Aborting Roe v Wade: The Plea for Serious Dialogue Between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Advocates
Let me first share a link to a short dialogue between myself, as a prolife advocate, and Rachel Johnson (sister of ex-UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson) who is a staunch prochoice advocate, on 26th June 2022. Link to the 6-min discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TjOXQHOKr0.
a) Terminology: I have had one-to-one discussions and debates with feminists and prochoice advocates over the last 30 years, and all engagements have been cordial and respectful, which should be the golden rule when engaging in discussions over an explosive topic such as abortion. My discussion with Rachel on LBC Radio recently was the first time I engaged in a public discourse on abortion. It will not be the last. Although the conversation was only 6 minutes, there is a lot to pick and unpack. Both sides can learn from this short interchange. As a prolife advocate (there are exceptions), is there anything I would change as a result of my conversation with Rachel? Yes, I will need to review the terminologies I and other prolifers use. I wish we had more time to do a deep dive of the prochoice arguments that she and other advocates have raised, and I would have also pushed back and questioned the terminologies that pro-choicers use. I agree with Rachel that terminology is important as it can change the meaning and implication of the topic discussed. A slight change in language when discussing abortion could re-focus attention towards the importance of a woman’s body, woman’s right or towards the importance of the living human inside the mother (note: I did not use the word, ‘baby’, as per feedback from Rachel, although I believe it is exactly that). A change in terminology could also alleviate the impact of what an abortion actually is or does. About 30 years ago, I recall watching a discussion on abortion on Channel 4 (a British TV channel). The British feminist, Fay Weldon, said that she did not like the term, ‘abortion’ but preferred ‘termination.’ I understood why. Before any debate or dialogue between both sides can progress, they need to agree on correct terminologies.
b) Importance of Free Speech for prochoicers and prolifers: Many company employees and directors have taken to social media, such as Linkedin, and have expressed their anger at the US Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v Wade. When I did a scan of over 100 posts on Linkedin by men and women employees/managers/directors over the past week, there was consensus about their horror of the decision by the Supreme Court. One commentator was irritated by this and asked why such a topic was discussed in a forum that is purely for business. I do not agree with him. If people feel angry and want to strongly vouch for the right to choose argument, so be it, they should be allowed to air their views and not be shut down. Businesses are not automatons, they are manned by people. People have opinions and feelings. I am a strong advocate of diversity and inclusion programmes, and every company should implement such schemes. D&I discussions include interrogating history where injustices had taken place against certain races. More recently we see LGBTQ+ issues discussed openly in business forums. Hence, social issues can break into the sphere of business, as long as they encourage mutual understanding and respect. Abortion is no different. Those who have a pro-life stance (yes, I am aware that Rachel Johnson told me that my usage of the term ‘pro-life’ was incorrect) should also air their views, as long as they are respectful.
c) Gender and Body Autonomy: I have listened to vociferous abortion advocates and campaigners, such as AOC, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, VP Kamala Harris, President Biden, Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar etc., as well as abortion doctors and managers of abortion clinics who have been horrified about the impending restrictions on abortions (or outlawing them) by many US states. The temperature of such collective anger would be hotter than the Sun. I would not be surprised if there is an insurrection. As pro-lifers, we must really try to understand their concerns and try to find common ground, if we truly want babies to be born and live. The most interesting pro-choice campaign message I have come across is the one produced by UBUCO that says, “He who Hath No Uterus Shall Shuteth The Fuck Up. Fallopians 19:73.” A powerful message, except that there is one problem. All of the nine Supreme Court Judges who oversaw the legalisation of abortion in the US in 1973, had no uteruses nor fallopian tubes. They were all men. As I mentioned to Rachel, there are men who are pro-choice (and we have read their posts and comments on Linkedin as well as heard them on TV). The lack of uterus in men only becomes a problem if they are pro-life. There are women who are staunch pro-life advocates, too. Thus, abortion is not a gender issue.
Women who are prolife are relegated by the Left to perpetual servitude of men. Amy Coney Barrett is a formidable Supreme Court judge and clearly outperformed Brett Kavanaugh during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (before being appointed as Judge) and gave Kamala Harris a good run for her money. Because she is a woman with a prolife stance, the level of turgid abuse she received reached stratospheric heights, especially by feminists. Lauren Hough described Barrett as a handmaid with a clown car vagina because she had lots of children. She was also described by others as a White Supremacist because she adopted Black children from Haiti, as well as being described as a Christofacist. The fact that pro-choicers and those on the Left of the political spectrum dismiss pro-life women, is very revealing about their psychology. They think that women with divergent views on abortion cannot think for themselves. They are undermining women without realising it.
d) Race Issue: Is it a race issue? Possibly. In the US, more Black babies/foetuses are aborted as a proportion of their population compared to White babies. On 25th May 2021, I had a short discussion with the broadcaster, Denise Headley on LBC Radio. That date was the one-year anniversary of the killing of George Floyd. I did invite her to consider changing the slogan of ‘Black Lives Matter’ to ‘All Black Lives Matter.’ This includes unborn Black babies. If the right to choose abortion is still advocated where these babies/foetuses would be affected, then it is clear that not all Black lives matter. And that is why I stated in my first book, ‘United States of Anger’ that if we assume there were at least 1 million people who protested for BLM in the US, 90% of them would turn back and go home because they would not support the right of unborn Black babies to live if the decision is made to abort them. This is a cognitive dissonant tragedy par excellence.
e) Businesses and Employees: As this article can be accessed through my post on the business social media platform, Linkedin, let us ponder the implications for businesses as a result of the overturning of Roe v Wade. I read the posts of employees, managers and directors of various businesses, where they condemned the Supreme Court. Fast forward now to 2122. One hundred years from now, tens of millions of people would be alive because of the decision of the Supreme Court today. Most of these millions will become workers, some will become managers and directors of companies. I am sure there will be D&I programmes to interrogate the 20th Century where abortion was legalised, and they will ask, ‘how could this injustice have happened?’ Around 50% of those tens of millions of people who will have the chance for life, will be women. A woman’s right can only be made whole if unborn girls are born and have the chance to become women. Those of us who post comments, who debate, who work, who serve customers, who eat, sleep, go on holidays, have sex, watch Netflix, enjoy life and pontificate about human rights, do so from a position of privilege. The privilege of life. Yet some of us would seek to deny this very life to millions of others by supporting Roe v Wade 1973. The Supreme Court judges who overturned Roe v Wade are regarded as vipers, traitors and completely detestable by prochoicers today, but in 100 years’ time, they will be regarded as heroes by tens of millions of men and women who will have the chance for life. What will be the message of present day pro-choicers to the future generation of saved lives?
f) Abortion Survivors Speak Out: It is worth noting that some babies have had the chance for life after failed abortions. These abortion survivors have grown up and are starting to speak out now and argue why they should have been allowed to live. Prochoicers will not engage with abortion survivors for obvious reasons; but I wonder what message they would have for these survivors. The dilemma that is normally felt about abortions, will stretch to breaking point in this instance.
g) Making Abortion and Gun Ownership Unthinkable. It will take 100 years before abortion becomes unthinkable by prochoicers. But in the spirit of trying to find common ground, prolife/Conservatives in the US should also heed the words of prochoicers where they call out the Right for wanting to defend the unborn, only to deny healthcare to children once they are born (I have not verified this claim). And they call out pro-lifers for advocating the ownership of guns (in the US), which kill people…hence, a contradiction. Both sides can agree to improve healthcare and education for children. Just as abortion will hopefully become unthinkable by the Left, owning handguns should also become unthinkable by the Right. Ideally, human rights should be above politics.
h) The God Thing. Although some prochoicers may adhere to a religion, they would mostly abhor Evangelicals, practising Christians, Catholics etc. because they (prochoicers) want to cancel God from the abortion equation. These religious Christians have been at the forefront of defending life. That is why there is a concerted effort by prochoicers to further separate the Church from the State in the US. One prochoicer in the UK said that she was a Christian, and that if abortion is a sin, then that is between the woman and God (a similar claim was made by the Democrat Senator Joe Liberman in his Vice Presidential debate with Dick Cheney in 2000, where the decision to abort is between the woman, her doctor and her God). Hence, the state should not interfere. I would have asked her about her Christian beliefs and whether she considers abortion to be a sin, given that she raised the God-sin issue. If it is a sin, why would she support it? Furthermore, trying to relegate the possible sin and accountability of abortion to the private sphere of God does not make sense. Stealing and bullying are sins, too, but there are societal interventions to mitigate these events. The argument to push these sins into the private sphere with a direct-line communication to God, would not hold. Whilst religion will inform prolifers, one can still have a concept of right and wrong without adherence to a religion. Hence, to blame religion for the overturning of Roe v Wade is wrong. Let us not forget that the millions of people who would get the chance to live in future because of the Supreme Court decision, would not all be Evangelicals nor Catholics, they will be people first and foremost. I have to call out my own Muslim community (which is a pro-life community), because it has been woefully negligent on this issue and has paid lip service whilst our Christian brothers and sisters have been on the front line fighting a peaceful jihad (struggle) for life (of course I condemn a minority of pro-lifers who have engaged in violence and murder).
Conclusion: Let pro-lifers and prochoicers find common ground through sincere debate and dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. Future generations will thank us for it.
(Link to an in-depth, 3-hr respectful dialogue between Brenda Davies — a pro-choice advocate, and Lila Rose — a pro-life advocate. https://youtu.be/ornP0w4FxrY)
I also highly recommend the book, ‘The Choice’ by Danielle D’Souza Gill, daughter of the well known American Conservative commentator, Dinesh D’Souza.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dialogue with Pro-Choicers
In the true spirit of respectful debate and dialogue, I had approached many pro-choicers to engage with this important topic. Responses are starting to come in but very slowly.
A) Shy Clarke (Prochoice)
1. Response from Shy — August 2022
Interesting article. However, nothing in it made me think that anyone other than the person carrying the inseminated egg should decide whether it becomes a person or not.
2. Reply from me — August 2022
Many thanks Shy for taking the time to read my article and respond. I would be interested to know which part of the article was interesting for you or challenged your thinking. Regarding your opinion that the decision to abort should be made by the mother carrying the inseminated egg; this is the crux of the pro-choice argument. The questions I have are:
a) Why is the unborn baby/foetus described as an inseminated egg when this phrase can still be used for you and me outside the womb? We are still inseminated eggs or as Rachel Johnson put it, ‘a bunch of cells’ outside the womb. It is interesting that when expectant mothers and their husbands or boyfriends go for ultrasound scans, the term used by these couples, doctors and nurses is ‘babies.’ But when it comes to abortion, the terminology changes to ‘bunch of cells’ or ‘inseminated eggs.’ Why is this?
b) You said that the decision whether the unborn baby/foetus should live or die should be made by the mother carrying it. Why can’t this argument be extended to babies oustide the womb, given that the baby is still fully dependent on the mother? What is it about the womb that makes it ok to kill the unborn baby/foetus/inseminated egg but not outside the womb? (‘Kill’ is a soft word…I do not need to describe the graphic, sordid and horrifying details of what actually happens during the process of abortion).
c) What would your message be to abortion survivors who state quite resolutely that they have the right to live and not be killed inside the womb?
Thanks again. It is important for opposing viewpoints to discuss openly and respectfully, so thanks for your engagement. I look forward to your thoughtful responses.
Note: After a few attempts to generate a further response, the debate ended.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
B) Charles Haines (Prochoice)
1. Response from Charles (August 2022)
You wanted commentary. Okay, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the issue. The issue turns on one question: is a fetus a at some point before birth, a human being, a person? If you answer yes, then your 100% anti-choice after that point. There is no moral way to compromise that. If you don’t think it’s a human being or a person, then by necessary logic, you’re pro-choice before that point. You can’t use King Solomon’s solution and cut the baby in half. That misses the point.
I don’t believe a fetus at least until the 28th week, is an “unborn baby,” and I find that term an absurdity. By the logic that makes it an “unborn baby” we should be calling every adult an “undead corpse.” That’s how much sense that term makes.
Here’s a slightly paraphrased quote from one of my articles: “I don’t care if there are zero or ten million abortions every year, as long as the pregnant women makes the choice about every one of them.” That’s why I call my position pro-choice and not pro-abortion.
If you want to know more about what I think on the topic, I’ve written enough about it that you should have some idea:
a) A Better Definition of ‘Human Being’: https://christianpollution.com/a-better-definition-of-human-being-a285d36e1c94
b) Why Would a Man Be So Adamant About Abortion Rights: https://medium.com/politically-speaking/why-would-a-man-be-so-adamant-about-abortion-rights-48cd26b0cf5a
c) ProChoicers Have Been Losing for Almost Fifty Years And I’m Tired of It: https://medium.com/politically-speaking/pro-choicers-have-been-losing-for-almost-fifty-years-im-tired-of-it-d3b8b78d9222
d) Supreme Court Plans to Massacre Fifty Years of Law: https://medium.com/politically-speaking/supreme-court-plans-to-massacre-fifty-years-of-law-aae6db8e36e8
e) Reproductive rights are basic to our freedom: https://medium.com/@charleshaines/reproductive-rights-are-basic-to-our-freedom-61897d8a8dee
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2. Response from me (14th November 2022) - Deprogramming the Prochoice Mindset
Many thanks Charles for your reply to my original article, and for the links to your other articles on Medium. You have provided very persuasive arguments to defend your prochoice stance, and I welcome this. Such exchanges, dialogue and respectful debate between a prolife advocates and prochoice advocates is important in order to try to reach a common understanding where our mutual goals are to reduce abortions.
The blatant irony of our exchange is that we are two dudes with dicks, discussing a topic which is seen as the sole purview of women and feminists who possess wombs. However, your passionate prochoice articles have made valuable contributions to the prochoice position and have even strengthened its position in a way that feminist campaigners have not (more on that later). This demonstrates the value that both men and women play in this important discussion. Many men are prochoice and many women are prolife, hence this is not really a gender issue. However, your articles will be welcome by feminists and other prochoicers, but it is hoped that my prolife articles will be a welcome challenge to prochoicers. Both sides of the aisle will benefit from our dialogue. (Before moving on, I recommend readers to read and digest ALL of the articles written by Charles Haines through the links provided above. Hence, my response below will be more meaningful).
