ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts / Reproductive Technologies

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 3: Let There Be Reason

by Leave a Comment

In my previous blog post on Dr. Parker’s book,[1] I addressed the complexities of Dr. Parker’s faith, which he wields in an attempt to give himself credibility and assert that advancing abortion access “is precisely the Christian thing to do.”[2] After an in-depth analysis of the nature of his beliefs, I concluded that, while Dr. Parker is evidently a man of deep faith and spiritual convictions, he cannot claim to be a Christian, as properly understood in relation to the Bible. Now I turn my attention to one final subject: reason.

I have frequently argued—and continue to believe to this day—that the core question that must be answered in the abortion debate is this: Is the preborn fetus a human?[3] This question is fundamental because, while it may sound empowering and even common-sense to use the language of being “pro-choice”, whether or not being “pro-choice” is, in fact, positive depends entirely on the nature of the choice being exercised.

We would correctly denounce anyone who claimed moral superiority for being “pro-choice” if the choice in question was the choice to inflict cruelty on animals. We would also correctly decry the suggestion that it is positive to be “pro-choice” if the choice in question involves afflicting physical, emotional, psychological, or sexual abuse on another human being. And there are many who are currently denouncing Elon Musk’s infamous “free speech maximalism”—which, arguably, is a fundamentally “pro-choice” position, insofar as he is advocating for the unfettered right to choose what one says in public spaces—precisely on the basis of their concern that some people may use their choice to perpetuate hatred and harm.[4] To be clear, I am not comparing the choice to have an abortion with these other choices or suggesting that these choices are all morally equivalent. I am simply making the point that, before we laud or decry being “pro-choice” in the context of abortion, we must first determine what is being chosen. In this context, that requires us to know whether or not the unborn fetus is a human.

Since Dr. Parker is a doctor—specifically, an OB-GYN—I had hoped that he would have a well-reasoned answer to this question. And I should clarify that I did not presume that his well-reasoned answer would be identical to mine. Quite the contrary, in fact. I knew that Dr. Parker was an abortionist, and so I knew that his answer to the question of the humanity of the unborn fetus would support his pro-abortion position. Still, my hope and expectation was that, as a physician, he would have an evidence-based, well-reasoned answer to this question. And that itself would have made his position respectable, even if it was an answer that I ultimately disagreed with.

It was with genuine disappointment, then, that I found myself reading the same tired statements that I have heard repeated over and over again by other abortion supporters, statements that lack intellectual consistency and coherent reasoning. While I by no means claim to be a scientific expert or authority on matters of healthcare, I—like any human being—am still able to test the veracity of Dr. Parker’s claims and evaluate the quality and consistency of his reasoning. What’s more, a large part of my professional expertise requires me to carefully scrutinize the integrity and logical coherence of arguments, whether my own or those of others. And my conclusion is that Dr. Parker’s claims, despite being sincerely held, are not scientifically supported or well-reasoned.

Unpacking Arguments Against the Humanity of the Unborn

One of the first things to note is that Dr. Parker was willing to overstate his position in ways that contradicted the other authoritative voices he cited in support of his position. In the chapter “Preaching Truth”, Dr. Parker makes the bold assertion that he “can authoritatively attest that life does not begin at conception.”[5] Fascinatingly enough, he contradicts himself a few sentences later when he writes: “the fact is, as Justice Harry Blackmun so eloquently wrote way back in 1973, in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, there is no historical, philosophical, theological, or even scientific consensus on when life begins.”[6] The problem is that Dr. Parker cannot authoritatively assure readers that life does not begin at conception if there is, in fact, a lack of scientific consensus on when human life begins.

So, let us unpack Dr. Parker’s claims in more detail.

In the Prologue to his book, while discussing how he approaches interactions with the women he provides abortion to, Dr. Parker writes the following:

But if they ask me questions, as they frequently do, I answer them as their doctor—and not as their confessor or their friend—and I give them the medical truth.

Before twenty-two weeks, a fetus is not in any way equal to “a baby” or “a child.” It cannot survive outside the uterus because it cannot breathe—not even on a respirator. It cannot form anything like thoughts. Up until twenty-nine completed gestational weeks, despite what the antis may say, the scientific consensus is that it cannot feel anything like pain.[7]

This paragraph is fairly representative of Dr. Parker’s core arguments around the unborn fetus not being human (although he does make a number of other side points that I will address in an effort to be comprehensive, thorough, and fair.)

Value at Viability?

Dr. Parker’s first core argument is that the fetus’ lack of viability precludes him or her from being recognized as a human being. This is consistent throughout the book. For example, when discussing the post-abortion process of piecing the unborn fetus back together to ensure that no part has been left inside the woman, Dr. Parker comments that, “no matter what these parts may look like, this is organic matter that does not add up to anything that can live on its own.”[8]

The argument about viability is a common one. For those who support abortion, there is this ongoing difficulty of identifying when human life begins, while somehow preserving the position that abortion is mostly permissible. Notwithstanding the Canadian legal fiction that a fetus remains sub-human until the moment of birth, very few people truly believe that human life only starts at the moment of birth. How could they? After all, what is the difference between the preborn child a few seconds before birth and the newborn child a few seconds after birth? Humanity is not magically endowed by the birth canal. And so human life must begin before birth. Of course, then there is the matter of late-term abortions, which many abortion supporters find intuitively uncomfortable. In the desperate effort to pinpoint a logical moment in pregnancy at which humanity begins, viability frequently emerges as one solution, perhaps because human life beginning at viability both sounds more logical than life beginning at birth and simultaneously shields most abortions from legal intervention.

The problem is this: the point of viability is not static. As medical technology and healthcare interventions advance, the point at which a child is viable has moved earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. When the US Supreme Court issued its infamous decision in Roe v Wade, it wrote: “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”[9] In the decades since then, progress in medical technology has steadily moved that line earlier and earlier. Dr. Parker seems to assert viability is somewhere between 22 and 25 weeks.[10] And, despite Dr. Parker’s bold proclamations that a preborn fetus before twenty-two weeks “cannot” and “will not” survive, “not ever”, that is simply not the case (a verifiable fact that I established in my previous blog post). Many children have survived being born before 22 weeks gestation, including one young boy who recently celebrated his first birthday, conquering all odds after being given a 0% change of survival when he was born at 21 weeks and 2 days.

Not only has the point of viability changed with time and with technological advancement, but it will also change depending on the country in question and the medical technology that is available in different locations within that country. To suggest that something as concrete and scientifically verifiable as when human life begins is based on something as varied and unstable as the point at which the preborn fetus is viable is ludicrous. It is to conflate a static, existential truth (namely, what constitutes “personhood”) with a highly varied and contextual medical determination (what constitutes “viability”).

Interestingly enough, Dr. Parker seems to indirectly concede this point. While he at times discusses viability in a medical sense, he shifts his definition of the term, eventually drawing on a more philosophical and abstract understanding of “viability”. In a longer passage, Dr. Parker elaborates even further on how crucial viability is to his conception of human life:

A full-term pregnancy lasts forty weeks, on average. And up until at least twenty-two weeks, the fetus is not “viable.” That is, it cannot—it will not—survive outside the uterus, not with the assistance of medical technology, as in a respirator, and not with the spiritual support of earnest and hopeful prayer. Not ever. Up until twenty-two weeks, fetal development is insufficient to sustain life. A baby born at that gestational age cannot breathe. Its body weight cannot support life. Its skin is permeable. The antis may want to call a twenty-two week fetus a “person,” but if born, it will die.

The antis don’t want to hear this, but “life” is a gray area. There is a period, between about twenty-two and twenty-five weeks of gestational age, during which “life” is a vague state. A fetus may or may not be viable in that period, and there’s no way to reliably predict outcomes. A fetus born during this period is not definitely consigned life. Nor is it destined to die. Depending on various different factors—its weight, its lung development, the health of its mother, the expertise of the doctors in charge, and the technological capacity of the neonatal facility—it may live. Or not. And if it lives, it may grow up into a healthy adult, or it may suffer, afflicted with extensive organ and brain damage, and die young. These are the medical facts, having nothing to do with religious belief, or the power of prayer, or the hopes of parents to raise beautiful children. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend trying to resuscitate babies born at twenty-three weeks. At twenty-four weeks, doctors understand that it’s a crapshoot and they let the parents, together with their attending doctors, decide. At twenty-five weeks, the America Medical Association recommends resuscitation. But within these guidelines, doctors understand that “life” is not assured and that its “sanctity” is merely a hope.[11]

Here we see a very different understanding of “viability” and the notion of “life”. While Dr. Parker starts off with discussing when a preborn fetus can physically survive on his or her own, he shifts to discussing the lack of assurances that this life will endure into the future. Whether this bait and switch was intentional or not is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that it is a change, and a meaningful one at that, because Dr. Parker is no longer discussing a medically verifiable point in time, but rather a much more abstract, esoteric principle about the assurance and continuance of life.

I understand the point that Dr. Parker is seeking to make, and he’s not wrong in asserting that life is never assured, particularly for a child born prematurely. However, the harsh reality of human existence is that life is never assured. Arguably, tragedy is always just around the corner. And so, suggesting that the value of human life—whether that life has sanctity and is worth protecting—is contingent on whether that life is assured is untenable and unascertainable. To use a tragic hypothetical: a new mother and her newborn child could leave the hospital and get hit by a car, fatally killing them both. Their lives were not assured beyond that moment in time—which, for the child, was likely a matter of mere hours or days—and yet both of their lives were of infinite value, full of sanctity and worthy of protection.

Recall that the start of human life is about more than abortion. Identifying when human life begins also means identifying when human rights begin. It is both inadvisable and illogical to base something as serious as the commencement of legal protection and human rights on the ever-changing point of viability.

Having dispensed with that unreasonable assertion, we move on to Dr. Parker’s next claim: that the preborn fetus “cannot form anything like thoughts”.

Cogito, ergo sum?

When reading the book, I found that Dr. Parker makes many confident assertions—presumably drawing on his medical background—about what the preborn fetus can and cannot do without offering any sources to support his claims. This assertion that the preborn child “cannot form anything like thoughts” is one such unfounded—and, apparently, untrue—claim. I say it is untrue because experts and researchers have found that the preborn fetus experiences both REM and non-REM sleep, meaning that he or she dreams in utero.[12] It has also been accepted that preborn fetuses can create and retain memories, and fetal memory—combined with infant dreaming—was at one point thought to potentially explain sudden infant death syndrome.[13] In short, while Dr. Parker’s lack of support for his brazen claims makes it impossible for me to consider the medical evidence that he was theoretically drawing on, I find it difficult to comprehend how a preborn fetus could experience REM sleep, create memories, and store those memories, all while being completely unable to “form anything like thoughts”.

Even if Dr. Parker’s assertion was accepted on its face, however, he makes no attempt to explain the difference between a full-term preborn child and a newborn child. In those few hours of labour—and, really, in those few seconds that distinguish a preborn child from a newborn child—what changes anatomically to enable the newborn child to form thoughts? How is Dr. Parker evaluating the ability to “form anything like thoughts”? I am familiar with the more articulate argument that the preborn fetus is not sentient—not conscious of its existence—but that argument too runs into the problem that, to my knowledge, full-term preborn children experience no anatomical change during birth that suddenly enables them to contemplate their own existence. If sentience, consciousness, and the ability to engage in higher thinking are to be determinative of when human life begins, then it is unclear how full-term preborn children and newborn children will be differentiated. (And hopefully it goes without saying that a definition of the commencement of human life that permits the killing of newborn children—infanticide—is not a viable definition. Pun intended.)

The Problem of Pain

Then we reach Dr. Parker’s comment about the preborn fetus not being able to feel pain. Reiterating a point he referenced previously, Dr. Parker writes:

Truth: Until twenty-nine weeks, a fetus can’t feel anything like pain. This is the established opinion of a 2005 clinical review in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees. Both consider the inability of a fetus to feel pain before the third trimester an established fact. And yet, despite the empirical evidence given by science, and not contradicted, the antis continue to disseminate their own version of “truth”—which is to say, lies—and to pass laws that support an entirely false idea about what fetuses in utero can “feel.”[14]

Now, the issue of a preborn child’s ability (or lack thereof) to feel pain is something that pro-life advocates discuss quite often, so I understand why Dr. Parker mentions it in his critique of the “antis” position. However, in my 13 years of experience in the pro-life movement, no pro-life individual has ever asserted in my presence that the preborn fetus is a human being because he or she feels pain. Rather, the importance of the unborn child feeling pain is exclusively about the humaneness—or lack thereof—of the abortion procedure.

It is also ludicrous to suggest that the ability to feel pain is a prerequisite to being recognized as human. There are currently human beings living today who are incapable of feeling pain.[15] It would be foolish to suggest that these individuals are not, in fact, human beings and therefore do not deserve the benefits that come with recognition as a human being (e.g., human rights, inherent dignity, intrinsic value, etc.). While we may think of the ability to feel pain as inherent to human beings, it is clearly not an experience shared by all human beings. The ability to feel pain is also by no means exclusive to our species. In short: the ability to feel pain cannot be a prerequisite for being considered a human being. Therefore, even if the unborn child cannot feel pain—and, to be clear, there are experts who suggest in no uncertain terms that the unborn child can feel pain, perhaps as early as 12 weeks[16]—a preborn fetus can still be (and, in fact, is) a human being.

Ancestral Life, Premature Death, and Other Abstract Arguments

Perhaps the culmination of Dr. Parker’s argument about the humanity—or, from his perspective, the lack thereof—of the unborn fetus can be found in his detailed description of an encounter he had with some University of Alabama students who opposed abortion. Dr. Parker writes:

I can understand why the antis like to insist that “life begins at conception.” It’s a simple way to comprehend human reproduction, and because of its simplicity, it offers moral clarity. What I tried to impress upon those students that day is that the scientific truth about life is complicated—but complication doesn’t conflict with a deeply moral, or even religious, orientation. It’s just that a nuanced moral stance requires wrestling with science and God in a way that might be difficult. It might take some time.

An egg, unfertilized, is alive. And sperm are alive. The human beings who generated those cells, which are called gametes, are also alive. These humans move and think; their cells consume and create energy. Men and women who have engaged in sexual intercourse are healthy, or not; they have good nutrition, or not. They carry with them the DNA of generations of ancestors who were also once alive. Within that DNA are maps or codes for possible future outcomes: brilliance, depression, obesity, schizophrenia, heart disease—all these living secrets are contained in each human cell, whether fertilized or not. So the idea that life begins at conception is already false: life begins long before conception with the lives that enabled those gametes to come into being.[17]

Here we see Dr. Parker again return to this esoteric, abstract conception of “life”. While this is a fascinating line of conversation, ideal for philosophical circles and perhaps even for everyday life, Dr. Parker is once again using a bait and switch tactic. Having said that “the scientific truth about life is complicated”, he then switches to a distinctly non-scientific definition of life, waxing lyrical about “life begin[ning] long before conception with the lives that enabled those gametes to come into being.” This is all well and good and intriguing, but it does little to address the ethics or morality of abortion. More importantly, Dr. Parker slyly skips over crucial scientific facts, such as the fact that egg and sperm cells, while alive, have the DNA of the woman and man, respectively, whereas the newly formed gamete has his or her own DNA, making the newly conceived unborn child genetically distinct from the egg and sperm cells that Dr. Parker tries to frame as essentially scientific equals.[18] If anything, despite its momentarily single-celled nature, the gamete is much closer to the “human beings who generated” the egg and sperm cells than it is to the egg and sperm cells themselves.

