In this post, I am going to address why abortion is wrong.
The debate about abortion comes down to two issues:
1. Is the fetus a human child?
2. Is a pregnancy such a violation of a woman's right not to be uncomfortable that it warrants terminating it?
These are two separate questions, and I will address them so.
Number 1.
The reason that the debate really comes down to this big question is, if the fetus is a hunan life, to terminate the pregnancy is to end a human life, thus, it is murder in the strict sense of the word (it obviously cannot be suicide or natural death, the only other options). If the fetus is not a human life, then, it is merely a clump of cells and to terminate it is the equivalent of cutting a wart off your toe. (sorry for this gross analogy :), but this is rather a gross subject, wouldn't you agree?)
This explains the importance of answering this question. Most people on the pro-choice side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge this question because they know that if they do, they will have to face the possibility that it is a human life (this is similar to those who deny the existence of God - if they acknowledge there is something higher, they might have to face the fact that they can't just be selfish and live for themselves).
To answer this question, we can look at some simple facts:
I. The distinct life of an individual being begins at its conception
A. The individual's unique genetic fingerprint originates at
conception.
B. The unborn rapidly develops physically into a composite of different kinds of
cells which never happens with any other kind of human cell.
C. The unborn's body is not the woman's body.
1. The unborn can be a different gender
2. The unborn can have a different blood type
3. The unborn has different DNA and unique genetic
fingerprints and a different brain and central nervous system
D. The unborn is growing biologically. There is never a period
of non-life from conception to birth.
II. How the unborn differ from the newborn (4 waya) and reasons that these differences do not disqualify them from being human
A. Size or physical appearance - the unborn doesn't look like a person
1. Size does not equal value (in general, men are larger than women - more
intrinsic value?)
2. The term that describes the destruction of large groups of human beings
simply because of their physical appearance is called ethnic cleansing
B. Level of development - the unborn does not have the ability to do things
those who are born can
1. No one forfeits their right to life just by losing abilities, why should
we forfeit that right by not having developed them yet?
C. Environment - the unborn isn't located in the right place as 'real' persons
1. Why do we lose value just by moving from one area to another?
2. Do, or should, the six inches between the newborn and the unborn justify
ending the unborn's life?
D. Degree of dependency - the unborn is physically dependent upon others - not
viable and can't survive outside the womb
1. Babies of all sizes and shapes are dependent upon others - try leaving a
baby at home for two days
Okay, there's the evidence with which we can answer question one - is the fetus a human being. I think we can see that the evidence leans toward a yes answer. And, if we answer yes, then, the claim that "I don't agree with abortion but women should have a choice" must fail because we must look at abortion the same way we look at homicide - if the person is a human being, we cannot allow someone to end his/her life.
At this point, I would like stop to give credit where it is due (a lot of this, although not all, is from this source):
Making Abortion Unthinkable copyright 2001 Gregory Koukl, Scott Klusendorf, Stand to Reason.
And I would like to ask for comments - did I leave anything out? Not think of anything? If you decide to comment, please note which question you are commenting on, because I'm moving on to the next question.
Question number 2 - even if we answer the first question yes (although remember that these two questions are separate), is the burden on the woman justification of for terminating that pregnancy?
This is actually going to be addressed in the next two posts, as I discuss the Supreme Court's determination that a woman's right to privacy, no, wait, right not to be unduly burdened (whatever that means) in her quest for an abortion (I'm not sure, considering what the Court has said about abortion), outweighs the state's interest in protecting the life inside her.
3 comments:
Don't most pro-choicers argue that the child (they would say fetus) is not viable. Their distinction is because the child cannot exist outside of the womb then it is not a child. That seems to be the main argument that needs to be tackled.
I must agree with Kevin - almost any pro-abortion person I have ever talked to will admit that there is life at some point during the pregnancy. We always get hung up and unable to find any resolution on the question of when the life begins.
There are several options, but basically the only one (besides conception) that is somewhat logically consistent is "viability." The problem that these pro-abortion people have in holding this view is that the point at which a baby is viable outside the mother's womb continues to be pushed further back by scientific advances. The next generation of pro-abortion advocates will therefore have to base their arguments (and some have already started doing so) on the point at which the child has a "human" level of brain capacity. This means that the pro-abortion person will say that even if a 'fetus' can be viable outside the mother, that does not matter if the child does not yet have "human" intelligence.
Anyway, sorry to ramble. Suffice it to say, I must agree with Kevin. Still, excellent points, Teresa. Very, very nice. Keep fighting the Good Fight!
I must rise to the challenge and defend myself against egregious charges of forgotten arguments. That sounds rather offended, doesn't it. Rather, I will merely point out what I was attempting to do and then tell you what I intend to do with your points of argument. First, I did address (albeit shortly and perhaps too succinctly) your concerns in two ways, which I will address in reverse order. 1. The dependency of the child upon the mother (I didn't use the word viability, but it's the same idea - viability merely means that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, well, I posit that neither can a newborn if it is not cared for) and 2. my attempt to prove that life begins at birth encompasses the idea of viability. Big deal if the fetus is not viable - human life is human life; it is wrong to end human life intentionally, regardless of whether it is human life dependent upon the mother or dependent upon a machine (I intend to analogize from dialysis patients in the future and also to address the concerns of the state making a mother be an 'incubator' for 9 months in my next couple of posts - however, so as not to give away the whole farm, I'll quit there for now). If this response does not satisfy either/both of you, I will address that issue more comprehensively at the beginning of the next post, before beginning my discussion of Roe and its progeny.
I would like to point out 2 things, however. First, that the viability argument is not really a viable argument (forgive the pun) because there are continually scientific developments that push that time closer to conception. Second, even if most pro-choicers argue that the child is not viable, if you can prove that life starts at conception, that should take care of that issue because, as I posit, viability is not and should not be the so-called 'cut-off point' that Casey makes it out to be. That having been said, my point is that the non-viability argument is a 'when does the life begin' argument and if you can prove that life begins at conception - which I think I laid out fairly convincing evidence for - you have taken care of that debate. Sorry to be redundant and perhaps to overstate my cause, but that is my response. Thank you both so much for your comments, though, and I will take anything further under further advisement :).
Post a Comment