Abortion is pro-life
In his commencement address to the University of Notre Dame’s 2009 graduating class last month, President Obama recognized an obvious truth with his statement that pro and anti abortion advocates have certain irreconcilable differences. Those differences were obvious when Obama’s invitation to Notre Dame was subject to controversy and pronounced public disagreement. It was obvious again during the President’s commencement address when anti-abortion advocates vocally challenged the President and were, in turn, vocally challenged by others in the audience. What might not be so obvious, however, is that one of the differences between the two sides of this issue, whether irreconcilable or not, is in the area of logic.
Beyond the questionable logic of defining as a human being the primordial parasitical conglomeration of human cells attached to the female uterus; beyond the questionable logic of considering the medical use and destruction of human stem cells to be a form of homicide; beyond the questionable logic of condemning birth control as immoral; beyond all of this questionable logic is the flawed logic found in the narrow, fervent focus on the “unborn” by so called pro-life advocates. Ultimately, they are not pro-life.
Life on earth is more than the animate existence of the human species regardless of what state of development it is in, or could develop into. It is, in fact, an interdependent, complex, network of many species that depend on a careful balance among them all to sustain them all. Because they all share a finite planet with finite resources upon which they all rely for continued existence, their mutual survival is threatened by the disproportionate procreation of any one of them.
Because human population on this planet has grown to a disproportionately high level, it has done extensive damage to the network of life, and now threatens the very existence of many species including humans themselves. Those so concerned about the sanctity of life that they seek to criminalize abortion, condemn, and even persecute those who support it are not thinking past myopic moralities. Birth control methods actually preserve life by preventing continued irresponsible increases in human population.
While, for most of us, abortion is not the preferred method to prevent unwanted births, those who think that abstinence is the only acceptable method of preventing pregnancies are as likely to have as much success by grounding all the world’s storks. The realities of human behavior and of the conditions among the Third World’s burgeoning populations of despairing, illiterate, indigents defeats less direct methods of reducing population growth—currently rocketing along at the catastrophic rate of 78 million per year. “Not tonight, honey, I have a headache”, has not proven to be an effective contraceptive. Nor, when it comes to basic instinctual behaviors like sex, does theology triumph biology, not even, as we have repeatedly seen, among the “celibate” clergy.
Where abortion is illegal or unavailable, the mortality rate among women, desperate to prevent unwanted births by utilizing crude, unsafe, methods, accounts for 13% of the world’s maternal mortalities each year. This is not pro-life.
Bringing children into the world only to have them suffer and die from lack of sufficient resources is more reprehensible than preventing their births. Thousands of infants and children die each year from starvation and disease. If it is murder to abort a fetus, is it murder to give birth to a child who must surely starve to death? This is not pro-life.
The argument that a reallocation of world resources will solve this Malthusian nightmare is ultimately based on an expectation of the miraculous—both economic and ecological. The problem is demand, not supply. The world is simply running out of the basic finite resources, water, arable land, and sea life, needed to create food. The solution, therefore, is not going to come from increasing supply; it must come from reducing demand, which means reducing population, which, in turn, means effectively controlling birth rates.
Abortion is one effective method to do that, but just one. The number of abortions can be reduced by availing women of birth control methods, devices, and pharmaceuticals that can prevent conception, but when public policy is polluted with theological moralities, as it was under the Bush Presidency, these birth control alternatives can be denied the world’s women who need them the most. This moral arrogance only results in more death by abortion, starvation, and disease. This is not pro-life.
Abortion is pro choice, and, until human population is reduced to a sustainable level, it is also pro-life.
