Arguments As Comments

A web-site organization named “procon.org” attempts to be neutral with respect to a significant number of different Debates. Arguments representing the different sides of those Debates are presented, and readers are invited to post comments. IN GENERAL, only one comment per reader gets posted (but that was not originally known to this author). The following Parts of this document were written in terms of “taking an opportunity” to reorganize many of the items posted as Refutations in the main article at this site. To submit a comment to abortion.procon.org“, it had to be limited to 1250 characters, about 200 words. All of the following Parts were separately submitted as comments; every anti-abortion argument listed at the abortion.procon.org site was refuted by at least one of these Parts (some other common anti-abortion arguments are also refuted). Only the first two of these Parts were posted. This is a Public Domain document, and may be freely copied/posted anywhere.

 

Part 1 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Example: The US Constitution uses the word “person” throughout, and doesn’t use the word “human” even once. Therefore, to make abortion illegal under the Constitution, it is necessary to prove that an unborn human qualifies as a person. Well, besides invoking dictionary definitions (which were created by humans for human purposes, and thus are biased), abortion opponents CANNOT prove that unborn humans qualify as persons. There is vastly more scientific evidence, in fact, that dolphins qualify as persons!

There is also the matter of the Census; the Constitution REQUIRES that all persons be counted, but NO unborn human has EVER been counted as a person, in any Census, including the first Census of 1790, with its details specified by the Founding Fathers. Therefore, not only do we know what the highly religious Founding Fathers thought about unborn human personhood, we have more than two centuries of Legal Precedent, in which personhood has not been associated with unborn humans.

So not only can abortion remain legal, it could have been legalized long before Roe vs Wade.

 

Part 2a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Many anti-abortion arguments depend on dictionary definitions, mostly these: “A member of the species Homo Sapiens has specific DNA and is a human being” and “A person is a human being”. Therefore any entity having full H.Sapiens DNA is a person. However, it is easy to prove that that logic is WRONG.

We simply examine a human cuticle cell, which has full DNA, and is killed in large numbers during manicures and pedicures. Modern “cloning” and “stem cell” research shows that EVERY such cell has the potential to divide many times, becoming a whole human body, just like a human zygote.

Potential is POTENTIAL. Opposing abortion means insisting that that potential MUST be fulfilled. Thus if the zygote is a human being because of its DNA and its potential, so also is the cuticle cell, and EVERY other human cell that has the full set of DNA! Manicurists kill many human beings, cuticle cells with potential, and so are mass murderers! OR, we conclude the dictionary definition of “human being” is WRONG, and therefore the anti-abortion logic based on the dictionary definition is also wrong.

 

Part 2b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 2a, here is another way in which the dictionary definition of “human being” is wrong. Consider a brain-dead adult human on full life-support. The Law says the “plug” can be pulled on that life-support equipment –but if it is done, that fully human adult body –a “human being” according to the dictionary!– will die. Why does the Law let the “plug” be pulled?

The answer is simple: the Law is mostly about persons (see Part 1), and not all human entities are persons. In this case, because that human’s brain is dead, the PERSON is considered to be dead. Meanwhile the living human animal body still has all the H.Sapiens DNA, and according to the dictionary, it is STILL both a human being and a person. However, since abortion opponents mostly don’t object to the “plug” getting pulled, that means they KNOW the dictionary definitions are faulty –so why do they keep spouting those definitions in their arguments?

Do they think pro-choice folks are too stupid to figure out the “snow job”? They need to think again!

 

Part 2c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 2a and 2b, here is another way in which the dictionary definition of “human being” is wrong. Consider a human genetic deformity, like a missing arm. Researchers studying multi-cellular organisms discovered a set of genes (“homeobox” or “hox” genes) controlling the overall structure of an organism’s body. If such a gene is missing, a deformity will result.

Our society wisely recognizes that deformed humans typically still deserve to be called “human beings” and “persons”, despite some missing hox genes –OVERRULING any dictionary that wrongly claims ALL human genes must be present. Well, a modified definition could allow for some missing genes….

Now study “hydatidiform moles”. They have 100% human DNA, but lack practically ALL the hox genes –the moles are mostly-formless masses of cells. If that modified definition calls them “human beings”, IT IS WRONG AGAIN! The moles can cause “trophoblastic disease”, MUST be killed –and not even abortion opponents object.

Basically, the dictionary definition of “human being” is useless to abortion opponents.

 

Part 2d of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Parts 2, here is what the phrase “human being” is REALLY about. Consider “Canis Domesticus” –if H.Sapiens is a “human being” then C.Domesticus should be called a “dog being”. This is NEVER done, however. Why? More generally, why aren’t ordinary conversations peppered with phrases like “fish being” and “horse being” (etc), when talking about fishes and horses (etc)?

Now notice that some conversations include phrases like “intelligent being”, “extraterrestrial being”, and “alien being”. Why?

The Answer involves a definition of the word “being”. ALL BY ITSELF, it can mean “person”. “Human” is just a modifier, a type of person. So is “alien”. But NOT “dog” or “fish” or horse (etc) –they are not persons, so the word “being” does not get attached to those words.

All by itself, the word “human” does NOT mean “person”. For proof, see “human cuticle cell”, “brain-dead human body on full life-support”, and “human hydatidiform mole”. ONLY HUMAN PERSONS can be called “human beings”.

CALLING an unborn human a “human being” does NOT make it one. Prove it is a person, first!

 

Part 3a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents actually KNOW what a “person” is. They mostly refuse to admit it, however, using a different definition in the Overall Abortion Debate. For proof of the preceding statements:

Look up just how close modern medical science is, to being able to perform a “head transplant”, and Answer these two Questions:

“If you suffered a horrible decapitation accident, but rescuers arrive in time, do you want them to save your BODY, or save your HEAD, to save YOU-the-person?”

“Now, what definition of ‘person’ did you use to Answer the previous Question?”

See? A person is a MIND, not a body. It is also a mind having characteristics ordinary animals can’t match –that’s why those animals are not persons! The body is just a support-system for the mind. For the first month or two after conception (during which the vast majority of abortions are done), an unborn human has NO mind at all; it is ONLY a purely animal body. Yet abortion opponents Deny Fact, and claim that “humanness” alone equates with personhood, thereby giving them an excuse to oppose abortion. Even while knowing they are WRONG!

 

Part 3b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Part 3a, abortion opponents routinely make a major error regarding human development. They WRONGLY think that human DNA alone causes a zygote to develop both its body and its mind, until it exceeds the capabilities of ordinary animals.

BUT– seek the Facts about “feral children”. THEY are what ANY healthy unborn human becomes, if ONLY DNA influenced growth. Clever ANIMALS, and ONLY clever animals. Human minds must be NURTURED to develop its potentials –else you get feral children.

