! Women will get dangerous, back-alley, coat-hanger abortions unless we make it safe and legal!” Well, first off, who is the abortion safe for? Definitely not the fetus, who is either poisoned, burned, cut up, or suctioned apart. Should we make lynching safe and legal for Klansmen who are in danger in their practices? Of course, women who get abortions are not comparable to Klansmen, but if abortion is indeed murder, the principle itself is the same.
Furthermore, so-called “unenforceable” laws are still useful. Laws against suicide are an example of this. Once someone has killed themselves, how can they be punished? The law can’t do anything. But isn’t it true that a society is conditioned by its laws? For example, society for the longest time has been anti-homosexual, but with new “gay rights” legislation, the LGBTQ community has been more and more accepted by society in general. Is it possible that laws against suicide prevent at least a handful of suicides?
I think we can also agree that suicide is wrong, or at least very tragic. If, in a whole century, laws against suicide prevented just one suicide out of millions of people, wouldn’t the law have been worth it? As Kreeft says, “Little is lost in making a law, but much is lost in a single suicide.” (Kreeft 114) The same can be said for abortion.
“Every Child A Wanted Child”
Another justification for abortion is that every child should be a wanted child. But I’m curious as to how abortion makes every child a wanted child? “Do we attain the goal of wanting our children by murdering the ones we don’t want, or by learning to want the ones we already have?” (Kreeft 115) When you put it that way, this justification for abortion sounds very, very twisted.
Additionally, this justification allows one person to decide the worth of another’s life. Nobody has the right to do such a thing. Every human life is equally worthy and that worth is not determined by another’s desire or convenience.
“Abortion Should Be Legal For Victims of Rape”
But, of course, there’s still the biggest justification of all: abortion should be legal and available to those who are victims of rape. It goes without saying that the rape of a woman, especially an underage woman, is one of the most horrible things in the world. But why should the fetus be punished for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? It did not cause the rape. Furthermore, anti-abortion laws do not force the mother to carry the child, the rapist does. The anti-abortion laws simply compel the mother not to murder her unborn child. This situation again raises the question of whether it is worse to commit evil, or to endure evil.
The Statistics of Abortion
Another thing worth mentioning is that abortions in cases of rape make up a tiny percentage of the total number of abortions performed. According to a 2004 national survey1 conducted by the Guttmacher Institute (a.k.a. AGI, Planned Parenthood’s own research branch) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), less than 0.5% of all abortions are for victims of rape. Conversely, this survey showed that 79% of all abortions were for convenience-related issues. These reasons included:
- 4% would interfere with education or career
- 8% don’t want to be a single mother
- 19% done having children
- 23% can’t afford a baby
- 25% not ready for a child
Here’s another staggering survey.1 The state of Florida records a reason for every legal abortion that takes place in its state every year. In 2018, out of a whopping 70,083 total abortions, only 4.57% accounted for the combined reasons of: danger to mother’s physical/psychological health, rape, incest, life was endangered, or severe fetal abnormality. Meanwhile, 20% accounted for social or economic reasons and 75.4% declined to give a specific reason. As Mother Theresa said, “it is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
At this point, it’s worth talking more about pregnancies where the mother’s life is in danger. Not only are these situations extremely rare, but in the situations where it’s the pregnancy itself, not a pre-existing medical condition, that is causing the danger – called ectopic pregnancies – the procedure isn’t even an abortion.2 An ectopic pregnancy is where the fetus becomes impacted outside the uterus, often in the fallopian tube. If not treated quickly, both the fetus and the mother will die, as the fetus will continue to grow, eventually bursting through the fallopian tube and causing fatal internal bleeding. The fetus, meanwhile, will die eventually because it is not being nourished by the placenta. Since the situation cannot resolve itself, the only option is to remove the section of the tube at the site of impact, killing the fetus, or, if found early enough, to administer drugs that will kill the fetus.
There are several differences between treatment for an ectopic pregnancy and an abortion. First off, abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood do not treat ectopic pregnancies. In fact, their website says that they can’t even diagnose an ectopic pregnancy, only a qualified physician can.2 Second, the result of an untreated ectopic pregnancy is always the same: if gone untreated, both the fetus and the mother will die. Abortion is a choice, while the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not.
“Pro-Life Legislation Legitimizes Rape”
Another thing I’ve heard is that pro-life legislation, specifically the new laws in Alabama, legitimizes rape. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. I’ll focus on Alabama’s bill since that was the one that seemed to cause the greatest outrage in the pro-choice world. First, the bill only prohibits “convenience” abortions. Section 3 of the bill outlines medical situations in which abortions are permissible, specifically where the life of the mother is in danger.3 I’ve seen a few Tweets that say that the Alabama bill makes it so that the punishment for rape is far greater than the punishment for obtaining an abortion. This is also false. In the state of Alabama, first-degree rape is a Class A felony, resulting in a minimum prison sentence of 10 years,4 whereas Section 5 of their new abortion bill says that “No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.”3 However, Section 6 does say that a successful abortion “in violation of this act” – meaning a convenience abortion – is a Class A felony.3 Given that murder is a Class A felony in the state of Alabama, and this bill considers abortion to be murder, this is only fitting.