Comment on this article
Yet we need to allow all the immigrants : 6/9/2009
We can't support a million babies per year, yet we should turn a blind eye to the open border, since we need the millions of immigrants just to survive? Which is it? Do we need more people or not?
z4quj
Mr. Alcorn's column is illogical : 6/9/2009
Mr. Alcorn has the gall to criticize those who are anti-abortion as being illogical when his entire column is built upon a logical fallacy. Mr. Alcorn argues that abortions can be good because they reduce the population. However, Mr. Alcorn's argument only makes sense because he does not believe that a fetus is a human life. (For example, Mr. Alcorn does not advocate killing people who are currently walking around in order to reduce the population.) But, if you already believe that a fetus is not a human life, then no further argument need be made to convince people that abortions should remain legal. If a fetus is not a human life, then an abortion is akin to a woman getting her appendix taken out. You don't need to convince anyone that should be legal. The only relevant issue in the abortion debate is determining when human life begins. Mr. Alcorn brushes over this issue by saying that a fetus is nothing more than a "primordial parasitical conglomeration of human cells attached to the female uterus." Wow. Isn't that how all expecting mothers refer to the life that is growing inside of them? First, a fetus is only "primordial" (if at all) during the earliest stage of pregnancy. A fetus is certainly not "primordial" when it has a beating heart. A fetus is certainly not "primordial" when it can react to stimulus outside of the womb. Second, just because something is "parasitical" does not mean that it is not a living entity. Third, "conglomeration of human cells"? Doesn't that describe all of us? Fourth, "attached to the female uterus." This is the only "argument" you proffer which adresses whether the fetus is a human life in and of itself. But do you really believe that a fetus instantly becomes a human life as soon as the cord is cut? Is the fetus not a human life one second before the cord is cut? What about the day before the cord is cut? I personally don't know exactly when human life begins, but I do know that it is the only issue that really matters in the abortion debate. That is why it is so frustrating to hear people make irrelevant arguments about why abortion should be legal (e.g., it will help reduce the population). Let's devote our time to determining when life begins and stop wasting our time making arguments that don't matter.
GBGB
Practicing the 'gospel' you preach : 6/9/2009
Mr. Alcorn, Who died and made you king? Who appointed you as sheriff of the kingdom? Who granted you the arbirtrary authority to define the terms of public debate. Who might you be when you are at home? Your bigotry is stunning. Any one who disagrees with you is too stupid to understand your relativistic and subective opinions. When your mother was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus? If you are not sure as to the answer, then ask your mother or consult a biology text book or look in the mirror. When you have answered that question honestly and logically, then we can begin to have a reasoned discussion of the morality of elective and selective abortion. Here is a concept you might wan to consider: The 'pro-life' movement is no more monolithic than the 'pro-choice' movement. I know it may come as a shock to your egocentric worldview, but not every one believes like you do, not even the ZPG people who want to reduce the world population of 'humans'. If you really believe the 'gospel' you espouse, then set the example for us and practice what you preach. Go green and dig a hole and jump in it and recyle yourself. If you don' own a shovel, then let me know I will donate one to the cause of world population reduction.
yor bro ken
Sex is a Drug : 6/9/2009
Most of the time I agree with Randy, because he does take a cool headed logical approach to issues including those as heated as abortion, however, he has not thought this through or he would see the fallacy of his argument. Forget religion or morality altogether and just look at the problem from a cold biological perspective. What species of animal on our little blue ball fornicates for reasons other than species propagation and then aborts the resulting pregnancy for higher purposes? Yes, I don’t know of any other, than man, either. So logically if you stop fornicating for an endorphin rush to the brain then the whole argument about what is the best birth control is moot. He brushes aside the question of abstinence like a species having any self control over its sex organs is just plain out of the question. Sorry Randy but you can’t argue logic from an illogical position. Logic dictates you use your sex organs for their intended purpose and if you don’t you can expect the results to be “inconvenient”. Simple biology, folks and it works against the arguments for homosexuality as well. The sixties brought us the drug culture and sex addiction and the resulting moral morass it brings with it is nothing more than addiction to your own body’s chemistry. That may seem cold to two lovers in the heat of passion, but ignoring the consequences of your sex organ’s intended purpose does not forgive you the result. Before abortion factories became legitimized we learned to live with our mistakes, sometimes the results were damned painful. But that only served to re-enforce the attitude that sex was for making babies and nothing else. So Randy, take this one back. I came from your direction at one time and realized that sometimes we just have to accept that we can’t always do whatever we want, no matter how much we want to. Sometimes we just have to say no. This is one of those times.
AN50
No Volunteers : 6/10/2009
So far I have not observed any with this euthanasia-population reduction philosophy volunteer to support their own ideology. None of these environmentalists are showing their sincerity by stopping their own use of oxygen and output of carbon.
