Abortion

Fetal personhood is a controversial issue that deserves respectful debate. But the New England Journal of Medicine just published a screed by two Ph.D.s associating its advocates with past slave-holding racists and — by strong implication — devaluing unborn human life as having zero intrinsic value. First, the article claims that pregnancy has been “criminalized.” From, “Fetal Personhood and Reproductive Criminalization” (citations omitted): Fetal personhood ideology is the underlying force behind abortion bans and restrictions, the prosecution of pregnant women because of conduct deemed potentially harmful to the fetus, and fetal homicide laws that allow a fetus to be treated as the victim of a crime. As a result of this ideology being embedded in state laws and judicial decisions, Read More ›

Should men have the right to have their cells manipulated so they can become biological mothers? Should women past child-bearing age have the same right if their own eggs are no longer viable? More to the point, should we all have the right to do whatever it takes to have a baby if that is our desire and also, to obtain the baby we want?

These questions have ceased to be grist for science fiction authors. Researchers recently announced that they have genetically manipulated human skin cells to become eggs, including those of men (the idea being to eventually enable both members of a same sex couple to have a genetic connection with their child). Then, after more genetic tinkering, the eggs were fertilized into embryos via IVF. Finally, the biotechnologists monitored embryonic development until the experiment was stopped, and the embryos destroyed.

No pregnancy has been established with this technique. But that is cold comfort. The researchers plan to keep experimenting and I have little doubt that when they overcome remaining technical difficulties, someone will create a pregnancy using “skin cell” embryos. After all, what beyond self-restraint—currently in little supply in this field—is to stop them?

Why would an atheist be pro-life? In this interview of the Bioethics Babe podcast, Monica Snyder, Executive Director of Secular Pro-Life, shares the evidence-based and non-religious arguments against abortion. With a background in chemical biology and forensic science, Monica explains how science, logic, and compassion shape her pro-life views—without relying on faith. She also shares her best advice on how to dialogue with people who are pro-choice. We discuss: If you’ve ever wondered whether the pro-life position requires religion, this conversation shows why it doesn’t. Subscribe for more interviews on bioethics, abortion debates, and the intersection of science, ethics, and culture. For more information, the latest episodes, and additional resources, visit www.bioethicsbabe.com. Thank you for tuning in! Follow BB on Read More ›

Wesley J. Smith appeared on The Ann and Phelim Scoop, hosted by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, to discuss his latest article, “Study: Mental Illness More Likely After Abortion Than After Childbirth.” Smith explains why the study is both surprising and significant, discusses the findings, and explores why these findings matter regardless of one’s stance on abortion.

A large scientific study has concluded that women who have had an “induced abortion” were more likely to experience mental conditions than were women who have given birth. The study, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, followed 28,721 women who induced abortions and 1,228,807 who gave birth in hospitals in Quebec, Canada, between 2006 and 2022. The results were striking: In this population-based study of more than 1.2 million pregnancies, having an induced abortion was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for a mental disorder more than a decade later. Compared with live births and stillbirths, patients with induced abortions had a greater risk of admission for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and suicide attempts over time. Patients Read More ›

The Christian, pro-life organization Liberty Counsel Action has distributed a report that raises the disturbing question of whether U.S. water systems contain traces of drugs used in chemical abortions as well as human tissue from terminated fetuses. Here’s the issue as I understand it. After surgical abortions, the remains are incinerated. But, as of 2023, some 63 percent of abortions have occurred at home (chemical abortions), with the result that hundreds of thousands of deceased fetuses have been flushed down the toilet over the years. Moreover, the active chemicals in abortion pills also enter our sewage systems. This is the potential rub. Our water treatment plants are not equipped to properly process human tissue nor necessarily to remove metabolized mifepristone Read More ›

Wesley J. Smith recently participated in a Symposium hosted by the Human Life Review. He was asked to react to the following statement: In the decades between Roe v. Wade and Dobbs, most prolifers believed that Americans were more or less opposed to legalized abortion on demand because a) this was the case in 1973; b) it was imposed on us from above by “raw judicial power,” rather than legislated; and c) surveys repeatedly showed substantial percentages of Americans being disquieted by abortion, especially when you got beyond the hard cases and the earliest weeks of pregnancy. In the first year or so following Dobbs, prolifers got a reality check through legislative defeats even in some reddish and purple states. We can say (what is true) that massive Read More ›

Last month, I wrote about Adriana Smith, the pregnant young mother who tragically experienced blood clots in the brain and was declared dead by neurological criteria. Adriana’s body was maintained with mechanical support to allow her baby to be gestated. I thought that was the right decision. Here is how I analyzed the situation in my post: That column was quite controversial — something new for me (eye roll) — and I received many angry responses (as well as expressions of support). Most of my critics claimed that it was somehow undignified to force a dead woman to gestate a baby. I heard the trite Handmaid’s Tale trope more than once. Well, time has passed, and thankfully Adriana’s baby was Read More ›

What a tragedy. A Georgia woman named Adriana Smith was two months pregnant when she suffered blood clots to the brain and was later declared deceased by neurological criteria, i.e., “brain dead.” Under the law, that means Adriana’s body is a cadaver. The medical team has kept her body functioning so that her baby can continue to gestate. The baby is now at 21-weeks gestation, which is close to viability. (Whether a true corpse can gestate for months is a different question that I won’t address here.) From the AP story: Smith’s family says Emory doctors have told them they are not allowed to stop or remove the devices that are keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity Read More ›

Taking abortion pills can lead to dangerous side effects, perhaps even death. Which is why the process of chemical abortion — called “medical” by pro-abortion advocates — is supposed to occur only under the guidance of a doctor. Indeed, post-Dobbs, women died because of improperly supervised chemical abortions, wrongly blamed by the media and pro-abortion advocates on pro-life laws.

But the medical establishment is so invested in unlimited abortion that JAMA Internal Medicine just published an advocacy article calling for the two drugs used in chemical abortions to be available over the counter:

A growing body of evidence indicates that mifepristone and misoprostol meet the FDA’s criteria for OTC sale. The medications are not addictive, and the user determines on their own whether they have the condition needing treatment, in this case an unwanted pregnancy. The criteria that the FDA is likely to focus on are whether the user can appropriately self-select for use and whether they can use the product correctly over time, often referred to as actual use.

Regarding the former, research indicates that people can accurately self-assess their gestational duration and other eligibility criteria for medication abortion. In the event someone uses the regimen significantly past 10 weeks of pregnancy (for example, after 12 weeks’ gestation), it is less likely to be effective, but it is unlikely to cause serious medical complications for the pregnant person. For the question about actual use, even with facility-based medication abortion, patients generally take the medications on their own at home, manage adverse events, and determine when they need follow-up care. [Citations omitted.]