This is a long response because I did read all of your articles in great detail. Thank you for signposting me to them. I couldn’t help but do a deep dive and interrogate the arguments your good self and other prochoicers have made. I will ask you some specific questions which I would welcome your responses to, as well as your thoughts on the rest of my response. It is hoped that our exchange would raise the level of debate and understanding between prolife and prochoice advocates.
A) Unweaving the Rainbow of Incorrect Terminologies
In my original article there was a section on terminologies. And your response along with your other articles in the links you sent me was a response to that particular section. Terminology is important as it conveys meaning. Both sides of the debate would accuse each other of using incorrect terminologies. However, let us unweave what I regard as the rainbow of incorrect terminologies used by the prochoice side:
A.1. Prochoice. This is an obvious place to start. This term sounds good, nice and empowering. Who would not like to have choice? I alluded to this phrase during my discussion with Rachel Johnson when she tried to correct me on my use of the term ‘prolife.’ I stated that ‘prochoice’ is an incomplete statement. Choice for what? Choice for abortion. This is where both sides of the aisle disagree on. It is the choice to kill. This is the reality of abortion. Rachel Johnson, again tried to correct me on the term ‘kill’ when I stated that since 1973 at least 1 billion babies had been killed around the world. Of course, the implication of this fact is very uncomfortable which is why there will be a resolute challenge from the prochoice side. I will of course deal with your very interesting and powerful arguments against using the term ‘baby’ when it is inside the womb.
Hence the term ‘proabortion’ or what I like to use, ‘prochoice-for-abortion,’ are the accurate terminologies. Elsewhere in this response when I use the term, ‘prochoice’, I mean choice for abortion.
A.2. Reproductive Rights. The process of reproduction involves various stages which results in the birth of the offspring. Abortion is the exact opposite of reproduction. So how does the pro-choice mind work around this terminology? Stepping into their shoes I would think along the lines of the right to choose whether to reproduce or not. But this then goes back to the choice argument made above. In fact, abortion intervenes to stop the process of reproduction. Hence, a more accurate term to use is, ‘anti-reproduction rights.’
A.3. Healthcare. As with reproductive rights, ‘Healthcare’ is another misnomer. Healthcare is about improving the quality of life or saving lives. Abortion does neither because it is the process of killing (or ‘termination,’ which is a more humane euphemism). Again, if I were to think like a pro-choice advocate, I would be thinking about the improved healthcare of the mother through abortion. So, how will her healthcare be improved? The killing of the baby/foetus will not improve the physical wellbeing of the mother, the maximum that can happen is that her physical health will remain the same generally after an abortion. However, a counter example was provided to me by a Socialist feminist activist 30 years ago. She said that a woman would have to go through pain during labour, hence, abortion takes away that physical pain. In her world view the physical health of the woman would be improved by avoiding labour pains. This is not a general view I have come across in feminist literature.
What about her psychological wellbeing? Will that be improved after an abortion? In most cases the decision to abort is very hard, peppered with dilemmas and possibilities of guilt. You often hear about the difficult decisions pregnant women face when considering abortion. I recall a discussion on abortion on a TV programme called, ‘After Dark’ on Channel 4 (a UK TV channel) which aired 30 years ago. The pro-abortion advocate who was a doctor said that women should have access to proper counselling services after an abortion. So, in most cases some psychological healing would need to take place through this vehicle. When she made those comments, I thought to myself that if counselling services are required after an abortion, why not have the same services available to women after giving birth instead of having the abortion?
A.4. Woman’s Body, Woman’s Choice. This is a very odd statement that is repeated many times by prochoice advocates and campaigners. There are two problems with this slogan. Firstly, the foetus/baby is not the woman’s body. It is an independent human being residing inside the woman’s body. The proof is in the pudding. When an abortion takes place, it is the foetus/baby that is killed, not the woman. Her body remains intact. Secondly, like a man, a woman does not have the right to do anything she wants with her own body. There are laws in place to prosecute men and women who imbibe hard drugs. There are government initiatives to steer smokers away from smoking because of the damage it does to their health. People with mental health problems who are under suicide watch are exposed to intense medical interventions to steer them away from exercising the choice of suicide. None of us have the right to do what we want with our own bodies because there are laws in place to restrict us from certain activities that would damage us or others.
At this point let me bring in the pro-smoking lobby, Forest, because this is connected to the smoking choice I mentioned above. I have been in sales for over 20 years, as well as political campaigning for 27 years. I always take an interest in marketing and political messaging. The Forest lobby is one of the most interesting lobby groups I have come across because of its sophistry in their messaging. There is a big focus on ‘choice.’ The encouragement for smokers to damage their health is repositioned and rebranded as the sanctity of individual freedom and choice. It doesn’t end there. A recent interview I came across with one of its advocates is that Forest’s campaign supports doctors and nurses who wish to smoke as a right, in order to relieve them of the stresses and strains the face within the British national health service (NHS). Hence, Forest is seen as a supporter of healthcare! Any attempt to restrict smoking is seen by the lobby as ‘prohibition.’ This is the same word you used to describe campaigners who are seeking to save the lives of foetuses/babies. More on this later.
You can see how the rebranding, repositioning and reframing is worked in order to change from something that is bad to something that is noble, wholesome and holy. The best response to the woman’s body woman’s right argument I have come across is by a former abortion doctor, Dr. Anthony Levatino, during his testimony to the Senate hearing in 2015. I was ready to quote his words on radio when I spoke with Rachel Johnson about the Supreme Court decision, but I made a last-minute decision not to quote it as it would have supercharged her already existing anger at the supreme court. Levatino’s edited words are as follows, “You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you. Congratulations!…You just affirmed her right to choose. If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again.”
A.5. Unborn Baby or Foetus? Injecting Humanity into the Science. This topic is the foundation of your argumentation which weaves its way through many of your articles. Your response to me, coupled with the various links to your articles seek to demonstrate that the human inside the womb is not a baby but an embryo and foetus devoid of any humanity or personality. Let me address a few pertinent and persuasive points that you made:
1) Adding another layer of criteria for humanity.
Prochoicers like yourself seek to dehumanise the foetus/baby inside the womb in order to justify its killing through abortion after the decision has been made. There are stages of the development of the baby inside the womb that starts off after conception when the full blueprint of its DNA has been created. The scientific stages that are labelled are zygote — embryo — foetus (I may have missed out interim stages, but this is in its simple form in a way that I understand as a non-scientist). You use the term ‘baby’ when it is born. However, you do go a step further than feminists to establish humanity to a baby after it is born. That is why it is important men such as yourself to be heard because you have contributed to the prochoice side in a way that feminists have not over the last few decades. The only difference between you and me is that as a prochoicer, your views will be readily welcomed by feminists and other prochoice advocates. Mine will not. The issue of men’s contribution to the debate becomes a problem for feminists when men are prolife. However, let’s hope that the tide starts to turn after our exchange.
The added layer of criteria you have applied for a baby to be a human is when it has opened its eyes for the first time and started to suckle milk from its mother. Before then, it would not be regarded as human or a person even just after birth. However, if a baby is killed after it is born before suckling and opening its eyes, it would still be regarded as murder. To delay its humanity until after those to criteria will merely seeks to justify killing the baby straight after it is born.
In connection with your stringent criteria to be human, enter Michael Tooley. I read about him in a pro-choice book around 20 years ago, entitled, ‘Abortion — Between Freedom and Necessity,’ by Jane Hadley. She mentioned his many criteria to reach the threshold of ‘personhood’ (I know this is a term you detest). Some of the criteria set out below are from Peter Singer, and Tooley’s version is similar:
1) An awareness of his or her own existence
2) over time and in different places with
3) the capacity to have wants, and
4) plans for the future.
Hadley used Tooley’s criteria to justify abortion because foetuses/preborn babies did not reach the threshold of personhood. But one thing struck me after reading this. These criteria would not be met by a baby that has been born or even a small child. I left it at that. A few years later I came across a book written by an ex-abortion doctor, the late Bernard Nathanson; it is titled, ‘The Hand of God.’ Like Jane Hadley, he too, mentioned Michael Tooley and his stringent criteria for personhood. But Nathanson mentioned something extra which Hadley didn’t. Tooley actually believed it was justifiable to kill new born babies or young infants precisely because they did not meet the personhood threshold. What went through my mind after reading Hadley’s rendition of Tooley was confirmed by Nathanson a few years later. So, why did Hadley not mention Tooley’s philosophy of justifying killing of new-born babies and infants because they did not reach his threshold? It is understandable why. She would have shot herself in the foot. Prochoicers would freely use Tooley’s/Singer’s criteria to justify abortion but stop short of justifying terminating new born babies and infants. The contradiction is astounding.
Let me pull this together. The reason for citing Hadley and Tooley is in relation to your criteria for humanity/personhood. Different ethicists will have different criteria and thresholds to define humanity/personhood; as mentioned above, you added another layer of criteria to reach the infinitely tall threshold of personhood/humanity. The common thread here between your criteria and Tooley’s is to increase the threshold of humanity so as to devoid any form of humanity or personhood to the preborn baby/foetus, and even a new-born baby. When an entity is devoid of humanity then it is easier to kill them and mitigate the roller coaster guilt trips.
2) Consciousness
In one of your footnotes to your article, ‘Prochoicers Have Been Losing for Almost Fifty Years & I’m Tired of It,’ you stated, “The onset of consciousness ordinarily accompanies birth, fighting for breath, crying for help, or sucking a breast. All of these are easier to detect than any measure anti-choicers use to indicate personhood.”
As with the definition of ‘humanity’ and ‘personhood’, the notion of ‘consciousness’ by prochoicers is constricted in order to devoid the unborn/preborn baby/foetus of humanity. The goalposts for these words would be shifted constantly and realigned in a way to devoid any semblance of humanity, personhood and consciousness to the growing baby/foetus.
In your article, ‘A Better Definition of a Human Being,’ you gave a hypothetical example. You stated, “Imagine a reverse abortion in which an adult dies, but one cell has been saved and kept alive with the intention of cloning. Can the person even be considered dead under Texas or Mississippi law if we save and keep a single cell alive? Going one step further, can Texas even charge me with murder if I did that?” I had to read this paragraph many times as I did not fully understand it. I think I have now, but please do clarify your argument if I have got it wrong. What you are trying to show in the reverse abortion example is that if a cell of a dead person is kept alive, can this cell be regarded as conscious? The answer would be no. Hence the parallel you are trying to draw with abortion is that the foetus is just a bunch of cells (as Rachel Johnson pointed out) — hence it cannot be conscious — hence it cannot be a human being — therefore abortion is perfectly acceptable. Except that it isn’t. A cell is not the same as the person or the entity that the cell belongs to. A cell or a group of cells can be separated from the person, but these cells do not become independent persons, they remain cells which eventually die. The foetus/baby in the womb has the complete genetic blueprint for its individuality and develops throughout pregnancy, after birth, during the infant and early adult years. Development stops in mid adulthood. A skin cell or hair cell does not have the complete genetic blueprint of the person, hence, cannot go through these stages. Going back to your cloning analogy, if the cell detached from its dead master is somehow cloned into another person, it would be an individual person different to his dead brother. A similar cloning process can happen sometimes in the womb where the end result is twins or triplets. They are all separate human beings not one and the same. Consider amniocentesis, where some of the cells of the foetus/baby is extracted for tests. These cells are separate from the baby/foetus. So, when these cells die, the baby is still living. Hence these cells extracted in amniocentesis are not the same as the ‘bunch of cells’ which is the baby/foetus.
Coming back to the main point of consciousness. Thanks to ultrasound technology, babies in the womb do open their eyes and roll them around 27 weeks of pregnancy. They can discern light from dark, they can hear voices and even distinguish between them. They can discern different tastes. They can mimic crying in the third trimester. Your claim of the newborn baby opening its eyes once so that it graduates to humanity/personhood is simplistic at best and wrong at worst. There are different sleep and awake states that babies/foetuses go through in the womb, namely, quiet sleep, active state, quiet awake, and active awake. When taking all of these into consideration, the preborn baby is more aligned with you and me compared to a born person who is in a coma or unconscious. Just to cement this point further, Moser et al published a study in the journal, ‘Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience’ (Vol. 49, June 2021) and stated, “On the whole, our results support the assumption that fetuses in the last weeks of gestation are capable of consciously processing stimuli that reach them from outside the womb.”
The humanity of the preborn baby strikes back.
3) ‘Baby’ and ‘Foetus’ can be interchanged.
Whilst there are scientific terminologies used for the various stages of the developing embryo/foetus, the word ‘baby’ can be used and is used even by the medical establishment, when the baby is wanted. But when discussions are made about the possibility of an abortion, then the status of the baby is changed to a foetus. Words convey powerful meanings. Here are a few places where the term ‘baby’ is used when it is inside the womb:
- Ultrasound scans. When such scans are made, the term ‘baby’ is used by expecting parents. They would not use the term ‘foetus.’
- Kicking: When a pregnant woman begins to feel kicking for the first time and beyond, she would say, ‘I felt the baby kick.’ She would not say ‘I felt the foetus kick.’
- Doctors and nurses. In preparation for this response to you, I asked a midwife what terminologies are used by doctors and nurses with parents when discussing the developing foetus/baby. She told me that the term ‘baby’ is usually used, but where consultants want to detach from any emotions then they will use the term ‘foetus.’
- Miscarriage. When a miscarriage has taken place, it is tragic for parents. The doctor or nurse would say, ‘you’ve lost the baby.’ They would not say, ‘you’ve lost the foetus.’
- The British National Health Service (NHS). The NHS has a very good website to provide medical guidance on various disease areas. I looked up their guidance for pregnant women, and the term ‘foetus’ and ‘baby’ are used interchangeably.
- Mayo Clinic, USA. I did a random search of top hospitals in the USA, and the Mayo Clinic came up as one of them. I took a peek in the ‘fetal ultrasound’ scan section for pregnant women on their website. A cursory glance of the section brought out a sub-section entitled, ‘Your Baby at 11 Weeks.’ Here again, ‘fetus’ and ‘baby’ are used interchangeably. Mayo Clinic is not a front for the pro-life movement or religious body, it is an independent hospital group.
- Pharmaceutical Company. I visited a pharmacy recently and whilst I was waiting in the queue I noticed a vitamin supplement called ‘Pregnacare.’ It is manufactured by Vitabiotics for pregnant women. I made a prediction as to what term could be used when describing the foetus; that it would say ‘baby.’ So, I picked up the box. Lo and behold, I was wrong. It didn’t say ‘baby’ but ‘developing child.’ I was very pleased with that phrase. It is accurate, just as the term ‘baby’ would have been accurate.
