Face of a 20 weeks old unborn baby. pic.twitter.com/UL9Vk3k8Cd— Sachin Jose (@Sachinettiyil) September 5, 2021
The rant starts by saying that Republicans are equivalent to the Taliban. That is very bizarre, given the fact that the Progressives and the Taliban have the same relationship to the freedom of speech, other individual freedoms, genuinely capitalist economy, and almost every other pillar of the Western civilization. And the U.S. government that Aaronson has voted for just gave almost $100 billion worth of modern weapons to the Taliban for free. The gift was a part of the most spectacular surrender in the U.S. history.
While Ann Coulter has correctly observed that Biden's withdrawal could be described as "heroic" from the viewpoint of the conservatives while Trump has only promised the withdrawal and chose the cowardly surrender to the interventionists, she is completely wrong when she suggests that Biden has actually displayed courage. He has displayed an even greater cowardliness because his decision was imposed on him by forces that are anti-West, partly pro-Islam, and that dominate the Democratic Party today. She is just wrong to view Biden as a guy who tries to answer some internal disagreements between the U.S. conservatives. He is playing a completely different game today and the stakes are much higher – not just some disagreements among Republicans.
But let's discuss the main topic, the legality and morality of abortions. In Texas, they sensibly banned abortions that would occur more than 6 weeks after the relevant intercourse (the sperm actually fertilizes the egg just some 24 hours after the contact). This timing is numerically explicit but it is meant to be equivalent to the "first heartbeat" arguments. Some ultrasound technology may already discover a heartbeat 3-4 weeks after the fertilization; but between the age of 5 and 6 weeks, the heartbeat becomes unambiguous. The age of 6 weeks is before most people talk about the transition from an embryo to a fetus, an unborn child (age of 9-10 weeks). While the transition is continuous, a fetus should already display individual organs.
As you know, my support for the actual hardcore Christian belief is symbolic or political. So the arguments that I actually use are scientific in character. Now, a key point to realize is that the birth is not an extraordinary moment in the evolution of the embryo or the child, just like the transition from an embryo to a fetus isn't. The event is not too different from a change of its home. At some moment, the being is moved from the mother's caverns to a greater room; later, he may move from a village to a city. It's not much different.
The following issue is "why we have a problem with abortions or murders in general". Well, for the baby that is already out, it's obvious. To terminate its life against its will is a murder. One may argue that the murder of a baby or a child is worse than the murder of a senior because the latter has already enjoyed his or her life and only a smaller part was left. The murder of a baby or a child is premature and robs the victim of the life, the right to live a significant amount of time.
Civilized societies protect life and criminalize murder because they believe that life is better than death (or the absence of lives). Needless to say, the postmodern leftists have gotten so much more insane than all the previous extremists in the history of mankind that even this utterly uncontroversial statement has become controversial in some corners, the corners of Gr@tins and similar "thinkers" that are openly thinking about the depopulation or the removal of humans.
OK, the murder is clearly one of the most serious crimes. The culprit does the ultimate harm to the victim. The societies generally punish the culprits because the survivors want to discourage others from doing the same. By discouraging them, each potential future victim is protecting his or her own life which is common sense. People's own survival instinct may be said to be the main reason behind anti-murder laws, too. Beings and societies without this survival instinct have generally gone extinct; that is why it is "right" to have a survival instinct and to punish murders. OK, a murder may earn you decades in the jail and nominally, it is equivalent to millions of dollars. Needless to say, it is not enough to pay a specific number of millions of dollars and escape any further punishment. Societies agree that this rule would be no good because very rich people would be incentivized to murder lots of others.
Great. If you agree that nothing spectacularly qualitative is changing at the moment of the birth, it's obvious that abortion that would occur shortly before the scheduled birth is extremely similar to the murder of a baby. The fetus (or even embryo) uses the mother's resources but this is happening spontaneously, with no active role played by the mother. The embryo or a fetus may be considered a parasite of a form. On one hand, it is an extremely vulnerable parasite because if the mother decides to end the embryo's or fetus' life, she has a clear geometric advantage and methods to do so. On the other hand, the embryo almost never dies spontaneously and almost all embryos or fetuses that die require an intentional act by the mother.
A leftist recently told me that the mother has the right to destroy the embryo or the fetus because it's sucking the mother's blood and other liquids, causes some inconvenience in the mother's movements. I was genuinely shocked and angry after I heard this would-be argumentation. Indeed, the mother is giving some resources to the child (that, decent people agree, should normally be loved by the mother and Nature has programmed it in this way through the billions of years of evolution). But can we please compare the two sides? The fetus or embryo is reducing the mother's ability to work for 9 months so that harm is equivalent to a one-year income or so, let's say $50,000. It also requires some extra food and energy, something like 3.5 kilograms of biomass (extra $100 or so which includes the price of the blood).
