A fertilized egg/embryo/fetus is a life, however, the question is:

a). does it deserve the right to life?

b). if it does, does that right supersede the right to bodily autonomy of the host?

I find that an individual's right to bodily autonomy supersedes the rights or health of a fertilized egg/fetus since there is no other case in which the government can mandate an individual give up their right to bodily autonomy in the interest of another individual's life or health. The "right to life" does not supersede the right to bodily autonomy in any other case (this is why organ and blood donations are voluntary) and it doesn't include the right to survive using another human's body if that human does not consent. Nothing has this right and it should remain that way.

Put on your imagining caps for this one, as I'll be doing a little scenario to make this point:

• You've decided to drive to McDonald's to get the McRib, it's only available for a limited time and you don't want to pass it up. In your excitement to get the McRib, you don't slow down going into the drive-thru and ram right into the car in front of you, causing your airbag to deploy, the force knocking you unconscious. You awake in a hospital bed and the doctor attending you informs you that the driver of the car you crashed into is in very critical condition and near death. The doctor says that the hospital blood supply has been contaminated and the only way for the driver's life to be saved is if you donate a significant amount of your blood right then and there. They go on to tell you that if you refuse to donate your blood, the hospital will call the police to have them on hand as they forcibly withdraw your blood despite your protests.

• That sounds pretty bad, right? While the nice and altruistic thing to do would be to help and give your blood to the dying person right then and there, you can choose not to. You have a choice, the state cannot mandate that you have to give up your bodily autonomy (choice whether to give your blood or not) for the health of another individual. In this scenario, your right to bodily autonomy supersedes the dying person's right to life.

The point here is that bodily autonomy ALWAYS supersedes the needs of another individual's health, the government cannot make you take action to save another person's life it is a choice and it's up to you. So how does this relate to abortion? Well, why should the government force a woman to give up her bodily autonomy for the health and life of a fertilized egg/fetus? In no other scenario does the state make an individual compromise their bodily autonomy for the life and health of another. In all other cases, a right to bodily autonomy supersedes another's right to life, and it should be that way for abortion. An individual should not be punished for exercising their right to bodily autonomy.

Figure 10 below has a very similar bodily autonomy argument that you can also check out.

A baby is viable - meaning there is a very good chance it can survive outside the womb - at 24 weeks. Apparently, there is a 0-10% survival chance at 22 weeks (WBM link), and that chance increases to 40-70% at 24 weeks. A study published in PubMed (WBM link) offers similar findings, showing that a baby born at 24 weeks has a 68% chance of survival compared to a 56% chance at 23 weeks. Another study (WBM link), this one published in the Pediatrics Journal, finds that there is a 60% chance of a baby born at 24 weeks surviving at least one year compared to 27% and 6% for weeks 23 and 22, respectively. Additionally, we know that the earliest a baby has been born and survived is at 21 weeks (WBM link) gestation. Thanks to data from the Guttmacher Institute (WBM link), as seen below in Figure 2, we know that a minuscule 1.3% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. That means that 98.7% of the time a pregnancy is terminated, the life would not have been able to survive outside the womb on its own, meaning it is relying solely on the mother. And we trust mothers to make decisions for the sake of their children even after the children can live on their own, outside a womb, right? Since there is no way to contact the fertilized egg/fetus/baby or decode a message from it, decisions about it should be made by the mother since she is sustaining the life. If you are giving something life or (to an extent) sustaining the life you have a right to what happens to it. I think of this similar to how a family has the choice to take a family member off of life support when life support is the only thing keeping them alive (WBM link). If a family can make the decision to pull the plug on their relative who is only alive because of a machine, then a mother can make the decision to terminate her pregnancy (prior to 24 weeks gestation) which is only alive because she is sustaining it.

Conception is no guarantee of pregnancy, as a surprising amount of pregnancies abort themselves. One source estimates that 30-50% of human pregnancies spontaneously abort (WBM link)before the pregnancy is detected, another source (WBM link) estimates 10-25% in women that know they're pregnant, and in 50% of pregnancies overall, the Mayo Clinic (WBM link) estimates 10 to 20%. One meta-analysis of research on abortion even states "abortion is an intrinsic and overarching component of human reproduction." The analysis also states "Abortion is nearly as common as live-birth for conceptions that occur in a woman’s early-twenties, but after the mid-twenties, abortions are the norm rather than the exception." It also found that birth control reduces the number of abortions a woman will have in her lifetime. It seems safe to say that at least a fourth of all pregnancies abort themselves. If life really begins at conception or at fertilization, then what do we do about all these pregnancies that abort themselves naturally? Is every woman with a period a serial killer? Considering abortions are a natural part of the human reproductive system, why punish people who voluntarily choose to have their pregnancy aborted?

• One of the reasons why a pregnancy might spontaneously abort itself is a condition called a blighted ovum (WBM link). Also referred to as an anembryonic pregnancy, an early embryo either never develops fully or stops developing, potentially due to chromosomal abnormalities. Is a woman who experiences this condition a murderer? Should she be thrown in jail? Would there be police investigations conducted for every miscarriage to determine whether it may have naturally aborted itself or not?

If abortion is illegal and the death of a fertilized egg/fetus/embryo is treated like the death of your average fully formed human that's been born, all miscarriages and stillbirths become crime scenes, perhaps punishable by the law, adding more emotional distress to families who have just lost their child. I know it's a little extreme, but imagine the police busting into a hospital room following a miscarriage and arresting the mother because she must have done something or been negligent enough to result in the death of her child.

I hope it's not at all controversial to say that one of the main reasons why people get abortions is because they did not intend to get pregnant. So, it stands to reason that preventing unplanned, unintentional pregnancy will reduce the number of people seeking abortions, thus reducing the number of abortions performed. And how can unplanned pregnancies be avoided? Contraceptives (more commonly referred to as birth control). The Guttmacher Institute explains this (WBM link) all a little better than I can.

The Effectiveness of Contraceptives

Again, it should not be controversial to say that preventing unwanted pregnancies helps prevent abortion, but there are three studies I want to highlight that illustrate this point.

The first study included over 9,000 women aged 14 to 45 and was done by researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine (WBM link) in St. Louis, and it finds "that providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduces unplanned pregnancies and cuts abortion rates by a range of 62 to 78 percent compared to the national rate," according to an article written about the findings by the school. Unfortunately, the link to the study itself appears to be broken, and I can only find an analysis for the 1,404 adolescent participants, which can be found here (WBM link). There is also a news release (WBM link) about that analysis and this graphic (WBM link) that gives a more visual representation of the findings. The participants were able to choose between longer-acting birth control methods like IUDs and implants and shorter-acting methods like birth control pills and patches and were consulted on the risks and benefits of each. Most (72%) chose a longer-acting method. Surprise, surprise, both the pregnancy rate and abortion rate in this group of teens were much lower than the national average: "We found that pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates were low among teenage girls and women enrolled in a project that removed financial and access barriers to contraception and informed them about the particular efficacy of LARC methods. The observed rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion were substantially lower than national rates among all U.S. teens, particularly when compared with sexually experienced U.S. teens." The LARC acronym here means long-acting reversible contraception.

• "During the 2008–2013 period, the mean annual rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion among CHOICE participants were 34.0, 19.4, and 9.7 per 1000 teens, respectively. In comparison, rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion among sexually experienced U.S. teens in 2008 were 158.5, 94.0, and 41.5 per 1000, respectively."

The second study is more recent and was published in JAMA Network, and it can be found here (WBM link). The study essential found that making contraception more affordable under insurance leads to fewer unintended pregnancies, especially for low-income women.

• "In this cross-sectional study, the elimination of cost sharing for contraception under the ACA was associated with improvements in contraceptive method prescription fills and a decrease in births among commercially insured women. Women with low income had more precipitous decreases than women with higher income, suggesting that enhanced access to contraception may address well-documented income-related disparities in unintended birth rates."

The third study is actually a meta-analysis of previous abortion research and can be found here. Although it mainly looked at abortion rates and spontaneous abortions (pregnancies that abort themselves for whatever reason), it found that birth control reduced lifetime abortions "more than 6-fold."

• "Modern birth control with access to elective abortions, markedly reduces –rather than increases– the lifetime number of abortions a woman produces."

No, Contraceptives Do Not Terminate a Pregnancy

Contraceptives do not terminate a pregnancy. They are not abortions. Instead, they prevent pregnancies from occurring (i.e. sperm fertilizing egg).

Birth control pills are a combination of two hormones (WBM link) - estrogen and progesterone - that prevent ovulation and thicken the mucus around the cervix. This makes it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and even if any sperm do make it in there, they have no egg to fertilize. Taking the pill on an ongoing basis makes it more effective (WBM link) and while it may have some side effects, that's an individual's choice. So there is no pregnancy to even "abort" in the first place. If some idiot thinks daily birth control pills are abortions then they should also think of condoms, IUDs (WBM link), and pulling out to be abortions because each also blocks sperm from fertilizing the egg during a sexual act. With Plan B and morning-after pills, those are kind of a gray area, but considering 30% to 50% of human pregnancies spontaneously abort (WBM link) themselves prior to detection I see no issue with morning-after pills.

Contraceptives Mean Fewer Abortions, Even If a Woman Never Gets a Medically Induced Abortion

The fact is no matter how pro-life a woman is, if she has sex multiple times in her life, she will likely have an abortion. As I talk about in the "Other Pro-Choice Arguments I am Less Invested In but Still Want to Mention" section on this page, a fair amount of all human pregnancies spontaneously abort themselves - about a fourth.

The US abortion rate continues to drop (WBM link), which is a good thing (Figure 1 below). While this may be attributed to state legislation that prevents women from seeking safe abortions, much of it can be attributed to the increasing use and development of contraceptives (birth control, condoms, plan b, etc...), especially long-acting methods like intrauterine devices, women having more control over their own bodies, and better sex education. Giving women more control over their own bodies, making contraceptives more widely available, and offering better sex education courses in schools is how we reduce abortion rates because these all prevent unintentional pregnancy - one of the leading causes of abortion.

