Abortion Foes and the False Piety of Life's Sanctity
Nothing reveals more clearly the true nature of abortion opponents than the murder of a doctor who performs the procedure.
Dr. George Tiller was killed on Sunday, May 31 in his local church, where was serving as an usher. Yes, the national anti-abortion groups condemn the murder and trot out the usual, "we denounce vigilantism" and we "work through peaceful, legal means." Nice words, but they ring hollow. Randall Terry, a founder of Operation Rescue, responded to Tiller's murder by noting that doctor, whose clinic he protested against as a "murder mill," was a "mass murderer." His concern was not for the obvious hypocrisy of a murder committed on behalf of his "pro-life" cause. No, he said, "I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions." Now that is revealing. Is murder an effective action that needs defense? Remember that Terry recently called Obama "an agent of death" for his support for a woman's right to control her own reproductive destiny.
Let us look at the rationale for many of those who oppose abortion. A primary argument rests on the notion that life is sacred. Indeed, the very term "sanctity of life" is code for opposition to abortion, supposedly indicating a pious regard for all things living. But nothing could be further from the truth. Cows, pigs, goats and sheep are alive, but killing them for food is not questioned. Hunting big game for sport is just fine. But since cows and big game are alive, the unctuous appeal to the "sanctity of life" is absurd. Plants are alive, but I suspect the "sanctity" part only applies to animals. What abortion opponents mean is that some forms of life, that only they have the right to define, are sacred, while others can be disregarded as long as they give the okay.
Perhaps, then, the "sanctity of life" really applies only to human beings. No, that does not work either because abortion foes do not view all human life as sacred; only some life. For example, killing in war is justified, as is lethal injection for convicted criminals. Opponents of abortion are almost universally in favor of the death penalty. Killing an intruder in your home is acceptable. How can one possibly hold these beliefs and claim to believe at the same time that "all life" is sacred? The contradiction is stark, and the assault on logic and reason beyond comprehension.
Pushing the "sanctity of life" becomes particularly problematic when murders are committed for the cause. Those proudly proclaiming support for the sanctity of life support nothing of the kind. The truth is that these folks believe life is sacred on a case-by-case basis, hardly a founding principle.
Nobody likes abortion. That is not the question being debated. Prevention, not abortion, is the vastly preferred method of family planning. Abortion is an invasive surgical technique, physically and psychologically traumatic, expensive, and potentially dangerous. Whereas responsible adult sex should be as frequent as desired, unwanted pregnancy should be exceptional rather than routine. Part of the adult responsibility commensurate with having an active sex life is prudent and careful use of contraception. Abortion should not be viewed as a contraceptive given the procedures emotional and physical complications. However, if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, a women's right to choose her own reproductive destiny must be protected.
Alright, let us say for the sake of argument that the sanctity of life argument really does only apply to humans, and only to some humans as defined by abortion foes. Even that concession does not lead to any logical conclusion. Abortion foes claim, as a secondary argument, that the procedure is murder based on the notion that a fertilized egg has the same suite of rights enjoyed by all humans. The belief that a few cells derived from a fertilized egg is a human being is a sad example of good intentions based on misguided notions of biology. The small ball of cells is potentially a human being, but so are eggs and sperm, even if to an unequal degree. All require certain conditions to realize the potential to become human. Ovulation and male masturbation would be acts of murder by the same logic that confers the status of humanness on a fertilized egg or early-stage embryo.
Somewhere between a just-fertilized egg and a baby about to exit the birth canal lies a distinction between potentially human and human. Because that line is difficult to draw does not mean that the line does not exist. Clearly, the division between potentially human and human is increasingly difficult to distinguish with time from conception, but even later stages of the embryo pass milestones that offer important guidelines.
In the absence of a central nervous system, the embryo is incapable of any sensation. Until a brain is formed with a functioning cortex, the embryo has no ability to form any conscious thought. Neural development begins early, but the process is slow relative to other organ systems. The three main lobes that will become the brain form by the 29th day. About six to eight weeks after fertilization, the first detectable brain waves can be recorded, but the brain is not nearly fully formed, and the cortex is little distinguished. Before eight weeks, in the absence of any brain function, the growing embryo is little different in its human potential from a fertilized egg. Abortion at this stage is therefore fully acceptable when the procedure is necessary.
Later stages of growth do not offer a sign as clear as brain development, but the fetus provides another point of determination, although one involving a higher emotional and ethical cost in the hierarchy of decision-making. Before a fetus is capable of living outside the womb at week 23, even with invasive medical intervention, the line from potential to actual human has not been crossed. Before week 23, a premature baby cannot survive. Viability between weeks 23 and 26 is uncertain. After week 26, survival is possible, although lungs do not reach maturity until week 34, and a suite of life-time medical problems can be expected. Medical advances can only push this point of viability so far back toward conception, because functioning lungs, even if not mature, must be present for a fetus to survive outside the womb. No amount of medical intervention before that point of development will change this fundamental fact of biology, which establishes a second threshold for abortion at 23 weeks. A science-fiction scenario of an artificial womb in the far future would not change this calculation of natural embryogenesis.
Beyond the point of viability outside the uterus, the threshold for when an abortion is a reasonable choice becomes significantly higher. I agree that late-term abortions are difficult to justify, except in the extreme case of rape or incest in which the victim had no access to medical care earlier in the pregnancy. But murdering the doctors performing these procedures is not the answer.
Ask yourself this question: when was the last time a pro-choice activist entered a church and gunned down a pro-life activist in front of family and friends? Is it not just a bit odd that the very people who claim that life is sacred are the ones that kill to promote their cause?
The sanctity of life argument is dead; and abortion foes who continue to spout that pious nonsense will have to become vegans who only eat plant products that do not damage in any way the parent plant. If life is truly sacred, eating any plant or animal would be counter to god's will, an idea no more absurd than claiming that eliminating an undifferentiated ball of cells is murder.
The real accessory to murder in this story is Randall Terry.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Just like celibacy, the views on abortion of overzealous lunatics have nothing to do with morals but politics. It's their grand plan of controlling the rest of the world through lobbying power. The more uneducated poor folks are born, the higher their statistics number grew. Those are potential voters whom they will brainwash in believing that the government, (unless it's the Republicans running it) are evil. Not to mention,didn't you notice the attention they pay on immigration issues?
Looks like someone out there is looking for a new Holy Roman Emperor
I found really interesting that after all the complaints about an 'activist court' and 'legislating from the bench' and 'forcing legal abortion on an unwilling public' that when South Dakota voted down their anti-abortion proposition, so that 'the democratic process' spoke and said NO, ProLife organizations insisted that the voters hadn't understood what they were doing.
Wow. That was incredibly dumb.
I haven’t laughed this much for a week. Only eat plant products that do not damage in any way the parent plant? That was rich, absolutely rich. Talk about an argument that doesn’t worry about what it’s arguing against. I think I can rest that the sanctity of life position is safe thus far.
See Jeff Schweitzer's Profile
Perhaps not surprisingly, you missed the intended irony of the suggestion. The idea was meant to be absurd as a reference to how ridiculous the idea is that pro-life advocates believe in the sanctity of life. You do understand irony, right?
And if you laughed that much from this, either you need to get out more or take life a bit less seriously on a more regular basis.
As a WOMAN, the only sex of the human animal capable so far of BECOMING PREGNANT and GIVING BIRTH, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY object to any MALE defining, explaining, rationalizing, objectifying or clinging to the concept that they have ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER to force me, by making laws, taking away rights, removing access and committing crimes in the name of THEIR beliefs. WHEN, HOW, WHY, WHERE or IF we become pregnant and give birth is the FUNDAMENTAL right of any woman. This 'fetus fanaticism' has nothing to do with 'respect for life'...if that were true, more 'Right-to-Lifers' would adopt unwanted children (as there are many available around the world, in desperate need of a loving home), work tirelessly for child care reforms and education, make unwanted pregnancies rare by funding better and more widely available contraception, and by using the same energy and forceful tactics for protecting women in difficult situations instead of criminalizing them and terrorizing them with archaic laws. Instead, the 'Right-to-Lifers' are committed to keeping women in roles of subservience and helplessness. Most of these fanatics are deeply troubled men with serious issues involving their relationships with the women in their lives, past and present. I will not tolerate ANY MAN dictating to me, the terms of my biology...
See Jeff Schweitzer's Profile
Of course I agree with you in principle, as my blog would indicated. I fully and vigorously support a woman's right to choose her own reproductive destiny. I agree the government has no right to interfere with the decisions you make personally and with your doctor about your body. I agree that pro-lifers are anything but pro-life, and that their position is rife with hypocrisy and inconsistency.
