This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.
Wendy McElroy of iFeminists.com has a column at FoxNews.com calling for more moderation and "middle ground" in the abortion debate. I wrote to her explaining why I can't be moderate in this debate and there is no middle ground. Here is my letter.
Mrs. McElroy,
I am posting a link to your column on FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54959,00.html) at my website (http://robert.freeshell.org) as well as this letter, and any replies from you.
Per your request "Any commentary on abortion should include a statement of the writer's position", I am entirely opposed to abortion unless absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, or when there is absolutely no chance that the baby would be born alive (and even in that case, I wonder).
I am writing to explain why I hold the position I do. I am sure countless others have done the same. My position stems from a religious (Christian) belief that all life begins at conception. It is trivially easy to understand my position if you begin with that belief.
I do not believe abortion is about a woman's right to control her own body. Abortion is all about the baby. As a living human being, the baby is entitled to all the natural rights that older living human beings are entitled to. The right to live is at the top of that list. A woman who aborts her unborn child is not medically controlling her body, but is medically controlling another person's body. Surely that is abhorrent to any type of belief system that respects individual liberties and rights.
Because I believe an unborn baby to be a living human being, with all natural rights enjoyed by all humans, the circumstances surrounding the creation of that baby are irrelevant. I believe in individual responsibility. The Bible phrases this ideal as: "the soul that sinneth, it shall die". The baby bears no responsibility for its father's actions, and must be immune from any consequences.
Since abortion is the killing of a living human being (presumably against the baby's will), it can be termed nothing other than premeditated murder. I'm sure you see that this is a logical conclusion if you accept that proposition that "all life begins at conception". There is no other possible conclusion. Since abortion is premeditated murder, I do support appropriate penalties for doctors and nurses who perform abortions, the women that have abortions, and those who pay for abortions. If we legally defined conception as the beginning of life, we would simply prosecute abortion just like any other murder. This does not require any new "totalitarian government agencies". Since abortion is currently legal we couldn't retroactively categorize it as murder and punish people for crimes that were legal when they were committed.
My position is the only logical conclusion I can come to if I begin with the proposition that all life begins at conception. And if life does not begin at conception, just when does it begin? If an unborn baby (call it a fetus, embryo, whatever you like) is not a living human being, just what is it? Based on your statement that "I could not undergo the procedure past the first trimester", I assume you must believe that the baby becomes a living human being sometime in the first 3 months. What reason do you have for choosing the third month instead of the second or the first? Or the first week? Or the first day? What criteria can you use to decide?
Believing that all life begins at conception, I can find no room for "middle ground", moderation, or tolerance in this discussion. I also could find no middle ground with a man about to shoot up a playground of children. The two actions are morally equivalent in my mind and there can be no room for compromise.
Regards,
Robert Williams
robert, here's something you might be amused by. i'm in agreement with you on this issue, but for completely different reasons. i as well believe that life begins at conception, but not because of any sort of religious belief. i base my belief on cold, hard science. science tells me that once a sperm fertilises an egg, cell division begins and life has begun to develop. regardless of whether it is sentient (ie, self-aware) life is besides the point; it's still life. think about that next time someone throws the science arguement at you.
Posted by: anna on June 17, 2002 11:34 AMi as well believe that life begins at conception, but not because of any sort of religious belief. i base my belief on cold, hard science.
This is a clear case where scientific facts reinforce religious teaching, and vice versa.
once a sperm fertilises an egg, cell division begins and life has begun to develop
I agree. This is why I ask "if life does not begin at conception, just when does it begin?" The only viable (no pun intended) options are birth or conception, because those are the only definite moments when something changes. Once cell division begins, all development is gradual. Any point between conception and birth that is defined as the beginning of life would necessarily be an arbitrary designation.
Posted by: Robert on June 17, 2002 01:25 PM