This gives up hope that we can eventually reach a world where there are virtually no abortions, save for those in the interest of the mother's life/health or those to terminate a rape-induced pregnancy. But sadly, it seems pro-lifers care more about ending abortions on their terms rather than actually doing what is proven to reduce abortions. As the author of this blog post (WBM link) which I encourage you to read writes, "the 'pro-life' movement is just as enthusiastic about blocking sex education and contraception access as they are about picketing abortion clinics. There is nothing pro-life about their movement or their motives."

To be clear, this ideal world would NOT be reached by just teaching abstinence and expecting everyone to follow certain religious beliefs regarding sexual activity. Making abortion illegal on those grounds would violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause (WBM link), but by making things like condoms, birth control, IUDs, etc... more accessible and not teaching abstinence-only sex education in schools.

Disclaimer: Although Democrats support things like comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives that help people make better decisions about sex and prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing abortion rates, they still could be doing a lot more for the issue. Namely, actually codified abortion rights into law. Democrats have avoided doing these even when they've had the majority and when they've promised to do so during presidential campaigns. It seems they want to dangle this issue in front of voters and invoke the threat of Roe v Wade being overturned to win elections more than they want to protect abortion rights. Fuck that and fuck you Obama and Biden and all others that allow this to happen.

The Data

Aside from simply looking at the line on the graph above and seeing that it goes down more when there's a Democrat in office, there are a few other ways to see that the largest decreases in abortion rates have occurred under Democratic presidents. Using data from the Guttmacher Institute (WBM link), it's evident that:

• Democratic presidents are responsible for the largest total decreases in abortion rates, as seen below in Figure 3.

• Democratic presidents are responsible for the largest average decreases in abortion rates per year, as seen below in Figure 4.

• Democratic presidents are responsible for the largest average decreases in abortion rates from one president to another, as seen below in Figure 5.

Democratic presidents are also responsible for the largest total decreases in the teen pregnancy rate, as seen below in Figure 6. Figure 7 also shows how both the largest decreases in abortion and teen pregnancy rates have occurred under Democratic presidents. In other words, Democratic presidents have had much bigger positive effects on decreasing both abortion rates and teen pregnancy rates than Republicans.

Just a Coincidence?

So why is it that the abortion rate and teen pregnancy rate decline rapidly under Democratic presidents? Likely because Democrats tend to favor things like sex education and contraceptives whereas Republicans tend to favor abstinence education and suppressing birth control. This is fairly obvious to observe if you pay even the slightest attention to politics, but I'll still reference a survey published in the Sex Education journal (WBM link) that shows these party leanings amongst voters. As you'll see in the "Abstinence-Only Education is Bad" tab on this page below, sex education focused on abstinence produces more negative outcomes and more risky sexual behavior in teens than comprehensive sex education does. Additionally, it has been shown that abstinence-only sex education contains many scientific errors and blurs over things so much to the point that it's almost unethical to give children/teens such faulty information. This increases the number of stupid decisions people make about sex, leading to unwanted pregnancies, which leads to abortion. On the other hand, comprehensive sex education reduces the number of stupid decisions people make regarding sex, thereby reducing unplanned pregnancies and abortion. And obviously, contraceptives prevent pregnancy from even happening in the first place. So is it just a coincidence that the president of a party that advocates for the most effective sex education in preventing teen pregnancy and access to things that help prevent unplanned pregnancies is also associated with lower abortion rates? Probably not.

It should be noted that these decreases in abortion rates and teen pregnancy rates are also thanks to women gaining more control over their own bodies, in addition to the better education about sexuality and more consistent use of contraceptives, something fundamentalists and pro-lifers seem to hate (WBM link). The 1950s saw the highest teen pregnancy/birth rate (WBM link) in US history but thanks to the introduction of birth control in 1965 (WBM link), the legalization of abortion in 1973 (WBM link), and increasing sexual education available to teens (WBM link) which began around the late sixties, early seventies has helped the teen pregnancy rate decline substantially. Teens have more access to contraceptives and are making smarter choices about sex thanks to education, which in turn lowers abortion rates and teen pregnancy rates. Despite the fact that sex education and contraceptives help reduce teen pregnancy and abortion, you'll never see a pro-lifer support these things. As Chris Ladd writes in this blog (WBM link) I would recommend reading, "the 'pro-life' movement is just as enthusiastic about blocking sex education and contraception access as they are about picketing abortion clinics. There is nothing pro-life about their movement or their motives."

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website (WBM link) identifies two ways a child can obtain US citizenship through their parents - at birth and after birth.

