Why I Oppose Abortion

 PHOTO COURTESY OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

As a moderate-conservative politics student at USF, my opinions are often unwelcome amongst my peers. I don’t mind the opposition — in fact, I enjoy it. I came to USF, the second most diverse university in the country, to be immersed in as many perspectives as possible. But I’ve found that I don’t often get the chance to discuss my perspectives in San Francisco. It’s time to break the ice on the issue of abortion, a topic close to my heart, and stand up to a national tragedy. 

I believe that life, beginning at conception, must be protected and celebrated. Every abortion is a tragic loss of human life that has been normalized in our political stratum, which is why I fervently oppose it.

According to data gathered from over 5,000 biologists from over 80 countries, a majority of scientists, even those that support the practice of abortion, believe that life begins at conception. The idea that a fetus is “just a clump of cells” is scientifically inaccurate. Each fetus is completely genetically unique; it is a whole new person. The only thing that separates you and I from an unborn child is our level of development, and level of development may well be something that separates me from you. 

Abortion has roots in eugenics, starting with the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, a mid-20th century advocate for birth control. While the degree to which Sanger participated in the eugenics community is debated by historians, her involvement in eugenics ought to raise alarm. Time Magazine quoted Sanger in 1921 as saying, “The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” Planned Parenthood denounced these beliefs with a statement in 2021. Despite this denunciation, the modern abortion-rights argument does not have more solid foundational beliefs. 

Between 1995 and 2011, up to 85% of pregnancies that received a Down syndrome diagnosis were terminated, according to a systematic review published in the scientific journal, Prenatal Diagnosis. This is an uncharted number of children lost to abortion simply because they were diagnosed with Down syndrome, which reinforces Sanger’s ideology. The idea that people have the right to choose whether or not their children get to live based on the relative level of convenience that child’s needs may present is irreconcilably linked to eugenics.

Poverty is another common tool in the argument for abortion. However, the idea that a violent  prenatal death (whether that violence is carried out surgically or via a pill like mifepristone) is a better option than living in poverty is equally reflective of eugenics. Death can’t be preferable to a life in poverty — and families or society are not better off without children. Raising children is hard and expensive, and the anti-abortion movement seeks to alleviate that as much as possible. Prominent anti-abortion organizations, like Live Action, have resources for those contemplating abortion, including adoption, housing, and health care. 

Many advocates for abortion repeat the narrative that this is a women’s rights issue. They say legislators’ encroachment on their personal decisions is a form of controlling and oppressing women. I am very wary of government overreach, but I believe elected officials are responsible for protecting the people they represent, which includes the unborn. To do so, they must stop the abortion industry. Planned Parenthood alone made $1.7 billion in 2021, including all their services. Not only are children being murdered in this industry, but people are profiting from it.

I am not here to judge or shame people who felt abortion was their only option. My heart goes out to people who become pregnant as a result of rape, a crime which no one should ever have to endure. They deserve access to the health care, child care, and support that they need to raise their kids, and their kids deserve to have a life. My heart is also with people who were conceived as a result of rape. The anti-abortion movement is here to say that your worth does not come from the circumstances around your conception. As we struggle with the issue of abortion, especially as it relates to rape, we must hold rapists accountable. For example, Florida legislators are in the process of passing HB 1297, a bill which would give child rapists the death penalty. 

I am a practicing Christian, and my faith largely influences my opinions. My faith is important to me; I am proud to be a follower of Christ. But I do not want my arguments to be written off as a strictly religious perspective. My faith gives me, among other things, a respect and awe for human life that drives my politics. 

Right-wing Christians are not the only group who oppose abortion. For example, the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising is an organization committed to uplifting “secular, feminist, liberal, and LGBTQIA+ identifying pro-life voices, especially those belonging to people of color,” according to their website, in addition to their anti-capitalist agenda. Barriers of faith or political party should not impede on the basic human right to be born. 

Look around and you will see a new revolution. As a more liberal generation rises, there is a misconception that in a few decades, political ideologies currently considered forward thinking will win out in law, that the people who fight for what the majority doesn’t believe in will simply die away. But this isn’t how history works. Young people are driving the fight against abortion because young people see a future where everyone’s right to life is protected.

There’s political stalemate in the debate around abortion. Abortion is a massive issue, and it is too complex for one op-ed to cover. It is likely that readers of the Foghorn don’t agree with any point I’ve made. I want to encourage real discussion on the matter. We need to be inviting a more diverse school of opinions to influence thought on this campus. Certainly USF students are talking about abortion — this is a very politically involved campus — but without opposition to liberal arguments, it isn’t really a discussion. We might think that we are having a discussion about abortion, but we’re really just talking about it in echo-chambers. 

