One of the most unfeeling and unthinking pro-abortion rants in recent memory appeared on July 26 in Michigan State University’s newspaper. A column by MSU sophomore Shane Krouse attempted to offer up an open-and-shut case for abortion-on-demand but wound up as more of an emotional tirade against pro-lifers than a reasonably articulated thesis for abortion. Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s wonderful that a person from my generation would take the time to put pen to paper on this issue. Even though I strongly disagree with Mr. Krouse, I respect him as a fellow human being. Unfortunately, he is unwilling to extend that same respect to the “least among us” – the 45 million unborn boys and girls who have been butchered in this nation since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. That is one of the most significant differences between pro-lifers and abortion advocates – a sincere, deep-down respect for human life, regardless of its size or development.
OK, on to Mr. Krouse’s column itself. He begins by falsely attributing the scientifically-vindicated notion that life begins at conception to the “fundamentalist community.” This kind of leading is blatantly duplicitous. Consider Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s own statement during the ’04 elections: “I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.” Last time I checked, John Kerry is far from a card carrying member of the “fundamentalist community.” In fact, he’s the most liberal man to ever run for the U.S. presidency. Yet he candidly admitted that life begins at conception. Instead of lambasting the pro-life community, perhaps Mr. Krouse should direct some pointed criticism at his own presidential candidate for making such a rhetorical faux pas. After all, pro-abortionists cannot afford to admit that life begins at conception without losing significant moral ground. If life begins at conception, an unborn child is alive through all nine months of pregnancy; if an unborn child is alive, it just might be a human being; and if an unborn child is a human being, there is the remote possibility that he or she has “a right to life.”
Can’t have that, can we?
Moving along, even though he has no scientific credentials and cites no resources, Mr. Krouse states that the fetus is “merely a wade of cells” during the first trimester of pregnancy and that a “wad of cells doesn’t equate to a fully functioning, living human being.” Later in the column, he establishes his own arbitrary definition of when unborn life becomes human: “Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb.”
Despite failing to offer any valid scientific data bolstering the above conclusion, Mr. Klouse also fails to realize the logical result of this line of thinking. A newborn child is just as reliant upon its mother for nourishment and care as an unborn child in the uterus. If left alone, untouched and uncared for, newborns will quickly expire. Even after years of development, children are still dependent on outside influences (most notably their parents) for health, vitality, and life. Death is the ultimate result if a child is left to himself – he simply does not have the cogitative or physical ability to provide food, shelter, clothing, warmth, etc. According to Mr. Klouse’s argument, then, since young children can’t care for themselves, they are less than human and merely the parents’ property. Thus, it is morally permissible to take a child’s life up to an age at which it is arbitrarily decided that the subject is able to care for himself or herself and is therefore “alive.”
That’s the problem with basing the value of human life on a factor like intellect or survival ability – the logical conclusion is that millions of human beings alive today are no more worthy of life than an unborn child since they are reliant on parents or some outside force to sustain them. If life is defined strictly on the basis of independence, autonomy, and survival ability, then it’s time to clear out all of those “dead” people in nursing homes, care homes, hospitals, and hospices.
A very compassionate option, eh?
Mr. Krouse proceeds to draw an insulting (though not uncommon) parallel between the unborn and parasitic forms of life: “[A] fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host. Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate.”
Such a statement should alarm and disgust anyone who has any sense of empathy, compassion, or common sense. I would like to see Mr. Krouse view an image of an unborn child in this fancy little contraception known as an ultrasound machine and then make the above argument again. A tapeworm? Has Mr. Klouse lost the God-given wonder and excitement about childbirth – the ushering of new life into the world, bright with hope and promise – to the point that he can compare an unborn child to a parasite without even blinking? More to the point, since we are all ex-fetuses, does that make us all ex-parasites? And when do we officially lose our designation of parasite and become full-fledged human beings? One year? Two years? Ten years? Who decides? Morality and ethics become next to impossible when you start playing that game.
Another point on this issue: Mr. Krouse seems to have a hard time differentiating between human and animal life in terms of intrinsic value. This is a common ploy of the radical environmentalist movement, which raises animal life to a comparable and even higher status than human life. The hypocrisy of the Left’s double-standard on this issue is obvious. Mr. Krouse would doubtless blanch (and rightly so) if a group of newborn puppies were butchered right in front of him. But would he really have nothing to say if a newborn child – with a heartbeat, distinct DNA, and brainwaves– were ripped from its mother’s womb, a pair of scissors implanted in the back of its head, and its brains sucked out? Does Mr. Krouse even understand the implications of what he is advocating here? Even comparing human beings, who have the ability to reason and think, with animal life shows an egregious lack of empathy, common sense, or both.
That brings up the next point Mr. Krouse makes: “Do any of these [Christians] realize that according to the National Institutes of Health, 25 percent of conceived embryos perish within the first six weeks due to complications such as failure to implant in the uterus wall? That’s right – a quarter of all ‘humans’ conceived end up ‘dying.’ It would appear that the ‘loving’ God of these fundamentalists is many more times guilty of murder than all the human race’s abortionists combined.”
If Mr. Krouse cannot see a difference between a natural miscarriage and the extraction of an unborn child and subsequent butchering, then his status as a legitimate commentator on this issue is highly questionable.
To illustrate the fallacy of Mr. Krouse’s point, consider an elderly man who dies from a heart aneurysm. The doctors conclude that the patient’s ailment was due to a mixture of genetics, years of poor eating habits, and old age. Now, suppose the same man had died from multi-system organ failure. An autopsy is conducted and doctors find ample traces of arsenic in his blood stream. Suddenly, the picture becomes more complicated. Upon further research, police conclude that the man was intentionally poisoned, and so they begin a homicide investigation.
In the first case, would we argue that an intelligent agent (whether that is God or a human being) was involved in the death of the man who expired of the heart aneurysm? Of course not. Numerous factors went into his death, but none of them, at least physically speaking, are attributable to a premeditated, malicious intellect. On the other hand, the second example raises the probability that an outside force poisoned the man and thus was the cause of his death. Clearly, evil intent was involved here.
Similarly to the example given above, comparing miscarriage and abortion is simply illogical and shows what a difficult time Mr. Krouse has articulating a solid pro-abortion argument. There is a world of difference between a man who falls from a cliff due to a loose rock and a man who falls because he is pushed. It’s a basic matter of natural versus intelligent forces.
Mr. Krouse raises several other points in his piece that I unfortunately do not have time to answer. I’m planning to send along this critique to Mr. Krouse and see if he cares to respond. I’m all in favor of an open, civil dialogue on this issue, and I trust Mr. Krouse shares the same view. After all, I’m just speaking as one former-parasite to another.