Citizenship can be obtained at birth, provided the parent, or parents, are US citizens themselves, or through the naturalization process prior to their 18th birthday. Chapter 2 (WBM link) of the policy manual, Definition of Child and Residence for Citizenship and Naturalization, makes it clear that a birth certificate recorded by proper authority is necessary for a child to be considered a US citizen. Chapter 3 (WBM link), United States Citizens at Birth, states that one "is a U.S. citizen at birth" and also states that a child “acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth,” and goes on to list several requirements. The page uses the phrase "acquires citizenship at birth" multiple times so it is safe to assume that citizenship is granted at birth. Obviously, the only way to get a birth certificate is to be born, and once born a child is no longer considered a fetus. Thus, the United States government does not recognize a fetus as an American citizen. The policy manual makes no mention of a fetus at all. According to US Citizenship and Immigration Services, a human’s legal standing and rights begin at birth. Not at conception, not when brain waves are detectable, not when the heart starts beating. At birth.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment (WBM link) explicitly states that one needs to be born to acquire US citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

A life born is not a life saved, yet many of the people who call themselves pro-life will neglect or argue against policies, programs, and legislation that will actually help people and improve the overall quality of life. They'll incorrectly call it "socialism" as an excuse to not support it or say that they don't want their tax money going to pay for other people to live off the government, despite the fact that red states are a lot more dependent on federal dollars than blue states. And most pro-lifers don't even advocate for the things that reduce abortion like contraception or better sec education, even arguing against each at times. It seems clear that pro-lifers will pretend to care about a life before it's born but then neglect it and do anything in their power to not help it after it's been born.

This leads me to believe that...

The pro-life movement is arguably the best example of virtual signaling today. Calling yourself pro-life is an easy way to claim moral superiority over others or present yourself on some moral high ground without having to do anything other than calling yourself pro-life or identifying as pro-life.

The modern pro-life movement has nothing to do with being pro-life. Rather, it’s about feigning moral superiority and virtue signaling to trick oneself into believing they are a better person and being on some ideological high horse. Pro-lifers don't seem to be actually doing anything proactive - they’re not advocating for contraception to be widely available or even free, they’re not advocating for a better adoption system, they’re not adopting children themselves, and they’re not advocating for any of the logical conclusions of making a fetus a person as raised above, et cetera. They just post pictures of fetuses on social media, slap stickers on their cars and laptops, and the furthest they’ll go is just holding up signs like “abortion is murder” by a roadway or planned parenthood clinic. If the furthest you’re willing to go to “protect an innocent life” is just standing with a sign on the sidewalk how much do you really care? I think that most pro-lifers like the idea of there being no abortion but don't want to put any thought, work, or effort, into achieving a world with little to no abortion.

Saying you're pro-life is a very easy way to try and establish moral superiority over others without putting in any work to achieve it. Due to how biology and human reproduction work, there's really not much else you can do for a fetus, hence why "advocating" for the lives of the unborn is such a popular thing among lazy people just looking for a quick way to feel superior and/or better than others. With practically every other form of advocacy, there are things you can do beyond just telling others how much you care to prove how much you really care. For example, if you're advocating for the homeless you can donate money, food, personal items, clothing, and more to a shelter, volunteer at a shelter, work at a shelter, open a shelter, et cetera. Fetuses don't need money, they don't need food or clothes, and they don't need housing so there's really nothing to do for a fetus other than telling everyone else how much you care about it. Advocating for the unborn requires nothing other than expressing how much you care about the unborn, making it a perfect cause for people too lazy to actually do anything productive but still want to feel like they are.

Now, not all pro-lifers are like this and I have a lot of respect for those that do advocate for contraception like Hunter Avallone.

As Chris Ladd - the author of this blog post (WBM link)which I encourage you to read - writes, "the 'pro-life' movement is just as enthusiastic about blocking sex education and contraception access as they are about picketing abortion clinics. There is nothing pro-life about their movement or their motives."

The comedian George Carlin had a pretty interesting take on the abortion issue that aligns with a lot of what I've expressed here. You can watch the full part of his stand-up show here (WBM link), but I'll put a few quotes from it below:

• "Boy, these conservatives are really something aren't they. They're all in favor of the unborn, they'll do anything for the unborn - but once you're born, you're on your own."

• "Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't wanna know about you, they don't wanna hear from you, no nothing. No neonatal care, no daycare, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing."

• "Conservatives want live babies so they can raise 'em to be dead soldiers."

• "They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman. Simple as it gets."

• "They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for the state."

• "If a fetus is a human being how come the census doesn't count them?"

• "People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process, continuous, just rolling along."

Carlin's "no nothing" statement reflects what I alluded to earlier about pro-life people really not doing anything for the life they supposedly care so much about after it's born. If the pro-life movement was really about the sanctity of life and "baby lives matter" then wouldn't maternal care be high quality and free, neonatal care be high quality and free, giving birth at the hospital wouldn't cost anything, baby formula would be free, diapers would be free, and so on.

