Abortion constitutes the intentional destruction of a human being, akin to murder, and should be criminalised.
This position, while often encompassed within the broader term 'pro-life', is specifically identified as 'abolitionist of abortion' by its proponents, who differentiate their views from those who may be 'pro-life' but do not advocate for the criminalisation of abortion or hold differing views on capital punishment.
The Beginning of Human Life and Intrinsic Value
Human life begins unequivocally at the moment of fertilisation and conception. This is supported by scientific empirical evidence, with standard human embryology textbooks asserting that the life trajectory of an individual human being commences at fertilisation, forming a new, distinct human being separate from the mother.
A human zygote is a human being in the zygotic stage, a human embryo is a human in the embryonic stage of development, and a human foetus is a human in the foetal stage of development.
The intrinsic value of human life is grounded in theological and philosophical propositions, specifically that human beings are made in the image of God.
They are created by God and endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This belief informs the understanding that all human beings, regardless of their stage of biological development, physical or mental capabilities, or perceived 'wantedness', possess equal value and dignity.
Abortion is Murder
It is defined as the intentional destruction of a human being, making it morally and ethically equivalent to the killing of any other human. The distinction between a miscarriage and an abortion is crucial: a miscarriage is an unintentional, often tragic, loss of life, whereas an abortion is the deliberate act of ending a human life. This intentionality, or 'malice aforethought', is what differentiates it from unintentional loss.
The command 'Thou shalt not murder' is a foundational principle, given to us directly from God. This principle extends to all human beings, born and pre-born alike.
Comparison to Historical Injustices
Abortion draws direct parallels to historical movements against grave injustices, such as slavery and the Holocaust. The comparison centres on the dehumanisation and destruction of a class of human beings.
Just as abolitionists of slavery fought against the legal protection of treating humans as property, abolitionists of abortion contend that laws permitting abortion allow the mistreatment and murder of pre-born humans.
- ##### Slavery:
Slaveholders justified their actions with arguments such as 'my plantation, my prerogative' or 'my property, my choice', which are seen as analogous to the 'my body, my choice' argument used to justify abortion.
Abolitionists of slavery were often dismissed as religious nuts or as interfering with cultural norms, much like abolitionists of abortion today. The post-abolition concern about who would care for freed slaves is likened to concerns about children in foster care if abortion were abolished.
- ##### The Holocaust:
The term 'holocaust' itself, meaning 'passing through the fire', originates from ancient Jewish practices of child sacrifice, highlighting a historical memory of profound evil.
The actions in the Holocaust, where a majority deemed a certain group of people as 'the problem', are compared to a society allowing the termination of pre-born children based on convenience or societal preference.
Rejection of Exceptions and Justifications
Abolitionists reject arguments for abortion based on exceptional circumstances, viewing them as justifications for murder rather than legitimate reasons.
- ##### Rape and Incest:
While acknowledging the trauma of rape and incest, it is maintained that children should not be punished to death for the crimes of their fathers. The focus should be on punishing the rapist severely, potentially with the death penalty, rather than terminating the child.
- ##### Danger to Mother's Life (Ectopic Pregnancies):
In situations where the mother's life is at risk, such as with ectopic pregnancies, the ethical approach is to treat both the mother and the child as patients, aiming to save both lives. Doctors should adhere to a 'Do no harm' principle, rather than advising the termination of the child. While difficult, the death of a child in an ectopic pregnancy is a natural tragedy, not an act of murder. Technology development to save ectopic pregnancies is supported.
- ##### Socio-Economic Factors and Mental Health:
Arguments that a woman cannot financially or emotionally support a child, or that having a child would impact her mental health, are not considered justifications for abortion. While these are recognised challenges, they do not negate the child's right to life. Society should instead provide greater support for mothers and improve foster care and adoption systems.
- ##### Foetal Consciousness and Pain:
The argument that a foetus lacks consciousness or the ability to feel pain at certain stages does not diminish its status as a human being. Being a human is what makes one valuable, not the possession of brain waves or the ability to feel pain.
Role of Law and Government
Laws against murder, theft, and bearing false witness are foundational and should be applied equally to all human beings. The government correct role is understood to be as God's servant, responsible for punishing evil and protecting the innocent.
Therefore, laws should protect humans in the womb in the same manner as humans outside the womb. The historical and philosophical basis of law in countries like the United States is rooted in the idea of inalienable rights endowed by a creator, suggesting a theological foundation for secular laws.
The argument is not to establish a state religion but to consistently apply existing laws against murder to all human beings, using scientific consensus to define what constitutes a human. While cultural change and societal support for children are necessary, the immediate priority is to protect those immediately in harm's way by abolishing abortion.
Critique of Counter-Arguments
- The idea that human rights begin at birth or when a child is 'wanted' is anti-human and inconsistent with a genuine belief in universal human rights.
- Claims that abortion is a 'necessary healthcare' are rejected; instead, abortion is a choice rooted in self-love rather than the love of one's neighbour.
- People who claim to believe in human rights but justify abortion are seen as having internal inconsistencies that betray their stated beliefs. For example, grieving a miscarriage but supporting abortion for 'unwanted' children highlights a contradiction in valuing human life.
- The notion that laws should only be based on 'general consensus' is challenged by historical examples where majority consensus supported evil practices, such as slavery or totalitarian regimes.