WHO KILLS MORE? THE WRONG QUESTION

 Violence, sex, and fallacies: why abortion is not comparable to murder.

When the yearly homicide data is laid out and it becomes evident that, out of every 100 murders, over 90 are committed by men, a predictable reaction comes from certain sexist sectors. One of their typical responses is to appeal to a false equivalence: they insert abortion into homicide statistics in order to divert attention. In doing so, they place the millions of legal and illegal abortions alongside the roughly 380,000 homicides committed by men each year, as if abortions were murders committed by women. The move is transparent: shift the burden to women by suggesting that they, in fact, kill more than men. A rhetorical fallacy wrapped in moral cynicism.

Let’s dismantle that fallacy and explain—using facts and reason—why each voluntary termination of pregnancy involves multiple actors: doctors, legislators, healthcare institutions, legal frameworks… and cannot be reduced to an individual act solely attributable to the woman who chooses to abort.

The fallacy of false equivalence consists in presenting as comparable two facts, concepts, or situations that differ in fundamental aspects. It creates the illusion of similarity to invalidate a counterargument or inflate the strength of one's own, even when the comparison fails both logically and empirically.

Take a simple example: “Not recycling cans is as damaging as dumping toxic waste into a river.” Both actions harm the environment, but their impact is vastly different. This type of comparison ignores context, cherry-picks attributes, and generalizes without basis. It equates things that are not the same, omits key variables, and manipulates public perception.

Applied to abortion, the fallacy becomes obvious. Neither the legal framework nor the actors involved make abortion comparable to homicide—except in one point: there is a death. But that single overlap is not enough to equate the two. The entire comparison collapses when context is added.

Controlling pregnancy has long been a tool of patriarchal power. Whoever controls reproduction controls the world. And controlling reproduction means controlling women—the ones who gestate, give birth, and raise children (when permitted).

To blame the woman who aborts as the sole culprit is a manipulative simplification. It conveniently ignores the complex web of social, medical, legal, and economic factors surrounding that decision. Abortion is not a unilateral act. It is a decision shaped by multiple pressures and agents.

Parents, partners, friends, employers, health conditions, age, mental state, financial stability, and educational background all play a role. So do institutional structures: parliaments, governments, healthcare protocols, conscientious objection policies, welfare systems, and judges. A woman never acts in isolation. Her will is exercised within a collective framework.

Reducing all that to the headline “women kill more than men” is a lie disguised as moral argument.

It’s absurd for a man—who will never bear the physical or social consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, nor the real burden of raising a child alone—to appoint himself judge of someone else’s uterus. Some even boast of never using condoms or having abandoned pregnant partners, all while defending “pro-life values” from the comfort of a podcast studio.

The real paradox is this: there’s a historic interest in preventing women from fully controlling their fertility. Because controlling birth means controlling life. And that means controlling the women who give it.

Those who call themselves “pro-life” are, in reality, defenders of mandatory birth. Their concern ends with the delivery. They show no responsibility for raising children or supporting mothers. Meanwhile, those who promote surrogacy or mass adoption also depend on women—either willing or coerced—to hand over their children. In both cases, babies become commodities.

The emancipatory alternative is full maternal autonomy: that every woman decides when and how to become a mother—free of religious, political, or economic coercion, and backed by real support. Only when children are truly wanted does patriarchy begin to tremble.

During pregnancy, mother and child build a unique bond. After birth, skin-to-skin contact regulates vital functions and strengthens attachment. Interrupting that process is not neutral. It is traumatic—and it mobilizes legal, medical, and emotional systems.

Instead of condemning women who abort, we should focus on dismantling the conditions that push them into that position in the first place. Only then will the slogan “we decide” mean something real. Only then will motherhood become a free choice, sustained by a just social structure.

Even if someone managed to defend the abortion-equals-murder argument with logically coherent points, the moral conclusion would not be neutral. When both sides appear logically sound, the final battleground is moral.

And the morally superior position is the one that:
– Respects the dignity of women
– Recognizes the social complexity of abortion
– Protects the vulnerable without imposing guilt
– Remains coherent between its means and its ends

In a scenario where logic permits both sides to claim rationality, the winner is the one who offers the more just, humane, and reality-based framework.

Let’s not forget: abortion requires a whole network of actors, institutions, and contexts.
To carry a pregnancy to term, a woman just needs one thing: the will to do so.
That’s where everything begins. And that’s where our respect should begin, too.

Isabel Salas

MEN AGAINST ABORTION

Are you a man who’s against abortion?
 

 

 

Good for you. I actually admire people who, in this neutral and cowardly world, still have the guts to take a stance—for or against—on anything. Even more so when they do it passionately, unapologetically, and with conviction.

I’m not one of those women who thinks men shouldn’t have opinions about abortion because they don’t have uteruses. Far from it—I believe everyone should speak up about the world we live in. For example, I don’t ejaculate, yet I do have opinions about the timing and quality of male ejaculation, among other things that may seem unrelated to me at first glance.