This notion that "if you don't want a baby, don't have sex" is quite dumb. I don't think that the sole purpose of sex is to procreate. At least, today it isn't. The argument could be made that in biblical times the intent of sex was solely to procreate because humans were relatively new and God wanted them to be fruitful and multiply so that they could inhabit all parts of the Earth, but we don't live in biblical times anymore. Humans are spread far and wide over the globe so there really is no need to keep procreating simply to procreate and laws should not force people to conform to these archaic notions of what sex is. There is also an argument made that the sole purpose of sex, biologically, is to create life. To me, whether or not that's true is irrelevant considering the fact that humans have created a society that largely exists outside of the bounds of nature. It would be foolish to impose certain limits and only govern ourselves by our biological function and what is and isn't "natural" and we really don't do this with any other issues.

Sex is not the only activity that can have unintended and/or unwanted consequences, yet it is the only activity with these unwanted or unintentional consequences that receives this kind of criticism. Let's apply this same logic of "if you don't want X to happen, then don't engage in [activity] which could lead to X" to some other things - smoking and athletics.

People who smoke are at an increased risk of developing throat and lung cancer, yet people who develop these cancers as a result of smoking are not deprived of medical treatment because they should have known better or just accepted that was one of the risks. You don't see anyone arguing that people getting medical treatment for cancer developed as a result of a smoking habit are trying to get around the consequences of their actions while smugly saying "if you're smoking, you should expect to have throat and lung cancer" because that would be dumb.

When it comes to athletics, injuries can result from both working out and playing sports, yet they are still treated by our healthcare system. No one is turned away for treatment because "oh you got broke your ankle playing football, just deal with it you should have known the risks" because that's just dumb. There are risks for physical injury in all sports and measures are taken to mitigate those risks, like helmets and pads in football and hockey or flame-retardant suits in NASCAR, along with constantly evolving player safety rules in every league, but even with these measures injury can still occur. Similarly, measures are taken to mitigate risks of pregnancy during sex with things like contraception, birth control, condoms, pulling out, etc... Yet, like in sports, sometimes these things can fail to prevent the things they are trying to. Even if a football player suffers a concussion while wearing a helmet, they still get treated. I believe that even if a woman who had sex with a man wearing a condom becomes pregnant and wishes to get an abortion, she should be able to get one.

If abortion is to be illegal on the premise that the medical care required could have been avoided by not engaging in a certain activity, then, treating diseases caused by the use of tobacco products like cigarettes, injuries from sports and other physical tasks, injuries from car accidents, and so many other things should also be illegal. Furthermore. if people truly believed in this notion that you shouldn't do things, ever, if there is even the slightest risk of an unwanted consequence, then no one would do anything and the world would come to a complete stop.

Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, they should both agree that having and raising a child is a huge financial burden. Even if a pregnant person will give their child up for adoption, they still have to pay money for checkups at the hospital, they'll have to take off work, and they'll have to pay for the visit to the hospital when they give birth, etc... So restricting abortion access, or banning it altogether, would keep poor people poor since they're out of work and now have to dedicate time and money to raise a child they maybe didn't want. And what groups are the most likely to be poor in America? Minorities. Native Americans have the highest poverty rate at 25.4%, followed by black people at 20.8%, then Hispanic people at 17.6%, then Asian and white people at 10.1% according to Poverty USA (WBM link). The US Census (WBM link) shows similar data, with Black people and Hispanic people having a poverty rate more than double that of white people. Also, keep in mind that black people make up ~13% of the US population but have just 4% of the total wealth (WBM link).

While I wouldn't go as far as to say abortion restrictions are racist or white supremacist, they can work to keep minorities impoverished. This may influence some people in power that have certain biases against minority groups to want to pass legislation like this to keep minority groups poor under the guise of being pro-life. Obviously, abortion restrictions would also result in an increasing population of these minority groups, giving some people in power another reason to act under the guise of being pro-life because they could then dangle this growing minority population in front of fragile and/or racist white people and manipulate them to gain their support.

Please note that I will be using "If life begins in the womb, then..." as shorthand for "If a fertilized egg/fetus/embryo is to be recognized as a person and be granted the same legal protection and rights as a fully grown human, then..."

If life begins in the womb then why is US citizenship granted only after birth*?

• If a fetus is a US citizen then shouldn't it be illegal to deport a pregnant immigrant since she is carrying a US citizen in her belly?

If life begins in the womb then why does the US census not count fetuses in the population?

If life begins in the womb then should men start paying child support immediately after conception?

If life beings in the womb then could a mother get a life insurance policy for the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus and collect money if she miscarries?

If life begins in the womb then why do humans turn a year old one year after they were born rather than one year after they were conceived?

If life begins in the womb then how should police arrest a pregnant woman? How would a pregnant woman be imprisoned (if the fetus is a person then how can police arrest and detain a person who neither committed a crime nor is suspected of one and how can a person be imprisoned without committing a crime)?

If life begins in the womb then what do we do about all the pregnancies that spontaneously abort themselves, even before a woman knows she is pregnant? Would the government mandate that all women see a doctor and be monitored after having sexual intercourse to determine whether she is pregnant or not, and then if she is pregnant, monitor her and the pregnancy so the state knows if it aborts itself? What would happen if the pregnancy naturally aborts itself? How would it be determined whether an abortion happened spontaneously or with medical assistance? Would law enforcement have to conduct investigations into every case of an aborted pregnancy to determine if it was naturally occurring or medically assisted?

