Comedian Bill Maher on abortion: that unborn child ‘won’t be missed’

It is often the case, when discussing abortion, one is described as a ‘misogynist’ if one states that abortion is an immoral act.

Those critical of abortion – insofar as it takes the life of a human being – are accused, in certain cases, of not considering or respecting women’s rights, neither caring about their struggles nor problems, and instead are judging as well as insulting them. In other words, people who are not pro-abortion ‘do not want the good of the woman’, or worse, hate them.

Not all so-called pro-choice people, however, share this view.

Recently, comedian Bill Maher, who is openly pro-choice, stated on HBO’s Real Time that abortion is murder, reiterating that to be pro-choice means: admitting that murder has occurred and living with it. Maher’s statement attracted wide media attention, both from the left and right, and provoked numerous comments, some in favor and some against.

The Statement

Maher stated: “I scold the Left when they say, ‘oh you know what? They just hate women. People who aren’t pro-choice.’ They don’t hate women. [The Left] just made that up. [Pro-life absolutists] think it’s murder. And it kind of is. I’m just okay with that. I am. I mean there’s 8 billion people in the world. I’m sorry, we won’t miss you.”

This pro-choice statement is undoubtedly forthright and sincere in its expression, albeit one of cringe-worthy utilitarianism: ‘we won’t miss you’, as if to say there are enough of us on this planet already.

Most abortion supporters, on the other hand, deny – or skirt around – the truth. This is because admitting to what really occurs without any sugar-coating would generate inner conflicts in the conscience of many.

It is for this reason why so much care is taken in the choice of words when describing abortion. One prefers to say ‘termination of pregnancy’ rather than ‘abortion’, or ‘freedom of choice over one’s own body’, leaving out any reference to the person being conceived (as it would imply that we are also speaking about ‘another’s body’).

Abortion can create suffering: avoiding minimisation is the first form of respect

Chiara McKenna, author of the article ‘Is it OK to abort someone if they won’t be missed?’  identifies two main problems with the idea that a person’s value lies in who they are remembered by when they die.

Firstly, unborn children will be missed. They may be especially missed by their mothers: some give up pregnancy without suffering; but the choice may turn into regret over time and affect their lives in some way.

Women who have an abortion between the ages 11-19 will generally not process the act until the age of 25. Vicki Thorn, founder of Project Rachel – the National Office for Post-Abortion Reconciliation and Healing – observed a phenomenon: many of the calls she received came from women who were around 25 years old.

It was only years later, after delving deeper into brain research, did Thorn discover at that age ‘the connection between the right and left brain’ becomes fully active. As a result, only at around 25 do women start to process what they have been through and what they have lost, when previously they were operating ‘mainly from the amygdala, which is the fear center of the brain’.

Moreover, women’s bodies miss the unborn child: the female organism was preparing for the event of gestation as well as childbirth; and the force inflicted on the bond is disruptive, visceral. It would suffice to say that even after childbirth, the baby cells remain in the woman. ‘These cells are part of biological knowledge: someone is missing,’ Thorn said in an interview with the Catholic News Agency, adding that the feelings of loss can emerge at any time, even years later. It is for this very reason why Rachel’s Vineyard exists: an international group that supports women, couples, and doctors who have regretted their choice in committing an abortion.

Rejecting utilitarianism: a prerequisite for peace among people

A second critique of the comedian’s argument is that no murder – as he defines abortion – can be justified because we will not miss that someone.

We do not kill people because they have no friends, or no followers on social media, or simply because they are complete strangers to us. A hundred years from now, it is unlikely that anyone will remember nor miss Bill Maher, but does that mean his life is not important?

Peace is seriously endangered if people’s lives are measured by their ‘usefulness’.

If infants and the elderly are unable to contribute – due to their stage of life – to society economically does this mean we can do without them? Where would such a utilitarian view of human life take us?

One hopes that Maher’s chilling honesty will serve as a wake-up call for those who find themselves in the indefinite limbo of ‘reasonable limits’, who compromise in the name of a so-called ‘lesser evil’; and that those who do not know which position to take will realize that choosing the lesser evil is never the same as choosing the good. Maher is just one of many examples of where the so-called slippery slopes lead on the delicate issues of bioethics.