Dr. Parker then goes on to list a number of scenarios and challenge whether the unborn fetus is still “life” in this context. He mentions that a “large number” of “fertilized eggs” never successfully implant in the woman’s uterine wall, and he mentions that ectopic pregnancies occur. He asks: “Do all these conceptions qualify as ‘life’ as the antis define it? A ‘person’ with rights equal to a woman’s rights?”[19] He similarly points to miscarriages and embryos that fail to thrive, asking: “Is an embryo that fails to thrive ‘life’? On the same level as a healthy newborn? Or on the same level as the woman carrying it?”[20]

While Dr. Parker seems to be using these questions to try to expose an alleged absurdity in the “life begins at conception” position, his proverbial “aha!” moment falls flat with one word: Yes. Yes, the “large number” of “fertilized eggs” that never successfully implant in the woman’s uterine wall do, in fact, quality as “life”. Yes, miscarriages and embryos that fail to thrive are life “[o]n the same level as a health newborn” and “on the same level as the woman carrying it”. While these embryos clearly did not have the opportunity to fully develop and experience the fullness of life, neither did children who die in infancy, teenagers who die before adulthood, or adults who die of anything other than old age.

Each of these individuals—the teenager who dies in a tragic car crash, the infant who dies of sudden infant death syndrome, and the preborn child who dies of a heart wrenching miscarriage—will have lived a life that was prematurely cut short. However, while this brevity of these lives is tragic, it does not change that fact that these were, in fact, human beings. To put it succinctly: The length of one’s life does not alter the fact of one’s existence as a human being. And so, while miscarried embryos and embryos that never implant may die very early in their lives, they do still constitute human beings, as defined by science.[21]

Returning momentarily to his anecdote about the students from the University of Alabama, Dr. Parker writes:

In my conversation with the young anti-abortion activists at the University of Alabama that day, I presented fatal fetal anomalies as clear-cut cases for the necessity of preserving abortion rights up to and beyond twenty weeks. They countered that sometimes miracles happen that allow these fetuses to survive. Yes, I answered, maybe. But most of the time they don’t. And the students were forced to conceded that, sometimes maybe, abortion does not equal murder. And then I brought my argument home: If you can agree that certain medical conditions might justify abortion, then how can you exclude social, or personal, or financial conditions? If abortion is permissible in the case of a fatal fetal anomaly, then why not in the case of a homicidal, battering partner? Or a dire lack of resources? Or a drug dependency? How can the state adjudicate the circumstances of a woman’s life at all?[22]

Unfortunately, the fact that Dr. Parker managed to outwit a handful of university students by no means demonstrates the strength or veracity of the argument that he “brought home”. Now. Dr. Parker would likely be delighted to know that I agree with his assertion that, if abortion is justified in cases of fetal abnormality, we cannot then wrinkle our noses at abortion in cases of domestic violence, poverty, substance abuse, or other life circumstances that women often face. If the unborn child is not a human being, then there is no need to justify abortion—abortion would not end a human life, and abortion would therefore be no different than a woman having her tonsils or her appendix removed. It would be entirely her choice, a decision to be left up to her and her doctor (and, presumably, the loved ones in her life who would offer helpful feedback and tangible support). However, the opposite is also true: namely, that, if the preborn child is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate, because abortion would end a valuable human life deserving of equal protection as the life of the woman.

However, up to this point, Dr. Parker has still not established that the unborn child is not a human being. Therefore, regardless of what these university students may have been duped into agreeing to, Dr. Parker’s argument is still not made out. Fatal fetal anomalies in a preborn child are by no means “clear-cut cases for the necessity of preserving abortion rights up to and beyond twenty weeks”, just as disabilities in a born human child in no way justify ending his or her life. Similarly, domestic violence, poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse by no means justify abortion, just as these admittedly heartbreaking life circumstances in no way justify ending the life of a newborn infant, two-year-old toddler, rebellious teenager, or any other human being, for that matter.

The presence of personal tragedy does not negate the existence of the other’s humanity.

The “Illusion” of the Infant

I will touch on one final comment that Dr. Parker makes in regards to the humanity of the unborn child. In discussing his personal frustration around what he frames as the sentimentality that came with the advent of sonograms, Dr. Parker states:

That the fetus has human features—fingers, eyelids, toes, ankles—only enhances the illusion that this is already a baby, their baby. But to refer to the fetus in utero as a baby is inaccurate. It reflects a hope, not a reality. In reference to a fetus, “baby” is a cultural term, not a scientific one.[23]

This passage is perhaps most revealing of all. In a strangely cautionary and distinctly unscientific tone, Dr. Parker explicitly disregards the obvious, empirical, observable evidence for the humanity of the unborn child. Despite recognizing that the features that the preborn fetus possess are, in fact, “human features”, Dr. Parker deftly avoids the obvious conclusion—namely, that the unborn child possesses human features because he or she is a human being—and chooses instead to zealously assert that these features are simply part of the visual deception that “enhances the illusion that this is already a baby”. This passage feels almost hysterical, as though Dr. Parker is warning readers about a conspiratorial plot—likely, in his mind, attributed to the amorphous “antis”—to control women’s bodies by portraying the fetus as a human with “fingers, eyelids, toes, ankles”. While Dr. Parker’s impassioned and fervent forewarning would be almost endearing if it were true, he seems to miss a glaringly obvious fact that annihilates his assertion that this is an “illusion”: namely, that the “antis” didn’t give “human features” to the preborn fetus, and that, in this context, sociology and anthropomorphism cannot explain away the biological reality that the unborn child’s human features are concrete facts of reality, not projected parental hopes.

And this, my dear readers, is the perfect place to close this blog post. Because, as I have hopefully established through my commentary and as I think Dr. Parker himself makes quite clear in this passage alone, his conviction that life does not begin at conception is “not a scientific one”. It is not based on medical evidence, it is not based on coherent reasoning, and it is not based on a rational weighing of the evidence. Dr. Parker clearly believes that the unborn child is not a human, and I’m sure that he hopes that his work is the morally justified, compassionate contribution to women’s wellbeing that he would like it to be. But hoping that that is the case does not make it true. His claim that the unborn child is not a human being is a cultural one, not a scientific one. In short, to borrow his own words, Dr. Parker’s conviction “reflects a hope, not a reality.”

[1] WJ Parker, Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice, (New York: 37 Ink/Atria, 2017) [Life’s Work].

[2] Life’s Work.

[3] I recognize that some abortion supporters, acceding to the humanity of the unborn child, shift their line of justification to asserting that the unborn child is not a person. While I will not address this argument in this blog post, I would encourage readers to watch a short video I made many years ago on this question. For a more nuanced discussion of this issue, consider reading this article: John Janez Miklavcic and Paul Flaman, “Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus”, The Linacre Quarterly 84(2) (May 2017), 130, online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/#.

[4] See, for example, Pranshu Verma, “Elon Musk wants ‘free speech’ on Twitter. But for whom?”, The Washington Post (6 May 2022), online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/06/twitter-harassment/.

[5] Life’s Work at 145.

[6] Life’s Work at 145 (emphasis added).

[7] Life’s Work at 12-13.

[8] Life’s Work at 95-96.

[9] Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973) at para 160.

[10] Life’s Work at 150-151.

[11] Life’s Work at 150-151.

[12] See American Institute of Physics, “Baby’s First Dreams: Sleep Cycles Of The Fetus”, Science Daily (14 April 2009), online: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090413185734.htm, citing Schwab et al., “Nonlinear analysis and modeling of cortical activation and deactivation patterns in the immature fetal electrocorticogram”,Chaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 2009; 19 (1): 015111 DOI: 10.1063/1.3100546.

[13] Christos, G A, “Infant dreaming and fetal memory: a possible explanation of sudden infant death syndrome”, Med Hypothesis, 44(4) (April 1995) 243, DOI: 10.1016/0306-9877(95)90172-8, online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7666822/.

[14] Life’s Work at 157-158.

[15] David Cox, “The curse of the people who never feel pain”, BBC (27 April 2017), online: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170426-the-people-who-never-feel-any-pain.

[16] Stuart WG Derbyshire and John C Bockmann, “Reconsidering fetal pain” (2020), Journal of Medical Ethics 46, 3-6, online: https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/46/1/3.full.pdf.

[17] Life’s Work at 148-149.

[18] See, for instance, Fred de Miranda and Patricia Lee June, “When Human Life Begins”, American College of Pediatricians (March 2017), online: https://acpeds.org/assets/imported/3.21.17-When-Human-Life-Begins.pdf.

[19] Life’s Work at 149.

[20] Life’s Work at 149-150.

