“Why Pro-Life?� (A Review)

[Burris]

During my last visit to the Christian bookstore, I picked up a small text called, “Why Pro-Life?†by Randy Alcorn. The back flap promises a logical argument against abortion that does not rely on religion for its basis.

Alcorn is convinced that most people have not been exposed to a 'pure' pro-life position untainted by religious doctrine, and so his book is an attempt to fill that void.

Not surprisingly, however, Alcorn's religious biases bleed through into what I had hoped would be a text fit for secular consideration. In the end, he abandoned all pretence of writing for a secular audience and began talking about Biblical mandates and Christian forgiveness.

Moreover, and contrary to what he promises, none of his arguments are new. Anyone with even a little exposure to pro-life rhetoric will be familiar with what Alcorn has to say.

One of his first claims is that life begins at conception. To prove this, he marshals a few citations about how the union of sperm and egg creates a living cell with unique human DNA – a fact pro-choicers have not disputed.

Alcorn believes that because the cell is alive, unique in its genetic blueprint, and human, then it is worthy of the same legal protections as a fully formed human being.

But he cannot tell us why a zygote should have any rights, let alone rights that supersede those of the potential host.

The zygote is alive in much the same way as all the individual cells in my body are alive.

These cells are alive and capable of replication. They each contain a genetic blueprint for the person that is me. Whereas I have rights, however, those individual cells do not: It's not illegal to draw blood or excise polyps even though these actions will result in cell death. (To that, Alcorn later argues that fetuses are not a part of their mothers, and uses fetal surgery as a 'proof' of this.)

To have human rights, a biological entity must be more than a cell clump containing human DNA.

Alcorn tries to argue his way around this by claiming the uniqueness of the DNA blueprint – i.e., that it is not the same as that of its host – is sufficient justification for giving it individual rights.

Moreover, unlike other cells, the zygote has the potential to become an entirely new human being – another individual separate from the individuality of its host. (You'll note that I am not using the term 'mother,' here. That's because I don't think a zygote is a baby.)

Alcorn fails to demonstrate why the unique blueprint or the zygote's potential are sufficient grounds to grant the zygote human rights.

The zygote could develop into an embryo or it could develop into a tumor.

The zygote may not have the capacity to develop at all, due to some error in the genetic blueprint. The zygote would then be flushed at the next menses, with the woman none the wiser as to its existence.

The legal consequence of arguing that a life with its own rights is created at conception is that the process of menses could be investigated by the police to determine whether or not 'zygotecide' has occurred. Such a law would, for women i later stages of pregnancy, serve to turn miscarriage into a matter for criminal investigation.

Even despite the obvious flaws in Alcorn's view, he disingenuously claims such legislation would not impact a woman's rights. Only a few pages after telling that little fib, however, Alcorn talks about how a pregnant woman in South Carolina who tests positive for cocaine in her system could be charged with distributing drugs to a minor (39).

Ultimately, then, all women of child-bearing age would essentially be 'pre-pregnant'. If a woman drinks a lot on the night of an accidental conception, then she could be accused of serving alcohol to a minor.

Such a view wouldn’t merely impact women's rights; it would take most of those rights away completely.

Pro-choices recognize that the zygote is alive. They simply don't recognize this simple organism – one cell or a cluster of them – as a human being. The burden of proof is on Alcorn to demonstrate otherwise, and he fails to carry that burden.

To someone who is pro-choice, then, birth control pills, the “morning after†pill, and IUDs are all legitimate forms of contraception that do not end a human life. (In fact, they do not even end a pregnancy, since implantation has yet to occur.)

The morning-after pill and IUDs simply prevent implantation of a simple cluster of human cells which has no more rights than any other simple cell cluster. And birth control pills prevent ovulation altogether, such that conception doesn't occur at all.

Although Alcorn and other supposed pro-lifers fail to prove their claim that zygotes are persons, however, the anti-choice lobby is trying not only to outlaw abortion but also most forms of contraception.

On the surface, this doesn't make sense. Even for those who believe a life with rights is created at conception, such contraceptive methods as the birth control pill (which prevents ovulation, not implantation), spermicide, and the condom should be morally permissible.

Their broad attack on contraception of every type bespeaks a deeper motive than the mere desire to preserve life.

On page 98, Alcorn lets the cat out of the bag. The anti-choice lobby opposes contraception because...

Abortion robs families waiting to adopt. By carrying a child to term, a young woman accepts responsibility for her choices. She grows and matures. She can look back with satisfaction that she did the right thing by allowing her child both life and a good family.

