There are few issues in modern politics as divisive and misconstrued as abortion. Both sides of the issue consistently use absurd and dangerous arguments, denouncing each other as ‘baby killers’ or for ‘wanting to oppress women.’ Regardless of the incredible damage this rhetoric does to the integrity of the body politic, which is already suffering from serious political divisions, there is little convincing about being castigated by your opponent as turning a blind eye to murder or promoting bigotry. The overwhelming majority of both sides of the argument have good intentions, and they should be treated as such.
In this article I intend to outline, in a civil and descriptive manner, the secular case against abortion. It is secular not because religious arguments are invalid, but because religious views are not widely shared among the people of this country, and because of the predisposition towards the view that religious morality should have no place in determining American law. The validity (or lack thereof) of these criticisms is not within the purview of this article. It is important to understand that a secular argument against abortion is not simply an attempt to veil an underlying religious motivation. The secular argument is fully capable of standing alone, without any semblance of religious support.
Certain misunderstandings about the pro-life position must be rectified before any serious arguments can begin. First, being pro-life has no relation to a desire to dismantle women’s rights. In fact, women actually outnumber men in proclaiming a pro-life stance, at 51% to 46% (“Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Life”). Being pro-life is about protecting the right the unborn child has to life, the right that is by far the most important. Without a right to life, there is little reason to promote rights of any sort. By the same token, the gender of those passing pro-life legislation is irrelevant. Because the desire is to protect humanity’s most important right, a legislator being a man or a woman has no bearing on the validity or morality of the legislation. It is worth noting, that the oft-criticized Alabama pro-life bill of May 2019, passed by the all-male Alabama Senate, was signed into law by the female governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey. Another common misunderstanding is the prevalence of rape-related abortion. Rape as a cause for abortion accounts for under 1% (about 0.5%) of all abortions, a minute number. The case of rape is often used as the main example of why abortion rights are needed, an argument which, rightfully so, garners much sympathy. But because under 1% of abortions occur because of rape, it is not a valid reason to advocate the mass-availability of abortion. There can be cases made for why abortion should be available to rape victims, but those should be made separately from the main abortion debate. On a similar topic, being pro-life does not mean that abortion should be illegal if the mother’s life is in danger. To the contrary, the mother’s right to life supersedes that of the child, and if there is no effective way to save both mother and child, the mother must come first. Finally, there is no constitutional right to an abortion. The landmark case of Roe v. Wade superficially established some sort of right to abortion, but there is no basis for such a right in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is easily accessible, and it contains nothing regarding or applicable to abortion rights, and the Founding Fathers would never have supported such rights. Roe v. Wade claimed that abortion restrictions infringed upon a woman’s right to privacy, but that is unreasonable. The law restricts people’s rights to privacy in innumerable cases. One does not have the right to privacy when they are restricted from insider trading or theft. Aside from this, the right to privacy does not supersede the right to life of the child, and thus the privacy argument becomes null and void. Roe v. Wade is a fundamentally flawed case, and lacks defensible legal foundations. Of course, it is currently the ‘law of the land,’ but that does not make it right and proper.
With these misunderstandings aside, the central contentions of the secular case against abortion can be fleshed out. First it is important to understand where life begins. To do that, human life has to be defined. It could be defined by consciousness, but then the act of killing a person in a severe coma, vegetative state, under anesthesia, or when blacked out (all of which entail a lack of consciousness) would not be murder (which it is classified as under the law), so that definition is out of the question. It could be defined as the moment the fetus exits the birth canal, but a few inches of tissue should not distinguish life from a lack thereof. A baby is capable of surviving before natural birth, as in the case of a cesarean section or an early birth for example. Under certain circumstances, the fetus could grow and develop without the mother at all, so birth itself can not be an indicator of life. It could also be defined as the time at which a human can live independent of another human. The issue here is that infants, toddlers, and children up to their teenage years are incapable of living without parental care, yet children are considered living and their lives have equal worth as adults.
The only effective definition, that can not be undermined by any other circumstance is that life begins at the point of conception. It is at conception that a totally unique and new sequence of DNA is created, with the meeting of the father’s sperm and mother’s egg. It is that DNA that fundamentally makes a human different from a fish, an apple, or any other organism. And it is from that point of conception that the fetus is able to develop into an adult human being. Thus, conception is the only definition of life that is both universal and can stand up to a rigorous criticism. If life begins at conception, then abortion cannot be morally acceptable, for abortion at any point is the snuffing out of a human life.
