Often the proposition that abortion is good and just is regarded as self-evidently true. How anybody could disagree, and how anybody could slow down the progress of human abortion, is bewildering, to many people. Human abortion is regarded as one of the treasures of human society. Women do not have to be condemned to have a baby, even if they are pregnant. The idea of choice has been elevated above the very life of a human being. This is a manifestation of absolute human depravity and social declination. I think there are at least 5 reasons abortion is evil.
1 – The fetus is human.
Most people are familiar with Dr Ernest Haeckel’s embryological drawings, where he hypothesized that a fetus went through every stage of human evolution, and in fact, this has been taught in college campuses long after the view was refuted. This goes to say that human embryos do not go through the evolutionary process, but rather are just very small human beings, and any image of an aborted fetus will verify this claim.
That is why scholarly journals apply the term human embryo, because it is a human being in the very early stages of development, but it is quite curious to say that because it is in the very early stages of development, it is therefore not a human being. Discoveries in the field of embryology have confirmed that the fetus is not merely a collage of cells, or a little fish-like creature, but is a biological human being. As early as 21 days after conception, they are observing sucking their thumb, metabolizing nutrition, growing, and even has their own blood type and heart beat (Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human, p.310; Nilsson & Hamberger, A Child is Born, p.86; Rugh & Shettles, From Conception to Birth, p.217.).
2 – Abortion devalues human beings.
In response to the above point, that the embryo is a biological human being, most are willing to concede it. Most do admit that the embryo is a biological human being. So how do they reconcile this with their view, and how they avoid the conclusion of it being murder? They will say, “these are human beings, not human persons.” But it seems to me that this definition is arbitrary and just devalues biological human beings. What criteria determines the distinction between a human being, and a human person, and who decides what that criteria is?
Historically, this concept has been applied in other instances. Others have attempted to say that while some are biological human beings, they are not human persons. Adolf Hitler was guilty of precisely this when he attempted to exterminate the Jews. He recognized that the Jews were biological human beings, but he justified their murder by arbitrarily saying that they were not human persons, even while they were human beings. This is just an arbitrary distinction that is meant to justify one of the most heinous of actions – namely, the murder of human beings.
3 – The reasoning applied to abortion can lead to other atrocities.
One of the most fundamental social problems with abortion is that if we follow it to its’ logical conclusions, it can just as easily justify abortion as it does other moral atrocities. For the person who finds abortion to be a good and moral thing, they cannot avoid the justification concept of doctor-assisted suicide. After all, it is their life, and who are we to tell them what they can or cannot do? Who are we to rob these people of their personal choice and absolute liberty to do anything they want to do? It is their body, it should be their choice. Any argument that you can mount in favor of pro-choice abortion, I can mount a parallel argument in favor of pro-choice doctor-assisted suicide.
Further, and perhaps even more obviously, we can mount parallel arguments, applying identical rationale, in favor of infanticide. As the bioethicist, Doctor Peter Singer pointed out, the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, or a dog, or a rodent. They are not self-aware, and therefore still not human persons. Of course, most would not accept this idea that Singer represents. My argument is that the prochoice reasoning opens the door to these atrocities. At the very least, you must admit that it opens the door to late-term abortion. An absolutely parallel case can be made. The only difference is in the threat it poses to the mother.
4 – It elevates human choice over human life.
Often, they will argue that it does not really matter if it is a human being or a human person. It is simply irrelevant, because the woman ought to have the right to choose either way. If it is a human being, it is perfectly okay to kill it, because the choice of the woman is of greater value than the life of the human being. Essentially, because the human being is geographically located inside of the uterus, rather than outside of it, it therefore does not have any intrinsic moral value.
When I say intrinsic moral value, I mean that in and of themselves, human beings have value. A human being would have value even if everybody in the world disagreed. Their value is not like the value of cash, which, in and of itself, is just paper. They truly have value. Having said that, if a biological human being has this sort of value, it follows logically and inescapably that the unborn human beings also have intrinsic moral value.
The only recourse is to say that human beings do not have intrinsic moral value. But if that is the case, if human beings really do not have intrinsic moral value, then why should we value your right to choose?
5 – Life is only for God to take.
The reason that murder is so abhorrent is not only that it is a crime against the person being murdered. It is not only a crime against the unborn human being. It is a crime against the God who gave them life. God gives life and is the only one who has the right to take it. That is why God told us that we cannot commit murder, because these lives are only for him to take. That is why sometimes, we will see God ending a life, and God is not sinning, because he is simply taking the life that he gave in the first place.
Now we may say that we gave life to our unborn (ignoring for a moment that this would be a concession that the unborn do have life), but you did not. We are incapable of giving life. We can only use the process of reproduction that God has set in place for us. But we did not give life. Only God gives life and only God has the right to take life.
What do you think about abortion? Leave a comment.
If you would like to get in on the discussion about this, join my Theology Discussion Group!