As we've discussed here before, and especially when we talk about the Chicken Littles who whine about a 'demographic winter,' the underlying problem for some anti-choicers has nothing to do with preserving life and everything to do with serving an agenda I'll charitably refer to as “cultural preservation.â€

Moreover, in his comment about robbery, Alcorn assumes that a the fetus of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy is actually community property and that she would be stealing from other people if she refuses to carry this fetus to term.

He also assumes (a) that the sexual activity by which a woman becomes pregnant is always her choice, (b) that she is immature and young to begin with, and © that contraception is somehow less 'responsible' than unplanned pregnancy.

This idea that women are actually emotional children rather than moral agents makes an appearance much earlier in the book as well, where Alcorn talks about those unfortunate women who were pressured to abort. He argued these woman are not murderers, even though he sees abortion as murder, but rather they were suffering from “temporary insanity†(23) at the time of the procedure.

Not surprisingly, Alcorn also adopts the slippery slope fallacy and uses the fringe views of Peter Singer as the centerpiece for his argument that legal abortion will create a culture that undervalues all life.

Alcorn claims crisis pregnancy centers are proof that anti-choices actually care about life even after the fetus is born, and he cites a few examples of pro-lifers who chose to adopt from women who were convinced not to have abortions.

In short, Alcorn's arguments are so poor that some fence-sitters will probably turn pro-choice after having read his 'reasonable' and 'non-religious' presentation.

What saddens me most – well, beyond having spent $8 on this turkey – is that I was genuinely hoping for some useful pro-life arguments. I would love to be able to draw a word picture of what an actual culture of life would look like and why, as well as developing a theoretical roadmap for how this culture could be developed by willing participants who are not under the bondage of useless and poorly-written legislation.

[bananacat]

Yeah, he pretty much admits that he views women as walking incubators who have no right to their own bodies. I'm pro-choice and I do think that fetuses are "people" after a certain point. I still don't think that any specific human owes that person use of their body parts. I don't think fetuses should have more rights than born people, and I absolutely do not think that embryos should have more rights than born people. Most elective abortions involve embryos, not fetuses.

This guy is really typical though. Anti-abortion people frequently feel like they are amazing truth-bearers and pro-choicers are just silly, naive idiots who have never actually thought this thing through, and if only he could make us see is impeccable logic, we'd instantly convert. It's exactly what you see in that movie 180, and the same attitude I've encountered from numerous internet trolls. There's one feminist blog that gets occasional waves of anti-abortion people fresh out of parochial school who think they're gonna show up and set us all straight, only to be quite surprised to find out that we have actually heard their amazing original arguments many times before and yet we remain unconvinced by them. They're so arrogant about it.

[GeoBQn]

While driving in the country today, we passed by a barn with a large sign on it that said "Embryos are babies!" Gee, if you are so convinced, then why is your poster decorated with a 10-month-old baby instead of a cute, cuddly embryo?

[crassy]

Not surprisingly, Alcorn also adopts the slippery slope fallacy and uses the fringe views of Peter Singer as the centerpiece for his argument that legal abortion will create a culture that undervalues all life.

Which is weird because Singer puts great value on life. What he doesn't put value on is potential life.

[longskirtlotsakids]

I don't like how a pregnant woman only "takes responsibility" by giving birth and adopting out an unwanted baby. It gives me the feeling that carrying a baby is somehow seen as atonement for un-Christianly sanctioned sexual behavior.

You just can't reach people sometimes though. My mother (who neglected and ignored me after age 3, leaving me feeling as a grownup that I actually was unwanted after I could walk and talk) was spouting off one day about Obama's pro-choice stance. i was like "what are talking about?" and she said " I can't believe that he said he would never use a baby to punish his daughters for getting pregnant! A baby is the perfect way to punish someone for being sexual outside of marriage!"

i was so stunned by her apparent lack of disregard for child welfare i couldn't even speak.

[koolmom]

I don't like how a pregnant woman only "takes responsibility" by giving birth and adopting out an unwanted baby. It gives me the feeling that carrying a baby is somehow seen as atonement for un-Christianly sanctioned sexual behavior.

You just can't reach people sometimes though. My mother (who neglected and ignored me after age 3, leaving me feeling as a grownup that I actually was unwanted after I could walk and talk) was spouting off one day about Obama's pro-choice stance. i was like "what are talking about?" and she said " I can't believe that he said he would never use a baby to punish his daughters for getting pregnant! A baby is the perfect way to punish someone for being sexual outside of marriage!"

i was so stunned by her apparent lack of disregard for child welfare i couldn't even speak.

