Pro Life

Malcolm Rae

Philosophy 230

October 18, 2002 (revised in 2004)

Malaspina University-College

Note from 2004: The only exception for making the allowance of "pro-choice" is when doctors can do nothing more to save both the mother and her conceptus due to unsolvable complications. Such an exception is the particular case, for example, where a pregnant woman would otherwise die due to the severe complications of her growing conceptus and, in all honesty, nothing else can be done by doctors to save both the mother and the conceptus. However, the issue at hand is about abortions that DO NOT have to occur, and yet are still performed - needlessly.

Note from 2005: It is better to hope for a miracle rather than deny the opportunity.

Abortion has become a complex social issue, but it need not be. There are some important, yet basic, issues concerning life that surround this topic. However, other issues that are also life-related have been unnecessarily brought into this topic by abortion supporters, issues that are mistakenly brought into this much debated subject, and unwisely call for our attention. It is evident that certain unnecessary claims have been added by those who are deceived, and deceive others. Such deceiving argument includes irrelevant claims concerning the issue at hand. Claims that are out of place and include assuming points, such as: humans (women of particular interest) have a right to their own bodies, a *conceptus is not a human being or person, and suffering ought be avoided. This essay will demonstrate that such claims are not necessarily true, and that they are in a way out of context with the subject of abortion. The final portion of this essay will emphasize a certain basic, and central, reason for pro-life argument, this being that all life is precious, so the pro-life decision is simply the natural choice.

“Pro-choice” supporters claim that a woman’s body is her own, therefore, women should be allowed to make their own decisions concerning abortion. They claim that a woman’s ability to have personal independence and capacity to make moral decisions and act on them, is key in understanding why they should be allowed to abort (this idea stems from “moral autonomy argument” [Koggel 41-42]). Abortion supporters suppose that “the freedom to choose” especially applies when a conceptus puts a woman’s life is at risk. In such a risk, whose life should be chosen here, they ask: the life of the conceptus, or the life of the mother? My answer is that neither life should be preferred over the other. Yet Judith Jarvis Thomson asks: “If mother and child have equal right to life, shouldn’t we perhaps flip a coin” [Koggel 63]? But this is not an “either-or” dilemma. In any case, no “coin flipping" applies here. The point here is that because mother and child have an equal right to life (as Thomson points out) then an effort should be made equally to save both lives. A conceptus’ life must not be preferred more than it’s mother’s, nor a mother’s life more than her conceptus. A doctor, who is suppose to save life, must not assume that he has license to do what is contrary. And even though it is true that every person does, to some extent, have a capacity to decide certain things, this capacity has nothing to do with abortion, because abortion, contrary to a woman’s body (which is a thing that naturally functions to preserve and nurture life - particularly the life of a conceptus), unnaturally destroys life. So there are no morals involved here. Yet according to abortion activists, women are said to have a right to their own bodies, and this means that they can do unto their bodies as they wish, so this means that they should be allowed whether or not to choose to abort. But this is clearly a deception. For abortion is contrary to not only to the life of the conceptus, it is also contrary to the natural abilities of a woman’s own body.

The assumption that a women’s body is her own, and thus, so is her conceptus, is false. Yet building from this idea, abortionists’ argument assumes that the conceptus, or “fetus,” is merely a part of a women’s body, hence it is her property, and therefore it is her decision as to whether or not this conceptus should live. However, the facts demonstrate quite the contrary. A conceptus has a different DNA than the mother. It’s blood is not just of its mother’s only, so it is a distinct life form from its mother. Although a conceptus lives in its mother’s womb and is dependant on its mother, it nonetheless has some kind of father, therefore, if a conceptus is understood as “property,” it should also be understood as “property” of a father, and not something that is as mere a body part, belonging only to the mother. But we are perhaps somewhat at fault for merely labeling the conceptus to be either (or both) a mother or father’s “property.” Can life be owned? The life of a conceptus is something that will fight for itself, even if it is a losing fight. This is evident, for in viewing ultra sound videos of abortion it is clear that the conceptus greatly resists the tools that seek to destroy it.

Unfortunately, abortionists fail to see the natural sovereignty of the human body. A certain life-form (regardless of what it is) should be understood to have a will of itself, for it is evident that a life-form naturally desires to live. One’s own body is an example. The power and will of one’s body itself (distinct from our own wishes) cannot be ignored. For example, the body’s miraculous and natural ability to heal on its own, without human intervention, demonstrates the fact that a living body is both a powerful, and distinct, entity in itself. And although advanced, and highly manipulative, technologies are within our hands, the fact remains that no human necessarily has ultimate ownership, and power, over his or her body. Therefore, our bodies do not necessarily need our decisions. Our bodies can do things aside from our own choice. Our bodies will fight for survival. This being the case, in this sense, woman should not necessarily call her body “her own” unless she is truly living in agreement with it. Unfortunately, abortion supporters fail to understand the body as something distinct from their own choice. They have no appreciation for the body in this respect. According to Nada L. Stotland, M.D “...abortion is the exercise of a woman’s right to control what happens in her own body” [70] (my italics). According to Suzanne T. Poppema, M.D., “patriarchies past and present have endeavored to keep women from managing the matters of their own bodies...” [22]. According to Thomson “Women have said again and again ‘This body is my body’” [Koggel 64]! But here, all such abortion supporters error, for they assume that a woman owns her body and can choose, and have the power, to “save” her own body and life - but ultimately, she cannot. And the truth is that the practice of abortion only demeans a woman, because it is unnatural and causes unnecessary stress to a woman’s body and life, when the living body itself should ultimately be respected as it naturally consists - as a healing entity, and life-choosing entity, of itself. The body naturally fights to save itself and nurture life. One should not oppose this fight. But if this fighting is opposed or interfered with, the one who does this interfering only causes more harm. The act of abortion is a presuming interference with what is natural. It is naturally in a woman’s bodily capacity, nature, and being, to sustain a living conceptus and eventually give it birth. The act of abortion, and the support of abortion, insults the very nature of the human body (particularly a women’s body), for the nature of the human body naturally functions to increase and sustain life. Such insulting and the act of “terminating” ruin a fundamental part of who both men and woman are, and how they consist. It inflicts a mockery on the sovereignty of the human body. A person’s own body, and every other human body or entity, has abilities of itself, distinct from one’s own wishes, and ought to be understood to have a dignity of its own right, and be ultimately, and naturally, given the unconditional opportunity to live. Such opportunity might well be contrary to one’s own decision-making capacity, however, it is not up to a woman or doctor, here, to make such presuming “life or death” decisions. For the body itself, and the conceptus life-form itself, ultimately, and naturally, fight for life.