[21] See, for instance, Fred de Miranda and Patricia Lee June, “When Human Life Begins”, American College of Pediatricians (March 2017), online: https://acpeds.org/assets/imported/3.21.17-When-Human-Life-Begins.pdf.

[22] Life’s Work at 152-153.

[23] Life’s Work at 155.

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 1: Let There Be Truth

by 2 Comments

I recently finished reading “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice” by Dr. Willie Parker, a self-proclaimed Christian abortionist in the United States. I was interested in this book for two reasons: first, since Dr. Parker is an abortionist, his proximity to the practice gives him a unique perspective and opportunity for insight when it comes to the abortion debate that I felt was worth being familiar with. Second, I have become increasingly perturbed by the disconcerting phenomenon of Christians taking a pro-abortion stance and using the Bible to defend their position; thus, I wanted to read Dr. Parker’s attempt to justify abortion using a Biblical framework

Now, as someone who has written a book myself, I have some degree of respect for those who are capable of communicating their beliefs, ideas, and passions in a book. In short, I picked up Dr. Parker’s book with this tentative position of default respect. However, I was surprised—impressed, even—at how quickly he lost my respect. It was not the caliber of his writing that lost me, which was consistently clear, articulate, and grammatically correct. Rather, it was his analysis—or, shall I say, his lack thereof.

I will launch a full-scale critique of Dr. Parker’s “argument” another time. For the time being, I will limit my critiques to something that Dr. Parker referred to ad nauseam and claimed to promulgate: truth.

Context: In the prologue to his book, Dr. Parker writes that he is constantly “travelling the country like a twenty-first-century Saint Paul, preaching the truth about reproductive rights…” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 5). I confess that, when I first read those words, I physically cringed, irked by the fact that Dr. Parker seems to think so highly of himself and his work that he felt entitled to compare himself to the man who is credited with writing 13 books of the Bible, the most influential book and the bestselling book of all time. Forgive my less biased perception of Dr. Parker, but I have a hard time seeing the comparison.

There is, however, an equally problematic reference that Dr. Parker makes in that same quote. It is his reference to “the truth about reproductive rights”. For someone who writes “I don’t believe in moral absolutes” and “I don’t think of the world in terms of good and evil”, Dr. Parker sure speaks a lot about “truth” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 195 and 202). Unfortunately, the “truth” he speaks of was shockingly, frequently untrue. (Perhaps this is reflective of his unbelief in “moral absolutes”—perhaps “truth” is as malleable, inconsequential, and subjective for him as morality seems to be.)

The first time I found a statement that is objectively, verifiably untrue in Dr. Parker’s book, I was immediately incensed and deeply disturbed. In the middle of the chapter of his book ironically called “Preaching Truth”, Dr. Parker makes the following assertion:

A full-term pregnancy lasts forty weeks, on average. And up until at least twenty-two weeks, the fetus is not “viable.” That is, it cannot—it will not—survive outside the uterus, not with the assistance of medical technology, as in a respirator, and not with the spiritual support of earnest and hopeful prayer. Not ever. Up until twenty-two weeks, fetal development is insufficient to sustain life. A baby born at that gestational age cannot breathe. Its body weight cannot support life. Its skin is permeable. The antis may want to call a twenty-two-week fetus a “person,” but if born, it will die (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 150) [emphasis added].

(As an aside, note that Dr. Parker is making the peculiar and weak claim that the supposed inevitability of a premature child’s death means that he or she is not a “person.” At the risk of spoiling a future blog post that I will write on this statement and Dr. Parker’s similarly cringe-worthy “analysis”, let me state unequivocally right now that, if the inevitability of death is grounds for denying the preborn child personhood, then no living human is a person, since we will all eventually die. Dr. Parker is arguing in this section that life does not begin at conception and, by extent, that the human fetus is neither alive nor valuable. He is arguing this on the grounds that the child’s viability and survival are still in question. Let me simply ask this question: How can someone die if they are not alive? Rest assured, I shall return to this tragic—dare I say, non-viable—line of reasoning in a future blog post.)

At first glance, his comments seem persuasive. Dr. Parker is a doctor, after all. In fact, he is an ob-gyn. Surely he, of all people, can be trusted. Surely he, of all people, will know the truth on matters of healthcare.

But, for Dr. Parker, the truth seems to be irrelevant. This may seem unnecessarily harsh; however, as someone who cares deeply and personally for actual truth, I think the severity of my critique is justified because of how verifiably untrue Dr. Parker’s claims are.

As it so happens, I have looked into viability before, and so I knew with certainty that Dr. Parker’s claim that no child born at twenty-two weeks can ever be viable is demonstrably untrue. Premature children born before twenty-two weeks have survived with medical assistance. For many years, the youngest recorded preemie was James Elgin Gill, a Canadian man born in 1988. He was born at a mere 21 weeks and 5 days, setting a record as the world’s most premature baby. However, in 2017, USA Today reported that a new record was set by a baby girl who was born at just 21 weeks and 4 days. And then there is Amilia Taylor, born in 2006 in the United States at just 21 weeks and 6 days.

Each of these individuals—born before twenty-two weeks gestation—is living proof that Dr. Parker’s seemingly reliable statements and bold declarations of “cannot”, “will not”, and “not ever” are little more than reckless overstatements that he made to support his pro-abortion position about “viability”. With a simple Google search that took me less than two minutes, I was able to find three cases that contradict Dr. Parker’s assertions and demonstrate that premature children born before twenty-two weeks can, in fact, survive outside of the womb with medical support. And yet, because Dr. Parker is a doctor, his falsehoods carry an air of reliability and professionalism, and have been dispersed en masse to the public. I am grieved by the knowledge that there are likely now hundreds and thousands of individuals around the world who have innocently placed their trust in Dr. Parker, expecting to receive the truth, and, through no fault of their own, have accepted his flagrant falsehoods as scientific facts.

This was not the only factual inaccuracy in Dr. Parker’s book. Contradictions abound. Take, for instance, Dr. Parker’s discussion of pro-life legislative measures that have recently been enacted in the United States. On page 146, Dr. Parker writes:

Bills proposing that fetuses are people have come before legislatures in at least twenty-eight states. None have passed [emphasis added].

A mere eight pages later, Dr. Parker directly contradicts himself in his discussion on fetal personhood and related legislation, where he states:

In 2016, “personhood” bills were introduced in Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, South Caroline, and Virginia. The only state in which such a bill has passed has been Kansas, which in 2013 affirmed the Pro-Life Protection Act, declaring that “life beings at conception.” [emphasis added].

Note that, in a few short pages, we have gone from every single bill “proposing that fetuses are people” failing to “such a bill” passing in Kansas. Once again, Dr. Parker demonstrates that his view of truth is like his view of morality: lacking absolutes and free to toss around, manipulate, and twist to suit one’s personal or rhetorical preferences.

There is one final factual inconsistency that I will expose before I leave this preliminary element of my critique of Dr. Parker’s demonstrably defunct “argument”. On page 117, Dr. Parker repeats the same, tired rhetoric that “[t]he Bible does not contain the word ‘abortion’ anywhere in it” in a pitiful attempt to justify abortion through a Biblical worldview. And yet, on page 207, he writes:

In my view, the only Christianity that mandates an anti-abortion view is an emotion-based faith—a rigid reading of Scripture that invites no questioning or interpretive consideration [emphasis added].

Now, I will save my comments about Dr. Parker’s so-called “Christian” faith for a later blog post. For now, I would simply like to point out the completely contradictory nature of asserting that the Bible is (a) completely void of any commentary on abortion whatsoever on the one hand, and then (b) asserting that only a literal, “rigid reading” of the Bible could result in a Christian coming to a pro-life worldview on the other hand.

After reading his book, my conclusion is that Dr. Parker’s only contributions to the abortion debate are slightly more articulate versions of the same illogical, contradictory, factually-flawed mantras and slogans that already contaminate what could otherwise be rational, scientific, intellectually-honest conversations on the subject of abortion. If anything, his willingness to wield his professional credibility in defence of this unprofessional nonsense and throw his weight as a doctor around in order to convince people of the credibility of the blatant falsehoods he has peddled is the only additional damage that Dr. Parker has done—and, believe me, it is damage he has done to his own side, not to the pro-life community.

