Do embryos and fetuses count as human "persons"? And why can't we abort in those cases in which NOT aborting means that both the mother and the baby will die?
Writers covering Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein's legacies are acting shocked that these men both objectified women and supported abortion. They shouldn't be surprised.
One of the most common ad hominem arguments against the pro-life movement is that pro-life people only really care about the unborn, and don’t care what happens after birth (or about the conditions into which the child will be born). Often, this argument goes hand-in-glove with the argument that is pro-lifers really want to be pro-life, they have to support giving more money to such-and-such a social program, or hand out free condoms, or endorse some other politically-liberal policy. Other times, the argument is that pro-lifers need to personally adopt kids, or else be content to let them get aborted. Here are seven answers to that argument.
Yesterday marked the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision in which abortion was declared to be a Constitutional right. Here are four sobering realities to consider.
Is it wrong to take an innocent human life if you can do it without inflicting pain? What about if killing the person reduces the amount of pain that they're in? In the debates about both assisted suicide and abortion, it's common to see two incompatible camps emerge. Despite all of the yelling and nastiness between the two sides, there are people in both camps who are trying to do the right thing. Frequently (not always), the problem is that they've simply got two incompatible moral codes. One side looks at the reduction/cessation of suffering, while the other side is rooted in a view of the inherent sanctity of human life. So who's right, and how can we know?
Seth Millstein at Bustle has compiled a list of 11 pro-choice responses to common pro-life arguments. This is my response to his three biggest points: about the life of the unborn child, about whether sex carries with it a responsibility for motherhood, and about whether "rape exceptions" make any sense.
A popular progressive political argument is that the only truly pro-life choice is to vote Democratic. After all, the argument goes, even if said Democrats are vocally "pro-choice," they're also pro-social net, and the presence of a social net prevents women from feeling like they "need" abortion. During Republican administrations, in contrast. social nets get slashed, pregnant women feel more desperate (and less capable of caring for the children with which they're pregnant), and abortion goes up. It's an interesting theory, but is it true?
Do You Need God to Know That Abortion is Wrong? That’s a question that I asked recently here and over at Strange Notions. I was prompted by two things: on the one hand, a series of articles defending the idea that we can be moral without God; and on the other, articles like this one, suggesting that […]
The New Republic’s latest “contribution” to the abortion debate is remarkable, in that, despite getting virtually everything it says factually wrong, it still raises an interesting problem for pro-choicers and atheists. Here’s the Twitter teaser to the piece that started it all: How the anti-choice platform is fighting to stay alive: http://t.co/m8kuGANs2Q pic.twitter.com/fxTeRyj444 — The New […]
Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hobby Lobby case (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.), siding with Hobby Lobby. It was a 5-4 decision, with Justice Alito writing the opinion (Justice Kennedy, who joined the majority, also wrote a concurring opinion). The Court’s decision, holding that the HHS Mandate violates Hobby Lobby’s […]