By Nathaniel Kezer, Staff Writer
According to data from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been at least 54 million legal abortions performed in the U.S. However, pro-choice advocates argue that it is not wrong. So I have identified 14 arguments that they use to do so and I address each one of them.
You may be wondering how this article is at all relevant to you, my simple answer is: you are a human, and this is a fundamental human rights issue.
1. Women's rights argument: "Women should have the right to choose what to do with their body."
The issue with this argument is that it doesn't answer the proper, more fundamental argument, 'When does life begin?’ Rather, it presupposes the unborn child not to be a life, and the issue becomes centered on women’s rights. Perhaps women, for the most part, should have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. However, if the unborn is its own person (which is supposed to be the central focus of this whole issue) then the woman does not have the right to an abortion because it is not simply having to do with her own body, but another's.
If you're so concerned with women's rights then I would ask, what about all those unborn females? Are they allowed their right to live?
2. Hypocrisy argument: "You pro-lifers are such hypocrites, because you believe in saving the unborn but then the death penalty or killing abortion doctors is okay."
No it is not okay, ALL life from the womb to the tomb is special and valuable. What some anti-abortion advocates do with abortion doctors is the personal, radical decision they made and not the proper representation of the pro-life viewpoint.
I personally am appalled at hypocrisy arguments on just about any issue from either side. Hypocrisy arguments are an ad hominem, nothing more than just an attack on the arguer(s), rather than their arguments. What does someone's hypocritical actions have anything to do with whether or not that person's viewpoint is correct or not? Nothing.
3. Human appearance argument: "The embryo doesn't even look anything like a human."
Sure it might not "look like a human" at that stage of development, but then the reasonable question would be, at exactly what point does it switch from "not looking like a human" to "looking like a human?” The answer is there is no precise point, for it is a gradual process, rendering it an unfit and irrelevant factor in determining when life begins.
4. Active nervous system argument: "It is okay to terminate it since its nerves aren't active/fully active so it won't feel any pain.”
The nervous system also doesn't have a "turn on" point but develops gradually, making it an unfit factor in drawing the line of where life begins. Besides that, do you really want to argue that just because somebody can't feel the pain that it is okay to harm or kill him or her? There are many ways to painlessly kill someone, but it is still just as morally wrong.
5. Intelligence argument: "The embryo is about as intelligent as a rock... no where near a normal human intelligence.”
Intelligence, perhaps above all else, develops gradually and is therefore an unfit, arbitrary factor in determining where life begins. Just because someone may possibly be dumber than a brick doesn't make it right to kill them, they are still a human being.
6. "Parasite" argument: "The embryo is just a parasite because it is feeding off of the mother.”
The word "parasite" is a schemey, emotional appeal for the unborn's dependency on the mother, which I may also note is as well a gradually changing reality, and is therefore unfit and irrelevant in determining where life begins.
Not only that, but dependency is in all sorts of places outside of the womb. Infants and toddlers are dependent upon others to feed them and make sure they are safe. Are they not yet alive due to this? What about people in a coma? Overall, it is unreasonable to say that dependency justifies the taking of an innocent life. It is another human being that isn't simply a consumer, but will likely grow up to be a producer.
7.Personal subjectivity argument: "I think abortion is wrong but others may choose what to do with their bodies as they wish."
What somebody does with their body is perhaps indeed only their business. However, an unborn embryo, or fetus, is his or her own human with his or her own body. So it doesn’t just have to do with the woman’s body, but the child’s as well.
Personally thinking that abortion is murder but letting others decide for themselves is, frankly, no different than saying, “I won’t kill my children, but others may do as they wish with theirs.”
I’m sure none of you would actually think of doing that, but it is still important to make that point known. You think abortion is wrong because it is murder, but murder is something that is not to be easily thought of as subjective.
8. Anti-religious argument: "Stop shoving your religiously attained viewpoint on abortion down my throat. I am not of your religion so it doesn't apply to me."
Sure many peoples’ pro-life viewpoints originated in the doctrines of their religions, as did mine, but why do I need religion to defend my case about abortion? As a non-believer, you could indeed logically believe that murder is still wrong. So what is stopping you from also believing abortion is wrong, if they are in fact one and the same? Although at the same time, it could be the case that you need religious morals to argue for abortion and murder in general. Either way, the point to be made is that they are one and the same.
9. Poverty argument: "A woman shouldn't be forced to take care of a child she doesn't have the means to support."
This as well, should not reasonably justify the taking of an innocent life. It is also not the case that women are being forced to take care of their child, for they can give it up for adoption and/or perhaps get free support for the baby. You would be surprised how many there are out there who want to adopt a baby and perhaps don’t get the chance to. One great example of this was Steve Jobs, who was an unwanted pregnancy under two unwed college students, who put him up for adoption. If it weren’t for that, I would have had ten times more trouble in typing this very note.
Despite any poverty, the child still has a chance for a great life, and he or she should at least be allowed to have that chance.
10. "Blob of cells" argument: "The embryo is just a simple blob of cells, not a human person."
