Have you ever noticed how simple the prolife message is? Unborn children are human beings, and killing innocent human beings is wrong. Have you ever noticed how convoluted arguments for abortion are? What do violinists and artificial wombs have to do with abortion?
Vox recently published an article about the recent advances in creating an artificial womb. It isn’t used yet on humans, but new experiments are being done on lambs and seeing some success.
The author, Harvard Professor
I. Glenn Cohen, considers this scientific development and how it might effect arguments for abortion. He poses the question: “Could anti-abortion laws require pregnant women whose fetuses are not yet viable to transfer the fetus to a nurturing site outside the body, possibly by way of minimally invasive surgery?” Could artificial wombs end the justification for abortion?
According to Cohen, there are three types of parents: gestational parents, legal parents, and genetic parents. He believes a woman can't be forced to be a gestational parent and has the right to stop gestating (carrying) the fetus to term. He also believes laws can’t force legal parenthood on a woman. Artificial wombs counter these two arguments, meaning women don't have to continue gestating children, and the children could be adopted.
Abortion supporters shouldn't worry about artificial wombs, however, because Cohen invents a new right to an abortion: the right to not be a genetic parent. Apparently you have a right to not have people related to you. Who knew? This new right means artificial wombs and the current legal justification of abortion based on viability don't matter. How convenient, right?
The author also brings up the old abortion argument of the violinist. This is a popular argument to support the legalization of abortion, despite being fatally flawed. If you don’t know, this violinist argument is a farfetched scenario where you must imagine waking up being attached to a bunch of machines against your will, and these machines are also attached to a world champion violinist, keeping him alive. Why would a sinister band of concert enthusiasts kidnap you to keep their favorite maestro playing?
The purpose of the argument is to have you think about being in this situation yourself, if you would pull the plug. Pro-abortion people argue that this situation is just like pregnancy in that you are being forced to keep someone alive against your will.
This analogy is irrelevant to reality for several important reasons, most of all that creating your own child through a voluntary act is not like a kidnapped violinist being hooked up to you. This argument creates another distraction—an interesting one at least—from what is really going on: children are being killed in the most brutal fashion.
The supposed right to abortion does not spring out of autonomy, or liberty, or the nature of the child. Do abortion supporters honestly sit down and think up how to deal with the abortion issue first and then apply those principles? Every abortion supporter starts from the place that they don’t want a baby, or someone else shouldn't be burdened with a baby. Then they think up ways to justify the unjustifiable, the same way a child rationalizes stealing a cookie from the cookie jar.
Abortion is about dead babies; the arguments are just window-dressing to make the horrendous palatable for our seemingly civilized times.