“Pro-Life Legislation Is A Sexist Play For Personal Wealth and Power”
Another claim against pro-life legislation is that it is signed into existence by “old white Christian men who just want to line their pockets by controlling women’s bodies.” According to Planned Parenthood’s yearly report from 2018,5 their total assets amount to approximately 2.1 billion dollars. Their total revenue was a little over 1.6 billion dollars. While their 332,757 total abortions performed only account for 3.4% of their “total services” offered, this is misleading. Each individual counseling session, pregnancy test, and medication prescribed is counted as a distinct “service.”6 Most of these services are offered free of charge thanks to government funding. However, this funding only accounted for 563.8 million dollars. Private contributions accounted for 630 million dollars. Where did the approximate remaining 470 million dollars come from? From the abortions. For a government-funded non-profit, that is a huge amount of leftover revenue. Considering that the pro-life alternatives to Planned Parenthood clinics – pregnancy centers and Church-run charities – are not national mega-corporations and receive no government funding, how is pro-life legislation going to line the pockets of those who sign it into existence? Besides, the seven supreme court justices who signed Roe v. Wade into existence were old white men.7 The governor of Alabama who just signed their pro-life bill into existence is a woman. Gender is not a factor in matters of abortion legislation. The abortion industry is far and away wealthier than the pro-life “industry,” so if the motivation for a politician is money, he or she will not choose life.
The fact of the matter is that the pro-life Alabama bill is not as horribly oppressive as the pro-choice world is making it out to be. There’s even an argument to be made that abortion itself legitimizes rape.
In 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was signed into existence, the total number of documented rape cases across the country was 51,400.8 Meanwhile, in 2017, that number was 135,755.8 While part of that inflation is likely due to just a larger population, think about what abortion does for the rapist. Abortion absolves the rapist of much of his responsibility. A rape victim can sue for the rapist to pay child support.9 With abortion, the rapist is not held responsible for the child he forced his victim to bear – a child who did not ask or choose to be conceived. Abortion wipes out the single physical reminder and consequence of the rapist’s crime.
This raises the issue of personal responsibility. A rapist should be held accountable for his crimes, both by serving time in prison and by paying for the child support of the child he forced upon his victim. By the same token, people who obtain convenience-related abortions need to be held responsible too. The fact is, contraceptives are not 100% reliable. According to a 2008 study done by AGI,1 51% of women who obtained an abortion were on a contraceptive the month they got pregnant. The morality of contraception is a discussion for a different time, but it’s reasonable to say that, even if someone is on a contraceptive, they should be prepared for the possibility that the contraceptive might fail, resulting in an unintended pregnancy. A child should not be murdered because of a failed gamble with contraception.
Addressing the Misconceptions Surrounding the Adoption Process
As my last point, I’d like to talk about the process of adoption. A lot of people seem to think that putting a kid up for adoption is resigning them to an “Oliver Twist” orphanage experience, full of abusive superiors, forced child labor, and squalid living conditions. This is far from the truth.
There are two ways in which a mother can offer her child up for adoption: she can go through the state, and use the state’s foster system, or she can go through a private organization, such as Catholic Charities. In both instances, the state or the organization will pay for all of her medical bills related to her pregnancy. She would not have to worry about the extra costs of carrying her child to term. With the private organizations, it is actually the adoptive family who covers these costs. However, such a payment is entirely tax-deductible.
If the mother goes through a private organization, she can interview adoptive families and choose the exact one she would like for her child to go to. The state, meanwhile, has a system in place where a committee reviews select families and chooses the best fit for the child. While the state system is not as personal as the private organizations, it is still well-vetted and each choice is made with care.
In the state system, the average wait time for a child to be fully adopted is 2-3 years. If the child is put up for adoption at birth, this allows the child to experience a perfectly normal childhood. It is often the case that foster families end up being the adoptive families as well, allowing for even less disruption in the child’s life.
However, this 2-3 year time period is just an average. Adoption is incredibly situational. The wait time could be shorter or it could be longer. Children put up for adoption are often raised by relatives, as family members are prioritized as adoptive parents before foster families. Surprisingly, the ratio between children in need of a permanent home and families interested in adoption is fairly equal. The tricky part is the fit. The state does its best to keep siblings together, and many drug addictions cause higher pregnancy rates. This means that as many as 5-7 siblings are eligible for adoption all at once, and that is a huge undertaking for any family. In addition, children with disabilities often have very specific needs, making the perfect fit for their permanent family even harder to find.
Thankfully, the state does not leave the families to fend entirely for themselves. Adoptive families receive a monthly stipend from the state to help pay for the upbringing of the adopted child. While this stipend is small, it is nevertheless incredibly useful. In addition, adopted children receive full, state-funded healthcare from birth until they turn 18. This allows the family to be free from worrying about that sort of thing.