While that is technically true (for maybe the first two or three weeks of pregnancy), it is then reasonable to ask, "At what precise point does stop becoming a “blob of cells,” and finally become an formed human?” The answer being, like many of the things mentioned earlier, that there isn’t a certain point and it is a slow, gradual process. Therefore, rendering it unfit and arbitrary in determining when life begins.
Despite being a “blob of cells,” the embryo from conception is in fact a whole, living, individual human being with the full genome. Not just any ordinary cell like, for instance, a skin cell.
11. "Overpopulation" argument: "Abortion should be available, otherwise we would inevitably become overpopulated."
First of all, again, this does not provide any answer to the real central argument of this issue. It is nothing but a diversion to an external issue in attempt to justify abortion. If you think about it, this type of claim is fairly immoral. This is basically implying "Some people have got to stop living in this world but it's not gonna be me."
12.Rape argument: "A woman shouldn't have to carry her rapist's child."
No one should ever deny the horrific devastation of rape. As so, I refuse to appeal to arguments such as that from Todd Akin or the argument that rape pregnancies are rare. My goal will not be to try and make rape seem less terrible than it really is, but rather to clarify what our moral priorities ought to be.
"A woman has a right not to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be." This statement is, by all means, agreeable. So why then, does the rape argument not persuade me? Because, this right-to-liberty argument ignores the issue of the right to life. To sum up my point, keep in mind a simple principle: The right to life supersedes the right to liberty. If you think this is an amenable principle, then a woman should have the right not to be pregnant, but her right cannot interfere with a child's right not to be killed.
13. Pre-conception argument: "So if thousands of eggs or sperm are dying each day does that mean that we are all mass murderers?!"
No. As I mentioned earlier, conception is the starting point where the whole human genome is assembled. At this point, no earlier, it is a whole and moreover individual human being. A sperm cell is simply a single cell with the DNA of its producer, and the same goes for the egg.
14: Natural "abortion" argument: "Abortion is okay because it happens naturally all the time, and you may never even know that it happened."
With this same logic, it is reasonable to say that, “Because hundreds of people die naturally everyday, it is therefore okay to kill people.”
15: Abortion legal = fewer abortions argument: "But if abortion is made illegal, abortions will be unsafe and more widespread."
A simple strategy of determining the validity of this argument is to stop, sit down, and think about it for three seconds.
Overall, I think the issue of abortion in America is similar to other issues of human rights such as African Americans or women. It took us several years to decades to adjust to the fact that they were in fact equal persons like the rest of us. I believe it may also take time for us to adjust to the fact that the unborn deserve equal recognition like the rest of us.
According to data from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been at least 54 million legal abortions performed in the U.S. However, pro-choice advocates argue that it is not wrong. So I have identified 14 arguments that they use to do so and I address each one of them.
You may be wondering how this article is at all relevant to you, my simple answer is: you are a human, and this is a fundamental human rights issue.
1. Women's rights argument: "Women should have the right to choose what to do with their body."
The issue with this argument is that it doesn't answer the proper, more fundamental argument, 'When does life begin?’ Rather, it presupposes the unborn child not to be a life, and the issue becomes centered on women’s rights. Perhaps women, for the most part, should have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. However, if the unborn is its own person (which is supposed to be the central focus of this whole issue) then the woman does not have the right to an abortion because it is not simply having to do with her own body, but another's.
If you're so concerned with women's rights then I would ask, what about all those unborn females? Are they allowed their right to live?
2. Hypocrisy argument: "You pro-lifers are such hypocrites, because you believe in saving the unborn but then the death penalty or killing abortion doctors is okay."
No it is not okay, ALL life from the womb to the tomb is special and valuable. What some anti-abortion advocates do with abortion doctors is the personal, radical decision they made and not the proper representation of the pro-life viewpoint.
I personally am appalled at hypocrisy arguments on just about any issue from either side. Hypocrisy arguments are an ad hominem, nothing more than just an attack on the arguer(s), rather than their arguments. What does someone's hypocritical actions have anything to do with whether or not that person's viewpoint is correct or not? Nothing.
3. Human appearance argument: "The embryo doesn't even look anything like a human."
Sure it might not "look like a human" at that stage of development, but then the reasonable question would be, at exactly what point does it switch from "not looking like a human" to "looking like a human?” The answer is there is no precise point, for it is a gradual process, rendering it an unfit and irrelevant factor in determining when life begins.
4. Active nervous system argument: "It is okay to terminate it since its nerves aren't active/fully active so it won't feel any pain.”
The nervous system also doesn't have a "turn on" point but develops gradually, making it an unfit factor in drawing the line of where life begins. Besides that, do you really want to argue that just because somebody can't feel the pain that it is okay to harm or kill him or her? There are many ways to painlessly kill someone, but it is still just as morally wrong.
5. Intelligence argument: "The embryo is about as intelligent as a rock... no where near a normal human intelligence.”
Intelligence, perhaps above all else, develops gradually and is therefore an unfit, arbitrary factor in determining where life begins. Just because someone may possibly be dumber than a brick doesn't make it right to kill them, they are still a human being.
