An Irreligious View on Abortion

First, we must distinguish between our personal convictions, and our view of the government’s role in our lives. Considering that we acknowledge the government’s role in providing legal protection for the lives of individuals, we should adopt an irreligious view of abortion. This involves being much LESS judgmental of women choosing to have abortions very early on in their pregnancy, and MUCH MORE judgmental of women, and others involved in the practice of, aborting children who have developed into human form.

A disturbed Ohio woman was arrested and charged with murder this week. After her third child died a suspicious asphyxiation death, the authorities figured out that her children didn’t have some rare genetic condition causing sudden suffocation, and looked into the matter.

What is all the outrage about? Why should this woman not be permitted to make her own choices about her body? Why should the government regulate, and subsequently condemn her disposition of her body parts as she sees fit? Certainly this is a ridiculous question. These were children, outside of the womb. They were independent from their mother. They were, in fact, human beings endowed with the right to live protected by law. So, maybe a better question is: when did they cease to become a part of their mother’s body, and become human babies?

There was not much debate where a 17 year old Ohio girl beat her 26-day-old baby to death. She was charged with felony murder and child abuse and no one rushed to her defense. This was definitely a baby. Another young troubled mother in Virginia, facing many of the same challenges as those considering abortion, killed her baby on the day it was born. How much did that baby change in the hours that had passed since it was delivered out of the woman’s body?

If it is the mere process of delivery that transforms a fetus into a baby, is it the umbilical cord that serves as the bond between woman’s body and baby, and the object only becomes the latter upon severance? Or is it the immersion in amniotic fluid and containment within the placenta?

The viability standard in place since 1973 attempted to resolve the issue with a crude judicial compromise (the term “splitting the baby” seems crass, yet appropriate). The standard, still in place today, considers whether a fetus could survive outside of the womb, especially under certain conditions. It attempts to confront nature with tortured scientific logic, ignoring whether the life growing inside the woman has developed into living human form, to the point that it should be considered an individual; a human worthy of rights independent from its mother.  One could reasonably argue that a 6 week fetal nucleus is viable, because under the condition of 20 additional weeks of development, it would certainly survive.

Why should the viability inquiry only consider life outside of the womb? All of the infants murdered by their mothers above were helpless. They had no chance of survival without another human feeding them, keeping them upright and clear of hazards. Were they even viable? We do not condition their personhood, or the authority of the law to protect them, on their ability to survive. Does a standard which protects all except the helpless make any sense?

Too often the debate between life at conception and viability devolves into one of religion and morals. Consensus will never be reached in this manner because we don’t all share the same religion or morals. We do, however, all share the same Constitution and sense of individual rights (setting aside, for now, the influence of religion on the Constitution). This is why any discussion of abortion in the United States should avoid religious and moral appeals. In fact, the strongest argument against late term abortions and government funding of the same is an irreligious one.

Consider the Human Form Standard:

  1. The removal of an embryo yet to reach human form (defined below) is a medical procedure, not unlike removing an ovary. A woman (or man for that matter) is free to choose to elect medical procedures of their choice without interference from the state.
  2. There comes a point inside the womb where the fetus becomes a baby, in full human form. The baby has developed fully formed arms, hands, fingers, and feet, can open and close its fists and mouth, reproductive organs have formed (it is a boy or a girl), circulatory and urinary systems are working and the liver is producing bile; eyebrows, eyelids, eyelashes, nails, and hair are formed; teeth are formed and the baby can suck his or her thumb; the baby can be seen via ultrasound yawning, stretching, and making faces. (Practically speaking, this stage of development is somewhere between 12-16 weeks).The baby that has reached this stage of development (which necessarily requires mutilation in order to be “evacuated”) is just as human and helpless as the post-delivery children discussed above, and the government has an interest in protecting this independent and recognizable life.
clump of cells?

Women seeking to terminate early pregnancies in #1 above should be given privacy, and treated with dignity and respect. Those with a firmly held religious belief that abortion, even at this stage, is murder, should be offering up sincere prayers for the woman in private, not publicly stoning her. On the other hand, when the baby has reached human form, our government should assert its authority to protect individual lives, whether that life is in jeopardy of being mutilated pre-delivery, or smothered with a blanket shortly after taking its first breath.

3 thoughts on “An Irreligious View on Abortion”

  1. This is a very decent analysis, and I am informed by it. However, in my personal experience, following this would have resulted in the termination of one of my own children but for the courageous defense of this future child by the mother, who is also my wife. I won’t attempt to justify my position at the time, because in hindsight, it was and remains indefensible. For me, it was a matter of convenience and planning. When I read those two words now, they spell “selfishness and callousness.” We had planned for two children, and we had them. We were living life fully, and we were having fun. At the time, as a young fast-mover, I saw no reason why I should be inconvenienced by a third child unintentionally conceived. If my wife had been compliant, we and the world would have been deprived of a joyful life unlived, one bright and shining personality who has enriched and improved everyone he’s ever met. Think of all of the experiences of first self-awareness, love of parents and siblings, school, romance, marriage, professional achievement, building a family…and who knows what else is yet to come? No; this child was not planned, but he was and is a gift beyond price, and if his mother had not adamantly refused to go along with my wish, if she had acquiesced or even concurred, it doesn’t alter my crystal clear understanding that we would have committed the worst of all sins, for we would have ended his life before it was fairly begun, and killed also everything his life has touched and enriched. Since the birth of this child so many years ago, I’ve never lived a day without shame for what I meant to do, or without being grateful for the defiance and steadfastness of his mother. When I look upon this child, now a happy, productive, fully grown man, and realize what I was saved from, what I wanted to do, it makes me weak-kneed. I believe we owe the unborn our love and protection from the moment of conception, which can always be avoided by responsible people. I walked to the edge of this abyss, and tried to pull a loving mother and faithful lover along with me. She pulled me back from the brink, and saved not only our precious child, but my soul. Let the children live. Always, let them live.


  2. I am very much in line with your personal view. Every abortion, even one in the early embryonic stage, is a tragedy. If a friend of mine were considering an abortion, I would adopt the lesson of your experience and do my best to persuade them with it, because it expresses the tragedy better than I could. But here is where the question gets interesting from a public policy perspective:

    If you happened to be walking by the house of the woman mentioned above, who murdered three of her children by smothering them, and you could see clearly through her front window that she was about to smother her child, you would be entirely justified morally and in the eyes of the law, to break through her front door and subdue her. You would find support under the law for doing whatever it took to defend the child, including using lethal force on the mother if it was appropriate. You would be permitted to kill the mother under the law and no one would question your actions.

    The question I hoped to address, is at what point does this right mature? When does the government have a recognizable interest in protecting the child’s life? I suggest the point where the baby assumes the human form, which is significantly earlier than the 1973 Roe v. Wade viability standard, which paradoxically only views the child as worthy of legal protection at the point it becomes “less helpless”.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for the clarification. I see that I missed the point, which is entirely my fault, since you made that very clear in your piece. Strictly confined to the government’s interest, I concur.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s