Dr. Parker may care a great deal about the practice of abortion. But of objective, verifiable, absolute truth Dr. Parker seems to care very little.

With that, I shall move forward in my critique; my next post will examine a premise central to his rhetoric: the merger of his dubious Christianity and his intellectually vacant “moral argument for choice.”

Ten Years Later: A Reflection (Part 2)

by Leave a Comment

#6: Because abortion is a gruesome medical practice.

I suppose this reason is a branch off of the first reason I listed in Part 1—which was that the unborn child is human—but I wanted to be more specific.

Any surgical abortion—whether at 12 weeks, 22 weeks, or 32 weeks—involves the violent and gruesome dismemberment and decapitation of an unborn human being. For those who don’t believe me, I would highly recommend that you listen to the testimony of Dr. Anthony Levantino, a former abortion provider who performed over 12,000 abortions in the first and second trimester.

Listen to him describe the procedure. And then explain to me how abortion is justifiable.

 

#7: Because I am a feminist.

Modern-day feminists have made reproductive rights and support of abortion one of the key tenets of third/fourth wave feminism. In fact, while I was completing my degree in Women’s Studies, many of my feminist classes would periodically erupt into debates over whether it was even possible to be a “pro-life feminist”.

I find discussions of these quite fascinating, because really what they demonstrate is an extreme form of historical amnesia. It seems as though the entire modern-day feminist movement has literally forgotten—either intentionally or unintentionally—the fact that the very first feminists were extremely pro-life. In fact, the women who founded feminism were adamant that, in order to effectively argue that all human life, male and female, was equally valuable, you also had to argue that all human life, born or unborn, was also equally valuable. So being pro-life and being pro-woman were belief systems that were inextricably linked and intertwined for early day Western feminists.

The summary of feminism’s historical connection to the issue of abortion is that the women who founded the feminist movement were adamantly opposed to abortion as a medical practice. The reasons for this were three-fold:

  • The founders of feminism believed that abortion ended a human life, and therefore that abortion was morally reprehensible. In light of the fact that feminists were advocating for the equal valuing of all human life, regardless of gender, this stance is understandable and intellectually consistent.
  • Early feminists noted that women were often pressured to have abortions against their will. This pressure was either direct, and was often exerted by male partners and other patriarchal figures in women’s lives, or it was indirect, which can be seen in the pressure that many women faced to have abortions for economic reasons and because of economically non-ideal circumstances. In both of these cases, the founders of feminism recognized that these external and/or internal pressures actively undermined women’s autonomy, women’s agency, and women’s ability to act as empowered, equal human beings.
  • Finally, early feminists believed that women’s empowerment did not have to rely on the oppression of others—in other words, the right to control one’s body could not include the right to destroy someone else’s body.

It was Frances Wright who famously said:

“whenever we establish our own pretentions upon the sacrificed rights of others, we do in fact impeach our own liberties, and lower ourselves in the scale of being!…”

And it was renowned feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton who, in 1873, said:

“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”

So, one of the main reasons why I am still pro-life is because I hold a traditional feminist worldview. And, as the founders of Western feminism aptly pointed out, this necessitates adopting a pro-life feminist ethos.

Does this mean that you cannot be a pro-abortion feminist? Absolutely not. But it does mean that your feminist worldview will be inconsistent, illogical, incomplete, and, as we are seeing more and more today, tyrannical in its attempt to justify the oppression of others to attain the supposed empowerment of women.

So my dear feminist colleagues, pro-life and pro-choice: you would do well to remember that “whenever we establish our own pretentions upon the sacrificed rights of others, we do in fact impeach our own liberties, and lower ourselves in the scale of being!…”

 

#8: Because I oppose sexism.

Let’s talk about sex-selection abortion. In my most recent video addressing the issue of abortion, I said the following:

“Sex selection abortion is the epitome of misogyny.

It is a practice that says only boys are welcome into society.

The notion that abortion empowers women is something that I must question:

How can abortion empower women when it promotes blatant discrimination?”

Sex selection is the practice of using medical techniques to choose the sex of offspring. While sex-selection by definition and in theory can apply to male or female children, it is almost exclusively used to discriminate against female children and choose male children. Sex-selection abortion is when an abortion is performed solely because of the child’s sex. Again, while sex-selection abortion in theory can be used to target male and female children, research indicates that it is used around the world to systematically target female children.

Typically, when we think about sex-selection abortion, we think about East Asian countries, usually China or India, where there is a strong preference for male children. We often think about research that has revealed that China has seen the sex ratio at birth move from approximately 106 males per 100 females in the 1960s and 1970s, to almost 112 males per 100 females in the 1990s[1], with recent research showing that the sex ratio at birth “is over 130 [males for every 100 females] in several Chinese provinces from Henan in the north to Hainan in the south.”[2] The research is equally dismal when it comes to countries like South Korea, where, in 1992, the sex ratio at birth in some cities was already 125 males for every 100 females.[3] And so, because of this East Asian focus, when we think about why sex selection is taking place, we often point to deeply rooted sexist beliefs in countries like India, where scholars have stated that sex-selective abortion “is only the latest manifestation of a long history of gender bias in the country, apparent in the historically low, and declining, population ratio of women to men.”[4]

However, the notion that sex-selective abortion is only a phenomenon in countries like China, India, and South Korea is a very ethnocentric idea. Researchers state that, while certain cultures practice sex-selective abortion more frequently, sex-selective abortion is a phenomenon that takes place around the world. Take, for instance, my country, Canada. Studies indicate that 92% of Canadians are against the practice of sex-selective abortion. And yet, there is already research that proves that sex-selective abortion is being practiced quite regularly in Canadian society.[5]

Now, the natural ratio of males-to-females at birth is already slightly male-biased, resting at around 1.05 male children for every 1 female child. However, findings that were published by the National Bureau of Economic Research who that, while “the sex ratio for first births among first generation South and East Asian immigrants to Canada is only slightly higher than the norm at about 1.08, the ratios become increasingly skewed for each subsequent birth where all previous children are female. For example, the sex ratio for third births to Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese immigrants who already have two daughters is 1.39. For Indians, that ratio is 1.90—almost two boys born for every girl.”[6]

This is not simply a Canadian problem. Research from around the world indicates that sex-selective abortion is taking place, particularly within specific immigrant population groups. The trends of sex-selection and sex-selective abortion that have been noticed in Canada and Australia have also been identified internationally, including in England and Wales[7], Nepal[8], Bangladesh[9], Pakistan[10], Taiwan[11], Japan[12], Vietnam[13], Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia[14][15], Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Macedonia[16], Brazil[17], and in the United States[18].

What these findings make clear is that, while the age-old existence of male preference is particularly strong in certain countries, the relatively modern phenomenon of sex-selective abortion is occurring around the world.

Now, a discussion of why sex-selective abortion is occurring cannot take place without considering the role that abortion laws—or a lack of abortion laws—has on the practice. For example, in many ways, Canada’s laws in relation to the issue of abortion have actually created an environment in which these types of phenomenon can occur. While “[s]ex-selective abortion has historically been considered an Asian phenomenon”, Professor Lena Edlund, associate professor of economics at Columbia University, notes that “a variety of factors, including the affordability and ease of access for abortion and sex determination services, as well as Canada’s deep-rooted respect for diversity, have enabled sex-selective abortion to ‘take on a life of its own and persist’ in spite of public condemnation.”[19]

Canada has the most liberal abortion laws of any Western nation; more specifically, Canada has no laws restricting abortion. What this means is that, by law, you can have an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, all the way until the moment of complete birth. You can also have an abortion for any reason or no reasons at all, meaning that having an abortion because of sexist beliefs and historical male preferences is permitted. While there was a legislative effort to have Canada officially decry the practice of sex-selective abortion, this was viewed as being a “pro-life” or “anti-choice” effort and was shut down (despite the fact that 92% of Canadians do not agree with the practice of sex-selective abortion.)

