What Does a Centrist Think About Abortions?

Photo by Andreas Wohlfahrt

When it comes to the topic of abortions, who is correct? The left or the right? The liberals or the
conservatives? If you put a gun to my head, and made me choose, I would agree with the conservatives.
Though there is much debate about when life begins the science is clear. Life begins much earlier than
many think. A sperm is the beginning of a human life. Yes, it is truly alive, having both motility, and
human DNA.
Thus, some liberals argue that life itself cannot justify the cessation of abortions, and that it is silly to
preserve something based simply on the fact that it is living. They mock conservatives, saying that
ejaculating to them should be considered murder.
Obviously, conservatives don’t consider it murder, because A) the death of sperm is inevitable without
implantation, and B) they think that human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg, thus producing a
zygote.
Liberals also like to call an “unborn baby” whether it is an embryo, or fetus, a mere clump/bundle of
cells. Which is silly, because every human is made up of cells. Furthermore, a single cell is extremely
complex, having multiple parts, which I don’t think most people could name off the top of their heads
(including me).
So, saying something is just a clump of cells is much like saying a human adult is worth little because
s/he is 60% water — and who needs to protect water besides the environmentalists!?
What I am trying to say here is that the common liberal reasoning for legalizing abortions is
unscientific. So, then they must reach into the women’s right bag, saying it’s about women’s right.
But approximately 50% of unborn babies are women, and furthermore, in Asia, they abort female
fetuses in favor of males. So, a woman should have the right to kill another woman, or at the least stop
her from existing?
Then they say things like “my body, my choice” which is absurd. One cannot abandon responsibility
for the fact of mere existence. Can a doctor in the middle of surgery leave because “my body, my
choice”? That would be highly unethical.
Furthermore, liberals justify abortions based on viability. They say, well, it (the fetus) wouldn’t survive
on its own outside the womb; therefore it has no agency, or right to be cared for till birth.
This makes no sense at all. All humans need help, and of course, especially the young ones. Not even
an 8 year old is viable. You take that 8 year old, and abandon him somewhere in a forest, and he dies
without rescue. An 8 year old is not viable when alone.
Hell, even our laws require parents to take care of their children, until they are 18 years old.
But the liberals ignore this. And they may also say that a fetus, or embryo can be aborted, because it is
underdeveloped; its brain is not much doing. However, a human grows for a remarkably long time. You
brain keeps developing until you are in your mid-20s or early 30s. Even the law recognizes that and has
leniency for teenagers, because their brains are clearly under-developed. But can you kill a teenager
because of their lack of development, intelligence, and awareness? Obviously, no.
And no to the arguments that liberals make about abortions. They do not hold water. There is only one
argument that makes sense, which is saying that abortion is a necessary evil.
The earth is clearly over-populated, and we are constantly struggling to maintain our way of living. The
more people we have the less there is to go around. Abortion can be thought of as a sacrifice to
maintain sustainability, or at least halt an inevitable crisis, which would harm millions, if not billions.
I do not agree with the practice of abortions, but the only thing liberals can say that I would buy into
(maybe) is it being a necessary evil. Why? Killing to save is something almost all of us would agree on.
If your home was invaded by a gang, and you had to kill five of these murderous thugs to save your
family of three (you, wife/husband, kid) would you? Even a conservative would say yes.
So, it can be reasoned that killing is okay. But still the argument that abortion is a necessary evil is
extremely weak, because the character of that fetus is undetermined, and one could never know what it
would do. It is still the extinguishing of an innocent. Even the law says “innocent until proven guilty.”
You cannot presume that an unborn baby will, if born, cause great harm, either to the mother, or anyone
else.
Yet liberals argue that an embryo, or fetus is still a parasite. Once again, how scientifically incorrect. It
is in the fetus’ best interest to preserve its mothers life. If a pregnant mother’s organs are damaged the
fetus inside of her will shares its stem cells, so that her organs can be repaired. That is not the
characteristic of a parasite at all. The physical relationship between a fetus, and mother is symbiotic.
Even when the unborn baby is finally born a mother benefits. When she holds her baby she gets a
feeling of a high from the oxytocin that is produced, and released in her body in response. Thus, she is
positively rewarded for being nurturing.
So, an unborn baby is not a parasite, and we see the truth of the matter. The liberal arguments for
abortion are senseless, and cruel. Abortion is the killing of something valuable, and full of potential.
The conservative pressure to ban abortions make sense, because it is logical, and no, you cannot guilt
conservatives into thinking they should be legal, because of how women are harmed when trying to
illegally obtain an abortion.
The liberals bring out the coat hanger, and talk about how a woman could die trying to perform an
abortion herself, or by some fool— well, my advice is that’s on you. Don’t do it.
Look at how many people die trying to rob shops. But does this mean we should bend the law towards
wrongdoers? Should we be kind, and legalize robbing shops, because of all the robbers dying? No. Of
course not. There is little guilt when a robber dies, because that robber consciously chose to do wrong.
Though I would never lack sympathy for a woman, who died trying to have an abortion with a coat
hanger; however, her demise would be her own fault. First, she had unprotected sex (likely), and then
she failed to take responsibility for the life inside of her.
But you may say, what if she didn’t voluntarily have sex? What about rape, and incest? Should
abortions not be allowed for that? Well, there are two problems here.
First, you can’t prove that the embryo, or fetus is a result of either, until it’s born. Second, from a
conservative perspective, allowing for any abortion would be morally inconsistent. A “rape baby,”
though terrible in a certain manner, is still innocent. The punishment should be placed solely upon the
rapist. You cannot kill an innocent to punish the guilty.