If the idea that life begins in the womb comes from Jeremiah 1:5 where God essentially states that he knows all his human creations even before he formed them in their mother's womb, then what's up with the massive amount of pregnancies that spontaneously abort themselves? Why would God create a life and then end it weeks later before it had even been fully formed and experienced the world and why would he do this so often?

*This comes from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Their website (WBM link) identifies two ways a child can obtain US citizenship through their parents. Citizenship can be obtained at birth, provided the parent, or parents, are US citizens themselves, or through the naturalization process prior to their 18th birthday. Chapter 2 (WBM link) of the policy manual, Definition of Child and Residence for Citizenship and Naturalization, makes it clear that a birth certificate recorded by proper authority is necessary for a child to be considered a US citizen. Chapter 3, United States Citizens at Birth, states that one "is a U.S. citizen at birth" and also states that a child “acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth,” and goes on to list several requirements. The page uses the phrase "acquires citizenship at birth" multiple times so it is safe to assume that citizenship is granted at birth. Obviously, the only way to get a birth certificate is to be born, and once born a child is no longer considered a fetus. Thus, the United States government does not recognize a fetus as an American citizen. The policy manual makes no mention of a fetus at all. According to US Citizenship and Immigration Services, a human’s legal standing and rights begin at birth. Not at conception, not when brain waves are detectable, not when the heart starts beating. At birth. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment (WBM link) explicitly states that one needs to be born to acquire US citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Research article from the Plos One journal - "Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S" (WBM link)

• As the title suggests, this research article argues that the US needs better sex education. Using the most recently available data at the time of the publication the authors find that "increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates," meaning the more emphasis on abstinence education, the more teen pregnancy. They go on to write that "This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S."

  • "Based on a national analysis of all available state data, our results clearly show that abstinence-only education does not reduce and likely increases teen pregnancy rates. Comprehensive sex and/or STD education that includes abstinence as a desired behavior was correlated with the lowest teen pregnancy rates across states."

• The majority of programs that received state funding at the time of the article's analysis featured little about contraceptives or safe sex practices: "The central message of these programs is to delay sexual activity until marriage, and under the federal funding regulations most of these programs cannot include information about contraception or safer-sex practices." Of the 48 states the research found data for (North Dakota and Wyoming had no state laws regarding sex education) 21 states stressed abstinence-only education, 7 states emphasized abstinence, 11 states covered abstinence in comprehensive sex education, and 9 did not mention abstinence in their state laws or policies. The states which stressed abstinence-only education had the highest teen pregnancy rate - 73.24 - and states which covered abstinence in a compressive sex education had the lowest teen pregnancy rate - 56.36. This is visualized below in Figure 9. Even after accounting for socio-economic status, educational attainment, and ethnic differences "the effect of abstinence education on teenage pregnancy and birth rates remained significant."

  • "The level of abstinence education (no provision, covered, promoted, stressed) was positively correlated with both teen pregnancy (Spearman's rho = 0.510, p = 0.001) and teen birth (rho = 0.605, p<0.001) rates, indicating that abstinence education in the U.S. does not cause abstinence behavior. To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant."

• Interestingly, richer states, which tend to have more white people in them, emphasize abstinence-only education less and tend to have lower teen pregnancy rates than poorer states. It is theorized that the higher pregnancy rates in poorer states can also be associated with a high degree of religiousness.

• The research concludes that "States that taught comprehensive sex and/or HIV education and covered abstinence along with contraception and condom use (level 1 sex education; also referred to as “abstinence-plus," tended to have the lowest teen pregnancy rates, while states with abstinence-only sex education laws that stress abstinence until marriage (level 3) were significantly less successful in preventing teen pregnancies."

  • Multiple other studies conclude that "comprehensive sex or HIV education that includes the discussion of abstinence as a recommended behavior, and also discusses contraception and protection methods, works best in reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."

Review article from the Journal of Adolescent Health - "Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs"

• Please note that I cite the full text on SciHub, as the publisher does not offer a free version of the full text.

• The authors assert that "abstinence-only education programs, as defined by federal funding requirements, are morally problematic, by withholding information and promoting questionable and inaccurate opinions. Abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life."

• The article notes that while abstinence is theoretically effective, it hardly ever works out that way: "Although abstinence is theoretically fully effective, in actual practice abstinence often fails to protect against pregnancy and STIs."

• The article draws from two comprehensive reviews that "demonstrated that comprehensive sexuality education effectively promoted abstinence as well as other protective behaviors" while also noting that one author "found no scientific evidence that abstinence-only programs demonstrate efficacy in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse."

• The article mentions a review done by the Committee on Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives which found that 11 of 13 abstinence-only curriculums included "false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health, including inaccurate information about contraceptive effectiveness, the risks of abortion, and other scientific errors."

