Friday, July 22, 2011

A Message from Darwin: The Odds Are Against Us

“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life,” says Dr. C. Everett Koop. According to the former Surgeon General, most abortions in the United States are not performed because of physical defect in the unborn, but because the woman simply did not want the child. Less than 5% of all abortions are cases of rape or incest, threat to the mother's life, or severely defective offspring.

With this understanding, I will attempt to prove the inconsistencies of the pro-choice evolutionist.

According to the “Father of Evolution,” the evolution of a species depends upon its ability to reproduce. In his own words:
“...If such [variations useful to man] do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind?...This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations...I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest” (--Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species).

So it doesn't matter if the fetus isn't “viable”—if it doesn't express advantageous traits, its own species will naturally prevent it from spreading its undesirability without even killing it, that is, without the aid of unnatural abortion.

“Populations of organisms change over the course of many generations. Many of these changes result in increased survival and reproduction. This phenomenon is evolution. Biological evolution refers to the changes that populations of organisms will accumulate over many generations.” A true evolutionist might wonder how many of the millions of unwanted aborted babies may actually have had a “change” resulting in “increased survival and protection”— that is, how many might have been an “advantage” in the gene pool of humanity, had they been allowed to survive. “One of the 7 characteristics of life is reproduction. To sustain life, organisms must produce others like themselves; the genetic material maintains continuity over the generations” (--study helps on McGraw-Hill's Brooker Biology website). We're killing ourselves off.

So in evolutionary terms, the more babies born alive, the greater the chances that a beneficial mutation will occur, and over time be ingrafted into the human race. (I don't happen to believe that “beneficial mutations” exist at all, but according to the theory, they are responsible for our success as a species.)

But since abortion removes this ability, how can abortion be beneficial to humans as a species, even from a non-ethical, non-moral point of view? Abortion decreases the rate of production, and therefore increases the odds against potential improvement. Look at all our reasoning abilities, our technological and scientific advances, cultural developments, etc. If humans have got this far, why shouldn't we be able to reach even greater heights as a species—unless abortion heaps up the odds against us?
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray, 1859

No comments:

Post a Comment