Institutions like USF should embrace delicate situations, and create academic spaces for them to be hashed out to create thoughtful leaders. Without discussion, we will never stop talking, and we will keep losing precious life.

29 thoughts on “Why I Oppose Abortion

    1. Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t it a bit misleading to say Planned Parenthood made 1.7 million when if you scroll up in the linked document in the same year it says their expenses totaled 1.5 million? Revenue doesn’t equal profit. 1.7-1.5= $200K.

  1. There is a difference between us and an unborn fetus—the unborn fetus is dependent and reliant on its mothers body to survive. A great burden that should not be forced upon women because of religious or political ideologies. Further, abortion is not merely the taking of a life, it is the saving of a life in situations where the pregnancy is not viable. Or the prevention of introducing women to a world where 9th amendment can’t protect them. Women have the capacity to generate more life when they are ready and when they choose.

    It’s not about being anti or pro abortion. I am adopted, I am anti-abortion in some regards. But this is about women having a choice regarding their reproductive freedom; a choice regarding their body and their sex lives. You can be or advocate for whatever you choose, but their needs to be a choice.

    Dobbs is the first time the Supreme Court has ever moved a fundamental right down to merely a liberty interest that only requires rational basis—the easiest constitutional muster of any for the government to meet.

    The pro choice movement is about advocating for women to make their own decisions— a right that is slowly that right is trickling down the drain — outside of the opinions of government officials, religious entities or political fanatics. Put yourself outside of what your personal beliefs and evaluate this based on our right to be free from improper government action.

    Respectfully, stop basing your opinions on your faith and look at the world around you. Recognize your privilege and truly think about what it means to be pro-choice versus anti abortion.

  2. You care so much about the unborn yet what about the hundreds of thousands of women who will lose their lives if abortion is banned? Abortion is healthcare. I noticed how you completely avoided the topics of ectopic pregnancies, pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, and abortion processes on fetuses who have already died. Abortion is necessary to save life, people who already have lives and consciousness. Abortion is deemed a medically necessary procedure by countless doctors and scientific organizations, yet you cherry-pick the science and use only what you can use in your argument. Your information about planned parenthood is outdated and does not reflect the organization today whatsoever, those views were common in the 60s not today. You even had the audacity to insinuate rape victims should have to carry their pregnancies to term. Life does not constitute consciousness: these women are alive and cognitively functional, fetuses are not. I can’t believe such a hateful and misinformed article was published on this page and I hope that this is removed and you educate yourself on how harmful this rhetoric is.

  3. Stop letting your religion cloud your judgement and pushing your views on others that don’t share them. You are exactly what’s wrong with our government and our country and why so many women will have to unnecessarily lose their lives in red states because they can’t get medically necessary care. Why even mention your religion? It just shows how much it influences your views and prevents you from properly educating yourself on these issues. You did not cite a single source for the “science” you mention, there is nothing academically valid about this paper. I hope you’re actually as prepared as you say you are for the opposition you will receive for this, as every single one of your arguments is riddled with fallacies and incredibly close minded.

  4. as someone who is very knowledgeable in genetic disorders, I think it’s unfair to judge parents who abort a fetus with a known genetic disorder (also you should have more accurate stats for that). if you want to get religious with it i myself am a christian and have studied the bible since i could read (so about 16 years now) and to quote Sirach 30:17 in the contemporary english version “Death is better than a life of constant pain and sickness.” some children will simply be brain dead by the age of two, have bones more fragile than glass, have skin that flakes off on contact, and so much more. i don’t think it’s fair to bring a child into a world where it will only suffer, that also goes for children who would have to be raised in poverty. the foster care and adoption system in america is messed up on so many levels. bringing a child into a world where they will most likely end up as a statistic is not fair. and let’s say those parents with a down syndrome decided to just give it up for adoption instead? news flash there aren’t a lot of families out there begging to raise a child with a genetic disorder that requires a lot of attention and care. you can call it eugenics, but in my opinion i think we can all agree that knowing you weren’t wanted would be so psychologically damaging for any child and that death is better than a life of suffering (there’s a reason people euthanize themselves).

  5. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.
    That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Does creation not begin at conception?

    Thomas Jefferson also said: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time”.

  6. Justifying a baby conceived from rape is such an absurd argument. It completely ignores the actual individual that was a victim of this crime, and what type of impact it would have on someone to keep the baby of someone she was raped by. Regardless of how the baby was conceived, it should still be a choice especially if an individual knows that she is not fit to support a baby. Sophia states “they deserve access to the health care, child care, and support that they need to raise their kid” and everyone does deserve this access but it’s very clear that not everyone has this access and is a completely invalid argument made by her.

