Abortion: An industry dependent on lies

No industry is more dependent on lies than abortion. What other industry today could even compete? Car sales? Politics? Illegal drug cartels or trafficking? Whichever it is, abortion is in that conversation.

Following is a multitude of lies advanced by the abortion industry. And the list isn't exhaustive. These are not obscure lies told by individuals with a negligible audience. These are lies pertaining to the fundamental premises of abortion. They are foundational. They are lies told by the abortion industry. They are lies told by politicians funded by the abortion industry. The are lies told by abortion influencers or media.

Lie #1: “My body, my choice”

The phrase “my body, my choice” is a common one among abortion proponents. The implication is that an abortion is merely a decision the woman makes about “her body.” But this is a lie. The baby’s body is not only philosophically but genetically distinct from the mother’s. A multitude of scientific papers acknowledge the individuality of new life at fertilization. For example: “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” (Signorelli J, Diaz ES, Morales P)

Lie #2: Fake embryo pictures

In October 2022, The Guardian posted outright fake pictures of a human embryo. It described the pictures as “tissue” or what a “pregnancy” looks like at various early weeks of pregnancy. However, the images only showed bits of gestational sac. The embryo was missing from the photos. The article quotes Dr. Joan Fleischman with MYA Network, the abortion business credited with the photos. Fleischman specifically said the internet and placards show human embryos with “human-like qualities.” However, she asserted, the fake pictures in the Guardian article—which showed only gestational sac bits—are “what it actually looks like.” A stir on social media followed, both from medical professionals, and from women who have experienced miscarriages and know first-hand that the images from The Guardian and MYA Network were fake.

The Guardian later attempted to explain the absence of the embryo with another false statement which was added to the article as a disclaimer: “This article was amended on 19 October 2022 to include the detail that at nine weeks the nascent embryo is not easily discernible to the naked eye.” However, The Guardian only added another false statement to their false article. At 9 weeks, the human embryo not only has human features, but is close to ¾ of an inch in size, or larger than many adult fingernails.

Rather than vanishing in shame, this lie is perpetuated, as recently as April 2023. Ted Lieu, congressman from California, was angered by the recent judicial decision that ruled the abortion drug mifepristone had not undergone proper FDA protocols when it was approved in 2000. Lieu tweeted one of the fake MYA Network pictures and included the claim: “Mifepristone is for abortions of less than 10 weeks. Below are pictures of pregnancies at 6, 7, 8, and 9 weeks.” When called out for sharing fake images, Lieu later doubled down by sharing another fake article from Insider, which claimed, among other lies, “There is no ‘heart’ at six weeks of pregnancy.” But the heart is known to develop as early as 3 weeks and can be observed beating by week 6. (See more on the heartbeat lie at Lie #8 below.)

Embryo at 7-8 weeks
(Credit: lunar caustic at Flickr)

The above photo is of an actual human embryo (7-8 weeks). The gestational sac, which can be observed surrounding the embryo, is only what The Guardian article showed.

Lie #3: "Abortion Saves Lives"
This phrase is commonly seen at protests, asserted by pro-abortion organizations, or even stated by abortion "doctors." This lie is obvious. Abortion ends a human life. "Abortion Causes Death" would be an accurate sign. Some claimants confuse treatment of ectopic pregnancy or other life-threatening diagnoses with abortion. See Lie #13. Others use incomplete data.

Illinois’ anti-pregnancy help Senate Bill 1909 (SB 1909) claims the “risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the risk of death associated with an abortion.” Again, the assertion dishonestly does not account for the baby variable, which results in 100% death for every completed abortion. 

The statistic is still specious even if only the life of the mother is considered. For example, a subsequent study Short and long term mortality rates associated with first pregnancy outcome looked at 463,473 women. The study states:

Previous population studies, however, have failed to control for complete reproductive histories. In this study we seek to eliminate the potential confounding effect of unknown prior pregnancy history by examining mortality rates associated specifically with first pregnancy outcome alone. We also examine differences in mortality rates associated with early abortion and late abortions (after 12 weeks).

They concluded: “Compared to women who delivered, women who had an early or late abortion had significantly higher mortality rates within 1 through 10 years.”

A 2020 study, Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality, found similar results when more health information about the patients was factored. They summarize:

In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth.

Lie #4: Late-term abortions aren’t real

Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy for the American College of Gynecologists (ACOG), stated:

The phrase “late-term abortion” is medically inaccurate and has no clinical meaning. In science and medicine, it’s essential to use language precisely. In pregnancy, to be “late term” means to be past 41 weeks gestation, or past a patient’s due date. Abortions do not occur in this time period, so the phrase is contradictory.

ACOG’s website also claims “late-term abortion” is “a biased, nonmedical phrase intended to appropriate clinical language in order to misconstrue the reality of patient care.”

First, ACOG is attempting to restrict a scientific use onto a term that is also native to legal language. This is a form of the fallacy of equivocation and is a basic error in contextual interpretation. It is disingenuous for ACOG to suggest there is legislation against a non-existent abortion type. When the term “late-term abortion” is used in legal documents, a gestational age typically accompanies it. For instance:

• An amicus brief for Dobbs submitted by 375 women injured by abortion, “late-term abortion” is specified as 2^nd or 3^rd trimester (or 13 and 26 weeks).
• The case of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin vs. Doyle specified “late-term abortion” as after the 20th week of pregnancy.

Second, Levy’s definition does not stand on universally held medical ground. For example, the McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine defines “late-term abortion” as “Any abortion performed after the fetus would be viable…” (With current medicine, babies have survived at about 21 weeks.)

A cursory search of medical and scientific studies reveal that use of "late-term" abortions is not restricted to ACOG's 41-week definition. For example:

• A study published at the National Library of Medicine refers to “late-term abortions (after 16 weeks).”
• A study published in Reproductive Health Matters speaks of late-term abortions after women had 2^nd trimester ultrasounds.
• A study published in the Journal of Pregnancy refers to “late” abortions as occurring in the 2^nd or 3^rd trimester.
• A study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics looked at women seeking abortions after 20-weeks, referring to this as “late-term abortion.
• An article published at the National Library of Medicine suggests late-term abortion is after “viability.”
• An article in the Journal of American Medical Association says a “late-term abortion” is “referred to in the medical literature as intact dilation and extraction (D&X)”

Lie #5: Pregnancy Resource Centers are not "medical"
In 2022, Elizabeth Warren and several other senators sent a specious letter (PDF) to pregnancy help network Heartbeat International, Inc., and included the claim: "your organization and its affiliate CPCs are not legitimate medical providers." However, the facts refute this lie. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates reports 1,400 out of their 1,600 affiliates are licensed medical centers. The Charlotte Lozier Institute report on pregnancy center statistics reveals 79% of pregnancy centers nationwide are "medical." Pregnancy Centers employ or have volunteers who are licensed medical staff, including nurses and sonographers. The report also states:

Medical pregnancy centers or clinics perform limited ultrasounds in accordance with specific standards and guidelines set forth by medical professional bodies, including the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM); Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN); the American College of Radiology (ACR); and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). `Under these guidelines a limited ultrasound may be performed to “confirm the presence of an intrauterine pregnancy,” which addresses the primary reason a woman visits a pregnancy center. 