Yet would it be beneficial to the world that a rapist not pass along his genetics? Would it be beneficial
to society? Maybe. But even so, can we justify an abortion based on the benefit to ourselves?
In a civil society, do we do allow something immoral, and heinous, so as to have stability, and order?
Do we admit to ourselves that we are selfish, and evil enough to prioritize our needs over that which
may seem nebulous?
If most of us can agree to that, then we can agree to giving people legal permission to have, and
perform abortions. But we must admit to ourselves that what we will be doing is nothing less than evil.
If we do not accept the immorality of abortions, and what it really is for, then we go down a slippery
slope that will result in the decline of civilization.
Yes, if you have an abortion, you must admit it is for yourself, and the benefit of existing society, and it
is 100% selfish…. Isn’t it? The most common explanation, and reason given for abortion is that
someone is poor, or financially unprepared.
Does this reasoning not go against the liberal philosophy of “people before profits (i.e. money)”? If a
woman has an abortion, she is ending the life of her unborn baby to preserve her well-being, based on
money, and self.
Much like an omnivore, or carnivore that eats an animal. The animal, though valuable, is seen as
inferior, and somehow deserving of slaughtering, and being made into a food. It is the strong-being
ending the weaker-being for its own gain.
Yet both conservatives, and liberals, accept the slaughtering of animals for food. Over 90% of
Americans consume meat, and in no small quantity. The average American consumes approximately
222 pounds of meat per year.
So, it becomes clear that there is something in the human-mind that believes killing for gain is
acceptable. It seems that liberals, and conservatives (who often advocate for death penalties) just have a
different idea about what, and who can be killed.
Liberal philosophy, specifically moderate liberal philosophy, tends to focus on age. The moderate
liberals will base their acceptance of abortion on age. They believe the older is more valuable than the
younger, and abortions should not happen past a certain point.
Even some “progressive conservatives” hold this point of view, at least to a certain degree. The further
you get along the more likely you are to commit a sin, or immoral act.
Thus, we have found some type of common ground between conservatives, and liberals.
Now, truth be told, neither would be satisfied with whatever decision the other side made, so as a
centrist we’d have to find a middle-ground. No one would be truly satisfied, but nobody would be so
upset that they’d commit hara-kiri.
The question then is, “What should be the limitations to abortions?” What is the middle-ground?
If we examine everything logically we find an “unborn baby” (for lack of a better term) forms its neural
tube at 5 weeks growth, thus allowing for the development of nervous tissue (i.e. the brain, spinal cord,
and nerves).
And we all know what the brain is. The brain is a person. It is their consciousness, and what makes
them alive, and think. If we had the technology, and transferred a human brain into a robot body, the
person, even without their body, would still be a living person.
Therefore, using this information, the time limit for abortions would be 4 weeks… Is this satisfactory?
Liberals would say no, and that the formation of the neural tube alone is not important enough to place
down such a strict limitation.
We then go further down the road, and find that at 11 weeks growth, a fetus actually has a brain, and is
developed enough to react to stimuli, and feel pain. Countries like Australia, and Ireland, have used this
as a reason for their current abortion policies.
Though they have rounded out the time limitation to 12 weeks. Which is actually 2 weeks too much.
The time allowance to have an abortion must be under 11 weeks, or 10 weeks.
However, in the state of Georgia (America), the cutoff will be at 6 weeks. Why 6 weeks? Well, that’s
when a heartbeat can be detected. Logically, this makes sense. Medically-speaking, we determine if
someone is alive by checking for a pulse. If there is no pulse, then there is death. If there is a pulse, a
heartbeat, we have life.
This I understand, but supporters of abortion (i.e. infanticide) would not agree to this, because over half
of abortions are done within the first 8 weeks, and 91.1% of abortions are done in under 13 weeks.
Placing down the limitation of 6 weeks may close a window for many. I suspect this was the plan all
along for Georgian politicians.
Though if we really want to lean left, and really be “generous,” then we can simply base our reasoning
on mathematics. In school, if you get a mark of 50% in a class you pass, right? But the mark of 50% is
neither here nor there. It’s like a drinking glass that is said to be either half-full, or half-empty.
Using this, if a fetus’s growth (time-wise) is under 50%, then there is more “nothing” than
“something.” Pregnancy lasts about 40 weeks; so, from this we can create an abortion time limit of
under 20 weeks
In Pennsylvania (America) the limit is actually 20 weeks. Of course, they rounded up. But it should be
under 20 weeks. So, 19 weeks.
Yet this is unsatisfactory, highly unsatisfactory, because 19 weeks is in reality significant. Looking at a
19 week old fetus you can see just how much it's grown. It looks like a real, human baby — and it is.
Now, we must go back. The abortion time limit should be far less than 19 weeks. As centrists we need
to be on the safer side. Let’s do it half of half. Half of 40 weeks, and half of that equals 10 weeks.
At 10 weeks growth we know the fetus (according to the latest research) cannot feel pain like we
(adults) do. The fetus can only do so at 11 weeks. Also, since more than half of abortions occur at 8
weeks that means plenty of people will in fact be able to get their abortions.
Even though any abortion is offensive to a conservative a centrist would find an abortion time limit of
10 weeks to be the most satisfactory, which combines both left wing, and right wing perspectives.
Abortions are allowed, but with limitations based on reasoning.
For many countries, the 10 week limit would actually more than half what currently exists. In Canada,
you can’t abort a fetus beyond 24 weeks growth. 10 weeks is approximately 41% of 24 weeks.
Here you don’t have a complete elimination of elective abortions, but you will likely reduce it by
having a 10 week limit, and that is what a centrist would want. A reduction, but allowing within reason
a person to make their own decisions about their body, and the life carried inside of them.