This is the second installment of the “Pro Choice Primer”. In the first installment this disclaimer was offered: —- Always keep in mind that every pro life claim to moral superiority of their cause is ultimately disproved by the fact that in order to save a fetus, a pro lifer must allow an innocent born life to die. (See the about page here and read the “Law of Charity”)—-
Keep in mind that this page does not claim that there is no life at conception. The fact is that 30 percent +/- of all conceptions will become babies. So there is life at conception, it just does not start at conception.
Please see the “Pro Choice Primer #1” for items 1-6.
(7) One of the common claims of the pro life movement is that no abortion should ever be allowed. For example this is a quote from the site of the “Association of Pro Life Physicians” where they are speaking of the right to abortion when rape, incest, health of the mother and other similar issues are present:
“It is easy to prove that these objections to the pro-life ethic are insincere. What if someone brought up these arguments to justify the killing of an infant: “The baby was conceived through rape” – “The infant is deformed and mentally handicapped” – “The mother’s health is suffering as a result of her baby.” Would anyone who endorses abortion in the womb openly justify the killing of an infant using these excuses? No, they would not. This proves that these objections are insincere and that the heart of the matter is whether the fetus is a living human. If it could be proven that the human fetus is just as alive and just as human as the infant, then these objections would not justify aborting a fetus any more than an infant. (For a thorough scientific argument proving that life begins at conception, please see the article on our website or the APP tract “When Does Human Life Begin?”)” http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
The first error of the Association of Pro Life Physicians (hereinafter: “PLP”) is to assume that the issue turns “only” on whether or not there is human life at conception.
(Item 6 of the “Pro Choice Primer #1” proves that life began before conception and that “life at conception” is a falsehood)http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=236
The abortion issue turns on many other factors.
a) The scientific fact is that there more people dying than can be saved. There are 7 billion people on earth and each is dying. They are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. In fact they are dying so fast they cannot all be saved. But regardless of the speed at which they are dying, it is impossible to save them because everyone dies. Therefore one must choose whom they will save, they may save a fetus or they may save an innocent baby, child or adult, but they cannot save both. Both cannot be saved because with so many dying so quickly, if we spend one second saving a fetus, 1.8 born babies die. The scientific fact is that pro lifers do not save life, they trade the life of a born person for the life of a fetus. Therefore an attempt to force the birth of any fetus leads to the death of a born person. So there is no logical reason not to abort a fetus that is not wanted.
b) The scientific fact is that all of the claims of life at conception are false and based upon a retrospective view of human life. A retrospective view can support a claim of life at any point in the cycle of life and support that view. However, life is not created retrospectively, it is created prospectively. The prospective view of life encompasses the retrospective view and proves that the retrospective view is wrong. For example the prospective view shows that life began with the first DNA 3.5 billion years ago and evolved into the current human species. The retrospective view cannot explain where the “life” at conception came from originally or at the instant of conception and therefore fails entirely when abortion is integrated into the issue. For that reason, the prediction of the PLP is correct, the abortion issue is resolved in favor of the right to choose. A cell in meiosis becomes the zygote and has all the potential of life as the zygote, therefore it is just as deserving of the claim as the beginning of life as the zygote. This leads to the absurdity that a cell in meiosis is a baby and therefore should be saved rather than saving the life of a born baby, child, adult or a pregnant woman. It therefore makes no sense to stop abortion related to rape, incest or for any other reason.
c) The PLP does not consider the fact that life is a reproducible phenomenon. In the “Law of Preclusion
“http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?page_id=31 it is clear that if one aborts one fetus, they may almost certainly be capable of creating another. Generally if a person is forced to give birth to one fetus, then the possibility of creating another is diminished for a number of reasons. For example a person may not be able to afford a second fetus. One may not have the physical ability because of illness or genetic flaw to have a second fetus. Or one may be limited by the fact that 14 out of 100k women die in child birth. So denying abortion causes the loss of potential life that is wanted. In effect forcing the birth of one child frequently denies the ability of conceiving another child. http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?page_id=31
d) Complicating the matter is the “Law of Consent”. http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?page_id=31 It is a fact that 70 percent of conceptions end in abortion in the first trimester and as many as 15 percent of those that make it past the first trimester also die. It is a fact that if a couple abstains from sex there will be no abortions at all. However if a couple has sex they are “in effect” consenting to the abortion of 70 percent of the life they produce. Pro lifers, if they are really pro life should stop the 70% abortion rate before continuing to have sex. Unless they do, they are consenting to “killing” babies according to their definition of “baby.”
The fact is that the aborted fetuses are usually the genetically flawed zygotes that will produce genetically flawed children. If the concern is for saving the handicapped, then the place to start is at conception. Otherwise one is allowing more than 70 percent of life to die.
These are but a few of the issues that the PLP has overlooked. Before making judgment on abortion the PLP should look at their own flaws.