You are on page 1of 6

The Logical Inconsistency Of The Abortion Argument

By James Brenig

Foreword
Having spent some time analysing all elements of this debate, I have reached a singular
conclusion which has led to the submission of this document in response to the command
letter issued by HMGoG. The conclusion is simple; in any debate one side is wrong and the
other is right. However there has rarely been a debate where the stakes are higher. If abortion
remains illegal but the pro-choice argument is correct, can we accept the outcome? I would
suggest perhaps we can. However, if abortion becomes legal but the pro-life argument is
correct, can we accept having the deaths of innocent babies on our hands? I would hope not.
This places the burden of proof firmly on the pro-choice side of the debate as without 100%
certainty we could not possibly participate in what has become the largest genocide in
history, with over 56 million abortions taking place every year according to the World Health
Organisation.

It is therefore incumbent upon me, and any reasonable, moral person to study carefully the
various arguments and not rush into any decision without absolute certainty.

Having spoken to a number of people on both sides of this debate, I believe that most people
are simply giving their honest view and in no way intentionally mean to cause harm to anyone,
however I have also found a lack of critical thinking applied to this subject that is highly
concerning considering the stakes. This is by no means a simple subject and the logic and
morality are very complex regardless of one’s point of view. For this reason, I have attempted
to break down the various arguments, follow them through to their logical conclusions and
arrive at a logically and morally consistent position.

THE NONSENSICAL
Before I attempt to dissect the various arguments, let me first separate the nonsensical points
from the valid debating points. These are sound bites one might find on social media posts
and are often based on emotional arguments or simply flawed logic.

1. The abortion debate is about women’s choice or rights. This is factually incorrect, the
abortion debate at its core is about the basic human right to life and when this begins. Of
course, this has a direct bearing on the mother, but ultimately this is a “side effect” of the
conclusion of the debate, rather than the actual argument itself.

2. Only women can debate the topic of abortion. This is nonsense, the validity of an
argument must be judged on its merits not the gender of the person making the argument.

3. Pro-lifers are trying to control women. The arguments for and against abortion are
predicated on when the foetus acquires basic human rights. However, any reasonable moral
person would agree that if the foetus does have basic human rights, then abortion i.e. the
killing of that person, is equivalent to killing any other person, which is called murder or
manslaughter and the same rules should apply.
4. Pro-life only care about babies in the womb. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of
the core debate as per my point above. Being against the killing of any individual or group has
to do with the sanctity of life and is not linked in any way to the quality of life.

I will now attempt to clarify the various arguments and follow them through to their logical
conclusions.

THE PRINCIPLES
In order to be able to argue either side of this issue we must first understand the basic
elements of the debate, what is the root of the argument, on which points do both sides agree
and what principles must be applied.

Whichever argument either side uses, ultimately the debate revolves around when the baby
acquires basic human rights including the inalienable right to life.

I suggest most reasonable and moral people would agree on the following points and
principles and whilst these may seem obvious, this is a necessary step in order to properly
frame the debate:
• All people should have autonomy over their own bodies insofar as it doesn’t physically
harm another person (i.e. the right to swing your fist ends where another person’s face
begins)
• Where the mother’s life is directly at risk, termination at any stage is the mother’s
decision (this is essentially self-defence as the child will effectively kill her and in either case
one or both of them will die, the choice in this event is who not if, this does not lay claim as
to the value of the child’s life)
• Born humans have an inalienable right to life
• Killing of born humans is morally wrong
• Killing of born humans should be illegal and punishable in law
• Any person directly involved in the killing of a born human should be charged as an
“Accessory to Murder”
• A baby outside of the womb at any stage during pregnancy cannot be killed for any
reason (e.g. in a situation where a baby is born alive during a failed abortion)

THE ARGUMENTS

On Demand vs Valid Reasons


There are typically 2 positions on abortion from within the pro-choice side of the debate.

1. Abortion on demand. Once the argument has been made that the foetus is not a life
with basic human rights the argument for on demand abortion is really quite straightforward.
It’s not a life and the mother should be able to remove it like one would an appendix or
anything else until such time as it acquires basic human rights.

