[May 30, 2025] Recently, I watched a debate on the ethics of abortion. While the classic pro-abortion and anti-abortion positions were not all discussed, I did find the back-and-forth to be illuminating, at least in the way some college students think.
On one side is an anti-abortion advocate, and on the other, a pro-abortion advocate. By the way, using the anti and pro modifiers is more accurate and tells us about those who are convinced of their position. Whenever we get into detailed arguments about abortion, using descriptors like pro-life and pro-choice can be misleading since they cover a larger range of positions, including, for example, evolution, religion, and politics.
The discussion began with anti-abortion advocates defining the beginning of life at conception. This is, I believe, the core of that position. This person states that murder is wrong, and everyone should be able to agree to that. Murder is wrong because it involves a human being. And not because of a certain age or where they’re located (as in the womb). Humans are more than a clump of cells, but have a soul.
There are at least two lines of thinking by pro-abortion advocates. One is that there is no such thing as a soul, and therefore, humans are no different than any other animal. The other is that one does not become a human until the “baby can live outside the womb” or something similar. This view rejects Biblical teachings and religious lessons on divine morality.
In this debate, both advocates went down a biological discussion on sperm, eggs, DNA, zygote, and stages of fetus development that didn’t add much. I found this part of the debate distracting. The pro-abort advocate said that the joining of a sperm and an egg is merely two cells joining, nothing more. “It’s just a clump of cells.”
What is the beginning of life is the crux of the debate. The pro-abort man said that the beginning of life is “arbitrary.” Thus, there is no moral or biological framework for when life begins. There is no point where the moral worth switch flips on.
In supporting abortion, the pro-abortion man said that he believes at nine months (i.e., at a full-term baby), it would be unreasonable to have an abortion unless there is some extreme circumstance. When pressed, he describes life beginning when we can experience suffering. I’ve not heard this before, but it is consistent with pro-abortion ideologues refusing to define a clear-cut position on when life begins.
This was a trap for the pro-abortion position. Attempting to use “suffering” as a criterion for life allowed the anti-abortion advocate to bring up dementia patients who don’t suffer even when harmed.
This is where the pro-abort admitted that life cannot begin at conception but was unable to say when. If the pro-abortion person were to define when life begins and defend it, I think he would have seen the anti-abortion position better.
To see this debate, see the link here.
————
Please read my books:
I’m an abortion survivor. I highly suggest everyone go to “The Abortion Survivors Network”:
Abortion Doesn’t Always Go As Planned
We’re Breaking The Silence
On “Unsuccessful” Abortions
Connect. Be Informed. Be Empowered.
Hear the Stories
https://abortionsurvivors.org/
Where there is abortion, there is unsuccessful abortion. But where there is life, there is hope. We are that hope. We share stories and data to humanize survivors’ experiences. We promote policies that protect and serve abortion survivors, their families and friends. Indeed, there is support.
YES! thank you, Tom for saying so.
Please don’t kill the babies. Babies are not a disease or a cancer to be treated with the knife and scalpel.
Very few can ever write or say anything new about the abortion issue. I know that Gen. Satterfield and Dr. Jordan Peterson suggest that we start the discussion BEFORE the pregnancy because that is where the cause is at (duh). Maybe we should address out sexual behavior and use a bit of good judgment here instead of dealing with the consequences after the fact. Just me thinking like Gen. S. and Dr. P.
Liberal/Leftist minds are not built that way. They only function on emotion. And that is why they are so violent and “see” violence everywhere.
Emotional Liberals. You don’t say?
Never reject the Holy, for you may be dismissive of the greatest part of human existence. 🙏
The issue I most often see to support the pro-abortion crowd is denial of morality. They see this as antiquated, holy-rollers, knuckle-dragging morons who cannot survive without believing in some form of witchcraft.
Point made and thanks.
If we look to all of animal behavior, we see many common threads. One of them is to protect the young. With few exceptions, this is like one of the most fundamental rules of life because such action helps ensure the continuation of the species. These acts of protection also have short term impacts like brown children helping care for their elderly parents. This latter example is huge. We may ignore it but only at our peril. Thanks Gen. Satterfield for again bringing up the often chaos discussion of pro-abortion versus anti-abortion – the real descriptions of their positions.
Sometimes I think we need to take a step back and talk about our behavior BEFORE we discuss abortion. How did the woman get into the position she is in? is just one of many questions we need to ask.
This is an excellent point and one that Gen. Satterfield made in an earlier article. I couldn’t find it, but i remember it.