All I want to ask is how did you come out of that childhood NOT bat-in-the-belfry crazy?

[Minerva]

Abortion robs families waiting to adopt. By carrying a child to term, a young woman accepts responsibility for her choices. She grows and matures. She can look back with satisfaction that she did the right thing by allowing her child both life and a good family.

Alcorn - and not families waiting to adopt - can kiss my ass. I can't picture someone kind enough to adopt a child expecting me to drop everything on a whim to be their surrogate. Anti-choice folks need to stop making prospective adoptive parents sound like jerks.

And that's so typical of "pro-life" literature: promising some exciting new revelation that will change everyone's mind...and then trotting out the same worn out old arguments. Watching fundies try to make secular arguments against abortion is pretty funny, I must say. You get about five minutes of patronizing 6th grade science, then it's all word-play. "The word fetus actually comes from the Latin..."

ETA: If having unique human DNA is all it takes for something alive to be a person...should I be holding a funeral every time I menstruate? Does Alcorn consider wanking mass murder? Does he hold a funeral for every nocturnal emission? What's he gonna do if he gets cancer? Are people with genetic mosaicism secretly two people? If all it takes it meiosis or genetic mutation to make a person, that complicates things beyond the usual "punish the sluts" deal.

[desertvixen]

Moreover, in his comment about robbery, Alcorn assumes that a the fetus of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy is actually community property and that she would be stealing from other people if she refuses to carry this fetus to term.

A lot of people in general seem to view pregnant women as community property, choice issues aside.

This idea that women are actually emotional children rather than moral agents makes an appearance much earlier in the book as well, where Alcorn talks about those unfortunate women who were pressured to abort. He argued these woman are not murderers, even though he sees abortion as murder, but rather they were suffering from “temporary insanity†(23) at the time of the procedure.

Sadly, also a common and disgusting view.

In short, Alcorn's arguments are so poor that some fence-sitters will probably turn pro-choice after having read his 'reasonable' and 'non-religious' presentation.

Let's hope, because it's getting stupider out there by the day.

I would love to be able to draw a word picture of what an actual culture of life would look like and why, as well as developing a theoretical roadmap for how this culture could be developed by willing participants who are not under the bondage of useless and poorly-written legislation.

It would have to start with the notion that women are people and entitled to control their own destiny. Free or low-cost, widely available birth control would have to be another feature.

[emmiedahl]

Alcorn believes that because the cell is alive, unique in its genetic blueprint, and human, then it is worthy of the same legal protections as a fully formed human being.

So is cancer, all of the above.

But he cannot tell us why a zygote should have any rights, let alone rights that supersede those of the potential host.

And that is what the abortion argument comes down to for me. When are we legally required to give our bodies to another person? Never. Some people do choose to give kidneys and blood marrow, even to risk their lives. Good for them. But we never *require* it.

I have gotten to the point where I can admit readily that the fetus is alive and human. But as long as its needs interfere with its mother's rights and sometimes the needs of real, already-born siblings, it has to take a back seat.

[Hane]

This idea that women are actually emotional children rather than moral agents makes an appearance much earlier in the book as well, where Alcorn talks about those unfortunate women who were pressured to abort. He argued these woman are not murderers, even though he sees abortion as murder, but rather they were suffering from “temporary insanity†(23) at the time of the procedure.

Shortly after Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973, and the "Right to Life" movement was starting to gain momentum, I picked up a flyer at their booth at a local street fair. After the usual 7th-grade-level fetal development description, intended to shock and awe all of those stupid, uninformed pro-choice folks, it actually said, "If you have had an abortion, we feel very sorry for you. You couldn't possibly have known what you were doing.." It went so far as suggesting support groups in which women who had lost pregnancies through miscarriage OR abortion could get together.

I stood there thinking, "WTF?"

[Lillybee]

I can no longer refer to these people as pro-life. There is a bill in Kansas that would allow doctors to refuse chemo to pregnant women who have cancer if there is a chance that chemo may cause a miscarriage to these women.

[treemom]

I am not surprised. Though the vast majority of Americans support abortion in some circumstances (which when pressed can almost always agree that to guarantee that right you have to allow it in all circumstances) we have continued to see an infringement on women's rights by the right. But even then it isn't all the right, because I know lots and lots of pro choice people who fall on the right

It is usually by people who don't value women all that much at all.