  7. Diversity of opinions is vital to any debate. I, alongside many others, disagree with many of the points made in this op-ed. I think it would have been more beneficial for the author to provide a forum to continue the conversation. I find it disheartening that the author talked about their opinion not being valued but left no forum open to having an open dialogue. I think the Foghorn should allow for formal responses to this article from other contributors and should serve as an ongoing dialogue amongst the student body.

    1. what? isn’t that what comments sections are?? aren’t people engaging in dialogue here and isn’t that why newspapers print letters to the editor?

  8. This completely closed-minded view promotes the idea that your religion has a say over what human beings can do with their own life even if they don’t believe in that god. Pretty evident that a lot of people agree so maybe keep your thought to yourself.

  9. That was honestly a solid read. However the outrage is expected. It’s San Francisco. You knew your audience.

    On Instagram, I disagree with many of those comments. They got way too hostile and made no sense. Abortion can be debated especially by women. I hope USF won’t take disciplinary action.

    1. It’s not a solid read, unless you utterly lack scientific literacy or understanding of this nuanced topic at all. She made no points or references to peer reviewed data, why perhaps the board of OBGYNs nationwide consider abortion to be healthcare, no solutions outside of just “have the kid”. This is a privileged, illiterate, quite frankly garbage take on abortion clearly coming from someone who has never experienced these issues first had or has any medical knowledge. Be so astronomically for real. Is she getting opposition because it’s San Francisco or because she’s an idiot?

      1. The answer is it’s because she’s an idiot.

        One of her arguments is that abortion is bad since it has been used before in eugenics. Babe, lots of scientific discovery was used for eugenics. Assholes get their hands on everything (including you and this topic)

        She quotes Planned Parenthood revenue as if the institution only gives out abortions LOL. It’s embarrassing

      2. yo how are you gonna call someone privileged and then illiterate in the same sentence. That is elitism if I’ve ever seen it. Classic left trope of all conservatives are dumb / uneducated. Btw I am a women who belongs to the left & is pro-choice and I don’t agree with her central argument but to say that as a women she must refer to to the medical establishment in order to have an opinion on something that effects her body is dicey at best. And then to end your argument calling her an idiot.. makes the left look real real bad.

        1. It’s not a trope that all conservatives are dumb/uneducated… It is STATISTICALLY PROVEN that people who are more educated tend to trend left politically. It’s also well-known that liberal ideologies are much more based in science (see also: REALITY) compared to conservative values. It’s not wrong to point out how uneducated this piece comes across when it’s written like someone with very minimal understanding of how science, anatomy, and society works as a whole.

          Also, she’s not pushing an opinion about something that just has to do with her body. She’s pushing an opinion about something that has to do with ALL women’s bodies. She damn well better be referring to the proper medical establishments when trying to come across as a credible voice on such a topic!!!

          1. The medical establishment is the same establishment which has historically used abortion and forced sterilization against women of color, and indigenous peoples. 1 Example: https://www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves.

            Ask yourself the precedent you set when you say women must defer to large institutions of systems of power to make decisions about their body. Isn’t that exactly what you find problematic with her argument which finds that legislation should be shaped by a religious belief that comes from a system. of. power.

            Totally cool great to have scientifically informed opinions, but to act like the medical establishment doesn’t have bias, is waayyyyy too categorical, and comes from a looong history of western Cartesian dualism, mind-body distinction, and western conceptions of science == logical and fact based vs everything else (often including the voices of women) = illogical, without merit.

            We know that women of color are more likely to die in childbirth, we know that women are less likely to be believed by doctors, there is endless bias towards women in healthcare. So you should consider this when you argue that as women we must all defer to that same system which has harmed us.

            All of this is only to say you should consider the implication of telling a women she is not allowed to have an opinion about her body, because it is more proper for a hierarchical and historically classist, racist, and you guessed it, sexists institution to tell her what she should believe.

            Like I said as a pro-choice feminist – emphasis on the CHOICE – I agree with your point she should not tell other women what to do with their bodies.

  10. I hope you know that miscarriage is also an abortion. Medically, physiologically. When someone has a miscarriage it is charted as A for abortion. When someone seeks out an abortion it is also charted as A for abortion. When someone is miscarrying, mifepristone is used to stimulate uterine contractions to make sure all pregnancy tissue is expelled to avoid sepsis, which is lethal. When someone seeks a medical abortion, mifepristone is prescribed to stimulate uterine contractions for expulsion of fetal tissue. When someone is miscarrying further in term, a D&C is preformed to clear any remaining tissue to avoid bleeding and sepsis. When someone is having an abortion between 8-12 weeks, a D&C is preformed to remove pregnancy tissue.
    Do you see the parallels? Do you see the overlaps? When you start making laws about how providers can treat their patients, on the basis of emotional manipulation and not peer reviewed science, it limits our ability to save your life. It limits the ability of a doctor to do what’s best for their patients.
    The overriding of FDA approval of mifepristone which recently happened, will cause women suffering from miscarriages to bleed out. To die. it has happened already, in red states mostly. Is this what being pro life is to you? Is it really telling doctors when it’s okay to intervene?
    You will NEVER get rid of abortion. It has existed since the beginning of humanity and it will exist until the end of humanity. It is a fact if life. You can only make it more or less safe.
    You can choose between women dying in basements and back alleys, women miscarrying a wanted baby and bleeding out because the doctors couldn’t preform the D&C by law. Or allowing the medical professionals to decide what is or isn’t healthcare.
    Only one of these seems pro life to me, and it’s not whatever you are arguing.