But I also think there are practical limitations to all rights -- we can't kill our children when they become annoying for example even though they are our children. It has nothing to do with males dictating to females, any more than our laws against infaticide are gender oriented. Here is a question to ponder: would it be OK to abort a baby that is about to enter the birth canal for a normal delivery? What about when the baby is in the birth canal, but not yet through it? How about after the baby is born but still connected to the umbilical cord?
At some point during pregancy, but before birth, however late you may personally wish to define the moment, there comes a time when the fetus becomes a fully functioning human being. At that point, whenever you personally accept that point to occur, wouldn't you agree that the baby assumes the rights of a person?
I agree with you in principle and mostly in practice. I just believe that there are practical considerations that must be accommodated as well.
There is a very practical reason for bestowing 'personhood' on a fetus after birth -- to bestow that status before birth would require all stillbirths to be investigated as possible murders.
Due to the fact that ONE-THIRD of deliveries are made by caesarean section, It is rare these days for a healthy child not to make it through the birth process alive, but it does happen. Pregnancy and delivery are chancy. To talk about the 'fully functioning human being' before they have successfully taken their first breath is ingenuous. It is only AFTER they take the first breath that they actually ARE a fully functioning human being.
Sadly, one in 115 babies, often greatly desired and eagerly awaited, do not take that breath and cannot be revived. The police do not have the time or expertise to investigate 52,000 stillbirths every year.
This article is full of leaps in logic and false contradictions. First off, to compare an embryo or blastula to an individual sperm or egg is ridiculous. Left to themselves, a spermatozoa is simply that, and will die off, as an ovum will pass during menstruation. However, left to itself (that is without any man-made interruptions in which nature takes its course) a zygote, blastula (whichever stage you want to start with post-fertilization) will develop into a human being. In that sense, the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg is the earliest point at which a human being will be produced if left undisturbed. Masturbation, in which individual sperm are "wasted" (not that it matters since they are constantly dying off in your seminal vesicles every second anyway) are not potential life if left alone. A conscious human decision must still be made for that to happen. As to whether an embryo or fetus is a human being to you is obviously a different argument in which two good people can disagree on. As someone in the biology field who has frequented many human museums in which fetuses are shown to you up close, it becomes a common sense matter to me that these "creatures" are human and are simply waiting their chance to get a life like you and I.
And a fertilized egg which doesn't spend at least 25 weeks inside another human being with full rights will die just as quickly as the unfertilized egg or spermatozoa!!
See Jeff Schweitzer's Profile
You claim my blog is full of leaps of logic and false contradictions (or any true?), and then go on to attempt to prove that with odd leaps of logic and contradictions. A sperm or egg will die off, but so too will a fertilized egg if not implanted in the uterus, which most do, without any man-made interruptions as you put it. If left undisturbed, the vast majority of fertilized eggs do not succesfully implant. Eggs, sperm and fertilized egg require a series of steps to remain viable -- you arbitrarily start the clock ticking once a sperm has penetrated the egg. It is nothing but that -- arbitrary. I too am in the "biology field" with a Ph.D. in neurophysiology -- so appealing to that authority in this case is not useful. If you believe that life begins at conception, you cannot get around the fact that you believe that a single cell, undifferentiated, undivided, is a human life. Because that is exactly what a fertilized egg is - a single undifferentiated cell. How about when the sperm has attached to the egg surface, but not yet penetrated the cell wall? Is that a human?
A fertilized egg that does not implant in the uterus need never be aborted. A sperm need never be aborted. An egg need never be aborted. Schweitzer's reference to these is therefore a textbook canard.
Schweitzer is very confident about when life does not begin, but he never seems to say when he thinks life does begin. Not at fertilization. What about at implantation in the uterus? 6, 10, 15, 22, weeks? Birth? High school? When?
I knew we've civilized, but since we're talking biology we should understand that reproduction is an individual's means of populating the species with their own genes - survival of the fittest and all that. That is by no means a right - it's a privilege for which individuals have fought since before antiquity. If people choose, for whatever reason, to destroy their own offspring, how is it society's responsibility to prevent them from doing it? Extend that reasoning: if the child is born but abandoned or unsupported, is it then automatically society's resonsibility to raise, nurture, and assure the prosperity of that child? Does the mere act of birth require everybody else to be the child's parent?
We are animals, after all. Part of being "the fittest" is passing along healthy genes and then protecting, nurturing and supporting the result. If, for whatever reason, voluntary or involuntary, that does not happen, well, welcome to evolution.
roflmao
Thank you ... I needed a good laugh.
Perhaps the No-Choicers should think of abortion as very early capital punishment, since they seem to have no problem with that.