Basically, the brain is a self-programming computer –and it only writes the programs it needs, based on the challenges it encounters. During the earliest years after birth, the brain can actually grow extra processing capacity to handle more-difficult challenges –which appropriate Nurturing provides. Feral children don’t get challenged that way, and so their brains don’t develop the capabilities associated with personhood. Now see Koko the Gorilla and Chantek the Orangutan. THEY got human-style nurturing, and DID develop personhood capabilities! Human DNA is NOT key to personhood!

 

Part 3c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Parts 3a and 3b, there is a branch of Computer Science devoted to the development of Artificial Intelligence. Researchers are studying the physical structure of the human brain, and are COPYING it into electronic hardware. It is likely that in less than 20 years an entirely electronic equivalent of the human brain will be built –and it will be a self-programming computer, too. With appropriate Nurture, a True Artificial Intelligence –a person!– should begin to exist.

Now consider what a home computer might be like 10 years AFTER that. It may not come with a built-in True Artificial Intelligence, but the machine probably can be UPGRADED to become able to host one. Now compare that computer to an unborn human body. It is associated with an “upgrade” process, too, and eventually can host a person, a Natural Intelligence.

MUST the future inorganic home computer be upgraded? No? Then why is it necessary for an organic computer, the brain of a fetus, to be upgraded? DO NOTE that there is no such thing as “Intelligent Prejudice”; there is only “Stupid Prejudice”….

 

Part 3d of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the other Parts 3, scientists approach the concept of “person” from a Generic perspective, the idea that every Entity in the Universe that qualifies as a person will have certain things in common –and that ordinary animals will lack those things. From studying humans and Earthly animals, it turns out that the word “lack” is a bit misleading. Many animals have SOME MODEST DEGREE of one or more of the characteristics associated with persons –but human persons have those things in very large degree. For example, many animals exhibit “empathy” –but a human person can empathize to the extent of imagining self in the situation of another.

The characteristics of infant humans can be measured, and they always fail ALL of the personhood tests; therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for LESS-DEVELOPED unborn humans to qualify as persons. Peculiarly, abortion opponents take those Facts and immediately start blathering about “infanticide”. But the topic is ABORTION, not infanticide. How can they possibly think that by trying to change the subject the Facts can be refuted?

 

Part 4 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

The goal of these postings is to prove that abortion opponents have NO valid arguments. Many postings are needed because it can take a lot of data to show, for example, that just because some entity is human, it is NOT automatically also a person. Which leads us to….

“Murder” involves killing a person, not a human. It is NOT “murder” to pull the plug keeping a brain-dead adult human on full life-support alive. In the nation of India, the government was persuaded by the data about dolphins to declare them “non human persons” –and killing one would be “murder”. If you asked the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs whether or not killing an extraterrestrial alien ambassador would be “murder”, what do you suppose the answer would be?

The mere CLAIM that an unborn human is a person NEEDS TO BE PROVED. Logically, if an unborn human is not a person, it is impossible for an abortion to be “murder”. It is really that simple –and with ALL the data against the notion, a typical anti-abortion argument becomes invalid and worthless.

 

Part 5a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Many abortion opponents base their objections on religious, not secular, grounds. It is thus important to show all religious arguments against abortion are as invalid as all secular arguments.

When discussing religious “stuff”, we note that two “realms” are involved –the physical realm and the spiritual realm. Scientists can prove MANY things about the physical realm, and NOTHING about the spiritual realm (it can’t even be proved to exist!). That basically means religions are free to claim just about anything they want about the spiritual realm –but WHATEVER they claim about the physical realm can be subjected to close scrutiny.

The Fact is, religions have made a lot of claims about the physical realm that turned out to be utterly FALSE. The Earth is NOT at the center of the Universe; lightning is NOT an exhibition of God’s Will; there was NO world-drowning Flood; evolution is a Fact. And so on.

Religions claim to be representing God, speaking God’s Word. Well, if God is not a liar, where did all those WRONG claims come from? The religions! So why should ANYTHING they say be believed?

 

Part 5b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 5a, we note the religious concept of “person” differs greatly from the secular concept. Instead of being a “mind”, as indicated in Part 3a, a person is associated with a “soul”, a spiritual-realm thing –and “murder” becomes the killing of any physical entity with an associated soul. Well, for the Overall Abortion Debate, it is now important to know when a soul begins associating with a human body.

Since religions are free to claim anything about the spiritual realm, it should be no surprise that different religions make different claims about humans and associated souls. At the moment we will examine a Christian claim –which ALSO features differences!

For centuries it was claimed that soul-association began when a fetus “quickens” (starts to “kick” in the womb). Then scientists learned more facts about the nature of Life, and the religious claim was CHANGED to say that soul-association began at conception. WHY was it changed? If truly speaking the Word of God, the original claim should have been ACCURATE. Changing the claim lets us doubt both the original and the new claim!

 

Part 5c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Part 5a and 5b, scientists learned a LOT more about the nature of Life, since the time the Christian claim about soul-association was changed. Biological machinery is MACHINERY, period. We can add artificial genes to bacteria and watch the results. A human zygote is VERY like a “eukaryote” bacterium; ALL its activities are controlled by DNA –what does it need a soul FOR?

The womb is a “reduced-gravity environment”. NASA discovered that exercise is needed to protect bones; Natural Evolution discovered it millions of years ago, leading to “kicking”. Even fetal rats kick in the womb; do they have souls? The influences of DNA ENTIRELY suffice to explain ALL in-womb biological development!

Some religions claim souls “develop” like bodies develop, so developing together makes sense. BUT this means a soul begins to exist at conception; what CAUSES that? See, ANYTHING created by some purely physical process (like ovum-fertilization) can be destroyed by some other physical process –and souls are claimed to be “immortal”. It is IRRATIONAL to claim conceptions create souls!

 

Part 5d of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Parts 5, the physical realm’s inability to destroy an immortal spiritual soul leads to other logical consequences. The physical process that produces twins from a single zygote does NOT involve any fancy biological reactions –an entity called a “blastocyst” simply breaks apart into two separate organisms a few days AFTER conception, and each ultimately yields a whole human body. So where did the second soul come from (and the third, when the blastocyst splits to yield identical triplets)?

Then there is “chimerism”, in which two separate blastocysts, from two separate conceptions, merge together a few days after conception to form just one often ordinary-looking human body. NEITHER blastocyst dies in the merging process, so if each one is associated with a soul, where does one soul go, such that the ordinary-looking human is only recognized as having just one soul?

Basically, it is clear that some religions have made claims about souls that don’t properly coincide with known facts about the physical realm. So, once again, why should those religious claims be believed?

 

Part 5e of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Parts 5, we now consider what a religion might gain by making claims that risk being proved untrue and/or irrational. Besides the probability that it was thought such claims, at the time they were made, COULDN’T be proved anything but true, there actually is a major “motive” for religions to oppose abortion.

Almost every religion claims to be The One True Religion –and most of them have been willing to use force to impress its claims on populations that believed different claims. Religions DIRECTLY benefit from that in the form of increased “tithes”. Well, it takes an army to subdue another population –so the more babies a religion can encourage to be born, the more indoctrinated warriors it can have to fight the competition.