2. Mental health, foetal abnormalities, rape, or other “valid” reasons but otherwise
abortions should not be allowed. Interestingly this argument is somewhat more difficult to
understand and must rely on a “lesser human” argument as we are effectively conceding that
the baby has basic human rights, but these can be trumped by the mothers wants and needs
in various cases.

Rights of the mother


The principal argument posed by pro-choice advocates is that the mother has autonomy over
her body and therefore should be able to choose if she wants to carry the baby to term or
abort the baby.

To argue this point you would have to first argue one of the two points below.

1. The baby doesn’t automatically have basic human rights, and only acquires basic
human rights after a certain defined point.
2. The baby has basic human rights but is a lesser human and ergo has lesser rights than
the mother. Therefore, in a variety of circumstances the mother can override the
rights of this lesser human.

Since we can all agree that once born all humans have basic human rights, therefore, with
either of the above options, we must determine at which point the baby acquires basic
human rights or becomes an equal person.

BY WHAT CRITERIA ARE “BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS” ACQUIRED

When it becomes a life?


The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that
corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a
process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or
one-cell embryo, is created. This is the point when the baby becomes a living being, therefore
in order to argue for abortion even at early stages, it must be argued that rights are not
acquired when life begins but by a different criterion.

When it is born?
This would be an extreme position to take as this would mean that a baby even at 9 months
could be terminated on demand as it has not yet been born. Aside from this being an extreme
position this is difficult to argue in practice as there is very little distinction between a born
and unborn child at this stage other than location.

When it is viable?
This is likely the most common argument for abortion and what for most people defines the
time limit of abortion. “Viability” is defined as the potential of the foetus to survive outside
the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medical
intervention.

This was originally 28 weeks, then more recently at 24 weeks, and with rapid advances in
medical technology we are seeing babies born and surviving earlier, with the record standing
as early as 21 weeks and 5 days. Whilst this is extremely rare it does constitute viability as
defined above.
If this is the position argued, post viability would be defined at 21 weeks and 5 days and
updated once this record is beaten. Furthermore 21 weeks and 5 days would be the hardline
cutoff for abortions regardless of the reason.

Side note: Foetal Abnormalities


If “viability” is the argument used, abortions in the case of Foetal Abnormalities and even
Fatal Foetal Abnormalities could not be allowed after the hardline cutoff any more than we
could allow the termination of a 2-year-old child diagnosed with the same condition.

At first glance, it might seem that viability is a reasonable argument as to when a foetus
acquires its basic human rights.

However, before we can accept that argument at face value, we must first examine the logical
conclusions of this argument.

1. If viability is the factor that determines right to life, this would suggest that people
can also lose their right to life if they are no longer viable. For example, Conjoined
twins and ICU patients would have no rights as they are not viable, depending, as they
do, on others’ bodies and on machines for their survival. This argument could then be
extended, for example anybody suffering from a fatal but curable disease could
considered not viable. (Viability, is defined as the potential of the fetus to survive
outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date
medical intervention.)
2. Since viability is based on external factors, including technological and medical
advancements, access to healthcare, medication, etc.. this would mean that at
different times, we would have different levels of viability and ergo would acquire
basic human rights at different stages. As we have seen previously from 28 weeks to
21 weeks. This is an absurdly immoral proposition.
3. What is the absolute distinction between a 21 week and 5-day old baby and a 21 week
and 4-day old baby? Can we with full confidence suggest that the 21 week and 4-day
old baby has no right to life until the following morning?

Essentially the difference between them is the older baby by a few minutes has ascended to
a new stage of development.

So the argument effectively is, that although the heart begins beating at 3-4 weeks, brain
activity can be detected as early as 6 weeks, by the 10th week, the baby has developed all of
its organs and bodily structures and if left to the natural course of events would develop into
a fully grown baby and continue to develop for approximately 20 or so years into a full adult
person and then continue to evolve and develop for approximately a century. Nevertheless,
the argument used to terminate this life is that since if it were evicted from the womb too
early, it would not survive, therefore we can morally terminate that life up until a minute
before “viability”.