Or they could consider it a "premature" death in a future war.
And perhaps the All-Choicers should think of murder as very late-term abortion, since they seem to have no problem with that...
My first reaction: This article is brilliant, but logic and science are useless in this particular debate.
Then, I reconsidered: Only part of the "right to life" movement is immune to reason. Their buzz words and slogans have probably drawn in people who like life and babies and haven't necessarily given the issue a great deal of thought. Making a reasonable argument is rarely, if ever, useless.
For people who are open to reason, this article makes some important points and backs them up well. Oversimplification is a consistent tactic in anti-abortion rhetoric, so it makes sense to point out that most people, even most anti-abortion activists, do not hold all life sacred. It's also useful to examine assumptions about when life begins, or when cells become a person, and to explore the serious problems that can make abortion a terrible option which is better than any of the alternatives available to a woman (or girl) and her doctor at a given time.
One more detail to support the points in this article:
Many people die all the time of treatable problems, including hunger and disease; yet right-to-lifers are not famous for advocating programs to provide food and medicine to people who need them. They aren't lining up to donate kidneys. In fact, statistically, they're more likely to oppose social safety net programs that help people survive - including the very people they are so determined to bring into this world, regardless of the circumstances.
That's right, figuring out when life begins is also more than likely above your "pay grade".
So by your logic, not all pro-lifers hold all life sacred, so we should then hold none of it sacred....
Maybe some pro-lifers oppose "safety net" programs run by the government because they only perpetuate the misery, and line the pockets of fat-cat bureaucrats. Here is an article from that conservative right wing group - ABC News - which disproves your drivel about the charitable giving of conservatives.
http://abc
No, my logic is that these serious issues deserve serious consideration, not oversimplification.
And the link you provided does not address the point in my comment, which is about right-to-lifers opposing "social safety net programs that help people survive," not about "the charitable giving of conservati
Sin is the enemy. It removes the believer from the Light. If we sin, we are to confess and God will forgive us, but always the intent of the Christian remains the same--not to commit sin.
Joy in suffering for the cause of Jesus is the focus of the New Testament. The persecution that Christians suffer while standing up for righteousness and against sin should be our cause for rejoicing!
God is love.
What "sin" did my sister Kathryn commit to DESERVE that her ENTIRE life be spent in abject misery and pain; fighting for her very LIFE?
THAT is something that NONE of you holier-than-thou "Christians" who claim to be "pro-life" can't answer.
WHAT WAS HER SIN?
There was no sin.
Sometimes suffering stretches us to our limits because there is no way we can understand it.
Just because there is no explaination that will comfort you yet doesn't mean that you will never find an answer.
There is a misconception that many have about christians that they will take to their graves... being a christian does NOT mean anything..
The reason so many people hate christians are too numerous to count... anyone who wants to follow the teachings of Jesus should always begin by learning what Jesus taught.
I found it very hard to believe until I concentrated on Jesus and his teachings.
Anyway... I will pray for you...
That guy does parodies. Check out his profile. Don't take it seriously.
It takes real balls for a man to really love a woman.
And some men just don't have balls so they want to force a pregnancy on a woman to prove their manhood by exerting control.
"The bravest thing that men do is love women” Mort Sahl
RIP Dr. Tiller and thank you.
Why do some men take it personally? Why do some men condemn women they don't even know?
If some men are so concerned about dead babies, why the he.ck are they not in line to adopt?
Anyone?
I have no answers for you... but I have 6 adopted children.
I swoon in admiration of you. Very grateful for your strength. Thank you for contributing to the discussion and for sharing your story about your sister, Kathryn. RIP.
Conservatives aren't in it "for the kids", they are in it for the hate.
Honestly, they couldn't care less about children. Look at how they treat children after they are born. "For the kids" is just another one of their vapid talking points.
Bronze Age? Wow, I guess modern understanding of History is not required for these Posts. But seeing as you enjoy abortion so much, I guess the sacrifice of humans to the sun god probably sounds appealing Gidster.
The FACT that life begins at conception is as basic as 2 parts H + 1 part O = water. If viability is the standard, then lets abandon all NICUs worldwide. That is how absurd Mr. Schweitzer is. While we're at it, lets dump all other non-contributing members of society. Spoken like a true Eugenecist, congratulations.
p.s. by his actions, the killer of tiller ceased being a PRO-LIFER.
WRONG!!!
If life begins at conception, then it begins BEFORE that, since the cells which combine to create the zygote are both alive, right??? I guess that means that you're going to outlaw mast-ur-bation next, right????
