Abortion: Why I Am Opposed

Abortion, and whether you believe it is a choice or a killing, is perhaps one of the most divisive social issues in U.S., if not world, history. Folks on both sides of the topic passionately believe they are right and very rarely believe there is any room for compromise.

With such entrenched positions and die-hard beliefs, one wonders how the question of abortion might ever be resolved. While for the record, I do not think that it well ever be resolved, I believe that as a society we should encourage a less hateful and more reasonable discussion of this important issue. To that end, I would like to explain, in extreme brevity, why I am opposed to the practice of abortion. I would further encourage folks who believe abortion is a choice to respond (in civil tones, please) and answer my concerns.

I believe that a baby (you may call him fetus) is a real, live human person even in the womb and as such deserves the rights afford to all people, including a right to life. For me the crux of the debate is personhood, and where we, meaning you, I, and little Jane Doe in the womb, derive our personhood. Personally, I believe God endows personhood. Put another way, I believe there is a transcendent order which overrules human wishes, desires, or even laws.

Keith Feiling, in his work Toryism, said this, "Every Tory (conservative) is a realist, he knows that there are great forces in heaven and earth that man's philosophy cannot plumb or fathom."

So if personhood is something beyond human determination, then one should, as I have, ask when that transcendent order bestows the gift of personhood. I answer --at conception. This is my answer because I can think of no other factor or event which might properly and consistently determine personhood.

I heard a philosopher on the radio once, I do not recall his name, but had the idea he was associated with a Christian ministry called Stand to Reason. I searched the site, but could not find an exact reference for his positions. He explained the personhood argument something like this. Consider that conception is the only event which changes the very nature of a baby. Before conception just cells, after conception a tiny child who will in most circumstances, grow. One could argue that this "tiny child" has yet to develop and is nothing more than a microscopic ball of matter so tiny as to be smaller than the tip of a no. 2 pencil.

Yet physical size is not a measure of personhood. No one would argue that a seven-foot-tall basketball player is more human and thus deserving of more rights than say a five-foot-tall professional jockey. We do not imagine that men are more human than women because on average men are larger, so certainly we cannot say that just because a baby or fetus is extremely small he or she is not a person.

Some readers might be protesting that it is a matter of development not just size. Fair enough, but when in human history has development ever been considered a factor in personhood. Society would never consider a three-year-old child less of a person than a 15-year-old child simply because they are not as developed. In the same way, people would never consider a major league baseball player to be more of a person then some plumber who plays beer-league baseball on weekends just because the major leaguer has a more developed physique. So I cannot see how level of development could determine personhood. Every human continues to develop in one way or another for their entire life.

I have also heard that personhood is a factor of dependence. Since an unborn child is total dependent on his or her mother they are not really persons, but I believe this bit of reasoning breaks down since small children are every bit as dependent outside of the womb as they were inside. A six month old child needs his mother every bit as much as a pre-born child does, so certainly dependency cannot determine personhood.

"Yes, but a fetus is still inside a women's body and is even still part of her body," a co-worker once told me when our conversation had drifted to abortion. Really? (I remembered the radio philosopher again. He had posed this question, I copied him.)

That philosopher suggested asking if a woman can have a penis? Sorry, I know it is a little abrasive. You see, if the child in the womb was really part of the mother's body than for the space of nine months a woman could potentially have a penis, since the little body inside her, if it is a boy, has a penis. I use this extreme example to make the point. No one really believes that a child is part of the mother's body. The underlying argument then is one of location, some seem to believe that location -specifically inside or outside of a womb-is the determining factor in personhood. But again, can location really be the test for personhood?

Is a grown man or woman more of a person in New York than in Philadelphia? If not then how can the length of a birth canal determine your right to life?

If then, personhood starts at the moment of conception, as I believe abortion is the ending of person's life. Since I believe it is wrong to end life, I believe abortion is wrong. My reading of the facts of personhood, as I understand them, forces me to this conclusion. Yes, I make certain other presuppositions. I assume that people have a right to life. I assume that people should not be killed etc. etc.

I hope you believe I have been reasonable and fair as I explained why I believe abortion is wrong. There are other--more emotion driven, perhaps-- arguments that you may want to consider too.

First, the child in the womb feels pain when she is aborted. Dr. Jean A. Wright, associate professor of pediatrics and anesthesia at Emory University School of Medicine, testified before the U.S. Congress in 1997 that the baby does feel pain and, in fact, suffers during abortion procedures, especially partial-birth abortion.

Second, children sometimes survive abortion. For example, a Florida women is blaming a Florida clinic for the death of her son, Rowan, whom she tried to abort. Seems Rowan was still alive after the procedure, but clinic workers refused to provide first aid or call 911 for the child, who later died. Also a 2000 article in The New American listed the names of several people who had been aborted but lived. Those survivors include, "Gianna Jessen, Jim Kelly, Sarah Smith, Sarah Brown, (and) Ana Rosa Rodriguez."

Last, abortion is taking a toll on our society. By some estimates more than 43 million children have been aborted in the United States since the procedure became legal. Among those lost were, no doubt, future scientists, doctors, statesman, and workers that our society will miss. Some argue that the world is over crowded, but fact is we need people.

I quote from Patrick J. Buchanan's The Death of the West, "As a growing population has long been a mark of healthy nations and rising civilizations, falling populations have been a sign of nations and civilizations in decline."