A Woman’s Right To Choose

A couple of weeks ago, in the U.S.A., on January 22, 2015, the passing of the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade anniversary was marked.  This National case, decided on January 22, 1973, found that a woman possessed the right to choose an abortion as a legal means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

A human pregnancy, despite requiring the participation of a male member of the species to accomplish, is a uniquely feminine condition.  To date, it has only been accomplished by those who are naturally born women.  Despite those male members of the species who believe they were somehow cheated and should have been born a female (a fantastic argument for a God by-the-way – WHO cheated them?  Surely not the evolutionary process.  It has no choice but to follow the laws of physics and the natural sciences.  Ergo, if they were cheated, they must have been cheated by God.  And for that to happen, there must first be a God.) but as usual, I digress.  The point is, we have yet to be able to create a reproductive woman through our own means even with all our science and understanding.  Only women, who have been born as women, have had the trait of being able to become pregnant and bear offspring.

There have been many arguments over the so called “rights” of a person and perhaps those could be debated another time (indeed, I have considered human rights before, just search this blog).  Today I’d rather focus on whether or not a woman should exercise her right to choose when choosing in the affirmative (to terminate a pregnancy with an abortion).  I will pause here to mention once again though, that it continues to amaze me that we, as the human race, continually debate the right of a person, usually without acknowledging where those rights come from.  Specifically WHO granted a woman the RIGHT to an abortion?  It certainly wasn’t me.  I don’t agree with it.  In the case of the U.S.A. it was decided in the highest court of the land.  And that cannot be absolute, because there are people who do not agree with it.  Therefore, without a God, there can be no justice (a point Dr. Ravi Zacharias has made much more eloquently than I).  However, today I simply wish to debate the point as to whether or not a woman should exercise this so called right she has.

If the woman is an Atheist, whether she has an evolutionary theory world view or not (which would be most odd if she did not), she should consider the ramifications of limiting the population pool.  Evolutionary theory, if you are to follow its primary tenant of natural selection, actually needs a wide descendant base.  I quote:

“Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from the observation that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, along with three facts about populations: 1) traits vary among individuals with respect to morphology, physiology, and behaviour (phenotypic variation), 2) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness), and 3) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness).^[8] Thus, in successive generations members of a population are replaced by progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the biophysical environment in which natural selection takes place.”

Ergo, by actually aborting potential offspring, one is actually defeating the evolutionary process.  Even worse than that, evolution needs diversity within its hereditary base.  That is to say the gene pool actually needs diversity within it in order to carry forward.  A shocking 85% of abortions within the U.S.A. are performed because some type of genetic defect has been detected in the unborn child during the pregnancy.  By removing these genetic defects from the gene pool through abortion, we are actually harming the evolutionary process,  And anyone who actually believes we know enough to steer the evolutionary process on our own should talk to an animal breeder.  Before you try and help the human evolutionary process along, consider a purebred animal first.  Again, I quote:

“However, breeding from too small a gene pool, especially direct inbreeding, can lead to the passing on of undesirable characteristics or even a collapse of a breed population due to inbreeding depression. Therefore there is a question, and often heated controversy, as to when or if a breed may need to allow “outside” stock in for the purpose of improving the overall health and vigor of the breed.”

I don’t care how you slice it, under an evolutionary model, abortion is bad, limiting the gene pool, and removing viable stock from the propagation of the species.  So despite the so called right of the Atheistic woman to seek out the termination of a pregnancy through an abortion, she should consider the fact that the human race is slowly headed towards extinction.

And don’t argue with me that a certain number of controlled abortions are OK and will not affect the overall population.  Before you try and bring any such argument to the table, I’d like to know several things (not the least of which is the stats on the number you believe could be sustained given the current birth rate) such as who in the world is the controlling authority?  World wide?  Because there is none, and you cannot possibly show that we are either safe or unsafe given the current stats of countries around the world.

For the Theistic woman, her world view should embrace a God who is the origin of all life.  Given this world view, the Theistic woman could not possibly encompasses any right to terminate a life through an abortion.  Only the God who is the author of that life would hold that right.

And for the Agnostic, it really doesn’t matter because either side you come down on, it ends up being harmful.  It is either harmful to the evolutionary advancement of the species, or it is harmful in your overreach of rights held only by the God who granted life in the first place.

A woman’s right to choose?  You may believe such a right exists, but not all choices are healthy choices.  Every one of us has the right to eat nothing but chocolate for every meal for the rest of our lives.  But if you were to exercise that right, how long do you think you would live?