Religions served themselves in that manner for thousands of years, and STILL do it today when they are able (see the Middle East!). So, is their opposition to abortion ONLY a spiritual matter? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST! And we who see through their ulterior motive can choose to refuse to cooperate with it, by keeping abortion legal.

 

Part 5f of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Parts 5, it is Logical to think that some spiritual process creates a soul, just as a physical process creates a zygote. Well, God is claimed to be the Ruler of the spiritual realm, to the extent it is unlikely that new souls can be created without God being involved –can’t have rebels creating an opposition army THAT way, after all!

God is also claimed to know everything, and therefore, since scientists know that more than 50% of newly-existing zygotes fail to lead to confirmed pregnancies, God knows it, too –and knows biological machinery doesn’t need a soul to function– AND knows WHICH zygotes won’t succeed. Why would God approve of soul-creation for doomed zygotes?

Furthermore, with God involved in soul-creation, why does a soul need to “develop”, when it can be created fully-developed? Which leads us to comparing a body to a “vehicle”, and a soul as its “driver”. When WE build a vehicle, we install a driver AFTER it is ready to be driven; why wouldn’t God do the same?

SOME religions DO claim soul-association begins AFTER birth –AND they allow abortion!

 

Part 5g of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Parts 5, we note that unborn humans are NOT actually “innocent”, despite the claims of abortion opponents. (The details will be presented in Part 6.) So, if there is a soul present, it becomes guilty-by-association. Why would God approve of a soul becoming non-innocent through no fault of its own, but through the fault of being created for an unborn human? ESPECIALLY when, after birth, a human begins behaving innocently?

MORE, God knows the exact probability that a woman might seek an abortion, and God is claimed to be “loving”. Remember, per the religious claims, abortion can be murder only if the unborn human has a soul. So, if God loves the woman, why should a soul be created, when that would cause abortion to become murder?

Over and over again, it is easy to show that religious claims regarding souls and conception just don’t make sense. Which means their nonsense can be totally ignored by Society, while continuing to allow abortions.

 

Part 6 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents often claim an unborn human is “innocent” and “defenseless”, when in Fact it is NEITHER. It steals nutrients from the body of its hostess; it dumps toxic biowastes into her body, and it infuses addictive (progesterone) and mind-altering (oxytocin) substances into her body. It is as GUILTY of doing those horrible things –which NO adult is allowed to do!– as a typical abortion opponent is guilty of breathing.

Some say it is innocent since it doesn’t understand its actions –HELPING TO PROVE IT IS A MERE ANIMAL ORGANISM, NOT A PERSON. We routinely kill animals that act LESS offensively than unborn humans, like hookworm, ringworm, guinea worm…why should “human-ness” make a difference? Stupid Prejudice?

As for defense, that’s what oxytocin is for –it is the reason you DON’T get between a mama bear and her cubs! It’s also the reason why a pregnant woman who might first choose adoption alters her mind, and keeps her newborn offspring, thereby disappointing and frustrating desirous adopters. To claim she MUST stay pregnant against her will is like claiming date-rape drugs are OK.

 

Part 7a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents often blather about “responsibility” –and then they make the absolutely/totally ridiculous assumption that a responsibility can only be handled one way. HAH! A pregnant woman most certainly has a responsibility to DEAL WITH IT –and abortion is one way to deal with it, duh! If she carried the pregnancy to term and then raised her offspring for 18 or more years, the offspring would then be grown and independent enough to leave, and she would be in the same by-herself situation as if she had had an abortion, instead. PLUS, we all know the offspring is going to eventually die, anyway. Since either choice leads to the same by-herself result, and death of the offspring, either choice is equally valid!

Note more than 50% of conceptions don’t lead to confirmed pregnancies, and about 15% of those Naturally miscarry.

Can any abortion opponent explain why UNWANTED offspring MUST have long lifespans, instead of the short ones that MOST of them have? Probably not!

And therefore the anti-abortion argument is INvalid, just like ALL other anti-abortion arguments, in this day-and-age.

 

Part 7b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 7a, the word “responsibility” gets mentioned because the claim is made that the woman [helped] cause the pregnancy. However that claim is only PARTLY true! The sex act sets a sequence of POSSIBLE events in motion, not a sequence of guaranteed-to-happen events….

First, sex does not FORCE sperm and ovum to merge, thereby forming a zygote. They are independently-acting entities. Next, the sex act does not FORCE a zygote to start dividing, to become a morula. It is an independently-acting entity. Next, the sex act does not FORCE a morula to crack open the ovum’s “zona pallucida” and become a blastocyst; it is an independently-acting entity. Finally, the sex act does not FORCE a blastocyst to implant into a womb; it is an independently-acting entity.

If a DESIRED pregnancy FAILS to happen, the sex-participants are NOT blamed, because we know that one of those independently-acting entities might fail to do a desired thing. So, why should the sex-participants be blamed if an UNDESIRED pregnancy happens? There is no such thing as “Intelligent Hypocrisy”; there is only Stupid Hypocrisy!

 

Part 7c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous Part 7a and 7b, we now consider the word “created”, since that is also often mentioned in terms of “responsible” and “caused”. We note that if a writer independently creates a manuscript, the writer has the FULL right to destroy that manuscript. We note that if a composer independently creates a musical score, the composer has the FULL right to destroy that musical score. We note that if an artist independently creates a painting or a sculpture, the artist has the FULL right to destroy that painting or sculpture. We even note that if a mad scientist independently creates dangerous life in a laboratory, the mad scientist has the FULL right to destroy that life.

SO! To whatever extent an abortion opponent wants to claim that some sex-participants independently caused/created a new human life to begin existing, the sex-participants should have the FULL right to kill it! (And if the independently acting blastocyst is blamed for a pregnancy, the invader can STILL be killed!)

And so three MORE anti-abortion arguments (in these Parts 7) are rendered invalid and worthless.

 

Part 8a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents are fond of calling an unborn human a “baby” or “child”, while scientists, who need to communicate Facts ACCURATELY, call it a “fetus”. This implies there is a significant difference between those words –even though at first glance of a dictionary, the word “fetus” has its roots in a Latin word that means “child”.

Well, Latin was the language of ancient Rome, spread widely. It then mutated in different ways and became today’s “Romance Languages”, which,in alphabetical order, are French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish. Does any variant of the word “fetus”, meaning “child”, appear in those modern languages? To the contrary! THESE are the words for “child” (per Google Translate):
French: “enfant”
Italian: “bambino”
Portuguese: “criança”
Romanian; “copil”
Spanish: “niño””

Meanwhile, one can search for the phrase “bird fetus” or “turtle fetus” and find a reasonable number of matches (especially for an image-search). It should now be clear that the word “fetus” in this day-and-age is generic for “unborn or unhatched organism”, and does NOT mean “child”.

