Pro-Life is an Illogical Position

Banning abortion is illogical. Doing so means we would:

- Force victims of rape or incest to carry their babies to term,
- Violate the Constitutional separation of church and state, and,
- Create a paradox in our concept of rights

=== 1 ===

A fertilized egg is either a person which may not be killed; or it is *not* a person and may be killed. It has to be one way or the other.

If we declare a fertilized egg to be a person, then a woman who is the victim of rape or incest must carry the baby to term. While some try to carve out abortion exceptions for incest or sexual assault, this isn’t logical. We don’t punish anyone for crimes committed by someone else, so if a fertilized egg is ‘a person,’ it can’t be killed because of their father’s crime.

However, this means that women who are victims of rape or incest will be further punished by the state.

=== 2 ===

Separate sperm and egg cells are not 'a person.’ We all agree on that. Once born, a child is 'a person.’ We all agree on that, too. So when does ‘a non-person' become 'a person’?

Unfortunately, there is no factual answer to this question. There is no accepted definition of 'a person' until birth when the public record starts to record things like birth dates and names. We can believe one thing or another - but there is no factual "proof" that compels us to accept any proposed definition.

For example, some believe that the soul enters the body with the first breath, with the “inspiration.” Before that, the body is alive, but is not yet a person. That’s a religious belief. Others believe that a heartbeat is necessary. Or brain function. Some believe a fertilized egg is a person. Some don’t. All these represent beliefs. There is no general scientific definition of ‘a person’ that we can point to.

That's the crux of the issue: BELIEF. As soon as we use that word, we have entered the realm of religion. We could argue until we are blue in the face about people who have the ‘wrong’ religious beliefs. But legislating one set of beliefs over another is not something we do in the United States.

We have a very significant statement in the Constitution: that Congress can make no law respecting the establishment of a religious belief that everyone must adhere to. Unless an axiom is almost universally accepted as a human right, the Constitution states that Congress is not allowed to build on it.

From a practical standpoint, we do need a legal definition of when someone is “a person”, and right now that’s about 6 months after conception. That definition protects us from some undesirable situations (e.g. further punishing rape victims; abortions out of medical necessity). And in a democracy, we can always change our laws - but we would need a rational argument and not simply, “some people religiously believe this” to make any change.

=== 3 ===

Government exists to protect our rights - but including fertilized eggs as persons creates a rights paradox. We actually have to create a "special" right for unborn children, and then take that right away as soon as they are born (!)

If we decided that before birth, a fertilized egg can remain attached to its mother to save its own life without the woman’s consent, this right would have to disappear immediately AFTER the birth.

For example, if a child post-birth were dying and needed something like blood or bone marrow or a kidney or a lobe of liver, could it demand such from either parent without consent, since these procedures do not harm the parent much and they would likely be fine afterwards?

Our answer to this is a firm “No.” We would NEVER tie a mother or father down to extract blood or tissue from them without consent - even to save their child's life. We would have to get consent first - this is an absolute principle we all agree on.

Giving rights to ‘a person’ until they are born, and then taking those exact same rights away afterwards is paradoxical. If we do that, then our entire concept of about rights is reduced to nothing but a set of whims.

A mother must consent to having the fertilized egg attach to her body. If she is raped, or using birth control, or even just changes her mind, then she is not consenting. Withdrawing consent means she may may that fertilized egg detached from her if she wishes.

Let's see...

Rape and incest are carried out by men who carry out evil actions. If a baby results, the baby did nothing evil.

Who should get the death sentence?

The evil man? Or the innocent baby?

@eladar said
Let's see...

Rape and incest are carried out by men who carry out evil actions. If a baby results, the baby did nothing evil.

Who should get the death sentence?

The evil man? Or the innocent baby?

@spruce112358 said
You left someone out of your equation...

@eladar said
Let's see...

Rape and incest are carried out by men who carry out evil actions. If a baby results, the baby did nothing evil.

Who should get the death sentence?

The evil man? Or the innocent baby?

@eladar said
Who else is up for the death penalty?

@cheesemaster said
Well said. 🤔

I was always saying "the woman decides...it's her body"

Now I'm confused....

@spruce112358 said
No person, that I know of.

@eladar said
That is ok, at one time black slaves were not considered people either.

@spruce112358 said
Yes. Based on *religious beliefs*. Perhaps religious beliefs are not the most reliable basis for these decisions. Perhaps our Constitution should specifically exclude establishing laws based on religious beliefs.

Woman’s body. Her choice.
She can do with it and remove from it whatever the hell she pleases.

And if men don’t like it... oh boo hoo hoo.
If God don’t like it, I’m sure he’ll hold a moralistic speech in the afterlife, why it’s wrong to abort, but okay to wipe out most of an entire planet (great flood).

@eladar said
Glad to see you agree with me, that opinions change concerning who is a person and who is not.

When do you believe the baby becomes a person? Is if after passing through the magical birth canal? Or magical removal by a surgeon?