Lastly, the state still fights for the rights of the biological parents. In cases where the child is put up for adoption due to parents who are unfit to raise a child, the state will allow a certain amount of time for the parents to get their lives back on track, with the motivation being the custody of their child, who is under the care of a foster family. The idea is to do the best thing for both the child as well as the parents.
Adoption still offers positive opportunities to those who are simply not in a place where they can raise a child. The adoptive father with whom I met to learn the details of the adoption process told me a story about someone he knows who got a girl pregnant in high school. They could not raise the child themselves so they put her up for adoption. However, the father developed a strong relationship with the adoptive parents and was able to remain present in his daughter’s life, acting almost as a sort of “cool uncle,” without having to worry about the responsibility of raising her himself. This is not to say that adoption should be used as a way to experience the nicer parts of parenting while letting someone else handle the tougher responsibilities. Rather, it is a story that proves the kind of goodness that can come out of an unintended, seemingly dead-end situation.
Adoption is incredibly viable in today’s modern world. It is not a dark, oppressive place for children. Adopting a child is a huge responsibility and the process of finding a perfect fit and tying up all loose ends takes time. Adoption is a great option for mothers who maybe cannot afford their pregnancy or the upbringing of a child, but, depending on the situation, may still want some sort of role in the child’s life. Again, adoption is entirely, entirely situational.
Besides, many adoptive families are unable to conceive children themselves. If abortion is indeed murder, then choosing to murder a child rather than allow such a family the opportunity to raise that child is such a tragic loss. To say that abortion is a better option than adoption is to tell all adoptive children that their lives are worthless mistakes.
I cannot stress enough that all issues surrounding abortion lead back to one single question: is abortion murder? This question must be answered before any justification for – or argument against – abortion is made. If abortion is murder, then all pro-choice justifications fall apart at the seams. If abortion is not murder, then all pro-choice justifications are fair.
I’ve presented strong, non-religious, non-political arguments using Peter Kreeft’s streamlined discussions from his book The Unaborted Socrates. His most important argument was his “investigation” of abortion itself. Using only reason and science as his support, he showed that abortion was murder by proving the following syllogism:
Intentionally killing an innocent human being is murder,
and abortion is intentionally killing an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is murder.
Again, this argument must be proven to be true or false before any other issue surrounding abortion can be considered.
Kreeft then examines several arguments against the pro-life movement. He proves that pro-life legislation is not a power play by religion at large, or an attempt to force morality and personal values on others, because innocent human lives are at stake. He dissects the justifications that anti-abortion laws are unenforceable, and that abortions should be made safe and legal. He wonders how killing children we don’t want will make every child a wanted child, and asks, in cases of rape, whether it is worse to endure evil, or to commit evil?
He shows that if abortion is indeed murder, then anti-abortion laws are not unjustly restrictive. He shows that majority agreement as to the morality or even legality of a certain act does not by itself make the act acceptable. He shows that so-called “unenforceable” laws, such as those forbidding suicide, are still useful.
Finally, I addressed several issues surrounding abortion that have come up quite recently, especially across social media. Using Planned Parenthood’s own data, I showed that abortion in cases of rape make up only 0.5% of abortions obtained, and that the vast majority of abortions – around 79% – are obtained purely for convenience-related issues. The justification for legalized abortion as an option for rape victims is a red herring for those who want to abdicate their personal responsibility. I showed that pro-life legislation does not legitimize rape, but in fact the opposite, as abortion absolves the rapist of child support and other responsibilities stemming from his crime. A rapist must make up for his crime in more ways than just time in prison. I showed that Planned Parenthood is exceedingly wealthy and powerful, so pro-life legislation, which favors charities and small pregnancy centers, is not an attempt to “line politicians’ pockets.” I also showed that gender is not a relevant factor in the creation and passing of pro-life legislation. Lastly, I addressed some misconceptions surrounding the adoption process, proving that it is not as horrible for adoptive children as many are led to believe. Adoption offers many financial and quality-of-life opportunities to mothers and biological parents.
Now I must stress that none of what has been said here is an indictment of mothers who have aborted their children. Those mothers are not murderers, but rather victims of abortion themselves. They have been betrayed by a movement that calls itself “pro-choice” when in reality they were told they had but one choice: abort their baby or ruin both their lives forever. These mothers are just as much victims of abortion as their fetuses.
None of this is an indictment against supporters of the pro-choice cause, either. From my experience with the pro-choice supporters I know, they’re good people. They’re trying to support women’s rights and healthcare, both of which are important things. But somewhere along the way, social justice has blinded the supporters of abortion, enabling them to rationalize the murder of unborn children in the name of “progressiveness.”
