Friday, 31 October 2008
-
The Case Against Abortion
I thought long and hard about what the most terrifying post I could put up for halloween. I figured it out! First you take lots of death... Add two parts politics and stir. Finally you add the secret in componant that everyone fears most of all... Babies! Who isn't afraid of babies?
The upcoming election poses huge potential for the future of the abortion debate. With at least two Supreme Court Justices almost certain to be replaced during the term of the next president, the winner of this election stands a good chance of turning the abortion issue around or plunging it into cement. One must ask which is more important, the economy or 1.6 million inocent lives every year? One must ask which holds greater weight, YOUR money or THIER lives?
THE CASE:
IF the fetus can be demonstrated to be no less a human being than a born infant, would you conceed that (morally speaking) the fetus should be granted the same "certain unalienable rights" (including the right to life) that are guaunteed to born infants?
THE EVIDENCE:
Correct me if I have missed any, but there are four basic differences that seperate a fetus from an infant. These are size, level of development, environment, and dependancy. In each of these differences, we should expect to see some sort of difference that would be a determining factor on whether or not the fetus is distinguishably less human than an infant. I would contend that there is no discernable difference between the two that would demonstrate one to more or less human than the other.
Size - Unless one is speaking in specific terms of volume, most (if not all) would agree with the logic that size dos not determine how human one is, lest large people would be more human than small ones. After all, some premature infants are actually smaller than some fetuses. I think we can all agree that this line of criteria can be thrown out.
Level of Development - Similarly, we see examples of fetuses that are more developed than some infants. This, alone, would seem to cast very serious doubt on this as a viable means of determining humanity as well.
Environment - Does a person's location determine how human they are? I point to the example of joined twins where one is clearly dominant over most of the body where the other is simply "along of the ride" and yet both are recognized as individuals. A person's location would not logically determin whether or not they were human.
Dependancy - Again, I would point to the same joined twins example where one is completely biologically dependant on the other for survival and yet where both are recognized as individuals. Once again, we can see an example that demonstrates no difference between a fetus and an infant in terms of humanity.
THE SUMMARY:
While these categories cover the bases of what differentiates a fetus and an infant, I contend that none of these differences are enough, even in combination, to seperate a fetus from an infant in terms of being human. Therefore, if these differences cannot demonstrate that a fetus is somehow less human, then we must conclude that the two are equally human and therefore, deserving equality in terms of rights from a moral standpoint. If this is the case, then it would create a moral contradiction between the "certain unalienable rights" and the "right" of a mother to not only have control over another individual's life, but having the legal license to take that life.
THE ARC OF ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT:
Some would contend that a younger fetus should be considered no different than a brain-dead patient on life-support and that abortions of such fetuses would be no different than pulling the plug.
The problem with this argument is that if allowed to continue on it's current course, the brain-dead patient would see no change at best and degenerate and die at worst. A fetus, on the other hand, can be expected to grow and to develop. As a person develops, (both before and after birth) they slowly become less dependant on others to survive. Even an infant would die if simple left to fend for itself. This relates back to the dependancy argument in that a toddler (for example) is no more human than an infant and no less human than an adult. They only differ in terms of size, level of development, and dependancy. By natural extention, a fetus (being no less human than an infant) would therefore be no less human than an adult. This is what I refer to as the Arc of Anticipated Development.
It is interesting to note that this arc begins from what I call the "Moment of Genetic Identity". This "Moment of Genetic Identity", is the only possible definable starting point and it continues until death. This "Moment of Genetic Identity" or "Moment of Genetic Uniqueness" is most commonly referred to as conception.
To go back to the counter-argument, I would have to say that abortion would, therefore, be less like pulling the plug on a brain-dead patient, and far more comparable to pulling the plug on a patient on life support who is expected to make a full recovery.
OTHER ARGUMENTS:
Certainly other arguments can be stated. One may bring up cases of rape or incest but not only are these rare (being less than 1% of current listed reasons for abortion) but that is a mere side-point to the real issue. If the fetus is alive, then just because someone harms another, should not give the victim the right to end an innocent life whose only wrongdoing was simply existing. This would be similar to denying someone rights based on ethnicity or some genetic trait.