 

Part 8b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 8a, while we note that dictionary definitions allow people to call an unborn human a “baby” or a “child”, we also know dictionary definitions can be wrong or inaccurate. Consider that “baby” is a term of endearment that can be applied to any age, and EVERY human is a “child” to its parents. So, every human COULD be called a “baby/child”.

If one tried to actually do that in most casual conversations, the recipient of the appellation would object (perhaps forcefully). This means that while one CAN use those words, per dictionary definitions, it can be unwise to actually do it!

The rest of these Parts 8 will explain exactly why it is unwise to call an unborn human a “baby” or “child”.

Note that MOST of the time, when talking about a human called “baby” or “child”, the terms are age-specific. A baby is a human that wears diapers and is younger than a toddler, which is younger than a child –which is younger than a pre-teen. An abortion opponent calling an unborn human a baby or child is CONFLATING definitions, spouting Propaganda –and deserves in turn to be called a “baby/child”.

 

Part 8c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Calling an unborn human a “baby” or “child” ENCOURAGES THE IGNORING of the miscarriage rate. The age-specific baby or child is immune to miscarriage –a pre-birth-ONLY thing. An unborn human is ACTUALLY a “baby or child UNDER CONSTRUCTION” –a process subject to “Murphy’s Law: If anything can go wrong, it will” (thereby often causing a miscarriage). To ONLY call an unborn human a “baby” or “child”, WITHOUT mentioning the REST of the facts, is to pretend those facts are irrelevant, that a successful birth is 100% probable. It is to LIE, because nothing one can SAY changes the Fact that about 15% of all confirmed pregnancies Naturally miscarry. So consider a pregnant woman who “swallowed” the lie, and thinks “I’m going to have a baby!”, while a different woman more-accurately thinks “I’m hosting a biological construction project that often succeeds, but sometimes fails.” Which woman will be MORE psychologically devastated if both miscarry? The first had hopes raised –FALSE hopes– while the second didn’t. Thus, exactly how wise is it to raise false hopes in others (something only con-artists do)?

 

Part 8d of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

The existence of the placenta means something that was only recognized after modern DNA tests were developed. Historically, when talking about an unborn human, only the “fetus” was referenced. Today we know it is more accurate to use a phrase like “overall unborn human organism” –those DNA tests showed that most of the placenta is PART of that organism! MORE, the placenta is actually a “vital organ”, equivalent to the heart in importance. The net effect is that, today, focusing on the “fetus” PART of the organism does not communicate an accurate picture of the overall organism (like focusing on an elephant’s tail doesn’t portray the whole elephant). Meanwhile, the age-specific baby or child has no association whatsoever with a placenta. Therefore, once again, to call an unborn human a “baby” or “child” is to fail to be complete about all the facts. It is as if one has UNWISELY deluded self into thinking that since a portion of an overall organism resembles some other organism (like an elephant’s trunk might resemble a snake), the first organism must therefore be equivalent to the second. NOPE!

 

Part 8e of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

It can be noted that the English language includes many terms which are very often used in ordinary conversations, and which reference physical differences between different humans. While some are considered derisive (such as “redskin”), many are not –such as “black”, “white”, “chubby”, “skinny”, “tall”, “short”, “beautiful”, “plain”, and more. Well, because an unborn human is generally associated with a placenta (starting a week or three after conception), and the age-specific baby or child has no such association, it logically follows that different words should be used to talk about those physically different humans. To INSIST on calling an unborn human a “baby” or “child” is equivalent to insisting on calling a skinny human “fat” –it is to LIE about the actual physical nature of an overall unborn human organism. MORE, anyone who does such insisting, yet who ordinarily/casually uses those other physically descriptive words properly, when talking about other humans, would be exhibiting “hypocrisy”. Are abortion opponents unwise enough to be lying hypocrites? Check the evidence!

 

Part 8f of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Think about the “modus operandi” of survival, of an unborn human organism. The purpose of the placenta, that vital organ, includes TAKING nutrients from another human’s body without asking, dumping toxic biowastes into that other human’s body, and infusing addictive and mind-altering substances into the other human’s body (see Part 6), all just to survive. Meanwhile, no age-specific baby or child does any such thing! After birth, the modus operandi for survival changes utterly and drastically (a newborn can’t take anything except breaths of air, and otherwise must receive gifts, such as the gift of being carried to a milk-filled teat). Their behaviors are so different that to call the unborn human a “baby” or “child” is to INSULT the age-specific baby or child! Does the average abortion opponent, who can be called a “baby/child”, want to be lumped-together with the group of mindless human animal organisms that so detrimentally/horribly affect other human bodies? If not, then how wise is it for them to do exactly such lumping-together, by calling an unborn human organism a “baby” or “child”?

 

Part 8g of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

This applies more to “child” than “baby”, a difference that isn’t particularly visible or obvious (the toxic-biowaste dumping is the cause of “morning sickness”), like the other items in these Parts 8. The womb, and especially the insides of an amniotic sac, happens to be a very “clean” environment in terms of bacteria. Just about all the cells of the unborn human organism are 100% human. After birth, though, exposure to the Real World begins the training and testing of a human body’s immune system; by the time the average human reaches the age-range normally associated with “child”, 90% of the cells of the body are bacterial, NOT human. They are also mostly “symbiotic”, such that the human child cannot survive without those bacterial partner-cells (some are actually PART of the overall immune system). Therefore, once again, to call an unborn human a “child” is to fail to be accurate about the true physical nature of an unborn human organism, compared to the age-specific child. Once again, how wise is it for abortion opponents to be deliberately inaccurate in their description of something?

 

Part 9a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

The word “inherent” is very popular with abortion opponents, but they use the word in making FALSE claims. For example, they claim humans have “inherent value” –but they never bother to prove the more-fundamental claim regarding the existence of ANY type inherent value! (It must exist before humans can be claimed to have it.) It is a POSITIVE claim, which if true can be proved –so WHERE is the proof? THEY HAVE NONE! ALL valuations are ACTUALLY Subjective and Relative, not Objective/Inherent.

An Objective/Inherent property is something that can be identified anywhere –it can be RECOGNIZED. A diamond has inherent hardness, but not inherent value –if one puts a diamond the size of a dung pile next to a dung pile and a dung beetle, one would see the beetle valuing the dung more than the diamond. We can imagine it looking at the diamond and thinking “That ain’t worth s***.”

A hungry man-eating tiger would break its teeth on the hardness of a diamond –but if it encounters an abortion opponent, it won’t value human LIFE as much as it values human MEAT, despite CLAIMS of the abortion opponent!

 

Part 9b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 9a, we now note that a hungry man-eating tiger is no more likely to recognize an abortion opponents CLAIM of having an “inherent right to life”, than it would recognize any inherent value of human life.