To head off any potential naysayers, it is worth positing another thought. If, for whatever reason, one can not accept the definition of life as beginning at the point of conception, then there is another, more philosophical avenue to consider. If life is yet to be defined, and there is no concrete point at which it begins, then one could still not morally justify abortion. Take an analogy (the source of which slips my mind): You were driving down the road at night, and you saw something run out onto the road, yet you were unsure if it was an animal or a child. You have time to swerve off the road, possibly totaling your car, but you know that you will be unharmed. Would you choose to hit whatever it is or swerve? In this analogy, the thing running out on the street is ‘life’ and the car is the pursuit or non-pursuit of abortion. Of course the moral choice is to swerve the vehicle.
With life defined, it is worth briefly outlining the stages of a baby’s development in the womb. Within the first four weeks of pregnancy, the baby will already have a minuscule organ which is the beginnings of the heart, capable of beating up to 65 times per minute. By the end of the first month, the likeness of the baby’s face will be visible. By the second month, the baby’s appendages will begin to grow, and the development of the nervous system will be well on its way. By the sixth week, the heart beat can be monitored. In the third month, the baby’s appendages complete their formation, and the baby can control the movements of the mouth. The main organ systems are also well into development. In the fourth month, the baby can, in a limited fashion, control its arms and legs, and its nervous system is beginning to function. By the fifth month, the baby starts to grow hair, and the mother can often feel its movements. In the sixth month, the baby can respond to certain stimuli, and can experience hiccups. Upon reaching 23 weeks, the baby can usually survive with proper medical care and incubation. In the seventh month, the baby is capable of hearing and can feel pain. In the eighth month, the baby will be nearly fully developed. And by the ninth month, the baby is fully developed and is ready to be born naturally.
With the critical background information filled out, it is essential to understand the actual procedures by which an abortion is carried out. In the first 7 to 9 weeks, the most common form of abortion in the US is a medical abortion, usually through the utilization of mifepristone and misoprostol (or a very similar pairing). Mifepristone is used to eliminate the lining of the uterus, which halts the continuation of the pregnancy. At that point, misoprostol is taken, which initiates contractions, expelling the fetal remains from the body. The fetus is then disposed of, without any of the proper care given to a deceased human. Also used within the first trimester is the process of Manual Vacuum Aspiration, which is the process of inserting a small syringe-like tube into the uterus and then sucking out the fetus.
When the euphemisms are disregarded, and the actual process if understood, it is quite gruesome. The vacuum pressure rips apart and sucks out the developing baby from the womb similar to how a home vacuum sucks up the dust on the floor. Suction curettage, which is performed between six and 16 weeks of pregnancy, is a similar procedure. In this case, the uterus is expanded with medical instruments and a tube is inserted, which then can either suck out the fetus like in the aspiration procedure or will scrape out the tissue. The end result is the same. After 16 weeks, a procedure known as ‘dilation and evacuation’ is used. This procedure is also very similar to the previous two, except the fetus is now much larger. Sometimes the fetus is injected with a concoction of medication to ensure that it is dead. The procedure ends in the same way as aspiration and suction curettage. Finally, after 21 weeks, the ‘dilation and extraction’ procedure is used.
This procedure bears little resemblance to the others. The uterus is expanded so as to allow doctors to have access to the now well-developed fetus. Then surgical tools like forceps are used to pull out the body parts, including the arms and legs, through the uterus. It should be noted that these are torn from the body of the fetus. Then, a tube is inserted into the fetus’s skull, and the brain is sucked out, at which point the skull caves in upon itself. When that occurs, the remnants of the fetus are extracted from the uterus. It goes almost without saying that this is a horrendous and gore-filled process. The remains are then disposed of. Abortion is an incredibly barbaric procedure, and despite the emotional pains that its description may cause, it is critical to explain that barbarity so as to comprehend why it is so awful.
Abortion is not the only path that is available to people who want to avoid having a child. Adoption accomplishes the same goal, and does so much more humanely. Adoption provides a win-win situation, with the unwilling or unable parents foregoing the responsibility of a child and the child experiencing the greatest right of them all: life. Of course adoption is not as easy as having an abortion, but the ease of the process should not be the primary concern over the preservation of the child’s life. No child’s life is reducible to the supposed ease, or potential lack thereof, of the parent’s life. In most cases, it was the parent’s choice to have the child, and when there is a clear choice involved, it is important to understand that there are consequences for one’s actions. The disdain for those consequences does not justify an abortion.
With over 50 million abortions having occurred since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the case against abortion becomes more and more important every year. That is 50 million lives snuffed out, 50 million unique and valuable individuals who could have contributed so much to society. And this is what the secular case against abortion is founded upon: the inalienable right of every individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not bode well for a society when the most vulnerable are denied their most fundamental right. Those who have been aborted are forever lost, but every day to come provides the possibility for lives to be saved. We must come together as a country, as a principled and righteous people, to preserve the lives of future generations.
