Opinion
With recent Wyoming Supreme Court rulings and the passage of the “Human Heartbeat Act,” abortion and related legislation are front and center here. Now, to be entirely transparent, I am unequivocally pro-life. But rather than providing a robust presentation of the pro-life view, my aim here is to disarm several of the most common pro-choice claims — those ubiquitous on social media in particular — with concise responses, thus facilitating more productive discourse concerning abortion among the citizens of our great state.
It’s important to define terms so that neither party talks past one another. Disagreements and misunderstandings are often resolved simply by being on the same page. I’ll start by defining abortion in the narrow sense: Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus. Next, the definition of pro-life: Pro-life is the view that abortion is intrinsically wrong. With definitions in hand, I will respond to pro-choice claims, viewing none as ultimately strong or persuasive — a conclusion I hope you’ll come to share.
Pro-life legislation tries to control women
Pro-life legislation is not unique in the sense that, like all legislation, its aim is to proscribe or permit human acts based on natural and legal rights. By their nature, laws exert control over every domain of a citizen’s life. That pro-life legislation focuses exclusively on women is the result of biology: Women are the ones who can become pregnant. So, while it is technically true that pro-life legislation intends to control women in a certain respect, it does not do so unjustly, similar to the way conscription controls young men in a certain respect. There is nothing inherently wrong with legislation that applies to only one sex.
Legislation should control men’s reproductive rights as well
Mandatory vasectomies are a typical example to support this position. Pro-life legislation, however, does not target reproduction in general or a woman’s right to use her reproductive capacities to conceive. Rather, it targets only the consequence of successful reproduction, namely the creation of a new human life. Prohibiting men from being able to reproduce is not analogous to prohibiting abortion after conception.
Abortion does not impact men
Crack open any good biology textbook, and you will learn that humans are anisogamous, meaning they produce gametes of two different sizes and functions which, during reproduction, unite to form a zygote. These gametes are produced by men (sperm) and women (ova). As Rob Base explained in 1988, “It takes two to make a thing go right.” In this case, the two are one man and one woman, and the thing is reproduction. Minimally, then, abortion impacts men because a terminated fetus could not have existed without one. Additionally, men desiring to become fathers are denied this right when women choose abortion without their consent. So, while pregnancy and surgical procedures directly impact only women, abortion affects men and women both, and to varying degrees.
A fetus is just a clump of cells
This claim is true, but only in a trivial sense. Doing the heavy lifting here is the underdefined term, “clump of cells,” because it does not specify the nature of the clump or cells. Because the term is vague, we all qualify as a “clump of cells.” When the ambiguity is resolved, a fetus is an organized clump of human cells arranged in such a way as to compose a human, which is true for each of us at every stage of development. Referring to a fetus as a clump of cells is intentionally dehumanizing.
If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one
Here, the suggestion confuses the pro-life position as being one of personal preference — such as preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla — rather than a moral one opposing a human rights violation. It would be like saying, “If you don’t agree with murder, don’t kill anyone,” or “If you don’t agree with slavery, don’t own other people.” Neither is a matter of personal preference.
Hopefully, the initial responses to the claims above reveal how and in what ways each falls short to support the pro-choice position. Part 2, publishing Friday, will evaluate several more and arrive at the same conclusion.
I’ve been listening to every pro and anti abortion argument for the last sixty plus years and haven’t heard a new one for the last fifty nine.
Only three are convincing:
1. No woman should be forced to birth an unwanted child.
2. If a woman wants an abortion she will find a way to get one.
3. In the final analysis the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be up to the woman and her medical team.
Presented as simple logic, Mr. Stanislaw’s arguments fall short:
– “tries to control women” – Irrelevant. The pro-choice position supports everyone’s personal health care choices. That biology focuses this particular choice on women doesn’t change the principle.
– “should control men” – Straw man. No pro-choice advocate would be mollified if the law also denied men personal health care choice.
– “doesn’t impact men” – False premise. Denying someone the fulfillment of their wishes at another person’s expense is not depriving them of any “right” civilized society would recognize. (Perhaps a sperm is denied its destiny without the donors permission, but there is no lack of sperm in the world.)
– “just a clump of cells” – Opinion asserted as fact. Whether or not this clump of cells “composes a human” is hotly contested and ultimately, a moral choice.
– “don’t have one” – False comparison. We certainly pass laws to control others’ behavior, but laws reflect societal consensus (murder, theft, assault) – a consensus that is dramatically absent in the case of abortion.
– Bern Hinckley
Bern
– killing an unborn human being isn’t “healthcare” for that unborn human being
– you realize that WE ALL are just clumps of cells, don’t you?
– don’t have one is not a false comparison as you and all pro abortionists completely disregard the value of human life, the unborn are Human Beings.
I see men keep getting a pass on this issue. It’s all on the women,well,after the initial act that is. So,men get the free pass and then tell women what they should do? Since Roe vs Wade was turned over and half the states now essentially outlawing abortion the abortion rate remains the same as it was when it was legal. Makes you wonder what the whole point of this is. If you want to reduce abortions,make family planning info widely available and free and most importantly make contraception also widely available and free. Colorado did this and their abortion rate was cut in half in one year. Did MAGA celebrate this huge drop in the abortion rate? What do you think?
Worry about your own life, Dwight. Health care is a personal and private decision.
