• Home
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Projects
  • Content Mirror
  • Matrix Guide

  • "Abortion" Is A Euphemism I Won't Use

    May 3, 2022

    This is my formal and official opinion on the procedure commonly known as "abortion." It has come up a lot in recent times, so I thought it best to codify my opinion in writing. Note that when I say "opinion," I am using it in the legal sense—that is, in the same sense that the decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States are "opinions." I therefore expect it to appeal to logic and thus have some level of merit.

    I would like to point out that while this is commonly the stance of Christians, the argument I make here is largely a secular one. You don't have to be a Christian to see how I have formulated my position and to think it reasonable. That being said, this certainly aligns with Christian values, and it is most definitely a Christian's battle to fight.

    So first of all, I don't like the word "abortion" in the context of this issue. It's a euphemism that people use to try to hide what I think is really happening. So I'm going to call it infanticide because that is much more accurate in my view. It doesn't sugar-coat the problem. The problem is not "woman's rights" or "woman's health care". The problem is fundamentally a question of what human life is. If an unborn baby is human life, than the taking of that life, I think, by all definitions, is murder and should be treated as such. However, if it is not human life, then I am okay with "abortion" and dismissing it as merely a procedure a woman can get.

    Here's the deal though: an unborn child is human life, just the same as you and I. When I think about human life and how I go about defining what it means to be a person, I like to consider the S.L.E.D. test. This is a very simple test that is a commonly used argument against infanticide, because it pragmatically asserts that an unborn child is just as much of a person as a grown adult, and therefore the killing of it is just as immoral as the killing of your next door neighbor. The test is best summarized by this page.

    So you can see how the issue is not an issue of woman's rights, but human rights. Namely, an unborn human's right to life. And I think any human being's right to life trumps any other rights anyone else thinks they have. In any other scenario, pretty much everyone would agree with that statement.

    Now, with all that in mind, I think I can address the anger that women feel because they say that their rights are being infringed. The question is, does a woman really have the right that she insists she does? I don't think she does. When a woman suggests that she deserves the right to an "abortion," what she is really suggesting is that she should be able to slaughter her child if she wishes. I mean, think about it. If your own mother feels that her rights are infringed upon because she did not have the option to terminate you, how would that make you feel? That certainly wouldn't make me feel very good.

    But how did we get here in the first place? Why are there unwanted babies to begin with? Well, I think the most obvious reason is that our view on sex is heavily corrupted. We treat sex as merely a pastime that we participate in for our own pleasure, but while pleasure is one of the things it is intended to provide, there is a very real problem with this way of thinking. My blog post "Freedom in Christian Values" explains that in a lot more detail.

    Okay, so what about cases of rape and cases when the safety of the mother is in danger? I guess, first of all, let's talk about the latter scenario. What loving parent wouldn't give their own life for their child? I of course am a man, and thus cannot ever give birth to a child, but I have to think that if I were in a scenario where I had to die so that my child would live, I would lay down my life without hesitation. I would never consider what my "rights" are in that situation, because I love the child. I am in a committed relationship, and I don't know if kids are a possibility for me yet, but I do know right now in this moment that if I do ever have children, I will love my children with all my heart and I would do anything for them. I think you have to have a rather perverted view of the situation to even consider killing your innocent child so that you would live. That just seems unbearably selfish to me.

    Up to this point, I think I've been fairly reasonable. But, unfortunately this reasoning leads us to a tricky conclusion about a tricky scenario that I don't doubt many will object to. That scenario is the one of rape. What is morally correct to do in a situation where a mother is literally impregnated against her will? Should she be allowed to kill her baby in this case?

    I think the argument I made previously still stands. I think it still is murder, and so the question becomes, does the woman have the right to commit an atrocity simply because an atrocity was committed to her already? The answer is no, I don't think so. A baby conceived without the consent of both parents is still just as innocent as the baby that was conceived with the consent of both parents, which means it still doesn't deserve to have it's life stripped away from it. And I think even though a mother put in this situation must be filled with hatred because of the situation she is now in against her will, she is still capable of loving that child. She may be traumatized beyond belief, but I have to imagine that if she is in her right mind, slaughtering her child has got to only add trauma, not remove it.

    Regarding the idea that infanticide will still occur even if it is made illegal, I can't object to this at all, for the simple reason that "regular" murder is illegal and yet still occurs in great amounts. But just because murder is not an uncommon occurrence, we don't go around saying that murder should be made legal. We still recognize it as morally wrong and thus continue incriminating people for it.

    Now perhaps the biggest objection that advocates of a woman's right to infanticide will throw out there is that people that hold my position are often hypocritical because we say that babies have a right to life, but then offer no help in the form of time, money, or other resources to help raise the child. There are probably a lot of cases in which a mother is simply unable to take care of her child. But is her inability a justification to terminate the child?

    Again, I have to say no for the same reason that we don't simply kill our elderly instead of placing them in nursing homes, despite it probably being much cheaper and more convenient to just slip a needle in them and then bury them instead of keeping them comfortable for what can be years.

    Back to the original objection, I have to add that churches—at least, true Christian churches—have a lot of resources to help women, and in fact all of their members. Churches have what's known as a "benevolent fund" that is reserved specifically for tricky situations that members find themselves in. So to say that people that object to infanticide don't have any better solutions is rather crude and a big oversimplification. There is always the option of putting your child up for adoption too, with the hope of giving them a better life down the road if you simply don't feel that you would be a good parent, though that is a tricky topic of it's own that is best saved for later writing.

    © 2019-2024 Jordan Bancino.