Watch this debate between pro-life advocate Stephanie Gray and abortionist Malcolm Connors. If you can’t decide who made the more compelling case (though it should be obvious), see my “symmetry-breaking” argument below.
Possibly, abortion is evil. Therefore, one should be pro-life.
Possibly, abortion is evil.
Support: Many pro-choice advocates argue abortion isn’t something anybody *wants to do*/*is happy about*, and that abortion should be, “safe, legal, and rare.” But why? If abortion is the moral equivalent of having one’s toenails clipped, what’s the issue? The only forthcoming reply is that people recognize there is something morally problematic with abortion. But pray tell: what could be morally problematic about abortion unless it concerns the intentional ending of an innocent human life?
Of course, I would argue the best of philosophical argumentation and scientific evidence support the pro-life position that abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, and that such an act is always intrinsically wrong. Personally, I feel that it is beyond probable (in fact, it is virtually certain) that abortion is evil, but I am presenting a more modest argument, for the sake of argument.
If abortion is evil, then it is a tremendous evil, both intrinsically (intentionally killing an innocent human) and proportionally (hundreds of thousands of deaths per year, in America alone).
Possibly, then, abortion is an evil on par with the worst atrocities of human history, including the holocaust.
Possibly, then, pro-choice advocates are contributing (either directly or indirectly) to that which may be one of the worst atrocities in human history.
It is better (i.e. more prudent) when lacking certainty to err on the side of caution when it comes to possibly contributing to that which may be one of the worst atrocities in human history. I cannot justify this premise further, nor should I. You either see it or you don’t.
So, unless one is certain that abortion is not evil, one should be pro-life.
– Pat
PS – Someone may object that if abortion is not evil, then harm is done in unjustly regulating people’s behavior/bodies, and perhaps we should consider that cost.
Naturally, we must consider all costs to being wrong, but nevertheless the objection fails, because 1) this argument need not apply to public policy so much as personal belief (including people considering abortion), and 2) while regulating a person’s behavior is possibly evil, it is not the same degree of possible evil attributable to abortion. So, if we were 50/50 on whether we’d be incurring the harm of intentionally ending innocent human life OR unjustly regulating (some aspect) of people’s behavior, still we should err on the side of caution regarding the former. It would be better to be wrong in one direction (autonomy invasions) than the other (murder), and either way we must decide.