This is precisely why arguments like the kind Peter Kreeft outlines in The Unaborted Socrates are so vitally important. Instead of looking at issues through the cracked and dirty lenses of liberalism and conservatism, we must look at issues objectively as they are. Real progression is only made when the truth is found. The truth is only found when we take off those lenses and finally see things with objective clarity. I hope this article, summarizing the arguments found in Peter Kreeft’s book The Unaborted Socrates, has helped remove the lenses looking at the issues surrounding abortion.
Peter Kreeft, The Unaborted Socrates, published by IVP Books, copyright 1983
Two great resources for the pro-life cause:
And Then There Were None (a non-profit organization founded by ex-Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson which helps abortion workers leave the industry): https://abortionworker.com/
Rachel’s Vineyard (a charity which helps women/couples who have obtained an abortion and regretted it): https://www.rachelsvineyard.org/
This Article was Edited and Approved by “Noein” and Maddie Sanders
You’re what we call an extremist. You can only go one way or another, which in cases like this, is very unsettling. There are always going to be people with opposing opinions, and some of those opinions are backed by fact, but most of them are strictly conjecture and self-projecting into the situation. If you are seriously suggesting that “abortion is wrong, in any circumstances, no way no how should it be allowed under any scenario” then I have a few choice words for you and a few cases in which a lot of people would scold you for thinking that way.
Take the case from a few years back down in Ireland, forgive me for not giving every detail on it for it has been awhile since I have read the article, but you can easily fact check this. A woman was living in Ireland, and she was pregnant, but the pregnancy was so complicated that death was imminent. However, they refused to abort the fetus because of their abortion law, and she ended up losing not only her life, but the fetus’s life. Now tell me, how is that fair to her? How is giving up two lives for people’s own moral values right? They could have saved her life; that woman had many more years to live, she had a family already that loved her and didn’t want to see her go before her time. Those doctors refused to save her life, because of anti-abortion laws, so instead of killing one life, they decided to kill two. Now, you may argue, “they didn’t technically kill them” but yes, they did. They refused to help her when she was in need, and thus they should be charged with indirect manslaughter. Since that case, abortion has been legalised in parts of Ireland. Why? Because people saw the error of their ways and realised that not every case is as cut and dry as some.
And that’s only one scenario. Think about the other factors when you are considering this sensitive topic. Humans will be humans– and humans are fickle creatures that are prone to dysfunctional. If a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion but refused it, she will find a way one way or another. And I know you addressed this in your little essay, but I feel you are mistaken about the practice of abortion and exactly how much safer it is to have it be done by a professional rather than in the alley with a coat hanger. “Who is abortion safe for? Certainly not the fetus” well, no, that’s a given. But the fetus doesn’t even feel pain until a certain point of the pregnancy, nor does it even have a heartbeat. If something doesn’t have a heartbeat, can it truly be considered alive? I know you’ll argue the “potential” of the human being, to which I say– doesn’t everyone commit a crime every day/month? When men release their semen and it doesn’t fertilize an egg; when a woman has her period and doesn’t let it become a child, is that murder in your eyes because those zygotes could have potentially become a human being? You weren’t wrong by the statement that “it’s just cells” because that’s scientifically what a fetus is up until it develops nerve sensors, a heart, working organs; ect. The abortion, given it is preformed before a certain month,is not harmful to the fetus at all; it’s the same as scrapping off dead skin cells when you shower.
The fact that you would even go as far as saying the woman’s body is not her own is mind boggling. . .if it’s not her own, then whose is it? People who think they can control their lives and their actions? Human beings make mistakes, and often times, those mistakes are brought on by acts that are out of their control. Are you going to really tell me that they have to live with those consequences just because it makes *you* unhappy? Are you the one who is going to have to deal with being pregnant and baring a child that is a result of rape or incest? No, you’re not, and neither is anyone else besides the host of the fetus that it was forced with. Thus, it is her decision and no one else’s, I’m sorry that you feel like it’s not, but that’s the bottom line. The fetus acts like a parasite– residing in the host’s body and feeding off their nutrients in order to grow and survive. It is the host’s decision to cut ties with it or not. You compared a fetus to an already born child, I noticed, so you may decide to argue with me using that line, but I have to say that your statement makes little sense in regards to the context. The fetus cannot physically survive outside the mother without dying; however, a child that has already been birth can (in fact!) be taken away from the mother and still survive. How do I know? Well. . .orphanages, of course. Those children are still alive; abandoned and unwanted, but still alive, so how does that make sense?
While we are on the subject of orphanages, I don’t think I even really need to point this out that there are over 400,000 children in foster care to date. A lot of those may be due to either them being taken away from their parents because they were unfit to take care of children, or maybe their parents are deceased. However, if you completely take away the option to abort, that number will no doubt skyrocket because you are forcing those women to birth children they could not care less about. Either that, or they will decide to keep the child and abuse it. You may think it’s rare for those cases to happen, but fact check it– it’s not. A lot of children who are born out of mistakes are often left to live horrid lives– and in the end, a lot of them become criminals, even serial killers. Which brings me to my next point– orphanage tying into criminal rates, which has been studied and shown that a pretty good chunk of orphans are likely to become criminals. But hey, that one child that you wanted to save is worth all those other lives that child ended up taking, right?
