Advocates for abortion have been making their claims of protest against the states taking steps  to restrict what they call a “right” to abortion. Their protest takes at least two forms: (1) it is contrary to a woman’s right to control her own body, and (2) to deny the right to abortion is misogynistic.

Let’s examine these claims.

From the moment of conception, science tells us certain facts: what has been conceived is a living organism, it is human (23 pairs of chromosomes), and this living human organism inside of her is not her body. It is genetically distinct from her, and therefore it is not her body. It may be a different sex from her, it may develop a different blood type, and certainly will develop a body that is completely distinct from hers. In other words, from the very moment of conception science tells us that even the blastocyst inside her is not her own body. As the baby develops in her, it becomes more obvious every day that it is a distinct human life inside her.

But is being against abortion misogynistic? The dictionary defines misogyny as “hatred,dislike,or mistrustof women,or prejudice against women.” What is immediately obvious is that this is not a case from the world of science, but from emotions. It’s attitudinal, not biological. The accusation is not personal (“You hate women”); rather, it’s in principle. The cry of “Misogyny!” is claiming that the principleof refusing a woman the right to an abortion is a declaration of hatred of and prejudice against all women. This is a bizarre twist of logic and reason—to contend that any refusal to let her do what she wants with the living human organism inside her womb is an assured deprecation of all womankind. In other words, if we really honor women and treat them as equals, we must grant her the right to end the human life inside her. Ironically, throughout millennia of history, it was thought that if we really honor women, we celebrate when she gets pregnant. The change is nothing short of a perverse reversal of values and a denigration of human worth—that the only way to honor her life is allow her the right to exterminate the life of another.

Proponents of abortion are claiming that to deny the right to abortion is misogynistic because it denies them a foundational and fundamental human right: control over one’s body. But from where does this “right” come? They certainly don’t believe it’s an objective moral standard. In my many conversations with atheists, I know they don’t believe in objective moral standards. 

Instead, the right to have control one’s body is believed to come from millennia of evolutionary development. The problem with this view is that the “right to abort” doesn’t pertain to any aspect of the survival of the species. Since reproduction is necessary for survival, the contention must be that the right notto reproduce is also necessary for the survival of the species, and to deprive one of that right is misogynistic prejudice against women. Yet this is contrary to evolutionary theory, and therefore another self-contradiction. 

In other words, these claims of the pro-abortion industry are nothing more than illogical and self-contradictory rhetoric to justify personal autonomy: “I should be allowed to do whatever I want to do.” The position is neither logically nor scientifically sound, but only the spirit of the age couched in emotional rhetoric: “Morality and rights are whatever Isay they are so that I can do what I want to do.” The victims, of course, are millions of defenseless, innocent, unborn babies.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *