Step 1: Determine if Abortion is Murder... Do not skip Step 1



With advent of the feminist movement, there are a ton of really illogical people roaming around trying to convince people that abortion is a women's rights issue. Let's discuss why the "women's rights" part of the issue is Step 2, not Step 1 in the abortion discussion.

Even though my blog has a certain reputation, I will be arguing from a secular viewpoint because the feminists who argue FOR abortion are usually not Christians, and at this point probably vehemently despise Christians.

How to argue for or against abortion:

Step 1: Ask the question is abortion murder?

Step 2: If abortion is murder, do not allow it. If abortion is not murder, allow women to choose.

When someone claims women deserve the right to choose what to do with their body, and completely ignores whether or not abortion is murder, there is something that strikes me wrong there.

What if abortion is murder? That is the question that all people ask before they get it beaten out of them by the feminist propaganda. What if the choice a woman makes, to dissolve the being with 23 unique pairs of chromosomes, is actually the act of murder?

Feminist extremists tend to look at this in an obvious extreme way. They believe a woman should be allowed to do whatever she wants, ignoring the possibility that what the woman is doing is actually murder. They believe no human that is not the woman should have any say in the issue.

A single woman is supposed to decide an issue that 7 billion people haven't decided yet? She alone is allowed to decide whether her actions will cause a murder?

Sounds kind-of extreme to me. An individual woman who is in the market for an abortion probably does not have the medical or philosophical experience or insight to make this all-important distinction by herself, especially if she has the prior bias of being labeled "pro-choice." Which brings me to another point. The phrase "pro-choice" in and of itself skips the issue of whether or not abortion is murder. Obviously if it were, then no-one (not even a woman) should have the choice to do it... right?

Well that's where we've been tricked. When someone says they are "pro-choice" that means they skipped Step 1. They haven't thought about whether abortion is murder, and moved on to the women's rights issue.

If they have the pro-choice label, they can still have reservations. Usually they trivialize those doubts with, "Oh, its just a bunch of cells" and move on. Their minds are already made-up. Any sane person would see what is wrong here. The inherent savagery of slaughtering those humans who have no defense. Nope, they've already received the label "pro-choice" and thus their actions are, in the minds of the feminists, justified.

Don't skip step 1. If you are a "pro-choice" person, it isn't too late for you. You can always go back and re-assess your values. The hard part is being willing to go back with an open-mind and re-assess that which you have already decided.

So Step 1 needs to be decided by society, not by a single woman. Below is a perfect example of someone who's values are pre-defined by the "pro-choice" label.
When you see a tweet like the one above on Twitter, just respond with a tweet that says "Hey, don't forget Step 1, decide if abortion is murder. www.brainofjt.com/2013/12/Abortion-Step-One.html"

So let's get to discussing Step 1.

Why is murder bad? What does it cause?

Most people think about this issue in the present terms, and in dictionary terms. Usually they try to define a fetus and define an adult human and if those two things are different, one is murder and the other is not. Or the take the definition of murder and say that the definition only applies under certain conditions and not if there is an exception.

Definitions do not define what is right and wrong.

A much better question to consider is what actually makes a murder wrong? And does abortion cause the same things as murder.

What does murder take away from a person or society that makes it bad.

Killing someone does not take away or change their past actions. It doesn't change anything they did in the past, and their past value goes unchanged. The fact that they were a sentient being and were a full-grown human is irrelevant, because their past value has already played out and happened. That can't be why murder is wrong.

Killing someone doesn't change anything about the present. From a scientific viewpoint, a full grown human is just a large clump of cells working together. At any given moment, that is what you have. If you manipulate those cells in the present, what's so wrong about that? That's the defense people use FOR abortion. The same applies to murder. A human is just a bunch of cells scientifically, so what is wrong with eliminating a bunch of cells.

So it isn't the eliminated past or present of an individual that makes murder wrong. It has to be the future!

Let's say I go out into the street and slaughter Bill. You would say, "Hey JT, slaughtering innocent human people is not very nice."

To which I would say, "Oh, you are right. Now that I killed Bill, he no longer can have value in the future. I see what I did wrong here."

When you abort a fetus, I agree that it is just a lump of cells from a technical scientific viewpoint... but hey, so are you. You are technically just a big bunch of cells as well. That doesn't make your future any less valuable.

The size of a human does not change its potential value.

Now, abortionists and pro-abortion maniacs will usually argue that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. That moral absolutes do not exist, and all they care about is extrinsic value. Instead of arguing FOR intrinsic value of human beings (which I do believe in) I will attempt to argue FOR the extrinsic value of a fetus so that even moral relativists can be pro-choice.

The real issue is whether or not that lump of cells has potential for future value, which is a form of extrinsic value. The answer is obviously yes, if you consider the beneficial values your friends and families share that make you enjoy their existence. If the woman does not choose to abort those cells, they would have future value. Same thing with murder. If I chose not to kill Bill, he would have future value.

Usually the defense to killing fetuses is that they "will never know" in their future that they were killed. The same goes for adult humans correct? They "will never know" in their future that they were killed. Obviously though, we consider murder wrong because the person you killed will no longer have thought, feel emotion, experience joy and happiness ever again in the future. Their value will be eliminated from this Earth.

Fetuses, unless slaughtered, will have those valuable features. There is no denying it. Ending the life of a fetus eliminates their future value from this Earth and is wrong for exactly the same reason that murder is.

Abortion undoubtedly has the same effect as murder.

Hopefully you see that some people on Twitter are just not worth wasting your time with! Just give them a link to this post to save time, and to get an argument across in more than 140 characters.

Stay tuned to my blog for the upcoming post: Countering Pro-life Counter Arguments. Where I respond to some objections from the comments below.