This reasoning might be a little bit selfish, but America alone is starting to become overpopulated with so many children being born– and a lot of them are being born into poverty. We shouldn’t discourage abortion, we should *encourage* it for those who cannot afford it and instead have 3-4 kids they can’t afford and instead force their community to take care of. In fact, I think we need to start encouraging contraception a lot more than it is, because it’s getting out of hand, and I am tired of my tax money going towards these deadbeat mothers who pop out kids like they are firing canon balls. But let’s get back on track here and ignore my ranting. . .
My final point is this– sometimes abortion *is* to save the fetus, not just the one carrying it. Yes, you may think it’s cruel to abort a fetus just because the doctor detected that it would have mental health issues when it’s born. But isn’t it more cruel to let it be born into a world were it can’t even enjoy life? Is that really a life? No, I don’t believe it is. It’s not only unfair to the parents who have to go through that horrible situation, but think about all the years of pain and suffering that child is going to have to go through– when it could have been dealt with painlessly when it was in the womb. Not only that, but your reason for bringing up animals vs humans only serves to prove my case that a fetus with an unstable and functioning brain does not have the same rights as normal humans. Humans are humans because they have the ability to reason, and they are far more intelligent than other mammals, which is how you put it. So in that case, a mentally challenged child is no better than an animal, for it lacks the abilities that make it “human”. I’m just using your own logic, so don’t get angry over my statement. I don’t even know why you bothered to bring up animals in a topic about abortion, but you have your prerogative, and I have mine. I happen to believe that animals are superior to humans in every way, because at least they are consistent with their behaviour and instincts and they aren’t as selfish as we are. And let’s face it, a dog is loyal until the end. Humans aren’t.
I wrap this up with a final statement– in the end, this argument is completely opinionated with a hint of fact and science mixed in. However, until the entire country sees abortion as straight out murder and sentences everyone who either preforms or participates in one to prison, you really have nothing but your opinion on how it should be treated in the justice system. Abortion will more than likely never be completely outlawed in every single state of America, and quite honestly, I think it’s silly to try to make it; because is it really affecting you? I mean, is it REALLY? Answer honestly. It’s not affecting you at all. In fact, many woman just as I was writing this got an abortion, and you didn’t feel a thing. Their body; their choice– not yours, not the Church’s. Let them have the option and if they feel the same as you, they will decide to keep it, and if they don’t then that’s *their* choice. I can’t stress it enough, but I will say it one more time! *Their. Choice.*
When you were typing this, did you ever think that this could really hurt somebody? A word of advice would be do more research before presenting your information as though it were hard facts. The adoption part has so much misinformation. Misinformation like that can really mess up an adopted child perspective on there lives. I can say this because I am an adopted child. You talk about it as if it is a win for everyone. You talk as if you know everyone’s situation. You clearly did not do a good amount of research. Talking to 1 adoptive father is not research. How many adopted children did you talk to? If you had talk to at least 3 then you would know that everyday is an internal challenge. My depression stems from my adoption. Gonna make a couple of points to enlighten you on your ignorance
First is that the story is very misleading. Someone that knows nothing about adoption wouldn’t know that. The reality of that story is that the girl was just in a situation to where she was allowed to have contact withomes. blood. There are laws in some states that keep the child from contacting anyone in the birth family. Not many people know this, I didn’t know this. After reading this, I thought that my mother had been dodging me for 23 years. Lucky for me this isn’t the case but it can be for some children. Sometimes neither the mother nor father want to contact the birth child. The state does not fight for any of this. The state kept me from knowing anything.
I have said this earlier but I will say it again. The life of an adopted child is hard. Going out in public is a battle in itself. Hearing people say to other children “Oh you look just like your father” or “You got x from your mother.” I never got any of that and I never will. My case is interracial so I definitely will never get that. Two examples of when I hated the fact that I am adopted. The first was when I had a white friend with me on a trip. It was me, my parents and the friend. A guy at turned around to my friend and said, “You are so lucky that your parents let you bring a friend with you on such a big trip.” My friend agreed and said nothing else. Did not acknowledge that they were my parents. I said nothing because I was just stunned. That instance has always stuck with me. The second being when a black lady grabbed me when I walked between my parents. She pulled me away from my own parents because she thought I was a neighborhood black kid being rude to a white elderly couple. Imagine a scared almost crying child looking at that lady and then saying, “Those are my parents.”. The lady laughed it off and my parents were unsure what to think. Me on the other hand, crying. I was scared for the longest time that it would happen again. You will never understand how it feels to know that people are looking at you weird with your parents. As if the child they have is wrong. I hated going out in public because I would see people starring, I would hear people talking. I would never sit in the front just because I didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that I am adopted. Yes this is racial but it cannot be ignored. Today more people are doing interracial adoption and that is fact.