What “right to life” ACTUALLY is, is a TOOL that humans invented in order to get-along with each other better. Meanwhile, the Universe doesn’t care one bit about egotistical human CLAIMS; a nearby gamma-ray burst or supernova explosion, or a giant asteroid impact, or a solar “superflare”, or even World War Three, could easily make us as extinct as the large dinosaurs, and the Universe would get-along just fine without us.

Now see that phrase “get-along with each other”? Does an unborn human “get along with” its hostess by dumping toxic biowastes into her bloodstream? Does it “get along with” her by infusing addictive and mind-altering substances into her? Does it “get along with” her by stealing nutrients from her body? NO! NO! and NO! So why MUST the woman “get along” with the unborn human ANIMAL organism, if she doesn’t want to?

 

Part 10 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

One anti-abortion argument focuses on fetal pain. So let’s start by considering deer-hunting –it is well-known that when a deer is shot, it often flees, yet eventually collapses from a VERY PAINFUL injury. This fact doesn’t cause deer-hunting to be banned, however. We actually MUST hunt deer, because in many places there are no wolves to keep their population in check –so NOW think about a deer’s pain from being eaten alive by wolves.

With that in mind, we now ask, “What of the FACT that while pain signals can reach the spinal cord, most abortions are performed well before a pregnancy’s third trimester, when the spinal cord connects to the brain, ONLY THEN letting the brain feel pain from a damaged body?” (The deer is fully developed and will easily feel wolf-bites.)

Finally consider the umbilical cord, which has NO nerves. If cut as the FIRST thing in ANY abortion procedure (even late-term), there would be NO pain, yet the fetal brain would shut down in about 30 seconds from lack of oxygen, and PAINLESSLY die a few minutes later. The rest of the abortion procedure would also be painless!

 

Part 11a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

While Part 2 demolished the dictionary definition of “human being”, and Part 5 demolished a significant religion-based anti-abortion argument, there are some more items that can be presented, relating to those things. Consider the Biblical verse of Jeremiah 1:5, which claims God said, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee …” –while modern scientific data can’t refute a SPECIFIC claim about Jeremiah, a GENERIC claim is WRONG, because “homeobox genes” are known to ACTUALLY control the formation of any multi-cellular life-form’s body. (Besides, God is claimed to be perfect, so it should be impossible for any sort of deformed human to get born, IF God was actually always involved in unborn-human body-formation.)

Another thing about the Jeremiah verse is simple; it indicates that Jeremiah’s soul was NOT created at conception; it was created sometime BEFORE his body began to be formed. We also note that the verse does NOT state that Jeremiah’s soul began its association with the body “in the belly” –the body and soul are two different things, even though either can be referenced via “thee”.

 

Part 11b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 11a, we consider the Sixth Commandment, which is typically specified as forbidding “killing” (much like traditional Buddhism), but originally prohibited “murder”, a very different thing –after all, you MUST kill other life-forms just to survive; see your immune system, for example. As explained in Part 4, murder is about killing a PERSON –and as explained in Parts 2 and 3, not all human entities qualify as persons, while various NON-human entities CAN qualify (any intelligent extraterrestrial alien beings elsewhere in the Universe, for example).

We can now look at Exodus 21:22, and note that if a pregnancy is terminated prematurely, an ARBITRARY/Subjective penalty can be requested. So, see Part 9 about the word “inherent”! Unborn humans only have Subjective value, and CAN’T have nonexistent/”inherent” rights. Thus if a woman Subjectively values an occupant of her womb as Zero or even negative, she need not pay any attention to others and their differing Subjective valuations.

 

Part 11c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Parts 11a and 11b, we can now consider a common Eastern religious philosophy, “reincarnation”, in which abortion is sometimes called “bad karma”, by interfering with the long-term Earthly (physical-realm) education of a soul, and causing frustration. However, remember that souls are supposed to be immortal? THEY CAN AFFORD TO WAIT(!) for births into families that WANT newborns! For the woman who gets an abortion, after she dies and her soul decides to reincarnate, she could become frustrated too, by abortion –but that just means her karmic debt has balanced-out; she, also, can afford to wait for a WANTED newborn.

 

Part 12 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

While abortion opponents are known to denounce the convoluted “right to privacy” rationale for the Roe vs Wade decision, they cannot refute the much simpler and more-straightforward Constitutional argument presented in Part 1 –even abortion opponents tend to respect the Founding Fathers!

We can also note that the 19th-Century 14th Amendment specifically references “all persons born” and says NOTHING about the unborn, thereby REINFORCING the Constitutional decisions made by the Founding Fathers.

Finally, for abortion opponents to continue to mis-use the words “baby” and “child”, when referring to unborn human organisms, in trying to oppose certain details of Roe vs Wade, only opens the door to let THEM, the abortion opponents, be called “baby/children”. After all (per Part 8), on what grounds do they think only they can conflate dictionary definitions and spout Propaganda?

 

Part 13 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Part 6 explained that an unborn human organism infuses the addictive substance “progesterone” into its hostess. It is well-known that when usage of an addictive substances ends, “withdrawal symptoms” occur –which can be either physiological, psychological, or both (depending on the substance). With respect to pregnancy, it is known that HOWEVER it ends, whether by birth, or by miscarriage, or by abortion, “post partum depression” can occur. We can now point out some ridiculousness –that if abortion should be banned because of the probability of psychological harm, BIRTH should be banned, too!

We can also look at ANOTHER cause of psychological harm, which is the BULLYING denunciations and denigrations of women who had abortions, BY abortion opponents! So, expanding upon the previous ridiculousness, obviously opposition to abortion should be banned, too!

Finally, we note that in the former Soviet Union, MOST women had MULTIPLE abortions –but there are no claims that most of the female population was traumatized. They actually were mostly RELIEVED to be not raising offspring in that horrid culture!

 

Part 14 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

In the USA, abortion opponents sometimes blather about a shortage of adoptable babies, when they SHOULD be focusing on other things, like the millions of babies dying of starvation each year in places like Africa, and the political barriers keeping them from getting adopted –AND the Stupid Prejudice exhibited by anyone who only wants to adopt a baby of the same “breed” (skin-coloration) as self. Any members of that last group likely don’t DESERVE to be allowed to adopt a baby, when the existence of cross-SPECIES adoption is well known (both ways! –see “pets” and the story of Romulus and Remus, or Mowgli, or Tarzan).

Furthermore, abortion opponents are neglecting to think about oxytocin (see Part 6), which causes a significant percentage of women to alter their minds about their newborns. Abortion opponents would be forcing many more unwanted pregnancies to be carried to term, than actually end up getting adopted!

With only some of those babies actually being unconditionally wanted, abortion opponents should think about THEIR contribution to the data connecting unwanted children and the crime rate.