Some would ask about cases where the health of the child is at risk. I find this line of argument counter-intuitive as the child would almost definitely die if aborted and that would seem to eliminate the point of the argument.
In cases where the mother's life is at risk are by far the most tragic of all. It is important to note though that an operation done to fix the problem within the mother that side-effects in the death of the child is slightly different that an operation done with the intent to end a life however.
I have also heard it contended that being financially deficient is grounds for taking the unborn child's life. There are a number of private organizations and churches that reach out specifically to people needing this kind of assistance. Groups like Pregnancy Reasources and others provide help and baby supplies to lighten the load. This eliminates finances as a viable excuse for the termination of a life.
THE CONCLUSION:
Draw your conclusion for yourself based upon the evidence at hand. I contend that a fetus and an infant are indistinguishable in terms of being human. Therefore, abortion is the ending of an innocent human life. That in mind, all reasons one may give for abortion is either an attempted contention to this evidence or a rationalization for ending an innocent life.
-
recommend
- recs 34
-
share
-
email
- sent 2
Post a Comment
- Back to Legendairy's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in Legendairy's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (250)
I am Legendairy and I approve this message.
I never really did understand the argument that a fetus is not a baby. What else could it possibly be, a second liver? I don't believe in it for myself, unless it would be a health emergency. But I wouldn't want to tell another woman what to do either.
I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion or anti-life. I still think it is the mother's decision and we can't use the law to impose our morality on others.
On another note: ACK!!! NOT BABIES! ANYTHING BUT BABIES!!!!
(Couldn't resist
)
Amen! I recently did a post with some of my opinions about abortion too. One thing I often wonder is how people formulate these strong feelings around this subject. How many have seen the results of an abortionÉ at different developmental stages of life. I don`t mean facsimile hand drawn conceptualizations, but rather the graphic ACTUAL photo of an aborted fetus. And if they haven`t, then how were they able to arrive at a thougtful conclusion...We`re in a day and age of fast and easy internet access to everything under the sun. Type anything into google images or another search engine and you will quickly find evidentiary visuals to help you arrive at a truly informed educated decision about this or any other topic. I mean if they aren`t human, aren`t babies, aren`t viable life forms it should be easy to look at don`t you think! No big deal....discarded cellular waste...If you haven`t seen it....personnally I don`t see how it is possible to be pro-choice. How can one make a choice based on only fabricated knowledge...what one wants to believe as opposed to the stark truth of reality. So go ahead...google...then consider what you`ve witnessed...might just revise an opinion or two
Quite eloquent and absolutely correct.
Well put! I 100% agree with you. There is never a good reason to abort a baby. Every "reason" is just an excuse to justify ending a life.
You have my full endorsement!
@mileyfan08 - Respectfully, I would disagree with you. Which is worse: one person imposing their morality on another or someone weilding the power of life and death on a whim over another? Which is more consistant with the heart behind the rest of our laws?
I would also disagree with someone saying "You can't legislate morality." In truth, you can't legislate almost anything BUT morality. You can, should, (and by very nature must) legislate morality. Nearly every law on the books reflect someone's set of morals. As a people who are basically a part of our own government, it is our job to make certain the morality that is reflected is the most consistant both with itself and with our own.
...and yes, ACK! indeed! hehe
I read it and I am still pro-choice.
@Legendairy - No, we can legislate what we want morality to be, however, man being man, they will still do what they want.
(Please note, this is an discussion of legislating morality, not abortion in this case)
Lawmakers have attempted to legislate morality since Hammurabi. There are two types of laws, malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Malum in se is defined as ''wrong or evil in itself". Murder and rape are the classic examples of a mala in se. By your definition, this is what abortion is. At least to you.
Malum prohibitum are 'wrongs because of prohibition'. Speeding, jaywalking and other laws are more like this.
Now, when legislating morality, the problem is whose morality do you use? Yours? Your morality and mine are completely different. Mine? Same problem.