Lie #6: Only 3-4% of Planned Parenthood's “medical services” are abortions

Abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood's annual reports regularly claim 3 or 4% of total "medical services" their affiliates provide are abortion. As we've established, abortion is not medicine. So that's a lie. And the 3-4% figure is also dishonest. This false statistic has been debunked since at least as early as 2012, yet they continued to mislead year after year in annual reports. The number is fudged by counting peripheral services received in each visit as equal to abortion, when abortion was the entire intent of the client's visit. So if a woman gets a pregnancy test before the abortion, they will count them each as 50% of the client's services received, even though the former may cost $10 and take a moment and the abortion—which is why she’s there—will take upwards of hours including recovery and could cost over $1,000. As a perspective to how deceptive this is, journalist Nick Lowry wrote, "Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do."

Lie #7: Pregnancy is an illness

The abortion pill mifepristone was fast-tracked by the FDA in the year 2000. The Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 only permits “accelerated approval” of a drug if it is for “treating serious or life-threatening illnesses…” The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine pointed this lie out. In their November 2022 case filing against the FDA, they stated, “But chemical abortion drugs do not treat serious or life-threatening illnesses. Indeed, pregnancy is a normal physiological state that many females experience one or more times during their childbearing years.”

Lie #8: No heartbeat at 6 weeks

In October 2022, South Carolina Chief Justice Donald W. Beatty incorrectly asserted that a 6-week embryo’s heartbeat is “really not a heartbeat. It’s an electrical signal.” Associate Justice Kaye G. Hearn incorrectly described the heartbeat as “actually embryonic cardiac activity…a true heartbeat does not occur until all four chambers in the heart have developed.” The judges’ assertions amount to word games, a mere avoidance of using the term “heart.” Furthermore, scientific literature points to the onset of the heartbeat at the early end of the 4^th week of pregnancy, or around day 22.

Jörg Männer’s 2022 paper in the Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease states: “the human embryonic heart starts beating at 21 to 23 days after fertilization.” And Männer specifically accounts for electric activity preceding the heartbeat:

The term “heartbeat” is used to describe “the regular movement that the heart makes as it sends blood around your body”. The above-mentioned observations suggest that, with regard to the embryonic heart, we should not speak of a beating heart before coordinated regular movements of its walls generate a unidirectional fluid flow within the vascular network of the embryonic cardiovascular system. In human embryos this functional state seems to be reached during CS-10. Based on data from macaque embryos, the post-fertilization age of human CS-10 embryos was estimated as 21 to 23 days…

Some challenges to this figure only add 4-5 days, which means even conservative estimates acknowledge a heartbeat in the 4^th week.

Other studies affirm this. Tan and Lewandowski’s paper published in Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy states: “The initiation of the first heart beat via the primitive heart tube begins at gestational day 22, followed by active fetal blood circulation by the end of week 4.” Oregon State University Anatomy & Physiology curriculum teaches the same: “The human heart is the first functional organ to develop. It begins beating and pumping blood around day 21 or 22…”

Directly addressing the misinformation put out by the South Carolina judges, Dr. Tara Sander Lee, PhD, director of Life Sciences for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said, “A heartbeat at six weeks is scientific consensus based on published validated, objective, biological investigation, not a public relations campaign.”

Lie #9: Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) isn’t real

Abortion proponents have deceived the public about the possibility of abortion pill reversal. For example, a 2022 anti-pregnancy center article published in a science journal contains multiple inaccuracies, including the following: “Research has established that CPCs engage in abortion misinformation, including leading people to believe that medication abortions are reversible…” The American College of Gynecologists claims abortion pill reversal is “not supported by science.” Appealing to these kinds of lies, the state of Colorado is currently seeking to ban abortion pill reversal.

The fact is, so-called “medication abortions” are indeed reversible. This is indisputable. Over 4,500 lives have been saved for mothers who changed their minds after taking the first abortion pill by following the abortion pill reversal protocol. Abortion pill reversal replenishes the progesterone that the abortion pill depleted, thus giving the pregnancy a chance to continue. Dr. George Delgado, pioneer of the abortion pill reversal protocol, explains the process in a recent Edify video. Testimonials and photos of actual babies born after successful abortion pill reversals can be seen at Heartbeat International’s Abortion Pill Rescue Network.

Lie #10: The abortion pill is safe/“safer than Tylenol”

Dr. Serina Floyd, vice president of medical affairs and medical director of Planned Parenthood, claimed in a February 23, 2023 television interview that the abortion pill “is not dangerous at all.”

A Bloomberg “healthcare” journalist made popular the bad faith argument that the abortion pill mifepristone is safer than Tylenol because it “sends fewer people to the ER.” The most obvious problem with these claims is that they ignore the 230,000+ innocent lives ended by the abortion pill annually. Read here for a thoroughly sourced refutation of the Tylenol claim at LiveAction.

Additionally, the Bloomberg article must nonsensically lump ER visits from Tylenol due to overdose with mifepristone ER visits due to use as indicated.

In 2016, the abortion industry convinced the FDA to help keep mifepristone’s adverse effects secret by

changing the requirement for prescribers to agree to report to Mifeprex’s sponsor any serious adverse event associated with Mifeprex, including hospitalizations and blood transfusions…

Adverse effects have not been required reporting for some seven years. Doctors at the Charlotte Lozier Institute conducted a thoroughly sourced review of mifepristone’s dangers and adverse effects reporting.

The Bloomberg article also fails to account for how the abortion pill enables sex trafficking or relationship abuse. Students for Life has organized dozens of stories of the abortion pill drug slipped into women's drinks or other devious tricks. Tylenol does not have this unsafe problem. Unfettered distribution of the drug will only exacerbate this problem.

Finally, data often cited by abortion proponents on the safety of mifepristone is founded on circular illogic. Since reporting of adverse events from the drug are no longer required, abortion proponents cite data that does not account for the very adverse events they lobbied to have unreported. In a recent judicial case in Texas, the judge pointed this out:

Defendants maintain that “Plaintiffs offer no explanation for why it was impermissible to rely on the reported data.” ECF No. 28 at 33. The explanation should be obvious — it is circular and self-serving to practically eliminate an “adverse event” reporting requirement and then point to a low number of “adverse events” as a justification for removing even more restrictions than were already omitted in 2000 and 2016. In other words, it is a predetermined conclusion in search of non-data — a database designed to produce a null set.

Lie #11: Abortion is “healthcare/medical”

Politicians and abortion proponents loyally use euphemisms like “abortion care” and refer to the abortion pill as “medical abortion.” “Abortion is healthcare…A medical decision…” declared JB Pritzker, governor of Illinois in a January press release. Of course, this language is dishonest. Abortion is the opposite of medicine.

Currently, Google flags videos on abortion with the following false “Context” statement:

An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed healthcare professional.

First, that the topic of abortion gets this special treatment by Google’s staff only adds to suspicion that corporations are compromised by the abortion industry. Secondly, Google’s statement is false because abortion never uses “medicine.” As we established, by definition, it’s false to call something medicine unless it’s end goal is to help correct something wrong with the body and pregnancy is not a disorder nor disease. Additionally, Google’s statement is false to claim abortion is done by a licensed healthcare professional, because abortion-backed politicians have changed laws in several states so a woman can obtain the abortion pill without ever seeing a doctor, leaving the woman to self-administer the abortion and deal with the aftermath at home.

Abortion is more akin to poison, which is medically defined as causing “structural or functional disturbance.” (See related article Birth Control is not medicine). In an abortion, the baby is terminated and the typical mother’s body, which was functioning correctly to sustain pregnancy, is artificially obstructed from that correct function.

Lie #12: Plan B is only contraceptive, not abortifacient

In December of 2022, the makers of Plan B One-Step lobbied the FDA to change its product label. The drug is colloquially known as the “morning after pill,” often taken by women seeking to prevent pregnancy after they have had intercourse.

Prior labeling admitted the pill could possibly work by preventing implantation after conception. This of course amounts to an abortion. The manufacturer lobbied the FDA in part because the change would make the drug easier to market:

[T]he applicant states… some consumers are hesitant to use a product that might affect postovulatory events, in particular implantation of the blastocyst. … The applicant asserts that updates to the labeling are needed to make the labeling more accurate, to reduce consumer confusion, and potentially to reduce barriers to use of the legally marketed approved product.

As you can see, the impetus for the label change was in part based on marketability. ABC News helped market that motive in a headline: “Plan B gets new label by FDA to clarify it doesn't cause abortion.”

The FDA ultimately made the following label edit (underline was added and strikethrough was removed):

Plan B One-Step® works before release of an egg from the ovary. As a result, Plan B One-Step® usually stops or delays release of the egg from the ovary. Plan B One-Step® is one tablet with levonorgestrel, a hormone that has been used in many birth control pills for several decades. Plan B One Step® that contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel than birth control pills but and works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One Step may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).

Notice, however, the added text says the drug “usually” or “mainly” stops egg release. If that’s the case, the labeling still accounts for prevented implantation without explicitly saying so, and abortion proponents in the media are deceiving the public.

Regarding levonorgestrel’s effect on the uterine lining, the FDA’s memorandum says a “totality of the evidence” suggests there is no affect on the uterine lining.

However, a 2016 study by Peck, et al, specifically reviewed the mechanism of action for levonorgestrel’s post-fertilization effect. It reviewed at least five other studies that claim levonorgestrel has no effect on the uterine lining. Essentially, these studies were not conclusive because they did not account for the entire range of time the drug was typically taken. Peck concluded:

What these studies can say is that LNG, when taken 5–6 days following fertilization at the moment of implantation, does not affect its evolution. But this is not the typical time when EC is usually administered.

Furthermore, a group in one study did show uterine alteration.

[T]he “histologically normal” endometria from Durand's 2001 Group D in fact showed decreased glycodelin-A, a necessary endometrial implantation molecule.

Additionally, whether the lining of the uterine wall is affected by levonorgestrel may be irrelevant. The Peck study describes another mechanism the drug may cause to prevent implantation after conception. It states:

The tubal transport mechanism is essential for carrying the embryo to the uterus, so that arrival occurs within the narrow implantation window (days 20 to 24).”

In other words, altering the uterine lining isn’t the only way to prevent implantation. If the embryo doesn’t get there in time, it won’t matter how compatible the uterine lining is during the implantation window. The study cites two other studies that suggest levonorgestrel slows the speed at which the embryo moves through the fallopian tube:

The tubal transport of embryos is slowed down by either mechanism, and this would have critical consequences on their nesting, as the narrow window might have been passed. This effect, coupled with the shortened luteal phase, as discussed in the next section, could preclude successful implantation.

In reviewing the data, Anthony Campagna, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist stated:

The takeaway is that LNG-EC can, despite what the updated labeling claims, impair the implantation of a human embryo in a number of ways.

Thus, although the FDA and manufacturer of Plan B One Step ignore data, the drug does have the potential to act as an abortifacient just as the original labelling specified.

Lie #13: Treatment for ectopic pregnancy is the same thing as an abortion

A corporate media columnist wrote of the Supreme Court Dobbs decision:

“Do I abort this ectopic pregnancy to literally save my life or do I go to jail?” Question women in America now have to ask.

There are a couple lies packed in this histrionic statement. The first lie is the insinuation that Dobbs banned abortion and will send a woman to jail for procuring one. Dobbs did no such thing, but rather referred the matter back to the states.

The second lie in the statement is suggesting treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is the same thing as an abortion. Dr. Christina Francis offered the following clarification:

The treatments for ectopic pregnancy are not the same procedures used by induced abortions, which even Planned Parenthood admits. As a pro-life OB/GYN who’s practiced my entire career in hospitals that do not allow abortions, I have never been prevented from safely treating an ectopic pregnancy. In the rare but tragic situations where a pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk, there are medical procedures for compassionately separating the mother and her baby and working to save both lives.  The only intent of an abortion is to produce a dead baby.  Women deserve to be empowered by medically-accurate information.

Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, an OB/GYN, confirmed the nature of a life-saving procedure like ectopic pregnancy:

A procedure to save the life of the mother is not an abortion. Even though sometimes the child dies as a result of that procedure, the death of the child was not the intent.

A month after Dobbs, Planned Parenthood fostered the misinformation by removing the following sentence from it’s website: “Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion.”

Lie# 14: Abortion doesn’t cause depression/mental health problems

“It’s important for folks to know that abortion does not cause mental health problems,” said Debra Mollen, PhD, a professor of counseling psychology at Texas Woman’s University.

This assertion is false. A 2010 study, Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, states:

In fact 12–20% of women with an abortion history meet the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD with considerably higher percentages of women experiencing some trauma symptoms, while not meeting the full criteria. Even when the full criteria are not met, the more PTSD symptoms present, the greater the risk of psychological impairment and suicidal ideation.

A 2018 study, The abortion and mental health controversy, accounts for abortion proponents who wish to dismiss mental health issues associated with abortion as pre-existing conditions:

When interpreting the data, abortion and mental health proponents are inclined to emphasize risks associated with abortion, whereas abortion and mental health minimalists emphasize pre-existing risk factors as the primary explanation for the correlations with more negative outcomes. Still, both sides agree that (a) abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness compared to women without a history of abortion; (b) the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women…

Lie# 15: Abortion doesn’t increase risk of breast cancer

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) claim: “studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”

However, their assertion does not account for dozens of studies that say otherwise. An amicus brief was submitted for Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). They note: 

Since 1957, at least 41 studies have shown a positive, statistically significant association between induced abortion and breast cancer. The reason for the association is straightforward given how the physiology of the breast changes during pregnancy.  Breast tissue mature enough to produce milk permanently resists cancer.  Abortion arrests growing breast tissue before it matures, trapping it in a cancer vulnerable state. 

The American College of Pediatricians, among other sources, describe the biology of why this happens. Essentially, lobules in the breast mature from type 1 and 2—which have more receptors that make them more prone to cancer, to type 3 and 4 after prolonged pregnancy—which have less receptors and are more immune to cancer:

The more receptors a cell has, the more responsive it will be to hormonal levels – and the more affected it is by carcinogens. …

After a full term pregnancy, Type 4 lobules predominate, with more fully differentiated (mature) cells and less stem cells, a decreased number of hormonal receptors, a slower DNA copying time, and a longer resting phase – all of which decrease the likelihood that breast cancer will develop in these lobules.

It is known that after a woman gives birth, with or without lactation (including when the baby is given up for adoption), the Type 4 lobules regress to Type 3, but importantly, via epigenetics, these cells maintain the genetic changes that protect them from susceptibility to cancer.

Lie #16: Partial birth abortions “don’t exist”

In January, the state of Minnesota, by a vote of 69-65, passed an unbridled abortion bill. Among amendments to the bill that were rejected was a ban on partial-birth abortions. Yet, Senator Alice Mann, who supported the abortion bill, claimed the idea of partial birth abortion was “literally making stuff up.” She continued: “A child doesn’t come out partway alive and doctors kill it. It’s not a thing. It’s not a thing today. It’s not a thing tomorrow. It’s not a thing ten years ago.” She added that politicians should not “legislate things that don't exist in real life.”

You might ask yourself why she would be so adamantly opposed to inclusion of an amendment that she claimed would have no effect on the bill. 

But, of course, her false claim is exposed by the existence of survivors of abortion. In the early 1980s, the CDC estimated up to 500 failed abortions per year resulted in live births. Cases have persisted into recent years. The “DC Five” babies discovered in 2022 are suspected of surviving botched abortions because of their late gestational size and autopsy roadblocks (see pictures and story at LiveAction). Abortionist Kermit Gosnell was found guilty to have murdered babies born alive, “breathing and moving” “by severing their spinal cords with scissors.” Abortionists admit how they kill a baby if born alive.

The Abortion Survivor Network estimates over 80,000 persons to have survived failed abortions since Roe vs. Wade. The network’s founder and director Melissa Ohden explained how most survived abortions occur:

[T]hey survive chemical abortions in the first trimester. They survive surgical abortions in the second trimester that may leave them with significant wounds found upon delivery, as was the case for survivor Hope Hoffman. They survive induction of labor in the third trimester with the intent that they won’t survive the preterm induction, or with the plan to leave the child to die if they do survive the delivery, as was the case with Sarah Zagorski and, sadly, as happened in the practice of the imprisoned Dr. Kermit Gosnell, where some babies were brutally killed by having their spinal cord “snipped.”

VIDEO: The flaw in simulation theory

Below is a 3-minute video based the February 2020 blog post The flaw in simulation theory.

The flaw in simulation theory

Edit: June 6, 2020 see link to video version of The flaw in simulation theory here.

Simulation theory is the idea that what we believe to be the universe is actually a computer simulation and each of us are characters in this simulation resembling characters in a video game. A similar idea was the plot of the 1999 films The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor. In the films, the characters discover that what they believed was reality was really an illusion, a virtual reality computer simulation.

There are people today who take this idea seriously, including scientists or entrepreneurs. Before delving further, I'd like to begin with the unspoken flaw in this theory that is often absent from discussion on the topic.

THE FLAW
Simulation believers build their idea on advancements in computer technology. And, the current trajectory of increasing technology tends toward indistinguishability from reality.

One of the more famous simulation theorists is industrial engineer Elon Musk, who, in 2016, answered a question on the topic thusly:

It's a given that we're clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality and those games could be played on any set-top box or or on a PC or whatever and there would probably be, you know, billions of such, you know, computers or set-top boxes. It would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality is one in billions. Tell me what's wrong with that argument. Is there a flaw in that argument?

The flaw is this: simulation theory is self-admittedly founded on the characteristics of a world that is considered an illusion. It is circular thinking.

FURTHER ANALYSIS
The only way for real technological advancements to have occurred is if we are living in a true base reality. In the first part of their deduction, simulation theorists treat technological advancements as if they were real phenomena in a base reality. But, in their conclusion, simulation theorists say the very technological advancements on which they formed their premise are an illusion.

Online entrepreneur Naval Ravikant was interviewed in 2018 by Scott Adams, who asked him to name illusions people experience. Ravikant said "the illusion of reality":

Well the thing is if you understand simulation theory it's statistically likely that not only is there one level above there's zillions of levels above you. So in The Matrix Neo doesn't actually get out. He just pops one level higher. And now he's even more deeply trapped because he's trapped in a ***** environment and he's convinced it's real, which is the ultimate trap. Now he's not even looking for the next level up. Even one level beyond that, it's worse than that, because it's statistically likely, if you're in a sim, you're not some real world character representing a sim, you're actually an NPC. There's millions more NPCs in Call of Duty than there are real players. So you're you're probably just a computer simulation. 

Here we see another appeal to video games. There are millions more NPCs (i.e. non-player characters) in the game Call of Duty than human gamers actually controlling a character. Notice, to form his theory, Ravikant appealed to a virtual game created in the very world he says is an "illusion." The pool of data from which Ravikant derives his claim that "it's statistically likely" that there are "zillions of levels" of simulations is based upon a game and a reality that he says do not exist. His conclusion is absurd. Again, the simulation-theorist falls into the illogic of a circular reasoning that destroys its own premise.

The simulation theorist attempts to use some form of the following syllogism:

1. Simulation technology is getting harder to distinguish from reality.
2. Since billions of such simulation could be created by such advanced technology, the odds that any given "reality" is the base one is highly improbable.
3. Therefore, what we believe to be reality (INCLUDING THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS IN STEP 1) is most likely an illusion. 

Now, the simulation theorist doesn't mention the part in caps in step 3, but it cannot be avoided. What the theory requires to be a real phenomenon in step 1 is reduced to an illusion in step 3. And, an illusion is not a reliable model for reality. (Incidentally, step 2 doesn't even logically flow from step 1 because there is no cause given for why the level of indistinguishability must have already been achieved in some other universe by some alien species.)

Again, simulation theorists are observing the development of computer and video game technology that is occurring within a realm they claim is not real. According to their theory, there isn't really development of computer technology occurring at all. The higher species who created "this" simulation programmed it so its characters can "do" the virtual illusion of "leveling up" their video game technology. But, if this is a simulation, those advancements have never actually occurred any more than there is a real Pac-Man who has colorful ghost enemies whom he sometimes eats.

Astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson is also known to seriously entertain the idea that we live in a computer simulation. At the 2016 event 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation? Tyson closed in part by saying:

So, given our definitions, we’re the only intelligent species there ever was because we have poetry and philosophy and music and art. And then I thought to myself, well, if the chimpanzee has 98-whatever percent identical DNA to us—pick any animal. It doesn’t matter. Dogs, it doesn’t matter. Mammals have very close DNA to us. They cannot do trigonometry. Some people can’t do trigonometry. Certainly not these animals. So, if they cannot do trigonometry, and they have such close genetic identity to us, let’s take that same gap and put it beyond us and find some life form that is that much beyond us that we are beyond the dog or the chimp. What would we look like to them? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence. ... Oh, you’re back from preschool? Oh, you’ve just composed a symphony. That’s so—let’s put it on the refrigerator door. We just derived all the principles of—oh, that’s cute.  And so that is not a stretch to think about. And if that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment. 

