Restating My Thesis:
Premise 1: All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.
Premise 2: Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.
This is a valid argument.
Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. For more on validity and arguments go here. For a further treatment of my thesis go here.
Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:
- The objection on the being of the fetus.
- Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
- Objections from the lesser evil.
- Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
- The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
- The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat. a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."
In this post I address the fourth group of objections: Objections from "women's health."
The objection concerning endangering the mother’s life
The
fourth objection troubles some pro-lifers:
what if the mother’s life is in danger and an abortion will keep her
alive? Some pro-abortionists will throw
this objection back to the pro-life side.
If the intentional act of taking a human life is wrong, and if some
innocent woman is about to die because of complications in pregnancy or
delivery, then those who have forbidden abortion have intentionally done
something that ends the life of an innocent human being, therefore, abortion
should be legal at least in the case when a woman’s life is in danger.
This
is a very popular starting point for pro-abortionists. They cloak abortion under the mantra of
“women’s health” or “women’s reproductive health.” They hide the killing of the unborn baby by
redirecting the argument to a potentially life-saving procedure towards the
mother.
Response to objections concerning saving the mother’s life
There are two cases to this objection and they must be dealt with
separately. The first is the case where continuing
the pregnancy will result in the death of both the mother and the baby unless
an abortion is performed. The second is
the case where it is highly likely that one or the other will die, but it is
highly unlikely that both will die. I
will answer the first, but I will leave my answer for the second to a later
time because it goes into the Principle of Double Effect. This is beyond the scope of this post.
Save One Life or None?
In the case that it is likely that both mother and child will die, I think it is clear that an abortion is the right thing to do. This is neither inconsistent nor contrary to my argument. Here’s why. We are faced with a dilemma: either only one person lives or none live.
This is not the same as the
dilemma to kill one or to kill two.
Nor
is it the same as the dilemma to let one live or to let two die.
I am not playing a game of semantics
here. In this case it is certain
that the baby will die no matter what course of action is chosen. Sadly, nothing can be done to stop that. An abortion will not change the outcome for
the baby, but it will save the life of the mother in this case. Saving the life of one person - and not at
the expense of another person’s life
- is a noble act.
In the case at hand,
the baby is developing, not in a good way, but in a destructive way to two lives. Something
is fatally wrong with the natural process - not just to one human being, but to
two human beings.
A life is saved by
stopping the pregnancy. Not stopping this pregnancy is an act that will intentionally end the life of a human being (the
mother). This is in agreement with my thesis. I could easily say that the
pro-abortionists are in agreement with my pro-life position in this instance; that
is, acting in a way that saves an innocent human life.
Notice I am not stating that the abortion is performed simply because the baby has a disease (Downs Syndrome, bone deformity, etc). I am not saying an abortion is permitted because of the baby is not "perfect." It is morally wrong to perform an abortion merely because the baby has a disease, deformity, or even a life-ending complication. In these cases the baby should be born and allowed to live out his or her natural life the best we can provide. We should try to save the child's life in cases of disease. We should care for the sick. We don't kill innocent humans beings simply because they're less than perfect.
The case here, when baby is certain to die and the mother will likely die, permits aborting the pregnancy so the mother can live. A life is saved, but not at the cost of another innocent life.
A Few Statistics on Abortion and Women's Health:
Even the abortionists admit that in their own research:
"The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner.[4]"
There you have it from their own research. Most abortions are not performed for saving the life of the woman. Most abortions are for the convenience of the woman.
The Center for Disease Control states:
"Many studies show that an increasing number of pregnant women in the United States have chronic health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and chronic heart disease. These conditions may put a pregnant woman at higher risk of pregnancy complications. Although the overall risk of dying from pregnancy complications is low, some women are at a higher risk than others. The higher pregnancy-related mortality ratios during 2009-2011 are due to an increase in infection and sepsis deaths. Many of these deaths occurred during the 2009-2010 influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 pandemic which occurred in the United States between April 2009 and June 2010. Influenza deaths accounted for 12 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths during that 15 month period."
The danger to pregnant women is not the baby in the womb, but other diseases that can be treated with methods other than abortion! In fact, the abortion does not even treat the disease above. Stop killing the innocent unborn and claim it's for the health of the woman.
The CDC also states :
"Of the 3,404 deaths within a year of pregnancy termination that occurred during 2011-2012 and were reported to CDC, 1,329 were found to be pregnancy-related. The pregnancy-related mortality ratios were 17.8 and 15.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2011 and 2012, respectively."
That is, in 2012, 0.0159 % of pregnancies resulted in the death of the mother. For the same year, there were 669,202 abortions in the United States reported to the CDC.
According to the CDC and assuming approximately half of all babies are female, there were approximately 334,601 females killed during an abortion in 2012.
Abortion is not about a female's health.
The pro-abortion arguments that abortion is all about women's health are invalid.
End Note:
There is help for those who have participated in an abortion. Rachel's Vineyard is a wonderful resource and place for healing.