Back to the topic at hand, making abortion illegal is a malum prohibitum pure and simple. Abortion has been around for millenium and did not have a stigma attached. However, now certain groups want to pass legislation forcing their morality on others. What if the shoe were on the other foot? Suppose I tried to force my morality on you. Decriminalize some drug use, allow same sex and poly-marriages (as long, of course, everyone is a consenting adult, we will not get into cults that need to be prosecuted). Fundamental Muslim countries (Iran is a good example) use malum prohibitum to enforce their religious rules. Women must remain covered, alcohol is prohibited, any speaking out against Islam, Allah or Mohammed is strictly forbidden and punishable by prison or even death.
And the sad thing is, it doesn't work. Everyone speeds, most people are not familiar with their local jaywalking laws. Iran (to bring up the point used above) still has dissidents that speak out against Islam, Allah and Mohammed.
It's the same with abortion, when it was made illegal the rate slowed down but did not stop by any means. Instead, it went underground.
Instead of outlawing abortion, how about we promote better sexual education. Use a broad sexual education platform, abstinence is ideal (I'm a father and totally agree with this) but not the reality so we need to teach birth control and responsible decision making also.
@Legendairy - Wow, sorry about the novel.
@bosefius - No worrys about the novel. I'll try to get to most of this but forgive me if I miss a couple points.
You are correct in that I would consider abortion Malum in se. The evidence I have stated shows why. I also find it contradictary for someone to say that it is wrong for someone to force thier morals on them but it is ok for them to end an innocent life.
You recognize that morality is and must be legislated, even spelling out that there are two types and that this can (and does) get abused. We are priveledged to have a voice in our countries legislation and to be a small part of the government itself. Since morality MUST be legislated, it should be the morals of the people but since the people do not all agree, we should try to make the system at least remain consistant.
When the nation was first formed, you might be surprised to know that one of the biggest reasons for declaring independance was to have the right to create anti-slavery legislation. Many of the states immediately inforced such laws as soon as their governments were up and running. The emphasis in those days was on the state governments weilding most of the power. Now the emphasis is on the central government.
We would almost all agree that slavery was wrong because it denied human beings rights and reduced their percieved value to that of property. In the case of abortion, how are we not doing any different? How is it being consistant? I will give you that the big "IF" is to say that all this is true IF the fetus is a living human being. That is why I build my case on that point. IF a fetus is no less human than an infant, should not their "unalienable rights" be protected?
My contention would be that the morality we should uphold in this instance should be that of this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I think we could also agree on the order in which these unalienable rights should be upheld. One's pursuit of happiness shoud never overrule another's life or liberty and one's liberty should never come before another's life. One does not need Judeo-Christian values, therefore, to come to the same conclusion on abortion. One needs only to see that the fetus is a living human being and therefore should is deserving (at the very least) access to "certain unalienable rights".
@bosefius - Hehe, and sorry about the counter-novel haha!
@Legendairy - Though part of the founding of the United States was anti-slavery, at the same time it almost failed because of this topic since other states did not see the problem with it. I do agree that the state governments should have more say in what happens, with less central government. And yet I vote Democrat normally, how weird of me. I completely understand this and I confuse myself, at least initially.
The problem with allowing more state's rights is that not everyone can agree. Take Utah, they were forced by the United States government to outlaw polygamy as a condition of statehood. Now if we allow the states to have greater say, how would you feel if Utah made it legal for polygamous marriages (as said above, as long as everyone was a consenting adult, children are still off limits of course).
Using your quote above "We hold these truths to be self-evident that
all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness" I am guessing you are in favor of allowing same sex marriage. If not, then your argument does not hold water, sorry. Then you are saying that the Constitution only applies when it supports your argument.
@Legendairy - No problem at all, novels are cool
@bosefius - @Legendairy - I am rather enjoying reading your debate this morning, and I kinda rolled my eyes when I saw what the post was about thinking, "not another one."
@Legendairy - You figured out the witch's brew recipe! It has nothing to do with eye of newt! I have been trying to get that recipe down for years.