• The review concludes that "Although abstinence from sexual intercourse represents a healthy behavioral choice for adolescents, policies or programs offering 'abstinence only' or 'abstinence until marriage' as a single option for adolescents are scientifically and ethically flawed. Although abstinence from vaginal and anal intercourse is theoretically fully protective against pregnancy and disease, in actual practice, abstinence-only programs often fail to prevent these outcomes. Although federal support of abstinence-only programs has grown rapidly since 1996, existing evaluations of such programs either do not meet standards for scientific evaluation or lack evidence of efficacy in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse."

Report from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy - "Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases"

• "At present, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners. In addition, there is strong evidence from multiple randomized trials demonstrating that some abstinence programs chosen for evaluation because they were believed to be promising actually had no impact on teen sexual behavior. That is, they did not delay the initiation of sex, increase the return to abstinence or decrease the number of sexual partners."

• The report mentions that the majority of comprehensive programs that support both abstinence and use of contraceptives had positive behavioral effects: "Comprehensive programs worked for both genders, for all major ethnic groups, for sexually inexperienced and experienced teens, in different settings, and in different communities. Programs may be especially likely to be effective in communities where teen pregnancy or STD and HIV are salient issues and may be less effective where these issues are not. Some programs’ positive impact lasted for several years."

  • Also: "Virtually all of the comprehensive programs also had a positive impact on one or more factors affecting behavior. In particular, they improved factors such as knowledge about risks and consequences of pregnancy and STD; values and attitudes about having sex and using condoms or contraception; perception of peer norms about sex and contraception; confidence in the ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex, to insist on using condoms or contraception, or to actually use condoms or contraception; intention to avoid sex or use contraception; and communication with parents or other adults about these topics. In part by improving these factors, the programs changed behavior in desired directions."

Research review from the Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology journal - "Abstinence and abstinence-only education"

• Please note that I cite the full text on SciHub, as the publisher (WBM link) does not offer a free version of the full text.

• The Recent Finding section of this review makes things pretty clear and reiterates many of the same points other research has made: "Abstinence-only curricula have been found to contain scientifically inaccurate information, distorting data on topics such as condom efficacy, and promote gender stereotypes. An independent evaluation of the federal program, several systematic reviews, and cohort data from population-based surveys find little evidence of efficacy and evidence of possible harm. In contrast, comprehensive sexuality education programs have been found to help teens delay initiation of intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors. Abstinence-only polices violate the human rights of adolescents because they withhold potentially life-saving information on HIV and other sexually transmitted infections."

• "A federally funded evaluation of Title V programs conducted by an independent research organization, a new systematic review, and analyses of nationally representative longitudinal surveys of health behavior demonstrate that abstinence-only programs are ineffective and may cause harm."

• Among the organizations that oppose abstinence-only education and endorse a more comprehensive curriculum are the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Society for Adolescent Medicine (SAM), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Public Health Association (APHA).

Report from Advocates for Youth - "Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact"

• After finding 11 different abstinence-only programs in different states that the authors "could uncover through extensive research" it was found that each "showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time."

• The report concludes by saying "Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants."

Article from the American Academy of Pediatrics - "Sexuality Education for Children and Adolescents"

• This article asserts that "Children and adolescents need accurate and comprehensive education about sexuality to practice healthy sexual behavior as adults." This is a pretty clear way of supporting comprehensive sex education while also indirectly rebuking abstinence-only education.

• The article also dunks on abstinence-only programs: "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices."

Position paper from the Journal of Adolescent Health - "Abstinence-only education policies and programs: A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine"

• The paper asserts that "Providing 'abstinence only' or 'abstinence until marriage' messages as a sole option for teenagers is flawed from scientific and medical ethics viewpoints. Efforts to promote abstinence should be based on sound science. Although federal support of abstinence-only programs has grown rapidly since 1996, the evaluations of such programs find little evidence of efficacy in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse. Conversely, efforts to promote abstinence, when offered as part of comprehensive reproductive health promotion programs that provide information about contraceptive options and protection from STIs have successfully delayed initiation of sexual intercourse. Moreover, abstinence-only programs are ethically problematic, being inherently coercive and often providing misinformation and withholding information needed to make informed choices."

• Ideally: "Schools and health care providers should encourage abstinence as an important option for teenagers. 'Abstinence only' as a basis for health policy and programs should be abandoned."

Statement from the American Public Health Association - "Sexuality Education as Part of a Comprehensive Health Education Program in K to 12 Schools" (WBM link)

• Asserts that "A large body of evidence supports the implementation of comprehensive sexuality education as one solution to this problem. Evidence suggests that abstinence-only approaches do not lead to behavioral changes and result in critical health information being inappropriately withheld."

Review from the Committee on Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives - "The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs"

• This review finds that over 80% of abstinence-only curriculums "contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health." Specifically, the curriculums:

  • Contain false information about the effectiveness of contraceptives

  • Contain false information about the risks of abortion

  • Blur religion and science

  • Rely on stereotypes of girls and boys as scientific fact

  • Contains scientific errors

• Apparently, these programs are not even reviewed for accuracy by the government: "The curricula used in SPRANS and other federally funded programs are not reviewed for accuracy by the federal government." SPRANS is (at the time) the largest federal abstinence initiative. The review evaluates the content of the most popular abstinence-only curricula used by grantees (recipients of a grant) of SPRANS.