On the other hand, the mother that undergoes abortion is destroying someone else's whole life! That is equivalent to 80+ years of life and the millions of dollars or another huge amount that the insurance companies assign to one life. Clearly, these two things are not comparable at all. I think that a person who is ready to say that the violent termination of someone's life is comparable to a few milliliters of milk or blood is a nasty evil jerk, a monster. Of course, the resources that the mother gives to the embryo are negligible relatively to the value later quoted by the adult who was lucky to escape the abortion. Equally importantly, as I already mentioned, Nature treats the "permission by the mother for the embryo or fetus to suck the blood" to be the default scenario. All societies that have survived consider it the default scenario, the right events that occur when no humans decided to do anything special, otherwise they would have been extinct! On the contrary, it is any hostile intervention by the mother that should be consider an extra act, a criminal act.
Great. I have previously mentioned that the embryo and then the fetus is continuously evolving from the moment of fertilization to the birth and then to the death of the human being. The amount of life or personality or feelings is arguably changing rather continuously during that time, towards the values carried by a human being who lives outside placentae. Because a murder is a violent termination of someone's life without his or her permission, it is obvious from the previous two principles that an abortion is a finite fraction of a murder, as the title leaked. What remains to be decided is the curve that determines the fraction towards "one" (meaning the murder of a newborn or a baby).
Well, the Texan fines for the cooperation on an abortion start at $10,000. Because the human life can't be considered to be less precious than one million dollars, this amount of $10,000 actually corresponds to the statement that "the 6-week-old or older embryo actually carries just about 1% of the feelings or personhood of someone who is already alive and living outside any placentae". I think that the fraction 1% is extremely small, relatively to what I would feel to be right. Note that if the curve were linear, we would have to appreciate that 6 weeks is about 1/7 of the 40 weeks, the duration of a pregnancy, so the corresponding jail terms should be about 1/7 of those for a murder, too.
It has become normal to dismiss the values of fetuses and embryos so most people who are currently alive explicitly or implicitly choose an accelerating function, one that is very close to zero for a big part of the pregnancy before it quickly grows to the value of "one" associated with the moment of the birth. It is important to realize that there is no God-given value or shape of this whole function. The severity of abortion as a crime; and this whole function of the embryo as a function of its age is a subjective opinion or a societal convention. However, the choices have consequences and we may observe (and predict) what happens with a society with one kind of abortion laws or another kid of abortion laws, one choice of the personhood function or another.
The accelerating function may perhaps be justified by references to "how much the embryo feels" and "how much it can think". OK, I think that even this embryo is in many ways smarter and more sensitive than adult animals that cannot be killed without consequences because of the animal cruelty laws. I would probably find the linear function from the fertilization to the birth to be rather sensible. But in fact, I would go further.
I think that as soon as an egg is fertilized, the deliberate end of the fertilized egg is a problem. Before I explain why, let me start with this far left pro-abortion pseudoargument that I have heard from a homosexual ex-colleague who had a crush on me during a lunch; and from a female ex-student who had a crush on me during a hike (can you find an overlap?). I think that it is no coincidence that I have heard it twice, from seemingly independent folks, it is probably a part of the standard pro-abortion propaganda:
When you ejaculate and the stuff contains roughly 1 million sperms and they don't end up as lively children [I don't remember whether their comments about napkins or cups were the same LOL], you have commited the equivalent of 1 million abortions i.e. 1 million murders.OK, back in the Harvard Law School dining hall, I proved my professional credentials and didn't throw up. In fact, I acted as if everything were OK although I needed to fight against the desire of my stomach to vomit for a while. I hope that you are not having a meal right now. Sorry if you are! OK, is this argument right? No. Why?
- A sperm is a cell in my body that contains no other genetic information than my own (one-half of my DNA, a sperm is a haploid cell); the same applies to an unfertilized egg. Only when an egg and a sperm merge, they create a new genetic information by producing lots of the new bits of information (from deciding which parts of the DNA are taken from the sperm, which are taken from the egg). Only when they merge, a new identity is created.
- It is utterly normal and the "default scenario" that most unfertilized eggs and an even greater percentage of the sperm quickly end their "life" so the fact that "a sperm isn't producing a baby" isn't a consequence of a man's nontrivial decision or act. It's what happens most of the time. This death rate is particularly high for sperms that are (still) numerous and that face an immense competition in their efforts to produce a fertilized egg.
On the other hand, when an egg is fertilized, a DNA already exists with a pre-programmed new experiment. The DNA already contains a great majority of the information about the appearance of the person when he will be a kid, when he will be an adult. Just think about the twins that you know. They are really the same, aren't they? Erik Verlinde has to sport a moustache for me to distinguish him from Herman Verlinde (and I needed to invent the mnemotechnical slogan ERIK-KnÍREK, too). This proves that much of the structural information is there from the beginning. If you think about it, it is there from the moment of the fertilization of the mother's egg.