@bosefius - Ah, the 'joys' of division of powers! hehe! As per the marraige thing, I see your point but don't see how it would hold up in this case. Being married or not has no bearing on the unalienable rights. Same-sex couples, have the liberty to do all the same things with or without marraige. Marraige is an institution of the church and not the government. As such, while the government can and should protect it, it should not impose rules to compromise it like forcing the church to approve of such a practice. This violates the seperation of church and state and the right to freedom of religion. This is why I believe there to be no contradiction on this matter with my previous statement.
bravo, well said.
@Krissy_Cole - Terrifying isn't it? Fortunately, I try to keep my debates more formal... or at least more civil. I always enjoy a friendly debate on issues as I think it helps when we ask ourselves the hard questions. Glad you're enjoying it. I'm enjoying it myself actually. Too many on both sides just lob verbal grendades. It's good to be able to have a REAL discussion on the issues.
@Legendairy - See, I agree totally with what you are saying about same sex relationships. My wife and I advocate for two different things. Make all state recognized unions civil unions. As far as the state is concerned it is a contract anyway so allow everyone to get a civil union. Then each church can decide who they will and will not marry in a religious ceremony. See, there is always common ground for two groups to meet no matter how different their personal beliefs.
Though we both disagree with each other in some ways, we are more kindred spirits than anyone would realize. It's been a true joy debating back and forth this morning. Thank you.
@bosefius - Thank you for the debate as well! I have certainly enjoyed it! It is a tragedy that more people can't find... BETTER ways of disagreeing. I do believe if more people took the approach to debating that you have, then - regardless of the many disagreements - our laws would not have near as many contradictions and people would get along the way the founding fathers surely envisioned.
I tend to agree that there needs to be some legislation to REGULATE abortions. People can't just keep getting them willy-nilly. We need better sex education, more insurance coverage for contraceptives for women, better programs to help people that don't want to keep the baby, and better facilities to help parents that want to adopt. If we cut out all the excuses for people to get pregnant when they didn't mean to (knock it to less than 5%, I mean condoms DO break) then the only reason for abortions should be in the case of rape, incest or protecting the life of the mother. Everyone bitches that there's too many abortions but no one acknowledges WHY that is or how to STOP that. Fix the underlying problems and the problem as a whole resolves itself.
@SladeTheGreyFox - Personally I would combine eliminating abortion with eliminating most of the excuses. While I believe abstinence is the best method to teach children if taught correctly, I agree that the adoption industry needs to be refined and greatly improved and that more information should be available about private organizations willing to help pregnant women as this gets the word out to pregnant women and o those who would be willing to donate to help the cause. Improving or creating better programs could be useful as well.
While I don't think it will realistically get down to 5% because, let's face it, no matter how much you talk about contraceptives, not everyone will use them... I do think if we eliminated abortions altogether (taking into consideration what I said about cases where the mother's life is in danger). I think the combination with other ways to eliminate motive would come closest to solving the problem. Personally, I also feel that parents should be unafraid to talk to their children concerning these things when they judge them to be of proper age to handle it. Sure, some parents will handle this better than others but it is a parent's job to prepare their child for life in the real world. Ultimately a child will make their choices but why not use one's influence as a parent to make sure they are at least informed as much as said parent would want thier child to be? Just my thoughts though. We may not agree on all of this but we certainly have some things we agree on.
@Legendairy - That's just about my stance. Eliminate the motives through programs. Don't want to get pregnant? Here's condoms and your insurance covers the pill. Got pregnant and don't want it? Here's options to give up the baby for adoption and assistance for you for the next nine months.
But I still hold tight to rape, incest and life of mother for legit reasons. I'd even put in for health of baby on a case-by-case basis, ie. crack babies that have a < 25% chance to survive, fatal genetic defects, etc.
But we need to stop the stupid reasons first before we can organize the legitimate ones.
i'm dying (verb form used in the spirit of hallow-scream) to read this post and the many apparently informative comments... but right now, i am pressed for time (dratted work things called "deadlines").
so i promise i will return to really attempt to absorb this interesting post/debate.
good stuff as always, leg... can't wait to get back and read.