-This post is dedicated to my stillborn sister. Would’ve loved to meet you, Em! One day, I will.
-I randomly thought this up one night, but have yet to use it. This argument could be a very effective anti-abortion argument. I call it the Temporal argument, or the “Would-be” argument. It goes like this:
Regardless of what we call the developing human, what would most likely happen if, once a woman had been inseminated by whatever means and it could be shown that a non-cancerous mass is developing in her womb, we just let that mass develop? Well, it would result in one of 2 things: A stillborn (or perhaps tissue re-absorption early on, though I am foggy on this point), or a live birth. Given the much lower rates of infant mortality these days, the live birth is the most probable outcome. Therefore, call it a fetus, a baby, whatever, that thing in the woman’s womb is most likely a would-be baby, and in 9 months or so, a baby.
The converse of this argument is: What if your mother had aborted you? What if any one of the mothers of all 7.3 billion+ humans alive had aborted them? At some point, you were a would-be too, and your mom just decided to let your development continue uninhibited.
The last major points are:
-By the would-be definition, abortion is the preemptive murder of a human, since, by temporal definition, there is a very high chance that if no abortive procedure were pursued, and a few more months passed, there would be a baby born.
-You can beautifully shorten the argument to one quickly and implicitly stated by calling unborn babies “would-be” or “future” babies. This automatically invokes the argument by referring to time periods.
Let me know if there are any holes in this line of reasoning, but try it out! It may prove useful the next time you challenge “pro-choice” groups (also, why do they call them “pro-choice” and not just “pro-abortion”? Seems kinda dishonest to me…).