6. "Parasite" argument: "The embryo is just a parasite because it is feeding off of the mother.”
The word "parasite" is a schemey, emotional appeal for the unborn's dependency on the mother, which I may also note is as well a gradually changing reality, and is therefore unfit and irrelevant in determining where life begins.
Not only that, but dependency is in all sorts of places outside of the womb. Infants and toddlers are dependent upon others to feed them and make sure they are safe. Are they not yet alive due to this? What about people in a coma? Overall, it is unreasonable to say that dependency justifies the taking of an innocent life. It is another human being that isn't simply a consumer, but will likely grow up to be a producer.
7.Personal subjectivity argument: "I think abortion is wrong but others may choose what to do with their bodies as they wish."
What somebody does with their body is perhaps indeed only their business. However, an unborn embryo, or fetus, is his or her own human with his or her own body. So it doesn’t just have to do with the woman’s body, but the child’s as well.
Personally thinking that abortion is murder but letting others decide for themselves is, frankly, no different than saying, “I won’t kill my children, but others may do as they wish with theirs.”
I’m sure none of you would actually think of doing that, but it is still important to make that point known. You think abortion is wrong because it is murder, but murder is something that is not to be easily thought of as subjective.
8. Anti-religious argument: "Stop shoving your religiously attained viewpoint on abortion down my throat. I am not of your religion so it doesn't apply to me."
Sure many peoples’ pro-life viewpoints originated in the doctrines of their religions, as did mine, but why do I need religion to defend my case about abortion? As a non-believer, you could indeed logically believe that murder is still wrong. So what is stopping you from also believing abortion is wrong, if they are in fact one and the same? Although at the same time, it could be the case that you need religious morals to argue for abortion and murder in general. Either way, the point to be made is that they are one and the same.
9. Poverty argument: "A woman shouldn't be forced to take care of a child she doesn't have the means to support."
This as well, should not reasonably justify the taking of an innocent life. It is also not the case that women are being forced to take care of their child, for they can give it up for adoption and/or perhaps get free support for the baby. You would be surprised how many there are out there who want to adopt a baby and perhaps don’t get the chance to. One great example of this was Steve Jobs, who was an unwanted pregnancy under two unwed college students, who put him up for adoption. If it weren’t for that, I would have had ten times more trouble in typing this very note.
Despite any poverty, the child still has a chance for a great life, and he or she should at least be allowed to have that chance.
10. "Blob of cells" argument: "The embryo is just a simple blob of cells, not a human person."
While that is technically true (for maybe the first two or three weeks of pregnancy), it is then reasonable to ask, "At what precise point does stop becoming a “blob of cells,” and finally become an formed human?” The answer being, like many of the things mentioned earlier, that there isn’t a certain point and it is a slow, gradual process. Therefore, rendering it unfit and arbitrary in determining when life begins.
Despite being a “blob of cells,” the embryo from conception is in fact a whole, living, individual human being with the full genome. Not just any ordinary cell like, for instance, a skin cell.
11. "Overpopulation" argument: "Abortion should be available, otherwise we would inevitably become overpopulated."
First of all, again, this does not provide any answer to the real central argument of this issue. It is nothing but a diversion to an external issue in attempt to justify abortion. If you think about it, this type of claim is fairly immoral. This is basically implying "Some people have got to stop living in this world but it's not gonna be me."
12.Rape argument: "A woman shouldn't have to carry her rapist's child."
No one should ever deny the horrific devastation of rape. As so, I refuse to appeal to arguments such as that from Todd Akin or the argument that rape pregnancies are rare. My goal will not be to try and make rape seem less terrible than it really is, but rather to clarify what our moral priorities ought to be.
"A woman has a right not to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be." This statement is, by all means, agreeable. So why then, does the rape argument not persuade me? Because, this right-to-liberty argument ignores the issue of the right to life. To sum up my point, keep in mind a simple principle: The right to life supersedes the right to liberty. If you think this is an amenable principle, then a woman should have the right not to be pregnant, but her right cannot interfere with a child's right not to be killed.
13. Pre-conception argument: "So if thousands of eggs or sperm are dying each day does that mean that we are all mass murderers?!"
No. As I mentioned earlier, conception is the starting point where the whole human genome is assembled. At this point, no earlier, it is a whole and moreover individual human being. A sperm cell is simply a single cell with the DNA of its producer, and the same goes for the egg.
14: Natural "abortion" argument: "Abortion is okay because it happens naturally all the time, and you may never even know that it happened."
With this same logic, it is reasonable to say that, “Because hundreds of people die naturally everyday, it is therefore okay to kill people.”
15: Abortion legal = fewer abortions argument: "But if abortion is made illegal, abortions will be unsafe and more widespread."
A simple strategy of determining the validity of this argument is to stop, sit down, and think about it for three seconds.
Overall, I think the issue of abortion in America is similar to other issues of human rights such as African Americans or women. It took us several years to decades to adjust to the fact that they were in fact equal persons like the rest of us. I believe it may also take time for us to adjust to the fact that the unborn deserve equal recognition like the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment