Inside the Abortion Mindset: Illogical and Slippery

Stephanie Gray Connors, pro-life apologist

By Bonnie Finnerty, Education Director



It was a huge admission: a pro-abortion professor conceding that we are living human beings from the moment of fertilization.

How then could he justify abortion, the deliberate killing of that human life?

In a recent debate co-sponsored by Harvard Right to Life and Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Peter Singer laid out his case in defense of abortion, while pro-life apologist Stephanie Gray Connors offered strong argumentation against it.

It was a robust but civil exchange of opposing viewpoints. By the end, the absurdity of the argument for abortion was evident.

The resolution being debated was Abortion is Immoral. In her opening statement, Gray Connors offered two assumptions that she believes everyone can agree to:

  1. All humans are equal, and thus it is wrong to deliberately end the life of some humans.
  2. Parents have a responsibility to care for their children, not kill them.

Singer, however, disagreed that all humans are equal, claiming that in order to have moral standing, we must possess certain “capacities.” Since embryos and fetuses are not self-aware, do not have desires, and cannot plan for the future, he contends they have no moral standing.

He acknowledged that newborns do not possess these qualities, nor do some people with disabilities, and so he believes they also lack moral standing.  Apparently, he is an advocate for infanticide and euthanasia as well.

When pressed, Singer acknowledged that a 2 year old might have moral standing, but he wasn’t sure about a 6 month old and would not draw any definitive line as to when we are “awarded” moral standing. Insisting that age is not the qualifying criteria as much as capacity, he said, for example, it would be morally acceptable to kill a 50 year-old who lacks self-awareness due to a brain injury.

In Singer’s world, it’s a very slippery slope. At any given time, you or I or he could lack moral standing based on an injury or illness. And we could be extinguished.

Gray Connors countered him by saying capacity to think is a function of age. A one-celled zygote does not yet have a developed brain that allows her to demonstrate her inherent capacities but by her very nature those capacities are still part of her human condition.  It is time alone that will enable greater demonstration of her capacity. She is young, but she is not less.

In fact, Gray Connors stated that the notion of older humans killing younger humans because capacity is still developing is the ultimate form of ageism and bullying. 

It is survival of the fittest mentality in which the powerful terminate the weak. 

According to Gray Connors, Singer is exclusive, not inclusive; being human is not enough, we must be “human plus.” Further, she points out that capacity as a criteria for moral standing is arbitrary, as it can differ amongst individuals and even within a person’s lifetime.

Another revealing exchange concerned suffering. Singer admitted the issue is complicated when the fetus becomes pain-capable, which he sets at 27 weeks gestation (more recent research says much earlier). Rather than put a limit on abortion, Singer puts forth the idea of mitigating suffering by anesthetizing the fetus (and I suppose the newborn, disabled, elderly, etc.)

Singer believes if the fetus does not suffer pain, then it’s ok to kill her.

But as Gray Connors pointed out, something can be wrong even if it doesn’t involve suffering. She gave the example of a person who is undergoing surgery, sedated and unaware of a murderer in the operating room. By Singer’s criteria, this person lacks moral standing as well. Is it morally acceptable to kill him?

While Singer is a renowned animal rights activist who seeks to alleviate the killing and suffering of animals (who don’t have the capacity that he demands in humans), he is just fine with killing innocent children. In fact, he scolded Gray Connors who is pregnant with her first child for not being a vegan.

In her closing statement, Gray Connors stated we should strive to eliminate suffering but not the sufferers. She recounted her experience working in a failure-to-thrive clinic in Romania, where she cared for a baby girl suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome and weighing a mere 6 pounds at 6 months of age.

By being gently rocked and sung to, “she came alive with love.”  Gray Connors was teary talking about how this one fragile little life, thought to be disposable by Singer, is now thriving.

How can anyone argue against that?

(The entire debate can be viewed at https://youtu.be/DB5IZXGmk08.)

Women are leaping forward, not turning back!

By Bonnie Finnerty, Education Director

Fear is a powerful weapon. And it is being employed full force right now.

Some feminists are forecasting that the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court will “turn back the clock” on women, erasing any progress made toward equal opportunities in education, the job market, and the public square.

What could possibly lead them to launch such a claim?

Ironically, a brilliant, successful woman. One whom they should be celebrating with abandon, for she represents so much of what the feminist movement has strived to accomplish. 

Although she has had the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association, stellar recommendations from colleagues and former students, an unmatched intellect, and the ability to be both simultaneously assertive and saintly, she has failed to win the approval of hard-core feminists, who fear that she will be the tipping point to the end of Roe vs. Wade. 

It’s really all about abortion.

While Amy Coney Barrett has expressed pro-life views in her personal life, no one knows for sure how she or the rest of the Court would rule as jurists in upcoming cases. She has pledged to interpret the Constitution as written and not legislate from the bench.

But fear is the focal point of those clinging to the distorted notion that women need to end a life in order to succeed. Everyone from Senators to singers are sounding the alarm of panic.

What these faux feminists fail to acknowledge is that their abortion mindset is limiting to women, not empowering. It says that you aren’t “enough” to have a child and pursue your dreams. That the very essence of your femininity is a detriment.  That we must mute our body’s beautiful capability to bring forth new life in order to achieve.

Amy Coney Barrett’s life says otherwise.  The mother of seven children and a former college professor, she is the epitome of empowered.  She is the new face of feminism.

Her life itself is a message to present and future generations of women. True feminism is not an either/or proposition that limits your roles, but an and/both invitation to fulfill your potential.

We as a society owe it to all women to pursue true feminism, not one that pits us against our own children or limits our career choices. But one that honors our natural and unique role as life-bearers alongside anything else we aspire to be. A giant leap forward!

Who Do We Rescue First?

By Bonnie Finnerty, Education Director

An occupied house is engulfed in flames. Who do you rescue first?

A ship is sinking. Who gets priority in the lifeboats?

Confronted with life-threatening scenarios, we are forced to make sudden choices, sometimes on instinct alone.  Those instincts prompt us to run toward and rescue the most vulnerable, the very young or the very old. Those unable to find their own way to safety. Those who would perish without our help.

Faced with a multitude of issues, should we not prioritize rescuing those whose lives are in the greatest danger, those most marginalized?

When an estimated 100 voiceless human beings are exterminated every hour in this country, do they deserve our voice?

When almost two-thirds of the women who abort say they feel coerced into ending their own child’s life, should we make them a priority?

When states pass laws allowing babies who survived an abortion to be left to die, should we draw a line?  

Or when livers and kidneys of aborted babies are auctioned off for thousands of dollars, do we dare speak up?

Of course, there are other issues. 

But at what cost?

Are we willing to sacrifice millions more lives in order to pursue a “better society”? Are we willing to ignore this slaughter because some “good” is promised if we just look the other way? Are we then like others in history who have tolerated evil because of some perceived benefit?

This is not just another issue. We are speaking of a genocide, with almost one-fifth of the American population deliberately and violently deprived of life. And we defend this how?

That they are not living? That they are not human? The violent dismemberment or burning of helpless humans, many pain-capable, is simply not defensible.

Abortion kills the pre-born, but it also sears the soul of society. In devaluing human life, abortion teaches us that inherent human dignity does not exist, leading to only more evils. Life, all life, is cheapened. What have we become?

Lest someone argue that we will always have abortion, keep in mind the abolitionist movement of the 19th century. When slavery ended, it is estimated that only about 2% of the American population were active in the abolitionist movement. They persisted in rejecting the dehumanization of an entire class of people. Ultimately, they brought an end to an institution that was intrinsically evil.

We must persist in doing the same.

It is not just a house on fire, but our very country. Who do we rescue first?