“She would not have to worry about the extra costs of carrying her child to term. With the private organizations, it is actually the adoptive family who covers these costs. However, such a payment is entirely tax-deductible.” <— I didn't know that my life was such a financial worry for my mother. Maybe you don't mean that but you should choose your words very carefully. Makes it sound like the mother hit the jackpot by not having to pay for anything with the child. After reading this I cried a lot. I had to ask my adoptive parents about the expenses that came with me. It is a horrible feeling. To feel like a financial burden to my family, adoptive and birth. My parents told me that they rejected those checks because they didn't need them. They just wanted me. Which brings me to my next point.
Adoption should not be looked as situational. It isn't a plan B or a get out of jail free card. It is because both parties want to do it. A persons life is not a convenience. A person should adopt only because they want to give that child a good life. Religion, political view and money (especially money) should not be considered when adopting a child. If your intentions are anything except giving a child a good life then you do not need to be adopting. It in unsettling seeing how emphasized money is in your writing.
I know my existence is a mistake. You have nothing to argue to a boy who knows that his mother was 14 when she got pregnant and the dad preformed a hit and run.
These topics are not something for someone to just spout ideals on. Religion should not be tied to it at all. You say this is nonreligious but I see "Catholic" mentioned a good number of times. Politics should not be tied to this at all. It is the mother's feelings and that is it.
I will defend those mothers that chose to abort instead. Maybe that mother wanted her child to remain hers and can't imagine life where her own child is being raised by people who may harm it. Those mothers want children of there own and to raise them. This is there choice, keep the religion out of it. Whether the mother chooses to abort or give it up, it is hard and emotional either way.
This is not everything I want to say but I will end it by saying that it would be wise for you to stay out of topics like this. You are a random dude who thought he knew what he was talking about when in reality you have no idea. A mother's choice does not effect you and you know nothing of adoption or foster homes.
My name is Juliet. I want to start by offering my sympathy and understanding. Although the race issues are not something that I understand, many of the other concerns you expressed are ones that are very familiar to me. I have two siblings that were adopted out of the foster system (and we fostered four other kids over the span of a couple years before adopting them). My brother was eight we we adopted him and my sister was fourteen. They had been taken from their home because their mother couldn’t take care of them and haven’t had contact with her since (although I’m honestly not sure if that’s because of the mother’s choice or my parents’). My heart breaks for them on so many levels because of everything that they had to go through at such a young age. I’m sorry that, on top of that, you have to deal with people being ignorant or careless or rude when dealing with the fact that you are a different race from your parents. I’d imagine, even when people when people meant nothing by it, that it struck you in a particularly painful way. I understand how that can be. And I understand how it feels to have an understanding that your existence was a mistake. My parents were in their teens when I was conceived, and the circumstances surrounding it were less than ideal (even aside form the fact that they were in their teens). Depression is such a heavy burden that stems from so many things. That’s something that I’ve struggled with also. So… No, I don’t know you. You’re a stranger on the internet. And I can’t relate on all of your points. But I do, in a big way, understand where you’re coming from. If you’ll care to listen, I’d like to offer you some of my response.
First, the tax deduction, rather than being an incentive, makes it so that families who want to adopt can. We live in a world where healthcare is expensive, whether we’re talking about a pregnancy or strep throat. Wether we’re talking about a child who is just starting his life or an elderly person who is ending his time here on this world (I’ll leave that for poetic effect, but I’m getting at things like life support for the elderly). The thing is, and I hope I’m not making you upset, is that if your family is financially stable and you’re not a burden, that’s awesome. It’s a blessing. But even for a family who did need that deduction in order to be able to adopt or for a teen mother who has chosen to keep and raise her child, who can barely afford to cover her doctor’s appointments and must go to pregnancy resource centers, the love that is had for the child – the love that a parent has for a child – makes it so money isn’t a concern. As far as adoption not being a plan B or what have you, that is 100% true. But financial options like this make it easier for it to be a plan A for more families.
As far as your existence being a mistake, I want to offer a little bit of reflection that has helped me throughout my life. I struggled with that for a long time – “I’m not supposed to be here”, “I’m not a part of God’s original plan”, “If my parents hadn’t sinned, I wouldn’t exist. So my existence is rooted in sin”. And so many more things. It would have been easier on my parents if I didn’t exist. My parents could have gone their separate ways after their divorce… Thoughts like this hounded me constantly from an early age. And even now, this is a demon I struggle to keep caged. This is what I have for you: Even if you and I weren’t supposed to be here – even if we came to be through acts of violence or manipulation – we are here now. There are people that love and care about us. There are people who smile at the very thought of us. The circumstances of the start of our existence mean that we have to carry heavy burdens, but that by no means takes away from the value of the life we live now that we do exist. Our lives are valuable because they are our lives. Our lives. And what we make of them is what we choose. Even the rockiest of foundations can be overcome. A poem that I particularly love is “Today Means Amen”. It’s a powerful (nonreligious) slam poem that I would encourage you to take a listen to. I reread it every time I go through a burst of depression. [Okay, as I’m rereading this, its sounds a little like a pro-life blurb, but I promise, this really is the stuff that I use to talk myself out of the bad thoughts about if I should or shouldn’t exist. Kinda a funny overlap.]