Report from the Institute of Medicine, now known as the National Academy of Medicine - "No Time To Lose: Getting More from HIV Prevention" (WBM link)

• This report comes from a US committee (WBM link) tasked with coming up with strategies to prevent HIV infection.

• Among the recommendations the Committee makes is "eliminating congressional, federal, state, and local requirements that public funds be used for abstinence-only education, and that states and local school districts implement and continue to support age-appropriate comprehensive sex education and condom availability programs in schools"

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine produced a study (WBM link) entitled "The Quality of Abortion Care Depends on Where a Woman Lives, Says One of Most Comprehensive Reviews of Research on Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the U.S" which reviewed the available evidence and confirmed that abortion is safe, effective, and the vast majority of abortions can be provided safely in office-based settings.

Another study shows that childbirth is roughly 14x more deadly (WBM link)than abortion.

While a life certainly begins at conception the sperm meets the egg and fertilizes it, conception does not immediately transcribe genetic information which is equal to that of which the born child will be. For it to be DNA that determines a human life, it should be noted that it takes time for that process to complete, there is no absolute immediate transcription of information. The argument here should not be whether a fertilized egg (zygote) is a life, it is, but whether or not that life deserves legal protection or being recognized as a person.

Another weird wrinkle in this logic is that life begins at conception - if a pregnant woman were to be arrested, wouldn't that also be arresting an underserving entity that did nothing to deserve that arrest, thus making that arrest extrajudicial? This same thought process can be applied to a pregnant woman being detained, deported, etc...

Additionally, conception is no guarantee of pregnancy, as 30 to 50% of human pregnancies spontaneously abort (WBM link) before the pregnancy is detected because something goes very wrong soon after fertilization of the egg. So should these women then be punished because their bodies just didn't work as they're "supposed" to?

Fetuses can only feel pain in the third trimester, around 29 to 30 weeks gestation, according to a medical study (WBM link) published in Clinical Review in 2005. Keep in mind that the most recently available data shows that only 1.3% of abortions occurred after 21 weeks gestation, so only a very small percentage of abortions could have induced pain in a fetus (Figure 2).

Another study (WBM link) concluded that "legal or clinical mandates for interventions to prevent such pain are scientifically unsound and may expose women to inappropriate interventions, risks, and distress" and that "fetuses cannot experience pain." However, the study identifies that at 26 weeks the neuroanatomical system for pain can be considered complete, but this doesn't mean that fetuses can and do feel pain.

A more recent research article (WBM link) reconsiders these findings but doesn't have much concrete evidence to suggest otherwise, essentially coming to the conclusion of "a fetus can feel pain before the third trimester...maybe?"

Although there are significantly fewer people calling for all guns to be illegal to own - in fact, I don't think there is anyone making that argument and that's not what the concept of gun control refers to - than there are people who all abortions to be made illegal, the two issues are kind fo similar. By this I mean they both should be legal in America but regulated.

Similar arguments could be made that making all abortions illegal will only stop safe abortions in the same way that banning all guns will only stop people without bad intentions from getting a gun. While there is some additional nuance to this line of reasoning (wealthy and powerful people would still be able to get abortions or guns regardless of the legality), it's true for the most part. A better way to make that argument is to say that simply making something illegal doesn't stop it - murder has been illegal but murders still happen every day. So, rather than just banning these things outright, giving oneself a pat on the back, and calling it a day (like many of those in the so-called pro-life crowd seem to do considering they don't support things that would actually decrease abortions and stop caring about a life once it has been born) time, energy, and effort should instead be spent reducing the things that make abortion and guns an issue in the first place.

Both abortion and gun violence can be reduced in different, better ways than just making either illegal.

• Abortions can be reduced by providing comprehensive sex education or just offering better sex education courses in general, making contraceptives free and/or more accessible, or eliminating many of the economic strains that make those in poor and underserved communities get an abortion because they don't have the time or money to raise a child and give it a good life.

• Gun violence can be reduced by better treating mental health issues, making background checks more extensive, and better-educating people on gun safety much like a person getting their driver's license must go through an exam and learn how to be a good driver, common road hazards, etc...

While just banning abortion or guns outright is a bad idea, there should be bans in specific cases, like banning abortion after a certain time for reasons not related to the health of the mother or banning guns created specifically for combat or guns that can fire a certain number of bullets per second.

While comparing these two issues is not necessarily comparing apples to apples, it is interesting to note that a certain group of people say the sanctity of life (a fertilized egg/embryo) outweighs the individual rights of the mother (her right to bodily autonomy) when it comes to abortion but individuals rights outweigh the sanctity of life (kids killed in school shootings, other people killed in mass shootings, and really any victims of gun violence) when it comes to gun control.