[debrand]

Prolifers are naive in that they believe if you can just stop abortion, the mother will somehow magically care enough about her pregnancy to take care of her body. However, being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy could very well make some women refuse to do things like quite smoking, drinking etc. And not every unwanted baby is adopted out to loving families. Don't prolifers read the same news that the rest of the nation does? Children are abused and killed by parents. Susan Smith could have given her children to their father, but she chose to drown them anyway.

They really don't care about life.

[Bloo]

One Mother's Day I went to Mass for some reason. The bulletin that was given to me had, below the usual message to mothers, a message that said something along the lines of, "We also wish a Happy Mother's Day to any mother who has aborted her baby. We hope that you will repent and seek forgiveness for what has happened and know that you will meet your baby in Heaven." Creepy and disturbing.

[Hane]

One Mother's Day I went to Mass for some reason. The bulletin that was given to me had, below the usual message to mothers, a message that said something along the lines of, "We also wish a Happy Mother's Day to any mother who has aborted her baby. We hope that you will repent and seek forgiveness for what has happened and know that you will meet your baby in Heaven." Creepy and disturbing.

Holy crap. There is a Catholic church I pass occasionally that has a monument on its front lawn in honor of "all babies lost to abortion and miscarriage." When my (adult) daughter saw it, she said, "That's messed up. I know more than one woman who's had an abortion and considers herself religious. What if she wanted to return to church for spiritual support? This would just make her feel even more like a sinner and even more unwelcome." It also has the result of pitting women who have had miscarriages against those who have intentionally terminated their pregnancies.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Moreover, in his comment about robbery, Alcorn assumes that a the fetus of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy is actually community property and that she would be stealing from other people if she refuses to carry this fetus to term.

I've never quite thought of it that way, but that's a really interesting spin on pro-life propaganda. It doesn't jive with the idea that the children are exclusively the property of the parents.

[MonkeyMomma]

I've never quite thought of it that way, but that's a really interesting spin on pro-life propaganda. It doesn't jive with the idea that the children are exclusively the property of the parents.

I agree, but it does jive with the idea that a woman's body is always under the authority of another. If her body is not under the authority of her father or her (male) spouse, then who gets to lay claim? Childless Christians!

[treemom]

We have multiple churches that do the white crosses for abortions. It makes me shabby.

[treemom]

We have multiple churches that do the white crosses for abortions. It makes me stabby.

[valsa]

We have multiple churches that do the white crosses for abortions. It makes me shabby.

I would seriously consider converting to the first denomination of church that does a bunch of these crosses for all the women who needlessly died from complications of back alley procedures because they had no access to safe and legal abortions.

[Maul the Koala]

I've said this before and I'll say it again, no abortion doesn't equal solving the 'adoption issue'. People want healthy, white infants. If you're not a healthy white infant you need not apply. Now I can't blame people for wanting infants, it's obviously easier to take on an infant that has no memories of abuse or the like. But banning abortion doesn't solve that. It reduces it to a simplistic ideal. It's forgetting that there is a lot of pressure on people to keep the child. It could be because the biological father wants to her to keep the child, the biological grandparents want her to keep their grandchild or she feels pressured by society's standards. We are living in a society where pregnancy isn't a taboo subject any more. I could not imagine walking around pregnant, around my co-workers and around my family and friends and telling them at the end I gave up the baby for adoption. There would definitely be a level of judgement there. I think we have to remember that it's not all that long ago where adolescents and young women were sent away to conceal pregnancies and have the resulting babies given up for adoption for couples more deserving than them (supposedly). I think because of that there's been a giant shift away from the idea of adoption and pushing more towards 'keep the baby!'. It's so many shades of grey. I don't get why people realize it isn't black and white.

[Minerva]

I would seriously consider converting to the first denomination of church that does a bunch of these crosses for all the women who needlessly died from complications of back alley procedures because they had no access to safe and legal abortions.

I bet I could get my church to do that.

[valsa]

I bet I could get my church to do that.

Dooooo eet!!

[bananacat]

I drive by a Catholic school every do on my way to work, and sometimes they have the crosses out and sometimes just a sign on a post, but I feel like it's under-handed because everyone is forced to slow to a crawl for the school zone we're all forced to look at their propaganda. Whenever I feel irritated I just remember that the school is creating more atheists than PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins combined.

Anyway, while we're getting churches to put out crosses for women who have died from unsafe abortion, how about more crosses for the women who died in childbirth or pregnancy who would have chosen abortion if available?

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I bet I could get my church to do that.

Which church is that? I might actually go there!