For this reason, I consider the intentional end of a fetus' or embryo's life morally problematic since the very moment of fertilization and it would be the case even if I knew that the embryo had no "feelings". I think it is not primarily about the feelings. Feelings are just a useful biological process that direct an animal or a human in the desirable direction when they work. But the life and the "right to try a project" is more important than feelings.
Needless to say, the extreme leftists of the current postmodern era would probably explicitly disagree even with this seemingly obvious assertion that a human life is more important than feelings. For these spoiled brats, feelings are more important than other people's human lives. They are ready to perform an abortion or execute an adult if their (pathological) feelings are at stake!
Finally, I want to discuss exceptions. Of course I understand that many prospective mothers may succeed in getting exceptions (incest and rape are not considered exceptions in Texas now). I would not fanatically fight against every exception. Of course, I have a greater compassion when the would-be mother has to face some extra trouble or risks. (Again, a small risk of health problems or death is less important or less valuable than the guaranteed death of a fetus!) As you know, I wouldn't really fanatically fight against abortion in general because I believe that there are other people who feel more strongly about it and who want to dedicate their time and energy to this effort. I am just writing a single blog post (hopefully) coherently explaining why abortions are wrong.
And I think it's just right when Texas doesn't respect the exceptions. Again, to insist that there must be all kinds of exceptions is an extremely left-wing approach to the problem. The lady was raped so surely she must have an unlimited right to perform abortions, right? I don't think so. Why? The basic reason is obvious and it is the following:
If someone has become a victim of a crime (or just a wrongdoing), it doesn't give her or him the right to do harm to other people or commit other criminal acts by herself.
So you just shouldn't ever use your status of a victim to justify your own wrongdoing. Why is this principle desirable and why it's important? Because a society that allows grievances to be forwarded around is unavoidably a society-incubator of criminal acts. Everyone can feel some grievances and if he or she is allowed to screw other people because of these feelings (which may be more justified, less justified, or completely unjustified), then lots of people will do it. If lots of people legally do evil things, the amount of evil acts in the society will unavoidably grow (quasi-exponentially) and that's bad. That's the reason why it's just wrong to link A's crime against B to B's crime against C. C has nothing to do with the crimes done by A even if A is the father of C. The embryo has an empty criminal record and it should be so, for many reasons.
So it's right for the society to punish the criminals responsible for rape and incest, and other things; and to try to compensate their victims. But it is simply wrong to include the "right to do evil things to others, especially third parties" as a part of the compensation package!
Again, I must stress that the typical contemporary extreme leftists would disagree with these, self-evidently correct, assertions – which is another piece of the evidence that the pro-abortion sentiments are indeed a typical leftist deviation. Their ideology is largely about the perceived would-be victims' right to do terrible things. George Floyd can commit violent acts against pregnant women because he is black, BLM may burn, loot, and murder (BLM) because they are black, trans-sexuals may harass everyone because they are underprivileged, and so on. Clearly, once a society starts to encourage the acts and behavior that is counterproductive for its members or for the society as a whole, such a society will deteriorate or collapse.
Another kind of exceptions is fertility clinics and research. Some unfertilized or fertilized eggs may be destroyed there. Abortion apologists say that the legitimacy of these hospitals or research implies that we need to allow abortions, too. But that is completely wrong for two main reasons. First, even the fertility clinics and research that treats embryos as "stuff that can be destroyed" are morally problematic. Second, when a fertility clinic or a researcher do it, it is not the same thing as when a would-be mother aborts its embryo or fetus because she prefers her comfort. Why it's not the same? Simply because the motives matter and must matter. The fertility clinics and embryo research may be allowed because many people have been persuaded that these institutions bring a net advantage to the society. These extra benefits may be a reason why these operations with an embryo are legalized. But a pregnant woman who prefers a comfort is not helping patients to overcome a problem with their reproductive organs; and she is not adding to the medical research. She is just trying to place her comfort above an unborn child's life and she mustn't be allowed to do so because the comparison of the two sides yields an obvious result.
Quite generally, the amount of cruelty and arrogance that the pro-abortion leftists seem to brag about is utterly terrifying. Let me pick a random example from Aaronon's text:
Like, I’m lucky that none of the women in my close family have ever needed an abortion, and that if they did, it would be easy for them to travel out of Texas to get one.So he suggests to deal with the Texan laws by completely circumventing them by traveling outside – and by spitting to Texans' faces. Sorry, it is just unwise for Texans to tolerate the residence of someone like Aaronson and "women in his close family" in Texas. They are basically invasive species who have zero respect for the things that Texas considers its pillars and the cornerstones of their morality. They have no attachment to the place and to the people. But surely, when someone would point out that these people are invasive species that don't belong there, it would hurt their feelings and these arrogant, egotist, and cruel aßholes place their pathological feelings above the well-being of whole proud and successful societies and the survival of other individuals.