Erika Bachiochi and Catholic arguments against abortion's harms

¶ … against Abortion

Abortion is not an acceptable procedure because it harms women, it goes against the will of God, and it takes the life of a human being.

Erika Bachiochi, who writes for Crisis Magazine, a publication of the Catholic News Agency, argues that abortions harm women; that is her main point. The harm is done to women through abortions includes psychological harm, physical harm, and even death, since abortions can lead to suicide. Bachiochi, who has a Masters degree in Theology from Boston College, asserts that a study in the scholarly Journal of Anxiety Disorders found that "…women who aborted their unintended pregnancies were 30% more likely to subsequently report all the symptoms…" of anxiety disorder than women who did not abort their unintended pregnancy (Bachiochi, 2005). Citing another study in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Bachiochi explains that women who had abortions were 17% more likely to report mental health issues than women who carried their pregnancies to full term. Hence, given the reasons that Bachiochi presents in this paragraph, abortion is not just a moral or ethical issue -- it harms women and that is unacceptable.

An essay by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George -- published in Princeton Pro-Life -- asserts that the choice of having an abortion is an "objectively immoral" decision (Lee, et al., 2005). What they mean by objectively immoral does not imply that the woman having the abortion necessarily is immoral -- because she may have a conscience that tells her it is okay -- but what she has done, by objective standards, is immoral, according to the authors. Because a living thing is killed, a moral issue is automatically attached to that killing, the authors explain. Therefore, the fact that a living thing has been destroyed -- no matter the rationalization or justification -- is in itself evidence of an immoral decision.

Lee and George also team up to assert that notwithstanding the pro-choice argument that the embryo is not a human being yet, the embryo "…is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings" and it is "…a complete or whole organism, though immature" (Lee, 2005). That embryo, from the point of conception, is fully programmed through genetics to become a developed child at birth, the essayists argue. Unless there is a disruption in the mother's ability to carry that baby, it will become a person. And consequently, based on this reasoning, the embryo is human and to kill it is to take the life of a human.

"Thou shalt not kill," Peter Kreeft writes in the publication Catholic Education. He declares that abortion is evil and for those individuals claiming to be Christians, they must believe in their faith sufficiently to know that each human is sacred (Kreeft, 2006). In order to make his points, Kreeft attacks the pro-choice position by asking rhetorical questions. Are there humans who aren't really persons? Kreeft asks. If so, who might they be -- Jews? Slaves? African-Americans -- he continues, and thus his argument is based on juxtaposition and simplistic narrative that draws attention no matter its logical basis.

Another Kreeft point is that the zygote may not have a brain but it "…will grow into a brain" because it is fully programmed to do that (Kreeft, 2006). He compares the zygote (the one-celled organism produced when the female egg is fertilized) to the tuliphood of the tulip bulb. Even the eye color and the hair color of the developing fetus are present in the zygote, he states. Hence, the pro-choice position (that the zygote is not a person) is short-sighted.