Now, Canada is one of only three nations that do not have laws on the issue, the other two being China and North Korea (although, technically, China does have restrictions on sex-selective abortion; they are just not effectively enforced).

So what this means is that, while Canada is in theory trying to foster support for reproductive rights and support a women’s right to choose, as it is often called, what is really happening is that Canada’s lack of laws regulating abortion are creating a perfect storm for the introduction, adoption, and perpetuation of the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion. As one researcher wryly pointed out, while Canada has made it “illegal for prospective parents to select embryos for in vitro fertilization based on gender […] it is perfectly legal for parents to choose to destroy a 19-week-old fetus [..] for precisely the same reason.”[20]

And so, ladies and gentlemen, I work closely with pro-life activists on a regular basis to ensure that this type of blatant misogyny does not continue being perpetrated through the sexist practice of sex-selection abortion.

 

#9: Because I oppose ableism.

In the summer and fall of 2017, it was announced by news outlets around the world that Iceland had “cured” Down Syndrome.[21] Perhaps under different circumstances, this would be considered joyous news. However, when we consider the precise way in which Iceland “cured” Down Syndrome, it becomes apparent that this was not some sort of medical breakthrough, but rather a nation-wide manifestation and implementation of eugenics.

This is how Iceland “cured” Down Syndrome. In the early 2000s, they introduced a prenatal genetic test that screens for chromosomal abnormalities, the most common of which is Down Syndrome. The test, which is extremely accurate, is optional, but medical professionals are required to provide information about the importance and availability of this test to every pregnant woman in Iceland. The vast majority of women choose to take the test, and, when test results come back positive for Down Syndrome, 100% of women opt to have an abortion. In fact, doctors in Iceland report that only 1-2 children with Down Syndrome are born every year or two.[22] And even these children are only born because of the imperfect accuracy of the test. In a country were 100% of children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted, it is terrifying to imagine what the fate of these children would have been had the medical technology been slightly more accurate.

To be clear, Iceland is not the only country that demonstrates this type of blatant discrimination against individuals with Down Syndrome. “According to the most recent data available, the United States has an estimated termination rate for Down Syndrome of 67 percent (1995-2011); in France it’s 77 percent (2015); and [in] Denmark, 98 percent (2015).[23] Some estimates, however, have stated that the termination rate in North America is significantly higher, close to 92 percent.

Now, perhaps your first instinct was to say, “Ah, but these women are making this choice to have an abortion. They are not being coerced. So, if this is the decision they want to make, so be it.

But we must remember, dear readers, that choices do not take place within a vacuum. If 100% of women in Iceland are choosing to abort unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome, the next question must be: Why?

Consider this: Our world has historically demonstrated consistent disregard, discrimination, and hatred against disabled individuals. Whether through the circus freak shows of the past, where “normal” people like us would pay money to gawk at and mock differently-abled individuals, or through the widespread institutionalization of disabled individuals, we see that our society has continuously oppressed and persecuted disabled individuals, labeling them as the “other”, deeming them “abnormal”, and ostracizing them as a result.

So forgive my skepticism, but when I hear that 100% of women are choosing to have abortions when they discover that their children will likely have Down Syndrome, it is within this historical context that I consider this information. I am not suggesting that women are the unique perpetrators of violence towards disabled people. Rather, I am saying that, in a society that has consistently discriminated against disabled individuals, it is unsurprising to see members of society—from the researchers who created this prenatal genetic test, to the healthcare professionals who share the results, to the parents who choose to have an abortion—continue to perpetuate these problematic narratives that ultimately convey the message that it is better to be dead than to be disabled.

Disability rights activists and experts have noted this. Consider this quote from disability rights scholar Chris Kaposy:

Some of the common motivations for selective termination reflect inaccurate assumptions about living with Down syndrome or parenting a child with Down syndrome. In the empirical study I have been discussing, 83& of respondents who had terminated were motivated by a belief that Down syndrome would be excessively burdensome for the prospective child. In contrast, a study that asked people living with Down syndrome about their lives revealed that 99% are happy with their lives. Among prospective parents who had terminated, 73% believed that the burden of having a child with Down syndrome would be too great for their other children. Again, in contrast, research involving parents of children with Down syndrome shows that 95% of parents with other children say that their children with Down syndrome have good relationships with their siblings. Over 90% of the children themselves say they have feelings of affection and pride for their siblings with Down syndrome […] These divergences suggest that perceptions about parenting a child with Down syndrome are distorted by stereotyped ways of thinking.[24]

We must also consider what message this is sending to disabled individuals. Consider the words of disability rights activist Thomas Shakespeare:

As a result of the popularity of genetics, disabled people risk once more being defined as medical abnormalities and invalids, rather than as citizens, or victims of injustice. They see measures being implemented to prevent the birth of others with their conditions. They might think of whether their own parents would have taken advantage of such technologies. They might consider differential treatment of fetuses with and without disability to be discriminatory: in UK, termination is illegal after the 24th week of pregnancy, except in case of severe abnormality. No matter if these late terminations are very rare: the message has been sent that it is better to be dead than disabled.[25]

Now, I want to be clear: I have nothing against medical technological advancements, and I have nothing against seeking to improve the health, wellbeing, and quality of life of any and every member of society. However, I reject the notion that the sudden proliferation of prenatal genetic testing and the subsequent widespread termination of individuals with chromosomal abnormalities is a phenomenon that was born out of a genuine desire to improve the lives of disabled people. Research states that “the majority of disability arises not from genetic causes but from lifestyle, disease and other environmental factors.”[26] Research also reveals that “[e]ighty-five percent of adult disability is caused after the age of 13, and more than ninety percent of infant disability is because of social and not genetic causes.”[27]

Let us not deceive ourselves. It is not good will or philanthropic intent that fuels this sudden desire to “cure” disability. It is simply a new manifestation of old-fashioned hatred, discrimination, and ablesim. As one writer put it, if the word “cure”, which “for centuries meant ‘the care of souls’ has now come to mean ‘making sure that people with Down Syndrome are never born’”[28], then we are indeed a pitiful society.

So no, Iceland has not “cured” Down Syndrome. It, like the many other Western, developed nations, has simply created a systemic, state-run machinery that has been given the power, by medical, political, and social forces, to determine who is valued and who is not, who gets to live and who does not.

And I, for one, want to be on the right side of history: condemning ableism, combatting sexism, and promoting a pro-life ethos that treats all human beings—male and female, disabled or able-bodied, born or unborn—with equal value.

 

#10: Because I oppose eugenics.

As I have written about previously, eugenics has played a disturbing role in the rise and proliferation of both birth control and abortion. This was largely due to the influence of Margaret Sanger, who was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which today is the largest abortion provider in North America and a prominent advocate and provider of abortions in developing nations in the Global South. It was Margaret Sanger who really ushered in eugenics and married it with the movement from reproductive rights. It was Margaret Sanger who spoke about the need to export birth control to the “biologically less endowed stocks” of humans in India. It was also Margaret Sanger who made the following statement:

Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous… Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.[29]

If that isn’t enough, Margaret Sanger made this statement as well:

Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes.[30]

These are the words of Margaret Sanger, who is considered the founding mother of birth control, Planned Parenthood, and, by extent, abortion.

So this, ladies and gentlemen, is the eugenics mentality. It is a mentality that believes only certain individuals with certain characteristics and body types belong in our society. It is also a mentality of entitlement, a mentality that believes that, somehow, we as individuals, as parents, as “normal” members of society, have the right to decide which lives are valued and which lives are not, who gets the ability to live and who does not. If this eugenics mentality sounds familiar, that’s because our society has faced this enemy before. Historically, we have seen it manifested as the colonization of Indigenous peoples lands, the violence and racism directed at racial minorities, and the systemic extermination of Jewish, disabled, and homosexual individuals in Nazi Germany. Sex-selective abortions—and other discriminatory forms of “pregnancy termination”—are simply the latest manifestation of this ancient eugenics mentality.

This is a mentality that pervades, infects, and taints the pro-abortion/pro-choice movement. And it is one that I will not support, condone, or participate in. As I said above: I, for one, want to be on the right side of history.

 

BONUS: #11: Because Justin Bieber is pro-life.