I am firmly pro-life. I believe that every individual has the same value and right to life, no matter what the circumstances are surrounding their birth. I believe that every child should have the chance to face their life head-on. Yes, the foster system needs help and is a mess, but it does its best to allow families to adopt no matter what financial struggles may occur. And for those mothers who want to keep their children, pregnancy resource centers and pro-life groups will help so, so much – from free pregnancy tests to baby supplies to counseling (especially for those in crisis pregnancies). Some mothers still feel they can’t keep their children. Some feel that the baby would be better off elsewhere, even if they do want to keep the child. And those situations are heartbreaking. But I still believe that the baby deserves life.
I wish you the best. If you’d be open to a dialogue, I’m more than happy to discuss anything that I’ve stated, personal or pro-life.
Your response was very well thought out and I appreciate you trying to understand. This is something that can really only be understood by those who really are adopted. You will never know how it feels to look at families in the park and envy the fact that they are biological. You will never have pain like that, it never goes away. Building relationships is difficult, loving is difficult. It doesn’t matter what the circumstance for the adoption is, we were given up. We will never know what it feels like to grow up with our biological families. I miss a mother that I never knew. I hate a father that I never met. Yes I am here now but the reasoning cannot be ignored. I am not looking at this from a religious stand point. What I am presenting is the truth. That line of thinking may work for you but remember that you had something that I never had nor will I ever have. Please do not tell me that I should be grateful. It is not a grateful feeling to live with the thought of “If I was to meet her, how disappointed would she be? Would I even treat her like a mother or some random lady? Would she even want anything to do with me?” Our depression stems from different points. I didn’t have to learn about my situation through religious teachings, it was something I knew before I went into kindergarten. To this day at the age of 23, I still don’t like going out in public with my parents. I hate family photos because I am obviously the elephant in the room.
The fact that I even have to explain this makes me sad. You can say that you understand it but until you live it, you never will truly understand it. We have grief that we are afraid to let out. After the long talk with my parents my mom said “If you want to find your real mother then we will help, we understand.” Sounds like a wonderful thing right? It isn’t. The family that raised me gave me everything. Telling them that I want to find my mother, isn’t an easy thing. I actually don’t want to know.
Facts and statistics do not override feelings. The second that they are presented is the very same second that the adoptee is silenced and doesn’t want to speak anymore. We have a voice, we just don’t want to let it out. We are silenced very quickly. I don’t know if my mother is dead or alive and I am too scared to find out. If she is dead then I have to live with the fact that I was barred off from her for 23 years and never got to say hello or goodbye. I would live with the thought that I may have been able to help her out if only I was present.
I am not going to ramble much anymore unless you really want me too. I will end it with this. I cannot imagine nor do I want to imagine the pain that goes through a child that lost there mother because they were born. All I know is that they suffer on a daily basis. I will not speak anymore for those people. For the ones that I have talked too, we can both agree that we miss the ones that we never knew
Same person and I apologize if this posted twice by accident. I am on mobile
For whatever reason, the name change only showed on the newest comment. If you want me to prove that I am the same person then I will do what is necessary. I don’t want to come off as multiple accounts or a troll. This is a serious and personal topic for me
Not sure if I’m replying in the right part of the thread, but… anyway.
It seems like you’re saying that these infants shouldn’t be put up for adoption, but should rather be aborted. And it seems like you’re presenting this as that should be how it is instead of adoption ever being a thing in these cases. Is this correct?
I don’t know if it responded. If not then my reply is at the bottom
This is completely first world based. Mostly American
No you are completely wrong. I would be a hypocrite if that is what I was saying. What I am saying is that this whole thing is emotion based. The decision effects the mother, the partner and the baby. Nobody else is effected by this. If an abortion happens the the mother and partner, if there is one, suffer. If the mother dies during childbirth then the child suffers and the partner if one is present. If an adoption happens, the mother and child suffer from being split. There is suffering no matter what happens. A bunch of protesters are trying to decide for the mother and that is wrong. It’s none of there business. They don’t know the full story. All they care about is that an abortion might be on the horizon. The bigger picture doesn’t seem to matter to the protesters. The emotions of the mother just seem to be ridiculed and put down. If she has an abortion then she is shamed for it. She’s already going through hell knowing the choice that she made, she doesn’t need assistance from people shaming her. That is how suicide happens. Then it really is game over.
Deciding for another person is wrong. Especially when it doesn’t effect you. It’s playing god at that point. I am blind to every other factor that is played in that woman’s life. It is what it is. No matter what the choice is, it is gonna be painful.