But, guess what. None of the things to which Tyson appeals as a trajectory of intellect are actually real if we are living in a simulation. He said it himself that "everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity." If this is a simulation, the idea that humans have poetry is an illusion, just like everything else in the simulation. The animals we think we see aren't real. There isn't actually DNA nor DNA similarities. Etc. All these things would just be part of the illusory world created by some theoretically advanced computer programming species.

Is our universe just a sophisticated computer simulation?

MORAL CONSIDERATIONS
In my recent book, Hollow Anchors of Morality, I discussed the nonsensical claim that morality can exist in a strictly material world devoid of free will. If someone were to claim morality exists in an artificial simulation just as it does in a base reality, the error would be similar.

Think back to the examples of video games to which simulation theorists appeal in their circular error. If one NPC "kills" another NPC in Call of Duty, did an "immoral" act occur in reality? If "Mario" throws the penguin off the cliff in Super Mario 64, did a real Mario commit a real act of cruelty? Of course not. No one was harmed in reality. But, if we were just characters in a similar kind of game, we wouldn't be any more real than the NPC.

Even if a simulation theorist wanted to argue that there are "real" persons operating the characters in the simulation through some futuristic virtual reality headgear, there still wouldn't be acts of morality committed by or against the pixels they are controlling. We see this directly when observing people playing, say, a battle game and "shooting" each others' characters in the game, but, of course, not in reality. If an act of unreal violence was committed against an unreal illusion of a person, what crime was done? Nothing actually happened other than pixels rearranging, no matter how sophisticated the graphics might be. The simulation theory essentially strips the universe of moral obligation.

Of course, an overly violent or sexually charged game, for example, could influence a real person playing it to commit a sin, but only because the person is outside the game and in reality. The pixel constructs in an illusory realm lack the necessary quality of being made in the image of God (a principle also discussed in Hollow Anchors) in order for morality to pertain to them in the first place. Thus, the idea of morality is absurd when confined to the activity of a computer chip.

From a related Catholic perspective, apologist Jimmy Akin discussed simulation theory on his blog and on Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World. He concluded it would not matter in the order of salvation. When addressing the consequences of living in a simulation, he said, "We still have the same three elements—God, the spiritual world, and the natural world—and all three interact."

CAN SUCH A SIMULATION EVEN BE CREATED?
One of the objections to simulation theory is that in order to create an "ancestor simulation" of an actual snapshot of the historic universe, it would require "a computer memory that requires more atoms than what’s available in the universe."

This objection is useful if limited to discussing the aforementioned simulation theorist's premise #1: Simulation technology is tending more toward indistinguishability from reality.

By limiting the thought exercise only to our advancements in computer technology, there may well be physical limits that would prevent a simulation detailed enough to be indistinguishable from a base reality. However, remember, the simulation theorist ultimately ends up claiming that this universe is an illusion, along with everything in it, including advancements in video game technology.

It is also worth mentioning, in the aforementioned 2016 debate on simulation theory, not one scientist on the panel said the odds were in favor of us being in a simulation. When asked what the odds were, they said: uknown, 17%, 1%, 0%, and 42%. Only Tyson, who was hosting, said the likelihood might be "very high."

Theoretically, if we did live in a simulation, it is useless to point to qualities inside the simulation to deduce we are in one. There's no reason to think the physics of any simulation must be a reflection of the physics of its world's creator any more than Pac-Man should assume there are entities in the real world like him, who move faster and faster the more they eat.

CONCLUSION
At the end of the day, simulation theory is wild speculation, not some deductive reasoning of intellect. Other science fiction theories, such as our memories swapped out periodically such that we never know it, seem to have just as much a logical basis as simulation theory. Such theories are not demonstrated by our experience, even if they are theoretical possibilities.

Finally, the irony of modern simulation theory, is that the very premise on which it is founded depends on this world being a real base reality, for their entire theory is built upon its contents.

Serial Killers & Abortionists: Psychological parallels

The subtitle of the 2018 film Gosnell is "The Untold Story of America's Most Prolific Serial Killer." This is more than just a description of someone who took multiple lives. When one compares some of the common psychological and other characteristics of serial killers and supporters of abortion, one finds ominous parallels.

DEHUMANIZATION OF VICTIM

Compartmentalization is aided by another universal process: the capacity of human beings to dehumanize “the other” by regarding outsiders as animals or demons who are therefore expendable. Serial killers have taken advantage of this process in the selection of their victims: They often view prostitutes as mere sex machines, gays as AIDS carriers, nursing home patients as vegetables, and homeless alcoholics as nothing more than trash. By regarding their victims as subhuman elements of society, the killers can delude themselves into believing that they are doing something positive rather than negative. They are, in their minds, ridding the world of filth and evil. (Serial Murder and the Psychology of Violent Crimes, 2008)

Dehumanization of victims was something the writers of the 1991 film The Silence of the Lambs incorporated into the character of the killer, who was based on several real serial killers, when he referred to his victims as "it."

Likewise, proponents of abortion avoid confronting the humanity of the enwombed victim. As made well-known by the 2019 film Unplanned, when the enwombed infant is dismembered, he/she is "reassembled" for inventory in a room referencing not "human" remains, but rather, "products of conception."

A defender of her days as an abortion counselor declared, "fetuses are not people," and "It is not a baby. It is medical waste." and

While it was shaped like a baby, what I was looking at was not a person. It was a fetus. A fetus my patient had chosen not to make into a baby." (Rewire News)

Activists at abortion rallies have been seen with signage referring to the enwombed as "parasites," paralleling the serial killer's reframing of their victims as some type of "filth and evil."

EUPHEMISMS
Related to dehumanization is euphemistic language. I reviewed a number of other euphemisms used by supporters of abortion in my review of Unplanned. Though euphemisms are common to political issues of all sorts, these are specifically designed to avoid confronting the humanity of the victim. Not one of the abortion industry's euphemisms, such as:

• Planned Parenthood
• Anti-choice
• Tissue
• Products of conception
• Reproductive health
• Her body

or a host of other diversionary terms directly confront the humanity of the enwombed.

Notice also how referring to the baby as "waste" and abortion as "healthcare" aligns with the serial killer's delusion that he is "ridding the world of filth and evil."

In March, Georgia House member Stacey Abrams used the euphemism "forced pregnancy" to describe a bill against abortion. Notice how the term avoids the humanity of the victim, as does the language of the serial killer. Diverting the matter to a "pregnancy," something the mother undergoes, or calling abortion "healthcare," etc., is to use "sanitizing language," which makes the idea of abortion more easily digestible for its proponents. (And, nevermind that the women in question are already pregnant. Saying "forced pregnancy" is like saying that the prohibition of all murder is "forced parenthood" to the victim's parents.)

Kermit Gosnell, the now-imprisoned abortionist featured in the 2018 Gosnell film, said in the 1960s, he pushed for "the liberalization of the performance of therapeutic abortions." He likewise touted  his work in abortion, saying, "I provide the same care I would want my daughter to receive and I feel I fulfill that standard." And, a reporter quoted him as saying, "my work to the community is of value."

Like the attitude of the serial killer thinking he is "doing something positive," phrases that describe abortion as "healthcare," or as "therapeutic," or as opposition to "forced pregnancy," are all euphemisms designed to delude one to believe he is committing some act of heroism by killing the enwombed.

HIDING/OBSCURING THE VICTIM'S IDENTITY
Related to both of the prior categories is the serial killer's and the pro-abortionist's desire to conceal the identity of the victim. Some serial killers conceal the face of the victim:

[D]epersonalization of the body...refers to actions taken to obscure the identity of the victim, as through mutilation or covering of the face. (Handbook of Psychological Approaches with Violent Offenders, 1999) 

However, in cases of sexual or lust murder, the victim's face may be covered in order to dehumanize or depersonalize the victim. (Serial Murder and the Psychology of Violent Crimes, 2008)

The notorious "Jack the Ripper" was famously known to target faces in his attacks, especially disfiguring the faces of his last two victims.

Planned Parenthood openly decries the notion that a mother should see her baby via a "mandatory ultrasound." Young women have been denied by Planned Parenthood their request to see their baby in an ultrasound. Planned Parenthood has also refused to even perform an ultrasound unless the mother is "terminating"—per another of their euphemisms.

This aversion to ultrasounds is confirmed by former employees. For example, ex-Planned Parenthood worker Patricia Sandoval described how she was taught the following:

So the most important thing here [at Planned Parenthood] is that when we do the ultrasounds before their abortions, you never ever let the woman see the screen. If she wants to see that ultrasound, that screen has to face the doctor, never the patient. I don’t care if she cries. I don't care if she’s screaming. [She] never sees that ultrasound. (Patricia Sandoval - Testimony on Abortion)

The ACLU also fights regularly against women seeing their ultrasounds prior to abortion.

Pro-life campaigns like "Face the Truth", which show photos of aborted babies to the public, have likewise been met with hostility by abortion supporters. It is another attempt to conceal the identity of the victim.

Among serial killers and pro-abortionists, there exists a psychology that avoids looking upon the victim.

SELLING THE BODIES FOR SCIENCE
Selling the bodies and body parts of victims is more common among abortionists, but known to happen among serial killers. We learned of the abortion industry's body part sales in recent years via first-hand video conducted by the Center for Medical Progress. In harmony with the serial killer's delusion that they are "doing something positive" when killing, we see another mental justification used by abortionists—that the body parts will go toward medical studies. Consider the following serial killer cases involving sale of body parts and using victims for medical study.

• Notorious Chicago serial killer H.H. Holmes "sold several of his victims' skeletons and organs to medical schools."
• Victims of the Burke and Hare murders were sold to physician Robert Knox for use in anatomy lectures.
• Nazi scientists testified that their murder was justified because they derived use by medically studying the victims.

CONCLUSIONS
The preceding parallels are not merely ordinary characteristics native to ordinary folk. The characteristics described are, in a sense, essential to the psychological justifications of both serial killers and pro-abortionists.

For those whose hearts may be stung by the pain of abortion, there are many resources available, such as at AbbyJohnson, LiveAction, or Waterleaf.

Refutation of justifying abortion because of zygote mortality, historic infanticide, and more

Evolutionary biologist Heather Heying's recent argument for abortion makes appeal to zygote survival, historical periods of infanticide, and careers.

Often, arguments for abortion avoid the ultimate question: is that which is in the womb a human life? This article clearly concedes it is, stating that even zygotes "are human, by any usual definition of the term." The argument in this article is not whether the enwombed are "human." Instead, their level of sacredness is called into question. Let's look at the various arguments in the article, starting with this matter of zygotes.

THE MAIN ARGUMENT: ZYGOTE SURVIVAL RATES
The article says “most human zygotes throughout history never became children” because they were either “miscarried,” had “chromosomal abnormalities” that proved fatal to the zygote, or that “genetic and environmental conditions rendered the zygote non-viable.” The article then concludes of these zygotes:

They are human, by any usual definition of the term, but they cannot survive. This happens to most zygotes that have ever been conceived. This fact leaves me, a biologist, wholly unconvinced by arguments about the sanctity of life.

Before we parse this conclusion, let’s again pause on the point of agreement. Fertilized zygotes “are human.” The article is correct in this regard. From the moment of conception, the nascent life has its own unique DNA, and is the empirical beginning of human life that progresses unto death. Now, let's analyze this main premise.

• Why should we question the sanctity of life of babies in utero on the grounds that “most zygotes” do not survive? Explanation for this foundational claim is absent. It is merely asserted. Later, we will address the claim that sacredness is attributed to varying stages of physical development.
• The argument here resembles, but falls short of, a logical three-term syllogism. The argument in syllogistic form is: Most zygotes die, therefore they are not sacred; or: Most Z are D. Therefore no Z are S. Missing is a second (minor) premise, such as a statement about what constitutes sacredness. The argument is logically invalid without even addressing whether the premises are valid.

Ultimately, it's nonsensical to assert life isn't sacred regardless of the frequency of biological malformations. It would not matter if 99% of zygotes didn't survive. No statistical appeals are necessary once we recognize human life is sacred and human life begins at conception.

Keep that in mind when reading these next three bullets, which are not foundational rebuttals to the article's zygote argument. Remember, the statistics are inconsequential to sacredness of life. Where there is human life, the sanctity proper to human life is present. The following thoughts are rather an inspection of zygote mortality statistics.

• What effect does the pill, which literally siphoned the life out of society beginning in 1960, have on the failure of zygote survival? The FDA's description of the "mechanism of action" of the oral contraceptive Ella admits: "alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy." How many zygotes are counted that couldn't implant simply because the mother took an abortifacient pill? How many zygotes were deemed "flawed" because the mother had a virus, consumed too much alcohol, took drugs, used spermicides, had a bacterial infection, or an STD? Should we deny the sacredness of the nascent human on account of external forces? According to the article, which states "environmental conditions rendered the zygote non-viable," the zygote wouldn't even have to be "flawed" to lose sacredness. It only needs to fall victim to some unnamed environmental condition. This would be, of course, a nonsensical index to measure the sacredness of human life, for a baby could be speciously deemed unsacred on account of someone else taking heroin.
• An examination of embryo mortality rate studies was published in June 2017 by Dr. Gavin E. Jarvis in the Cambridge Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience. He concluded current data is not reliable regarding the mortality of embryos, stating: "natural human embryo mortality is lower than often claimed and widely accepted." (e.g. A multitude of studies have widely disparate statistics, e.g. ranging from 46%-90% mortality for all pregnancies, from zygote to term.) 
• Consider the following: According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the total "rate of pregnancy loss after implantation" is 31%—much less than half. If one denies the sanctity of life based on "most zygotes" not surviving, wouldn't one have to say life is sacred at the stage in which the gestational survival rate exceeds 50%? And, if not, the appeal to "most zygotes" is moot.
  
  But, again, the percentages are irrelevant. Life is sacred from conception, because, even as the article concedes, it is a "human" life. We needn't demand a certain stage of gestational development to elapse before we can attribute sacredness to the life. What these statistics demonstrate is that post-implantation abortion would be unacceptable even to someone who arbitrarily wishes to claim a greater-than-50% mortality statistic as the threshold for sanctity of life.