Yes, this is true. And yes, this definitely used to be one of the tactics I used to use to get young people in schools to be pro-life. Whether it was effective or not is completely irrelevant. It’s hilarious and 100%. I’ve never been a fan of Justin Bieber’s music (just a personal preference kind of thing), but I’ve always been a fan of his pro-life stance (because he knows that abortion isn’t a “personal preference kind of thing”).

Also: If you made it all the way to the end of Part 2 of this article, I thought you deserved a good chuckle (especially since I probably would’ve skimmed the article myself)! So if you read all the way through both Part 1 and Part 2, well done! You are a champion!

 

So there you have it. 10 hours of reading later, you now know my top 10 reasons for still being pro-life. I would love to hear what your reasons are!

Cheers, everyone. Stay logical, stay consistent, and stay pro-life!

 

[1] Junhong, C. (2001). Prenatal Sex Determination and Sex-Selective Abortion in Rural Central China. Population & Development Review Population and Development Review, 27(2), 259-281. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00259.x/epdf

[2] Canadian Medical Association Journal (2011). The impact of sex selection and abortion in China, Indian and South Korea. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132244.htm

[3] Ibid.

[4] Sen, G., & Snow, R. (1994). Power and decision: The social control of reproduction. Boston, MA: Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Dept. of Population and International Health, Harvard School of Public Health.

[5] Vogel, Lauren. “Canadian Medical Association Journal.” Sex selection migrates to Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 16 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. <http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/3/E163.full?sid=7d6004f8-2ab2-43df-b481-4109358bd7bc>.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Dubuc, S, & Coleman, D (2007). An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales: Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00173.x

[8] Lamichhane et al. (2011) Sex-Selective Abortion in Nepal: A Qualitative Study of Health Workers’ Perspectives. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386711000132

[9] Bairagi, R (2001), Effects of Sex Preference on Contraceptive use, Abortion and Fertility in Matlab, Gandladesh. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2673835?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[10] Abeykoon, A.T. (1995) Sex preference in South Asia: Sri Lanka an outlier. https://www.popline.org/node/294235

[11] Lin, M., Liu, J., & Qian, N. (2014) More Missing Women, Fewer Dying Girls: The Impact of Sex-Selective Abortion on Sex at Brith and Relative Female Mortality in Taiwan. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article-abstract/12/4/899/2318674

[12] Rohlfs et al. (2010) Causal effects of sex preference on sex-blind and sex-selective child avoidance and substitution across birth years: Evidence from the Japanese year of the fire horse. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387808001284

[13] Bélanger, D. et al. (2003) Are Sex Ratios at Birth Increasing in Vietnam? https://www.cairn-int.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=E_POPU_302_0255

[14] Michael, M. et al. (2013) The Mystery of Missing Female Children in the Caucasus: An Analysis of Sex Ratios by Birth Order. https://www.cairn-int.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=E_POPU_302_0255

[15] Hohmann, S., Lefèvre, C., & Garenne, M. (2014) A framework for analyzing sex-selective abortion: the example of changing sex ratios in Southern Caucasus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4208631/

[16] Guilmoto, C. Z. & Duthé, G. (2013) Masculinization of births in Eastern Europe. http://www.demographie.net/guilmoto/pdf/Pop%20Soc%202013%20English.pdf

[17] Dias Prto Chiavegatto Filho, A. & Kawachi, I. (2013) Are sex-selective abortions a characteristic of every poor region? Evidence from Brazil. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-012-0421-6

[18] Almond, D. & Edlund, L. (2008) Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/15/5681.full.pdf?inf_contact_key=1d19450156b07754154e59989576eebbd91b1411acd41c37e01fd3f6d879323c

[19] Supra, note 5.

[20] Soupcoff, M. (2012, April 18). A 10-cell organism is “protected” from sex selection. A fetus isn’t. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/news/marni-soupcoff-a-10-cell-organism-growing-in-a-petri-dish-is-protected-from-sex-selection-a-9-ounce-fetus-growing-in-a-womb-isnt

[21] Quinons, J., & Lajka, A. (2017). “What kind of society do you want to live in?”: Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Kaposy, Chris. “A Disability Critique of the New Prenatal Test for Down Syndrome.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23.4 (2013): 299-324. Project Muse. Dec. 2013. Web. P. 306-307.

[25] Shakespeare, Thomas William. “Choices, Reasons and Feelings: Prenatal Diagnosis as Disability Dilemma.” ALTER – European Journal of Disability Research / Revue Européenne De Recherche Sur Le Handicap 5.1 (2011): 37-43. Science Direct. Web. P. 39.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Peters, Yvonne, and Karen L. Lawson. Ethical and Human Rights Implications of Prenatal Technologies: The Need for Federal Leadership and Regulation. Winnipeg: Prairie Women’s Health Centre of Excellence, 2002. University of Ottawa. Web. P. 7.

[28] Camarata, S. (2018). Iceland “Cures” Down Syndrome: Should America Do the Same? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-intuitive-parent/201801/iceland-cures-down-syndrome-should-america-do-the-same

[29] Sanger, M. (1922). The Pivot of Civilization. Brentano’s: USA. P. 101-102

[30] Ibid at p. 273-274.

Lobbyists pushing for commercialization of assisted reproduction

by Leave a Comment

There’s a lobbying push on right now to repeal the criminal sanctions of our already stripped down Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Years ago, Canada was declared as having the gold standard of legislation on reproductive technologies. Our Act was stripped down in 2010 with the Reference to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act at the Supreme Court. No more bragging rights.

There are many ethical considerations involved with assisted reproduction that deserve careful consideration. When I see private corporations lobbying for the purpose of commercialization, I get nervous. Even an ethicist at Dalhousie is clarifying that the lobbying campaign may be misleading in its advocacy efforts:

 

Françoise Baylis, a bioethicist at Dalhousie University, agrees that the lack of clarity is a huge concern. But she argues the law can be clarified without getting rid of the criminal sanctions, and Health Canada is conducting consultations to do exactly that. Baylis thinks the real issue for the protesters, despite what they say, is that there is a prohibition on payment, which they want overturned. “They use catchy phrases, but if you unpack them, they are not based in reality,” she says. She is referring to one of the campaign’s slogans — “surrogacy is not a crime” —  pointing out that it isn’t.

And the MP  spearheading these efforts leaves us with this quote:

Anthony Housefather, Liberal MP for the riding of Mount Royal, who supports the lobbying, has made no secret of his desire to see assisted reproduction decriminalized and even commercialized. […] And he isn’t troubled by the prospect of the law being lost altogether. “The abortion law was struck down and not replaced,” he says. “It was no tragedy.”

He should conceded that our status quo has in fact led to tragedy. Due our lack of legislation, in Canada, we know that coerced abortions, sex-selection abortions, and late term abortions, have taken place.  These occurrences should make even the most ardent pro-choicer pause and consider whether being the only Western nation in the world without abortion legislation is “no tragedy.” We aren’t exactly skipping, carefree, through sunny fields on this topic. There are real and life-ending consequences as a result of our legislative void.

Marigold

I hope Housefather’s position for supporting the decriminalization of AHRA sanctions is more carefully considered.

All that to say, if a private members bill is introduced to address the AHRA, as Housefather suggests, I hope we seize that opportunity to have a careful and nuanced discussion about the ethical considerations engaged.

Oh Cecile, you’re breaking my heart

by Leave a Comment

Don’t be the one to make this mistake. Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood of America, recently betrayed that she thinks natural family planning is “the rhythm method.” It’s not. And it looks really foolish when you publicly make this mistake, especially in her position. I take comfort in seeing that about a thousand people called her out on Twitter. Natural family planning is taking off for many different reasons and in many different ways, not least of which is that it’s empowering for women to learn about and have access to these methods.

 

The feminist case against surrogacy

by Leave a Comment

Oftentimes, in life-related debates, it can feel like there is no common ground. This article highlights the problems with surrogacy, something many feminists are against, whether those feminists are pro-life or pro-choice. The author’s bio shows that on some issues at least, there can be common ground. Read her article–it describes the pitfalls of surrogacy very well.

