.Front Page


.Student Life

.Science & Environment

.Arts & Entertainment




.People & Places

.Women's Life

.Military Matters





.About Us



by Christian Beenfeldt

But is it?

The South Dakota law bans abortions in all cases except saving the life of the mother. Consider what this means for human life—not the “lives” of embryos or primitive fetuses, but the lives of real, living, breathing, thinking women.

It means that women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy because it resulted from rape or contraceptive failure—or because the would-be father has abandoned them, or because the fetus is malformed—would be forbidden from doing so. It means they will be forced to endure the pain of unwanted pregnancy and the incredible burdens of rearing a child. It means that women would be forced into 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children—thereby suffocating their hopes, their dreams, their personal ambitions, and their chance of happiness.

Women who refused to submit to such a tyranny would be forced to leave South Dakota or turn to “back-alley” abortion providers. At a staggering risk to their health, according to a World Health Organization estimate: 110,000 women worldwide die each year from illegal abortions, and 660,000 suffer injury from them.

Clearly, anti-abortionists believe that women’s lives are an unimportant consideration in the issue of abortion. Why? Because, they claim, the embryo or fetus is a human being—and thus to abort it is murder. But an embryo is not a human being, and abortion is not murder.

There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being. Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn’t bear the remotest similarity to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being—if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on—but it is not actually a human being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants—but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

What can justify the sacrifice of an actual woman’s life to human potential of the most primitive kind? There is no rational justification for such a position—certainly not a genuine concern for human life. The ultimate “justification” of the “pro-life” position is religious dogma. Led by the American Roman Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists, the movement’s basic tenet, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that an embryo must be treated “from conception as a person” created by the “action of God.” What about the fact that an embryo is manifestly not a person, and treating it as such inflicts mass suffering on real people? This tenet is not subject to rational scrutiny; it is a dogma that must be accepted on faith.

The “pro-life” movement tries to obscure the religious, anti-human nature of its position by endlessly focusing on the medical details of late-term abortions (although it seldom mentions that “partial birth” abortions are extremely rare, constituting 0.17 percent of all abortions, and often involve a malformed fetus or a threat to the life of the mother). But one must not allow the smokescreen to distract one from the real issue: the “pro-life” movement is a faith-based crusade to ban abortion no matter the consequences to actual human life.

The Pro-Life Alliance urges the “absolute moral duty to do everything possible to stop abortion, even if in the first instance we are only able to chip away at the existing legislation.” This is why it supports the South Dakota law, which is the closest the movement has come to achieving its avowed goal: to ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including the first trimester—when 90 percent of abortions take place. As the alliance puts it: “We continue to campaign for total abolition.”

The “pro-life” movement is not a defender of human life—it is, in fact, a profound enemy of actual human life and happiness. Its goal is to turn women into breeding mares whose bodies are owned by the state and whose rights, health, and pursuit of happiness are sacrificed en mass—all in the name of dogmatic sacrifice to the pre-human.

Christian Beenfeldt has an M.A. in philosophy and is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute which promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.



Kalamalama, the HPU Student Newspaper. All rights reserved.

Web site designed by Robin Hansson.and maintained by Christina Failma

Web Counter

Untitled Document