Abortion Risks Too Much

The following is a test of your reasoning system. If you really were being asked to reason, then it would follow that things would change upon the conclusion of this article, but since this is just a test…wait no it’s not a test, this is the real thing, better buckle up cowperson (see I can be PC) things are going to get bumpy!

There are presently many, many wonderful and compelling (for those who want to listen) arguments against Abortion. My goal is simply to give a small, but powerful one here.

Reason requires us always to consider the greater picture within which our point is being made, and for us today, Abortion is a very important concern. Simply put, Abortion is either an arguably miniscule benefit to society or one of the greatest evils ever committed in human history. This is our stage and one we cannot forget as we think through this vastly important topic.

While many would argue that Abortion is a great good that must be promoted in our society, I argue that these claims are grossly misrepresented and wickedly perverted. My article isn’t meant to address this concern, but let me simply point out that I see no benefit to people, and I think the data and studies, and experience over the last 100 years, all conclusively demonstrate that for people to have sex with no concern for pregnancy, commitment, nor responsibility for one’s actions, is nothing less than a great corrosive poison to one’s character, self-esteem, happiness, productivity, and value to society. Perhaps upon request, or at another time I will spend the capital flushing this out in greater detail.

Allowing for the most generous counter that Abortion represents a slight good to society, I will now contrast it with what the other side conservatively represents: a pernicious, abominable, and incomprehensible holocaust.

Simply put, if the abortionists are wrong and the pro-lifers correct, then we have, as a world population, murdered hundreds of millions of our own, innocent, defenseless, precious human babies for the simple reason that we thought they would be inconvenient or undesirable to us at this time in our lives. And therefore we have also promoted, among all people, the idea that consequences for one’s actions do not matter, and it is ok, at all costs, to seek to remediate all undesired effects of our actions. Thereby destroying the very essence of character and self-esteem: taking responsibility for one’s actions and doing the right thing no matter the personal consequences and cost; while promoting an ethos of “its ok to harm others as long as I can ignore their suffering and can argue that I was helped by it”.

While the Abortionists want to argue that science is on their side, they are actually pulling a switch-a-roo-con on you, for it isn’t science that is on their side (it is actually against them) but their own twisted philosophy;  true philosophy and science contradict their claims. The Abortionist wants to argue that human personhood is what matters, not life, which is a twisted philosophy in and of itself, and that science cannot tell when personhood begins, therefor they are free to abort babies until they leave the womb, because, I guess the assumption is that a baby isn’t a valuable human being until they are out of the womb (or at least their head crowns: which has no scientific support at all, and is purely philosophical for science cannot comment on non-material things like personhood).

Science actually demonstrates to us that human life begins at conception, period. Therefore, philosophically speaking, which is more reasonable to assume: that personhood begins at conception or sometime after? Yet, if we have no concrete reason to believe or understand when personhood could happen after conception, why would we assume it is the case? I don’t believe in Starwars being real history, not because I cannot conceive of it being so, but because there is no actual evidence or reason to believe it is so. Therefore, how does it make rational sense to assume personhood happens after conception if science cannot comment on it, nor philosophy demonstrate when it happens?

If human life is worth protecting, and is valuable, especially innocent, defenseless life like babies, shouldn’t we take the most conservative and safe position when it comes to abortion and simply agree with science that life begins at conception, and without any other evidence to the contrary, that personhood begins then too?

Abortion should be illegal and strongly resisted (not simply because it is wrong), but because if the abortionist is wrong, then we are guilty of murdering hundreds of millions of babies for reasons that babies shouldn’t be murdered. The risk of abortionists being wrong is too great to allow abortion to legally continue. While the risk of pro-lifer’s being wrong has no real down side. Are we really going to argue that we are dealing with equal moral concerns between the murder of innocent babies by the hundreds of millions, and people being able to have sex consequence free? This is like saying we shouldn’t have tried to stop the holocaust, because we might have been hurting the feelings of Nazi’s.

Leave a Reply