Last thing. When going through pregnancy, the woman is suppose to be in a mentally safe and stable environment free of stress. If she goes through a ton of stress due to protesters trying to decide from her then isn’t the fetus is serious danger? If it dies then who is to blame? The mother just trying to live life or the protesters that won’t leave her alone?
Here’s where I’m having a problem following your logic about adoption being rough meaning that abortion should be an option. If you’re arguing that because adoption can be rough, then abortion should be an option, then why do the emotions of mother get to make the choice between the child’s life and death? My apologies if my tone is a little weird. I’m trying to choose my words carefully, but I also, as I said, am having problems trying to follow your logic.
To answer your question, miscarriage, whatever the reason, is no one’s fault unless it is intentional caused. But as far as miscarriages being caused by stress… That’s heavily debated. That said, yes. We should be striving to create an environment where mothers are able to be at peace in their pregnancy.
I can’t speak for everyone in the pro life movement – there are people who are outright cruel to these women, and that isn’t fair, nor is it an accurate representation of what the pro life movement really is. The pro life movement, at its core and at its best, is a fight for love for all. Love for the mother in her crisis pregnancy. Love for the child who has done nothing wrong and deserves a chance to live his or her best life. You’re right on a lot of things. The emotions of the mother need to be heard and responded to in a compassionate manner. And no woman should be shamed for having an abortion or having sex before marriage and getting pregnant. And you’re right that every option is going to be painful. But why should an option that involves the death of the child be a viable one?
How do you feel about situations where you have a woman in a financially, emotionally stable family who could take care of the child with ease, but the woman chooses to abort her baby simply because she doesn’t feel like having another child?
What do you think about situations where the father doesn’t want to be involved but the mother keeps the child? Should the father still have to pay child support even though he isn’t claiming the baby?
Well it’s her child. She made it. That child wouldn’t be a clump of cells if it wasn’t for her. Yes that is a cruel way of putting it but is the truth.
No child is guaranteed to be adopted. It is a roll of the dice. Once that child is put up for adoption or in a foster home, the mother has no say so of what happens next. All parenting rights and responsibilities are stripped from them. Even the right to see there own child. They must get permission to. An adoptive parent can make the adoption a closed adoption. The biological parents have no say so in the matter. Reversing the adoption is no easy matter. Both sides have to consent. If the adoptive parents refuse it then that’s it. Some states won’t even allow a reversal. If a mom puts her child up for adoption and then changes her mind, it is no guarantee that she will get the child back. I can understand why some mothers don’t want to rely on a dice roll when deciding the fate of there child. I can understand why a mother doesn’t want all of her rights taken away. I would hate to be barred off from my own flesh and blood just because the adoptive family doesn’t want me to. That family doesn’t have to give a reason to say no to contact. Putting all this together, adoption is rolling the dice. The odds have not been in favor for almost 700,000 children. With something that isn’t guaranteed, we are just adding onto the number. If an abortion is done then it lowers the chances of the child suffering to 0. It doesn’t matter how innocent the child is if it’s innocence is going to be stripped the second it is ripped from it’s mothers arms. The suffering starts at that moment. In some cases like this, a life is saved before it even starts. Think about it.
The answer to your first question is “it is what it is.” It sucks that it happen. If it happens through consented sex then either she should have kept her legs closed or someone was being very irresponsible. That circumstance is limited if you really think about it. That is something that occurs in a straight relationship. In order for those in a gay relationship to have a child, they have to go through a whole process. They intend to have a baby. It cannot happen through casual sex for them, unless the mother is raped. Since this is pretty much something that can only happen with straight couples then all I have to say is that someone was being irresponsible. Now if this happens because of rape then I really have no thoughts on it. I’m not the one that got raped.
Now the second question. You are pretty much describing my father if I wasn’t adopted. I don’t care if they didn’t want it or not. They should have thought of that before having unprotected sex. They need to man up and take responsibility. This happens all the time. The dad runs away from his responsibilities.
Now before you try to argue that I am saying “The father is the only one being held accountable. The mother isn’t being held accountable for anything.” This is not true. The mother is taking responsibility by deciding if this is something that she can handle. Is this something that she wants? You shouldn’t have a child just to give it up. That’s not letting the child feel wanted. The child is basically just another addition to the foster care system that was forced upon them by protesters. If she keeps it then that child could feel like a forced mistake that she never wanted. Let’s be real here, when something like that is forced upon you when you really didn’t want it, neglect will happen. Resentment is highly likely on every side. Everyone should feel wanted. A baby that was forced into life and then put up for adoption is NOT wanted. It is forced. Maybe she SHOULD want it but it doesn’t always work that way. What she wants is her decision. The reality of the situation is harsh but it’s real. If you don’t want it then don’t have it. It’s a better alternative than saying, “I don’t want it but someone else might.” That is the equivalent of what you say when your order at McDonalds gets messed up and you get an extra cheeseburger. No child’s life should be on the level of an extra cheeseburger.