SL: Whatever your views are, I think abortion is a very a complex situation.
XH: No, abortion is not a complex issue at all. It is an unnecessary evil in our society and, aside from saving the life of the mother, it should be completely abolished. Abortion is merely a symptom of a broken society and we should work towards fixing and improving our world instead of killing off the weakest and most vulnerable members of our family. Modern science has opened our eyes to the horrors of abortion and it is unreasonable for us to continue to live in ignorance.
SL: Well, I think women should be allowed to make their own choices concerning their sexual behaviour, and that necessarily means abortion cannot be abolished entirely. Realistically speaking, a more controlled, balanced approach that allows abortion in certain justifiable circumstances would be more suited for this day and age. For instance, if a nation bans abortion outright, many pregnant women will have no choice but to resort to illegal, unhygienic abortion clinics where the woman’s life will invariably be also put at risk. These present severe ramifications and prevent me from advocating laws that seek to abolish abortion entirely. How can we live in a country that does not allow women to abort their babies whenever they need to? Some of them have good reasons – like they need to keep their jobs and advance their career…
XH: But a procedure that kills one human life and often damages another is not healthcare. That back-alley abortion/coat-hanger argument based on unreliable data put forth in the 1960s when Roe v. Wade was being argued and decided, and has since been debunked. The numbers used by US pro‐abortionists to back their claims are fabrications, mostly made up by the pro‐abortion lobby as admitted by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL. On the contrary, the number of mothers who have died from both legal and illegal, unsafe abortions has increased exponentially after abortion was liberalised. Further, your argument is based on the assumption that babies in the womb are not human and do not deserve protection. Just because some mothers will die in attempting to kill their own babies, the state should not make it safe and legal for them to do so. Incidentally, it turns out that the woman at the centre of the Roe v. Wade controversy, Norma McCorvey, never had an abortion, was never raped (as the lawyers claimed), and is now a pro-life activist.
SL: Okay, that is unexpected… but what is the woman is raped? Not allowing abortion as an option for those women might end up causing more problems in society. Women would not want those babies conceived from rape and will end up treating them badly because they never wanted the child in the first place. Plus, the child will be a painful, constant reminder of the evil man who raped her. You are unfairly imposing your moral standards on this poor woman who just wants to get on with her life and put the past behind her. Every child must feel that it is a wanted child. It is highly likely that all those unwanted children end up suffering from higher levels of bullying, depression and low self-esteem as a result of those feelings of rejection.
XH: So you would advocate killing the baby simply so that her or she will not be bullied by schoolmates when he or she grows up? It is wise to allow the criteria of whether a child feels ‘wanted’ determine the course of our nation’s abortion policies? Aside from that, an overwhelming percentage of mothers choose an abortion due to reasons of convenience and not because of the exceptional cases of rape, incest, etc. Even if all the non-life threatening health issues that are cited by mothers as a reason for abortion are grouped together, the total percentage extremely low [2.8% in the US]. Moreover, there has been an uptick of women, who became pregnant because of rape, coming forward to share their side of the story. Contrary to popular belief, not all of them rushed to the abortion clinic. Many of them kept their babies, while others gave the child up for adoption. Additionally, many of these raped women who elected for an abortion regret their choice. Ultimately, innocent children should not be paying for the crimes of their fathers with their lives – perhaps it would do more good to shift the attention and blame where it rightfully belongs: the rapist.
SL: Out of curiosity, what do you make of Freakonomics author Steven Levitt’s argument in that abortion reduces crime rates, and thus more innocent lives is preserved due to the reduction of homicides?
XH: The same logic can be applied to support the pro-life stance. Abortions have also killed millions of babies who might have grown up to be people of great importance to our world. Recently, US President Obama made a comment about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, saying that the teenager could have been him 35 years ago, but by that logic, Obama himself could well have been an aborted baby if his single mother did not choose to keep him 51 years ago. While Levitt’s arguments are compelling, and it is statistically undeniable that pregnant mothers from lower socio-economic classes do undergo more abortions, that is a very dangerous argument to put forth as it borders on eugenics. It might be true that abortion might have killed a murderer, but it might also have killed a Mozart. And, interestingly enough, Levitt himself stated in an interview that he is now more pro-life after doing all that research on abortions.