I assume that, along with your brave and committed stand for life, you’re also coherent in your actions. I’m sure you never have sex without a condom, to prevent unwanted pregnancies for your sexual partner. Whether she’s your wife or a lover, I take it you’d never put a woman at risk.

I’m positive you never sleep with married women. I assume all your lovers (if you have them) are single, because if the pill or condom failed, they might have a hard time explaining that pregnancy to their husbands—and some, frightened (or cowardly), might even consider abortion to save their marriage. But of course, you’d never put a woman in that position. Your commitment to life is above all that.

I also imagine you’re a tireless activist for a world where women have equal educational and job opportunities. I assume you’re constantly speaking out against sexist behavior in other men, advocating for equal pay, and encouraging sex education in schools—including birth control. I bet you insist your sons use condoms and don’t pressure their girlfriends into unprotected sex. Coitus interruptus is risky, and you don’t want to become a grandfather just yet—especially not one whose grandchild might be aborted.

Needless to say, I’m sure you’re a man of integrity who condemns pedophiles who impregnate girls aged ten, eleven, twelve. Not only would you never do such a thing, but you’d report anyone who did. Even if it doesn’t happen in your neighborhood or social circle, I trust you choose your friends wisely.

I bet you’re also against incest. I assume you’ve never gotten off to a porn video where actors pretend to be father and daughter, and that none of your friends or relatives (to your knowledge) would ever be into something that sick.

Of course, you condemn rape—whether committed by one man or by seven. You know, those oh-so-modern “packs” of men who gang-rape women. They rarely use condoms, so the risk of pregnancy is high. Sure, some girls don’t seem to resist much in the videos those animals post online (maybe because they’re paralyzed by fear or, who knows, because they’re just total sluts). But never mind that—what matters is preventing unwanted pregnancies, something you clearly prioritize.

I’m against abortion too, and I fight for a world where women only get pregnant when and how they want.

In that world, all women—regardless of age or orientation—will have access to education, information, and the birth control methods of their choice. They’ll live in a world free of religious, political, and economic coercion, and safe from rape—whether by one man, or ten, or by a father, or by a stranger. Then and only then will they become mothers (if they ever want to) when they’re emotionally and financially ready.

In that world, we won’t have to argue about whether abortion is wrong, or whether adoption is good, or whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Children will be with their mothers—where they belong—because they’ll have been conceived intentionally. That simple.

Yes, that might be bad news for people hoping to adopt children—whether because they’re a same-sex couple and therefore infertile, or a heterosexual couple with fertility issues. But that day, they’ll just have to learn how to deal with reality.

And that day, I’ll be not just against abortion—as I already am—but celebrating that enormous achievement: women of all ages, whether straight or lesbian, finally being able to decide if, when, and how to become mothers. No pressure. No violence. No interference.

The old chant “Our bodies, our choice” finally made real—without abortion, without coercion. Just what it always should’ve been: our choice to become mothers, or not.

Until that day comes, I support legal abortion. Because right now, women are still getting pregnant without wanting to. And while some go ahead with the pregnancy—even if it was the result of an affair, incest, condom failure, or rape—not all do. Many choose abortion.

Until those conditions change—until women only get pregnant by choice and under conditions they control—there will still be abortions. And I deeply regret that, because I don’t like abortion at all.

I truly believe, like you, that life is important. Maybe not the most important thing, but still very important. And because I care about life, I care about many lives: the lives of women, and the lives of their children—both born and unborn.

You and I can’t stop women and girls from choosing abortion. That decision belongs to them. And they will do it—with or without our approval, in safe conditions or in dangerous ones.

The only thing you and I get to decide—since laws are supposedly made by all of us—is whether abortion is legal or not. I defend the right of all women in today’s violent, chaotic world to have that choice. I respect their decision, whatever it may be.

I’ve never had an abortion myself. I’ve always promised my daughters that I would welcome any grandchild they might give me—no matter how that child was conceived. But ultimately, the choice to give birth will always be theirs. I hope they never find themselves in that situation, but I know many women and girls do.

Is abortion a painful, difficult decision? Absolutely.
Wouldn’t it be better not to get pregnant in the first place? Of course.
Can the world guarantee that we’ll only get pregnant when we want to? No.

So let’s work to change the conditions that lead women to consider abortion.
Instead of condemning them for doing it in secret—or for doing it at all, under today’s conditions—let’s make it so no woman ever needs to see abortion as a necessity.

I believe in life too. A better life—for everyone. For those of us already here, and for those yet to come.

I don’t think harassing women and girls who get abortions, shaming them, chasing them down, or insulting them is a constructive way to fight for that better world I want—and that I suppose you want too.

And I hope that’s not your way of defending life either, man who’s against abortion.

Because the verbal and physical violence used in the name of “protecting unborn children,” while ignoring the lives of their mothers, is nothing but another form of violence—against women and girls.

We’ve already taken more than enough hits.

Don’t fall into that trap.

 

Isabel Salas