  11. Tone deaf as hell. Absolutely disgusting to make an argument regarding Down’s Syndrome as if it’s simply a matter of “convenience” for people aborting when given such a diagnosis — really exemplifies how naïve you are. Guess what lady? It’s none of your business. Your arguments and statistics are ripe with confirmation bias and if you spent more than three seconds not being an ignorant religious little fruitcake you’d find a plethora of research validating just how disastrous anti-abortion policies are for women’s health and society as a whole.

    Unbelievable that this garbage gets published here.

  12. Pregnant people are not incubators for new babies, they are people with their own lives, dreams, and fears. It is disturbing that you consider the “violence” done to a non-sentient fetus to be more important than the mental and physical violence that can be experienced by someone carrying a pregnancy they do not want. A cluster of cells should not be put above their wishes. It is cruel and unusual punishment to force someone to risk their life (both literally and figuratively – people still die in childbirth or have life-altering complications!) for a child they do not want. What about children who are the victims of terrible crimes? Should an 11-year-old girl be forced to be a mother instead of attending the sixth grade? Furthermore, it is laws like abortion bans that force people to have to carry unviable pregnancies to term. At the end of the day, though, you can believe what you want to believe. There is simply no way to justify abortion bans with a separation of church and state.

  13. In any sector of medicine or healthcare, it is completely unethical to demand a person to use their body to sustain another life. What I mean is, if your partner needs a kidney transplant, and you have a kidney that you could offer, it is completely within your right to say “no.” This holds true for abortion as well. No matter the reason, it is completely within a woman’s right to not use her body to sustain another life, as it would be for any other person. It is illegal and unethical to demand someone to sacrifice their bodily autonomy to sustain another person’s life.

    The “when life begins” argument does not matter, because no matter the answer, you still cannot demand someone to give up control over their own body for another person.

  14. You’re presenting no new ideas in this very poor argument. You haven’t experienced poverty or know the lifelong responsibilities that come with taking care of someone with Down syndrome or even a child without differences. Also, you fail to mention solutions for people with unwanted pregnancies, are they just suppose to put their children into the terrible adoption system? If you do have any of these experiences, why didn’t you mention them? There are real issues in the world. Try to apply yourself.

  15. This is the most intelligent, compassionate, well-written article the Foghorn has ever published. If you don’t agree, be an adult about it.

  16. Okay first off, separation of church and state is in place and should always be in place. Good for you, you believe in Christ. I don’t, so why should I be forced to follow your rules about MY body?

    Also, pro life but pro death penalty? Not a very coherent view or stance. I am against the government having the right to force life or take life, including child rapists. When will it stop? Do you truly want the government to have so much power over their citizens right to live? I sure don’t.

    And you, as an extremely privileged person by the sounds of it, need to leave marginalized groups out of your arguments. It’s not fair to tokenize their experiences. Or those who have experienced rape. That was a very nasty portion that came off tone deaf. As a victim myself… I felt highly disrespected that your solution was “kill the rapist”. I fight for love and the lives of the breathing over those who aren’t considered legally alive in any other format within our political system.

    Please listen and learn from this. We’re not “angry liberals”, we’re human beings who feel hurt by your article. Not the topic necessarily, but the approach. Please do better, for your own sake.

  17. I earnestly tried to read this with an open mind. However, one of the things that I struggled to understand was — isn’t it hypocritical to talk about the value of equal life and then use the killing of one person to justify the existence of another (rapist’s death sentence)? The argument here typically is — that the rapist has obviously committed an unforgivable crime, and the fetus has yet to be born. However, shouldn’t the victim decide what should happen to the perpetrator and the fetus? There’s really no guarantee that the perpetrator will face criminal charges, let alone a long sentence. Shouldn’t the safety and comfort of the victim come first? Additionally, I’m a massive supporter of rapists kicking rocks — but saying the death penalty is the answer when advocating for life seems naive and hypocritical. Should the existence of an unborn baby with no life of its own come before the physical and emotional well-being of a grown person with thoughts, ideas, and dreams?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *