The battle lines are drawn. From roof to steeple, from dome to dome, from houses, churches, temples and Congress, we all have our stance on abortion.

As best as I can see it, there are two types of people: those who think that abortion is murder of a heinous variety and those who see abortion as a standard surgical procedure no different than appendectomy. The line separating these views is soggy with blood and is a spittle-ridden debate.

But for all of this conflict, it is increasingly clear that compromise is impossible (imagine a physical compromise involving bisected babies roaming the streets. Maybe compromise isn’t going to work). When it comes down to fundamental morals, people seem to care.
For all of this, the pro-lifers have overlooked stark facts concerning abortion. They fail to realize that the only people who would have abortions are people who possess some abortive tendency be it borne from development or inherent lack of moral fiber, in the eyes of a pro-lifer.

In other words, they believe that if abortions are immoral, people who have abortions are immoral.

If those who have abortions limit the number of offspring they produce, they limit the number of children raised in environments that endorse abortion. That means more children will be raised in situations of moral richness.

Therefore, if everyone who would have an abortion aborts her babies, the people who would have abortions would not pass along their immorality.

Outside of morality, successful abortion seekers will improve the genetic stock in other ways too.

When we observe those who have abortions due to rape, a nonlethal genetic disorder or low expectation for the ability to child-rear, the causes of those situations are not survived by the next generation.

The babies from parents who were too genetically fit to pass on mutations and too dedicated and responsible to abandon a child will live on.

Eventually, we can expect such abortive tendencies to diminish, as they have been since 1990 according to the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, while fitter and exquisitely morally raised babies flourish.

So, in fact, any decent moralist should be pro-abortion by doing so, they will lower abortions in the long run which is, of course, horribly immoral.

Is this a paradox? This suggests that morality cannot exist.

Fortunately, for you fellow debauchees out there, this clears you of unjust persecution in the execution of your dastardly delights.

Your best chance at being moral or immoral is apathy, which means that the best pro-life people are actually pro-choice if you will concede that, though different beliefs, pro-choice and apathy have the same overall effect.

At this point, you have to ask yourself whether all this makes sense; just stick to what is the hardest fact: an aborted fetus cannot, after being aborted, go and have an abortion.

Eles is a member of
the class of 2011.



An open letter to all members of any university community

I strongly oppose the proposed divestment resolution. This resolution is nothing more than another ugly manifestation of antisemitism at the University.

The Clothesline Project gives a voice to the unheard

The Clothesline Project was started in 1990 when founder Carol Chichetto hung a clothesline with 31 shirts designed by survivors of domestic abuse, rape, and childhood sexual assault.

5 students banned from campus for Gaza solidarity encampment

UR has been banning community members from campus since November for on-campus protests, but the first bans for current students were issued this weekend.