INFANTICIDE
Another phenomenon to which the article appeals to justify abortion is the reality of historical infanticide. Granted, it does not endorse infanticide, at least not for modern cultures. The article states of America: "Society-wide, we have agreed on this much: once they are born, let us not kill our children."

That much is a relief (even though proponents of post-birth infanticide exist in the West, such as the notorious atheist professor Peter Singer). However, the article still appears to use the reality of historical infanticide as justification of abortion as a necessary evil:

There is a long list of behaviors and actions historically available to women who are trying to control their own reproductive lives. Infanticide is on that list. I am not arguing that this is good, but it is true. ... Evolution responds to circumstance. Most zygotes disappear before even making themselves known to their mothers. In many cultures, in which the environment was variable enough that many children were unlikely to make it to adulthood, infanticide has been acceptable. ... Indian and African slave populations in Surinam [used abortifacients] so that they would not bring children into a life of slavery.

And, in the opening paragraph of the article:

Sometimes, though, in the service of the greater good, abortions are necessary.

You see in these related excerpts several ideas. Let's examine them:

One must carefully read this section of the article to grasp exactly why historic infanticide is cited, ultimately, as justification for abortion. Although the article claims it is not arguing that infanticide is "good," it says it has at times in history "been acceptable." This ties into the opening claim that "in the service of the greater good, abortions are necessary." Essentially, this all amounts to arguing that, although abortion is not "good," it is something "necessary" to prevent something bad in the judgement of the mother. The "bad thing" ranges anywhere from the mother's judgement of saving a baby from growing up in slavery to the baby being an obstacle to the mother's career.
This brings us to a segue. Earlier in the article, we see reference to the career factor:

One of my friends escaped an abusive home, became addicted to heroin, and got pregnant very young, before aborting the fetus, getting her act together, and becoming a scientist. That part where she got her act together and became a scientist? Far less likely had she been a teenage mother.

To the devout pro-lifer, this is an atrocious razing of the ears and heart. One could imagine a paraphrase of the conclusion: "That part where the baby grew up to be a scientist? Far less likely since she was killed in utero." But, more to the point, the mother's potential future career is an irrelevant factor when determining the sacredness of the enwombed baby. It is not sensible to justify the killing of one's children on the grounds that one might enjoy a successful career without them. And, a baby is not more or less sacred if her mother eventually becomes a scientist, a seamstress, a homemaker, or whatever. We don't need to wait to find out what the mother's career aspirations are before we can determine if life in the womb is expendable. The life of the enwombed is sacred on its own merit. The mother's career is a diversion.

Scapegoating evolution
Let's return to "evolution." You see how evolution is cited as a scapegoat both for the unwilled death of zygotes and willed infanticide. This is not the first time we've seen evolution speciously cited as some unimpugnably good force to justify something outside its purview (Atheist evolutionary biologist professor Gad Saad erroneously argued that "morality" was strictly a "scientific" phenomenon of evolution). But the problem with such appeals to evolution is at least twofold.

• First, what constitutes behaviors that are "evolution responding to circumstances"? Zygote mortality? Killing the young? These are the first two notions the article mentions in light of "evolution responding to circumstances." These are both unwilled and willed deaths, which are deemed beneficial for "evolution." But, if these are not "good" but "necessary" evolutionary responses, what other willed and unwilled phenomena is? What about the Black Plague that wiped out a third of Europe? What about the Titanic tragedy? What about 20th century smallpox? What about killing the weak? What about killing the neighboring tribe because one tribe wants the others' more fertile land? What about Aztec temple sacrifices? What about any genocidal regimes in history? What about prolific serial killers? Shall we argue these are all simply "responses of evolution" because afterward there were more resources available per remaining person? Shall we legalize related forms of terminating life on the grounds that "evolution" delivered similar deaths in history? And shall we call each a necessary evil for a greater good? Kind of like a recent movie villain did with the snap of a finger?
  
  You see the danger in grouping things like zygote mortality, infanticide, evolution's "response," and abortion as an argument for "greater good."
• Second, let's say one wanted to attribute every action in human history as the work of "evolution." That wouldn't make any of those actions "good." Nor would it make any of those actions "bad," nor even a necessary evil. The study of evolution is in the purview of science. It deals with observable facts. It has no capacity to quantify good or evil. One cannot use evolution as an axiom to say that an action that was the response of "evolution" (if that can even be "observed) is automatically "good." Value judgements must be derived elsewhere.

LINE VS. CONTINUUM

Line
The article then argues against the notion of a distinct “line” at which sacrosanct life begins. I emphasize sacrosanct because the article has conceded earlier that the fertilized egg is already a “human” life. This section of the article is really a thought exercise about what are acceptable stages of development it’s still okay to terminate that human life. The two most “obvious” lines, conception and birth, are both rejected.

• First, conception is rejected in the article on the grounds of the main argument, that “most zygotes are not destined to survive.” But, again, it is illogical to deny the sanctity of human life on the grounds that unwilled malfunctions or external factors sometimes interfere with biological processes. 
• Second, birth is rejected on the grounds that "for most moderns, the idea of abortion at nine months gestation, just before a full-term birth would occur, is a bridge too far." However, this is followed by another appeal to historic infanticide: "given the prevalence of infanticide in human history...this line has not always been considered sacrosanct." Two fallacies of argument are at work here:
• First, the appeal to "most moderns," is the fallacy of ad populum. Even though the pro-lifer obviously agrees it is wrong to terminate a baby at 9 months (or any stage!), that view is not derived by submitting to "most moderns." Rather, the sanctity of life is intertwined with the value of humanity itself, a value necessarily beyond a human's biological cluster of subatomic particles, but in the human being's inherent participation in the image of the Transcendent. This idea is the foundation for all morality. Morality dissolves when one attempts to reduce humanity to biological functions alone or as a tool, as in the case of determining a human's value based on what effect one thinks that human will have on the determiner's career. 
• The second fallacy is the appeal to historical "prevalence of infanticide." This is the fallacy of ad antiquitatem, which argues if something was done in history, it must have been correct.

Continuum
So, if conception and birth are both inadequate "lines" to determine sanctity of life, when is it supposedly no longer okay to end a human life because it became too sacred? The article tosses out more than one suggestion.

One of the article's suggestions is that abortion could be considered acceptable up to the stage when the baby would survive outside of the womb. The viability argument has been refuted in prior articles: e.g. Notre Dame professor's flawed argument for abortion).

The article also posits the average age at which organs are laid down or when "brain development accelerates in utero" as a possible threshold to no longer allow for abortion.

• But, the article has already conceded that the zygote is "human." Arbitrarily appealing to this or that normative and natural stage of development as an apparent consideration for sacredness is nonsensical. Why should a baby be killable when it is at the correct and normal stage of life development? We're not even talking about an abnormality in development here—which is neither justification to end a human life. These are normal stages of development. A cynic might not be wrong to think such abortion-supporters are merely citing stages arbitrarily in order to accommodate abortion.
• As well, considering sacredness of life in view of something like level of organ or brain development also suggests that even adults' lives would be "less sacred" if they suffered from some setback of organ or brain development. It also begs the question: What other developmental drawbacks can compromise the sanctity of one's life? Poor vision? Deviated septum? Narcolepsy? 