 

Part 15a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents present many arguments fundamentally based on the ASSUMPTION that unborn humans qualify as persons, and therefore are deserving of the same treatment as other human persons. Parts 2 and 3 were extensive precisely because that assumption is so crucial to so many anti-abortion arguments –the flaws in that assumption needed to be described as thoroughly as possible. Thus the dictionary CAN’T legitimately be used to claim that just because some entity is human, it must also be a person. Therefore, they need to prove that unborn humans qualify as persons some OTHER way. While one such way could involve the concept of “souls”, Part 5 showed that doesn’t make sense, either.

An example of an anti-abortion argument destroyed by the preceding involves data indicating deformed fetuses are aborted more often than normal fetuses. WHY SHOULD IT MATTER if no fetus is a person? Indeed, if we view a deformed unborn human body as a “vehicle” for a future mind, then abortion opponents are insisting that mind MUST own-for-life a “lemon” body. How can that possibly qualify as “caring” about a person?

 

Part 15b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 15a, we note another destroyed anti-abortion argument, regarding the treatment of human life as if it was “disposable”. Well, when abortion opponents are willing to pay a manicurist to kill hundreds or thousands of living human cuticle cells, and when they accept that living human hydatidiform moles MUST be killed, and when they don’t complain about pulling the “plug” keeping a brain-dead adult human body alive on full life-support, we can see that human life IS disposable!

MORE, we can note that to give human life undue importance is to promote Stupid Prejudice. If murder is defined as killing a HUMAN life, then obviously all future extraterrestrial alien/non-human peaceful ambassadors can be killed just as soon as they exit their space-ships, right?

IT IS FAR MORE CRITICAL TO BE RESPECTFUL OF PERSONHOOD, than “human life”. Confusing those concepts ONLY leads to problems, not solutions, when interacting with non-human intelligent beings (maybe including dolphins). Allowing abortion tells the Universe we are NOT so egotistical as to think we are the most important thing in it!

 

Part 15c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Parts 15a and 15b, we note that the US Declaration of Independence declares that all men have inalienable rights. Taken LITERALLY, it obviously is not talking about women or children (of any age). Therefore, to apply it to women and children, it is necessary to pick a definition of “men” that doesn’t mean “male humans”. Okay….

THAT opens the door for OTHER usages of the word “men”. In 1912 Edgar Rice Burroughs published “A Princess of Mars”, a fiction that included red men and green men (and the sequels featured yellow men, black men, and white men). Those “green men” were not remotely “human”, with facial tusks and 6 limbs instead of the hominid 4, and hatching from eggs, too.

For more than a hundred years the word “men” has NOT referred only to members of the species Homo Sapiens. So, if it is used to mean something different from “human male”, to include women and children, it can simply mean “person” and encompass an even wider group of beings! While still excluding the unborn!

 

Part 15d of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the previous parts 15, we note that another destroyed anti-abortion argument talks about the immorality of killing an unborn child for convenience –destroyed because the unborn human is neither a person NOR the same thing as an age-specific child (see Part 8), which in turn usually IS a person.

That argument has two more major destructive errors. First, morals are ARBITRARY –for proof, just see what various different cultures have to say about the morality of eating pork. SO, just because something is CLAIMED to be immoral, the claim doesn’t HAVE to be believed. (Try “ethics” instead, which not only can be non-arbitrary, its statements must be proved valid before being accepted.)

The second error is about “convenience” –abortion is MUCH more expensive than other forms of contraception, but it is also more certain to be effective. The unreliability of contraceptives probably promoted a lot of no-fun abstinence; the legalization of abortion gave lots of people a BACKUP PLAN, a practically-guaranteed-to-work method of birth control that could be used whenever contraceptives failed.

 

Part 15e of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the “convenience” section of Part 15d, abortion opponents sometimes claim that the procedure is unnatural. WRONG! They need to study “fetal resorption”. There are certain conditions under which it is PERFECTLY natural for the occupant of a womb to be killed, BY THE WOMB! USUALLY, the event is triggered by a shortage of appropriate resources in the environment –Evolution has responded to it by NOT forcing pregnant females to continue investing resources in offspring that would die after getting born.

So, think about the “environment” of the average pregnant woman seeking an abortion. SHE knows FAR better what her situation is, than the average abortion opponent! If it is claimed that a disproportionate percentage of Black women seek abortions, it is likely because they are disproportionately impoverished, and are simply responding to a shortage of resources. Far from those abortions being unnatural (or even a matter of “inconvenience”), killing those unborn humans are actions CONSISTENT with Nature!

 

Part 15f of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents sometimes talk about doctors, abortion, and the original Hippocratic Oath in the same paragraph. They somehow don’t realize that it is NOT necessary to swear to the ORIGINAL Hippocratic Oath to become a doctor –and variant Oaths do exist, which happen to allow doctors to perform abortions. Even if a doctor swears to “not play at God”, abortion is allowed, because Evolution alone can explain the existence of human life. It would have to be PROVED that God was involved there, before exercising power over human life can be called “playing at God”.

Meanwhile, unborn humans are STILL mere-animal organisms, so let us now think about “veterinarians”, who often have a much broader education than doctors of human ailments. Human health relates to a mostly-the-same metabolism; different animal species have wildly varying metabolisms (did you know a dog can die from eating chocolate?). Veterinarians don’t take the Hippocratic Oath and often do animal abortions; they probably could do human abortions just fine, as safely as any ordinary doctor, after a short “learning curve”….

 

Part 15g of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the “playing at God” part of 15f, many abortion opponents think that human life –and Life in general, in fact– has a “mystic” quality associated with it, a property that has been called “vitalism”. Likely this resulted from noting how DIFFERENT are living things from other things –for thousands of years humans routinely resorted to mystical explanations for things that could not be obviously understood, and cultural traditions tend to strongly persist.

However, in 1828 the first substance always associated with a biological origin (urea) was chemically synthesized from purely non-living substances. Since then, a vast variety of organic substances have also been synthesized. EVERYTHING about ordinary Biology is explained by modern Chemistry and Physics. Vitalism has been PROVED FALSE; living things are MACHINES, employing “Natural Nanotechnology”. God knows ALL about how Evolution works! So recall the “upgradable” computer in Part 3c, and abortion stopping a MECHANISTIC upgrade process. A human “vehicle” could have a soul/driver AFTER birth, when it would make sense; see Part 5.

 

Part 15h of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from the soul/driver idea, we can imagine HOW “Free Will” might work. Quantum Mechanics tells us that various events can happen with NO Cause whatsoever, a loophole in the Law of Cause and Effect. (See the Bell Inequality experiments.) Utter Randomness truly exists! Next, neurons have structures fine enough to be influenced by Quantum Randomness. Evolution can USE that –a rabbit jumping utterly randomly has a better chance of escaping a predator than a rabbit jumping predictably. Per Part 3d, human persons can use Quantum Randomness at a higher level, in the form of Free Will.

OR!!! See “the Casimir experiment” –the mathematical probabilities associated with Quantum Randomness can be manipulated! Well, why can’t a soul also manipulate mathematical probabilities, which are NON-physical things? So, if a soul can affect the Quantum Randomness detected by human-brain neural structures, then the soul’s own Free Will can effectively control the body!

But, as previously stated, it doesn’t make sense for a soul to start controlling a human body before it is READY to be controlled!

 

Part 16a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

A number of anti-abortion arguments invoke the word “potential”. Sometimes they talk about “potential human beings”, as if they ACCEPT that unborn humans don’t qualify NOW for that category. They say that JUST BECAUSE it has that potential, an unborn human should be treated like a person. (This sometimes called the “kind of being” argument.)

The fundamental flaw in such arguments is the failure to accept that “potential” and “actual” are DIFFERENT things that can be treated differently –and basically always ARE treated differently. Consider that the average abortion opponent has the potential to die someday, or win a major lottery, even if both take centuries. Should the potential corpse be treated right now like an actual corpse (embalmed and buried)? Should current taxes be assessed based on POTENTIAL future winnings? Of course not! ONLY in the Overall Abortion Debate is the nonsense spouted that the Potential must be treated like the Actual! Revealing the nonsense destroys the argument. So, repeating: abortion opponents have NO valid arguments in this day-and-age.

 

Part 16b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 16a, the “kind of being” argument has another major flaw, related to an assumption about persons that is not known to be true. Biological science found that most life-forms employ one of two different reproductive strategies, known as “K strategy” and “R strategy”. Humans are K-strategists; we have very few offspring at a time, and provide lots of care to help them survive. Many species are R-strategists, having many hundreds, or even hundreds of thousands, of offspring at a time –and often giving them no care at all, so practically all those offspring die, by getting eaten.

The octopus, one of the smartest animals in the ocean, is an R-strategist. The “kind of being” argument ASSUMES all intelligent species in the Universe are K-strategists –but if JUST ONE intelligent R-strategist species happens to exist somewhere, the argument is destroyed. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to give all their offspring K-strategy care, as required by the kind-of-being argument. (Just imagine every adult human couple on Earth trying to raise 20,000 offspring each!).

 

Part 16c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Another way in which abortion opponents use the word “potential” is to talk in a positive way about what humans might accomplish, if they were allowed to get born instead of getting aborted. The problem here is, the available data indicates that (A) a small percentage of humans do great things–like Einstein– and (B) a roughly equal percentage of humans do horrible things –like Hitler. It is IRRATIONAL to think that potential persons will ONLY do positive things in the future, if always allowed to get born.

In essence, that anti-abortion argument is not so much “destroyed” as “cancelled out”. Either way, though, it is an INVALID reason to illegalize abortion.

 

Part 16d of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

A variation on the theme of “potential” is something known as “the continuity argument”. Abortion opponents sometimes dare pro-choicers to Answer this (or similar) Question, “Were you ever a fetus?”

The correct response to that starts by asking the abortion opponents to clarify what they mean by the word “you”, and to do so by Answering the Question posed in Part 3a, about decapitation. Then the pro-choicer can probably answer “NO!” to the abortion opponent’s Question, simply because no MIND was ever a FETUS. Basically, the continuity argument makes the erroneous assumption that a human person is a BODY, not a mind. (It is also erroneous if souls exist.) In Secular arguments a person is equivalent to software running on a computer, with the body’s brain as the computer –and the software of personhood doesn’t get “written” until well AFTER birth, during the Nurturing process (see Part 3b). That’s why we expect to one day be able to build, with hardware sensitive to Quantum Randomness (see Part 15h), a True Artificial Intelligence having Free Will, ALSO a person that was never a fetus!

 

Part 17a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents sometimes call those who seek the procedure “selfish”. While that is certainly sometimes true, it is not the only reason abortions are sought. For example, consider a rapist. We know that genes can INFLUENCE human behavior, and anonymous surveys have discovered that lots more men might commit rape, than actually commit rape, if they thought they could get away with it. So, it is reasonable to think that there is a genetic factor, a TENDENCY favoring the committing of rape. (We ALSO know that Nature doesn’t care how genes get passed on to the next generation; WHATEVER WORKS is okay as far as Nature is concerned –AND tends to be genetically reinforced!)

When a pregnancy results from rape, the rapist can be described as selfishly passing on the genes responsible for the tendency to commit rape. In what way is seeking to abort the successful transmission of those genes, to refuse to cooperate with THAT reproductive strategy, “selfish”?

 

Part 17b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 17a, we note the concept of “selfishness” comes in “degrees”. Consider the process of feeding YOUR face –is that not selfish, when others could have been eating that food, instead? Well, every life-form that refused to feed itself because the act is selfish would become extinct! They would have to refuse to reproduce, too, because the reproductive process consumes resources that other organisms might use instead.

Such data implies that some modest degree of selfishness MUST be socially acceptable. Beyond that are degrees of selfishness that can be called “excessive”. SOME abortions are in that category, but not all.

Now study-up on the “octomom”. While she and her 6 kids were on Welfare, she decided to have 8 more kids, all at once. She was basically telling Society, “I’m going to pass my genes on, and YOU are going to pay for it!” Is that not “excessively selfish”? Can MANDATORY abortions be appropriate?

With excess selfishness existing on BOTH sides of the Overall Abortion Debate, the anti-abortion argument is cancelled-out and rendered INVALID.

 

Part 17c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing on selfishness, we now look at selfishness exhibited by a significant percentage of (but not all) abortion opponents –that is, their opposition to abortion is based on selfishness!

The Law of Supply and Demand is known to be VERY valid. So, for “political conservative” business-owners who happen to also oppose abortion, it’s obvious forcing more people to get born increases the Demand for goods, causing prices and profits to rise, thus directly benefiting those selfish business owners (who also strive to RESTRICT Supply –they KNOW how that Law works!).

MORE, forcing more people to get born increases future competition for jobs, which tends to REDUCE wages (or at least prevent them from “inflating” as fast as prices). This ALSO directly benefits selfish business owners.

In brief, the Law of Supply and Demand tells us that if Population increases faster than Resources, the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer –something that has been happening for more than 60 years. Rich selfish business-owning abortion opponents simply want to make it WORSE, for all except themselves.

 

Part 18a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents sometimes talk about how the procedure can cause future medical problems. One of the problems is an increased chance of having a miscarriage, when a pregnancy is desired. What the abortion opponents DON’T say is, BIRTH can lead to an increased chance of having a future miscarriage!

See, EVERY time a placenta grows in the womb, and later detaches, it leaves some scar tissue behind. That scar tissue cannot support another placenta, so if a future blastocyst happens to implant next to it, the new placenta will grow to encounter the scar tissue and, probably, fail to stay attached to the womb. So, it doesn’t matter if a pregnancy leads to birth, or to miscarriage, OR to abortion, because ALL those events increase the chance of a future miscarriage. Since it is IMPOSSIBLE to illegalize miscarriage (Natural/involuntary abortion), it makes little sense to illegalize voluntary abortion.

