On November 12, Dr. Tim Johnson, a Protestant minister and the former medical editor at ABC News, published an opinion piece for CBS News in which he promotes what he describes as a “compromise” and a “middle-ground” position on the issue of abortion. It is riddled with logical inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies.
WARNING: Images of abortion victims below.
TRIVIALIZING MURDER
Johnson claims: “Most of us are instinctively anti-abortion. I personally have never met anyone who thinks it is a trivial procedure.”
He apparently has blinders on, because abortion advocates frequently trivialize and even celebrate the homicide of preborn children, likening it to wisdom tooth extraction, or having a cavity repaired. One pro-abortion writer – who has had an abortion herself – even directly contradicted Johnson’s claim, saying abortion is a “social good” and “no big deal.”
Furthermore, to say people are “instinctively” against the direct and intentional killing of a human being in the womb must mean that to choose it goes against our strongest human instincts — a telling admission.
The hand and arm of aborted baby—7 weeks. (Photo courtesy of prolifesociety.com and imagesofabortion.com.)
BIRTH CONTROL – A FAKE “SOLUTION”
Johnson also claims that “If you are anti-abortion, you must also be pro-birth control.” This is not a logical conclusion.
Firstly, contraception fails – often. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that most forms of hormonal contraception have a failure rate of about 7%, and barrier methods can have failure rates as high as 27%. And the Guttmacher Institute has consistently reported that over half of abortion-seeking women were using contraception during the month they became pregnant. Furthermore, some research shows that when contraception becomes widely available, abortion rates actually increase.
Contraception promotes the false idea that people can have unlimited sex without consequences, and attempts to divorce the procreative act from the very thing it is designed to do – create new life. When contraception fails, and people are faced with the natural, biological consequences of sex, many opt to kill the child they created.
A much more logical pro-life position than promoting contraception is to teach, and abide by, a simple truth that should be obvious, but which our culture has attempted to distort and defy: people who are not ready to welcome a child shouldn’t have sex.
FACTS, NOT FEELINGS
Johnson goes on to discuss the “emotional issue of when life begins.” He asks: “When does life in the womb reach a stage when abortion would be more logically thought of as ‘murder’ or ‘evil,’ and therefore prohibited?”
But the “issue of when life begins” is a scientific fact, not some subjective matter to be left up to individual, emotion-based determinations. Medical textbooks and scientific journals have consistently stated that a new life is created at the moment of fertilization. One such textbook, titled The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, states: “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
It logically follows, then, that ending a life in the womb is always homicide and should never be permitted.
Face of a preborn child with feet, hand, rib cage, blood and placenta. Aborted at 21 weeks using the D&E abortion procedure.
MURDER DOES NOT “UNDO” RAPE
But Johnson believes there should be exceptions to this irrefutable reality. “I also vigorously disagree with those who would force a woman to experience the terrible trauma of completing a pregnancy caused by incest or rape,” he states.
In saying this, Johnson would have us believe that capital punishment for an innocent child is a fitting response to the crimes of his or her father. Not only is this illogical, it is immoral. What’s more, many women who obtained abortions after being raped have shared that doing so only compounded their trauma; conversely, countless women who have chosen life after becoming pregnant by rape have expressed no regrets, and have even said that having their children helped them to heal.
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT DETERMINED BY RELIGION
Johnson further suggests: “Under our clear constitutional separation of church and state, [abortion decisions] certainly should not be made by those in power based on their own religious beliefs. We are all entitled to our own religious considerations, but we should not impose them by law on others who may believe very differently.”
But like the rest of his ideas, this argument holds no water.
The moral status of homicide against the preborn is not a religious matter; it is a matter of human rights. The preborn are living human beings, and are therefore owed basic human rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to life. Advocating for this factual position does not necessarily require or reflect religious convictions, as is evidenced by the existence of atheist and secular pro-lifers.
CONCLUSION
In short, Johnson’s so-called “both anti-abortion and pro-choice” position is a disingenuous farce. Such a “compromise” cannot exist, because there is no “middle ground” when it comes to the killing of innocent children. Supporting and/or condoning the killing of the preborn in any circumstances is a position in favor of homicide. And the only truly pro-life position is one that consistently opposes such killing, regardless of circumstances. Killing does not solve human problems; it eradicates humans.