Furthermore, even if we could address all the issues raised above, this only covers the when
but not the why. Why should viability determine the basic human rights of any human life?
How can we allow anyone to determine whether or not a person has basic human rights or
not? We do not have to look far to see what happens when people have the power to define
the value of others’ lives.

Thus, I have yet to come across a reasonable method for determining when the right to life
begins and must therefore conclude that it starts at the conception of life itself which modern
science has determined to be at the creation of the individual being complete with its own
unique DNA.

THE EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS


Further arguments for abortion, such as the “emotion based” arguments are purely
justifications rather than logical arguments. As I noted earlier any argument for abortion must
be predicated on 1 of the 2 core points. The fetus either has not yet acquired basic human
rights or is a lesser human. The justification argument is therefore irrelevant, however for
the sake of completeness I will address the usual justifications raised.

The “worst case scenario hypothetical”


This is the most common argument used by abortion advocates and comprises of any number
of scenarios whereby continuing the pregnancy would have a negative effect on one or more
people. Here are a number of common examples;
• What about Incest or Rape?
• What about teenage pregnancy?
• What about where the mother is mentally unstable?
• What if the mother can’t afford this child and this will affect the child and perhaps
other children?
• What about foetal abnormality?
• What about a teenager with mental health issues who was raped and already has
other children and has no money and the baby has foetal abnormalities?

The answer to all of the above is really quite simple. You still need to revert back to the basic
debate of when the foetus acquires basic human rights.

Failure to do so would suggest this argument had some form of validity of its own which would
therefore translate equally to any person at any stage of life. E.g. What if a 2-year-old child is
number 7 in the family, and the mother has mental health issues and the child has Down’s
syndrome, and this child is directly impacting the other 6 children and is negatively affecting
their lives. Or any of the other hypothetical scenarios whereby numerous people suffer. Can
we kill this child to prevent the suffering of others?

Obviously not, so the circumstances are not relevant to the argument. Rather it reverts back
to the original argument. These justifications are simply emotional manipulation and have no
logical basis. Furthermore, whilst in many cases there are indeed heartbreakingly unfortunate
circumstances, this does not give anyone the right to kill any person to reduce the pain and
suffering.

Abortions are happening in any case; therefore, we should at least provide medical care.
This idea disregards the issue of abortion and instead argues that the mother still requires
medical care in this circumstance.

However, can this rule then be applied to other cases?

If parents were accidentally killing or injuring themselves in attempts to commit back-


alley infanticides, the correct response from society would not be to legalize infanticide and
train personnel to kill infants in a manner that is safer for the parents. If the dangers of self-
inflicted wounds would not warrant legalizing infanticide, why would life-endangering back-
alley abortions?

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION


All of the above doesn’t provide an argument against abortion it simply points out the flaws
and logical inconsistencies in the various arguments for abortion.

My personal argument against abortion can be summed up in a simple sentence:

“Nobody can accurately pinpoint when the right to life begins therefore, we should err on
the side of caution and avoid killing any and all babies”

Lesser Human Ideology


Using the lesser human argument is perhaps one of the most evil arguments a person can
make. And is indeed the argument of the most evil people throughout history. Nazi Germany
viewed Jews as sub-humans, allowing them to kill with no regard and conscience free. But
long before the Jews were sent to the concentration camps, Nazi Germany launched a
euthanasia program to rid society of those it considered not viable. Over 200,000 of the
elderly, infirm and disabled were murdered by German doctors under this program.

Prior to the American civil war, slave owners considered blacks to be lesser humans and thus
justified slavery and lynching of black people.

For those who think abortion is different and it’s not a slippery slope just google Kermit
Gosnell, the late term abortionist charged with the murder of 7 babies born during attempted
late term abortions as late as 30 weeks. Three of whom he stabbed in the neck with scissors
and killed. He was eventually convicted on 3 counts of first-degree murder, 1 count
involuntary manslaughter, and 21 felony counts of illegal late-term abortion.

FINAL NOTE
I will end with this final note. As moral humans, it is our duty to protect the sanctity of human
life, this is a fundamental aspect of a good and moral society. History has taught us that when
a society loses its regard for the sanctity of life it has devastating effects.

You might also like