Also, literally none of those arguments stand up. Completely circular logic. You’d think someone with a MA in Philosophy could write a little better than this.
1- “It’s ok that anti-abortion legislation controls women, because in this case I WANT to control women, so it’s ok!” Circular logic.
2- “Reproduction is totally different than successful reproduction.” Umm… what?
3- “Abortion doesn’t impact men.” This is a strawman argument. No one is claiming there is no impact to men. There IS, however, an exponentially larger impact to women in forcing them to bear a child against their will. Ignoring this to protect “men’s rights” is misogyny of the highest order.
4- “The term I picked is too vague, therefore it’s THEIR argument that falls apart.” You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a human being. That is the point.
5- “Abortion is just as bad as murder or slavery, but I won’t give any explanation as to why that is.” Stating your opinion without any justification, does not make for a compelling argument. How about my opinion that wearing Crocs is just as bad as murder, therefore no one should be allowed to do it!
Go back for your PhD before you try to foist this 8th grade level writing on the innocent public.
Do you really believe a baby in the womb is not human? When does a human become human?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bBF-WEJtts
Legally, morally, and biologically, a new human life begins at conception. The video above from Children’s Hospital Colorado shows doctors providing complex medical care to a baby in the womb, not treating it as a mere “clump of cells.”
In fact, Women become legally eligible for prenatal medical care the moment they know they are pregnant. Prenatal care is healthcare for the human baby in the womb as well as the expecting mother. Untold resources are provided to expecting mothers and their unborn babies. Medical care for babies in the womb is improving everyday with tremendous medical advances like the “born twice” linked video above. Legally in Wyoming, an attack on a pregnant woman that results in the end of that pregnancy can have the perpetrator charged with murder. Wyoming Statute § 6‑2‑104
When you call abortion “healthcare” for a woman, you are also calling for ending the life of that unborn human baby. You are not King Solomon, yet you still propose a division—separating the value of the mother’s life from the value of the child’s life. That division does not carry the wisdom of Solomon’s.
As both sides of this debate dig in, a division deepens in our state and in the country. Bill Clinton’s “Safe, Legal and Rare” comment was not wisdom. Safe? For whom? Not the baby in the womb. Legal? Roe has been overturned and the decision has been thrown to the states. Rare? Not really. And that is the rub.
For a country founded on “life…” as an inalienable right, abortion is the antithesis of that right. Just as slavery was the antithesis of “liberty, …”. I can see Stanislaw’s attempt to have a philosophical discussion on what all of this means. And he promises more to come.
You chose instead to derail the author by nitpicking his wording and calling him stupid, sneering that he was trying to “foist this 8th grade level…” argument. That kind of response shows you don’t actually want a conversation. Yet this may be the most important conversation we have had since Roe was overturned and the question was handed back to the states. Insults add no wisdom here.
Well, that is not unusual. The pro choice side will kill off their own if they don’t get on board. The President of Planned Parenthood was removed in 2019 for a tweet. Dr. Leana Wen lost her job when she reacted to Tulsi Gabbard in a 2019 presidential candidate debate.
“I don’t agree with @TulsiGabbard on a lot, but do appreciate that she brought up the third rail for Democrats: that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” We should reduce the need for abortions by investing in prevention.” And she added,
“Pro-choice & progressive movements will lose unless we allow more people to join who do not agree 100% with the most extreme ideology.” Goodness Gracious, that sounds very much like what Senator John Fetterman has been saying recently when he urges Democrats not to exile people who differ from the party line.
And look at the Democrat party now… driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome and reduced to calling everyone who disagrees with them “stupid.” It is no surprise that Tulsi Gabbard is now aligned with Republicans and serving in the Trump administration.
Welcome to physics, the far right will also dig in hard. They will attack their own as well, and do so on an increasing basis.
The conversation itself is crucial. Let the author speak without petty personal attacks. Add to the discussion instead of trying to shut it down. Use facts as much as possible instead of pure rhetoric—and start by looking in the mirror before you call someone else stupid.
If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. That means, for example, that if your wife is ever pregnant with a wanted child, and that child does not grow a skull because of a genetic defect, and your wife’s doctor informs her of the options of allowing nature to take its course, which may mean the fetus grows to a full term size, and giving birth to a term baby, and then holding it in your arms until it suffocates naturally, that is her choice. If your wife decides that it is better for her emotional and physical health to terminate the pregnancy as early as possible, when it is much less physically and emotionally taxing, that is her choice. These matters are not political. They are personal.
Lisa, no one thought about the slaves best interest during the abolition movement when defending slavery.
Pro-Abortionists dont remotely consider the interests of the unborn HUMAN BEING.
Brining up rape or defects is always the go-to for defending the ending of an unborn human beings life, when personal convenience is the reason for 95+% of all abortions. That’s over a million human lives extinguished, because “i dont want it.”
Like any other argument in the world, it’s all about how you spin it. When you separate the wheat from the chaff, it’s still someone thinking their ideologies are superior to someone else’s. To me the simplest answer is this; it is a person’s choice. For all the rest of the buttinskis out there, you’re entitled to your opinions and your choices, but not someone else’s.
It is the woman’s decision, and no one else’s.
The most coherent exposition of the abortion issue I’ve read. Ever. Can’t wait for Part 2. Thank you.
Nobody needs to be lectured by another white male, telling others how to live.
Thank you!
Well stated, simple and to the point.
You speak facts that cannot be refuted.