top of page

The Most Solid Argument Against Abortion

ABORTION is rightfully a very heated or passionate topic for a plethora of people out there. I recall discussing it passionately both in law school and in medical school. However, like many other similar topics, the commonality among Abortion proponents is typically SELFISHNESS or POSSESSIVENESS -- "MY" Body -- "MY" Choice -- "MY" Desire -- MY MY MY etc... But IS IT?

In an effort to make this a universal argument, I will not bring religion or my Christian views in it until the end of the article. By the way, I do feel the pain that women feel with this topic in a patriarchal World, but not everything from such a World is bad per se. Certain things are parts of laws of God and/or the Universe. WOMEN ARE AMAZINGLY MADE to make MEN and life much more rewarding and fulfilling... WOMEN are the conduits or channels through which MEN procreate. WOMEN have impacted my life in amazing ways starting from my Mother, Aunt and on... I LOVE WOMEN! However, I disagree on this topic with far too many women!


When a woman ACCEPTS/CONSENTS to have sex with a man, she accepts to give her body to the man as a both channel mutual or unliteral pleasure and impliedly as a channel of his procreation, and it is evidenced by his penetration of her body so that one of the thousands of sperms from the man will have fertilized an egg/ovum released by the woman's ovary during her monthly ovulation cycle. Once a woman is PREGNANT for a man the man has a VESTED INTEREST in the embryo or fetus that is linked to her body and thus a vested interest in the woman's body, and therefore the woman's body at that time temporarily belongs to the man, the future child and the woman concurrently. A woman is born with a set number of eggs/ova and each month her body prepares itself for pregnancy with the release of an egg and preparation for pregnancy in the lining of the uterus with blood lining it just in case the woman gets pregnant. And when the woman's egg is not fertilized, the body releases that blood from the lining of the uterus, which is called a PERIOD/CYCLE to represent that period of egg release. When a woman's ovaries run out of eggs, she can no longer reproduce, and is called menopausal because she no longer releases an egg and no longer needs to have blood line up her uterus and thus no longer has a period. It's that simple!

Needless to say, the body of a healthy child-bearing woman was specifically designed to get pregnant every month unless she is already pregnant. It is a perfect baby-producing factory that ONLY GOD could have invented. The woman's body is so marvelously made and her mind is also equally marvelously detailed with everything necessary to ensure that the baby that she will have produced will have its best chance of surviving. Thus, with that in mind, I believe a woman consents to carry a man's seed as soon as she allows a man to have sex with her. She consents to the possibility that one of his sperms will fertilize her egg during he period of fertility. She consents to have her body belong to the man for the PRODUCTION OF THE FUTURE CHILD. The man is consenting to the same. The man is the planter and the woman is the earth. The resulting plant or child belongs to the man. And While the child carries their chromosomes equally, the man is the fertilizer. The resulting plant is that of the man... It's His baby! It carries his name! He pays the child support, and he is expecting to care of the child and woman, RIGHT? SOCIETY cannot have it BOTH WAYS and be fair concurrently.

When the woman did not consent to have sex with the man, she obviously did not volunteer for the contact and thus no implied contract to give up her body for a potential child-bearing transaction was made. However, she is still pregnant with a future human-being. In such a case, morality comes into play. The sperm of a violent man has nothing to do with is behavior. The resulting baby may become a Dr. King or a Nelson Mandela even though the father was violent or abusive. On that basis, even though the woman may feel reasonably compelled not to have a reminder of the offender's traits when looking at the resulting child, that TOO is a SELFISH desire to COPE with a bad experience. However, it is understandable that such a child should be given up for adoption on that basis alone. However, that does not make the child POISONOUS in any way because a SPERM of a violent person is NOT per se POISONOUS or bad, unless the child inherits a proven violent trait. There are plenty of violent people that have amazing and kind children. Thus, the child himself or herself should not be KILLED or ABORTED no matter which trimester the woman is in.

LASTLY, if the woman's life is in danger... a RISK-BENEFIT assessment must be made. What is the woman needed a kidney transplant, would she not have fought to find one. She should also fight to find every way of keeping the child while saving her life as well unless it is proven that due to some known conditions the mother will lose her life just by being pregnant or the pregnancy will result in a miscarried or malformed baby as in Rh incompatibility. What is Rh incompatibility? For instance, if a woman who is Rh negative and a man who is Rh positive conceive a baby, the fetus may have Rh-positive blood, inherited from the father. (About half of the children born to an Rh-negative mother and Rh-positive father will be Rh-positive.)

Rh incompatibility usually isn't a problem if it's the mother's first pregnancy. That's because the baby's blood does not normally enter the mother's circulatory system during the pregnancy. During the birth, though, the mother's and baby's blood can mix. If this happens, the mother's body recognizes the Rh protein as a foreign substance. It then might begin making antibodies (proteins that act as protectors if foreign cells enter the body) against the Rh protein. Rh-negative pregnant women can be exposed to the Rh protein that might cause antibody production in other ways too. These include: blood transfusions with Rh-positive blood; miscarriage; ectopic pregnancy.

When it comes to pregnancies accomplished via artificial means (e.g., turkey baster pregnancy), the same rules apply except that there is no father in the picture... in that case one must remember that SOMEONE chose to have us... is it too much to expect a woman to return the favor if we she is FIT to do so... and if she is UNFIT, and in cases like this where there is no man to step up to the plate, she should give the baby up for adoption. However, where there is a man, the man should have a right in determining whether a woman should abort a child or not if she or the child has a right to child support when the woman "chooses" to keep the child -- that is if it is truly about choice. The choice should be reciprocal and balanced. If both parties helped start a life, both parties should have a say in ending that life, which is still murder, but at least they would both be co-conspirators in the act or at least one can convince the other not to commit the act as well.

The TEXAN ABORTION LAW is meant to push the pendulum as far to the right as possible so that a REPEAL will be feasible, and it may at least induce a CONSENSUS on the very heated abortion debate. I believe that is a GODLY LAW. Essentially, a woman should AT LEAST not abort a man's future baby child without his consent, PERIOD! but certainly she should not have an ABORTION at all UNLESS it concerns LIFE or DEATH!

And as side note, if the woman chooses to give the child up for ADOPTION -- she should be compensated for carrying the child.


If you are Christian:

Ephesians 5: 22+

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything... so, it appears to me that the woman's body belongs to her man.


Dr. Pete Lorins is the Chief Editor of and this article was sponsored by


bottom of page