So abortion is front and center again since the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. While abortion was legal in some states prior to 1973 it was not legal nationwide. When Roe v Wade was declared to be found within the privacy clause of the United States Constitution abortion access was available in all 50 states. The methods that we hear so much about today with the chemical abortions as well as the surgical procedures have and had long been in practice. I say that because too many people have a misunderstanding about what is and has been available for decades.
At that moment, January 22, 1973, there was this uproar from the different camps. The pro-abortion people wanted us to know and accept that their choice was not to be challenged. I was 5 years old at the time so this event was not on my radar. As I made my way through life I heard about sex and sexuality and the different topics that branch out from the aforementioned. Mind you what I was hearing was from what I know now to be a very fascist perspective. I was told “you don’t have a uterus so you have no opinion on abortion”. The world was saying “if it feels good do it”. I cannot say with certainty, because it was so long ago and my adolescent and early adult memory was voluntarily placed in a blender, but my thoughts on abortion were likely that I just hope I never have to go there.
So now it is 2026 and I’m closer to death than birth and I find myself thinking a lot. I do not have any social media… I’ll give you time to pick your jaw up from the floor. Nevertheless I hear these euphemisms about “women’s health care”. Sound familiar? Look back at the first line of this essay. People are losing their sanity over their perception of losing rights when it comes to abortion. I was thinking today -like I said I do that frequently- and it occurred to me we are so far off topic. If the life inside the uterus is not human then no one should be fighting or arguing about anything. Kill it. But it is a human. That is the topic.
If these living beings inside the moms were not humans people would not stress over termination. I doubt anyone would. But these are human beings. They are dehumanized by categorizing them as unwanted, not viable, unplanned, inconvenient, etc. The dehumanization is furthered by fear. Thoughts like how can I be pregnant (again)? What am I going to do? I can’t do this by myself. What if the father walks away? What will my family say? Can I survive the judgment, the cost, the disruption? What does this mean for my future? This fear, warranted or not, rises from selfishness and self-centeredness. It allows people to say to themselves even if the life in the womb is human it is not as developed so there becomes a hierarchy with which to justify termination.
A man named Bryce Asberg posted a series of short videos I was made aware of recently. He used the acronym S L E D or sled to articulate the excuses for this dehumanization of life in the mother. The letters represent size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency. You have likely heard one or all of these arguments to justify that the baby is not a human or not high enough in the hierarchy to be considered in the decision process.
So, if the life inside the woman is not human why all these challenges and fear? Again if the life inside the woman is not human then get rid of it. But let’s review the facts: kinds reproduce their own kinds. Humans breed and make more humans. All through nature we see wonderful design and reproduction through males and females of so many different categories: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. And just to show you I have read the other side’s argument and research, let’s put the writing of Agustin Fuentes, a Princeton University anthropologist on the table. This seems to be the go to source for rejecting binary sex within the human species.
Plentiful data and analyses support the assertions that sex is very complex in humans and that binary and simplistic explanations for human sex biology are either wholly incorrect or substantially incomplete.” What data challenges the male-female binary in humans? Fuentes writes, “Some worms produce both [gametes—sperm and egg]. Some fish start producing one kind and then switch to the other, and some switch back and forth throughout their lives.” If you dig a little deeper, you discover Fuentes is referring to earthworms and clownfish. It sounds surprising, but let’s see if these examples justify denying the sex binary in humans.
Consider the example of worms. Yes, it’s true that some worms (e.g., earthworms, flatworms, etc.) are hermaphroditic. That means they are a species that contains both male and female sex systems within the same organism. But note the important and obvious distinction: Humans are not worms! They are an entirely different category of animal. Specifically, humans are gonochoristic, meaning they are a species with two separate sexes. Every member of the human species remains male or female throughout their entire life.
In fact, most species in the animal kingdom (approximately 95%) are gonochoristic and require a male and female to reproduce. Therefore, while it’s appropriate to classify worms as hermaphroditic, it is scientifically naïve and demonstrably incorrect to cite worms as evidence for denying the sex binary in humans.
It’s also worth noting that even though worms are hermaphrodites, their sex systems are still binary. In other words, they contain two-sex systems. Both sexes just happen to exist in the same individual organism. Taken from Alan Shlemon published 3/10/2026.
The writing from Fuentes has been rightly or wrongly used as another tool to dehumanize life in the woman. So if abortion is the answer what is the question? What does it say about our culture when the “solution” is to remove the smallest, most vulnerable human in the scenario? My sense is that we have devalued and dehumanized life in the womb for so long now that we see life outside the womb in the same light. One partner sees the other with the same view: you are no longer wanted; you are inconvenient; you are not part of my plan. No one can act surprised or taken aback when the partner that would eliminate life in the womb would also eliminate the partner who no longer fits the desired narrative in the relationship.
Destruction of life has consequences. Humans are equipped to make life. That responsibility also comes with a conscience. We cannot kill life and expect to not have to bear the trauma of the choices we make. The trauma and conscience do not coexist together well. While brokenness is prevalent, it also reveals a deep-seated desire for healing and restoration.
Addressing these complex issues requires understanding the root causes and providing hope through faith, community and compassionate support. (quoted from American Association of Christian Counselors).
May we come to a place where we see the fact that life inside a human female is also human and created through an eternal and Holy design. May we see that God created life and marriage and male and female sex. And for that matter sexuality, the passion of which is meant to burn within the fireplace of marriage. To continue with the fireplace metaphor, when the fire is contained inside the safety of the bricks and chimney, fire can be a source of light, heat and life. When the fire that consumes what is in its path gets out of the fireplace it has the power to bring the house down. Instead of light, heat and life you get raging inferno and death.
There are so many other options and choices before and after conception than killing the most vulnerable. It bears asking again. If abortion is the answer, what is the question?
My place in this world is to help men who ask for it. If you find yourself seeking answers to marriage, family and parenting but too many symptoms have you wrapped up and paralyzed, please ask for help. No one plans to fail but rather they fail to make a plan. When it comes to marriage and parenting, what is more deserving of a plan?
Leave a Reply