The article does not actually define any of these considerations as the exact threshold of sanctity of life. Rather, it is ultimately arguing for a nebulous "continuum" for abortion instead of a definite line. From there, the article suggests the following unspecific solution:

If we recognize a trade-off between the positive social impact of keeping abortion available to women, and the problems of providing carte blanche for all abortions up to some very late date, perhaps we should seek a solution that renders barriers to abortion higher the farther along in the pregnancy a woman is, but allows free and easy access early in pregnancy, and so does not sacrifice a woman’s ability to choose her life’s fate.

Many readers were probably already aghast at the phrase "positive social impact of keeping abortion available."

• To start with the obvious, estimates of over 1.5 billion babies have been killed by abortion in the last 40 years. It remains a vexing reality, the elephant to end all elephants in the room, that the lives of aborted babies are not counted, and often not considered, when the effects of abortion are discussed. The previous quote parrots the common abortion supporters' sole angle: "her life," never the baby's. 
• Later, the article even claims that "[f]acilitating choices that allow people to live their highest and best lives is consistent with...a pro-choice...position." But, obviously forgotten in that statement is the bloody hemorrhage of lives intentionally lost in the womb. The idea that a supporter of abortion calls for "allowing people to live their highest and best lives" is one heap of irony. The babies aren't given a choice. They are dismembered or pulverized and killed. Only the woman who wants to pursue her science career gets a choice. And none of this even touches on the many statistics that show the psychological and social detriment resulting from abortion.

The article segues here to call anyone who is pro-life and believes the possibility of the death penalty a hypocrite. This is a common claim by abortion supporters and has been rebutted in numerous places (eg. CatholicVote, Jimmy Akin).

BROKEN LEG ANALOGY
The article then attempts to justify abortion by claiming it is morally analogous to fixing a broken leg:

Furthermore, if you play soccer and break a leg doing so, it is not responsible to remain maimed simply because the playing of soccer brought with it the risk of breaking one’s leg. It is, in fact, responsible to have your leg fixed, not merely so that you can live to play soccer again, but so that you can go on to contribute maximally to society, living up to your potential, not just with regard to soccer, but in other regards as well. If you have sex and end up pregnant, it is not responsible to become a parent out of a sense of moral obligation, if you are not ready to do so. Responsible athletic and sexual behavior both involve a reduction, on the front-end, of the chances of undesirable outcomes. Setting a bone is not identical to aborting a fetus, but there is a moral analogy to be made, with regard to how a person should take responsibility for their actions.

There is actually no moral analogy to be made here.

• Breaking a leg is a medical disorder that needs fixing. Pregnancy is the opposite of that. It is not a medical disorder.¹ Pregnancy is the normative, correctly functioning, and proper order of gestation and human life. This analogy is exactly backward. Abortion corresponds to breaking a leg, not fixing it.
• Also, the notion that it's okay to have an abortion if the mother is "not ready to" "become a parent" is an argument that entirely ignores due regard for the enwombed. The value of the life in the womb is not dependent on the mental "readiness" of the mother. And adoption is an option. The mother's "readiness" is an inexcusable and irrational barometer for determining the worth of enwombed life.

AN UNCONVINCING ATTEMPT TO CALL ABORTION "HUMANE"
The final section of the article is called "A humane and reasoned response." But, this argument for abortion is neither.

There is a question of which of two lives we, as a society, prefer. Do we prefer the life of an adult who can make decisions for herself, and who has found herself in an unfortunate position? Or do we prefer the life of her unborn child—a child who has not yet had the opportunity to make decisions for itself, good or bad? ... The implicit moralizing that prefers the fetus to the woman has judged the woman guilty for needing an abortion in the first place.

This is a glaring fallacy of false dichotomy.

• First, think about this statement: "prefers the fetus to the woman." We are talking about death for the baby. Death. The mother's "punishment"—if one has been conditioned and deluded enough to believe motherhood is a punishment—is a possible career setback or lack of "readiness" to be a mother. She might have to complete her science degree via distance learning. We're not being asked if we "prefer" vanilla or chocolate here. We're not being asked which of the two shall be killed. We're asked if one person's life is as valuable as someone else's ease of getting job.
• Second, the reason there are pro-life organizations like Ireland's LoveBoth Project is because "the baby or the mother" is a false dichotomy. Love both. 
• Third, one of the ways we can help women (and men) avoid situations where abortion is seductive is to discourage pre-marital and recreational sex, stop handing out "birth control" to teens, and start teaching that sex is a serious act that could result in another person who otherwise would never exist. Particularly, Western culture fosters promiscuity from entertainment to education. From such attitudes we have record STDs and articles promoting abortion instead of encouraging abstinence for those not "ready" to be a parent. Passing the culture's reckless norms onto babies by killing them in utero is an egregious injustice.
• Notice the juxtaposition of a mother "who can make decisions for herself" versus the unborn child who cannot "make decisions for itself." The implication here is that, because only the mother is capable of making a choice in this situation, the choice should go to her. Apparently, the logic here is that the baby hasn't actually articulated a desire not to be dismembered or killed by suction machine. So let the mother chose because the baby can't decide yet! This ability-to-choose argument is utterly convoluted, and, much like most arguments for abortion, ignores the dignity of the enwombed human being.

Finally, let's look at one more excerpt from the article:

By preferring the future baby—who will need love and sacrifice, and lots of it—over the adult—who does not need that kind of support—you guarantee that our shared social fabric will be stretched ever thinner.

Consider the following reactions to this quote:

• First, this assertion is actually a call for less love. Reread the statement to see. It says babies need lots more love than adults—therefore, it's better to kill a baby to save all that love effort. This brings us back to earlier in this blog post where we philosophized as to whether genocide or a massive plague is just evolution performing some good "response to circumstances." According to the this-requires-too-much-love theory, all such loss of life is good because now we can concentrate our "shared social fabric" of love on fewer survivors.
• Second, according to this quote, a person who requires "lots of" love is expendable. The logical conclusion of such an attitude is to terminate the sick. What about a cancer patient that has a fair chance of recovery with months or years of treatment? What in the too-much-love theory suggests we should expend resources on such a person rather than salvage the "lots of" "social fabric" by killing them as soon as possible? Nothing,
• Third, if even adults need some degree of love and support, proponents of too-much-love would commit suicide, no? This is not to be provocative. This is to let the trajectory of a claim play out of its own accord. The only thing in the article that suggests killing birthed people is bad is the statement: "Society-wide, we have agreed on this much: once they are born, let us not kill our children." But, not only is there is not full agreement on this matter as shown earlier, but leaving such a matter open to some implied majority has historically given rise in various cultures to cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, and more. 

FINAL THOUGHTS
The modern abortion movement is the bloody scandal of our time. All this brings us to an even clearer understanding of the evil of abortion. Neither evolutionary, nor biological, nor career-based arguments for abortion can withstand scrutiny. Each collapses under their own fallacies and self-contradictions. Proponents of life from conception until death should stand strong in these dark times, by being informed, praying and fasting, and continuing to contribute time and resources on behalf of the enwombed innocents, marriage, and stable families.




¹In extreme cases where pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, see discussion of incident at Phoenix hospital in 2010—refer to paragraph beginning with "Brown's book is fraught with footnotes..."