- A Clinical Trial of Fetal Movement. A clinical trial to examine stillbirths was conducted by Flenady et al and published by the BMC (Biomedical and Central). It looks at the correlation between lower foetal movements and stillbirth. The name of the trial is, ‘My Baby’s Movements: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to raise maternal awareness of fetal movements during pregnancy study protocol.’ The term ‘baby’ and ‘foetus’ are interchanged. Rightly so.
- The European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO). EMBO published a paper by Robert George and Patrick Lee entitled, ‘Embryonic Human Persons. Talking Point on morality and human embryo research.’ The authors argue why embryos are human beings worthy of protection. The context of their paper is in relation to stem cell research. Abortion is not mentioned. The thrust of their argument is that stem cell research should not continue given that embryos are humans with the complete genetic blueprint of the person, like any other persons. But if I think like a prochoicer, I would suspect that there was some political or religious manipulation of EMBO from the pro-life or right wing lobby. So, I contacted EMBO to understand what support they had, if any, from religious or conservative bodies. They responded to my email and stated that there are none, EMBO is an independent organisation. And they may not necessarily support everything that authors of papers may state. So, the hand of the prolife lobby is not to be seen here. Nevertheless, the authors do make a strong case for the humanity of the developing foetuses (limited to stem cell research, but the implication can be extrapolated to abortion).
- Chicken Politics. Believe it or not I had to do some research on the chicken’s reproductive process after reading one of your articles! You are right to state that science does not decide when someone is human. We do. Whilst ethicists may differ on the criteria and positions of the moving goalposts along the infinitely high threshold for humanity/personhood, one thing is very clear yet disturbing from the examples given above. We will use the term ‘baby’ when it is wanted, but will use the word ‘embryo’ or ‘foetus’ when it is not wanted. However, I would argue that you made a fundamental error in one of your articles when talking about the chicken’s reproductive process which actually undermines all of your arguments to dehumanise the unborn/preborn baby. In your article, ‘A Better Way to Define Human Being,’ you stated, “…In a womb, a fetus is not awake. Yet, it must get ready to awaken at birth, like a chick gets ready to peck its way out of its shell.” You equated the human foetus about to be born with a chick that is about to hatch. This may have been an unintentional mistake, but in actual fact the use of the word ‘chick’ is absolutely correct. In your recourse to scientific terminology for the unborn/preborn, the word ‘embryo’ should have been used for the unhatched/pre-hatched chick since you were equating the human foetus with the chick embryo. But your correct (it would be incorrect in your world view) use of the word ‘chick’ before it hatched should have equated to ‘baby about to be born.’ That human element is breaking through, and in human terms, ‘baby’ is the correct word to use inside the womb which is interchanged with the scientific terms, ‘embryo’ and ‘foetus.’ Moreover, if you stick to your rigid definition of humanity and relegate the unborn baby to the scientific term of foetus, then it stands to reason that you should stick to the scientific terminology and use the term, ‘neonate’ for a new-born baby that is less than a month old. A new baby and ‘neonate’ can be interchanged but we do not hear the term ‘neonate’, we use the term baby. Just as there are scientific terminologies for the stages of the baby inside the womb, there is also a scientific terminology outside the womb. If ‘neonate’ can be interchanged with ‘baby’, so can the ‘foetus’ be interchanged with ‘baby’. I repeat, science does not define humanity (your point), WE DO (my point).
4. A Better Way to Define a Foetus
In response to your article title, ‘A Better Way to Define a Human Being,’ I did a scan of definitions of foetus/fetus (in the human context). The Oxford, Cambridge, Collins and Marriam Webster dictionaries use the term ‘human’ or ‘human being’ in the stages of growth before birth. Interestingly, the definition of ‘fetus’ by the National Cancer Institute is, ‘in humans, an unborn baby that develops and grows inside the uterus (womb).’ Another definition I came across when searching another medical definition was from ‘RXList’. It states, ‘ An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage.’ What is an offspring? It is a child. It is understandable why the prochoice mindset would automatically dismiss these definitions and reframe, reposition and downgrade ‘foetus’ to an entity that is not a baby and is not a human being.
B) Unweaving the Rainbow of Incorrect Analogies
B1. Unborn Baby = Undead Corpse?
In your various articles, you expressed your frustration in using the term ‘unborn baby’ because it I equivalent to an ‘undead corpse’, which is of course a nonsensical term. And by reverse engineering ‘undead corpse’ then the equivalent term ‘unborn baby’ becomes equally nonsensical. Except that it isn’t. We use terms to describe stages that are pre or post an event. Although we do not use the term ‘undead corpse’, we do use a similar term, which is ‘end of life.’ Such terminology is used in palliative care when death is imminent. Hence, the pre-death stage has a proper term. ‘Undead corpse’ is a nonsensical term but ‘end of life’ or ‘end stage’ are not nonsensical terms. Likewise, ‘pre-natal care’ is used which means before birth. Likewise, ‘postpartum’ is used for the period just after birth. A baby that has been born premature is described as a ‘pre-term baby.’
If we are to be pedantic, then us pro-lifers should use the term ‘preborn’ instead of ‘unborn.’ There is room for concession here by pro-lifers and I did state in my original article that I may need to rethink my terminologies after I engaged in the short dialogue with Rachel Johnson. That is why I have used both terms ‘unborn’ and ‘preborn’ interchangeably. Hence, the correction to your analogy is, ‘preborn baby = end of life’. It is interesting to note that in an article in Scientific American (Koch, 1st Sept., 2009) which discussed premature babies, the term the authors used to describe a preterm baby was ‘unborn newborn.’
B2. If Abortion = Murder, then a Blowjob = Cannibalism?
This is not your direct quote, but a photo you posted in your article, ‘A Better Definition of Human Being.’ Again, an incorrect analogy is used. A blowjob is not cannibalism. Cannibalism is when a human eats the flesh of another human (or a species eats the flesh of the same species). When semen is ingested, it is not the same as eating flesh. Likewise, when saliva is exchanged during kissing, this is not cannibalism. Moreover, when a baby suckles milk from its mother, it is not cannibalism. A wrong analogy was used by the feminist pro-choice campaigners when trying to philosophise a blowjob. As in your example above (6.1.), the nonsensical equation of blowjob = cannibalism is reverse engineered to make the equation ‘abortion = murder’ nonsensical. Once we have established that the human entity inside the womb is a living individual, a baby (or foetus with an individual identity), then the act of intentionally killing it is tantamount to murder. What else could it be? Hence, the equation ‘Abortion = Murder’ is as cast iron and robust as E = MC2. But you will note that I have not used the term ‘murder’ during my discission with Rachel Johnson nor with feminists whom I had engaged with over the last three decades because this is an incendiary statement that would curtail any fruitful dialogue or debate.
B3. Pro-Life Advocacy = Terrorism?
Again, in your article, ‘A Better Definition for Human Being,’ you stated, “The “pro-life” movement has a well-developed, organized terrorism network.” Two points here.
Firstly, terrorism is when an act of killing or murder has taken place among innocent people intentionally. I don’t believe that most pro-lifers are terrorists. There are some who have engaged in murder of abortion doctors or bombed abortion clinics. This is terrorism, and you and I would be on the same side to condemn them.
Secondly, there is a group of innocent human beings where they are killed through poisoning or dismembering or suction during the process of abortion after the kill switch has been turned on.
Question 1: If abortion is not an act of terror on the unborn/preborn baby/foetus, then what is it? Mercy killing?
B4. Being Pro-Life = Being Pro-Death Penalty?
This is not something that you have raised, but I have raised it because many prochoicers use this argument to highlight an apparent contradiction amongst prolifers, that most of them agree with the death penalty. Note, this is applicable in countries such as the US which has the death penalty. European countries have abolished it. Let’s deal with the USA. Without any scientific analysis, I would argue that most prolifers/Conservatives agree with the death penalty (although I am sure there are many on the Left/Democrats who agree with the death penalty. A case in point is the Presidential debate I watched between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Al Gore did state he agreed with the death penalty). Is this a contradiction? I recall engaging with a Christian friend of mine (who is a pacifist) who highlighted this apparent contradiction to me, between being pro-life and agreeing with the death penalty. My reply was that a very simple principle is at play here which renders the apparent contradiction moot. The death penalty applies to people who are guilty, not the innocent. Abortion is the reverse of this.
B5. Pro-Life Stance = Prohibition?
‘Prohibition’ is an interesting case. You mentioned this term in your article, ‘Reproductive rights are basic to our freedom.’ This term is used pejoratively to describe the ban on alcohol in the US in the 1920s where an illegal trade in alcohol ensued. Alcohol was such a cultural norm that Prohibition had to be lifted. The intention was good, but the outcome was worse. If alcohol was discovered today, it would have been banned on the same level as hard drugs. Alcohol remains the life blood of many societies which is why it remains legal. However, the ban on smoking that is eventually taking hold after decades of awareness and government initiatives, is being welcomed by societies around the world. Slowly but surely. Our dear friends from the smoking lobby in the UK, Forest (which I mentioned above), do regard this as creeping Prohibition and an assault on choice and human rights. However, in this scenario, where healthcare will improve and the direct and indirect harmful effects of smoking will be reduced. Societies are starting to accept the health benefits of gradual smoking bans, hence, this creeping Prohibition is starting to get traction. This is ‘good’ prohibition because it is backed by education, awareness and a health system to wean people off smoking over a long period of time. That is why the US alcohol Prohibition failed. It was implemented too quickly.
What of abortion? Is the Supreme court decision in 2022 to slowly curb abortion equivalent to the US Prohibition of the 1930s? Or is it more in line with the stop smoking campaign to save lives? I opt for the latter. When there is a ban on murder (of which the punishment is severe in all countries), this is not regarded as Prohibition. It is common sense. To kill an innocent person intentionally is unthinkable by the vast majority of people; whether it is Prohibition or not, does not register in our synapses. Once people accept the fact that the foetus/preborn baby inside the womb is an individual, innocent human being, then the need to kill it in the name of women’s rights would become unthinkable. ‘Prohibition’ in relation to creeping bans on abortion would not even enter our thoughts; but it does at present among prochoicers and feminists for obvious reasons.
The correct analogy here is that the creeping ban on abortion is saving lives in the same way the creeping ban on smoking is saving lives. The pro-smoking lobby and the pro-choice lobby have something in common; that they both believe that the there is creeping Prohibition and an assault on ‘choice.’
B6. Reproductive Rights = Having a Baby?
In your article, ‘Reproductive rights are basic to our freedom,’ you had a picture of a woman carrying her toddler daughter. I believe this was the wrong photo to use. When a mother has her baby, there is no disagreement between both camps when life has been chosen. The disagreement is when abortion takes place. From the pro-choice world view, it is abortion that is argued to be basic to their freedom, rather than having the baby. To do justice to this freedom a more accurate photo should have been rendered, i.e. a photo of an actual abortion of the baby/foetus. But such images are too gruesome and would break community standards, rightly so. It would be regarded as offensive, and an emotional blackmailing tool used by shameless pro-lifers. I recall having a discussion with a feminist on abortion in 1993, she told me she was offended by pictures of dismembered babies/foetuses that pro-life protesters used. She did not agree with their shock tactics. I did not provide a response to her opinion as I was in listening mode and I really tried to understand her position. 31 years later, I can say that it is not that these pictures that are offensive, it is the process of killing babies that is offensive. If an abortion photo cannot be used, then another photo could have been used that would be almost accurate. A baby/foetus that is about to be killed by an instrument of torture (to assert that the processes of dismemberment, poisoning or suction is not torture but mercy, is exquisite sophistry).
B7. George Orwell’s Animal Farm
In your article, ‘Why Would a Man Be So Adamant About Abortion Rights?’ you used an analogy from Animal Farm to strengthen your argument about control. Again, this analogy does not help. The farmer, Mr. Jones, controlled the animals on his farm until there was a rebellion by them where Napoleon the pig took charge of all of his animal compatriots. But Napoleon ended up running a corrupt dictatorship on the same lines as his previous human farmer master. I think the loose equivalence you tried to draw from Animal Farm in relation to abortion is that the farmer had controlled the animals through subjugation and forced reproduction, which in turn implies domestication. Your assertion is that pro-lifers today are forcing women to give birth, and in doing so, are treating these women as domesticated animals by controlling their reproduction.
This is an interesting analogy you have utilised. I would argue that a loose connection could be made between Animal Farm and the pro-life position. The animals had rebelled because of the oppression they faced. When we read about the grievances of the animals, they complain that they have to work hard like slaves and when they have outlived their usefulness, they are slaughtered mercilessly. But they did not complain about producing baby animals. They rebelled against their human master by demanding rights. The loose equivalence with Animal Farm I would invoke here to support the prolife position is that there are babies that have survived abortions and have grown up to speak out about the injustices that were about to be perpetrated on them when they were in the womb and regarded as non-humans. Luckily, not one of the abortion survivors is like Napoleon the pig who inflicted oppression on fellow animals after having rebelling against Mr. Jones to free them from this very oppression. Quite the opposite. These abortion survivors are likely to forgive their mothers and the abortion doctors.
I just remembered engaging with a pro-choice advocate during the 1997 General Election in the UK when I campaigned for a Conservative MP. She said that she would much prefer to abort a baby and save money to buy a washing machine. Bravo. Preborn babies have less value than an object, let alone animals.
Question 2: What would be your message to abortion survivors today?
C. Installing a Programme of Correct Analogies
C.1. The Dehumanisation of Slaves
The pro-life advocates have utilised the analogy of slavery and equated it with abortion. The pro-choice campaigners and advocates vehemently disagree with this equivalence. Once such pro-choice advocacy group is ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). In one of their articles by Michele Goodwin, the link is made between the anti-abortion movement in the 19th Century and White Supremacy. She rightly points to the Black women’s rights activist, Sojourner Truth, and her ‘Ain’t I a Woman?’ lecture tour. Sojourner condemned the trafficking of Black children who were born free, and also condemned the enterprise of slavery, which propped up the American economy. Thus, Goodwin alludes to the correlation between historical White supremacists who believed in exploiting Black people for economic benefit, and force Black women to have children who would then be sold off to slavery; with prolifers of today who are perceived to force women to have children, thus controlling their bodies.
Goodwin’s analysis is wrong on many counts:
a) The prolifers and Conservatives of today can trace their spiritual ancestors to the Conservatives/Republicans of the 19th Century who were part of the Abolition movement. It is the Democrats who were the party of slavery, segregation and lynching under Andrew Jackson, Jim Crow and Stephen Douglas. Slavery was a degradation of fellow Black human beings who were treated like animals and not considered human (I expand on this in my book, ‘United States of Anger. Why Linda Sarsour’s Rage and Far Left Violence Cannot Move Mountains. Thoughts of a British Muslim Conservative’). The abolition movement led by Abraham Lincoln and Conservatives considered slaves as fellow humans, equal under the constitution and under God.
b) A glaring oversight in Goodwin’s article is Sojourner’s lecture tour she alluded to, ‘Ain’t I a Woman?’ Why did Sojourner Truth ask this question in her tours? She would even go topless and expose her breasts to prove she was a woman. Why? Because the feminist movement at that time was a movement for White women only. It was based on racism, plain pure and simple. Truth’s White contemporary and women’s rights activist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, considered educated white women more worthy of the vote than Blacks.
Michele Goodwin’s claims are the complete opposite to what the historical reality was.
Blacks were dehumanised, which is why it was easy to oppress, torture and even kill them. That was the norm. Today, unborn babies/foetuses are dehumanised, which is why prochoicers argue for the right to kill them as part of women’s rights. When re-reading the debates between the pro-Slavery Democrat leader, Stephen Douglas, and the Abolitionist Republican, Abraham Lincoln, the arguments used by Stephen Douglas are striking. He used the argument of ‘choice’, that states had the right to choose whether to support slavery or not…and that this choice was sacrosanct. Sounds familiar? Thus, the Conservative/Republican/Abolition movement grew and won to abolish slavery. I consider this as ‘Abolition I’ (this was good prohibition). The campaign to re-humanise preborn babies and prevent their killing by their Conservative descendants today should be classed as ‘Abolition II’.
The debates that are taking place now between both camps on abortion, especially arguments deployed by prochoicers, is a window into the past. We can glean what the debates and heightened emotions must have looked like 200 years ago where both camps (pro-abolition and pro-choice for slavery) thought they were right. We can just about sense the state of anger from the prochoice-for-slavery camp when they lambasted abolitionists. It turns out one of the camps was right; and we ask the question now, ‘what were the pro-slavery camp thinking?’ 100–200 years from now, our descendants will be looking back to today when analysing history, and will ask the same question about the prochoice camp.
Just as there are parallels between the thought processes of prochoicers today and 200 years ago, there is another element from that slavery era that has teleported itself to our present day. It is racism through dehumanisation. I alluded to this in my first book, ‘United States of Anger. Why Linda Sarsour’s Rage and Far Left Violence Cannot Move Mountains.’ There are more Black babies being aborted than White babies as a proportion of their respective populations in America. In New York City more Black babies are killed through abortion than are born.
C.2. The Dehumanisation of Women
Women in the West got the right to vote very recently, as late as the 19th/20th Century as well as the right to own property. In religious circles, there was debate over the last few hundred years on whether women possessed souls or not. It is precisely the dehumanisation of women in the past that led to certain oppressions. Fast forward to the present day. Honour killings take place in some Asian communities. This is when a woman has done something so sinful and wrong that she would need to be killed in order to save the honour of her family. You will agree that there is nothing honourable about honour killings. But the family would not see anything wrong in killing their daughter if she did something wrong. In their warped psychology, family honour is more important than the life of the daughter, despite the fact that the umbilical cord disconnected a long time ago; they think they own her. Therefore they exercise the right to choose to end her life. You and I would use a more accurate language…that they chose to kill or murder their girl. What the family would think as normal and within their rights to choose, we would think as egregious. Rightly so. Citing this analogy serves to give a glimpse into the mind of a prolife advocate on how they view prochoice thinking.
C.3. The Dehumanisation of Jews
Many had considered the 20th Century as the modern world. Yet, as recently as the 1940s, we witnessed the genocide of Jews during the Holocaust by Hitler’s Nazis. How was this possible? The end result of mass killing begins with the first steps of dehumanising them. The campaign to dehumanise Jews was successful. Hence, this made it easier for German soldiers to kill them without feeling guilty.
C.4. The Dehumanisation of Muslims and non-Muslims
The 1990s (a more modern world compared to the 1940s) saw the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia. It was easy for Serbian forces under General Mladic to kill Muslim Bosnian civilians through torture once the campaign to dehumanise them was successful. In the 2020s (a much more modern world?) we see the rise of the Far Right and their campaign of Islamophobia to dehumanise Muslims, which in some cases ends with White supremacists terrorists murdering Muslims. Likewise, we see in increase in terrorist activities among some Muslim extremists who are brainwashed to dehumanise non-Muslims (Hindus in Bangladesh and India, Christians in Pakistan and South Sudan, Christians or secular people in UK, Europe and America etc.) thus making it easier to murder them through cowardly terrorist acts.
All of the above sub-topics from a) to d) have one common theme. And that is the dehumanisation of certain groups of humans, which leads to their oppression or destruction by other human beings. I am not equating pro-choice advocates with Nazis of the 20th Century or White supremacists of the 19th Century. The focus is not on the label of the oppressors, but the intersection of similar thought patterns in the cognitive dissonant mindspace where rationalisation is made to kill fellow innocent humans on the basis of their alleged non-humanity and absolute zero personhood.
C.5. The Dehumanisation of Disabled People
I kept this till last. It may be a difficult topic to discuss as I am sensitive to your situation. I am grateful to you for being brave enough to disclose that you suffer from ADHD. This could not have been easy. In the British and American health services, ADHD is classed as a disability. There are many grades of disabilities, but for the purpose of this response, I have lumped all of them into one.
Disability is seen as one of the reasons for a woman to want to abort a preborn baby/foetus. The rationale is that why allow the baby a lifetime of misery as a disabled person when it could be killed as a mark of love and mercy? I wonder how this makes disabled people, who are alive today, feel. They are regarded as second class citizens. I know that ADHD cannot be diagnosed inside the womb, but for arguments sake, let’s assume it can.
Question 3: Should a mother go through the abortion in order to prevent the baby’s lifetime of misery because of disability?
In your article, ‘Why Would a Man Be So Adamant About Abortion Rights,’ you stated, “…Obviously, I’ve never had an abortion. Also, I’ve never caused one, performed, paid for, procured, or assisted one.” In your other article, ‘Prochoicers Have Been Losing for Almost Fifty Years & I’m Tired of It,’ you stated something similar to the above, “…I’ve never created the need for an abortion, never paid for one, never assisted a woman in getting one, and definitely, never performed one. I always had an aversion to impregnating a woman.”
You set out very clearly your relation to abortion and pregnancy. Out of all the scenarios you mentioned, you missed out the most crucial one, ‘I HAVE NEVER BEEN ABORTED.’ I am glad about that. Your coming into this world has made the world a better place. Thank God your mother and my mother are prolife and that we are both near enough in our senior years debating and pontificating about the facts of life (or ending of life, to be more precise).
D) Prochoicers HAVE Been Successful for 50 Years.
In your article, ‘Prochoicers Have Been Losing for Almost Fifty Years & I’m Tired of It,’ you stated that the prochoice lobby has not been successful over the last 50 years because they focused too much on women’s bodies — women’s rights regardless of the status of the baby/foetus inside the womb. You assert that feminists and other prochoice allies assumed that they acknowledge that the entity inside the womb is a baby which is killed through abortion, but the woman’s body is the overriding factor to consider. You claim that the prochoice campaign would have been more successful if the entity was not even remotely considered as a baby, but a foetus devoid of any humanity. I beg to differ. The fact that over 60 million babies/foetuses have been killed in the US over the last 50 years, around 10 million in the UK since 1967, and about 1 billion around the world since 1973; the prochoice campaign has been a resounding success. With staggering numbers of abortions, this cannot be regarded as a failure by any stretch of the imagination.
E) Your Strong Sexual Prowess and Your Stronger Social Responsibility
In your article, ‘Why Would a Man Be So Adamant About Abortion Rights,’ you said that you used to have a high sex drive but that you have been responsible and did not make a woman pregnant. I commend you for that. A true man who sowed his seeds without sowing it! Although you stated that your libido has diminished now, fear not. You are still an attractive proposition given that you espouse views that would be manna from Heaven to any feminist. The fact that you took extra precaution not to make a woman pregnant is very responsible, and something that the pro-life camp would appreciate. Why? Because you avoided the alternative scenario where a woman would decide to have an abortion because you made her pregnant accidentally. You would agree then that preventing a pregnancy in the first place is better than ending it through abortion. That is what I am understanding if I read you correctly. If so, then let’s think this through. Why would pregnancy prevention through contraception be better than getting pregnant and having an abortion? Because killing a human being is not involved in the former scenario. That is why prochoicers in general would like to see abortions reduced, not increased, through education and contraception. This sounds paradoxical, but it is worth for prochoicers to ponder over this. Why would they want abortions reduced rather than increased? There is a prolife force trying to break out.
F) God 2.0 — Christianity and Islam are Pro-Life
F.1. Religious Angle: Oher religions are prolife as well. I did a cursory glance of what Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism (and their respective pandits, rabbis and bhikkus) had to say about abortion. They are largely pro-life. Thank God for that. I mentioned the God thing in my original article above. Most of the pro-life advocates are religious, which is why there is a tendency towards aversion of religion by feminists and prochoicers, especially when the narrative of apparent religious-patriarchal control of women’s bodies is firmly ingrained in their psyches (I can see why some pro-choice protesters used the analogy of the dystopian drama series, The Handmaid’s Tale). Of course, there are committed Christians who are pro-choice, e.g. President Barack Obama. Some Christian churches do support abortion. But by and large, religion is pro-life.
In one of your articles, you stated that God is nowhere to be seen whether inside the womb or outside. That God does not play a part in the developing embryo. The topic of Atheism vs Theism is a huge one which is outside the scope of this response. You stated that modern day Christian advocates for life are different from their ancestors, in that the Bible apparently supports abortion but politicised Christians of today do not. Politics does not inform religious beliefs and values, it is the other way round. Religion informs and shapes views and opinions of people who adhere to them. The Bible does not directly refer to abortion, but inferences can be made that support life. The book of Jeremiah recounts God speaking to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5) stating that He knew him before he was born. Likewise with Isaiah, God called him before he was born (Isaiah 49:1). God also set apart Paul before he was born (Galatians 1:15). Both Jesus and John the Baptist were referred to in the wombs of Mary and Elizabeth respectively, they were not devoid of any humanity, neither were they humiliated to being just a bunch of cells; it was the opposite.
Whilst the main pro-life discourse has come from our Christian brothers and sisters, very little is known about the Islamic position on abortion. This is because my community has failed to highlight the plight of babies/foetuses that have been killed even though the Quran is explicit in its condemnation of killing children. Abortion is not directly referred to because this is not a practice that happened in the Arabian society, but an equivalent practice that took place was infanticide, specifically, burying little girls alive. The Quran explicitly condemned this and put an end to this savagery (Quran 81:8–9). It also warns parents not to kill children for fear of poverty (Quran 17:31). These explicit condemnations of killing children is extrapolated to killing unborn babies (an exception is made when the mother’s life is in danger). The differences that do occur between the various schools of thought within Muslims is based on whether a baby can be aborted after the soul has entered it. There are variant opinions by scholars. My view is remarkably similar to yours. Both of us would agree that the soul is irrelevant here. Your criteria is consciousness after birth, mine is life at conception. The Muslim community is a pro-life community and we must join forces with fellow Christians, Jews and other faiths to erase one of the worst atrocities perpetrated against humanity.
I understand that this discussion may be moot from your perspective because you do not believe in God (you are an ex-Catholic), but it is important to correct a misunderstanding. There is a genuine case for life which is informed by religion, and not by patriarchal Commanders who wish to sire babies on behalf of their barren wives by forcefully thrusting and pumping their handmaids and concubines (but if I were to think like a feminist, I am likely to retort by stating that religion itself advocates parochial patriarchy).
F.2. Muslims, Christians and other Faiths Must Join Hands. At this point it will be interesting for you and the readers to get an insight into the United Kingdom. Abortion was made legal in 1967 under the Abortion Act. Like America, the UK has had its fare share of debates, discussions and protests by both sides of the aisle. The British equivalent of Planned Parenthood is the Mary Stopes Clinic, which provides abortion services. For my work in medical sales I used to visit a certain area in West London called Ealing. I used to pass a Mary Stopes clinic when visiting my customers nearby over the last 16 years. Every time I passed it I noticed Catholic and Christian prolife activists (or quietists, as they never shouted) standing prayerfully outside the clinic with their rosaries and information leaflets. I had often thought of honking my horn in support of the prolife prayer activists but I never did as it would have disturbed the people inside the clinic. I do not mix work with political or social activities. However, very recently when I passed the clinic, I noticed that there were no activists within its vicinity. After searching for them I noticed they stood further away from the clinic. I walked up to two of these Christian activists and they informed me that there was a bill passed by a Labour MP, Rupa Haq, to create exclusion zones around abortion clinics to curtail the activities of prolife prayer groups. This particular Mary Stopes clinic in Ealing was the only clinic in the UK that had this exclusion zone. What is interesting is that Haq and myself share some things in common. We are both British Bangladeshi Muslims. But that is where the similarities end. She is vociferously pro-abortion and I am prolife. We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Haq is on the further left of the Labour Party (the UK equivalent of the Democrats. Further left of Democrats would be classed as Progressives. I believe that Rupa Haq falls into this category). I am on further right on the Conservative spectrum. Luckily, the Conservative MP, Fiona Bruce, has tried to limit Haq’s exclusion zone bill. The Catholic activists told me about their experiences of harassment by prochoicers (yes, I know that some prolifers do harass mothers who want abortions), but that they were able to counsel some mothers who were considering abortion, to have the babies. I commended them for their respectful and quiet activism, and I stated that Muslims (and other faiths) are a prolife community as well, and that we need to be more vocal about the abortion issue by joining hands with our fellow Christian brothers and sisters, and like-minded friends from other faiths. One regret I do have when I stood for Parliament in 2005 was that I did not focus on the abortion issue. If I do get the opportunity to stand again, then I will be sure to put this on my priority agenda.
G) Reengineering Womanhood — Abortion’s Assault on Women’s Bodies and Women’s Rights
The safest place for a baby during its development is in the womb. Through the biological structures, neural networks and chemical pathways, the womb is designed to nourish and protect the developing baby/foetus. Thankfully, in most cases the news of a pregnancy confirmation would bring joy to the family, not remorse nor frustration nor anger. Thus, pregnancy was once seen as a miracle of life and an enabling part of womanhood. Through a mass rebranding, repositioning and reengineering exercise over the last 50 years, womanhood is now strongly linked with the choice to abort/kill the baby/foetus. I am hoping that my response here, alongside my original article would provide some reprogramming or rewiring of a deeply scripted mindset; a shift from pro-choice-for-abortion to pro-choice-for-life. Even if it is a quantum shift.
Many prochoicers argue that a lot of prolifers are men, hence, they want to control women’s bodies. Apparent patriarchal intervention fuels the prochoice narrative. It is all about controlling women, equivalent to The Handmaid’s Tale that I referred to above. There are a considerable number of women who are prolife as well, but they are dismissed by feminists as slaves to patriarchy, especially if prolife women are religious. In my original article I mentioned how Judge Amy Coney Barret was slated for having a clown car vagina and being a White supremacist. Other religious women are likely to receive a similar blowback. But they are not flustered. They are resilient and remarkable, just as your mother, my mother, and the mothers of those reading our exchange, are remarkable too.
Why do I claim that abortion is an assault on women’s bodies and women’s rights? Just as I have unpicked some of your analogies you used, I would unpick this one as well (that prolife position is a patriarchal control of women’s bodies), which is used by pro-abortion campaigners. Most of the abortion doctors are men. Most of the instruments that are used to cut, dismember or burn the unborn babies were invented by men. Most of the Supreme Court judges who legalised abortion in America in 1973 were men. Most of the Senators who extended abortion rights in New York in 2019 were men. Men are good at fighting wars and killing people. And this genetic disposition has been transferred to passing laws and inventing instruments that would kill more human beings. What was meant to be a life to be welcomed by mothers and fathers, is now considered to be a parasite that doesn’t have a right to be there. The womb was seen as a sanctuary for the preborn baby, is now a chamber where gruesome torture is inflicted. And this is seen as a fundamental right to womanhood. Today, men have played a central part, if not the cog in the prochoice wheel, to invade women’s bodies with instruments they invented that search, target and destroy the miracle of life.
I stated in my original article that gender is not an issue in the abortion debate because there are men who are prochoice and women who are ardently prolife. I still hold that position. But if gender is going to be injected into the debate by prochoicers whereby men are to blame for wanting to control women’s bodies, I have shown that the reverse could be true. That gender could also be injected into the prolife narrative by blaming men for invading women’s bodies to destroy lives inside them. Hence, the case for a paradigm shift and reengineering prochoice thought processes could be made here.
Let’s face up to our sorry situation. You and I are senior dudes with dicks. That’s it. We are not able to produce nor carry babies. Most women can. And this is a privilege they have which we do not. Prochoice activists who have watched The Handmaid’s Tale and are reading this article may baulk at the last sentence because of an image that may have been created automatically by their neural networks, where there is a scene of Aunt Lydia yelling at the handmaids that being mothers is a huge privilege (I can think like a prochoicer!). Leaving this aside, there are two divergent views about pregnancy. That it is a miracle of life and something wonderful, or that it is a burden that shackles women to perpetual servitude of men. Make no mistake, there are feminists and prochoicers who have children; so the issue is not completely black and white. But when prochoice women do have children, the prolifers and prochoicers become one and the same. Going beyond labels, they all become proud mothers and fathers who celebrate life.
H) Prochoicers and Prolifers Can Find Some Commonality
This brings me nicely to this topic. I think our pro-life community has missed the opportunity to find some common ground with prochoicers. Unsurprisingly, such opportunities are missed in the USA because of deep polarisations between Conservatives and the Left although debates have taken place between both camps. In 2014, a debate took place at California State University between the pro-choice advocate, Prof. Cecili Chadwick, and the Catholic pro-life advocate, Trent Horn. Prof. Chadwick did state that she felt abortion was wrong, but that it should still be kept legal for women who choose to abort. She also stated that there should be common ground between both camps, and that both could agree that abortions should be reduced. I agree with that. Of course, I disagree with her point that the foetus has no rights, including the right to life (under the law). A question that should have been asked of her was why she considered abortion to be wrong? And given that she considers it to be wrong, then why shouldn’t the pre-born baby/foetus have rights?
President Bill Clinton once stated that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I agree with the first and last bit. If abortion needs to take place because of the mother’s life being in danger, that is when prolifers agree to abortion as a last resort to save the mother’s life. Of course, abortion should be safe. The ‘rare’ element is the commonality factor between both camps. As in the previous paragraph, why should a prochoicer like President Clinton want abortions to be rare? Why is the decision to abort always a tough one? Because of the implications on what it means for the human being inside that is growing.
Thus, the opportunity is there for some convergence between both camps at least on the need to reduce abortions and make them rare. Prochoicers, feminists and other friends on the liberal/secular camp may encourage more education on better contraception; whilst those of us in the prolife camp who are largely Conservatives and religious, would advocate abstinence before marriage. The destination of rare abortions my be the same for both camps, but the roads to reach that destination are different. There is room to discuss which road is better.
In your reply to my original article you said, “I don’t believe a fetus at least until the 28th week, is an “unborn baby…”’ This is very interesting.
Question 4: Why would you consider the remote possibility that the foetus could be regarded as a baby after the 28th week of pregnancy?
It seems many prochoicers have a standard default response to pro-lifers, that there is a cut off point in number of weeks that a foetus/baby can be aborted. After that point, it becomes difficult to abort. During my discussion with Rachel Johnson, she too stated that there is a term limit on abortions. Why would she and other colleagues state there is a term limit when it shouldn’t really matter (the point I made to Rachel)? Once a baby/foetus is inside the womb, it should be able to be aborted regardless of the time limit, even up to birth, from a pro-choice perspective. Yet, many prochoicers would reiterate that there are term limits to abortions or in your case that there is a limit point, after which the foetus could be regarded as a baby. I think there is a correlation between the increasing age of gestation of the baby and the increasing discomfort that prochoicers would have generally in aborting them. But an outlier in pro-choice thinking was seen in 2019 when the Reproductive Health Act (Bill S240) was passed by the New York Senate (interestingly enough, the majority who voted for the bill were men) and signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. This bill lifted the restrictions on the 24-week time limit to make allowance for later term abortions. The passing of the Bill was celebrated with pink lights that shone from One World Trade Centre. And this was the site where 3,000 people were killed during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Work that one out. A very sick symbolism. (As a side note, I did visit the site in November 2001 to pay respects to the fallen, and I was shocked to see the utter devastation and meaningless loss of human life that took place).
Whilst we are on the theme of common ground (and it looks like a bromance is developing), there is one claim you made which made me think. That an unwanted pregnancy is always the man’s fault. I had always felt that an unwanted pregnancy was the fault of both parties, the man and the woman, because either of them or both of them should have had contraception. But your claim does have strong gravitational attraction. If the man takes responsibility of using contraception, then the woman would not get pregnant (I am leaving aside cases where condoms have broken) regardless of whether she uses contraception or not. I am still thinking about your point and I am slowly gravitating towards it.
I) Conclusion— Disabling the Kill Switch
Thanks for reading my long reply Charles (and the rest of the readers who take an interest in the topic of abortion). If you are convinced with some of my arguments, that’s great. If not, I will welcome your further responses. It is important for prolifers and prochoicers to engage positively to gravitate towards each other in their common goal of reducing abortions.
As you can ascertain from my response, I consider abortion to be the final assault on human rights; the killing of human life through procedures that are too gruesome to describe in detail. You stated, “I don’t care if there are zero or ten million abortions every year, as long as the pregnant women makes the choice about every one of them.” If you and the readers agree that the foetus is also a human life and baby (recall, ‘baby’ and ‘foetus’ can be interchanged) then we should care. In the US, an estimated 63 million abortions have taken place since 1973, and in the UK over 10 million abortions have taken place since 1967. Globally, around 1 billion babies/foetuses have been killed since 1973. These numbers are too large for us to even process. What does it mean when we learn that hundreds of millions of babies have been killed (or a softer language used by prochoicers, ‘foetuses have been aborted,’ or even softer language used to cushion the gravity of the situation, ‘pregnancies have been terminated’)? I often wonder how prochoicers, feminists and even human rights organisations (like Amnesty International) can sleep at night. As a human civilisation, as we try to advance in our consciousness raising efforts, we are reaching the critical mass where abortion will become unthinkable in the same way as killing born children is unthinkable. Give it another 100 years. As mentioned before, in 100–200 years time, people will look back to this present in this so-called modern world and ask, ‘what were they thinking?’
Question 5: Consider our dialogue to be a time capsule. What would your message be to millions of men and women in 2122 who would be alive because of the decision of the US Supreme Court in 2022 to overturn Roe v Wade?
Whilst I am corresponding with you, Charles, I also extend the invitation to feminists who are influencers within the prochoice movement, to engage in dialogue. I am sure there will be other issues raised that have not been discussed here, such as rape and incest, President Donald Trump etc. These could be discussed in subsequent exchanges.
Praise be. I will receive your response with joy…
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
First Reply from Charles (21st November 2022)
(Hasan’s quote): Many thanks Charles for your reply to my original article, and for the links to your other articles on Medium. You have provided very persuasive arguments to defend your prochoice stance, and I welcome this. Such exchanges, dialogue and respectful debate between a prolife advocates and prochoice advocates is important in order to try to reach a common understanding where our mutual goals are to reduce abortions.
I would thank you, but you undermine the charm of your words with the length of your introduction. I realize that gets us off on the wrong foot, but why couldn’t you have just emailed your response to me? I’m angrier for the way you beleaguered me to answer. I don’t work for you.
(Hasan’s quote): The blatant irony of our exchange is that we are two dudes with dicks, discussing a topic which is seen as the sole purview of women and feminists who possess wombs.
I don’t find that ironic at all, and I don’t find it ironic when pro-choice women say it. Although I have less motive to make the point to them, as I consider it a distraction, and too wrong to be relevant. Reproductive rights affect men, and if the state can force a woman to give birth, then its leaders are too calloused to protect any person’s rights, and are too morally corrupt to resist violating them.
(Hasan’s quote): However, your passionate prochoice articles have made valuable contributions to the prochoice position and have even strengthened its position in a way that feminist campaigners have not (more on that later).
That was exactly my purpose.
(Hasan’s quote): This demonstrates the value that both men and women play in this important discussion. Many men are prochoice and many women are prolife, hence this is not really a gender issue. However, your articles will be welcome by feminists and other prochoicers, but it is hoped that my prolife articles will be a welcome challenge to prochoicers. Both sides of the aisle will benefit from our dialogue. (Before moving on, I recommend readers to read and digest ALL of the articles written by Charles Haines through the links provided above. Hence, my response below will be more meaningful).
Thank you for the readership boost, even if you only have twelve followers. (I have a suggestion: write shorter articles. More people will want to bother with them.)
(Hasan’s quote): This is a long response because I did read all of your articles in great detail. Thank you for signposting me to them. I couldn’t help but do a deep dive and interrogate the arguments your good self and other prochoicers have made. I will ask you some specific questions which I would welcome your responses to, as well as your thoughts on the rest of my response. It is hoped that our exchange would raise the level of debate and understanding between prolife and prochoice advocates.
(Hasan’s quote): In my original article there was a section on terminologies. And your response along with your other articles in the links you sent me was a response to that particular section. Terminology is important as it conveys meaning. Both sides of the debate would accuse each other of using incorrect terminologies. However, let us unweave what I regard as the rainbow of incorrect terminologies used by the prochoice side:
I don’t think this is a fruitful or productive effort at all. You’re literally dictating terms to me, which is coercive, an over-valuing of your power and over-estimate of your righteousness. In other words, arrogance. You’ll get nowhere starting here.
(Hasan’s quote): A.1. Prochoice. This is an obvious place to start. This term sounds good, nice and empowering. Who would not like to have choice? I alluded to this phrase during my discussion with Rachel Johnson when she tried to correct me on my use of the term ‘prolife.’ I stated that ‘prochoice’ is an incomplete statement.
Of course it’s incomplete! It’s two words! Orwell notwithstanding, it’s impossible to convey a complete political position in just two words. At best, it’s shorthand and gives listeners a place to start, and if they want to continue, then nuances and details might be discussed.
I’ve been over and all around the terms in my lifetime. I was raised Catholic, I was once “pro-life” myself, I’ve thought over the “pro-choice” term literally for decades. I’ve thought through many alternate terms. “Pro-choice” is the best, most accurate description of the philosophical and political position.
By telling me my terms are wrong, you’re accusing me of insincerity and guile. That’s a sordid tactic that belies any expressed purpose of open discussion. In my essays, I make it clear why “pro-choice” is exactly the right term. You ignored it and went on with what you wanted to say. That’s not promising for a respectful discussion.
(Hasan’s quote): Choice for what? Choice for abortion. This is where both sides of the aisle disagree on. It is the choice to kill.
This is another dead end, no pun intended. Not only is this false, it further insults your opposition and further betrays your expressed purpose.
Here’s a better place to start: both sides agree that the gamete-zygote-blastocyst-embryo-fetus-baby (GZBEFB) isn’t a person until at least conception and is definitely a person at birth. They disagree about the status of the life in the middle stages. Anti-choicers, such as yourself insist on the moment of conception, which is undetectable without millions of dollars worth of medical equipment on hand. Zygote personhood. Zygotic rights is pure nonsense and untenable in practice.
Or you set it at a speculative, arbitrary point in the pregnancy. “Anti-choice” would an accurate term for the practical results of forced birth, but anti-abortion is the best term for you. Unless you’re also anti-contraception.
(Hasan’s quote): This is the reality of abortion. Rachel Johnson, again tried to correct me on the term ‘kill’ when I stated that since 1973 at least 1 billion babies had been killed around the world….Hence the term ‘proabortion’ or what I like to use, ‘prochoice-for-abortion,’ are the accurate terminologies. Elsewhere in this response when I use the term, ‘prochoice’, I mean choice for abortion.
Except the former is an Orwellian travesty and an insult, and the latter ends up being shortened to “pro-choice” anyway.
My exact position, which I think is in accord with 95% of pro-choicers: I don’t care if there are zero, ten million, or fifty-million abortions a year. I also don’t care if there are zero, ten million, or fifty million live births per year. As long as pregnant women get their choice to keep or abort every one of them, within the bounds of what nature allows, and what medical science enables. Therefore, my POV (point of view) is neutral about abortion but insistent about choice. Meaning “Pro-choice” is the accurate term. That’s regardless of how feel about it. This topic is closed.
I’m frightened to imagine the turmoil in the world with one billion more people, the majority of whom would be parented badly. Good thing that’s just speculative. So is “pro-life.”
(Hasan’s quote): Of course, the implication of this fact is very uncomfortable which is why there will be a resolute challenge from the prochoice side. I will of course deal with your very interesting and powerful arguments against using the term ‘baby’ when it is inside the womb.
I believe you have read in at least one of my essays, so you know I’ve said, “if ‘unborn baby’ is accurate, then the rest of us are ‘undead corpses.’ This is also an apt metaphor for what it really does to the theory of rights. If the fetus has rights, the ultimate outcome is that everyone else doesn’t.
At six weeks, the GZBEFB is smaller than a pea. At that time, it has no consciousness, has never been conscious, and is physically incapable of becoming conscious. the same things apply at twelve weeks when it’s about the size of a silver dollar. Calling that a person with rights is broken or corrupted thinking. You either have to distort immediate the facts of material reality, or accept an error in chronology. Is a seed a tree? Can you pick fruit from it? Is an egg a chicken? Can you tell the difference?
Of course you can. To call a fetus a baby-child-person, one has to employ a fallacy of special pleading, invalid. People aren’t obligated to treat it according to what it becomes in the future. You have to engage in speculative religion and mysticism originating from a God who is on record as creating a flat earth. Speculative at best, stupid and immoral at worst.
(Hasan’s quote): A.2. Reproductive Rights. The process of reproduction involves various stages which results in the birth of the offspring. Abortion is the exact opposite of reproduction. So how does the pro-choice mind work around this terminology? Stepping into their shoes I would think along the lines of the right to choose whether to reproduce or not. But this then goes back to the choice argument made above. In fact, abortion intervenes to stop the process of reproduction. Hence, a more accurate term to use is, ‘anti-reproduction rights.’
You make an error of scrambled terms. “Reproductive rights” refer to having the choice of whether to reproduce at that time or not. You’ve erroneously attached it to a possible outcome of her choice, the one you don’t like. If the state allows only one course of action you like, then it’s no longer a right of any kind. You can then accurately call forced birth an “anti-reproductive right,” but I prefer to call it a “reproductive wrong,” because that’s exactly what it is.
Your squabbling over long-settled terms is getting boring. You don’t have the power to force a change in people’s language, so it’s all hypothetical. And that’s why it’s a distraction. You say you want open discussion with mutual respect. Yet, your tone suggests you want to force your terms on your opposition. That’s because your righteousness isn’t salient from material facts. You’re utterly certain that if you can get the opposition to use the right terms you can . . . what? Force them to accede to your superior morality and religion? Or declare us evil, which means slaughtering us is justified?
(Hasan’s quote): A.3. Healthcare. As with reproductive rights, ‘Healthcare’ is another misnomer. Healthcare is about improving the quality of life or saving lives. Abortion does neither because it is the process of killing (or ‘termination,’ which is a more humane euphemism). Again, if I were to think like a pro-choice advocate, I would be thinking about the improved healthcare of the mother through abortion. So, how will her healthcare be improved? The killing of the baby/foetus will not improve the physical wellbeing of the mother, the maximum that can happen is that her physical health will remain the same generally after an abortion. However, a counter example was provided to me by a Socialist feminist activist 30 years ago. She said that a woman would have to go through pain during labour, hence, abortion takes away that physical pain. In her world view the physical health of the woman would be improved by avoiding labour pains. This is not a general view I have come across in feminist literature.
How would it be improved: She won’t die in childbirth? Or suffer an ectopic pregnancy, that renders her dead or sterile?. Or needs to be cut open with a C-section, that also introduces a lot of dangers and makes future childbirth impossible for her? Or a torn uterus that causes her to bleed to death? Or die of pre-partum diabetes? Or die of dehydration due to severe morning sickness that doesn’t go away during pregnancy? Or lose her teeth due to pregnancy tumors (yes that’s thing). Or be permanently disfigured due to pregnancy-triggered skin conditions (chloasma, skin tags, and PUPPS). Or die of a heart attack or other organ damage due to gestational high blood pressure? Or die of aggressive cancer due to a molar pregnancy? Or suffer infection, toxic shock, and sepsis? Or, die of medical malpractice? What about a dead and rotting fetus spreading gangrene into her reproductive organs?
It seems you can write dozens of volumes on the wrong of abortion, but you’re unwilling to study any related medical facts. That’s called being a know- it-all. Abortion is demonstrably much safer than full-term pregnancy. You can use Google. Look up the statistics. It’ll take you three seconds. They’re conclusive. If you have more time, look up the complications I’ve listed.
This is where having a dick is actually relevant. It allows men stay as ignorant of pregnancy risk as you are. You think you’re sending a message that abortion can’t really be as safe as pregnancy. You’re actually sending the message that it’s beneath men to concern themselves with women’s health at all. The maternal mortality rate in the US is an atrocity, as is the infant mortality rate. I’ve got to think they’re far worse in Bangladesh. Look them up and compare them to other countries. Abortion is safer in both places.
It must be religion that you have such misplaced confidence in the safety of carrying and delivering.
(Hasan’s quote): What about her psychological wellbeing? Will that be improved after an abortion? In most cases the decision to abort is very hard, peppered with dilemmas and possibilities of guilt.
Yes but pregnancy carries heavy risks to mental health as well Ever hear of post-partum depression, which is sometimes fatal, and sometimes a permanent condition? Have you ever heard of post-partum psychosis where she’s a danger to her infant? You’re obviously aware of depression and guilt induced by having children you can’t properly care for. Those are definitely common.
How common is abortion remorse? There’ve been (est.) 38 million abortions in the US since the 1970s. The largest abortion support group I’ve ever seen online had 8,000 members. They’re harder to find now, but a glance at what I could find on Facebook shows the largest one has 3,600 members. There’s never been an opposition organization against abortion comprised of only of women who regret their abortions. If guilt over it weren’t rare, there ought to be millions of remorseful women. Abortion would be practiced far more caution if that were the case. A surprising number of evangelical women have abortion in secret. This presents a question: how much of the torturous remorse is actually induced by religiously instilled guilt? How much of it is due to husbands, boyfriends, or family mistreating them afterward? I’ve known women who’ve had at lease one abortion. We both have. I’ve known women who had multiple abortions who have husbands and children, and have raised children.
My final important message: men can stop abortions without resorting to coercion, laws, or violence. Here’s how: There’s never been an unwanted pregnancy that hasn’t been caused by the man. Never. Men don’t have bring copulation all the way to ejaculation inside a woman. That principle has worked for me throughout my life. I’ve never wanted children but I’ve never caused an abortion, never paid for one, and have never assisted in one. I’m behaviorally anti-abortion.
I’ve lost enough time to your wrongheaded project. I still don’t appreciate how you hounded me to answer you. This discussion is closed. If you put this up, readers can come to their own conclusions about my answers so far, and judge how likely it is any of your points will prevail. I somehow think you’ll never publish this. I’d dare you to, but I’ll never know because I’m blocking you.
Goodbye.
Second Reply from Charles (22nd November 2022)
(Hasan’s quote): “A slight change in language when discussing abortion could re-focus attention towards the importance of a woman’s body, woman’s right or towards the importance of the living human inside the mother”
I don’t find this direction promising at all. For one thing, it’s epistemologically questionable. For another thing, words don’t just communicate. They also deceive and conceal. For another, words don’t change concrete reality at all.
(Hasan’s quote): “The lack of uterus in men only becomes a problem if they are pro-life.”
That’s because males choosing to leave women alone completely avoid making their lack of a uterus an issue. The contradiction is untangled before it becomes relevant. However, as a liberal, I’ve never said the lack of a uterus is an issue. In fact, in polls, women and men are equally supportive/opposed to abortion. My experience is women will say this when they’re enraged, not as a serious argument.
(Hasan’s quote): “Because she (Amy Coney Barrett) is a woman with a prolife stance, the level of turgid abuse she received reached stratospheric heights, especially by feminists.”
No, that’s not the reason; this is irrelevant to your claimed subject, and inflammatory, not to mention underhanded and passive-aggressive. If ACB encounters turgid abuse, maybe she should’ve told the truth at her confirmation hearing? Maybe all of those conservative justices should’ve done that?
They’re on record, and camera, perjuring themselves to get a lifetime jobs with prestige and high salaries. And if you’re offended by “stratospheric insults,” there’s only so many ways you could call somebody a liar before you resort to other insults. If it seems like liberals were ingenuous in taking them at their word, we had to see them commit such a high crime with our own eyes to believe they would ever do it. As far as I’m concerned, ACB lied under oath so her credibility is zero, her judicial qualifications are nil, and her good name is garbage. How can you even defend her? Anti-abortionists like her have thrown away all their morality to “rescue babies.” Nonexistent babies. Anti-choicers have sacrificed all their other ethics and their credibility to prohibit abortion. They’ve paid too high a price for one principle that’s speculative at best. You’re supposed to be expounding about the issue of abortion, not making a defense of an unscrupulous opportunist like ACB.
(Hasan’s quote): “Left of the political spectrum dismiss pro-life women, is very revealing about their psychology.”
It’s revealing, but you don’t reveal it, because you don’t know what it is. Maybe they just underestimate the number of anti-choice women? Get back to the topic. You were talking about the wonders of definitions to solve the whole issue. If you were on to something, why are you diverting the subject to ACB’s character?
(Hasan’s quote): “Is it a race issue? Possibly. In the US, more Black babies/foetuses are aborted as a proportion of their population compared to White babies.”
I have looked for that statistic before, and I remember I couldn’t find it. Care to back that up with valid, reputable source?
(Hasan’s quote): “If the right to choose abortion is still advocated where these babies/foetuses would be affected, then it is clear that not all Black lives matter.”
That’s an ironic argument, and not only because fetuses in the womb have transparent skin! (That’s just a fun fact but it puts egg on your face.) “Black lives matter” is also irrelevant, since a fetus isn’t a black person or a white person until it’s a person, i.e. born. In other words, it’s only a baby after it’s a baby. There is no such thing as an “unborn baby.”
Another irony: whites often cite abortion as genocide against them. In fact, white supremacist cite it as a central issue. You’ll have to hold a anti-choicers conference to decide which race is the victim.
Here’s a telling fact: The percent of the US population that was African-American in 1970 was 13%. Today it’s still 13%. Note that the US population grew by 110 million in that time period. The black population has grown at exactly the same rate as whites. That’s some really under-motivated genocide when you can’t tell who’s the persecutor and who’s the victim.
(Hasan’s quote): “That date was the one-year anniversary of the killing of George Floyd. I did invite her to consider changing the slogan of ‘Black Lives Matter’ to ‘All Black Lives Matter.’”
Again, you’ve gone off the topic, which actually shows you’re under-confident defending your POV about abortion, but you’re at home complaining about liberals. How even-handed. Or underhanded.
“Black Lives Matter” is a political slogan. Those tend to oversimplify issues. They don’t stand up well in argument because that’s not their purpose. (Example: “Life begins at conception.”) I know people in BLM. They agree 100% that all lives matter. Their point is that principle is frequently disregarded for Black lives, so people need the reminder. I’ll answer your accusation of hypocrisy about BLM: black women are the ones making the decision to abort. Are you saying they’re not as competent as white women in making that decision? Or that white people are able to easily manipulate them into choosing to abort? That insults black women.
(Hasan’s quote): “Most of these millions will become workers, some will become managers and directors of companies.”
That’s also speculative. Except for the ones who are unemployable and destitute, criminals, or dead. Unwanted children become adults with higher rates of all of those. Or they might become members of a fascist police force. Conservatives don’t intend provide any resources to raise them.
(Hasan’s quote): “A woman’s right can only be made whole if unborn girls are born and have the chance to become women.”
What do you mean by “made whole”? That phrase doesn’t mean anything. It just sounds high-minded. You’re saying women’s rights are only supportable if they’re willing to create more women? Are men’s rights contingent on their creating more men? Why are only women’s rights held to that standard? I don’t think a political theory of rights is based on generous fecundity. I’m trying to imagine the look on Thomas Jefferson’s and Thomas Paine’s faces if they somehow hear your argument.
(Hasan’s quote): “Those of us who …pontificate about human rights, do so from a position of privilege. The privilege of life.”
Except only existing people can be accorded privilege after they exist. “Life” is not a privilege, though it is the first requirement of privilege. But they’re not comparable in the least. Look, if someone is not there, not present, you can’t treat them like they are. Furthermore, when you become a parent, you’re not promoting children from nonexistence into life. “Not there” means not there, even when it’s followed by “yet.”
Winding up: “Pontificating” is an insulting term for what we’re doing, and if that’s the way you see it, I don’t want to do it with you anymore. Of course, you might mean you’re expounding and I’m pontificating, because you’re the privileged one. Yes, I think that’s what you mean.
Look, I don’t care if there are zero abortions per year in this country, or ten million. As long as pregnant women make a choice about each and every one of them. You won’t believe me, but I have no hidden agenda to kill blacks or kill whites, no malice toward children, no drive to kill fetuses. Neither do other pro-choicers. That’s why it’s called pro-choice rather than pro-abortion.
You’ve written exactly the tripe I thought you would, and I’m done answering. It’s not worth any more of my time. An “open discussion” about abortion to you is way to make complaints about liberals. We’re so hypocritical! How can we say “black lives” matter and not want to force black women to give birth? We’re so mean to ACB, just because she’s a demonstrated liar under oath! I’m done with you.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Short Reply from Hasan (22nd November 2022)
Many thanks Charles for taking the time for a thoughtful response. Some of the questions you posed or comments you made had been answered later in my previous reply. I think you started to reply to me after one point before moving to the next point and so on. I think if you read the whole response in totality before responding, you would have seen that I did already respond to some of the points you repeated in your latest reply.
Sorry if you felt angry and pressured to answer. I was not applying pressure, I just wanted to make sure you were able to access my reply because the comments section can be easily lost and I lose track of my comments I made on other posts. Whether you reply or not is entirely up to you. I did not have your email address originally, which is why I put up the reply in my article. Now that we have each other’s email address, it is easier to communicate back and forth. And of course, I will put up your entire reply to me in my dialogue (without editing)…why wouldn’t I? As you would see from my other posts and books I have written, I always seek positive engagement with those who have different views from me. That’s how we can learn from each other. We can always agree to disagree. But on the topic of abortion (and other topics), there has been too much polarisation and intolerance, especially in America. I am sure common ground can be found, and I mentioned this towards the end of my previous reply.
Yes, my answers tend to be long because I read every single argument and understand every single idea…of which there are many. Hence, my replies would address most of those myriad of ideas and arguments. I only came across you recently and I was very interested to read all of your articles and really understand where you and fellow prochoicers were coming from. So, I gave you the courtesy to understand your views and reply to all of them.
I hope we can continue the dialogue. It would be a shame if we ended it. People on either side of the aisle would benefit from it.
Thanks and keep well.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Final Reply from Charles (22nd November 2022)
Despite what Greek philosophers claimed, argument doesn’t persuade anybody. This has been confirmed by science. Don’t contact me again.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
Hasan’s Detailed Reply to Charles’s Response (26th November 2022)
Okay, this is awkward. I wasn’t expecting this response. Charles has requested for me not to contact him again. Nevertheless, I will still write a reply here for the benefit of other readers who take an interest in abortion, whether you are prolife or prochoice. But I am hoping in the off chance he may still read my reply here, so I will address my response to him. Having read all of his articles and responses, I think I understand why his last reply took the direction it did, but I will keep that to myself for now.
Thanks again Charles for your replies. I was not expecting the way you responded in your last two replies, but I appreciate the effort you took to start addressing some of my points. I think I know the reason why our peaceful and respectful conversation got derailed, but I will share this with you privately if we do reconnect. However, your unfortunate response is reflective of the toxic political culture that America has cultivated where there is a growing chasm between Conservatives and Liberals/Progressives. They cannot tolerate each other, and reaching across the bridge seems to be an impossibility because it is filled with mines. A distasteful sad state of affairs indeed. And this from a nation that is meant to be the best country in the world and a leading light to other nations? An injection of British diplomacy clearly failed to elevate the level of our discussion and dialogue. I will need to review your counterpoints thoroughly to see where my line of communication broke down. But I have been very respectful and not aggressive in any sense of the word.
In the meantime, the responses to your points are as follows:
1. Agreed. Gender and abortion are unrelated. At least you and I agree that both men and women have the right to convey their opinions. There are men who are prochoice and women who are prolife. Hence, abortion is not a gender issue. You and I have made the same points repeatedly. So, no further discussion needed.
2. Dictating terms and coercion. When I stated that I did not agree with the terminologies that prochoicers use to defend abortion, I was not dictating nor coercing nor accusing you of insincerity and guile. I was merely stating why I disagreed with these terms, and went into detail to explain why. People who have different opinions should be able to express them in a respectful manner and explore the discussion further instead of curtailing it with an accusation of coercion. When prochoicers insist on using certain terminologies during discussions or debates, I don’t accuse them of coercion, I just state my disagreement giving reasons. This is what debate is about. We do not live in a dystopian Orwellian society where only one set of beliefs, values ad opinions reign supreme. That is mob rule or rule by a big brother state.
3. Definition of prochoice. You have defended your use of the term ‘prochoice.’ I clearly stated that this is an incomplete statement and that pro-choice-for-abortion is more accurate. It is the choice for abortion that is the pinch point, not the choice for life. But I, too, use the term ‘prochoice’ and I clarify this as the short from of choice for abortion. Can we agree on this? Further on you stated that I am anti-choice. Yes, I am anti-choice-for-abortion, or anti-abortion (which you rightly concluded); which is equivalent to pro-life. I am not anti-contraception. No problems using them within the confines of marriage.
4. Justifying abortions for unusual reasons. You indicated that the majority of the 1 billion babies/foetuses that have been killed via abortion since 1973, would have been parented badly. It is amazing that the assumption of potential of bad parenting would justify killing of 1 billion human beings. Glad you can sleep at night. Every individual who is born and grows up will have challenges during their lives; in some cases, it may be bad parenting, in other cases it may be disability and in other cases it may be redundancies or financial and health challenges. We would not advocate killing someone if they face such challenges. Yet, you make an exception for the choice of killing inside the womb in the off chance that they could have bad parents after they are born? In your essays one argument you used was that prolifers conflated future born babies with the present unborn/pre-born foetuses. I don’t agree with this analysis, and I dealt with the baby-foetus terminologies in great detail which you probably did not read because you were too angry to continue reading the rest of my response. But in our example of justification for abortion because of a potential future scenario of bad parenting, you have done exactly what you have criticised prolifers for, i.e. conflating an unlikely future of the born baby with the present-day foetus.
You said you were neutral on abortion because you didn’t mind if there were millions of abortions or millions of births, as long as choice was involved. The choice to kill is something unthinkable when referring to born babies and children. The choice argument does not work here even though some parents to kill their born children. Killing the baby inside the womb should also be unthinkable. Hence, the choice element would be moot. This is the main thrust of the argument I am making. I took the time to elaborate my thesis as to why the foetus is a pre-born baby with its full humanity intact. Once the unborn baby is humansied, then it will become difficult for prochoicers to justify killing it. Regardless of this, abortion still presents a dilemma and tough decision-making precisely because of the implication it has on the human being inside the womb. That is why I said that there is a crude criteria that is used to relegate a baby to a status of a human or non-human/non-person/non-conscious. When it is wanted, it is a baby. When it is not wanted, it is a foetus.
5. If foetuses have rights, then everyone else doesn’t? Wrong. This is not the profile position. If foetuses/unborn babies have rights, then their rights become equalised to everyone else’s, i.e. EVERYONE has rights. Again, you brought in your analogy of ‘unborn baby = undead corpse’ in your last reply. I did read your views on this and responded to it in great detail further down my previous response, which you did not reach because your anger got the better of you in the early part of my essay. I also dealt with the topic of consciousness in detail as well. You asked a good question, ‘is a seed a tree?’, ‘is an egg a chicken?’. These are incorrect analogies. The seed is not a tree in the same way the sperm is not the embryo/foetus/baby. An egg is not a chicken in the same way a human egg is not the same as the embryo/foetus/baby. But when we have the fusion of the human egg and sperm, then a completely different human blueprint is created. It is a different individual to the egg or the sperm.
Your position on the humanity of the unborn baby/foetus is unclear. You stated that you don’t see the zygote as having the same status as a baby, and then in another article you indicated (you did not state explicitly indirectly) that you may consider a foetus to be an unborn baby after 28 weeks, yet in another article you considered the baby only to have personhood or humanity when it awoke for the first time after birth. At what point do you consider humanity/personhood of the foetus/baby?
You also asserted that in order to designate the foetus as a baby/child/person, we would have to delve into mysticism and speculative religion where God apparently said the Earth was flat. Except that He didn’t. Nowhere in the Bible is there a statement that says the Earth is flat. Isaiah 40:22 states that the Earth is round, and Job 26:7 states that the Earth is suspended over nothing. It is true that the Church once believed in a flat Earth, but there is no biblical basis. Likewise, the Quran 31:29 indicates the spherical nature of the Earth when it describes the night merging into day and the day merging into the night. It also states in 79:30 that the Earth is egg shaped (in Arabic it means the egg of an ostrich, which is not quite spherical because the top and bottom parts are slightly flattened. In the same way the Earth is slightly compressed at the poles). In the Hindu scriptures, the Vedas and Puranas describe the Earth as ‘Bhoogola’ and ‘Khagola’, meaning sphere. I know this is a digression, but I was merely challenging your assertion that God said the Earth was flat. Hence, to use an incorrect understanding of God to attack the prolife position is uncouth.
6. Abortion is healthcare? You did try to argue that full term pregnancy is much riskier than and abortion. And you elaborated on this. I never compared the health risks of pregnancy and abortion. I just questioned how abortion is ‘healthcare’ considering healthcare is about saving lives and improving quality of life. I did state that the physical health of the mother after an abortion is unlikely to change at best, i.e. not better and not worse. I never compared it to a pregnancy. You are, for some reason. I only mentioned pregnancy in the context of a discussion I had with a feminist 30 years ago where she justified abortion as a way to mitigate the pain of childbirth. But this is not an opinion I have come across amongst feminist and prochoice literature. Nevertheless, you expanded on a point I never raised by stating the complications of pregnancy. There are a myriad of complications you mentioned. It is interesting how negative your mindset is on both counts:
1) That the majority of births are risky, i.e. heart attacks, tumours, losing teeth, bleeding to death, toxic shock, gangrene, sepsis etc.
2) You assume that if the 1 billion babies that have been killed in abortions were alive today, many of them would have been badly parented, become criminals, unemployed, destitute or been part of a fascist police force. You and I did not turn out that way, did we?
Can you not see what the prochoice mindset has done? These negative thoughts are needed in order to justify abortions. I mentioned that some of those tens of millions of men and women who will be alive in future because of the decision by the Supreme Court, would be directors, CEOs, managers etc. The reason for stating this is that I was addressing the very business directors, managers and CEOs on Linkedin who condemned the Supreme Court. These businessmen and women would rather support the decision to kill millions of unborn babies, some of whom who would have become their equivalents if they were allowed to be born and grow up. It was something for them to ponder.
7. Knocking religion again. You made another attempt to discredit religion by stating that it must be religion that I have such misplaced confidence in the safety of carrying and delivering. As mentioned above, I never discussed the safety or risk of pregnancy. Religion does not assume that pregnancies and deliveries are always safe and comfortable. In the Islamic religion, the pain and sacrifice that a mother goes through during childbirth and subsequent caring for the babies and children, is recognised which is why motherhood has a very high status in Islam, well above fatherhood. The Quran 46:15 acknowledges the pain of childbirth. Likewise in the Bible, Genesis 3:16 also states the pain that the mother goes through during birth.
8. Psychological wellbeing after abortions. You cited some statistics to show that the percentage of guilt post abortion is very low. I will need to verify the statistics. Can you point me to official figures rather than social media? (I know Charles stated he would not engage with me any further, so this invitation goes out to other prochoice advocates). But what is certain is the dilemma that all women will go through when considering an abortion because of its implication on the growing life inside the womb.
9. Men’s responsibility. You repeated something that I had already responded too, but you probably missed it because you got fed up of reading the rest of my response. I commended you for being responsible and not get a woman pregnant. By exercising responsibility, not getting a woman pregnant is better than getting her pregnant by accident and her having an abortion. This is where I invited you and other prochoice readers to ponder. Why is not getting pregnant a better option than having an abortion? Like prolifers, prochoicers do want to see reductions in abortions, not an increase. And I dealt with this issue in detail.
10. Judge Amy Coney Barrett and prolife women. You took me to task for defending Barrett. You said that she lied and that she deserved the turgid abuse she received. NO WOMAN should receive verbal abuse regardless of their political differences. Calling her a Christofacist, White Supremacist who possesses a clown car vagina is not exactly the pinnacle of cultural refinement. I cited her as an example of a prolife woman, and there are many prolife women (which you and I agree on). I was pointing out that feminists have a very dim view of prolife women because of the perception that they are subservient to their patriarchal husbands and religion. The fact that women can have different views and even prolife and religious views, is something that feminists cannot process. They are degrading women by assuming that all women should think like them, especially on the issue of abortion.
Just as I had an issue with verbal abuse against Barrett from the Left, I would also condemn compatriots on the Right for hurling insults to Hilary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, AOC etc. But I guess hurling insults in a highly polarised, neurotic political environment is the American thing.
I am not fully in tune with your claim that Barrett lied under oath. I would need to look into this further.
11. ALL Black Lives Matter. I called out BLM protesters who marched in support of BLM. I agree with the slogan and I support the principle of BLM. I stated that 90% of those who protested in favour of BLM would walk away and return home if we were to include ALL Black lives, i.e. black babies to be allowed to be born rather than be killed inside the womb. You countered by stating that it’s not really a Black baby inside because it is not a baby until it is born and a fun fact you drew my attention to (that apparently puts egg on my face), is that its skin is transparent inside the womb. Actually, another fun fact is that the skin and rest of the baby would be black because there is no light inside the womb. I have eaten the egg that was on my face, and it was very tasty. I wrote a detailed reply to the terminology issue, i.e. baby, foetus, unborn, undead corpse etc. You missed that section. You also highlighted the fact that it is Black mothers who choose to abort and that I did not recognise this fact. My point is that the decision to abort is the unfortunate decision, regardless of whether the mother is Black or White. Like their White counterparts, there are Black women who are stanchly prolife.
I highlighted the contradiction among the BLM protesters who marched for Black lives but would not recognise the lives of pre-born babies of Black parents and would be okay with their killing if the decision has been made to abort. This means that NOT ALL Black lives matter. This is a major contradiction their thinking.
12. Women’s rights made whole. You responded to my argument where I stated that a woman’s rights can only be made whole if the unborn girls have the right to be born and become women. This was as clear as daylight, but you flipped the argument around. You believe I meant that a woman’s right can only be made whole if women create more women, thus forcing them to produce more baby girls. Your interpretation was unwarranted. I did not say that women must create more women. I said that a woman’s right would be fully recognised if they have the chance to be women in the first place, which means the right to be born and grow to become a woman. If we assume that 50% of the 1 billion babies that have been killed globally through abortion since 1973, are girls, then it means that 500 million babies were not allowed to be born and become women. We have 500 million less women in the world today because they were killed in the womb when they were unborn babies/foetuses. Where does that leave the women’s rights movement?
You also stated you are trying to imagine the look on the faces of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine when they hear my arguments. I would be willing to know how Thomas Paine would react. But Thomas Jefferson owned around 600 slaves in his lifetime. So, pardon me if I borrow a quote from my own narcissistic self , ‘I don’t f******g care what Thomas Jefferson thinks.’
13. Pontificating about the privilege of life. When I used the word ‘pontification,’ it wasn’t directed at you only. It was directed at myself and everyone else who is privileged to be alive today, thanks to our mothers. We have the privilege of debating, discussing, working, eating, having sex (responsibly obviously), watching movies etc. that has been denied to hundreds on millions of other human beings. Actually, let me correct myself. Life is not a privilege, it is a right. You also said that I talk about someone as if they were there but are not. I am not sure what you meant by this, but if you are referring to me discussing the unborn babies/foetuses that were killed and implying that I am treating them as if they are here when they are not, well, you are partly correct. I don’t treat the 1 billion babies who were killed in the womb as if they are here. They are not here precisely because they are dead. They did exist, and now they don’t. I am not equating the past with the present, in the same way I am not equating the future with the present (which you stated a couple of times in your other articles). Not only do you deny the humanity and personhood of the unborn babies/foetuses, you devoid them of any dignity by not recognising their existence pre-abortion.
14. The charge of passive-aggressive behaviour. You stated that I exhibited passive-aggressive behaviour in my previous response. I am not sure if it was specifically related to my comments on Amy Coney Barrett or generally throughout my writings. According to psychotherapists, there are at least seven signs of passive-aggressive behaviour. Stonewalling, sarcasm, pretending to agree, deflection, silent sabotage, intentionally failing to follow through and making excuses. I don’t think I have met any of the criteria listed. But please do point out how I have displayed this dysfunctional behaviour and I will apologise. More importantly, let us all apologise to a billion unborn babies who were the victims of destructive-aggressive behaviours.
15. Calling out fellow prolifers and Conservatives for hypocrisy. You were right to point out that some prolife women have had abortions. I was going to mention this in my previous reply but left it as my response was already quite long. So, I am glad you raised it. Just I have and continue to engage with friends from the Left or politics, feminists and prochoicers, I do not hesitate to issue challenges to my fellow Conservative compatriots. I mentioned this in my first essay. I have issued a challenge to the well-known Conservative anti-vaxxer doctor, Dr. Simone Gold, and her compatriots to engage in dialogue and debate with me regarding Covid vaccines. I support the vaccine programmes that Governments around the world had implemented but anti-vaxxers (who are mostly Conservatives) have engaged in conspiracy theories ranging from safety of the vaccines to a mass depopulation programme. I have yet to get a reply. I do not shy away from debate with anyone regardless of their political or religious affiliation. I have also called out the American Conservatives’ addiction to guns.
In terms of abortion, I recall a TED Talk given by an ex-Evangelical Christian, Asha Dahya. She said that after she left the church in Los Angeles, she would receive private messages from some prolife Christian women that they had abortions from the every clinics they protested against. This is a massive cognitive dissonance within these minority of prolife religious women. What goes through their minds is the embarrassment of the sin they committed that led to the pregnancy, outweighs the sin of killing the unborn baby. Why would they think that? Because of the stigma they could receive from their churches, which would be too heavy a burden to carry. All I can say to this issue is that the Christian churches, Muslim mosques, Hindu mandirs, Sikh gurdwaras, Jewish synagogues, Buddhist viharas etc. must do more to help these women who find themselves pregnant by accident or through a method that is contrary to their religious teachings, without judging them. When the environment is right, then these women would be more comfortable to have the babies than to kill them for fear of rebuke from these religious institutions and communities they belong to.
16. Prolife and prochoice convergence. You stated that you have no hidden agenda to kill foetuses. I agree, and I discussed this in my final point in my response where prochoice and prolife communities can find common ground. Again, you did not read this section. I know that prochoice advocates want to see less abortions, not more. That would be a good starting point for better dialogue and debate between the two camps.
Conclusion
As our friend Charles has disengaged from our dialogue we were having. Whenever I discussed abortion with feminists over the last 30 years, the conversations have always been pleasant and respectful. It is unfortunate that the fallout here was with a dude! So, the invitation goes out to prominent, vocal feminist influencers to engage in positive debate on abortion. I am sure it can happen.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
C) Ossiana (prochoice and a feminist influencer)
- My Invitation to Ossiana (27th November 2022)
Hi Ossiana. I read your article with interest. It would be great to have a dialogue in the context of abortion. Your recent article on Right wing’s recruitment of women feeds in nicely on the topic of abortion and how feminists view pro-life and religious women. I have had some dialogue with pro-choice advocates and these are captured in my appended article (link below). I would be grateful for your thoughts on the article and subsequent dialogue I had with pro-choicers. It is hoped we can continue the dialogue. I am a guy, pro-life, Muslim and British-Bangladeshi. You can be assured that the conversations will be civil unlike the polarised politics I see in the US. I have had civil and polite discussions on abortion with feminists over the last 30 years, I never had problems, until a few days ago where a pro-choice advocate got very angry with me…and he is a guy. You will see how the discussions unfold. But I look forward to our engagement if interested. Thanks.
2. Reply from Ossiana (27th November 2022)
Here’s the thing. I’m fine with others choosing not to have abortions. I’m not fine with them choosing for ME.
3. My Reply to Ossiana (27th November 2022)
Many thanks for your reply. I do address this point, women’s body — women’s choice, in detail in my article and subsequent dialogue. Would be grateful for your thoughts and I am sure this will move the discussion forward towards some form of convergence (which I also address) rather than the yawning chasm of polarisation and political neurosis that has plagued America.
As a Conservative who has stood for Parliament in the UK, I do engage with people from a variety of backgrounds holding diverse opinions, including those who describe themselves as Left leaning, Liberals and Progressives.
Hope we can interact. I think both sides of the debate would benefit from our discussion. Thanks.
4. Reply from Ossiana (27th November 2022)
There is no dialogue. Either people allow women to make the choice to have abortions and contraception, or they don’t. If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one and don’t fuck women who are pro-choice. If you don’t like contraception, bareback a woman who refuses to use contraception and roll the dice. Refusing or arguing against even offering the option of an abortion is wrong, full stop.
5. My Final Reply to Ossiana (27th November 2022)
Many thanks Ossiana for taking the time to reply. It is appreciated. I understand from your last message that we would not progress further in our dialogue, as there is no dialogue to be had. I respect that and will not make any further requests for dialogue or debate.
I deal with the issue of choice at great length in my article and dialogue which addresses your specific point. As we have come to the end of the road here, it is civil that I try to find some form of agreement with one of your positions. Your advice to not engage in sex with pro-choice women and more importantly, without contraception, is a sound one. In fact it corollates nicely with a comment that my previous pro-choice interlocuter (Charles) made, which is that if a woman gets pregnant accidentally, it is the fault of the man 100%. I see great merit in that argument, and your advice is the other side of the same coin. As I have responded to you, you are welcome to have the last word as I know you do not wish to proceed further with our discussion.
On a different note, I was very sad and angry about your ordeal when you were trafficked. The fact that some men whom you trusted to protect you did nothing to help you, and the police weren’t even on the scene, as well as having to engage with a very rude doctor. Here in the UK, the stories of horrific grooming gangs were uncovered and publicised recently. These Asian gangs (mostly Muslim Pakistani origin and some English women) had groomed hundreds of White girls in various cities around the UK over the last 30–40 years. Like your ordeal, many of these girls would be psychologically manipulated, made to feel special despite abuse, and raped. It is a travesty that the girls’ parents were not aware of what was going on, and the police did not intervene earlier. Many councils overlooked these grooming gangs despite knowing what was going on for fear of being labelled as racist.
The grooming gangs, traffickers and rapists deserve nothing less than the death penalty. No ifs, no buts. Unfortunately, many human rights activists will disagree and appeal to ‘rehabilitation’ of these sickos who cannot be rehabilitated.
The issue of exploiting women in the adult industry is something I read with interest in your other article where you mentioned your love-hate relationship with Playboy and what it stood for. I do not agree with some of the things you said in relation to perceived liberation and celebration of women’s bodies. I do recall corresponding with a Playboy model 20 years ago, who modelled in the 1950s. She told me that the modelling she did then was different to the post 1970s Playboy environment, where she lamented the exploitation of models. I will probably comment further in that particular article you wrote rather than use this space here.
It has been a pleasure to engage with you albeit for a short while. All the best and God Speed.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
6. Ossiana’s final reply to me (28th November 2022).
Truth be told, I’m currently waiting on permission from police to write about something. I’m praying I’ll get it as there has been a major impact on my case recently.
I have a feeling that you, particularly as a conservative worried about grooming gangs, will have your jaw drop .
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
D) Alicia (pro-choice advocate)
- Alicia’s Response to a comment I made to another pro-choice article — 24th December 2022
(Quoting me) “It is true that the pro-choice side sees the issue as a choice to have the baby or abort it”
Nope — that is not the pro-choice side. Pro-choice is that it is the pregnant person’s choice. Period. It’s about the person’s autonomy. Pro-lifers make it about abortion, taking away the nuance of the medical decisions that must be made when a pregnancy is unsafe or unwanted. It isn’t about a single choice or medical procedure. It is about bodily autonomy and personal choice for the living, breathing person who is directly living it and affected by it both physically and mentally.
2. Response from me — 30th December 2022.
Thanks Alicia for your thoughts. Yes, I agree that the pro-choice side sees the issue solely as the autonomy of the pregnant woman. Autonomy for what? The choice for abortion. The choice for life is not disputed by both camps, it is the choice for abortion that is the disagreement here. The living and breathing pregnant woman has a living human baby/foetus growing inside her. When we talk about physical and mental well-being of the woman, the issue is connected to the well-being of the baby inside. What is the impact of abortion on the physical and mental state on the baby inside? I would be grateful for your feedback on my article and dialogue with pro-choicers where I deal with the issue of bodily autonomy and terminologies in great detail (and some of your other points are already answered there).
3. Response from Alicia — 10th January 2023
You don’t agree that the choice is more than abortion. If you can’t see that sometimes it’s about removing a stillborn at 6 months vs. waiting to deliver, or about bodily autonomy and not abortion, then I have nothing else to say.
4. Response from me — 10th January 2023
Thanks Alicia for the continued engagement. I appreciate your comments. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that ‘choice’ or ‘bodily autonomy’ is not limited to abortion. That it could entail making a choice in the scenario you out forward above, which is either the removal of a stillborn before delivery or waiting to deliver. I agree there is an element of choice an autonomy in this scenario. There would be no argument from pro-life advocates such as myself as the baby is already dead. It was not intentionally killed. I could also expand on your scenario and state that the mother could also have the choice and bodily autonomy to have her baby through natural birth or through C-section. There would be no disagreement here either because the baby is born and not killed. I made a comment in my original article that when it comes to ‘choice’ there is no difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers when the choice has been made by the mother to have the baby. It is the choice for abortion which is the pinch point because of the action of killing the human baby/foetus which is defenceless inside the womb and with zero bodily autonomy. Other choices you mentioned which is unrelated to abortion, I agree with your argument. I have written at great length an appended article on abortion, which includes dialogues with pro-choice advocates. I would be grateful for your insights on where you agree and disagree with my analysis (which does touch on a few things you mentioned).
5. Response from Alicia pending…
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
E) Dialogue with Mr. Salvatore (pro-choice)
- Salvatore’s Response to me — 3rd December 2022
(Quoting me, “I think pro-choicers would prefer that you were aborted”. Note, I made this comment in response to another article where the female author (Chiola) said she was supposed to be aborted but her mother was forced to have her. She still felt that women should have the right to choose to abort.’
This is exactly the kind of thinking that divides us. Your assumption is that pro-choice is pro-abortion. It is not.
Abortion is a difficult decision for anyone. It is a personal decision that should not be left to anyone but the person(s) involved, Certainly, not yours or the governments.
2. My Response to Salvatore — 4th December 2022
Thanks Salvatore for your comments. It is true that the pro-choice side sees the issue as a choice to have the baby or abort it. I deal with this issue in my article (and explain why pro-abortion is the more fitting terminology), as well as other things you said, ie abortion being a difficult decision and that the decision should be made only by the person (s) involved. It would be interesting to get your feedback on the article which includes the dialogues I have been having with pro-choicers.
The statement I made where I thought the pro-choicers would have preferred for Cholia to be aborted is based on the fact that her mother was trying to obtain an abortion. Hence, the decision was made to abort, but destiny had a different path for Cholia. Pro-choicers would fully support the mother who had made the decision to abort her, hence, their thinking would be to support the mother to have access to the abortion. In other words, when the pro-choice logic is followed to its conclusion, they would have preferred that the mother’s wishes were fulfilled, that Cholia should have been killed through abortion. They are restricted by the mothers’s choice for abortion. But given that Cholia was born and has grown up, I and other pro-lifers are glad she is alive and contributing to society. She should never have felt unwanted. How would pro-choicers deal with this given the restricted thinking I mentioned above? It would be a dilemma for them to process.
I welcome your thoughts. I have discussed and debated abortion with feminists for three decades and they have always been cordial. The only fallout I had was with a dude last week! You will see our dialogue in my article (web address is in the previous comment).
3. Response from Salvatore pending…
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Disclaimer: The views expressed are mine only and do not belong to the company I work for or the political party I belong to.
Author Biography
Hasan Ali Imam was born in Bangladesh in 1972 and brought up in the UK. He has engaged in respectful debate and dialogue with those which disagree with him, which culminated in his candidacy for the British Parliament in 2005. He continues to be involved with the UK Conservative Party in his spare time whilst working for a multinational corporation. Hasan has also been involved with the UK Government’s PREVENT counter terrorism strategy as a trainer to public servants on how to prevent young people from venturing into extremism. He also draws on his own experience of attempted recruitment by extremist groups in the 1990s. Hasan has authored three books.
Firstly, ‘United States of Anger — Why Linda Sarsour’s Rage and Far Left Violence Cannot Move Mountains.’ This book is a response to Linda Sarsour (an American Palestinian Socialist activist), and her far left compatriots who supported the violence and rampage that took hold in the US after the tragic killing of George Floyd.
Secondly, ‘BAME — Breaking Through Barriers.’ This book deals with the race space in the UK. It responds to critics who state that ethnic minorities have not progressed due to institutional racism. He tackles the issue head on and invites critics to dialogue and debate. This book was praised by the British Government.
Thirdly, ‘Aisha and Fatima — Ladies of Heavan. A Sunni Response to Shiaism.’ This is specific to the main Islamic sects of Sunni and Shia. The book captures dialogues that Hasan (a Sunni) had with Shia Muslims over the last 20 years.
A fourth book project is under way for publication in 2023, entitled, ‘Why the Far Right are Far Wrong.’ Yes, you guessed it. It includes responses to the Far Right and dialogue with some of its members.
Hasan has also written an article on ‘Medium.com’ to challenge the anti-vaccine narrative from his own Conservative side, including Dr. Simone Gold in the US, and has invited dialogue and debate with anti-vaxxers. He has also engaged in dialogue with and Israeli Jew and an anti-Israeli Muslim on the State of Israel and the importance of Jews, Christians and Muslims to unite under the Abrahamic brotherhood.
