After watching Lila Rose ably defend every woman’s right to life on Crossfire, I have been toying with an argument that bypasses the viability and preference minutia. This is probably written more technically than I would like, but it communicates what I believe to be a strong case for the inherent contradictions in the pro-abortion argument. I pray that we recognize that there are 2 women involved in half of every abortion decisions. I hope that this argument can give a voice to the one who cannot yet speak for herself.
When does science tell us a woman comes into being?
- All women are precious and ought to be treated as such by all persons.
- Every woman was once a fetus.
- Every fetus was once an embryo.
- Every embryo was once a fertilized egg.
- Chromosome pairs determine the sex of a human.
- Science tells us that a woman has 2 'X' chromosomes receiving one from the father and one from the mother.
- If chromosome pairs are unchanging, the ontology of a woman is determined at fertilization.
5. ANY epistemological framework that abides by observational empiricism must conclude that a 'woman' comes into being at the moment the mother's egg is fertilized.
Wait who supports women?
- Every woman has been endowed by her Creator, (and affirmed by the US government) the right to pursue happiness.
- Naral activists profess to speak for the rights of All women.
- Science teaches that a woman comes into being at the time of fertilization.
- Abortion permits the killing of women.
- No conclusion flows logically from the above, therefore the premises must be revisited.
Naral activists support the aborting of women. They want to suppress a woman’s intrinsic right to happiness. All the while professing to protect and empower women. These assertions are clearly in conflict and contradictory. This makes the argument invalid, and either one or more of the premises must be changed in order to logically draw a conclusion.
Naral activists have a decision to make on how they frame their arguments…
1,4 are unlikely to be attacked, although one might see a world where some would want to assign ‘value’ to a woman based on her age or stage of development. (Cass Sunstien, Peter Singer, and Margaret Sanger)
1) Naral activists may see the error of their ways and switch sides of the issue to affirm every woman’s right to life. (unlikely but hopeful)
- 1-4 do not change
- (5) Naral would pursue means to affect change culturally & legislatively, to protect all women, by eliminating the arbitrary killing of women.
2) Naral activists recognize their special pleading for pregnant women and challenge premise 2. (already implicit)
- (1) would need to change (seems like a constitutional issue though)
- Explicitly discriminate against one group of women (as defined by science).
- Special pleading for pregnant women?
2. Might challenge premise 3 on basis of science
- I Purposely phrased this in the context of the ontology of a woman, avoiding the messiness of “viability”.
- By bypassing the viability argument, Naral is insuperably committed to killing a woman, if they support abortion and cannot drop the viability red herring.
-  would have to be omitted completely
-  would have to be changed to something like, “The US government confers the right to pursue happiness to (chosen, special, certain…) women as defined by amendment X in the US Constitution.
- Naral supports all women as defined under amendment X of the US Constitution.
By bypassing the viability question, one must believe that women are not intrinsically valuable as defined by science, not faith!
- Though some may hold to this, I cannot believe that this view would be mainstream in any way.
- A new narrative may then arise, and Obama may assert that those who reconcile science and reason are somehow against women!
Of the 50+ million lives lost to elective abortion, 25 million un-born women have been been denied their right pursue happiness (90-95% of which were voluntarily executed)
If Roe had only stopped the killing of unborn women, and all the lost girls were allowed to grow up in a single geography. "The State of Abortion" (only girls) would be 20% larger (by population) than the great state of New York.
Additionally, near 100% would be under age 50 and able to work, spend, vote, and love!
-Have we already annihilated our 1st woman president in our selfishness?
-What would their children have been like?
-What scientific discoveries and other potentialities were lost forever?
-Who's lives were never realized?
I don’t for a second think that we should value one sex over another, but I see the viability and “quality of life” arguments as red herrings that ultimately raise more concerns than they solve. (Think chronically ill, invalid, physically/mentally handicapped, and elderly or terminal patients). I became 'viable' the moment my fathers DNA and my mothers DNA became my unique signature.
The unborn women need a voice! We must stand up for the women who cannot and stop Obama's war on women and allow them a chance to love and be loved.