This anti-abortion argument is about RISK, Are abortion opponents planning on illegalizing alcohol, because of RISK? If not, the argument is INVALID.

 

Part 18b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 18a, another future medical problem, claimed to be associated with abortion, is breast cancer. This claim has popped up several times over the decades, but has failed to be Formally Verified. Even if the potential for an increased chance of having the future medical problem of breast cancer was verified as being associated with abortion, this anti-abortion argument is ALSO about RISK. It can certainly be a good reason for people to use ordinary contraceptives as much as possible, so that abortions can be sought as rarely as possible –but it is NOT a good reason to actually make abortion illegal. Not as long as OTHER risks are perfectly acceptable!

 

Part 19 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Abortion opponents sometimes talk about the rights of men who want to be parents, and how legal abortions can interfere with it. So let’s examine some Facts.

The ovum out-weighs a sperm by nearly 100,000 times. Not only does it contain DNA, it also contains the biological machinery for processing DNA, plus it contains a LARGE reserve of raw materials (the ovum is the largest of all human cells). So now let us think about a “boat”.

Imagine that a man and a woman each contribute $1 to obtain the blueprints for a boat. Then the woman also spends up to $100,000 to provide all the tools for constructing the boat, plus a large supply of initial raw materials. THEN the woman ALSO provides a place in which the boat can be constructed. At this point, on what basis can the man claim to have a 1/2 interest in the boat?

If the woman is employed, she can probably CONTINUE to provide all the additional resources needed to finish constructing the boat –but she could instead REFUSE to do that. For the man to have a “say” regarding abortion, the man needs to be a SIGNIFICANT contributor! And many simply AREN’T.

 

Part 20a of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Many abortion opponents deny that “overpopulation” is a problem. However, it appears that the basis for that claim is ONLY related to food supplies, and possible future food supplies. The world could, indeed, feed more people than are here right now. BUT the claim does NOT take into account many OTHER things associated with human overpopulation. Like “deforestation” (for firewood and farmland). Or “desertification” (due to domesticated goats eating all the greenery at the edges of existing deserts). Or “aquifer depletion” (due to farmland irrigation). Or “overfishing”. Or thousand-square-mile “red tides” (due to water pollution). Or MOUNTAINS of trash (due to cities needing to put solid waste SOMEWHERE). Or reduced Quality of Life (due to shortages of NON-food resources; see Part 17c). Or farmland encroachment by growing cities (how long can THAT go on?). Or Global Warming (due to sheer QUANTITIES of burned fossil fuels). But the WORST is “species extinctions” –THOUSANDS every year!– with abortion opponents working to INCREASE those deaths, while calling themselves “pro life”. WHAT A HORRIBLE LIE!!!

 

Part 20b of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 20a, overpopulation has a more-subtle consequence. It is known there are positive psychological benefits when persons interact with other things in Nature, like trees, flowers…. Most cities have public parks as a result.

Assume an average person needs, for maximum psychological benefit, some T amount of Time per week interacting with some P area of Park. We divide 168 hours by T to see how many (M1) people can sequentially visit P over the course of a week. Each person needs some “personal space”, so we divide P by that personal space to see how many (M2) people can simultaneously visit P. Multiply M1*M2=M3 to see how many people can maximally benefit from P, visiting it 24/7.

Now divide P into all the parkland in a city, and multiply that result by M3. Compare the product to the city’s population to see if the city can be psychologically healthy. Unhealthy cities are OVERpopulated (check the crime rates). Quoting Robert A. Heinlein: “Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.”

 

Part 20c of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

Continuing from Part 20b, the psychological benefits exist because humans are PART of Nature. We may be superior to certain ASPECTS of Nature, and choose to exhibit that superiority by cutting ourselves off from CONSTANT interactions with Nature, but we are PART of Nature all the same.

More specifically, Part 20b shows how QUANTITY of human life can diminish a key QUALITY of human life, different from the purely physical stuff mentioned in Part 17c. Do abortion opponents EVER consider it, when insisting unwanted mouths-to-feed MUST be born?

Many countries have national parks. Imagine 4 major regions: the populated areas, the farmland helping support the population, the parkland, and everything else, places people MOSTLY don’t go. If a nation’s population grows, land is needed for more houses, more farmland, and more parkland –but countries have LIMITED land. MOST cities grow by SHRINKING farmland –that CANNOT last!

The German word “lebensraum” means “living space”. Hitler used that word in a famous speech, an excuse to invade neighboring territory. In other words, overpopulation CAUSES war!

 

Part 20d of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

In any ecosystem, predators are imagined as being at the “top” of the system, even though the “food chain” is actually circular (predators can starve, and bacteria eat their corpses, if nothing else). Humans are now at the top of Earth’s ecosystem, and can resist starvation both by being social, and by being omnivores (not carnivores like most predators). In one sense humans are the TRUEST of omnivores; we consume mountains (see the Mesabi Range) and rivers (see the Colorado), not just ordinary organic stuff like whole forests!

Once upon a time, humans were prey, and their numbers were kept under control by predators. We have lots of data indicating that when prey animals have no predators, their numbers explode –and the WHOLE ecosystem suffers. Today’s mass extinctions of species is, in essence, the ecosystem suffering from the human population explosion, all because WE are no longer prey –the ONLY predators that can “take us on” are ourselves!

It is FORTUNATE that unborn humans are mere animal organisms. Abortion is a LEGITIMATE way humans can prey on humans, unlike war (persons vs persons).

 

Part 21 of many: abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

While the Overall Abortion Debate might end outright if everyone had full knowledge of all the relevant Facts (including Facts not presented in these many Parts), and then everyone drew the most-rational conclusions from those Facts, there is actually a much simpler way to end the Debate.

Deriving from “selfishness” stuff in Part 17, we note that cultures GENERALLY have a common theme regarding “wants” –if you can pay for it, you can usually have it. So, consider abortion opponents, who WANT more mouths-to-feed to be born. Logically, we can simply TAX them to pay for what they want! The taxes can pay ALL the prenatal medical expenses, the birthing costs, and ALL the costs of food, clothing, shelter, education, etc., for 18 years after birth.

Either of two things will then happen. All the abortion opponents could go broke from the taxes, paying for what THEY want –after which abortions can be allowed, since there will no longer be funds to support otherwise-unwanted mouths-to-feed. OR, people will simply stop being abortion opponents.

ALL THESE PARTS ARE GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. FINIS.

 

Part 22 of many; abortion should be legal because, in this day and age, there is no valid argument for making it illegal.

ADDENDUM. For anyone curious about the phrase “in this day and age”, an explanation is in order. It is well known that the survival of a species can be “endangered” if the total population of the species drops too low. If that should ever happen to the human species, the gene pool shrinking to dangerous degree, THEN there would be a valid reason to ban abortion. (It would also be a valid reason for women to have offspring by as many different men as possible.) In this day-and-age, however, we are far too numerous for that anti-abortion argument to be applicable.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s