Kathleen Sloan is a former member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Executive Director of Connecticut NOW, a consultant on third-party reproduction issues, and co-author of the book Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth and Culture. She has a master’s degree in International Relations and has traveled the world advocating women’s rights, including at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York. She co-authored a brief for fifteen feminist academics and advocates as amici curiae in support of the petitioner (the surrogate) in the case discussed above.

“Why Everyone Should Oppose Surrogacy”

by 1 Comment

Surrogacy advocates highlight when all goes well. But when (as was published in Toronto Life magazine) a wealthy woman pulls a poor woman out of her home, where she has four children because she is concerned not about the woman, but about the baby, we don’t hear about that.

Wasser’s eye then fell upon an ashtray full of cigarette butts, and she smelled smoke coming from upstairs; the surrogacy contract stated there would be no smoking in the house. ­Wasser snapped. She insisted the surrogate spend the final week of the pregnancy in her guest room in Toronto and threatened her with Children’s Aid if she didn’t come. “Imagine me ripping her away from her children. I couldn’t believe I was doing this to these kids, who were crying, ‘Mommy, Mommy, don’t go!’ and me just thinking, ‘That’s my baby, I have to think of my baby.’ ” The surrogate did go to Toronto, but ended up returning home the next day.

Bold is mine. She couldn’t believe it, and yet she did it. The bulk of surrogacy cases, particularly if we start allowing payment for it, will be wealthy people buying babies from the poor. Who has the power in that arrangement? In all the talk of the Handmaid’s Tale, Be It Resolved that it’s not Christians we need to worry about here, but rather those who, in the main, see little problem with a commercial trade in babies.

That’s why this is an important article, by Jennifer Roback Morse. It gives many reasons why surrogacy isn’t the right path. It’s flat out illegal in several countries, like France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Canada should follow suit. Here are a few reasons why surrogacy is problematic; the article contains many more:

  • Broken bonds: The gestational mother’s bond to the child is treated as if it were important during the pregnancy, and completely irrelevant afterwards.
  • Objectifying women: The gestational mother is used for her womb and then is legally – and perhaps emotionally – set aside.
  • Fewer rights for the mother, compared to adoption: If the gestational mother grows attached to the child, as mothers often do, or if she has concerns about the “commissioning parents,” too bad. Mothers who agree to place a child for adoption can almost always change their minds after the baby has been placed in their arms. Denying gestational mothers the same right is, quite simply, inhuman.

 

Research to help with infertility

by 1 Comment

Ottawa’s own Dr. Leiva was featured in a TIME magazine article about ovulation kits very recently. Dr. Leiva has and is helping advance the cause of women’s health and the struggle with infertility through his research, of which he has done quite a lot. This is important because there is not enough work done to help women understand their own fertility and their own cycles particularly as concerns infertility. Now Dr. Leiva wants to bring a urinary ovulation confirmation test to Canada.

From Dr. Leiva:

Approximately one in six couples in Ontario have experienced infertility at some point in their lives. Infertility can cause extreme emotional, physical and financial burden to those who experience it. However, forty percent of couples who seek infertility services conceive without treatment. To improve a couple’s chance for conceiving naturally, it is necessary to confirm when ovulation occurs. Confirmation that ovulation has occurred can only be done by performing a blood test for serum progesterone test or by serial transvaginal ultrasound. However, both of these investigations require visits to a physician, specialized laboratory testing, and in the case of ultrasound high costs and logistical demands. A simple home-based pregnanediol-3a-glucuronide (PdG) urinary test to confirm ovulation has been developed but is not yet approved for use in Canada. The PdG urinary test works by measuring urine for a marker of Progesterone, which is a hormone that rises sharply only after ovulation. If shown to be as effective in confirming ovulation, this test would provide much more convenient way for women and clinicians to confirm ovulation and determine fertility bringing great empowerment to couples.

So what’s my point with this post? Dr. Leiva is seeking $15,000 to do this small study to advance the cause of bringing this ovulation kit to Canada. He is working with the Bruyère Foundation, which is a registered Canadian charity and they are happy to issue tax receipts for all donations over $10.

When making a donation whether online, phone or mail; it is very important to write or mention to be assigned to “Fertility Study/Dr. Rene Leiva”

Please donate. And let others know about this cause. It’s very worthwhile, advancing women’s health in Canada.

If you have questions about this, please message me and I can find out and/or put you in touch with Dr. Leiva for more information.

Hurray for good research!

“No one has the right to a child”

by Leave a Comment

This is refreshing. From feminists, no less. It’s an article about a conference that aims to shed light on the harms of surrogacy. 

The rights of the women who are carrying their baby, who are selling their eggs, aren’t considered at all,” Bindel said. “No one has the right to a child. And there are [already] plenty of babies and children who really do need care.”

I’m reminded of a poignant line from The Hunt for the Wilderpeople (a movie I cannot recommend highly enough) where the main character, a child in foster care, muses about how some people who want kids can’t have them, and others who don’t want kids, can and do have them. It’s one of life’s unfair basic truths. 

Jennifer Lahl planned the conference and is the creator of a documentary about surrogacy called Breeders. Worth watching if you get the chance.

Will the lab make sex obsolete?

by 3 Comments

It’s another round of “We can, but should we?” According to this article, a leading bioethicist believes that new research will  lead to people having children via DNA sample, like a skin scraping, which will then be transformed into eggs and/or sperm.

Further, we’ll do this rather than have children via sex altogether, as it will permit us to have control over the process of procreation. Within 20-40 years, the genetic selection process will be quite advanced, permitting parents to screen the embryos and decide which one is the best fit based on traits and characteristics.

Yes, I think we will see an increased and broad use of embryo selection. I would be careful to set the time frame at 20-40 years. I think we’ll actually see a world where most babies born to people with good health coverage will be conceived in the lab. People will make about a hundred embryos, each will have its whole genome tested, and the parents will be [asked … “Tell] us what you want to know and then tell us what embryo you want.”

There are economic arguments for this approach too:

I think it should bring down health care costs, and, in fact, one of the advantages to it is that it would be so beneficial for public health care costs that I think it would be provided for free. If it costs say, $10,000 to start a baby this way, 100 babies is a million dollars. If you avoid the birth of one baby with a serious genetic disease, you’ve saved $3 [million to] $5 million.  […]

The concern about the state or the insurance company or someone else, forcing you to pick particular babies, worries me a lot more than having parents make choices, though that raises its own set of questions.

A few considerations of course. For those of us that agree with science that life begins at conception, the hypothetical 99 embryos that would be rejected would actually mean that 99 human lives are ended. In one fell swoop. (Unless of course they’re donated for parts and research which is another nauseating issue.) And of course we’re now dealing will full-blown consumer eugenics.

As the bioethicist also notes, it’s possible that this process wouldn’t be covered by insurance in all jurisdictions, so a type of two-tier human caste system would exist: those children whose parents had means and/or insurance to ensure their genetic superiority…and the rest.

I recently read a fiction series that dealt with this issue. The books were set in 2060 and predicted that parents who chose to have children the old fashion way were treated as second class citizens, and had a hard time finding doctors willing to treat their families since they brought on their children’s health problems themselves. They should have done IVF and chosen a healthy embryo instead of the child they had through sex.

Further, if their children were born with certain conditions, there was no one to treat them as money for research dried up as these conditions could be screened out in the IVF process.  If the children were treated, they were considered an unnecessary drain on the crippled healthcare system (the book also predicted that the American economy would be in rough shape 40 years from now.)

The series was written a few years ago, but what the author envisioned lines up with what this bioethicist predicts. I can’t help but wonder if the author will be right about the attitudes towards those of us who would not take this approach to family planning.

And I understand part of the appeal – no parent wants to see their child suffer. My 5 month old daughter was born with two heart defects. There was one dark night when my midwife held me in my dark bedroom as we watched my daughter sleeping. I was crying and she promised we’d work through it if she needed heart surgery as a newborn.

But what’s the cost? What’s the impact on the children born and for society as a whole? How are we going to change when we decide that “imperfect” humans are a drain (or at least could have been selectively avoided), rather than co-citizens that we’re called to love and care for?

Sperm

Meta