See Jeff Schweitzer's Profile
Lots of anger and sarcams, but not much logic or sense in any of that. The notion that life begins at conception is absurd at every level; you arbitrarily define a one-cell fertilized egg as being life while saying that the sperm and egg are not. None of those, sperm, egg or zygote can become a human until a huge range of contingent events takes place -- saying one is alive and not the other has no basis in biology. You state not a fact but a theological position unsupported by biology. Of course viability is a standard -- would you believe it murder to extract a dead egg from a woman? Your position is strongly held, but based on faith, not logic. Don't rest your position on science because the facts don't support your cause.
If it is not alive, then why must it be killed?
Wouldn't you at least admit that, in the normal course of things, a fertilized egg will continue to grow and develop in the womb until it is one day born alive?
Can the same be said of a sperm or an egg?
So much for "absurdity at every level."
See Jeff Schweitzer's Profile
You state that the killer ceased being pro-llife; he obviously disagrees, and holds his beliefs as strongly as you do yours. But since both are based on faith rather than logic, there is no way to arbitrate between the two beliefs. So why would we believe your conclusion and not the killer's contention that he is more pro-life because he is willing to act?
Neither of you is actually pro-life if you don't hold all life sacred.
What is truly absurd is not my logically stated position, but pro-lifers who believe in killing people and animals in other circumstances as long as pro-lifers designate it as OK: war, criminals, intruders, other animals. Now that is absurd.
I always get concerned when people start saying that life begins at conception.
I start imagining women having to notify the "Office Reproduction" of their period and if a women has engaged in sex, she must, her partner, or anyone knowing of a sex act must report that woman to the "Office of Reproduction" to so that woman can be monitored.
"Neither of you is actually pro-life if you don't hold all life sacred."
Does this logic then lead to saying I can't be actually pro-choice if I don't hold all choice sacred? Or do all who would claim to be pro-choice agree that any and every choice anyone else makes is okay? Seems to me that's where your logic leads in this case, but you can't possibly mean that. I certainly wouldn't anymore than I would say those who are for legal abortion are "anti-life
This discussion is in a certain context: abortion. In that context, the phrase has a specific connotation (namely, to be against abortion.) To argue against the title by stripping the term of its context, and to then assail it, is a logical fallacy. It doesn't help anyone to argue against labels, and it's especially disingenous to do so when you know full well what the pro-life label is meant to infer in the context of this discussion.
Enjoy abortion?
Did you just say that this guy "enjoys abortion?"
Why would you say that?
I think maybe you either don't know what "enjoy" means, or you don't know what "abortion" means.
I'm thinking, the former.
All this misses the obvious and rarely-reported fact that if you believe that "life begins at conception" then it's not just abortion, it's virtually all forms of contraception that are also "murder." IUDs and birth control pills work, not by preventing conception, but by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. There is no line that can be drawn other than conception for so-called "pro-life" advocates. People need to understand that granting any part of their political argument means outlawing contraception.
Actually, it's still not known how the pill works, whether it's by preventing fertilization or implantation. You would also need to start investigating miscarriages as negligent homicides, since her "child" would be dead!
The birth control pill does indeed work by preventing ovulation. There is no evidence whatsoever that it works by preventing implantation. Considering that skipping one pill may mean a pregnancy, any argument to the contrary is based on 'can't prove it doesn't happen'.
My little sister Kathryn was born BEFORE Roe v Wade. She was 18 inches long at birth. She weighed about 4 pounds. She was born SEVERELY disabled..
My mother saw her ONE time... in the mirror of the delivery room. Mom never got to hold Kathryn. Mom never got to look at her tiny face. Mom didn't even get to attend Kathryn's funeral and didn't KNOW where Kathryn was buried for 30 years.
Mom was a DEEPLY Christian woman, she didn't just "talk the talk"... she walked the walk. When she was being treated for brain cancer WE had a discussion about Kathryn and I ASKED her IF she would have had an abortion IF it had been an option when she was pregnant for Kathryn. My deeply Christian mother looked me square in the eyes and, with NO hesitation, said "YES!".
I don't help fight to keep abortion legal for myself OR for my daughters. I fight because my sweet, completely innocent little sister spent her ENTIRE LIFE suffering and dying... and NOBODY DESERVES TO BE FORCED to "live" their entire life like that!
So in agreement here. It's cruel to sentence a life of suffering even if it's only for hours only to die.
But I guess some men still think they are entitled to control a pregnancy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