Pharmer
What a crock : 6/12/2009
Abortion is pro life? What a crock of sh*t. You should just abort yourself so that a new baby can come into the world and make a difference. How said The Daily Sound has been so depleted of it's ability to publish the news that it has to resort to inflamatory, opinionated rubbish. The only thing questionable in this article is any thoughtful investigation into abortion, and the simple fact that women who have them are significantly scared for the rest of their life.
punk
Pro-Life : 6/13/2009
Rarely have I agreed with Randy Alcorn on anything when is was writing for the News-Suppress. However this is a well written and reasonable argument he makes and I agree and commend him. It takes some degree of courage to do that these days as it will, no doubt, make him the target of vitriol and hatred and possibly violence.
Ken Palley
Eugenics? : 6/13/2009
This seems like the same argument Adolph Hitler made with eugenics. I am not sure it is a rational argument. I guess it depends on whether you think Hitler was a rational person. I really believe this argument should be made analogous to the fight against capital punishment. You would think that in a country where our liberal rights do not give the individual citizen the right to take someone's life, that abortion would be illegal. Instead we have the federal government dictating the right to life for abortion, but allows the state to decide on capital punishment. That just seems contradictory to me. I am no lawyer, but is it the interstate commerce clause that allows for states to make laws on capital punishment? Why then is the state only allowed legislate laws that make late term abortion legal but not early term abortion? That seems contradictory.
Nakeeb
Amen : 6/16/2009
As a woman who chose NOT to have children because I recognized that overpopulation was the biggest threat to us all (non-human species included), I agree 100%. This is my core religious belief, that it is quality of life -- ALL life -- that we must focus on. The solution is greatly reduced human population. Until birth control becomes available, cheap, and 100% reliable world-wide, then abortion must continue. I became pregnant with birth control, and I had an abortion, and I have no regrets. Life must die to sustain life for others. Scientist, farmer, hunter... It's basic logic, AND it is the moral choice.
Ethical Scientist
: 6/16/2009
By this logic you could also argue that genocide and murder are pro-life. Case closed.
Realist
: 6/16/2009
What is morality if not theological? You mean there are two types of morality? One from the devil and one from God? The one from God is pollution?
Ethical? WTF? : 6/19/2009
Excuse me? You call yourself an ethical Scientist and then turn around and condone murdering fetuses, because why? It’s a convenient form of birth control? What utter nonsense. You are either not a scientist or not ethical or both. The biological purpose of sex is procreation, not bathing your brain in endorphins. Yes, go look it up in your high school biology book missy. To promote murder so you can fornicate without purpose or responsibility is not only unethical it is evil. You cheapen sex to an act of purposeless pleasure where the real purpose is construed as a nuisance. Where is the science in that? Go look up that answer in your college psychology book under addictive behavior. I don’t want to sound prudish, hell I love sex as much as anyone else and why not, we are all wired to enjoy it, so much so that we will be encouraged to propagate the species even if the only thing we want is that pleasure. Nature is no fool and makes up for lack of a soul by hard wiring the necessities for survival. This becomes painfully obvious when human beings give up their souls and become animals, doing whatever baths their brains in pleasure inducing chemicals. You can make all the excuses in the world for abortion, but what it boils down to is this, except for rape, you chose fornicating over life, period. Quality of life my arse. Where is the quality in a life of addiction and denial?
AN50
Abortion : 7/4/2009
George Bush and the U.S.A are responsible for killing 9-hundred-thousand (plus or minus) Iraqis since 2003.
Ahmed
Iraquis? I Thought Abortion : 7/7/2009
We were not discussing the war dude..Iraq and Iran issues are different. Bottom line. Nobody should decide whether you keep a kid you don't want or carry..It's your own choice. No one elses. For all the men that are against abortion..Go f---- off, it ain't your business. Untill your assess can produce shut up FED UP WITH BULL
Contact Us!
411 E. Canon Perdido, Ste 2
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone (805) 564-6001
Fax (805) 962-9101
Click here to view the PDF Edition
Subscription Required
Tile Ads
Most Read Stories
Check out these most read stories.
Most Talked About Stories
Check out these recent talked about stories, and voice your opinion...