Another falsely placed argument that abortionists use, is the notion that suffering should be avoided. Suzanne T. Poppema, M.D. claims: “for me, running an abortion clinic and teaching others to do this work is the best I can do to help alleviate misery at every level of society” [23] (my italics). However, on the contrary, Valmai Howe Elkins, refers to Helen Heardman's A Way to Natural Child Birth, in which “...Heardman defines ‘natural childbirth’ as being attained ‘when on the physical plane, labor is physiological and unobstructed, and on the mental plane the mother is unafraid, reaching the climax of the actual birth fully conscious, confident and joyous” [74] (my italics). Elkins also claims that many of the women in her classes “...manage to experience a pain-free birth...” and “most of the rest can report a comfortable rewarding one, in spite of far from ideal hospital conditions” [87]. Of course suffering that is negative should be avoided, but to assume that giving birth is negative, is completely out of context to the continuance of life. It is evident that there are some women who believe that not only is giving birth joyful occasion, even though it might be painful, it is also, nonetheless, an experience healthier then having an abortion. There is also evidence to prove this. There are now studies that demonstrate that abortion is not as “misery alleviating” as it’s “pro-choice” advocates claim it to be. According to Susan Martinuk:

“...27 of 35 studies have demonstrated a link between abortion and breast cancer. A 1996 review study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health showed that abortion could increase the risk of breast cancer by 30 per cent or more, depending on factors such as mother's age and the month the pregnancy was terminated. The link is related to breast cells that undergo a process of differentiation as they prepare to produce milk. An abortion stops this process prior to completion, and these active, yet undifferentiated cells therefore have a higher risk of becoming cancerous” (The Province, Wednesday July 18, 2001, pA20).

If suffering should be avoided then “termination” should by no means be inflicted on the conceptus because it will not only cause a harsh death for the conceptus (a death that the conceptus clearly tries to resist), it also appears to increase the risk for breast cancer.

Because there is no evident “point” when one actually becomes a “complete” human being; regarding the conceptus, abortion supporters suppose that it is advantageous for them to use such confusing argument. But such confusion, here, only sidetracks people from the immediate issues at hand. Even though it is evident from ultra sounds that a conceptus greatly resists abortion tools, abortionists still attempt to defend this act by misapplying a good, but somewhat out of context question: when does one actually become a person or a human being? Jane English states that “the several factions in abortion argument have drawn battle lines around various proposed criteria for what is and what is not a person” [73]. Using this complicated question, the abortionist argument suggests that it is okay to “terminate” a conceptus on the premise that such a life-form is not really a person - it is too underdeveloped. Concerning the embryo, Nada states that its abilities “...to think, feel, and suffer like a human being... develop gradually, but research into the growth of the human brain indicates that they probably do not occur until relatively late in pregnancy, much later than the vast majority of abortions...” [59]. But it makes no sense to argue this way in support of abortion, because it is clear that the definition of a “person” has many meanings. Yet abortionists try to restrain, box-up, contain, and limit, this definition (even though it is impossible) in order to fit their agenda. They believe that a “fetus” cannot possibly be a person. Yet a conceptus is a life form that consists of humans, so it is human. It is a unique kind of human and person. However, if abortion supporters will not admit this truth, the fact remains that such a life-form is still, nonetheless, a living thing. The “person” argument, then, side-tracks from the issue at hand. The point is, do no needlessly kill life. The nature of this life is irrelevant.

Upon seeing such misused abortionists’ argument, the pro-life argument is one that should be even more truly embraced. Regardless of how miserable life might seem to be, it is still nonetheless precious. For life is something that is miraculous, and not something that we can necessarily control of our own wills. Our life experience, then, is indeed a gift, so we should never needlessly take this gift from potential persons; regardless of how underdeveloped they might be, or regardless of the possible future suffering of the mother or the conceptus. To suppose such suffering is speculation. It is far more rational to allow new life opportunities, rather than needlessly destroy them. “Pro-choice” is anti-choice because it supports that which is unnatural, “terminated,” and dead. It is also anti-choice because it supports closing the door to the priceless opportunity and happiness that only a child can bring - an opportunity that is singularly unique.

So it has been demonstrated that the topic of abortion has been made out to be a complex issue by abortion supporters. However, this paper has attempted to make clear that such complexity of abortionists’ argument (particularly surrounding such items as the human body, the conceptus, as well as notions of suffering), claims facts that are in a way irrelevant, or misused, in order to suit their wishes of abortionists’ movement. Abortions shut down unique, new-life, opportunities. So ultimately, regardless of all the various “complex” abortion issues, seeing that life is precious and something beyond mere human device, one should then allow such unique, new-life, opportunities. Such opportunities are within the conceptus - a unique life-form that should not be destroyed.